Bay 12 Games Forum

Finally... => General Discussion => Topic started by: penguinofhonor on March 01, 2012, 01:33:37 am

Title: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 01, 2012, 01:33:37 am
"I know I'm not supposed to like muscle cars, but I like muscle cars."
--Joe Biden

It's the newest iteration of the progressive rage thread! This is a place for people to discuss politics and recent events from a primarily liberal perspective, usually by explaining their problems with those things.

If you're new, you'll probably want to skip to near the end of the thread. The most recent and relevant stuff will be there.

Rules:
Title: Re: poh's calm and cool progressive expression thread
Post by: Epithemius on March 01, 2012, 01:38:25 am
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/02/29/pol-robocalls-poor-losers.html
It seems the value of the vote has been furthermore diminished. If a party cannot play by the rules, why are they allowed in the game at all? This sickens me to see what our democracy has become: a party cheating in order to continue to be the government.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 01, 2012, 01:48:04 am
I was expecting someone would've held off for more than an hour to reboot this.  At least let the locked thread sink off the first page so people's tempers can cool!

(I had aims of reincarnating the thread as something different, mainly with views to keep the OP updated as a database of progressive articles and books, persons of interest, studies, and discussions.  A resource people could turn to for educating themselves and others, basically, with room for casual discussion.  I feel that a proper 'goal' would keep things from meandering into squabbles.  Regardless, I'm fine with giving this a chance~)

I'd like to discuss W.K. Clifford, who was a dude in the mid-1800s, a genius mathematician and philosopher, and defying all convention at the time, an atheist through and through.  What is most interesting to me about his stance on atheism is that he was not content to say "I see no evidence for God, and choose not to believe in it"- no, he went the extra step into asserting that it is unethical to live one's life predicated on a belief that is not proven.  His drive to put the nature of belief and truth under such scrutiny is what secures him as one of the greats.

Quote
It is not only the leader of men, statesmen, philosopher, or poet, that owes this bounden duty to mankind. Every rustic who delivers in the village alehouse his slow, infrequent sentences, may help to kill or keep alive the fatal superstitions which clog his race. Every hard-worked wife of an artisan may transmit to her children beliefs which shall knit society together, or rend it in pieces. No simplicity of mind, no obscurity of station, can escape the universal duty of questioning all that we believe.

Here's his "Ethics of Belief", which is solid. (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html)

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Flying Dice on March 01, 2012, 01:50:16 am
Capn, there is probably enough room for you to create a thread like that, while this could be used more for moderated debate.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 01, 2012, 01:54:14 am
Quote from: Capntastic on March 01, 2012, 01:48:04 am
I was expecting someone would've held off for more than an hour to reboot this.  At least let the locked thread sink off the first page so people's tempers can cool!

... You know what, I just sort of assumed any interested person would have started a new thread before 1.5 hours. I didn't think about the active arguments that were caught up when the thread was closed, or that tempers might still be high after a relatively short time. My bad there.

Your idea still sounds like it'd be unique enough to warrant its own thread. I mean, if the progressive rage threads can coexist with the election thread, in turn coexisting with whatever random politics topics get created, yours seems to be the most unique.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 01, 2012, 01:55:33 am
There is, and while an extra thread probably wouldn't detract much from other threads, my own motivation to create a thread of that nature only passes the required threshold if such a thread is specifically required.

Edit:  If we're gonna aim for the moderated debate route, I suggest adding this (http://zero.mysidia.org/debateflow.jpg) to the OP.  Feel free to use that link specifically, it's my hosting.
 
Edit edit:  Also let's use this instead of Aqizzar's hound picture. (http://zero.mysidia.org/500full.jpg)   All in favor say aye.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 01, 2012, 02:07:24 am
Love the chart (am keeping, by the way.)... but on the hound equivalent, nay. Too big. Something smaller would be nice though, maybe.

E: Incidentally, I've heard of that Clifford guy before, but blazes if I can remember precisely where. Definitely reading that as soon as I no longer have a splitting headache, so thanks for the link.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 01, 2012, 02:11:47 am
Good chart, definitely. It's in the OP now.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 01, 2012, 02:47:52 am
Good luck PoH, the fate of this thread lies in your mediation skills...
*popcorn*
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Gamerlord on March 01, 2012, 02:57:11 am
ptw
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 01, 2012, 04:24:29 am
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/26/13rd-of-women-in-us-military-raped/

Original NPR source :

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103844570

I mentioned this to some guys on a wargame site who were saying all non-USA nations soldiers were rapists (and agreeing without evidence), and they said "well, who can really define rape"

From NPR:

" 2003, a survey of female veterans found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving. And a 1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, found that 90 percent had been sexually harassed."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 01, 2012, 04:30:16 am
I will say that abuse against women is some what rampant in the Australian Military as well, if the news is any sort of an indicator.
Not all that long ago there was a case of a woman being raped in the armed services, and they basically did nothing to help her. I will see if I can find a link, give me a second.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 01, 2012, 06:04:28 am
My point was these other guys we spreading around horror stories of "other" militaries raping and calling them "animals" (racism). Then i confronted them with some evidence their own soldiers do it and they weaseled about re-defining "rape", more or less saying these women who answered the survey don't know when it[s happened, they must've been 'lightly sexually harassed" or something.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 01, 2012, 08:35:25 am
May I suggest an addendum to the part about ad hominem?


A lot of counter arguments, while directly attacking the argument rather than the person making it, leave subtle hints that "anyone who actually believes this garbage is an idiot." Most commonly seen with sarcasm and satire. This, to me, is no better than direct ad hominem.


So I would ask people in this thread when disagreeing with people to avoid implications about those who carry opinions you do not like. 



EDIT: Have your daily dose of social issues. (http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/sexual-harassment-as-ethical-imperative-the-ugly-side-of-fighting-games) On today's menu, glorifying douchebaggery with a large side of misogyny.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Flying Dice on March 01, 2012, 08:55:17 am
Agreed. Dislike opinions, not people, if only for the sake of keeping the thread of being locked.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Lysabild on March 01, 2012, 09:56:19 am
I will have to post here.

Pretend this is meaningful.

Now, move along.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 01, 2012, 10:44:35 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 01, 2012, 08:35:25 am
May I suggest an addendum to the part about ad hominem?


A lot of counter arguments, while directly attacking the argument rather than the person making it, leave subtle hints that "anyone who actually believes this garbage is an idiot." Most commonly seen with sarcasm and satire. This, to me, is no better than direct ad hominem.


I have extremely strong ethical issues with not calling out monsters for what they are. But I'll will certainly try to limit my snark.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 01, 2012, 11:01:28 am
http://beta.local.yahoo.com/news-home-vandalized-given-back-woman.html

All too common....

Background and Procedural Facts:
So, when the bank forecloses, they often give you an incentive to leave and just get out so they don't have to go through the longer disputed foreclosure process. It's called "Cash for Keys." Or, they just boot you out sooner or later.

Usually, when you leave the house and let the bank know, they come around and winterize the place so the pipes don't burst, etc, etc. It's part of a duty to mitigate damages so they can sell the house at sheriff's sale and apply the money they get there towards paying off the loan balance. In some states, you can have what's called a "deficiency judgment" against you if you owe more on the loan than the house brought in at Sheriff's sale. Note: in Ohio, they have deficiency judgments, but the bank has a 2 year SOL to come after you for them. So, it's really important that the bank take care of the house when you let them know you're leaving it, and they're required to....

They didn't here. The place went to hell, and all of it was foreseeable. Thieves and drug addicts hung around, ruined the place and stole nearly everything, pipes, and pretty much whatever. 

To review, bank was taking house, did nothing to safeguard or winterize it, and screwed up so badly that they just let her have what was left of the place. It's now uninhabitable from the bank's neglect. Her life is turned upside down, and nobody's gonna do much of anything.

Argument:
This is really why we need something that actually modifies mortgages in a meaningful way that keeps people in these houses. First, on average these places were simply never worth what they were purchased for to begin with. Second, foreclosure leaves a bunch of vacant houses going to hell and ruining property values for everyone in the area. Third, speaking of vacant, these places aren't doing anyone any good sitting empty (separate and aside from the second argument), we've got a bunch of people who need a place to live and empty houses.... Fourth, who fixes this gutted house, or does it stay gutted and blighted? Fifth, it just looks like neither the bank nor this woman, as owner, are going to get anything out of this; it's become a zero sum game. Sixth, let's look at it from the taxpayer standpoint for a second, locally, we're gonna have to pay to condemn and bulldoze a lot of buildings like this (and in worse conditions). This could be avoided by letting the woman stay in the house so it doesn't go to hell. Moreover, this place was a haven for crime and drugs for years under the bank's neglectful stewardship.

Counter:
You could say that this is all or mostly the owner's fault, that she shouldn't have taken out a loan she couldn't pay back etc.

Counter to Counter:
She bought the house in the 1980s, and then she certainly could make the payments. She had no reason to think she ever wouldn't be able to and it is kinda hard to predict almost 30 years out into the future. This isn't an irresponsible person in my eyes, and as someone who deals with foreclosures in a boots on the ground sense, that often isn't the case. How do you plan for losing your job 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or more years down the line? You really can't if home ownership is on the table. Fact is without a job, the overwhelming majority of people out there couldn't afford their mortgage or rent or whatever. The only way these people can "plan" for not being able to make a payment due to job loss is to never buy a home, but even then, you can't plan for the rent without a job either.

Basically:
No to vacant houses, no to people being thrown out of homes, no to setting up havens for crime and drugs, no to pawning off the bank's bad investment on local taxpayers, no to ruining the property values of entire neighborhoods. Yes to a responsible foreclosure modification program.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 01, 2012, 11:40:10 am
Quote from: Nadaka on March 01, 2012, 10:44:35 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 01, 2012, 08:35:25 am
May I suggest an addendum to the part about ad hominem?


A lot of counter arguments, while directly attacking the argument rather than the person making it, leave subtle hints that "anyone who actually believes this garbage is an idiot." Most commonly seen with sarcasm and satire. This, to me, is no better than direct ad hominem.


I have extremely strong ethical issues with not calling out monsters for what they are. But I'll will certainly try to limit my snark.
You can do so by pointing out the negative repercussions of what people are advocating. If you wish to prove people are advocating "monstrous" actions, hiding your arguments under vitriol does nothing but harm your message.
Title: Re: poh's calm and cool progressive expression thread
Post by: Levi on March 01, 2012, 12:07:49 pm
Quote from: Epithemius on March 01, 2012, 01:38:25 am
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/02/29/pol-robocalls-poor-losers.html
It seems the value of the vote has been furthermore diminished. If a party cannot play by the rules, why are they allowed in the game at all? This sickens me to see what our democracy has become: a party cheating in order to continue to be the government.

Its not necessarily cheating, as there isn't any real proof it wasn't just some lone jerk who wanted the conservatives to win at any cost.  What DOES annoy me is that the Harper government doesn't seem to be taking it very seriously.  The government should be the first ones stepping up to investigate and condemn an attack on democracy.

Quote from: Capntastic on March 01, 2012, 01:48:04 am
I'd like to discuss W.K. Clifford, who was a dude in the mid-1800s, a genius mathematician and philosopher, and defying all convention at the time, an atheist through and through.  What is most interesting to me about his stance on atheism is that he was not content to say "I see no evidence for God, and choose not to believe in it"- no, he went the extra step into asserting that it is unethical to live one's life predicated on a belief that is not proven.  His drive to put the nature of belief and truth under such scrutiny is what secures him as one of the greats.

Quote
It is not only the leader of men, statesmen, philosopher, or poet, that owes this bounden duty to mankind. Every rustic who delivers in the village alehouse his slow, infrequent sentences, may help to kill or keep alive the fatal superstitions which clog his race. Every hard-worked wife of an artisan may transmit to her children beliefs which shall knit society together, or rend it in pieces. No simplicity of mind, no obscurity of station, can escape the universal duty of questioning all that we believe.

Here's his "Ethics of Belief", which is solid. (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html)

Sounds like a cool guy, I wish there were more like him.  I vaguely remember reading something similar in some Richard Dawkins book about how its harmful to society to not live by rational thought and logic.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 01, 2012, 12:15:48 pm
Bah, my first action in this thread is only a PTF...

Nothing to see here people, move along.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 01, 2012, 12:36:50 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 01, 2012, 11:40:10 am
Quote from: Nadaka on March 01, 2012, 10:44:35 am
I have extremely strong ethical issues with not calling out monsters for what they are. But I'll will certainly try to limit my snark.
You can do so by pointing out the negative repercussions of what people are advocating. If you wish to prove people are advocating "monstrous" actions, hiding your arguments under vitriol does nothing but harm your message.
There's definitely a line somewhere. You can argue that something is unethical, and it's sort of understood that you view people who believe/practice it to be unethical to some degree. Or you could call people idiots unproductively.

Basically, if you're in doubt, figure out whether your post will facilitate or hinder discussion.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Pnx on March 01, 2012, 01:21:19 pm
So there's egg on my face. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103249.msg3053066#msg3053066)

Anyway, here's the links I was going to post:

British MP rails against gay marriage. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17221312)

Political activist blogs in Russia. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17177053)

Jewish woman talks about breaking away from Hasidic community. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17215248)

Parts of 9/11 victims were taken to a landfill. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17195894)

Google privacy policy may break EU law. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17205754)

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 01, 2012, 01:31:17 pm
Sadness for vector yet again :(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Virex on March 01, 2012, 01:39:49 pm
Quote from: Reelya on March 01, 2012, 04:24:29 am
" 2003, a survey of female veterans found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving. And a 1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, found that 90 percent had been sexually harassed."
Only 30%? That's less then some estimate for civilians, at least, if my memory isn't playing tricks on me. Though it may be that both studies use different metrics and definitions, I would like to see if there really is a difference between civilians and veterans on this.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: G-Flex on March 01, 2012, 02:08:17 pm
Quote from: Virex on March 01, 2012, 01:39:49 pm
Quote from: Reelya on March 01, 2012, 04:24:29 am
" 2003, a survey of female veterans found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving. And a 1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, found that 90 percent had been sexually harassed."
Only 30%? That's less then some estimate for civilians, at least, if my memory isn't playing tricks on me. Though it may be that both studies use different metrics and definitions, I would like to see if there really is a difference between civilians and veterans on this.

Less than an estimate for civilians over what period of time, though? It's quite possible you're comparing statistics for people being victims of rape over the course of their lives thus far to statistics for people being victims of rape during the years spent in the military, which is likely to be a shorter time period.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on March 01, 2012, 02:21:10 pm
Quote from: Virex on March 01, 2012, 01:39:49 pm
Only 30%? That's less then some estimate for civilians, at least, if my memory isn't playing tricks on me. Though it may be that both studies use different metrics and definitions, I would like to see if there really is a difference between civilians and veterans on this.
The common number for civilians is in the region of 20%, which mostly comes from surveys that identify acts done rather than self identification or official reports. The most comprehensive and recent CDC study is available here. (http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/NISVS/index.html) From the executive summary;
Quote
Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives, including completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration.
More than half (51.1%) of female victims of rape reported being raped by an intimate partner and 40.8% by an acquaintance; for male victims, more than half (52.4%) reported being raped by an acquaintance and 15.1% by a stranger.
Approximately 1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported that they were made to penetrate someone else during their lifetime; most men who were made to penetrate someone else reported that the perpetrator was either an intimate partner (44.8%) or an acquaintance (44.7%).
An estimated 13% of women and 6% of men have experienced sexual coercion in their lifetime (i.e., unwanted sexual penetration after being
pressured in a nonphysical way); and 27.2% of women and 11.7% of men have experienced unwanted sexual contact.
30% is closer to the numbers for combined rape, physical abuse and stalking.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Lysabild on March 01, 2012, 02:24:27 pm
I'm not expert, but one in five of women and 1 in 71 men seem highly skewed, I have a hard time believing that so few men and boys are molested and so many women.

But again, I don't live in America and I don't have any numbers to support this, I just remember cases of women winning trials for having been 'raped' with the only proof being her word and crocodile tears and I know men who have been molested and keep it to themselves.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Virex on March 01, 2012, 02:32:09 pm
Quote from: G-Flex on March 01, 2012, 02:08:17 pm
Quote from: Virex on March 01, 2012, 01:39:49 pm
Quote from: Reelya on March 01, 2012, 04:24:29 am
" 2003, a survey of female veterans found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving. And a 1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, found that 90 percent had been sexually harassed."
Only 30%? That's less then some estimate for civilians, at least, if my memory isn't playing tricks on me. Though it may be that both studies use different metrics and definitions, I would like to see if there really is a difference between civilians and veterans on this.

Less than an estimate for civilians over what period of time, though? It's quite possible you're comparing statistics for people being victims of rape over the course of their lives thus far to statistics for people being victims of rape during the years spent in the military, which is likely to be a shorter time period.
You're right, I'm probably comparing Iphones to Oranges...


Quote from: Lysabild on March 01, 2012, 02:24:27 pm
I'm not expert, but one in five of women and 1 in 71 men seem highly skewed, I have a hard time believing that so few men and boys are molested and so many women.

But again, I don't live in America and I don't have any numbers to support this, I just remember cases of women winning trials for having been 'raped' with the only proof being her word and crocodile tears and I know men who have been molested and keep it to themselves.
You'd be hard-pressed to find anecdotal evidence that is representative for (at least) 10% of the population ;)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 01, 2012, 06:22:03 pm
That said, male rapes are almost certainly under-reported, and there's probably no way to know for certain.

But hell, female rapes, even factoring in "fakeclaims", are probably under-reported as well.

It's not something people enjoy reporting.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 01, 2012, 09:41:19 pm
Lotta cultural things contributing to the divide, as well.


On the far side of the scale for women, you've got people thinking carrying bags is sexual harassment. (http://notalwaysright.com/brazen-overtures-like-mints-on-pillows/1866)

On the far side of the scale for men, you've got the notion that a man being raped is somehow a good thing (even the men being raped can buy into it!).

And everything inbetween.


My gut suspicion is that the numbers are pretty close, though not as much as say, domestic abuse. We'll never get accurate statistics until sexual harassment is treated equally for both men and women.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Durin on March 01, 2012, 10:18:29 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 01, 2012, 11:01:28 am
http://beta.local.yahoo.com/news-home-vandalized-given-back-woman.html

All too common....

Background and Procedural Facts:
So, when the bank forecloses, they often give you an incentive to leave and just get out so they don't have to go through the longer disputed foreclosure process. It's called "Cash for Keys." Or, they just boot you out sooner or later.

Usually, when you leave the house and let the bank know, they come around and winterize the place so the pipes don't burst, etc, etc. It's part of a duty to mitigate damages so they can sell the house at sheriff's sale and apply the money they get there towards paying off the loan balance. In some states, you can have what's called a "deficiency judgment" against you if you owe more on the loan than the house brought in at Sheriff's sale. Note: in Ohio, they have deficiency judgments, but the bank has a 2 year SOL to come after you for them. So, it's really important that the bank take care of the house when you let them know you're leaving it, and they're required to....

They didn't here. The place went to hell, and all of it was foreseeable. Thieves and drug addicts hung around, ruined the place and stole nearly everything, pipes, and pretty much whatever. 

To review, bank was taking house, did nothing to safeguard or winterize it, and screwed up so badly that they just let her have what was left of the place. It's now uninhabitable from the bank's neglect. Her life is turned upside down, and nobody's gonna do much of anything.

Argument:
This is really why we need something that actually modifies mortgages in a meaningful way that keeps people in these houses. First, on average these places were simply never worth what they were purchased for to begin with. Second, foreclosure leaves a bunch of vacant houses going to hell and ruining property values for everyone in the area. Third, speaking of vacant, these places aren't doing anyone any good sitting empty (separate and aside from the second argument), we've got a bunch of people who need a place to live and empty houses.... Fourth, who fixes this gutted house, or does it stay gutted and blighted? Fifth, it just looks like neither the bank nor this woman, as owner, are going to get anything out of this; it's become a zero sum game. Sixth, let's look at it from the taxpayer standpoint for a second, locally, we're gonna have to pay to condemn and bulldoze a lot of buildings like this (and in worse conditions). This could be avoided by letting the woman stay in the house so it doesn't go to hell. Moreover, this place was a haven for crime and drugs for years under the bank's neglectful stewardship.

Counter:
You could say that this is all or mostly the owner's fault, that she shouldn't have taken out a loan she couldn't pay back etc.

Counter to Counter:
She bought the house in the 1980s, and then she certainly could make the payments. She had no reason to think she ever wouldn't be able to and it is kinda hard to predict almost 30 years out into the future. This isn't an irresponsible person in my eyes, and as someone who deals with foreclosures in a boots on the ground sense, that often isn't the case. How do you plan for losing your job 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or more years down the line? You really can't if home ownership is on the table. Fact is without a job, the overwhelming majority of people out there couldn't afford their mortgage or rent or whatever. The only way these people can "plan" for not being able to make a payment due to job loss is to never buy a home, but even then, you can't plan for the rent without a job either.

Basically:
No to vacant houses, no to people being thrown out of homes, no to setting up havens for crime and drugs, no to pawning off the bank's bad investment on local taxpayers, no to ruining the property values of entire neighborhoods. Yes to a responsible foreclosure modification program.

It might be a good idea to rethink the depreciation rules for property. People I know in the industry point out that the best thing about "investing" in property is the tax write off due to depreciation of the value of the home, even when the value of the property is actually going up. I'd like to see either doing away with it entirely, or else doing away with it for properties not being occupied by the owner as a primary residence.

Call me crazy, but I do not think it is the first, best destiny of property to be owned and leased out by landlords. It's a complicated issue, but the fact that the system is designed more or less from the ground up to have huge amounts of property owned by people who do not live there is a bad thing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on March 01, 2012, 10:39:09 pm
POSTING

TO

WATCH

*thunder, THUNDER, thunder!*

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 01, 2012, 11:37:04 pm
Quote from: Durin on March 01, 2012, 10:18:29 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 01, 2012, 11:01:28 am
http://beta.local.yahoo.com/news-home-vandalized-given-back-woman.html

All too common....

Background and Procedural Facts:
So, when the bank forecloses, they often give you an incentive to leave and just get out so they don't have to go through the longer disputed foreclosure process. It's called "Cash for Keys." Or, they just boot you out sooner or later.

Usually, when you leave the house and let the bank know, they come around and winterize the place so the pipes don't burst, etc, etc. It's part of a duty to mitigate damages so they can sell the house at sheriff's sale and apply the money they get there towards paying off the loan balance. In some states, you can have what's called a "deficiency judgment" against you if you owe more on the loan than the house brought in at Sheriff's sale. Note: in Ohio, they have deficiency judgments, but the bank has a 2 year SOL to come after you for them. So, it's really important that the bank take care of the house when you let them know you're leaving it, and they're required to....

They didn't here. The place went to hell, and all of it was foreseeable. Thieves and drug addicts hung around, ruined the place and stole nearly everything, pipes, and pretty much whatever. 

To review, bank was taking house, did nothing to safeguard or winterize it, and screwed up so badly that they just let her have what was left of the place. It's now uninhabitable from the bank's neglect. Her life is turned upside down, and nobody's gonna do much of anything.

Argument:
This is really why we need something that actually modifies mortgages in a meaningful way that keeps people in these houses. First, on average these places were simply never worth what they were purchased for to begin with. Second, foreclosure leaves a bunch of vacant houses going to hell and ruining property values for everyone in the area. Third, speaking of vacant, these places aren't doing anyone any good sitting empty (separate and aside from the second argument), we've got a bunch of people who need a place to live and empty houses.... Fourth, who fixes this gutted house, or does it stay gutted and blighted? Fifth, it just looks like neither the bank nor this woman, as owner, are going to get anything out of this; it's become a zero sum game. Sixth, let's look at it from the taxpayer standpoint for a second, locally, we're gonna have to pay to condemn and bulldoze a lot of buildings like this (and in worse conditions). This could be avoided by letting the woman stay in the house so it doesn't go to hell. Moreover, this place was a haven for crime and drugs for years under the bank's neglectful stewardship.

Counter:
You could say that this is all or mostly the owner's fault, that she shouldn't have taken out a loan she couldn't pay back etc.

Counter to Counter:
She bought the house in the 1980s, and then she certainly could make the payments. She had no reason to think she ever wouldn't be able to and it is kinda hard to predict almost 30 years out into the future. This isn't an irresponsible person in my eyes, and as someone who deals with foreclosures in a boots on the ground sense, that often isn't the case. How do you plan for losing your job 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or more years down the line? You really can't if home ownership is on the table. Fact is without a job, the overwhelming majority of people out there couldn't afford their mortgage or rent or whatever. The only way these people can "plan" for not being able to make a payment due to job loss is to never buy a home, but even then, you can't plan for the rent without a job either.

Basically:
No to vacant houses, no to people being thrown out of homes, no to setting up havens for crime and drugs, no to pawning off the bank's bad investment on local taxpayers, no to ruining the property values of entire neighborhoods. Yes to a responsible foreclosure modification program.

It might be a good idea to rethink the depreciation rules for property. People I know in the industry point out that the best thing about "investing" in property is the tax write off due to depreciation of the value of the home, even when the value of the property is actually going up. I'd like to see either doing away with it entirely, or else doing away with it for properties not being occupied by the owner as a primary residence.

Call me crazy, but I do not think it is the first, best destiny of property to be owned and leased out by landlords. It's a complicated issue, but the fact that the system is designed more or less from the ground up to have huge amounts of property owned by people who do not live there is a bad thing.

Renters typically can't maintain properties, affording it, or having the skill/desire to do it. They also can't manage to get the financing. Condos are closer to what you're saying and that has problems too. Get into any type of density where you end up sharing a wall or a floor or a ceiling and especially large things like roofs, pavement/parking/landscaping and things get hard quickly.

Even owning a personal residence for your partners, friends, family, whatever, isn't exactly easy. Shared space or housing in any proximity can be difficult.

Concerning depreciation, that's pretty much a fundamental of accounting with most assets. It starts with a basis of value that goes down as time accumulates and inevitably damages the property or requires maintenance, repairs, and replacement. I'm not really sure how you'd "rethink" depreciation. Moreover, the value of property does not always go up, as we've recently seen with the housing crash. I don't quite get why depreciation needs to be modified or what that has to do with anything.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 02, 2012, 04:18:54 am
Hahaha, Matt Taibbi's response to Breitbart's death-- "Death of a Douche" (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/andrew-breitbart-death-of-a-douche-20120301) which was, typical of Taibbi and in keeping with paying tribute to Breitbart, designed to be as controversial as possible, has done its job.  Huge swathes of reactionaries descended upon Taibbi's wikipedia page to vandalize it in as many un-self-aware ways as possible. (http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/01/wikipedia-vandals-attack-rolling-stone-blogger-who-couldn%E2%80%99t-be-happier-about-breitbarts-death/)

The whole situation is absurd, to someone as cynical of journalists as I am, but at least it's less absurd than Freep's wholly predictable conspiracy theories that Breitbart was assassinated (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2853056/posts) because he was just about to take down Obama once and for all with new and startling evidence!

(The thing about Freep is that every conversation snowballs like this:  "wonder if something is up" "something is up, it might've been obama" "if it is obama, he's worse than we thought!" "of course he's worse than we thought, he was literally sent to us by satan!"  Each proposition, each assertion, each small vocalization is built upon as truth in the discussion.  If there's any disagreement, it's always someone telling another person that their view isn't polarized enough.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 02, 2012, 04:20:22 am
90% of the reason I'm linking this is the reply from the Archie Comics spokesman. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116075-One-Million-Moms-Want-Same-Sex-Archie-Comic-Out-of-Toys-R-Us)

I don't know how he could possibly of put it better.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 02, 2012, 04:24:18 am
Yeah, it's really heartening in some ways that Archie of all things has come from its humble 50s era beginnings to become this really progressive comic that still maintains those nostalgic trappings.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 02, 2012, 04:27:14 am
'One million moms' is a very misleading term. There are significantly less than a million members, I am led to believe about 40,000.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 02, 2012, 04:31:16 am
They're literally just trying to co-opt associations to the Million Man March movement.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 02, 2012, 04:33:27 am
If they wanted to ride on such coat tails, they should do the courtesy of following suit and matching such alliteration.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 02, 2012, 04:42:16 am
I'm just wondering why they didn't just go for Millions of Moms.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 02, 2012, 04:43:11 am
It would have been witty, and wit comes from the devil.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Tilla on March 02, 2012, 05:36:18 am
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-virginia-abortion-ultrasoundtre821051-20120301,0,6777632.story Shameful.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 02, 2012, 11:00:52 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 01, 2012, 09:41:19 pm
On the far side of the scale for women, you've got people thinking carrying bags is sexual harassment. (http://notalwaysright.com/brazen-overtures-like-mints-on-pillows/1866)
So... an unconfirmed anecdote written for comedy reasons, huh?

Quote from: kaijyuu on March 02, 2012, 04:20:22 am
90% of the reason I'm linking this is the reply from the Archie Comics spokesman. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116075-One-Million-Moms-Want-Same-Sex-Archie-Comic-Out-of-Toys-R-Us)
He clearly had fun writing that response.  It basically amounts to "You have every right to your opinion but it's one of prejudice, hate and narrow-mindededness that we will ignore" only without the threat of lawsuits.  Perfect.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on March 02, 2012, 12:13:55 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 02, 2012, 02:19:10 pm
Anecdotes about people acting completely and utterly unreasonably is the entire point of Not Always Right. Certainly, you've got reason to think it's made up and/or embellished, but the same is true for every single story on the site. This one just happens to be about sexual harassment. If you have doubts about that one but not, say, the "evil liberals" one in my signature, welcome to selective doubt land.


Anywho, my point was, there's an unreasonable extreme to people calling out sexual harassment. While I've never met anyone that bad, I have met people with ridiculous personal bubbles who whine whenever they feel it's violated. And since the topic was statistics about sexual harassment, gathering accurate statistics is going to be difficult because you can't just ask someone "have you ever been sexually harassed?" Some people might say yes because a random stranger glanced at them or tried to chat in an elevator. I don't trust any statistic that isn't far more specific about what it's asking.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 02, 2012, 02:29:28 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 02, 2012, 02:19:10 pm
Some people might say yes because a random stranger glanced at them or tried to chat in an elevator.

And many many more will say no, because it was their own fault, because they shouldn't have let him go that far, because they didn't do enough to stop it, because they don't want anyone to know, etc. and so on.

You seem to be denying statistics on the basis of false positives, while it seems that false negatives would be a lot more common.

But yeah - crazy people skew statistics. That's what error bars are for, to account for imprecision such as crazy people skewing statistics.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 02, 2012, 02:33:57 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 02, 2012, 02:29:28 pm
You seem to be denying statistics on the basis of false positives, while it seems that false negatives would be a lot more common.
Nope, I covered that too in my original post, which Leafsnail only quoted part of.

Quote from: me
On the far side of the scale for men, you've got the notion that a man being raped is somehow a good thing (even the men being raped can buy into it!).

Just pointin' out extremes~

(there are of course women who would give false negatives and men that give false positives, which do also contribute to statistical inaccuracy, but those are a bit more rare)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 02, 2012, 02:41:55 pm
I've completely lost the thread of this conversation. Ah well. Anything new going on?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Virex on March 02, 2012, 02:43:24 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 02, 2012, 02:19:10 pm
Some people might say yes because a random stranger glanced at them or tried to chat in an elevator. I don't trust any statistic that isn't far more specific about what it's asking.
You apparently don't realize that a creepy glance can do more the creep a woman out and make her feel violated than any number of comments. It's not about the look itself, it's about the situation, the one doing it, the timing et cetera. All those combined can change into a threatening situation in which the woman feels exposed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 02, 2012, 03:02:17 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 02, 2012, 02:19:10 pm
Anecdotes about people acting completely and utterly unreasonably is the entire point of Not Always Right. Certainly, you've got reason to think it's made up and/or embellished, but the same is true for every single story on the site. This one just happens to be about sexual harassment. If you have doubts about that one but not, say, the "evil liberals" one in my signature, welcome to selective doubt land.
I doubt the one in your signature just as much.  If anything even more because it's basically an old joke told as if it were an anecdote.  I'm not sure why you're assuming I'd believe that one (although if it is true then it sounds like the customer is telling a joke that the person telling the story missed).

I mean, it doesn't matter about the veracity of these stories if you're reading them for a laugh.  But if you're actually citing it as an example of a thing that happens then it does matter.  Even if you're trying to provide an extreme it seems unfair to cite a quite possibly made up extreme.

Quote from: kaijyuu on March 02, 2012, 02:19:10 pm
Anywho, my point was, there's an unreasonable extreme to people calling out sexual harassment. While I've never met anyone that bad, I have met people with ridiculous personal bubbles who whine whenever they feel it's violated. And since the topic was statistics about sexual harassment, gathering accurate statistics is going to be difficult because you can't just ask someone "have you ever been sexually harassed?" Some people might say yes because a random stranger glanced at them or tried to chat in an elevator. I don't trust any statistic that isn't far more specific about what it's asking.
If you think that women do overreport sexual harrassment then surely there would be a better source to back this up than an unconfirmed, anonymous personal account written in order to amuse rather than inform?

Quote from: kaijyuu on March 02, 2012, 02:33:57 pm
Nope, I covered that too in my original post, which Leafsnail only quoted part of.
Because I was commenting on your use of a poor source.  So I quoted that source.  If someone wants to read your whole post rather than the bit that's relevant to mine they can click the link.

Quote from: kaijyuu on March 02, 2012, 02:33:57 pm
(there are of course women who would give false negatives and men that give false positives, which do also contribute to statistical inaccuracy, but those are a bit more rare)
Have you got any backing for this statement?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on March 02, 2012, 03:08:39 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 02, 2012, 03:09:23 pm
@Virex
I can't reply to that without getting into an argument about semantics. Suffice to say not everyone who feels "creeped out" is reacting reasonably, nor is everyone who feels that way acting unreasonably either. Need more information, as you said.

Quote from: Leafsnail on March 02, 2012, 03:02:17 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 02, 2012, 02:19:10 pm
Anecdotes about people acting completely and utterly unreasonably is the entire point of Not Always Right. Certainly, you've got reason to think it's made up and/or embellished, but the same is true for every single story on the site. This one just happens to be about sexual harassment. If you have doubts about that one but not, say, the "evil liberals" one in my signature, welcome to selective doubt land.
I doubt the one in your signature just as much.
Then you make a fair argument. Your doubt of it is reasonable.

Quote
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 02, 2012, 02:33:57 pm
Nope, I covered that too in my original post, which Leafsnail only quoted part of.
Because I was commenting on your use of a poor source.  So I quoted that source.  If someone wants to read your whole post rather than the bit that's relevant to mine they can click the link.
Indeed.

Quote
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 02, 2012, 02:33:57 pm
(there are of course women who would give false negatives and men that give false positives, which do also contribute to statistical inaccuracy, but those are a bit more rare)
Have you got any backing for this statement?
Nope, and after writing it I figured someone might point this out. I concede any point about "over reported" vs "under reported," as I have no evidence to back up my assumptions. Main point still exists though, that people's definitions of sexual harassment vary (quite a bit), and thus any statistic needs to ask far more specific questions than "have you been sexually harassed."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Virex on March 02, 2012, 03:25:50 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 02, 2012, 03:09:23 pm
@Virex
I can't reply to that without getting into an argument about semantics. Suffice to say not everyone who feels "creeped out" is reacting reasonably, nor is everyone who feels that way acting unreasonably either. Need more information, as you said.
I'm not the one you'd be getting into a semantics argument with ;)


Anyway, I'm a firm believer that on the matters of women feeling assaulted that if she says she is, then she is. Every woman's experience is unique and discounting it as irrelevant or mislabeled is pretty idiotic. After all, you're saying that you know better than she does what happened to her...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 02, 2012, 03:35:37 pm
There's plenty of situations in life where an outside observer is perfectly capable of knowing more than an involved party what happened in a given situation.

Brains fill in gaps, memories alter in the presence of strong emotions, repression and modification can either suppress or strengthen memories so they become something that never happened happened, for better or worse.

And since sexual harassment is a term we use to communicate, its perfectly possible for someone to understand fully and correctly what happened to them and communicate poorly so that the information they transfer is other than what was intended. So maybe we don't know better than her what happened, but we might know better than her how to describe it with precise and meaningful language. Especially for some traumatic events, which victims may find difficult to describe for a variety of reasons!

People, and this includes any of us, can be wrong, even about things that may generally be fairly subjective.
(I hope this isn't a semantic argument, if I should drop it, let me know)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Virex on March 02, 2012, 03:38:24 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 02, 2012, 03:35:37 pm
There's plenty of situations in life where an outside observer is perfectly capable of knowing more than an involved party what happened in a given situation.

Brains fill in gaps, memories alter in the presence of strong emotions, repression and modification can either suppress or strengthen memories so they become something that never happened happened, for better or worse.

And since sexual harassment is a term we use to communicate, its perfectly possible for someone to understand fully and correctly what happened to them and communicate poorly so that the information they transfer is other than what was intended. So maybe we don't know better than her what happened, but we might know better than her how to describe it with precise and meaningful language. Especially for some traumatic events, which victims may find difficult to describe for a variety of reasons!

People, and this includes any of us, can be wrong, even about things that may generally be fairly subjective.
(I hope this isn't a semantic argument, if I should drop it, let me know)
In that case, I think it's up to the person in question to indicate that she needs someone else to stand in for her as she can't make a valid judgement. Anything else and you're overruling someone on potentially shaky grounds, which especially in the case of traumatic experiences is just something you shouldn't do.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 02, 2012, 03:54:03 pm
Quote
In that case, I think it's up to the person in question to indicate that she needs someone else to stand in for her as she can't make a valid judgement. Anything else and you're overruling someone on potentially shaky grounds, which especially in the case of traumatic experiences is just something you shouldn't do.
Essentially, I disagree. But I think the most important thing to keep in mind, really, is that framing matters. Humans are only, ever, imperfect recorders, and the way you frame the question can lead the answer. kaijyuu's point about "Have you ever been sexually harassed?" being a poor question is a good one. It has fuzzy boundaries, leaving too much up to interpretation, vague memories, and imprecise definitions, and narrows down their experience to a simple yes or no question. It's making a lot of unsafe assumptions and pretty much guaranteeing an increase in instances of reliable testimony. If you're working with statistics, you want consistent understandings of the variable being measured, and that's not a good way to achieve it.

It's why psychological studies don't just ask "Have you ever had periods of depression?" but rather require you to fill out a many page sheet of specific instances and details you are more likely to remember accurately, and then deduce from that whether or not you've had a period of depression major enough to warrant looking into.

Even that is imprecise. But when you're dealing with something with boundaries as fuzzy as 'sexual harassment' in the popular consciousness, at the very least you should define what you mean by it before asking the question, and allow the person to formulate their response within that framework. That's not "overruling their judgements" or arguing "someone needs to stand in for her" - it's simply making sure that communication is as intended. That's at the very least.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on March 02, 2012, 04:19:29 pm
The problem here is people are using a (theoretical) vague question to dismiss a non-vague survey. Again, the numbers I cited;
Quote
    Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives, including completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration.
    More than half (51.1%) of female victims of rape reported being raped by an intimate partner and 40.8% by an acquaintance; for male victims, more than half (52.4%) reported being raped by an acquaintance and 15.1% by a stranger.
    Approximately 1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported that they were made to penetrate someone else during their lifetime; most men who were made to penetrate someone else reported that the perpetrator was either an intimate partner (44.8%) or an acquaintance (44.7%).
    An estimated 13% of women and 6% of men have experienced sexual coercion in their lifetime (i.e., unwanted sexual penetration after being pressured in a nonphysical way); and 27.2% of women and 11.7% of men have experienced unwanted sexual contact.
More information and the methods are available here. (http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/NISVS/index.html)

None of this really seems especially vague to me. They are not figures about sexual harassment but sexual violence.

They do have a category for non-contact unwanted sexual experiences. That reported as 33.7% of women and 12.8% of men, but with somewhat closer figures for the last 12 months (3% vs 2.7%). These experiences were fairly narrowly defined as;
Quote
Non-contact unwanted sexual experiences are those unwanted experiences that do not involve any touching or penetration, including someone exposing their sexual body parts, flashing, or masturbating in front of the victim, someone making a victim show his or her body parts, someone making a victim look at or participate in sexual photos or movies, or someone harassing the victim in a public place in a way that made the victim feel unsafe.
Somewhat subjective, but an entirely reasonable and slightly conservative estimate (explicitly using 'unsafe' instead of 'uncomfortable').

In any case, I would argue that statistics on people subjectively feeling that they have been sexually harassed - even if they don't fit some arbitrary definition of the term - would be entirely valid in this area. Finding out what percentage of people feel their boundaries have been ignored by others would be just as interesting and useful to know as how often specific behaviours are reported.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Levi on March 02, 2012, 04:23:02 pm
I find it weird that these progressive threads seem to be mostly about rape.  I'm a little sad some of the other topics on the first page weren't picked up on.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 02, 2012, 04:29:25 pm
Yeah, survey is pretty good on that front. There has been... a lot of drift. I forgot what even inspired this conversation, truth be told.

Levi, what would you rather we talk about? I'll totally push that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 02, 2012, 04:29:50 pm
Quote from: Levi on March 02, 2012, 04:23:02 pm
I find it weird that these progressive threads seem to be mostly about rape.  I'm a little sad some of the other topics on the first page weren't picked up on.

Ditto.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on March 02, 2012, 04:30:03 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Levi on March 02, 2012, 04:31:20 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 02, 2012, 04:29:25 pm
Levi, what would you rather we talk about? I'll totally push that.

Pretty much anything else to be honest.  Its not a very pleasant topic.  I'm fine if that is what people really want to talk about though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Virex on March 02, 2012, 04:32:24 pm
Quote from: Levi on March 02, 2012, 04:31:20 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 02, 2012, 04:29:25 pm
Levi, what would you rather we talk about? I'll totally push that.

Pretty much anything else to be honest.  Its not a very pleasant topic.  I'm fine if that is what people really want to talk about though.
If we would only discuss pleasant topics, the world would still've looked like 1850 when it comes to woman's rights ;)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 02, 2012, 04:33:48 pm
Let's talk about genetically modified food then. First, though - Do people consider this a progressive issue?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Virex on March 02, 2012, 04:35:12 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 02, 2012, 04:33:48 pm
Let's talk about genetically modified food then. First, though - Do people consider this a progressive issue?
Considering that they're being used to push small farms out of business (especially in the third world), I don't see how it's not a progressive issue?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 02, 2012, 04:40:08 pm
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103267.0  Here's a thread that derailed into a discussion of Reddit's huge problems, I wonder where people weigh in on this?  (I admit that when Cruxador stepped in I felt duty bound to explain to him why he might be wrong-- the dude has expressed similar attitudes before, like poor people deserving it, etc.)

~~~

As for GM food, it's a science tool like any other- one that needs to be regulated and tested, and democratized.  Monsanto is one of the worst corporations in the world, trying to literally corner the market on grains, which are essential to human life.  There's the capacity to do a lot of good, and the capacity to do a lot of harm.  It needs to be controlled, but not by a profit driven entity.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 02, 2012, 04:44:00 pm
Quote from: Capntastic on March 02, 2012, 04:40:08 pm
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103267.0  Here's a thread that derailed into a discussion of Reddit's huge problems, I wonder where people weigh in on this?  (I admit that when Cruxador stepped in I felt duty bound to explain to him why he might be wrong-- the dude has expressed similar attitudes before, like poor people deserving it, etc.)

I think it went downhill the moment people started getting offended at the nature of reddit being questioned.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on March 02, 2012, 04:44:59 pm
A little casual racism to keep things light... (http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20120229/NEWS01/120229014/Chief-U-S-District-Judge-sends-racially-charged-email-about-president)
Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 02, 2012, 04:33:48 pm
Let's talk about genetically modified food then. First, though - Do people consider this a progressive issue?
I think it is, but more one where there is a genuine debate to be had.

I'm pretty strongly pro-GM in the general sense, although I think there needs to be strong regulation and more ethical business practices than there have been in the past. It's a field similar to medical science; massive public good can be done but with a huge private profit incentive getting in the way all too often.

There is an interesting blog I haven't hit up in ages called Tomorrow's Table (http://scienceblogs.com/tomorrowstable/) after the book the blogger wrote with her husband. She is a geneticist who has worked on GM rice and he is an organic farmer. There is a massive environmental gain to be had from high intensity farming without pesticides or other outside chemicals being needed. They had some deeply interesting posts I remember reading a few years ago that I can't remember enough about to dig out of their archives now...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Levi on March 02, 2012, 04:46:50 pm
Quote from: palsch on March 02, 2012, 04:44:59 pm
I'm pretty strongly pro-GM in the general sense, although I think there needs to be strong regulation and more ethical business practices than there have been in the past. It's a field similar to medical science; massive public good can be done but with a huge private profit incentive getting in the way all too often.

This is pretty much my view on it too.  GM is a great tool and there is a lot of amazing things being done with it, but you can never trust a corporation.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 02, 2012, 04:52:40 pm
When you think about it, we've been genetically modifying our food since shortly after we first started growing things. It was accidental and at random, of course, but crop yields have steadily improved and we've introduced new foods to our diet. Did y'all know that the classic yellow banana (the one most people think of in cartoons and stuff) had to be bred that way? They used to be way too starchy to eat raw, sorta like a potato. I think it's a bit hypocritical of some people (I haven't seen anyone on this thread say this yet) to insist on absolutely no modifications to our food, considering how much of it has been modified over thousands of years.

That said, I fully see the need to keep it regulated.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 02, 2012, 04:57:43 pm
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/oh_geauga/chardon-supporters-to-create-human-barricade-against-westboro-funeral-protesters

I'm not really thrilled these people are anywhere near my state.  Sadly their hate speech is considered "Free speech." (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf) Forgetting the content/substance of their protests, which I clearly disagree with as a GLBT person, the procedure and practice of it is emphatically vile. They make it their business to find funerals and protest at them, and it's well known that they love to ruin the funerals of deceased US Armed Forces Personnel. Id. I keep hearing stuff about certain religions being oppressed in the US for not liking gays, but these guys are somehow protected and it is illegal to stop their protests at your own relatives' funerals.... [sigh]

Various countermeasures are being put into place to contain the wanton hate of the WBC, such as the creation of a wall of people so the families dealing with this tragedy, at the funeral of their own children, will not have to see their hateful signs. It is possible local Harley-Davidson motorcyclists come by to rev their engines so that the mourning families will not have to listen to the WBC, but this is not confirmed at this time.

Finally, it isn't even like these WBC people are protesting the funerals of gay individuals. The servicemen and servicewomen whose funerals they crash are often not gay. These school shooting victims are not gay, nor was the gunman. Not that what they're saying makes sense, but even then, the people whose funerals they are protesting have nothing to do with the thing they have a problem with.

I will never understand the Supreme Court's reasoning and firmly side with the dissent in the above case. The time, place, and method of their protests is assured to cause Emotional Distress (which you can sue over and which someone tried to sue them over). I can't fathom how it is ok to remove political protestors into "Free Speech Zones" where they are supposed to be seen, but in reality often cannot be seen, but we can't do anything about this. At least political protestors have a valid reason to be protesting at some political event or appearance. Why the crap are these guys crashing funerals of people they don't know and who have nothing to do with what is pissing them off again?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on March 02, 2012, 05:02:14 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 02, 2012, 05:05:37 pm
Short and simple answer, WBC are attention whores and professional trolls with a supposedly excellent legal team.

Long answer in response to their "logic": Simply because we don't shoot or lynch gay people on sight, the Phelpses think that we are approving of gays and are thus being un-Christian. And because America is the most important country in the whole wide world and founded by Jesus, God is furious at us while ignoring the other places in the world where gay marriage is perfectly legal. Which means that every single tragedy in the country is God saying "See? Quit being nice to gays!", but only the True Believers (WBC) can understand it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 02, 2012, 05:08:43 pm
Quote from: palsch on March 02, 2012, 04:44:59 pm
A little casual racism to keep things light... (http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20120229/NEWS01/120229014/Chief-U-S-District-Judge-sends-racially-charged-email-about-president)
His... reasoning does not make sense.
Quote
"The only reason I can explain it to you is I am not a fan of our president, but this goes beyond not being a fan," Cebull said. "I didn't send it as racist, although that's what it is. I sent it out because it's anti-Obama."
The hell?


I'll accept people can make racist jokes without being racist (same with making a joke about any sensitive topic), but the dude does not make a good case for his doing so here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 02, 2012, 05:10:00 pm
He did it because he wanted to engage with the Good Ol' Boys
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on March 02, 2012, 05:54:28 pm
Good on Obama. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17241803)
Quote from: BBC
US President Barack Obama has called to offer support to a US law student attacked by radio host Rush Limbaugh for her views on contraception.

Mr Obama told Sandra Fluke he was disappointed she had been the subject of "unfortunate attacks", White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

Limbaugh called Ms Fluke a "slut" and suggested her testimony to US lawmakers made her "a prostitute".

She was initially blocked from testifying by House Republicans.

But Ms Fluke eventually testified on 23 February in support of Mr Obama's ruling that religiously affiliated institutions such as universities and hospitals should provide insurance plans that cover all costs for medicinal contraceptives.
It's worth noting that her testimony involved non-contraceptive uses of the pill. And it was all good and true. However, there is an argument to be made (which I agree with) that this approach is conceding too much ground in the debate. Yes, the pill can be very useful in off-label ways. But using those as a primary argument can be taken as admitting contraceptives aren't justifiable on the face of it. It's the sort of reason you would give to a parent or other relative for going on the pill so they don't have to think about you having sex, not the reason your employer or insurer makes it available to you.

It's worth making a full throated defence of contraceptives as contraceptives.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on March 02, 2012, 06:17:27 pm
I don't see gm food/items as a "progressive" issue in itself (though I personally thinks it displays a disregard for "life" that I am uncomfortable with), but it's certainly directly related to such things - like companies being able to patent and own genetical codes which is just plain fucking wrong in my mind, as well as the usual stuff with companies abusing or tricking others. Such as the cases were gm crops spread from a licensed farm to smaller unlicensed farms in South America, where the small, poorer farmer was sentenced to pay damages to the gm patent owner for "stealing" their crops. Or cotton farmers in India that bought "pest resistant" plants that when actually put in the ground was completely ruined by disease and insects, leaving the farmers ruined.

But as said, these problems are not problems with gene modified stuff in itself, just what's surrounding it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: G-Flex on March 02, 2012, 06:19:02 pm
Quote from: scriver on March 02, 2012, 06:17:27 pm
I don't see gm food/items as a "progressive" issue in itself (though I personally thinks it displays a disregard for "life" that I am uncomfortable with), but it's certainly directly related to such things - like companies being able to patent and own genetical codes which is just plain fucking wrong in my mind

I'm not a fan of abuses of the patent system, or some of the things GM food companies have been doing, but... why is it wrong to own genetic code that isn't naturally-occurring? I don't really see how that's any more wrong than owning any other sort of schematic or design.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 02, 2012, 06:20:06 pm
Quote from: palsch on March 02, 2012, 05:54:28 pm
Good on Obama. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17241803)
Quote from: BBC
US President Barack Obama has called to offer support to a US law student attacked by radio host Rush Limbaugh for her views on contraception.

Mr Obama told Sandra Fluke he was disappointed she had been the subject of "unfortunate attacks", White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

Limbaugh called Ms Fluke a "slut" and suggested her testimony to US lawmakers made her "a prostitute".

She was initially blocked from testifying by House Republicans.

But Ms Fluke eventually testified on 23 February in support of Mr Obama's ruling that religiously affiliated institutions such as universities and hospitals should provide insurance plans that cover all costs for medicinal contraceptives.
It's worth noting that her testimony involved non-contraceptive uses of the pill. And it was all good and true. However, there is an argument to be made (which I agree with) that this approach is conceding too much ground in the debate. Yes, the pill can be very useful in off-label ways. But using those as a primary argument can be taken as admitting contraceptives aren't justifiable on the face of it. It's the sort of reason you would give to a parent or other relative for going on the pill so they don't have to think about you having sex, not the reason your employer or insurer makes it available to you.

It's worth making a full throated defence of contraceptives as contraceptives.

None of this "moral objection" should factor into it, especially from incredibly ill informed people who think you can get a pap smear at Walgreens. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/381282/april-11-2011/pap-smears-at-walgreens

I'm offended at numerous things; I don't try to force other people to follow them via changing the laws.... Several Religions ban ham, but you can still eat it....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on March 02, 2012, 08:44:14 pm
Welp, another one for my reading list. (http://boingboing.net/2012/03/01/ken-macleods-intrusion.html)
Quote
Set in North London, Intrusion begins with the story of Hope, a mother who has become a pariah because she won't take "the fix," a pill that repairs known defects in a gestating fetus's genome. Hope has a "natural" toddler and is pregnant with her second, and England is in the midst of a transition from the fix being optional to being mandatory for anyone who doesn't have a "faith-based" objection. Hope's objection isn't based on religion, and she refuses to profess a belief she doesn't have, and so the net of social services and laws begins to close around her.
I find this debate interesting, mostly because I don't see much choice in such things becoming possible and available in the future. The big questions are going to be about whether government decides to forbid or mandate anything along these lines.

Take a simple case. Someone is having a child through IVF. They have basic screening to test for genetic defects that would make the embryo not viable at all. As part of that screening other genetic information is available.

My question at this stage is does the government try to dictate how that information is used? If we have information about (non lethal) genetic disorders available, do we force the doctors to ignore it? To hide that information from the parents? Do we somehow force all viable embryos to be randomised before implantation? Do we hand all the information to the parents and let them choose?

What procedures do we put in place to stop doctors abusing such information, effectively making the choice for parents (or the choice we deny parents if you lean that way)?

How about for the sex of the child? Other genetic factors that become testable for in the future?

How about for parents who already have multiple children with a strongly heritable genetic disorder? How about when a certain disorder can't be directly tested for, but can have the risk controlled by selecting for other options, such as sex (think Downs, where the risk in males is far higher than for females)?

But then things get even harder when you realise that IVF is expensive, so if we 'allowed' (or rather, didn't forbid; limited forms of this are around today without needing any real permission) these things it would mostly be the well off/rich who benefit from them. I don't think we need to worry about a race of genetically engineered Übermensch anytime soon, but it's still extremely distasteful to me on a number of levels. But then, is making such treatments available through government funded medical care a good idea?

This area makes everyone (me included) very uncomfortable, but that just means there isn't enough solid discussion. Everyone sees eugenics as that thing that the Nazis did and inherent evil, but some level of eugenic selection is available right now [Click here to choose the sex of your child today!] (http://www.babycenter.com/0_choosing-your-babys-sex-what-the-scientists-say_2915.bc) so I don't think we can really avoid this much longer.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 02, 2012, 08:50:09 pm
Ultimately I think this can all be solved by giving the choice to the child, not the parents, through making such changes after birth. Since we're talking about futuristic technology that messes with the DNA of every cell of a complex organism already, applying it to a full grown human wouldn't be too far off.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 02, 2012, 08:57:38 pm
Nobody should be forced to have a child they don't want. If they get more information on their potential child, then they should still be able to make that decision. Even if they don't want a girl child, you'd still be forcing someone to have a baby they don't want, and I feel that's incredibly immoral.

What should be done is an effort to change the views that cause people to make these discriminatory decisions.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: lemon10 on March 02, 2012, 09:00:29 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 02, 2012, 08:50:09 pm
Ultimately I think this can all be solved by giving the choice to the child, not the parents, through making such changes after birth. Since we're talking about futuristic technology that messes with the DNA of every cell of a complex organism already, applying it to a full grown human wouldn't be too far off.
First off, it would probably have a significant failure rate after birth, compared to being much easier before it as well as being tons cheaper.
Changing a full grown human is a order of magnitude different from changing a fetus, and the technology for the adult will be perfected decades after the technology for a fetus.

But primarily because anything that is mental could only be done before the brain is really developed and the baby is born.

And even if it could work significantly after birth, having to wait till 18 to cure your lukemia or something seems pretty BS to me.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Pnx on March 02, 2012, 09:03:16 pm
Quote from: palsch on March 02, 2012, 08:44:14 pm
Welp, another one for my reading list. (http://boingboing.net/2012/03/01/ken-macleods-intrusion.html)
Ok, so the main character is named "Hope", the husband is a carpenter. and from the sound of things the baby will wind up changing the world for the better. This sounds like a horrible book.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on March 02, 2012, 09:16:49 pm
I think it's funny how it's always the government forcing people to do these things in people's dystopias, when it's far more likely in my mind that people would end up doing stuff like that because insurance companies requires it from them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on March 02, 2012, 09:17:47 pm
And in the end, the Jesus proxy dies before ever achieving anything of note, and the government achieves total genetic unity. Everyone dies of the sniffles two years later.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on March 02, 2012, 09:54:48 pm
Quote from: scriver on March 02, 2012, 09:16:49 pm
I think it's funny how it's always the government forcing people to do these things in people's dystopias, when it's far more likely in my mind that people would end up doing stuff like that because insurance companies requires it from them.
Ken's British. Our insurance company is the NHS.

In any case, I have some confidence he will make this interesting. He's an oldschool Scottish socialist who has won three Prometheus awards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_Award) for libertarian science fiction. The last two books of his I read involved, in turn, the war on terror as conducted by Hillary Clinton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Execution_Channel), and a UK/US where religious belief is forced underground and the cathedral are giant silent rave clubs from the perspective of a NZ evangelical Christian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_Sessions). I have no doubt this one will be enjoyably subversive.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 02, 2012, 10:10:54 pm
Quote from: lemon10 on March 02, 2012, 09:00:29 pm
And even if it could work significantly after birth, having to wait till 18 to cure your lukemia or something seems pretty BS to me.
If a parent has control over whether their child has leukemia or not, something's really really fucked up with parental rights vs child rights.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 02, 2012, 10:20:15 pm
I did find the book review added a rather dubious comparison between Obama administration policies and Stalinism.

"With Intrusion, MacLeod pays homage to Orwell, showing us how a society besotted with paternalistic, Cass Sunstein-style "nudging" of behavior can come to the same torturing, authoritarian totalitarianism of brutal Stalinism."

As far as i can see Cass Sunstein's "nudging" idea is all about advocating healthy choices as opposed to forcing those changes. But all Sunstein did was write a book. The same "nudge" ideas have been used by all governments. e.g. Obama's administration is accused by Glenn Beck of heading to Stalinism because of putting up school posters with the food-groups :-

http://www.zimbio.com/Glenn+Beck/articles/w0auK1ZR1U9/Glenn+Beck+Says+Nudge+Leads+Shove+Shove+Leads

But Reagan, greatly admired by Beck had the exact same sort of school eating program that Obama does.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 02, 2012, 10:44:53 pm
Quote
If a parent has control over whether their child has leukaemia or not, something's really really fucked up with parental rights vs child rights.
I don't think the benefit of the few lives avoiding leukaemia (if any) is worth the government gaining the right to to dictate which children parents are and are not allowed to have, at least.

That equation changes once the child is born, of course... but I do think we need caution, here. There is value to variety, after all. I would not like to see the government dictate "every" problem be cured, so we must be careful of where we draw the line.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on March 02, 2012, 10:47:10 pm
Well the whole 'nudge' (I'm never sure if that's a better or worse term than libertarian paternalism) concept is about the government making a determination of the best choice to make then non-coercively influencing people into taking it. The problem is when it stops being non-coercive, or when it is used in the place of open persuasion and debate.

For example, when it comes to advocating healthy eating you put in place gentle policies that make healthier lifestyle choices easier. Simple things like rearranging the layout of supermarkets and cafeteria can adjust eating habits and encourage the 'right' choices. Adding clear and obvious nutritional labelling to food makes people more aware of their diet and makes it easier for them to keep track. But these things need to be discussed and understood, alongside public education and debate over their value and intent.

Once you start losing those factors and are used to the government determining and unilaterally implementing programs to modify peoples behaviour for their own good, nudges probably won't stay nudges for long.

It's always best to think about these things in areas you don't want to be restricted in yourself, or where you disagree with majority (or at least strongly influential and likely to be shared by future leaders) views. A nudge towards healthy eating we can all agree with; we can probably justify a shove in that area from time to time. But when it's something more marginal I think we need to be extremely careful. It's easy to justify government action when you start off non-coercive and gentle, but once you have made that first determination that action is justified it's all the easier to keep pushing till you start seeing results.


The stretch to Stalinism is somewhat misplaced I think, and it's not really a valid comparison between the two. But knowing the authors I'd say this is more lazy shorthand than a genuine political comparison. Knowing their views I can put money on both supporting Obama over whoever in the next election. At least so long as the American Communist Party or Pirate Party don't have valid candidates.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 03, 2012, 12:50:50 am
Well this might be old news to some, but first I have heard of it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womyn
Really? Instead of seeking equity with men, feminist extremists are seeking to separate themselves from men in all possible ways? While I agree that sexism is still a problem, I don't think this is exactly the cause...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on March 03, 2012, 12:55:20 am
Why don't we bring back Werman for males, and Wifman for females. Or something less confusing and less ... Well, WIFE is right there in the word, so heh. :P

And Man for gender-neutral!

We'd still need pronouns, though. Unless we want to stick with "They" and it's derivatives.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 03, 2012, 01:48:16 am
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-joins-assailing-limbaugh-slur-student-201834452.html

More in the Rush Limbaugh personal attack on a third-year Georgetown University law student, Sandra Fluke.... Seems he didn't just call her a slut and a prostitute but far worse:

From the above article:
Quote
On Wednesday, Limbaugh unleashed a lengthy and often savage verbal assault on Fluke.

"What does it say about the college coed ... who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex?" Limbaugh said. "It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex."

He went on to suggest that Fluke distribute sex tapes of herself.

"If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it," he said. "We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."

On Thursday, aware of the firestorm he had ignited, Limbaugh was unapologetic.

"I think this is hilarious. Absolutely hilarious" he said on his show. "The left has been thrown into an outright conniption fit!"

??? I'm sorry, what?  Wait wait, didn't Don Imas get thrown off the air for a bit and seriously risk losing his career over a certain comment a while back?  (http://mediamatters.org/research/200704040011) Wait a minute, they (The FCC) try to censor and often succeed at censoring the crap out of TV shows like  South Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/201_%28South_Park%29#Censorship) and Family Guy, but he's allowed to broadcast detailed defamation about an innocent person and say it's funny? He's completely unrepentant about it, reveling in the fact that he caused it (thinks it's "hilarious"), and it doesn't appear he's going to really get so much as a slap on the wrist.

This woman testified in Congress (after the mockery of an all male panel testifying about women's health issues) that her friend had to have an ovary removed because the school health plan didn't cover birth control medication needed to prevent ovarian cysts from growing (which can easily become cancerous). This man is setting civil discourse back at least 50 years in this country. So basically any female testifying before congress about gender issues, is fair game to call a slut, prostitute, and to demand a tape of her having sex on the internet from...? Wow.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 03, 2012, 01:55:21 am
Limbaugh is like a solitary WBC member: a troll with no real purpose. I wish someone would sue him, but he's got 1st Amendment rights too. My take on it is that just as Ms Fluke is allowed to go before Congress and testify, so is Mr Limbaugh allowed to criticize her for it. It's just that Limbaugh is far more mean-spirited.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 03, 2012, 02:25:12 am
Isn't using "coed" for a female student a bit patriarchal too? Like assuming men belong there and having females is an "add-on". Especially now when if you check enrolment figures females actually outnumber males quite a bit in Europe and North America, from stuff i've read.

Maybe i've got this wrong and it's a commonly used term there, but this is something i notice since it's not a term which gets used where i live, it's a particularly american term. "female student" would be the term here.

A "coed school" just means females and males together (in my local dialect), not specifically a female.

ps. googling "coed" the most common usage seems to be "hot coeds on camera" type stuff :/ but that may be just the internet.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 03, 2012, 02:54:15 am
No, you're right, co-ed is typically assumed in common parlance to mean a female.   It's bad in an exceedingly minor way.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Pnx on March 03, 2012, 02:59:49 am
Let me tell you something about Rush Limaugh. My hardcore conservative bus driver used to listen to him endlessly, which annoyed me a lot, more because of the high pitched keening the radio made when it was tuned to him for some reason than anything else (the bus driver couldn't hear it, I'm pretty sure there's a metaphor in the there).

This thing used to happen a lot. Sometimes a caller would come on the air and disagree with him, an oddly frequent amount of times it would go something like this.
Caller: "Well actually, I feel differently because when you look at X you-"
Rush: "Let me tell you about X..." *goes on an angry rant about how X is deceptive and they are completely wrong*
Rush: "What do you have to say about that?"
*silence*
Rush: "Huh... I guess they hung up. Moving on."

Seriously, the amount of times people "hung up" was ridiculous.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 03, 2012, 03:01:43 am
Quote from: Pnx on March 03, 2012, 02:59:49 am
(the bus driver couldn't hear it, I'm pretty sure there's a metaphor in the there).

Is this a crack at Rush's hearing loss caused by drug abuse?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 03, 2012, 03:01:53 am
Quote from: Capntastic on March 03, 2012, 02:54:15 am
No, you're right, co-ed is typically assumed in common parlance to mean a female.   It's bad in an exceedingly minor way.
Really? That is a thing that is a thing?
Over here co-ed means mixed gender. 'Co' being a prefix for 'joint' and 'ed' being shorthand for education, so it means joint education, as in joining the female and male classes. In the same way, cooperation means 'joint operation' as in an operation carried out by more than one person. I don't see how co-ed came to mean female...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 03, 2012, 03:05:20 am
Common parlance (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=co-ed) and technical, literal meaning  (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/co-ed?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic)aren't always hand in hand.   Which is why we're bringing it up, because it's specifically biased towards men in its usage, by assuming that the significance of 'co-ed' (in dorms, or similar) is that there's women.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 03, 2012, 03:09:11 am
Hmm, must just be a cultural thing. If somebody told me that a class wasn't co-ed, I would most likely assume from context that they mean it is female only and are telling me this as a way of saying I'm not allowed in, otherwise if such context did not apply, I would have to ask for what gender is the class designed...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Pnx on March 03, 2012, 03:21:10 am
Quote from: Capntastic on March 03, 2012, 03:01:43 am
Quote from: Pnx on March 03, 2012, 02:59:49 am
(the bus driver couldn't hear it, I'm pretty sure there's a metaphor in the there).

Is this a crack at Rush's hearing loss caused by drug abuse?
Allow me to try this again.

The radio, when tuned to Rush Limaugh, made a high pitched screeching sound. The driver was rather old, and since high pitches are the first frequencies to go when you start to lose your hearing, he could not hear that frequency of noise. In fact, he thought I was just making it up because I didn't want to listen to Rush.

This just strikes me as the kind of thing you'd see in a novel you read as part of your high school English class.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 03, 2012, 03:23:33 am
I was making a joke that your statement about hearing loss could be interpreted as a joke at Rush Limbaugh specifically.  I work on multiple levels at once.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Pnx on March 03, 2012, 03:26:42 am
...

I knew that! It was part of my joke to-

Ok, I didn't know that.

Moving on...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on March 03, 2012, 03:28:20 am
I thought it was that Rush was a whining old bastard. >w>
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 03, 2012, 03:39:29 am
I thought it was that RUSH is a talented band with lamentable Randian-objectivist leanings.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 03, 2012, 09:02:11 am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/02/police-privatisation-security-firms-crime

This is the icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned.  Can anyone recommend a more sane country with reasonable police and decent healthcare?  European countries would be much easier for me to emigrate to, but I'm prepared to make the effort if there's a better option.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Lysabild on March 03, 2012, 09:04:12 am
Quote from: lordcooper on March 03, 2012, 09:02:11 am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/02/police-privatisation-security-firms-crime

This is the icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned.  Can anyone recommend a more sane country with reasonable police and decent healthcare?  European countries would be much easier for me to emigrate to, but I'm prepared to make the effort if there's a better option.

Denmark, Norway or Finland. I'd stay clear of Sweden personally, from all the crap I see in the news and hear from my ex-boyfriend.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Virex on March 03, 2012, 09:22:57 am
Quote from: Lysabild on March 03, 2012, 09:04:12 am
Quote from: lordcooper on March 03, 2012, 09:02:11 am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/02/police-privatisation-security-firms-crime (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/02/police-privatisation-security-firms-crime)

This is the icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned.  Can anyone recommend a more sane country with reasonable police and decent healthcare?  European countries would be much easier for me to emigrate to, but I'm prepared to make the effort if there's a better option.

Denmark, Norway or Finland. I'd stay clear of Sweden personally, from all the crap I see in the news and hear from my ex-boyfriend.
Denmark is quickly turning into an epitome of free market politics, so steer clear of that too. Finland is transphobic, leaving only Norway, but they probably have their own skeletons in the closet.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 03, 2012, 09:25:11 am
Basically everywhere sucks to some degree.

Try to improve what you have, imo.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on March 03, 2012, 09:43:22 am
Since most of the bad news heard from Sweden right now is those skeletons being dragged out from the closet, I'm pretty certain it's not much worse than the rest of the place, though. Go to Finland for excellent schools, to Norway for good economy (though you might end up peeling bananas for them) and really charismatic politicians.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 03, 2012, 09:54:49 am
Quote from: lordcooper on March 03, 2012, 09:02:11 am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/02/police-privatisation-security-firms-crime

This is the icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned.  Can anyone recommend a more sane country with reasonable police and decent healthcare?  European countries would be much easier for me to emigrate to, but I'm prepared to make the effort if there's a better option.

This is Thatcherism taken to the extreme. What better way to save costs than to make running things someone elses problem... what could possily go wrong there huh?

If history has taught me anything, what will happen is a massive plummet in service efficiency (as a "cheaper" workforce is organized and systems "streamlined" or made more "cost effective"), a rise in cost of service (as people arent effective at thier jobs in terms of what one individual can accompish with second rate equipment), and a huge increase in the number of people pissed off with the service (from having to deal with legalized local vigilantes instead of a solid professional body - the police in the UK actually do a pretty good job IMHO) - just as when previous Tory governments privatized the trains, gas supply, electicity supply, mining, most heavy industries, hell, anything they could get away with.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 03, 2012, 10:00:16 am
Semi-related privatization anecdote:

My friend's mother voted in favor of privatizing the busing service in her county. This won, and saved everyone some taxes. But the private bus company now charges 25% more than the old bus tax.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on March 03, 2012, 10:20:30 am
A study from last year showed that since Sweden started privatising companies, not only have the prices paid by customers gone up, but the actual service level has gone down as well. "But there's inherent value in the freedom itself!" as one right wing politician said when confronted about it. As if I give a damn about "freedom" when the trains are no longer serviced (if they're even winter-proof to begin with) and the apothecaries are selling past-date drugs.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 03, 2012, 10:52:48 am
Well, the NHS reform bill is still being constantly amended to be weaker and is in danger of never passing at all due to unpopularity.  If anything privatisation of police will be even less popular.  I'm not sure if the government can really afford to fight that battle at all.

Privatisation can make some sense... if it can genuinely increase competition.  Railways, healthcare and policing are very much areas where it will not due to the fact that you'd effectively be giving the company a monopoly in a particular service.  Policing also has all kinds of other horrible accountability problems associated with privatisation.

Quote from: Truean on March 03, 2012, 01:48:16 am
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-joins-assailing-limbaugh-slur-student-201834452.html
Really, I think this is the perfect example where you'd kindof need some kind of libel laws or something to either shut Rush up or make him apologise.  It's someone who has a really loud voice and lots of followers defaming someone who has almost no voice with which to respond.  You can't just fight back by also using free speech because they have a much stronger platform than you.

I guess in this case it was somewhat helped by Obama getting involved, but not everyone can get the President on their side when they are horribly defamed by a news outlet.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 03, 2012, 11:13:31 am
Quote from: scriver on March 03, 2012, 10:20:30 am
A study from last year showed that since Sweden started privatising companies, not only have the prices paid by customers gone up, but the actual service level has gone down as well. "But there's inherent value in the freedom itself!" as one right wing politician said when confronted about it. As if I give a damn about "freedom" when the trains are no longer serviced (if they're even winter-proof to begin with) and the apothecaries are selling past-date drugs.

Really thought, who's freedom is it? Not the peoples obviously. Not the employees (at least most of the time). The people who own the new business? Is the increased freedom for them worth the often decreased freedom for everyone else?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 03, 2012, 11:54:18 am
It's the Libertarian definition of freedom which means "The government isn't involved".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on March 03, 2012, 12:04:29 pm
Since it's Sweden, that would be liberal ;)


Quote from: Leafsnail on March 03, 2012, 10:52:48 am
Quote from: Truean on March 03, 2012, 01:48:16 am
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-joins-assailing-limbaugh-slur-student-201834452.html
Really, I think this is the perfect example where you'd kindof need some kind of libel laws or something to either shut Rush up or make him apologise.  It's someone who has a really loud voice and lots of followers defaming someone who has almost no voice with which to respond.  You can't just fight back by also using free speech because they have a much stronger platform than you.

I guess in this case it was somewhat helped by Obama getting involved, but not everyone can get the President on their side when they are horribly defamed by a news outlet.

I thought suing because of defamation was entirely possible, though? In theory at least, I mean.

Truean? *pulls up lawbrary car*
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Lysabild on March 03, 2012, 12:17:59 pm
My stance on privatization can be seen in ein's signature, ripped right out of a chat we had in Skype.

Also, this: Finland (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on March 03, 2012, 01:14:33 pm
Quote from: scriver on March 03, 2012, 12:04:29 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on March 03, 2012, 10:52:48 am
Really, I think this is the perfect example where you'd kindof need some kind of libel laws or something to either shut Rush up or make him apologise.  ...
I thought suing because of defamation was entirely possible, though? In theory at least, I mean.
Yeah, the US has workable defamation laws. They tend to skew towards freedom of speech, but in cases like this it's fairly clear cut.

The laws vary on the state level, but in most states this case should fall within one of the most obvious categories. Certain types of false statements are always taken as defamation. These include "allegations or imputations of unchastity". What Rush said is, by definition, defamation, and in the vast majority of states he can be sued for it.

While American libel laws can look weak sometimes I greatly prefer them to British libel laws in any direct comparison. The current Libel Reform Campaign (http://libelreform.org/) here in the UK is doing good work trying to create a new and more workable structure, so hopefully that will change in the near future.


EDIT: Vaguely related; I went over to the Volokh Conspiracy to see if they had any legal analysis on this and found an entirely tactful and sensible dismissal (http://volokh.com/2012/03/01/how-charming/) by Volokh himself. The comments below then made me feel sick. The blog is a collective of mostly libertarian leaning law professors and practitioners commonly seen as one of the best law blogs on the right. I tend to disagree a lot (if not always; certain names on the by-line make me want to skip the post while others tend to be reasonable and interesting), but it's where you go to get the best understanding of libertarian and right wing legal arguments. The comments sections tend towards disgusting though, and this is one of the worst I've seen.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 03, 2012, 02:56:27 pm
Quote from: Lysabild on March 03, 2012, 12:17:59 pm
Also, this: Finland (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/).
People keep posting this article everywhere, but it ignores something very important: The US is not Finland. What works there does not necessarily work here, and vice versa. 
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Glowcat on March 03, 2012, 02:58:57 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 03, 2012, 02:56:27 pm
Quote from: Lysabild on March 03, 2012, 12:17:59 pm
Also, this: Finland (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/).
People keep posting this article everywhere, but it ignores something very important: The US is not Finland. What works there does not necessarily work here, and vice versa.

That doesn't help anybody though. WHY would it not work here? Is the reason substantiated by data or it asserted due to personal judgment calls about the state of the USA and what its people are capable of?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Lysabild on March 03, 2012, 03:01:47 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 03, 2012, 02:56:27 pm
Quote from: Lysabild on March 03, 2012, 12:17:59 pm
Also, this: Finland (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/).
People keep posting this article everywhere, but it ignores something very important: The US is not Finland. What works there does not necessarily work here, and vice versa.

I honestly find this a bad excuse, of course this could work in the US, the truth is it won't work because people doesn't want it to, the people in US wants an unfair system with well defined classes. So that is what they end up with.

In Denmark we sadly want to be more like the US, so we're slowly going that direction, painful as it is for me to watch.

In Finland they want fair and unbiased education giving everyone the exact same good opportunities, so that is what they get.

If the US decide they want the same, they'll get it.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 03, 2012, 03:12:55 pm
I have commented on this many times around here before as it covers one of my areas of academic work and research - the US education system will never follow a model followed in Finland. There are numerous social, cultural and political factors at play that prevent such an option. People always forget one of the biggest aspects: no-one working within educational research is exactly sure (as in, can point at a collection of factors, able to say "this is why" beyond any reasonable doubt) why the Finnish system works so well, as it appears to run contrary to what people once held as a solid system. Its probably a right place, right time thing. Other nations that have adopted similar strategies (small or large scale) have noticed little or no potitive impacts. The countries that turn out the "best educated" pupils (if you judge that soleley on academic grades/results - PISA and so on...) are the soon to be world giants of India and China - they follow an educational model most similar to the UK or USA 30 to 40 years ago, heavy on wrote learning, but education there has a massive value in terms of its impact on quality of life, unlike in our rich and lazy nations. They (as in India/China) are now looking to move to a system similar to current models in the western world where there is a greater emphasis on teaching the skills that undeprin subject knowledge. Meanwhile the debate goes on in the richer countries what the balance between knowledge and skills should be...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 03, 2012, 03:19:09 pm
The US switching to the Finnish model of education would not be a radical shift, it would be a complete and total paradigm shift of how the education system here works. It simply cannot be done.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 03, 2012, 03:34:51 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 03, 2012, 03:48:32 pm
Doing some math on break-even points for a federal flat percentage income tax with a dollar value offset. Most numbers pulled from Census data for 2010/

First, average household income times the number of households gives us:
60,528×114,235,996 ~= 6,914,476,366,000 or about 6.9 trillion dollars. That... seems too low.
Lets compare it to per capita income times total number of peoples:
27,334x308,745,538 = 8,439,250,536,000, about 8.4 trillion, which seems a bit better.
I think this is income from all sources, though, as with the rest of this, exact details are hard to find.

Lets give a flat monthly distribution offset of 800 per person, half that for dependents, which is more than livable. Not enjoyable, maybe, and it might mean you can't live where you want with the lifestyle you want, but at the very least it gives a solid base and vastly improved bargaining power on the part of individuals looking for employment or engaged in community work that might not otherwise pay well, and allows them the flexibility to make their own life choices about what they value. This value might actually be a bit high or low, it's just a starting point.
(Note: Dependent information proved impossible to find recent data for, so ignoring for now)
Total pop x offset
308,745,538x800 ~= 246,996,430,400 or about 247 billion dollars, which really seems like a drop in the bucket of government expenditures.

Total government expenditures (from http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total)
are ... 5.9 trillion, total? Woah. That's nearly total income - that seems impossible. Though I suppose a good chunk of that expenditure IS income... Anyway, we're only concerned with federal income, which is pegged at ~3.5 trillion

(3.5 Trillion + .3 trillion for our offset) / 8,439,250,536,000 ~= .45, or an effective 45% federal tax rate to cover all government expenditures. Not counting the money saved from getting rid of those welfare programs that are no longer needed.

I think I could live with that.

What do people think of the flat tax + offset system? (A variant of the NIT I suppose) Is it workable?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 03, 2012, 04:07:10 pm
GlyphGryphon, I did a similar breakdown in vectors thread. My figures came out to a 50% tax on income would pay 100% of the budget and still have enough money left over to give a minimum handout per household that would put them at the poverty line, not counting any actual income they received.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: lemon10 on March 03, 2012, 04:09:43 pm
No, your ignoring corporate and business profits and such that don't rely on the households.
Well, it looks like you are, not quite sure if you really are.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 03, 2012, 04:11:00 pm
Quote from: lemon10 on March 03, 2012, 04:09:43 pm
No, your ignoring corporate and business profits and such that don't rely on the households.
Well, it looks like you are not quite sure if you really are.

Yeah. That is what it sorta looks like to me as well.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on March 03, 2012, 04:14:26 pm
powstin tew watch.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 03, 2012, 04:19:14 pm
In my case I assume 0 corporate taxes as well, I am trying to find the post but its no luck so far.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 03, 2012, 06:58:34 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/rush-limbaugh-apologizes-sandra-fluke-172415192.html

So somebody finally tried to get him to recognize where the line was for hating someone and  massive loss of advertisers (http://www.ology.com/politics/and-then-they-came-rush-limbaugh/03022012) huh? Interesting how he sort of goes back on it at the end though...[sigh]
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 03, 2012, 07:00:00 pm
Quote from: Lysabild on March 03, 2012, 12:17:59 pm
Also, this: Finland (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/).
No that would never work in the US, they would call you a commie.
The American DreamTM revolves around being and/or having the best of everything. Biggest tv, best house, fastest car, smartest kid. Can't do that if you are focusing on making sure everybody has a fair go!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Lysabild on March 03, 2012, 07:17:14 pm
Quote from: Max White on March 03, 2012, 07:00:00 pm
Quote from: Lysabild on March 03, 2012, 12:17:59 pm
Also, this: Finland (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/).
No that would never work in the US, they would call you a commie.
The American DreamTM revolves around being and/or having the best of everything. Biggest tv, best house, fastest car, smartest kid. Can't do that if you are focusing on making sure everybody has a fair go!

Which indeed was my point.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 03, 2012, 07:19:51 pm
So you admit to knowingly being a commie?  :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on March 03, 2012, 07:34:40 pm
Yes. I do.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 03, 2012, 07:57:20 pm
Quote from: Max White on March 03, 2012, 07:19:51 pm
So you admit to knowingly being a commie?  :P
Hate to break it to you Max, but the last time Lysabild advertised his political views he identified as a member of the Red-Green Party, which is an alliance of communist and socialist politicians.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 03, 2012, 08:10:36 pm
(http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/attachment.php?attachmentid=67602&d=1240106633)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 03, 2012, 08:19:23 pm
....What relevance does an alternate history flag for a communist United Kingdom have to do with anything?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 03, 2012, 08:22:01 pm
Nothing, nothing at all... Yet.
The left shall rise!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 03, 2012, 08:25:18 pm
Liberal Crime Squad: UK edition.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 03, 2012, 08:31:08 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 03, 2012, 08:25:18 pm
Liberal Crime Squad: UK edition.
Needs more title...
Comrades of Karl Marx: Liberal Crime Squad: UK edition: Histories of dental care and trees.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 03, 2012, 11:38:13 pm
Quote from: Max White on March 03, 2012, 08:31:08 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 03, 2012, 08:25:18 pm
Liberal Crime Squad: UK edition.
Needs more title...
Comrades of Karl Marx: Liberal Crime Squad: UK edition: Histories of dental care and trees.

*Sign here and here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 04, 2012, 12:10:41 am
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay-marriage-20120304,0,1129155.story

Gay marriage proponents have finally found their hooks, the things they need to do to convince people to legalise gay marriage.

and the whole thing sickens me - I know the emotional manipulation is needed - you can't reason someone out of an opinion they only hold for emotional reasons. But it's just incredibly depressing. Because you know the groups that DON'T have this sort of massive support are going to continue getting screwed over by these folks - that the sudden tolerance towards gay folks doesn't actually have any carry-over.

It comes down to "people we like enough get rights", and that's basically it. And while its wonderful that gay marriage is finally becoming a thing... bleh.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 04, 2012, 01:19:32 am
"Every time you deny a gay marriage, we kill a kitten" ... might work.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 04, 2012, 02:08:47 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 04, 2012, 12:10:41 am
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay-marriage-20120304,0,1129155.story

Gay marriage proponents have finally found their hooks, the things they need to do to convince people to legalise gay marriage.

and the whole thing sickens me - I know the emotional manipulation is needed - you can't reason someone out of an opinion they only hold for emotional reasons. But it's just incredibly depressing. Because you know the groups that DON'T have this sort of massive support are going to continue getting screwed over by these folks - that the sudden tolerance towards gay folks doesn't actually have any carry-over.

It comes down to "people we like enough get rights", and that's basically it. And while its wonderful that gay marriage is finally becoming a thing... bleh.

I think the tolerance, dare I say respect comes after the empathy. It's tactically advantageous and logically consistent against and to counter their arguments. If the purpose of marriage is procreation and gays can't procreate, then marriage makes no sense for gays, who cannot procreate (without getting creative). Conversely, the marriage is about love and family rather than just procreation, then logically gays can get marriage if they are in love and want family, which .... :)

There are numerous arguments against marriage as procreation driven. First, old people, specifically women, biologically can't procreate after a certain age. Second, some people just can't have kids (infertility). Third, sometimes, due to the risk of birth defects, it's better if a couple doesn't have kids and they chose not to. Fourth, sometimes people don't have kids at all or for years by choice. Fifth, family means more than procreation or even blood relation as evidenced by step-relations, adoption, etc.

Purpose, the why, is everything. Yeah, people should just get over it and bugger off if they don't like gays, but who are we kidding, that's not happening. I'd settle for a step in the right directions.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 04, 2012, 02:27:25 am
Re: Procreation arguments.

If pumping out babies is the goal, I'm pretty sure monogamous relationships (as opposed to some free love thing) act contrary to that, homosexual or hetero.

If raising kids is the goal, and not pumping out babies, then gay couples marrying (and adopting) helps with that. We currently have more babies than parents willing to raise them.


Any procreation argument either works against heterosexual couples just as much as homo, or supports homosexual couples.



Anywho history has shown if you want to stop prejudice and hate, get them to empathize with you. You have to get people to see you as a human being, who feels the same things you do. (http://media.commercialappeal.com/media/img/photos/2010/02/22/Copley-horiz_t607.jpg)

Quote
It comes down to "people we like enough get rights", and that's basically it.
Welcome to human existence. The vast majority of people don't care about those they don't like. You have to "prove" your worth to most people.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 04, 2012, 02:32:00 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 04, 2012, 02:27:25 am
Re: Procreation arguments.

If pumping out babies is the goal, I'm pretty sure monogamous relationships (as opposed to some free love thing) act contrary to that, homosexual or hetero.

If raising kids is the goal, and not pumping out babies, then gay couples marrying (and adopting) helps with that. We currently have more babies than parents willing to raise them.


Any procreation argument either works against heterosexual couples just as much as homo, or supports homosexual couples.



Anywho history has shown if you want to stop prejudice and hate, get them to empathize with you. You have to get people to see you as a human being, who feels the same things you do. (http://media.commercialappeal.com/media/img/photos/2010/02/22/Copley-horiz_t607.jpg)

Quote
It comes down to "people we like enough get rights", and that's basically it.
Welcome to human existence. The vast majority of people don't care about those they don't like. You have to "prove" your worth to most people.

To be clear, he is right though. It should be the way he implies, with people just chilling out.... Should....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 04, 2012, 02:57:58 am
I'm really tired of people saying that gay marriage would "Change the nature of marriage for everybody!"
Do people seriously think that if gay people get married, it will change how they treat their current spouse? There isn't a set role assignment in marriage to change, but further more, I say it wouldn't change the true nature of marriage at all. Marriage isn't two people coming together and saying "Well you have an XX chromosome, I have XY, I dare say we are an ideal genetic pairing for the procreation of human life!" Nobody thinks like that. Marriage is two paying saying "Well I love you, I'm hoping you love me just as much, let's spend the rest of our lives together and have a big ceremony and invite all our friends and family to celebrate this fact!", and if you accept that homosexuals love each other, gay marriage wouldn't change that at all.


And if you don't accept that homosexuals love each other, you are a soulless, faceless eldritch being from some twisted corner of space, and you can go fuck yourself.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 04, 2012, 04:19:10 am
LIke this asshat, who seems to be missing the point entirely. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17249099)

Remember kids, if you arent a "good Catholic", you will burn in hellfire for all eternity. There are no other choices. None. At all. Ever.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 04, 2012, 04:30:09 am
Let's face it, higher up members of the clergy are all evil space monsters, thus the big hats. It is to cover up the rest of their abnormally large head.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 04, 2012, 09:37:35 am
Quote
He added: "Imagine for a moment that the government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that 'no one will be forced to keep a slave'.

"Would such worthless assurances calm our fury? Would they justify dismantling a fundamental human right?"
I, uh... what.  Well, homophobic institution's gonna homophobe.  There isn't really much you can do except sigh, shake your head and look on the bright side.

Quote
Mr Cameron publicly supported gay marriage at last year's Conservative Party conference, and the Home Office said last week the government believed a loving and committed couple should "have the option of a civil marriage irrespective of their sexual orientation".
The government's in favour, the opposition's in favour.  There'll clearly be a bunch of backbench Conservatives who oppose it but the Conservatives don't have a majority so it should be relatively easy to pass.  The House of Lords would be harder due to the automatic presence of bishops, but that's getting reformed soon so hopefully the bigots can be cleared out of there too.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 04, 2012, 10:18:03 am
AFAIK most of the Bishops in the Lords are CofE which is FAR more moderate than the RC church.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 04, 2012, 11:11:04 am
But still not "moderate" enough to support gay marriage.  Maybe Rowan Williams would, because he's a cool dude, but the church as a whole remains pretty divided on homosexuality.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Virex on March 04, 2012, 11:41:33 am
You don't even need a majority among the bishops though, only among the entire house, right? So even if more then half of them vote against it the law could pass.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 04, 2012, 11:52:04 am
Why look, Rick Santorum thinks that he can unmarry all the married gay people. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/03/MN3Q1N9EV9.DTL) For someone who supposedly practiced law he sure seems to have no idea how he'd actually accomplish any of his crazed proposals.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 04, 2012, 11:59:55 am
Rick Santorum: "We can't have 50 different marriage laws in this country," he said. "You have to have one marriage law."

Right, so now it's gotta be a federal thing but when the federal law doesn't suit them, they want states rights. e.g Arizona's immigration bill, OR their stance on states rights on marriage when the idea of a federal gay-marriage law ALLOWING it comes up.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 04, 2012, 02:38:36 pm
Quote from: Reelya on March 04, 2012, 11:59:55 am
Rick Santorum: "We can't have 50 different marriage laws in this country," he said. "You have to have one marriage law."

Right, so now it's gotta be a federal thing but when the federal law doesn't suit them, they want states rights. e.g Arizona's immigration bill, OR their stance on states rights on marriage when the idea of a federal gay-marriage law ALLOWING it comes up.

In re Santorum: Yeah, basically twist the law to fit whatever is in style this week... for them. For corporations, it's whatever is most beneficial to them this week: they are or are not a "person" for purposes of X. Same thing with any policy they want pushed through.

Whatever happened to "small government?" <-- Remember this "time honored conservative value?" Turns out it really means "a government that lets "me" (them) do whatever the hell they want while being as nosy and intrusive as possible to everyone else."

Small government appears to fit in a woman's uterus, never mind abortion, now it's even birth control and contraceptives. It certainly fits in the gays' lives. On these issues, government can be as big as it takes to regulate the shit out the whole area, because it doesn't effect "me." Funny how a lot of insurances cover Viagra.... Birth control pills though, apparently this is the new national uproar that insurances don't and shouldn't cover this? For shame, that has to do with sex, sometimes. Never mind the health related, non sexual uses of birth control pills for women.... Viagra has no other use besides sex, but ... don't focus on that completely relevant issue.... Also never mind that without population control of some type, we'll have to pay far, far more to take care of all these people, which again, no one wants to do....

"Small government," bullshit. Only if you're someone they like. If you're not, then it should be huge and all over you....

"States' Rights," v. "National" is also misplaced and they've messed it up so bad no one knows how it should be anymore. Traditionally here's how it "should" go. The states have police powers and jurisdiction over family law. Ergo in theory they should have jurisdiction over the whole "marriage" and "gay marriage" thing under the federal separation of powers deal. However, then the conservatives didn't like that some states were allowing gay marriage so they conveniently forgot all about that "State's Rights" stuff and made a national law called DOMA basically giving the government power to deny a state's legally allowed gay marriage (in states where it was legal) any legitimacy on a national level. And now people are saying to revive the federal marriage amendment banning gay marriage is a great idea on the right wing....

They have no problems amending state constitutions to make sure nothing even close to gay marriage or civil unions is allowed (in 34 states last time I counted), but the idea of a state actually allowing it.... That's just completely unacceptable to them.... Those 34 states banning gay marriage, they have "State's Rights." The ones allowing gay marriage, screw them? ???

So basically, it's whatever gets (re)election and if that means changing back and forth as much as possible then so be it...? Got it. Consistency, tradition, the Constitution? They claim to be all about those things, except the parts they don't like.  The little things really, like the Constitution. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/02/jon-kyl-repeal-14th-amendment-immigrants_n_667098.html) And now it's "let's add another amendment to it while taking one out." Mix and match to your heart's content! :D
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on March 04, 2012, 06:58:56 pm
A petition to drop charges against a trans woman accused of murder. (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/3/drop-charges-against-trans-woman-charged-with-murder-for-self-defense/) She and all witnesses have reported this sequence of events:

1. Cece walks past a bar with her friends.
2. Some people come out of the bar and start insulting her.
3. She confronts them, saying that she won't tolerate hate speech.
4. She was attacked, including getting smashed in the face with a glass bottle.
5. Many parties started fighting, and she ended up on the ground bleeding. Her attacker was dead.
6. The police arrived and Only arrested her.

She was detained, she wasn't allowed immediate medical treatment, and was forced to sign a confession. (Which she later recanted.) She has been placed in solitary "for her own protection" because she is trans.

Gack.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 04, 2012, 07:15:09 pm
Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on March 04, 2012, 06:58:56 pm
A petition to drop charges against a trans woman accused of murder. (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/3/drop-charges-against-trans-woman-charged-with-murder-for-self-defense/) She and all witnesses have reported this sequence of events:

1. Cece walks past a bar with her friends.
2. Some people come out of the bar and start insulting her.
3. She confronts them, saying that she won't tolerate hate speech.
4. She was attacked, including getting smashed in the face with a glass bottle.
5. Many parties started fighting, and she ended up on the ground bleeding. Her attacker was dead.
6. The police arrived and Only arrested her.

She was detained, she wasn't allowed immediate medical treatment, and was forced to sign a confession. (Which she later recanted.) She has been placed in solitary "for her own protection" because she is trans.

Gack.

Yup.... [Sigh]. All too common. "Clearly," a transperson (rarely referred to that politely) is only out to cause trouble in everything they do.... Why else would they dress like that....

Sometimes, people who know me say things like, "you shouldn't have to put up with that," or "you should just come out. It'd be easier and you wouldn't have to lie all the time." Idealism, is not realism. If you're a transsexual and ever arrested, then you're basically screwed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Virex on March 04, 2012, 07:42:58 pm
Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on March 04, 2012, 06:58:56 pm
A petition to drop charges against a trans woman accused of murder. (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/3/drop-charges-against-trans-woman-charged-with-murder-for-self-defense/) She and all witnesses have reported this sequence of events:

1. Cece walks past a bar with her friends.
2. Some people come out of the bar and start insulting her.
3. She confronts them, saying that she won't tolerate hate speech.
4. She was attacked, including getting smashed in the face with a glass bottle.
5. Many parties started fighting, and she ended up on the ground bleeding. Her attacker was dead.
6. The police arrived and Only arrested her.

She was detained, she wasn't allowed immediate medical treatment, and was forced to sign a confession. (Which she later recanted.) She has been placed in solitary "for her own protection" because she is trans.

Gack.
If you ask me, there should realy be a law that says that in cases like these (bigotery-inspired viollence), self-defense is presumed unless strong evidence can be given otherwise.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 04, 2012, 07:45:44 pm
Just out of interest, is there a common term for a transgender person that is thought of as being polite?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 04, 2012, 07:46:48 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/13/fox-news-liz-trotta-rape_n_1274018.html

"Fox News' Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' "

"Shawn argued that the programs are necessary to protect those victims. Trotta responded that the purpose of the military is "to defend and protect us, not the people who were fighting the war." "
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Flying Dice on March 04, 2012, 08:06:56 pm
Quote from: Reelya on March 04, 2012, 07:46:48 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/13/fox-news-liz-trotta-rape_n_1274018.html

"Fox News' Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' "

"Shawn argued that the programs are necessary to protect those victims. Trotta responded that the purpose of the military is "to defend and protect us, not the people who were fighting the war." "

I do not have sufficient capacity to express my rage.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 04, 2012, 08:16:04 pm
Should our troops have body armour?  Well, the purpose of the military is to defend and protect us, not the people who are fighting the war.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 04, 2012, 08:18:31 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on March 04, 2012, 08:16:04 pm
Should our troops have body armour?  Well, the purpose of the military is to defend and protect us, not the people who are fighting the war.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 04, 2012, 08:19:00 pm
It'd save money on material costs and wasteful R&D spending if they didn't. Who needs newage personal defense materials?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 04, 2012, 08:25:55 pm
We're building this whole bureaucracy on bureaucracy with all kinds of armour to protect soldiers in the military who are now being shot too much.  I mean, soldiers should expect to be shot.  They can't be warriors and victims at the same time.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: sluissa on March 04, 2012, 09:46:13 pm
Air Force got it right. We need more robots. Best kind of body armor is several thousand miles of air, ground and water.

Granted, there's plenty of controversy to go along with that, but if we keep going in this direction, perhaps we'll never have a human harming another human in a war scenario again... and then once people realize how stupid it all is, we'll just settle all disputes with board games. Wars will be fought with Miniatures, covert ops will be played out pen and paper RPG style and trade agreements will be negotiated out with Settlers of Catan.

"Yes, Mr. President. Iran has declined to trade their bricks to us."

"Very well, schedule a game of Spycraft with them for next Thursday, and get me a new set of Space Marines painted, just in case."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 04, 2012, 09:49:54 pm
I don't think it will ever come to board games, partly because nobody ever gets hurt. When you win a war, you finish standing with your gun to the other guys face, and he agrees to what ever you say. When you win a game, you are still on equal ground, and there is nothing forcing him to accept defeat.

The only thing that could ever make people be so civil is accepting that if they don't accept defeat in a game, it can and will elevate to real war, and potentially having a gun shoved in their face, but that would require foresight, and who the hell cares about something as dumb as that?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: sluissa on March 04, 2012, 10:00:55 pm
If I had to pick I reason why it would never work, I'd probably go with, "Because making real weapons is a lot more profitable than tiny plastic ones and board games." But you're right, unless we actually had a UN that didn't have the five biggest countries all with an iron grip on their ability to enforce anything. If we had a world government that could actually enforce that people play by the rules, then perhaps.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Glowcat on March 04, 2012, 10:04:29 pm
Quote from: Max White on March 04, 2012, 09:49:54 pm
I don't think it will ever come to board games, partly because nobody ever gets hurt. When you win a war, you finish standing with your gun to the other guys face, and he agrees to what ever you say. When you win a game, you are still on equal ground, and there is nothing forcing him to accept defeat.

The solution is an army of deathbot judges who will ensure the victorious party's demands are met.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 04, 2012, 10:08:39 pm
I can roll with that. Mostly because of the deathbots!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 04, 2012, 11:31:24 pm
Quote from: Virex on March 04, 2012, 07:42:58 pm
Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on March 04, 2012, 06:58:56 pm
A petition to drop charges against a trans woman accused of murder. (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/3/drop-charges-against-trans-woman-charged-with-murder-for-self-defense/) She and all witnesses have reported this sequence of events:

1. Cece walks past a bar with her friends.
2. Some people come out of the bar and start insulting her.
3. She confronts them, saying that she won't tolerate hate speech.
4. She was attacked, including getting smashed in the face with a glass bottle.
5. Many parties started fighting, and she ended up on the ground bleeding. Her attacker was dead.
6. The police arrived and Only arrested her.

She was detained, she wasn't allowed immediate medical treatment, and was forced to sign a confession. (Which she later recanted.) She has been placed in solitary "for her own protection" because she is trans.

Gack.
If you ask me, there should realy be a law that says that in cases like these (bigotery-inspired viollence), self-defense is presumed unless strong evidence can be given otherwise.

I'd settle for some evidence proving she did anything other than be trans.

Quote from: Max White on March 04, 2012, 07:45:44 pm
Just out of interest, is there a common term for a transgender person that is thought of as being polite?

Not in my experience, not really. "Trans," works as does transgender I guess. You'd be surprised how often I hear people talk about it in unprintable ways right in front of me, because they haven't a clue.... Also, if I never hear another personal call a transgender person a "trap" again, it'll be too soon. The internet seems to love Admiral Akbar for his phrase, "It's a trap!" paired with a picture of a transsexual... [sigh].

Ah, star wars and discrimination.  You can accept a six foot walking carpet who yodel howls instead of talking (http://robotchicken.wikia.com/wiki/Chewie%27s_Family) but not this? Meh.

Quote from: Glowcat on March 04, 2012, 10:04:29 pm
Quote from: Max White on March 04, 2012, 09:49:54 pm
I don't think it will ever come to board games, partly because nobody ever gets hurt. When you win a war, you finish standing with your gun to the other guys face, and he agrees to what ever you say. When you win a game, you are still on equal ground, and there is nothing forcing him to accept defeat.

The solution is an army of deathbot judges who will ensure the victorious party's demands are met.

Long as their are no deathbot lawyers I have no objections.

________________________________________

In other news, maybe he'll finally shut up now that he's getting hit in the wallet: http://news.yahoo.com/7th-advertiser-pulls-limbaughs-show-194641280.html
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 05, 2012, 12:00:44 am
I'm not even sure if it helps any True, but most of the times I've seen "trap" used it's for a very specific fetish that doesn't have anything at all to do with transgendered individuals (though definitely has to do with crossdressers, quite often). Usually the kick seems to be from them being male, self identifying as male, but looking (and sometimes acting, to varying degrees) very much not. And then being buggered with varying degrees of consensuality (Which doesn't seem to be a word. Dibs!) but that's not particularly my kink so the details escape meee. Then again, I mostly run into it in relation to illustrated stuff, so it's probably got a slightly different taste to it in those circles.

The ackbar thing definitely went memetic, though, yeah.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Lysabild on March 05, 2012, 12:16:50 am
Frumple got it right.

Personally I love the meme, but people do tend to mix up the various terms for everything inbetween men and women.

Between Futa, Trap, Transvestite, Transexual, Shemale, Kathoey, Ladyboy, Dickgirl, Transgender and Crossdresser there is a lot of room for confusion, especially for those(See: Most of the internet.) who just want to sit and fap infront of the screen every other night.

But calling a Trans anything a Trap is wrong, a Trap is a guy that is a guy that you think is a girl on first glance, hence the trap.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 05, 2012, 12:40:13 am
The law of unintended consequences has once again come into effect....

Meh, I dunno. I'd just like to be like every other girl. [shrugs]. I've met a lot who do.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 05, 2012, 12:53:34 am
Quote from: Lysabild on March 05, 2012, 12:16:50 am
~Snip
I'm pretty sure that applying a few of those to anybody would be offensives...


Anyway, short of knowing what people prefer to be called, I have just tried to refer to people who view themselves as a girl as girls, and those who view themselves as boys as boys. Guess I may have been onto something... Your a girl from my perspective Truean.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 05, 2012, 12:57:18 am
While different people have different feelings on what they feel they should be addressed as, it is generally bad to address people by subgroups, as it's inherently based in othering, even if unintentional.  Someone who has transitioned from male to female is a female, and someone who has transitioned from female to male is a male.  That's my feeling, at least.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 05, 2012, 12:57:51 am
Quote from: Max White on March 05, 2012, 12:53:34 am

~Snip
Your a girl from my perspective Truean.

[appreciative hug] :)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Realmfighter on March 05, 2012, 01:03:39 am
I always go with the quote I got a while back from a story I read.

"If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and is trying damn hard to look like a duck then if you call it a duck it'll love you forever."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 05, 2012, 01:04:17 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a5fad4H050
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Lysabild on March 05, 2012, 01:09:27 am
Please don't misunderstand what I was saying, I was commenting on a definition in use on the internet and touching a subject that is a big flame subject on many hentai places on the net.

I have the exact same opinion as Max is expressing when it comes to this.

Quote from: Max White on March 05, 2012, 12:53:34 am
Quote from: Lysabild on March 05, 2012, 12:16:50 am
~Snip
I'm pretty sure that applying a few of those to anybody would be offensives...
I pretty much agree, but they're used on the internet, hence they belonged in my arguement.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 05, 2012, 01:11:33 am
Ah, I see... I do my best to avoid mass meme culture, not exactly my cup of tea, you know. Seems a lot like somebody thought of something funny, then it got spread and over used to the point of being annoying, and at that point it becomes a meme.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Lord Dullard on March 05, 2012, 07:57:02 am
I worked in a coffee shop with a gay owner and probably 98% gay customers for about 2 years. Of course I was the token straight guy, but it was usually a blast. Met some really cool trans people while working there as well. That job (plus the side-effect of ending up with a lot of friends in the LGBT community) definitely helped to shatter some of my preconceptions about LGBT people in general.

As for internet memes, they definitely get annoying after a while. I think they're sort of comforting, though, in that they provide a common point of reference for almost everyone. It may be lame humor, but at least there's a 99% shot that the other person will 'get it', which is probably why they've become such a popular phenomenon.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 05, 2012, 01:22:06 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-obamas-transgender-ex-nanny-outcast-070907242.html

And I've heard similar things in the US, minus the military dictatorship, plus police beatings.
Don't read the user comments unless you're looking for intolerance to prove my point.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 05, 2012, 01:27:22 pm
Apparently here in the UK many Teens dont understand what constitues rape and assault. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/17230648)Some of this article makes troublesome reading regarding the casual attitudes some young people have to sexual violence.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Levi on March 05, 2012, 02:16:10 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 05, 2012, 01:22:06 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-obamas-transgender-ex-nanny-outcast-070907242.html

And I've heard similar things in the US, minus the military dictatorship, plus police beatings.
Don't read the user comments unless you're looking for intolerance to prove my point.

I'll never understand why people waste so much time getting so angry about how others live their lives.  It boggles the mind.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 05, 2012, 04:37:47 pm
Quote from: Levi on March 05, 2012, 02:16:10 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 05, 2012, 01:22:06 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-obamas-transgender-ex-nanny-outcast-070907242.html

And I've heard similar things in the US, minus the military dictatorship, plus police beatings.
Don't read the user comments unless you're looking for intolerance to prove my point.

I'll never understand why people waste so much time getting so angry about how others live their lives.  It boggles the mind.

Same.
____________________

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/03/sen-john-mccain-calls-on-us-to-lead-effort-for-air-strikes-on-syria/1#.T1UwAIE9VJE

I'm sorry, what? Let's say he's correct about all the facts:there is a major problem in Syria that needs dealing with militarily etc.... Why exactly do we have to lead the whole airstrike thing? What exactly happened to the UN, which doesn't appear to be doing a whole lot, despite there being numerous humanitarian disasters in the world? Haven't we come close enough to bankrupting ourselves with the whole "world police" thing, yet? I'm just so sick of a never ending state of undeclared war against whatever idea is the political hot topic this week. Used to be we fought wars against countries; those could end. Now we seem to fight wars against ideas, drugs, terrorism, whatever, and those can never end.

We just seem to always have money for the next war undeclared war conflict operation, "effort" but nothing else.... No problems coming up with cash for that.... Domestic issues, too expensive....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 05, 2012, 05:00:09 pm
"Time is running out,"  [...] "The Arizona Republican said the Syrian government's crackdown on its political opposition has resulted in war crimes and that its neighbors in the region will intervene militarily, with or without the U.S."

That's the crux of the matter right there. If things happen "without the U.S." then U.S. loses the whole "the world will fall apart without U.S. intervention" meme, which justifies neo-imperialism, plus the chance to force in a group of pro-U.S leaders into an interim government of an oil-producing nation (think: exclusive oil drilling contracts for Texas companies like in the Kurdish part of Iraq). "Time is running out" to enforce U.S. military as the final arbiter. If the region solves this, time will have run out.

Same reason they prop up warmongering Colombia in South America (manufactured crises etc, bombing their neighboring countries then acting all hurt that other countries don't trust them).

Bankrupting the government, yes, but this is about private interests. You need to see it from their perspective. It'll never make sense from a "police the world" sense because that's only a pretext.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 05, 2012, 05:16:06 pm
I agree with most of that actually.

Unfortunately they've screwed the the system over to the point that we're losing relevance. Now, for the first time in a long time, the most powerful country in the world will be one that can't trace itself back to Rome. Namely, China, which is quickly closing the gap between the US and themselves with newly constructed infrastructure and rapidly expanding industrial output while both of these rot in our lands....

History repeats itself. The British Empire fell.... Its Leaders (Royalty) became largely trivial, though much of the population still likes them. Now America's leaders, the elected politicians shall become as irrelevant as well. Just as elected government replaced the royalty, so to shall corporations replace the elected government. O, the elected government will live on, as a shadow of its former self and subservient to the corporation, just as the British Royalty is subservient to their government.

It's getting to the point where people question the government at every turn, don't like it, and demand it explain everything it does. A corporate policy however, is absolute and rarely questioned. By virtue of being "private" they can do whatever, including buying the government with "Campaign contributions."

We're already fracturing like Britain has between the Royalists and Non Royalists. We're the governmentists and the corporatists.... Elections and Primary Elections are media events much like a royal wedding.... The issues? What issues? News, especially political news, is now "entertainment."

I might be the first to compare the President of the United States and the rest of the Elected American Government to the present, declined state of the British Royalty and our governments replacement by corporate interests to the Royals being replaced by elected government. If I'm not then I haven't heard anyone else do it. [shrugs].

An elected government had voice to the government by right. Now it's voice for sale. You can't afford it....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 05, 2012, 05:25:29 pm
Yep, China may be half the current U.S. GDP but they doubled that in only 5 years. So looks likely that China's GDP will surpass USA very soon.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Levi on March 05, 2012, 06:01:46 pm
Lately I've been liking the idea of something like Demarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy) as an alternative to democracy and a solution to government corruption(which I think is rampant).  Demarchy is where the decision makers are essentially chosen at random from the country's population to serve some period of time instead of being elected. 

In theory it helps eliminate the possibility of corruption because the person's career is no longer tied to politics.  People might say that "You've got a chance of getting people who are incompetent in government with Demarchy.", but I'm not convinced that isn't the case now.  :)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 05, 2012, 06:21:30 pm
We do that for jury duty, and the Athenians also used that (one month on the senate for all randomly selected citizens i think).

If you assign most people to committees etc rather than individual responsibility then you also mitigate the damage a single poor choice makes.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Virex on March 05, 2012, 06:35:24 pm
Quote from: Reelya on March 05, 2012, 05:25:29 pm
Yep, China may be half the current U.S. GDP but they doubled that in only 5 years. So looks likely that China's GDP will surpass USA very soon.
Total GDP, possibly. But per capita is unlikely. Most of the gains made by China are due to infrastructure improvements. They're very much still developing. To catch up with the US in per-capita income, they'd still need to pass the part where a large part of the work force receives higher education and the part where the social and economical styructures are (
somewhat) sanitized. Sure, the US could gain some on the later points, but not nearly as much as China still has to catch up.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 05, 2012, 06:38:57 pm
I agree on per-capita, but that's never been the source of power. Total economic capacity is power, not per capita wealth.

In fact, i'd make the argument that western wealth (or concentration thereof) is built on out-sourcing low-paying jobs to poor countries. Those become a de facto part of your economy, so the higher per-capita wealth of the west is partially illusionary since those economic structures couldn't exist without those sweatshops in third world partner countries.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 05, 2012, 06:44:58 pm
So what you are saying is that everything we buy was produced by cheap over seas labour?

Remind me, was blatant, over the top sarcasm allowed in this thread?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: sluissa on March 05, 2012, 08:59:20 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 05, 2012, 04:37:47 pm
What exactly happened to the UN, which doesn't appear to be doing a whole lot, despite there being numerous humanitarian disasters in the world?

It's hard to get the UN to do anything useful when a veto is pulled out of someone's pocket at the thought of even something as simple as a written condemnation of Israel's actions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power). Although, in this case, it's actually Russia/China being the bad guys. Everyone has their fingers in the middle east at this point.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 05, 2012, 10:36:17 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/us/politics/holder-explains-threat-that-would-call-for-killing-without-trial.html

I love living in a police state.... How is this not in violation of the 14th amendment? So judge, jury, and executioner....

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/04/7th-advertiser-pulls-out-limbaughs-show/?test=latestnews

Let's take the rest of 'em out of the equation.... Also the link says "7th," but it's really, "9th."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: trees on March 05, 2012, 11:32:33 pm
I'm... not sure why it took me this long to find the progressive thread's reboot. Hm.

Quote from: Truean on March 05, 2012, 01:22:06 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-obamas-transgender-ex-nanny-outcast-070907242.html
Quote
Worldwide, at least one person is killed every other day, according to the Trans Murder Monitoring Project, which collects homicide reports.

I sure feel safe, now. Ugh.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on March 05, 2012, 11:39:08 pm
Are you trans, trees?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: trees on March 05, 2012, 11:45:46 pm
Yeah.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on March 05, 2012, 11:46:37 pm
/me hugs trees.

/me is a tree-hugger, now.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Pnx on March 05, 2012, 11:57:37 pm
That makes what... four, five? We attract a lot of outliers.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 05, 2012, 11:59:46 pm
Seriously, this forum's demographics are definitely not at all in line with the larger population. Or even the internet population, for that matter.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Levi on March 06, 2012, 12:02:09 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 05, 2012, 11:59:46 pm
Seriously, this forum's demographics are definitely not at all in line with the larger population. Or even the internet population, for that matter.

Or it is in line, and the larger population is awfully discreet.   :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 06, 2012, 12:06:29 am
I dunno, ~10 in 54,000 seems basically in line with 'real world' statistics.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Pnx on March 06, 2012, 12:14:39 am
Quote from: Capntastic on March 06, 2012, 12:06:29 am
I dunno, ~10 in 54,000 seems basically in line with 'real world' statistics.
We do not have 54,000 active members, most of those people have not even posted a single post, and are probably spambots. The pool of people I'm talking about is maybe about 200 people.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 06, 2012, 12:22:03 am
Quote from: Pnx on March 06, 2012, 12:14:39 am
Quote from: Capntastic on March 06, 2012, 12:06:29 am
I dunno, ~10 in 54,000 seems basically in line with 'real world' statistics.
We do not have 54,000 active members, most of those people have not even posted a single post, and are probably spambots. The pool of people I'm talking about is maybe about 200 people.

O I maintain the instance of transgendered individuals is vastly under reported, due in large part to the social stigma of it. I went to a group therapy setting for trans individuals once. I was amazed by not just the number of people there (upwards of 100 in a GLBT center) but also that many people there, including myself, were presenting as their birth sex rather than targeted. In English, I showed up dressed as a male, as did dozens of others. There's a real, tangible, justifiable fear.

The first rule of the place was that nothing that happened there could ever be spoken of outside, because it would ruin the people attending if it got out that they were trans....

How common is it? No idea. You learn to keep your head down real quick in our situation.

As for why we come here, I've only been harassed a couple times for being GLBT here. It's a lot nicer than most of the internet.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Pnx on March 06, 2012, 12:52:40 am
I'm aware this is the understatement of the year but, people are jerks.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on March 06, 2012, 01:02:17 am
Gotta say, I wonder if the White House will eventually comment on that story.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on March 06, 2012, 01:16:33 am
Truean's been harassed!?

Who is it, lemme at 'em! No one messes with my favourite Lawyer Woman! D: (Can outrun speeding legalese bullshit! Able to leap insane clients in a single bound! Strength of Dike and Fortitude of Justitia, and defender of all Ohioans everywhere!)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 06, 2012, 02:10:28 am
Alright you guys, I think we might have to start worrying about Wyoming.....

They established this   task force (http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2012/Introduced/HB0085.pdf) to look into things in case the Federal US government failed.  I shit you not, they are looking into buying an aircraft carrier... (http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2012/amends/HB0085HW001.htm).

Let's be perfectly clear here, this is Wyoming:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Wyoming_Relief_1.jpg)

Not exactly a whole lot of water. They're landlocked really.... The largest lake appears to be Yellowstone Lake....

This thing is the brainchild of this dude: http://legisweb.state.wy.us/LegislatorSummary/LegDetail.aspx?LegID=882
 He has voted the bill forward. (http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2012/Digest/HB0085.htm)

I dunno if Wyoming is going to succeed from the Union or not, and it's kind of an unhealthy thing to obcess over. Not to worry Rep. Lorraine Quarberg is here to tell you what's healthy and what ain't:
"I don’t think there’s anyone in this room today what [sic] would come up here and say that this country is in good shape, that the world is stable and in good shape — because that is clearly not the case," state Rep. Lorraine Quarberg, R-Thermopolis, said. "To put your head in the sand and think that nothing bad’s going to happen, and that we have no obligation to the citizens of the state of Wyoming to at least have the discussion, is not healthy."

Granted, we aren't in especially good shape right now, and something bad is going to happen, sooner or later. Maybe in November. But Wyoming's concerns still seem a little apocalyptic. The task force is to study the potential impacts of a variety of potential federal disruptions, including (but not limited to) a rapid decline of the dollar, a disruption in food or energy distribution, an unspecified "constitutional crisis," or, even more ominously, the "potential effects of a situation in which the federal government has no effective power or authority over the people of the United States."

Hm. Not sure what they're getting at there. If the federal government had no power (and so presumably little if any authority), that'd mean things were pretty damn bad. If it had no authority, but did have power, there'd be those what would say that calls for secession.Is Wyoming planning to secede? If so, it'd probably need some armed forces, like a freaking aircraft carrier in a landlocked state...? ??? That amendment I told you about (which was adopted) was requiring the task force also to look into the "conditions under which the state of Wyoming should implement a draft, raise a standing army, marine corps, navy and air force and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier."

Surely, I thought, this means that at least somebody has a sense of humor about this project. Even if Wyoming were going to be independent, either by choice or because the other 49 states just quit inviting it to things, it's not very likely to need an aircraft carrier. Is the whole project (or at least the amendment) just intended to call attention to Wyoming's displeasure with the federal government? Or does Wyoming really need a navy with strike capability? And is that even possible? [see map above].


This is either one of the funnier things I've seen and a hilarious joke or there's some batshit crazy floating around the legislature in Wyoming.

Edit: I'm sorry I didn't see you there Descan, but I mean Wyoming might buy a freaking aircraft carrier. :P

[hug]
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 06, 2012, 02:16:03 am
There are 500,000 people in Wyoming! More people live in my county than in their entire state!

....Man, the blocky western states are just too weird.  Their politicians are also kind of off the rails like this because they have to convince so few people to vote for them.

Aircraft carrier. Please. Like Wyoming could ever survive out of being in the Union.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 06, 2012, 02:17:35 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 06, 2012, 02:16:03 am
There are 500,000 people in Wyoming! More people live in my county than in their entire state!

....Man, the blocky western states are just too weird.  Their politicians are also kind of off the rails like this because they have to convince so few people to vote for them.

Aircraft carrier. Please. Like Wyoming could ever survive out of being in the Union.

It's landlocked, by the Union. Even if it "left" the union; it'd still be smack dab in the middle of it. We've got 'em surrounded! :P

Also how the hell would you even GET an freaking carrier there? What? Over the Rockies from the Pacific?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 06, 2012, 02:20:08 am
Quote from: Truean on March 06, 2012, 02:17:35 am
Over the Rockies from the Pacific?
We're gonna need a bigger helicopter.

Or more like a fleet of bigger helicopters.

And a auto-fly network so that they can all coordinate.

And....a lot of things.



No wonder we're in such debt, maybe the Midwest needs to go back to being territories for a while.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 06, 2012, 02:21:26 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 06, 2012, 02:20:08 am
Quote from: Truean on March 06, 2012, 02:17:35 am
Over the Rockies from the Pacific?
We're gonna need a bigger helicopter.

Or more like a fleet of bigger helicopters.

And a auto-fly network so that they can all coordinate.

And....a lot of things.



No wonder we're in such debt, maybe the Midwest needs to go back to being territories for a while.

A.) These are self proclaimed "fiscal conservatives." Republicans....
B.) Wyoming's in the West. :P

Among those things they'd need: sanity.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 06, 2012, 02:22:31 am
I don't think they would keep on at home. More likely they would rent out space at a dock somewhere, thus costing even more...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 06, 2012, 02:23:02 am
Wyoming being in the West or Midwest depends upon whom you ask, and I say it's in the Midwest. For me, the West is California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Nevada.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 06, 2012, 02:29:10 am
I'm pretty sure Wyoming also has a law against hunting whales in it's waters. So yeah...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 06, 2012, 02:30:12 am
You are all east as far as I can tell... The far east is coincidently, north.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 06, 2012, 02:37:32 am
Quote from: Truean on March 06, 2012, 02:21:26 am
Among those things they'd need: sanity.
Did you even read the project they outlined? Let me tell you, sanity will not help make any progress with that. If anything, sane statements like, "But Wyoming is completely landlocked!" or "Who, exactly, are we going to be launching aircraft at from Yellowstone Lake?" are a hindrance to the whole scheme. A scheme, might I add, that will inevitably result in the best possible place to build a chief of state's residence: the beached ruins of an aircraft carrier in a dried-up lakebed. Just think of the aesthetics.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 06, 2012, 02:55:28 am
Quote from: Bauglir on March 06, 2012, 02:37:32 am
Quote from: Truean on March 06, 2012, 02:21:26 am
Among those things they'd need: sanity.
Did you even read the project they outlined? Let me tell you, sanity will not help make any progress with that. If anything, sane statements like, "But Wyoming is completely landlocked!" or "Who, exactly, are we going to be launching aircraft at from Yellowstone Lake?" are a hindrance to the whole scheme. A scheme, might I add, that will inevitably result in the best possible place to build a chief of state's residence: the beached ruins of an aircraft carrier in a dried-up lakebed. Just think of the aesthetics.

 The legal research behind Wyoming buying an aircraft carrier...? (http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451bd4469e2016301881b01970d-800wi)

Alright, seriously though, I just had to look further into this thing and thankfully it appears Wyoming will not be buying an aircraft carrier or looking into other defense plans for now by a margin of just 3 votes....

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It appears that, on reflection, the Wyoming House of Representatives has decided the risk of invasion by its neighbors is remote enough that it can do without its own armed forces for now, and in particular does not need to consider whether an aircraft carrier might come in handy. http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2012/Digest/HB0085.htm

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Sadly, that is indeed the case. Turns out this bill had a very short lifespan, having been introduced just a couple of weeks ago. It did pass an initial vote (43-17), although that may be pretty common. But trouble appeared on the 24th, when the amount appropriated was cut in half. The armed-forces amendment was adopted Feb. 27th, but appears to have been deleted by a later amendment, either later in the day or the 28th.... Even without the aircraft-carrier language, though, the bill itself failed on the 28th on the third reading, though only by three votes (27-30), with three abstaining (or "excused") from the vote.

Rep. Brown was not a sponsor of the bill, although he does seem to have voted for it on the first reading; he later offered the aircraft-carrier amendment, and then voted against the whole thing on the 28th in the third reading (final). So, although he hasn't confirmed it yet, it does look like he may be one of those relatively rare legislators with both a sense of humor and the will to express it in a piece of legislation (which he knew would be deleted). It's nice to be able to get humor out of a legislature this way for once.

Though I'm eternally jaded and skeptical, I'll give Rep. Brown the benefit of the doubt this time.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 06, 2012, 03:00:13 am
Sweet Siddhartha, these people have absolutely no idea what they're doing, do they?  As much as I find appeal in the audacity of trying to wing it for your entire career, this may be an exception. 
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 06, 2012, 03:20:40 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 06, 2012, 03:00:13 am
Sweet Siddhartha, these people have absolutely no idea what they're doing, do they?  As much as I find appeal in the audacity of trying to wing it for your entire career, this may be an exception.

I'm gonna go with, "no, they don't." Even assuming Representative Brown adding in that part about the aircraft carrier for a landlocked state was a joke (maybe it was, maybe he was serious and nuts), 27 out of 60 still voted for the bill.... Only 30 out of 60 voted against it.... I'm just gonna let people here fill in the blanks.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on March 06, 2012, 09:20:42 am
We've been sitting here for a while discussing the relative sanity of a doubly landlocked state buying or not buying itself an aircraft carrier. Let me fix that with a new show I've found, starring Victoria Jackson, by the name of Politichicks, in which four unbelievably bigoted women have a pow-wow about gay Muslims. You can find Episode 1 here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcCvvJWyx4c).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on March 06, 2012, 09:36:49 am
Urge to write sexist comments... RISING

Honestly though, I didn't finish watching it, but damn that was embarrassing. For their sake. Or well, for the one with the song's sake. Man, you could even feel the awkwardness of the others through the medium. Especially the black chick, she seemed all "I thought we came here for discussion, not tea party shit talking; what the hell is that woman doing?"
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 06, 2012, 09:39:42 am
Wow. The Wyoming thing is just....let me put it this way. When you live in a state where mountain goats outnumber the humans, and the average population density is around that of Mongolia....shit gets a little stir-crazy.


So...haven't seen it talked about, but boy is the Schadenfreude flowing watching Rush Limbaugh talk himself into the ground over the Sarah Fluke thing. I say kudos to Fluke for bascially saying "Fuck your apology," and to the sponsors for pulling their ads even after his "apology". Between that and Breitbart taking a dirt nap (yeah I said it), it's been a good week or so for progressives.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 06, 2012, 11:30:16 am
Giving people like Limbaugh enough rope to hang themselves works pretty well.

Team Wyoming: World Police would be hilarious, if it wasnt actually someones actual real batshit crazy idea. Nobody tell Scotland, they have enough grand plans of thier own.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: sluissa on March 06, 2012, 12:20:50 pm
Quote from: dhokarena56 on March 06, 2012, 09:20:42 am
We've been sitting here for a while discussing the relative sanity of a doubly landlocked state buying or not buying itself an aircraft carrier. Let me fix that with a new show I've found, starring Victoria Jackson, by the name of Politichicks, in which four unbelievably bigoted women have a pow-wow about gay Muslims. You can find Episode 1 here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcCvvJWyx4c).

Until I looked at the video, I seriously read that as Politic Hicks rather than Politi-Chicks. This honestly almost borders of parody... but it's not funny...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 06, 2012, 01:34:16 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 06, 2012, 02:29:10 am
I'm pretty sure Wyoming also has a law against hunting whales in it's waters. So yeah...

Do you see any Whales in Wyoming? Oh that's right, the pond-hunters killed them all :|

Also, you'd be surprised the loopholes people would abuse if these laws didn't exist :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Flying Dice on March 06, 2012, 01:38:27 pm
Quote from: sluissa on March 06, 2012, 12:20:50 pm
Quote from: dhokarena56 on March 06, 2012, 09:20:42 am
We've been sitting here for a while discussing the relative sanity of a doubly landlocked state buying or not buying itself an aircraft carrier. Let me fix that with a new show I've found, starring Victoria Jackson, by the name of Politichicks, in which four unbelievably bigoted women have a pow-wow about gay Muslims. You can find Episode 1 here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcCvvJWyx4c).

Until I looked at the video, I seriously read that as Politic Hicks rather than Politi-Chicks. This honestly almost borders of parody... but it's not funny...
The same could be said of quite a few things in the U.S. at the moment, and that scares me. I've said it before: it feels as if we're living in a Tom Tomorrowesque bizarro world when current events read like a comedian's list of jokes.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on March 06, 2012, 01:59:12 pm
Every night, the writers of Steven Colbert go to bed a little bit happier, as current politics make their job a little bit easier.

Though of course, they're worried that they'll be out of a job if this goes on any longer. All Steve will have to do in a few years months is just read off current events and headlines. :/
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 06, 2012, 02:18:40 pm
He had a good one the other night when he mentioned that the Sarah Fluke testimony "irritated radio talk-show host and poster boy for contraception, Rush Limbaugh". Wordplay FTW.  :P

I'm hoping this turns into a "bridge too far" moment for Rush. He's already been dropped by 2 stations, a number of others are coming under concerted pressure to do so, and there are rumblings that the Armed Forces Network (the Pentagon's worldwide radio network) is coming under serious pressure from female vets and active duty soldiers to drop him. If he loses AFN, that's a BIG blow to his credibility (and bottom line).

For their part, I think there are more than a few people in the GOP establishment who would love to see Rush go down in flames, so they wouldn't have to worry about his rabble-rousing against them every time they have to cut a compromise deal. Boehner came out today criticizing Limbaugh, and why not? He's already lost every shred of credibility with the Tea Party types, so why not jump on the chance to take down one of their demagogues?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 06, 2012, 03:37:20 pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinunderhill/2012/03/05/attorney-general-explains-why-its-okay-to-kill-u-s-citizens-without-a-trial/

Attorney General Eric Holder scares the living shit out of me. This article explains exactly why. Seriously, we're a police state now. If some undisclosed official uses undisclosed evidence saying he thinks you're a national security threat of some undisclosed type, then you are and a fucking bomb can be dropped on you. I can't believe that's right. I keep reading that sentence over and over again thinking it can't be true, but somehow it appears to be. So, we can with complete lack of any accountability or even review after the fact kill pretty much anyone at any time?

It just blows my mind, you can't have a trial even after the fact or before in the absence of the accused? A court hearing? Something? Anything? We're basically giving the unchecked power of being judge jury and executioner to ... who exactly? It's not even the President. It's some bureaucrat with no name or accountability to anyone...?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Pnx on March 06, 2012, 03:56:50 pm
Quote from: RedKing on March 06, 2012, 02:18:40 pm
He had a good one the other night when he mentioned that the Sarah Fluke testimony "irritated radio talk-show host and poster boy for contraception, Rush Limbaugh". Wordplay FTW.  :P
Zing! Burn!

Quote from: Truean on March 06, 2012, 03:37:20 pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinunderhill/2012/03/05/attorney-general-explains-why-its-okay-to-kill-u-s-citizens-without-a-trial/

Attorney General Eric Holder scares the living shit out of me. This article explains exactly why. Seriously, we're a police state now. If some undisclosed official uses undisclosed evidence saying he thinks you're a national security threat of some undisclosed type, then you are and a fucking bomb can be dropped on you. I can't believe that's right. I keep reading that sentence over and over again thinking it can't be true, but somehow it appears to be. So, we can with complete lack of any accountability or even review after the fact kill pretty much anyone at any time?

It just blows my mind, you can't have a trial even after the fact or before in the absence of the accused? A court hearing? Something? Anything? We're basically giving the unchecked power of being judge jury and executioner to ... who exactly? It's not even the President. It's some bureaucrat with no name or accountability to anyone...?
I know this only works for people outside the country, but I can't help but think of all the political enemies of other countries that are living in exile right now.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Virex on March 06, 2012, 04:03:43 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 06, 2012, 03:37:20 pm
It just blows my mind
Use of that figure of speech is becoming ever more dangerous.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 06, 2012, 05:43:22 pm
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/rush-limbaugh-controversy-12-companies-counting-pull-ads-164335691.html?l=1

24 companies pulling adds and counting. http://signon.org/sign/clear-channel-discontinue.fb1?source=s.fb&r_by=2923927

Might not kill the show, but let's hurt him a bit. It'll be a hell of a thing for him to ask ClearChannel for more money when his contract comes up for renewal next time....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 06, 2012, 06:09:32 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 06, 2012, 03:37:20 pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinunderhill/2012/03/05/attorney-general-explains-why-its-okay-to-kill-u-s-citizens-without-a-trial/
So wait, this is a thing that is accurate?
What the fuck USA? No seriously, what the possible fuck could ever justify such blatant lunacy?

EDIT:
Quote from: Truean on March 06, 2012, 05:43:22 pm
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/rush-limbaugh-controversy-12-companies-counting-pull-ads-164335691.html?l=1
Quote
"I always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program," he said Monday. "Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate, they were uncalled for, they distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Miss Fluke for using those two words to describe her."

Isn't that a bit like saying "I'm very sorry for saying that all niggers should be rounded up and killed, and use of that word has clearly distracted from my true message, I should have used the correct term 'African Americans'"
It isn't even the specific words that were offensive, it was the way you used them, mate.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 06, 2012, 06:16:46 pm
9/11 ARE COUNTRY IS UNDER ATTACKED BY TERRISTS, of course. Why that mentality is still around, I'll never know.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 06, 2012, 06:28:59 pm
Quote from: Max White on March 06, 2012, 06:09:32 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 06, 2012, 03:37:20 pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinunderhill/2012/03/05/attorney-general-explains-why-its-okay-to-kill-u-s-citizens-without-a-trial/
So wait, this is a thing that is accurate?
What the fuck USA? No seriously, what the possible fuck could ever justify such blatant lunacy?

Dick Cheney's decades of effort to subvert the concept of justice among other reasons.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 06, 2012, 06:48:33 pm
Quote from: Max White on March 06, 2012, 06:09:32 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 06, 2012, 03:37:20 pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinunderhill/2012/03/05/attorney-general-explains-why-its-okay-to-kill-u-s-citizens-without-a-trial/
So wait, this is a thing that is accurate?
What the fuck USA? No seriously, what the possible fuck could ever justify such blatant lunacy?

EDIT:
Quote from: Truean on March 06, 2012, 05:43:22 pm
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/rush-limbaugh-controversy-12-companies-counting-pull-ads-164335691.html?l=1
Quote
"I always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program," he said Monday. "Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate, they were uncalled for, they distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Miss Fluke for using those two words to describe her."

Isn't that a bit like saying "I'm very sorry for saying that all niggers should be rounded up and killed, and use of that word has clearly distracted from my true message, I should have used the correct term 'African Americans'"
It isn't even the specific words that were offensive, it was the way you used them, mate.

Yes and yes. His "apologies" have been backpedaled by saying he still thinks what he thinks, but regretted using those two words.

The irony is that all of the "national security" programs detract from national security. Basically it's "Let's panic without knowing what the fuck we're doing." We've faced threats like before, yes.... like... this. It isn't new, but history seems to be a boring subject?
_______________________________________________
http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/wisconsin-bill-claims-single-moms-cause-child-abuse-011200419.html

"The bill would ... underscore 'the role of fathers in the primary prevention of child abuse and neglect.'" ... I'm sorry, they do realize fathers sometimes abuse, right? In that instance, divorce is often preferred....

"In "How The United States and The State of Wisconsin Are Working to Encourage Single Motherhood and Discouraging Children in 2-Parent Families," he wrote that the government urges women not to get married by making programs like low-income housing assistance, school choice, WIC, tax credits, and food stamps more attractive than marriage. "

His solution? Restrict the types of foods that can be purchased with food stamps, make Section 8 housing more cramped and limit the value of assets owned living there to $2,000, and eliminate school choice, among other things. "It is inexcusable that a single mother making $15,000 gets her kid out of the Milwaukee Public Schools but a married couple earning $50,000 is stuck in the public schools," he wrote. "It is also somewhat outrageous that some married couples feel they can only afford one or two children in part because they are paying excessive taxes to provide programs for someone else to have four or five children.

This guy has cause and effect all mixed up. Nobody looks at programs for the poor and says "YAAAY! I wanna be on that and be POOOOR!" :D :D  <--- More like we need to keep people from the gutter who otherwise would be in it.

???
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on March 06, 2012, 07:53:11 pm
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on March 06, 2012, 06:16:46 pm
9/11 ARE COUNTRY IS UNDER ATTACKED BY TERRISTS, of course. Why that mentality is still around, I'll never know.
I for one feel that the US massively over-reacted to 9/11. Yes is was a terrible thing but its the first time in decades that we where attacked on our soil and people just over-reacted. Its a bit like the anti-commie mentality that is still rather popular. The government is a bit too good at propaganda.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: alway on March 06, 2012, 10:59:29 pm
http://thedailywh.at/2012/03/06/abstinence-only-bill-of-the-day/
Quote
Abstinence-Only Bill of the Day: With the nation’s attention trained on the media’s breathless coverage of Super Tuesday, Utah’s legislature this evening quietly passed a bill requiring schools to teach abstinence-only sex education, or else skip the classes altogether.

Additionally, both teachers and students would be prohibited from discussing contraception and homosexuality in the classroom.
Quote
Senator Stuart Reid (R-Ogden) said the legislation takes sex ed out of the hands of teachers “who we have no idea what their morals are” and turns it over to parents.
ಠ_ಠ
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Solifuge on March 06, 2012, 11:02:05 pm
The LRA is abducting and forcing children to be murderers to "establish a Christian Theocracy" in Africa. Though even that idea is appalling, it's even worse when you realize that the "Christian Theocracy" bit is in fact just a bid to allow the LRA's leader Joseph Kony to maintain power and his comfortable lifestyle. To secure this, Kony has kidnapped, mutilated, tortured, and ordered the murders of many people... and we're not talking a few handfuls of villagers, but thousands of men, women, and children across Africa.

There's an international, citizen-organized effort to help get the leader of the LRA arrested for crimes against humanity, which is being as mobilized on the internet right now. The efforts are time-sensitive; a major awareness initiative is scheduled for April, which you can personally get involved with in your local area. The window to see that Kony is arrested is only open until the end of 2012, when the American advisory board helping the Ugandan army will withdraw from the area, taking with them the tools necessary to bring him to justice.

Here's a video link for more information (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc). I'll be doing my part this April, and later this year. I'd invite you guys to get involved in your areas as well.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on March 06, 2012, 11:19:04 pm
Quote from: sluissa on March 06, 2012, 12:20:50 pm
Quote from: dhokarena56 on March 06, 2012, 09:20:42 am
You can find Episode 1 here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcCvvJWyx4c).
Until I looked at the video, I seriously read that as Politic Hicks rather than Politi-Chicks. This honestly almost borders of parody... but it's not funny...
???
Quote from: sluissa on March 06, 2012, 12:20:50 pm
almost borders of parody
:o
Quote from: sluissa on March 06, 2012, 12:20:50 pm
almost ... parody
WHAT!? I got about 6 minutes in, flipping between the thread and the video, before I read this post. This ISN'T A PARODY? Sweet galloping galleons! These people are literally saying that all Islamic people are born to kill Christians, and then wondering how that could be possible. In the same line! I'm sorry, this has to be a parody. You can't... do... that's not logic!

Quote from: Truean on March 06, 2012, 06:48:33 pm
http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/wisconsin-bill-claims-single-moms-cause-child-abuse-011200419.html

This is blatantly unconstitutional even under a rational basis test.

"The bill would ... underscore 'the role of fathers in the primary prevention of child abuse and neglect.'" ... I'm sorry, they do realize fathers sometimes abuse, right? In that instance, divorce is often preferred....

"In "How The United States and The State of Wisconsin Are Working to Encourage Single Motherhood and Discouraging Children in 2-Parent Families," he wrote that the government urges women not to get married by making programs like low-income housing assistance, school choice, WIC, tax credits, and food stamps more attractive than marriage. "

His solution? Restrict the types of foods that can be purchased with food stamps, make Section 8 housing more cramped and limit the value of assets owned living there to $2,000, and eliminate school choice, among other things. "It is inexcusable that a single mother making $15,000 gets her kid out of the Milwaukee Public Schools but a married couple earning $50,000 is stuck in the public schools," he wrote. "It is also somewhat outrageous that some married couples feel they can only afford one or two children in part because they are paying excessive taxes to provide programs for someone else to have four or five children.

This guy has cause and effect all mixed up. Nobody looks at programs for the poor and says "YAAAY! I wanna be on that and be POOOOR!" :D :D  <--- More like we need to keep people from the gutter who otherwise would be in it.

???
Neither is this! What's going on!?

Quote from: alway on March 06, 2012, 10:59:29 pm
http://thedailywh.at/2012/03/06/abstinence-only-bill-of-the-day/
Quote
Abstinence-Only Bill of the Day: With the nation’s attention trained on the media’s breathless coverage of Super Tuesday, Utah’s legislature this evening quietly passed a bill requiring schools to teach abstinence-only sex education, or else skip the classes altogether.

Additionally, both teachers and students would be prohibited from discussing contraception and homosexuality in the classroom.
Quote
Senator Stuart Reid (R-Ogden) said the legislation takes sex ed out of the hands of teachers “who we have no idea what their morals are” and turns it over to parents.
ಠ_ಠ
Makes me glad I finally donated to the ACLU, though it was but a paltry sum. I'll be writing a letter to them very soon. My hope is that they will get all up in Utah's shit about that. I mean, Utah's as close to a theocracy as we have amongst the states, but it still has to follow the federal constitution!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 07, 2012, 12:02:36 am
Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on March 06, 2012, 11:19:04 pm
WHAT!? I got about 6 minutes in, flipping between the thread and the video, before I read this post. This ISN'T A PARODY? Sweet galloping galleons! These people are literally saying that all Islamic people are born to kill Christians, and then wondering how that could be possible. In the same line! I'm sorry, this has to be a parody. You can't... do... that's not logic!
You've never heard someone say that and be dead serious before? Lucky you :(

You can't really expect logical progression of thought from the axiom they're working from (The whole Islam-hates-everything, etc.), though. If they were actually right, and that belief correct, there would be absolutely no way short of nuclear attack (and even that likely wouldn't be sufficient!) to stop the Islamic people (Singular, collective? Ha!) from conquering the US. ~1/3rd of the world's population is Islamic. Around 1/23rd of the world's population is American. Those aren't good odds.

I'm always vaguely confused how the folks holding on to that thought process (Singular Islam, all hating the west, and especially America) stop themselves from breaking into despair. The scenario they're describing is utterly unwinnable, simply completely hopeless. If I were them, I'd be hoping and praying to whatever was listening I was incredibly wrong :-\

Quote
Quote from: Truean on March 06, 2012, 06:48:33 pm
[snip]
Neither is this! What's going on!?
Welcome to America, where apparently some large subset of our population hate the poor as well as women who aren't shackled to a man.

Incidentally... *checks* Wisconsin. Don't go there. It's on the list.

Quote from: alway on March 06, 2012, 10:59:29 pm
http://thedailywh.at/2012/03/06/abstinence-only-bill-of-the-day/
Quote
Abstinence-Only Bill of the Day: With the nation’s attention trained on the media’s breathless coverage of Super Tuesday, Utah’s legislature this evening quietly passed a bill requiring schools to teach abstinence-only sex education, or else skip the classes altogether.

Additionally, both teachers and students would be prohibited from discussing contraception and homosexuality in the classroom.
Ah, that's going to be fun. So, who else wants to lay bets that the teenage pregnancy rate in Utah goes up?

Out of curiosity, does anyone know of any areas in the states, at all, in which abstinence-only sex education actually reduced pregnancy rates, especially among teenagers?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 07, 2012, 12:26:54 am
Quote
Out of curiosity, does anyone know of any areas in the states, at all, in which abstinence-only sex education actually reduced pregnancy rates, especially among teenagers?
Off the top of my head...none. But since when have facts and statistics mattered to the ultra-religious right?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 07, 2012, 01:10:56 am
I spent like an hour discussing government with my libertarian father and republican uncle. It ended up with me saying the government can help people, and them saying all the problems people would need helped with are caused by the government.

I might go into detail more on this tomorrow, but I'm exhausted from skiing all day so I'm going to sleep.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 07, 2012, 01:16:46 am
Well government often acts as an arbiter in disputes, so they'd be saying there would never be an interpersonal dispute without government?

Also, contracts only exist within an enforcement framework, without which everything needs to be taken on faith. e.g. property ownership, totally based on having a government to arbitrate.

If they tell you business' will honor their contracts even without a government enforcing the rules, tell them they're even more utopian than the liberals.

And give them the example of drug gangs for total unregulated capitalism. If they counter that those are criminals, not businessmen, return fire with the argument that if we don't have a government to suppress the criminals then the line between crime and business will blur, and who will compete against guys who shoot their competition?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: G-Flex on March 07, 2012, 02:55:34 am
To be fair, even libertarians are okay with courts and legislation existing to take care of outright fraud and contractual matters.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Euld on March 07, 2012, 02:56:35 am
Rush Limbaugh loses forever. (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/14/obama_invades_uganda_targets_christians)   Seriously, this guy has issues, I swear.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 07, 2012, 03:06:15 am
Quote from: Euld on March 07, 2012, 02:56:35 am
Rush Limbaugh loses forever. (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/14/obama_invades_uganda_targets_christians)   Seriously, this guy has issues, I swear.
Is anyone really surprised? Really?
Yes, it's old news, but anyone shocked by these statements clearly hasn't seen enough of Limbaugh's work.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 07, 2012, 03:10:37 am
Don't talk about Rush Limbaugh, he's literally a troll.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 07, 2012, 03:18:44 am
So basically a one man Westboro Baptist Church... Great.  ::)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 07, 2012, 03:21:06 am
I'm pretty sure I've made that exact comparison before....
It's probably a common one.

ETA: Yep.
Quote from: Sirus on March 03, 2012, 01:55:21 am
Limbaugh is like a solitary WBC member: a troll with no real purpose. I wish someone would sue him, but he's got 1st Amendment rights too. My take on it is that just as Ms Fluke is allowed to go before Congress and testify, so is Mr Limbaugh allowed to criticize her for it. It's just that Limbaugh is far more mean-spirited.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 07, 2012, 03:22:18 am
Just gonna transcribe this from a Facebook discussion I just had, it's important and relevant to everyone's day to day life:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/media/view/?id=7360f2fb-7067-4b0e-bcd8-8a3f9afb70ac

Oh hey look a politician actually decided to admit that maybe letting banks dictate the prices of things people need to live might be pretty shitty.

I'll note that people only decided to address gas prices being 'high' (still far less than Europe pays), but there's literally no mentioning that speculators have driven the price of grain up so much that, even with surpluses, people across the globe have been priced out of the ability to not starve.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis

If you're not familiar with the GSCI, it's basically a stock market for Oil, Metals, Food and Agriculture (grains, cocoa, cotton, livestock) that the US government let Goldman Sachs have exclusive rights to speculate in.

Speculation works like this: You run a car dealership. I come in and say "I'd like to buy 50 thousand dollars worth of cars." I don't care what cars I buy, I'm not going to drive them. You have literally no reason not to sell me any old car, say, a used car normally worth 10 thousand dollars, for 50 thousand dollars, because I'm not being picky. But then, because I keep placing orders like this, with billions of dollars, soon anyone who wants that crummy 10 thousand dollar car is going to have to pay more than 50 thousand dollars for it.

It's more complicated than that, given that Goldman Sachs isn't even buying the oil so much as placing theoretical orders they never intend to cash in, so they claim the rights of being able to buy it, etc. There's a lot of banking magic involved, but the point is that when oil prices go up, they make huge money, (everyone else in America loses), and when oil prices bottom out (which is a carefully managed cooling process by Goldman Sachs, wherein they still make money off of trading fees) they still come out of it risk free.

It's not an issue of supply and demand, given oil supplies have stayed the same or gone up in the last decade, and demand has actually gone down. It's an issue of the government letting a wholly self-interested group come in and gamble on everyone's livelihood.

And normal people can't partake in this win/win scheme- again, only Goldman Sachs has the special status to do this.

It has very little to do with 'unrest in the Middle East'. So, in closing,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjN2AegiMAA

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 07, 2012, 03:32:34 am
Wow... Why did they make this a thing that is a thing that only one specific group can buy into?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 07, 2012, 03:44:18 am
Lemme clarify:  You, a person, can invest money in the S&P GSCI, essentially paying Goldman Sachs to speculate on your behalf, with their special status.  The thing is that their methodology isn't investment so much as buying long term agreements which they roll over indefinitely.  It's very, very complicated banker's magic.  Goldman Sachs convinced the US government that they needed to be involved in speculating on these things because, well, "THE FREE MARKET".

The thing is that speculation is an important part of any market, as it causes fluidity.  Jeff the Farmer and Shemp the Baker need to be able to schedule around each other's supply and demands, so they put in speculative orders to come to agreements ahead of time.  This is a good thing.   The problems only arise when Goldman Sachs the banker, who neither supplies nor demands, nor cares about grain or bread or people, comes in and starts interfering to try to make profit from the system.   It is literally parasitism, to the detriment of the rest of the people involved.



http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3396041&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1  Here's a more detailed look into it, without being too fancy.  It's by an SA buddy of mine, Petey!  He did a good job.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 07, 2012, 03:44:46 am
It started out ok but then some assholes ruined it.

It's actually a good idea when highly regulated in certain cases. "Future's Contracts," are betting on the price of a bushel of grain 6 months in the future. The idea WAS to move the risk of price fluctuations from the farmer to some investor. The investor guarenteed he'd buy from the farmer for $50/Bushel, thus insuring the farmer would ALWAYS get at least that much Even if the price per bushel was $40, the farmer would still get $50, thus acting as a kind of insurance if supply went up and thus price went down. Conversely, the investor took this risk because he was hoping the price would end up being $60/bushel when he was paying $50 for it.

IN SHORT: It was supposed to keep prices stable and guard against price fluctuations. It was a kind of insurance, which it's fine to get rich off as long as the purpose is at core.

Now, it's been perverted.

Purpose is everything.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 07, 2012, 03:56:06 am
It's important to note that the "financial sector" is a huge problem with the U.S. economy right now.  Especially with regard to the myth of the job creator- again, there's more profit in shuffling money around and hoarding it in specific patterns, accruing packages of wealth by betting on 'sure things', then there is in the traditional use of 'investing', ie, providing capital to companies and people that intend to put that money to, what some would call, an honest use.

This is what caused The Great Depression, where regulations on that sort of thing were so lax that a huge portion of the country's wealth was tied up in basically abstracted ways.  It's not 'Progressive' to say that banking regulations need to be tightened, it's literally just knowledge from past mistakes.

Edit:  It also highlights why companies are so concerned with short term profits:  Money now means money hoarded, which is, in many ways, more lucrative than real life capital (in terms of equipment, employees, storefront locations).   Best Buy, for example, is pleased to fire their top staff and close down locations left and right because, on paper, it allows them to appear as if they are on the road to getting back in the black.  This is short sighted idiocy, which should be apparent to anyone trying to run a business.

Edit 2:  And this, of course, leads to the inevitable railing against cut throat capitalism, wherein corporate interests do real, lasting harm to people, ruining them.  What's more, on the micro-economics scale, piles of money are shuffled into the wallets of those that 'succeed', while the actual beast of our economy is ragged and dying.  On the macro-economics side of thing- America's output of wealth as a whole, suffers.  I had to explain this to someone, on another forum, that when there is a personal incentive to not create things that people need, and to not employ people and provide them with a livelihood, there is a very bad thing going on.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 07, 2012, 04:09:54 am
Going to Double Post here because I'm on a roll, and have some more GOOD READING for you GOOD PEOPLE


"Money is the real cause of poverty," said Owen.

"Prove it," repeated Crass.

"Money is the cause of poverty because it is the device by which those who are too lazy to work are enabled to rob the workers of the fruits of their labour."

"Prove it," said Crass.

Owen slowly folded up the piece of newspaper he had been reading and put it in his pocket.

"All right," he replied. "I'll show you how the Great Money Trick is worked."

Owen opened his dinner basket and took from it two slices of bread, but as these where not sufficient, he requested that anyone who had some bread left should give it to him. They gave him several pieces, which he placed in a heap on a clean piece of paper, and, having borrowed the pocket knives of Easton, Harlow and Philpot, he addressed the, as follows:
"These pieces of bread represent the raw materials which exist naturally in and on the earth for the use of mankind; they were not made by any human being, but were created for the benefit and sustenance of all, the same as were the air and the light of the sun."

"Now," continued Owen, "I am a capitalist; or rather I represent the landlord and capitalist class. That is to say, all these raw materials belong to me. It does not matter for our present argument how I obtained possession of them, the only thing that matters now is the admitted fact that all the raw materials which are necessary for the production of the necessaries of life are now the property of the landlord and capitalist class. I am that class; all these raw materials belong to me."

"Now you three represent the working class. You have nothing, and, for my part, although I have these raw materials, they are of no use to me. What I need is the things that can be made out of these raw materials by work; but I am too lazy to work for me. But first I must explain that I possess something else beside the raw materials. These three knives represent all the machinery of production; the factories, tools, railways, and so forth, without which the necessaries of life cannot be produced in abundance. And these three coins" - taking three half pennies from his pocket - "represent my money, capital."

"But before we go any further," said Owen, interrupting himself, "it is important to remember that I am not supposed to be merely a capitalist. I represent the whole capitalist class. You are not supposed to be just three workers, you represent the whole working class."

Owen proceeded to cut up one of the slices of bread into a number of little square blocks.
"These represent the things which are produced by labour, aided by machinery, from the raw materials. We will suppose that three of these blocks represent a week's work. We will suppose that a week's work is worth one pound."

Owen now addressed himself to the working class as represented by Philpot, Harlow and Easton.
"You say that you are all in need of employment, and as I am the kind-hearted capitalist class I am going to invest all my money in various industries, so as to give you plenty of work. I shall pay each of you one pound per week, and a week's work is that you must each produce three of these square blocks. For doing this work you will each receive your wages; the money will be your own, to do as you like with, and the things you produce will of course be mine to do as I like with. You will each take one of these machines and as soon as you have done a week's work, you shall have your money."

The working classes accordingly set to work, and the capitalist class sat down and watched them. As soon as they had finished, they passed the nine little blocks to Owen, who placed them on a piece of paper by his side and paid the workers their wages.
"These blocks represent the necessaries of life. You can't live without some of these things, but as they belong to me, you will have to buy them from me: my price for these blocks is,one pound each."

As the working classes were in need of the necessaries of life and as they could not eat, drink or wear the useless money, they were compelled to agree to the capitalist's terms. They each bought back, and at once consumed, one-third of the produce of their labour. The capitalist class also devoured two of the square blocks, and so the net result of the week's work was that the kind capitalist had consumed two pounds worth of things produced by the labour of others, and reckoning the squares at their market value of one pound each, he had more than doubled his capital, for he still possessed the three pounds in money and in addition four pounds worth of goods. As for the working classes, Philpot, Harlow and Easton, having each consumed the pound's worth of necessaries they had bought with their wages, they were again in precisely the same condition as when they had started work - they had nothing.
This process was repeated several times; for each weeks work the producers were paid their wages. They kept on working and spending all their earnings. The kind-hearted capitalist consumed twice as much as any one of them and his pool of wealth continually increased. In a little while, reckoning the little squares at their market value of one pound each, he was worth about one hundred pounds, and the working classes were still in the same condition as when they began, and were still tearing into their work as if their lives depended on it.

After a while the rest of the crowd began to laugh, and their merriment increased when the kind-hearted capitalist, just after having sold a pound's worth of necessaries to each of his workers, suddenly took their tools, the machinery of production, the knives, away from them, and informed them that as owing to over production all his store-houses were glutted with the necessaries of life, he had decided to close down the works.

"Well, and wot the bloody 'ell are we to do now ?" demanded Philpot.

"That's not my business," replied the kind-hearted capitalist. "I've paid your wages, and provided you with plenty of work for a long time past. I have no more work for you to do at the present. Come round again in a few months time and I'll see what I can do."
"But what about the necessaries of life?" Demanded Harlow. "we must have something to eat."
"Of course you must," replied the capitalist, affably; "and I shall be very pleased to sell you some." "But we ain't got no bloody money!"

"Well, you cant expect me to give you my goods for nothing! You didn't work for nothing, you know. I paid you for your work and you should have saved something: you should have been thrifty like me. Look how I have got on by being thrifty!"
The unemployed looked blankly at each other, but the rest of the crowd only laughed; and then the three unemployed began to abuse the kind-hearted capitalist, demanding that he should give them some of the necessaries of life that he had piled up in his warehouses, or to be allowed to work and produce some more for their own needs; and even threatened to take some of the things by force if he did not comply with their demands. But the kind-hearted capitalist told them not to be insolent, and spoke to them about honesty, and said if they were not careful he would have their faces battered in for them by the police, or if necessary he would call out the military and have them shot down like dogs, the same as he had done before at Featherstone and Belfast.


While the above parable is specifically about the relationship of workers and parasites, it shows in a poignant way that 'creating wealth' is useless if it does not provide for people.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 07, 2012, 04:24:29 am
Quote from: Capntastic on March 07, 2012, 04:09:54 am
The unemployed looked blankly at each other, but the rest of the crowd only laughed; and then the three unemployed began to abuse the kind-hearted capitalist, demanding that he should give them some of the necessaries of life that he had piled up in his warehouses, or to be allowed to work and produce some more for their own needs; and even threatened to take some of the things by force if he did not comply with their demands. But the kind-hearted capitalist told them not to be insolent, and spoke to them about honesty, and said if they were not careful he would have their faces battered in for them by the police, or if necessary he would call out the military and have them shot down like dogs, the same as he had done before at Featherstone and Belfast.
So I assume this is about what the Occupy Wall Street moment is up to... So what comes next? Riot? War? Rebellion?

I always found it strange that the police would stand against protesters you know. Aren't they also part of the working class? What would make them loyal the system and not others?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 07, 2012, 04:28:01 am
Quote from: Max White on March 07, 2012, 04:24:29 am
Quote from: Capntastic on March 07, 2012, 04:09:54 am
The unemployed looked blankly at each other, but the rest of the crowd only laughed; and then the three unemployed began to abuse the kind-hearted capitalist, demanding that he should give them some of the necessaries of life that he had piled up in his warehouses, or to be allowed to work and produce some more for their own needs; and even threatened to take some of the things by force if he did not comply with their demands. But the kind-hearted capitalist told them not to be insolent, and spoke to them about honesty, and said if they were not careful he would have their faces battered in for them by the police, or if necessary he would call out the military and have them shot down like dogs, the same as he had done before at Featherstone and Belfast.
So I assume this is about what the Occupy Wall Street moment is up to... So what comes next? Riot? War? Rebellion?


The ultimate in progressive ideals, straight from the 40s! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 07, 2012, 04:33:06 am
That would never work. From what I can gather, the bill of rights is the embodiment of an all powerful deity, the light of the american people! Without old fashion, unchangeable laws, they are lost in a sea of refinement. They would never accept such sacrilege as a 'Second Bill of Rights'!


Because everybody knows that the better you did the first time, the longer it is before you have to fix it, so of the bill of rights is never amended in any way, it must be prefect! And then the egg laid the chicken...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 07, 2012, 04:36:44 am
The problem is rooted more in the fact that people see regulating industries that have the ability to cause impossible to truly calculate danger on a wide scope (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/07/us-nigeria-poisoning-idUSTRE7264IC20110307) as interfering with freedoms, and the basic desire to have a decent job and a decent life as begging for handouts.  The goalposts of all discourse is shifted and radicalized to the point that any historically proven solution to a historically revealed problem is drowned out in a burst of soundbites about the nanny state and (annoyingly misappropriated) 1984 references.

You can't even begin to have a legitimate conversation with anyone because as soon as you 'tip your hand' (political affiliations, even tenuously) you become the enemy who is wrong in all cases on all things.  Because everyone's personal ideology is held as being the solution for everything.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 07, 2012, 04:51:50 am
Eh, that is ok, I don't have a working understanding of economics strong enough to form an understanding of just how it is broken, let alone how to fix it. Anybodies opinion is worth listening to at this stage.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 07, 2012, 11:07:42 am
Quote from: Euld on March 07, 2012, 02:56:35 am
Rush Limbaugh loses forever. (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/14/obama_invades_uganda_targets_christians)   Seriously, this guy has issues, I swear.
Quote
Is that right? The Lord's Resistance Army is being accused of really bad stuff? Child kidnapping, torture, murder, that kind of stuff? Well, we just found out about this today. We're gonna do, of course, our due diligence research on it. But nevertheless we got a hundred troops being sent over there to fight these guys -- and they claim to be Christians.
This HAS to be a joke.  Did he just spend all that time criticising Obama without doing even the most basic research about who they were trying to take out?  Has he never heard of possibly the worst and most persistent humanitarian crisis in the world?  Why didn't he at least fucking google the name of the group before assuming they were perfect Christian freedom fighters?

"We just found out about this today".  Arggghhh.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 07, 2012, 11:10:23 am
On today's progressive sports issue: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2012-03-06/female-kicker-trying-out-for-lsu-football/53391726/1

LSU goalie who scored on a 90 yd kick for the soccer team is now trying out as a place kicker for the Tigers, if she get in, it will be the first female player in the SEC.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 07, 2012, 11:28:09 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on March 07, 2012, 11:07:42 am
Quote from: Euld on March 07, 2012, 02:56:35 am
Rush Limbaugh loses forever. (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/14/obama_invades_uganda_targets_christians)   Seriously, this guy has issues, I swear.
Quote
Is that right? The Lord's Resistance Army is being accused of really bad stuff? Child kidnapping, torture, murder, that kind of stuff? Well, we just found out about this today. We're gonna do, of course, our due diligence research on it. But nevertheless we got a hundred troops being sent over there to fight these guys -- and they claim to be Christians.
This HAS to be a joke.  Did he just spend all that time criticising Obama without doing even the most basic research about who they were trying to take out?  Has he never heard of possibly the worst and most persistent humanitarian crisis in the world?  Why didn't he at least fucking google the name of the group before assuming they were perfect Christian freedom fighters?

"We just found out about this today".  Arggghhh.

Oh yeah, that was months ago. Yeah, he quickly shut the hell up about it once his own listeners were calling him to say, "Uhh Rush....you realize these guys are total monsters, right?"

Colbert came to his defense by saying "That's why it's called research. If he did it before commenting on it, it would be pre-search."  :P


Honestly, over the years Limbaugh has been so full of shit on so many things that I really just can't fathom why he has any credibility whatsoever.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Levi on March 07, 2012, 11:41:03 am
Quote from: Capntastic on March 07, 2012, 04:28:01 am

The ultimate in progressive ideals, straight from the 40s! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights)

Nice.  Its too bad it didn't get enshrined in law or something.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 07, 2012, 12:15:27 pm
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gingrich-falls-asleep-at-aipac-wakes-up-confused/

Ladies and Gentlemen, a member of the US Congress and possibly the next leader of the free world... [sigh].
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 07, 2012, 12:32:19 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 07, 2012, 12:15:27 pm
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gingrich-falls-asleep-at-aipac-wakes-up-confused/

Ladies and Gentlemen, a member of the US Congress and possibly the next leader of the free world... [sigh].
You have a very generous threshold of what qualifies as "possible".  :P
And he's no longer a member of Congress -- they threw him out like he was a wife with a terminal illness.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 07, 2012, 12:35:26 pm
Dont underestimate the stupidity level of the average voter. Winston Churchill knew this...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 07, 2012, 12:49:39 pm
Quote from: RedKing on March 07, 2012, 12:32:19 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 07, 2012, 12:15:27 pm
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gingrich-falls-asleep-at-aipac-wakes-up-confused/

Ladies and Gentlemen, a member of the US Congress and possibly the next leader of the free world... [sigh].
You have a very generous threshold of what qualifies as "possible".  :P
And he's no longer a member of Congress -- they threw him out like he was a wife with a terminal illness.

Meh, I should've said, "former member of congress."

As for possible, two people die and he's pretty much a contender. Or really, hopefully people realize Santorum is nuts, Romney is apathetically rich, and Ron Paul ... has been trying for how many decades exactly?

There's really no good choice but enough people are pissed off about Obama that it's a concern.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 07, 2012, 12:52:51 pm
Is there something wrong with me that I don't see the issue with taking a bit of a nap before you go on a show? I mean, the man is almost 70. The panel thing is a little embarrassing, but everyone is wrong once in a while.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 07, 2012, 12:58:59 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on March 07, 2012, 12:52:51 pm
Is there something wrong with me that I don't see the issue with taking a bit of a nap before you go on a show? I mean, the man is almost 70. The panel thing is a little embarrassing, but everyone is wrong once in a while.

.... It's called planning and a president really should know where the crap he is. Also if you're sitting down ready to talk on camera, it isn't hard to have one page of abridged notes open.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 07, 2012, 01:00:45 pm
Be perfect in other words?

I mean. It's not like it was even a huge mistake.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 07, 2012, 01:02:38 pm
If you fell asleep in a job interview, you probably wouldnt get the job. The last few and next few months of his life basically boil down to an overly complicated and drawn out job application after all.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 07, 2012, 01:04:00 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on March 07, 2012, 01:02:38 pm
If you fell asleep in a job interview, you probably wouldnt get the job. The last few and next few months of his life basically boil down to an overly complicated and drawn out job application after all.

Not only fall asleep in the job interview, but wake up, take a couple seconds to compose yourself and then forget where the hell you are and why you're there....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 07, 2012, 01:08:20 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on March 07, 2012, 01:00:45 pm
Be perfect in other words?

I mean. It's not like it was even a huge mistake.
Tell that to Admiral Stockdale (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKpX-5jQjQ0). That single moment more or less defined him for the remainder of the campaign.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 07, 2012, 01:11:37 pm
What? Seriously? Did you actually read it? Or just the head line?

It seems to me that he did not fall asleep in it, he fell asleep before it. Then woke up for it. He also obviously knew where he was, he just thought there was a panel. I mean really.

To use your hypothetical, he fell asleep in the waiting room before the interview, then assumed the interviewer would be asking questions.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 07, 2012, 01:40:05 pm
The whole 12 months before the election is the job interview, that's the problem. The public is the hiring manager and anything which goes public is to be considered "in the interview".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 07, 2012, 01:42:54 pm
And I'm surprised they don't fall asleep more often - campaigning has a hellish schedule, from what I understand. Maybe he ran our of wakey-time drugs?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 07, 2012, 01:43:09 pm
Imagine he did such a thing in a Presidential meeting with... lets say the Chinese Premier. That would go down well wouldnt it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 07, 2012, 01:45:09 pm
Presidents have nearly unlimited drug money. They NEVER run out.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 07, 2012, 01:47:06 pm
I had no idea that it was disrespectful in China to nap before meeting with someone.

Oh wait. Even if is in China, this is America where it is not, so his behavior in this says nothing about his nap habits before he meets with a Chinese diplomat.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 07, 2012, 01:54:02 pm
I think you might be missing my point. I think its not a good behavour trait for someone wanting to take on the most powerful role on the planet to have. They should go into situations like the one descirbed prepared, fresh, alert and awake - ar as far as is possible. They shouldnt be nodding off and coming across as confused, disorientated or otherwise unable to cope with the demands of "leading the free world". Fair enough - campaigning is tough. Its not as if being president is going to be any easier though. I dont think "The man is 70" is an excuse. I wouldnt trust the average 70 yr old to fly a passenger aircraft, let alone run the USA.

If you think its fine, cool. Vote for him. Or not - vote for someone else. Not that its really my issue, I am not an American.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 07, 2012, 01:59:26 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on March 07, 2012, 01:47:06 pm
I had no idea that it was disrespectful in China to nap before meeting with someone.

Oh wait. Even if is in China, this is America where it is not, so his behavior in this says nothing about his nap habits before he meets with a Chinese diplomat.
Actually cript, what Gingrich did is kinda' disrespectful in the states, at least from what I've ran in to so far. If you want a similar scenario, take someone passing out in class on the day of a presentation; person gets woken up by someone else, manages to give their presentation well, but forgets a small part of the assignment.

It wouldn't be a grade breaker, exactly, but that student would be losing some points off their presentation -- and yeah, it's a little insulting to the people they're presenting to. When you know you've got a presentation to give, it's pretty much on you to be awake, alert, and on top of the material. Screwing up a little isn't the end of the world, but it doesn't look too good either :-\

It's fairly minor though, yeah. If you want to dropkick Gingrich over something, there's plenty of bigger targets to apply your heel to.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 07, 2012, 02:02:07 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on March 07, 2012, 01:54:02 pm
I think you might be missing my point. I think its not a good behavour trait for someone wanting to take on the most powerful role on the planet to have. They should go into situations like the one descirbed prepared, fresh, alert and awake - ar as far as is possible. They shouldnt be nodding off and coming across as confused, disorientated or otherwise unable to cope with the demands of "leading the free world". Fair enough - campaigning is tough. Its not as if being president is going to be any easier though. I dont think "The man is 70" is an excuse. I wouldnt trust the average 70 yr old to fly a passenger aircraft, let alone run the USA.

If you think its fine, cool. Vote for him. Or not - vote for someone else. Not that its really my issue, I am not an American.
I'm seriously getting the feeling you did not actually read the thing or watch the video. Which if that is the case you should most likely do that before you argue about it.

Frumple: I feel, once again, the metaphor is inappropriate, but I guess I agree with the point.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 07, 2012, 02:03:27 pm
Geuss I just have a different take on it to you then. I think Frumple explained my opinion in a better way, though possibly in a less strong sence.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 07, 2012, 04:25:36 pm
Here's the actual bit from the article:

After he awoke, however, things became even more bizarre as it seemed the former House Speaker was either thinking about the secretary of defense or was talking about him with someone not seen. You can hear Gingrich say: “Listening to Panetta is not a relaxing experience.” He then slipped back into his stupor.

Upon his second awakening, Gingrich was introduced for his speech, where he then “welcomed questions from the panel.” The problem was — there was no panel.

“I understand you have a panel. I look forward to any questions,” he began.

An awkward 12 seconds of silence followed and Gingrich stared blankly into the camera.

So he was napping, alright, that's cool.  But then he woke up and literally had no idea where he was or what he was doing, and cements this by blurting out the first thing to come to his mind.  That's totally excusable for, you know, an ordinary 70 year old person.  But that is most certainly not a trait I desire in someone who is, you know, going to be getting a lot of middle-of-the-night calls about serious shit going down across the globe.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 07, 2012, 05:19:33 pm
Quote from: Capntastic on March 07, 2012, 04:25:36 pm

Upon his second awakening, Gingrich was introduced for his speech, where he then “welcomed questions from the panel.” The problem was — there was no panel.

“I understand you have a panel. I look forward to any questions,” he began.

An awkward 12 seconds of silence followed and Gingrich stared blankly into the camera.[/i]

Did everyone catch the tactical significance of that and what it really means?

“I understand you have a panel. I look forward to any questions,” he began.

Think about that, he is putting the ball in their court and hoping "they, or the panel" (though there is no panel) will ask a question he can fake an answer to, or at least give him some idea where he is (from the context any question asked).

He has no bloody clue where he is or what he's doing and he is really hoping he can make someone tell him where he is and what the hell is going on.

Come on, this one's older than TV. It's the old traveling show trick where you forget what the hell town you're performing in tonight so, dumbfounded, you ask the crowd while paying it straight:

"Thank you, thank you, I always love it here. You know what the greatest city is! Say it with me now [Holds mic out to audience and waits for them to scream it]."

I make it a point to teach every act I manage this and other tricks of the trade. (The exact wording is a judgment call, but that is the gist).

He did not know where the crap he was and he did a bad job of covering it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: alway on March 07, 2012, 05:24:00 pm
Followup on the Kony video from yesterday: http://thedailywh.at/2012/03/07/on-kony-2012-2/

On the Gingrich thing: damn; that has got to be the most awkward pause I have ever heard.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 07, 2012, 05:25:00 pm
When I see newt bumbling around like an old person, I can only imagine him as John McCain. I'm trying to picture that whole scenario, but all I can see is John McCain doing it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 07, 2012, 05:50:40 pm
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/santorum-single-mothers-are-breeding-more-criminals

.... So, gay bashing, war mongering with Iran (can't $afford it), and is a major player in the war on women including hating all over single moms....

People still vote for him, and he came in a relatively close second in last night's Ohio Primary....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nilocy on March 07, 2012, 05:53:57 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 07, 2012, 05:50:40 pm
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/santorum-single-mothers-are-breeding-more-criminals

.... So, gay bashing, war mongering with Iran (can't $afford it), and is a major player in the war on women including hating all over single moms....

People still vote for him, and he came in a relatively close second in last night's Ohio Primary....

He's one of the reasons I'm building a nuclear bunker in my room
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 07, 2012, 05:59:08 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 07, 2012, 05:19:33 pm
He did not know where the crap he was and he did a bad job of covering it.

Sure. Assume that. Fine. Whatever.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 07, 2012, 06:06:56 pm
Criptfeind, he's in the running for the most powerful position on the planet, in a pretty hectic time.   What's wrong with demanding something above what one would expect from a typical person?  Even our special service armed forces members are tested strenuously, pushed beyond all normal capacity, taken to their limits, and still expected to perform.  And we have thousands of them. 

Why should we not desire, as our leader, someone who is undeniably pristine in thought and mental faculties?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 07, 2012, 06:10:03 pm
We should desire such. And sure, it is a issue no matter what but we can not know how much. What I take issue with is basically Truean stating how much of a issue it is, then saying that I am simply wrong if I do not agree with his assumption.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 07, 2012, 06:15:26 pm
All Truean is saying is that it's indicative of a vague tinge of unfitness for that position-- if his age is going to be his handicap, at 70, what can we expect in the next 4 years?  It's not untoward to call attention to that sort of thing. 

You can't even say "oh well campaign schedules are Hell!" because being President is being micromanaged down to 15 minute blocks for practically 4 years straight- with the weight of a good portion of the world on your shoulders.

Truean, nor I, am saying it should be the sole factor in castigating the man, no, indeed, there are other things to consider.  But this is actually an important and telling event, no matter how minor it may seem to you.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 07, 2012, 06:40:23 pm
Quote from: Capntastic on March 07, 2012, 06:15:26 pm
All Truean is saying is that it's indicative of a vague tinge of unfitness for that position-- if his age is going to be his handicap, at 70, what can we expect in the next 4 years?  It's not untoward to call attention to that sort of thing. 

You can't even say "oh well campaign schedules are Hell!" because being President is being micromanaged down to 15 minute blocks for practically 4 years straight- with the weight of a good portion of the world on your shoulders.

Truean, nor I, am saying it should be the sole factor in castigating the man, no, indeed, there are other things to consider.  But this is actually an important and telling event, no matter how minor it may seem to you.

Yes.

Quote from: Criptfeind on March 07, 2012, 06:10:03 pm
We should desire such. And sure, it is a issue no matter what but we can not know how much. What I take issue with is basically Truean stating how much of a issue it is, then saying that I am simply wrong if I do not agree with his assumption.

Huh? ???

Where am I saying you're simply wrong if you don't agree with me? Quote it...?

We have a different opinion of what happened than you do. I presented an article with video and transcript of facts that occurred. I agree with the article's author about those events. I offered my practical experience on related events I've experienced and repeatedly seen others experience. There is no and can be no "experimental" evidence on when someone is and is not paying attention in practical life, so ... this is what we have....

Absolute certainty isn't required, nor should or can it be expected, concerning exactly what happened. Life works on educated guesses based on what we observe.  I posted an article. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg3071586#msg3071586)  You wondered what I found wrong about it. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg3071672#msg3071672)  I told you. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg3071681#msg3071681)  You disagreed. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg3071685#msg3071685)  I and others told you why we thought it was an issue. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg3071693#msg3071693)  You disagreed with it and wondered if people didn't read it. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg3071711#msg3071711)  After some people explained why they thought the way they did, Capntastic quoted the article transcript for you showing why the "he was asleep and disoriented" side believes that. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg3072293#msg3072293)  I further illustrated why I thought the way I did with practical experience.  (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg3072553#msg3072553)  In response, you stated it was an assumption and appear to have gotten somewhat upset.  (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg3072578#msg3072578)

People are going to hold different opinions than you and they should (but sadly often don't) explain why they hold those opinions. We did that. Not sure why you "take issue" with this.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 07, 2012, 06:46:14 pm
Further in that direction, if he's arguing about the scale of how big a faux pas it was and how it reflects on potential presidency, Criptfiend has offered no real evidence beyond "i don't think it's that bad, lay off him!", while I and others have indicated that being awake and lucid is actually very important for someone who needs to be agile in their decisionmaking.  There is more evidence, factually and anecdotally, that it is, indeed, an important trait.

So, in reality, it seems to be you saying that we're wrong about this, both concerning the facts of the event, and the severity of it, despite evidence being on our side.

It's one thing to say "I still don't think it's that big of a deal" but to call us out as big ol' meanies for holding the opposite view is sort of self-defeating.

Edit:  Besides all of this, as I said before, it's not like this anywhere near the deciding factor of how awful a person Gingrich is both personally and in the political arena.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 07, 2012, 06:57:48 pm
 Golden opportunity:  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Civil_Procedure)

Burden of proof is on me, because I'm saying X is true. It is not true until and unless I satisfy that burden. That burden isn't and can't be "absolutely prove it," cause that just will never happen. Heck, in most civil trials we're talking 51% more likely than not as the standard.

Your first issue was  "Truean, what are you even saying is the problem here?" (http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/frcp-12b6-failure-to-state-a-claim-for-which-relief-can-be-granted/) You and I then disagreed if it was a problem/what I was saying was relevant.

Your second issue was essentially,  "Truean, you can't meet your burden of proof/You said it but can't prove it/You're just assuming" (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56) I and others offered more proof (which you may or may not think is valid).

Now is when it goes to trial/people decide what they think. Did I meet my burden of proof? I dunno, I'm not even sure what the rules and standards I'm supposed to use to determine my burden are here. Why don't... all of you...  ;) ... decide... if I have or haven't? :P

To review, I am not  corrupting your youth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates) That's next Tuesday. Does no one respect my schedule? :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 07, 2012, 08:43:34 pm
Things like that are not a issue if you present opinions as opinions and not as facts (tm). Or even as facts (good enough).

Fact 1 (tm): The president needs certain qualities.

Fact 2 (good enough): Some of these qualities involve attentiveness and awareness of surroundings.

Fact 3 (good enough): This news thing and video shows that Newty may have issues in these areas.

Opinion 1: He has issues to the extent that it is a Big Deal.

Now. The issue here is that this is how I see it and you seem to be saying these are all facts. Furthermore, all your attempts to make me believe your opinion have basically been terrible metaphors that don't work and repeated statements of the first premise that this is a Big Deal.

This is how this conversation has been to my eyes: (Me being me and you being everyone else that does not agree with me.)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Anyway. Now that I have fulfilled my quota of the use of the word "goober" for 2012...

Quote from: Truean on March 07, 2012, 06:40:23 pm
Where am I saying you're simply wrong if you don't agree with me? Quote it...?

Quote from: Truean on March 07, 2012, 12:58:59 pm
.... It's called planning and a president really should know where the crap he is.
Quote from: Truean on March 07, 2012, 01:04:00 pm
Not only fall asleep in the job interview, but wake up, take a couple seconds to compose yourself and then forget where the hell you are and why you're there....
Quote from: Truean on March 07, 2012, 05:19:33 pm
He did not know where the crap he was and he did a bad job of covering it.

These are three things said as fact. If I do not agree with them, I am disagreeing with facts. If I am disagreeing with facts, I am simply wrong. And I do not feel that you have proved these as facts. They are reasonable assumptions but they are not facts. But, as said, if I hold other assumptions, even reasonable ones, they go against your factsumptions and thus make me simply wrong.

Quote from: Truean on March 07, 2012, 06:40:23 pm
We have a different opinion of what happened than you do. I presented an article with video and transcript of facts that occurred. I agree with the article's author about those events.

And then you extrapolated heavily well still presenting them as facts.

Quote from: Truean on March 07, 2012, 06:40:23 pm
Absolute certainty isn't required, nor should or can it be expected, concerning exactly what happened. Life works on educated guesses based on what we observe.

No, I am not asking for facts (tm) from you. But so long as there is a reasonable other argument I would expect you to not act like there was not.

Quote from: Truean on March 07, 2012, 06:40:23 pm
People are going to hold different opinions than you and they should (but sadly often don't) explain why they hold those opinions. We did that. Not sure why you "take issue" with this.

I... Wait. Well. If I am quoting something you put into quote marks, do I use just "? Or '"? Or ""? Hell, since I said it first do I not use any marks?

To be safe.

I """""""""""""Take issue""""""""""""with" the presentations of what you just called opinions as facts. Not anything with how you backed them up or something.

Quote from: Capntastic on March 07, 2012, 06:46:14 pm
Further in that direction, if he's arguing about the scale of how big a faux pas it was and how it reflects on potential presidency, Criptfiend has offered no real evidence beyond "i don't think it's that bad, lay off him!", while I and others have indicated that being awake and lucid is actually very important for someone who needs to be agile in their decision making.  There is more evidence, factually and anecdotally, that it is, indeed, an important trait.

First off, I may type as I talk (slowly, with lots of pauses), ignore all rules of grammar and I sometimes even transcribe my accent for reasons that are not clear to me, but I always capitalize my Is.  Second off, I offered a opinion and defended it as a opinion and this argument is not even about that anymore. It's really hard to respond to you after I already did to Truean, no offense but he is much funner to talk to.

Quote from: Capntastic on March 07, 2012, 06:46:14 pm
So, in reality, it seems to be you saying that we're wrong about this, both concerning the facts of the event, and the severity of it, despite evidence being on our side.

Evidence? Evidence? What Evidence? That such traits are something a leader should have? That was not in question. That Newty greatly lacks it or that this news shows that he greatly lacks it? All I see for that is... Lies and nothing. The only half good points I see in this argument have nothing to do with it. All I see is people trying to prove something else then saying that it is somehow related. (See above spoiler.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 08, 2012, 12:58:06 am
Okay so you don't consider our arguments or evidence (the video itself, chiefly, and commentary) as worthy of consideration.   That's cool I guess, you're welcome to your opinion.  No one's disputing that.  The thing is that you've yet to provide anything on your own to explain why we're wrong, which, as I said prior, is odd, since you're saying it's not even an issue worth caring about.

You can't say "no you guys are wrong it's not a bad thing" and expect us to ignore the evidence we've gathered (even if you think it's not important), and then say "it's not a big deal anyways" when we ask you to convince us.

I mean, Truean went through the trouble of explaining the line of the conversation, linking to specific posts, by way of helping you realize that you're not actually having a discussion in good faith.   Your apparent response to that is to do the same, only making a ridiculous strawman of us, pretending we've just been calling him a goober over and over.  I'm even willing to look past the fact that you're literally calling us liars because, really, it's just your opinion and you've yet to actually go beyond stating your opinion and sticking to it without evidence.  I'm fine with that, though I really shouldn't be!

I will point out that you are apparently fine with admitting that a lot of the things we've been saying "totally make no sense" to you.  Would you be fine with clarifying what you're not understanding?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 08, 2012, 01:03:48 am
Criptfiend, you claim not to understand any of truean's arguments? Personal lack of comprehension is not proof that the opposing person is wrong, just that you don't understand what's been said, or you've chosen to "play dumb" and ignore all opposing arguments.

One thing Truean said made a lot more sense of the video to me, especially "panel" part. He was clearly fishing for context, had no idea where he was.

It's like you're chatting up a girl and you've forgotten her name. VERY close metaphor, because blatantly asking "what's your name again" is extremely embarassing, so you try and think of ways to get her to say her name (or just hope she/someone says it). In this case Gingrich couldn't ask "where the hell am I again?" in the same way you wouldn't want to have to ask the girl her name again.

In both situations it's broadly equivalent to an interview (you're advertising yourself to be selected for a role).

And when he couldn't get any context he pulled out the canard of, let's go kill some horrible Muslims. ("The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming"). Which is a very tired fall-back. He had nothing concrete to add to the dialogue.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 08, 2012, 01:07:51 am
What Capntastic said. Also what Reelya said. :)

So.... There are a couple different ways to prove things. There are empirical experiments. Talk to Capntastic about those because he's an empiricist.  I'm a rationalist. And never the two shall agree. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/) Well, that's not true.  We can of course agree that perpetual motion has something to do with buttered bread strapped to the back of a cat.  (http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/481antigravity.jpg) That is, however, a discussion for another time. Also Capntastic is plenty fun to talk to.

Thankfully, what is normally considered boring and unnecessary detail is my specialty! :P

Ok, so here's how this is gonna go:
I.) "Evidence," and "Facts"
II.) CRAC form for analytical decision making.

I.) "Evidence," and "Facts"

Evidence is a thing that has a tendency to prove a fact or contributes to proving a fact. A case is a brick wall and each piece of evidence is a brick in that wall. One single thing, taken by itself might mean nothing, but when put together with others may infer some fact. Evidence may be of many types, including testimonial, written, recorded, audio, or visual or expert (which is often anecdotal as experts will give conflicting opinions). The word "opinion" is rarely used in law, except when an expert, such as a doctor, or a tire expert, or an accident reconstructionist, gives their opinion.

The reason the word and meaning behind, "opinion" is not used, is because it is understood that we often cannot know "facts" objectively, even of physical actions. The prosecution uses evidence to support its theory of the case to prove "facts" (what you would call opinions) and the defense does the same. Each side attempts to tear the other down.

I do not know and cannot know if someone committed a given crime, especially if there are no witnesses. The prosecution also cannot know, as they certainly weren't there either. Yet, the prosecution will say it's evidence proves "facts." These can't be objectively verified, but the facts can sometimes be inferred from certain evidence, which is very often circumstantial only. Often it is incredibly important just to establish that a defendant was at the crime scene and unfortunately the jury will often say that, "X happened there and he was {the only one} there so it must have been him," and convict.

At some point, it's just persuasion. Peppering statements with, "I say ______," "in my opinion," or "I believe that ____," is meaningless, empty and redundant. Of course you're saying it. Of course its your opinion otherwise you wouldn't be saying it (or you'd be saying it was someone else's opinion). Of course you believe ____ if you're saying it, because it's assumed you say what you believe (that you don't lie) unless stated otherwise. Persuasive people don't bother doing this and that's fine.

II.) CRAC form for analytical decision making.

You are categorizing things as "fact" v. "opinion." That's not going to get anyone anywhere. There is nothing but fact in the world, it's just that we can't KNOW all of them. So, we have to use educated guesses on the ones we can't know. It is a fact that either 1.) Mr. Gingrich was aware of where he was, or 2.) He was not aware of where he was. <--- One of these two things is true. We may not know exactly which one, but one of these is true. We can either spend our lives not knowing/caring, or we can infer which factual state is true based upon what we observe: the video and transcript in the article.

Conclusion: What you have inferred
Rule: The standard by which you inferred it
Analysis: The facts applied to the rule by which you reached your conclusion
Conclusion: restate the conclusion.

or the more detailed:

Conclusion
Rule
Analysis
Counterargument: Whereby you attempt to make a good faith effort to show the other side
Counter to Counter: Whereby you attempt to counter the other side preemptively.
Conclusion

_________________________________________________________________

The argument and one product of the stuff that went into it:

[Conclusion] Mr. Gingrich was not professionally courteous and aware at a public speaking engagement.
[Rule] The (potential) President of the US should be professionally courteous and aware at all public speaking engagements and should act as such.
[Analysis] Mr. Gingrich appears to have nodded off on camera, said some completely unrelated comment about talking to the secretary of defense (who was not present at all), believed there was a panel with questions for him when there was none, asked said panel to question him, awkwardly paused silently for several seconds when he was supposed to give a prepared speech, and failed to give his prepared speech.
[Counterargument] Mr. Gingrich may have just harmlessly dozed off before the speech.
[Counter to counter] He still failed to give the speech he prepared and instead of giving a speech like he was supposed to, he asked a non existent panel to question him....
[Conclusion] Thus, Mr. Gingrich was not professionally courteous and aware at a public speaking engagement.
__________________________________________________________________
There are some unspoken rules in there. Namely, that when you are supposed to give a speech in front of a large audience, you give it. You do not ask a non existent panel for questions instead of giving said prepared speech. You don't just put your face up on a giant screen in front of an audience like that without having something to say already written up.

In other words, even if I take what you say as true, that he was just  falling asleep BEFORE the speech (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg3071711#msg3071711), it still effected his performance during the speech. Namely, he completely spaced and didn't give his prepared speech at all. He also got the format entirely wrong, you don't start a speech like that by asking questions, you save questions to the end. It wasn't a Q & A anyhow, it was a speech.

And again, as Capntastic has said, I'm not seeing a lot of evidence or argument to rebut what we've said or what we've pointed out. Honest question, does your argument amount to, "but we can't know for sure?"
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 08, 2012, 01:34:32 am
Hey guys, just came in for a cup of coffee and the evening news, whats been... Well. Ok then, few walls of text to go over, let's see get some reading done. Good to see the spirit of debate lives on!

EDIT:
Well ok, that was interesting. Newt took a nap, fine, he is only human. He might have taken it as some what of a bad time, but I'm not going to condemn him for it. As for 'Having no idea where he was when he woke up', well I'm often just as hazy when I wake up. It is easy to say that he should have planned his schedule better, but I'm sure he is a very busy man with a lot of things to do. Let's face it, an old man falling asleep and taking more than a second to snap back awake isn't unheard of, and although it is certainly not something I would like to see in a world leader, I would certainly vote for him if it was the worst thing he ever did.
Having said that, this is Newt Gingrich. Taking a nap is far, far, far, far from the worst thing he ever did. For this guy, taking a nap is on the good end of the scale. If you want to attack Gingrich, I have much better ammo for you than 'The guy gets tired sometimes'

He goofed up, it wasn't really that bad, who cares he wasn't going to win anyway.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 08, 2012, 01:57:26 am
Quote from: Max White on March 08, 2012, 01:34:32 am
He goofed up, it wasn't really that bad, who cares he wasn't going to win anyway.

Exactly why it was the perfect opportunity to get this kind of stuff out of the way. The insignificance of the event in the grand scheme of things should, in theory, make it easier to deal with this preliminary proof stuff, because people aren't going to be emotionally charged about it. I wouldn't try that on a hot button issue.

"Alright people let's calm down for a second and consider instead the form and procedure for.... That's a knife isn't it? You know what, never mind...." :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 08, 2012, 02:27:49 am
Re; Napping Not Being Too Bad:  I was discussing this with a friend, and while we agree that the napping isn't too huge a deal, even if it's certainly not ideal, Newt has too many other heinous flaws in personality and goals for it to matter much.  Which is why napping, on top of all of that, is indicative of how bad he is overall.

So yeah, I have no problem with Criptfeind not 'caring', so long as they understand that trying to shut down a conversation because they don't see it as important isn't conducive to, you know, discussion.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 08, 2012, 03:32:08 am
Criptfiend, you say that Truean posting her opinions as fact is a personal slight on you?

Look at what you said to shut other people up :-

Critfiend wrote:

Quote
I'm seriously getting the feeling you did not actually read the thing or watch the video. Which if that is the case you should most likely do that before you argue about it.

Quote
What? Seriously? Did you actually read it? Or just the head line?

^ Both those attack the speaker, not the argument. Those seem to be Ad hominem attacks, and appeal to ridicule.

Quote
He also obviously knew where he was, he just thought there was a panel.

^ How's it "obviously" true? You claimed you stated everything as opinion only, and did NOT claim things as facts in this debate. It's relevant since you made a big deal out of accusing others of doing this. What happened to his prepared speech if he knew just what was going on?

Quote
I had no idea that it was disrespectful in China to nap before meeting with someone.

Oh wait. Even if is in China, this is America where it is not, so his behavior in this says nothing about his nap habits before he meets with a Chinese diplomat.

^ also with the condescending tone. And you make the assertion it's NOT disrespectful to fall asleep IN THE ROOM with the person you're meant to meet, unless it's your turn to talk. This is also stated as a fact, not opinion. "this is America where it is not" rather than "this is America where I do not believe it is"

So he slept through other people's turn to talk and that's not disrepectful? Just because you assert it isn't?

Quote
Is there something wrong with me that I don't see the issue with taking a bit of a nap before you go on a show?

Here, you play the victim "Is there something wrong with me" when nobody said anything that could be construed as a negative personal attack. Actually it's the first thing you said, so your opening gambit utilized setting yourself up as a the victim before anyone else said anything to you. How can we take seriously your claim that others made you the victim later when you're very first utterance claimed that your views made you a victim?

Anyway, he was ON the show, not "before you go on the show". It just wasn't his turn to talk yet.

Quote
To use your hypothetical, he fell asleep in the waiting room before the interview, then assumed the interviewer would be asking questions.

But, what happened to the speech he was there to give? That's why he was there, so clearly he forgot what was going on.

Quote
Be perfect in other words?

I mean. It's not like it was even a huge mistake.

That's not "other words" for what Truean said, that's a classic straw man, because Truean never said "be perfect" or anything that can be even remotely close to that, what Truean said was :-

Quote
.... It's called planning and a president really should know where the crap he is. Also if you're sitting down ready to talk on camera, it isn't hard to have one page of abridged notes open.

knowing where the F you are, and having some written notes. That's just the basics, not "being perfect" by any stretch of the imagination. High school kids can get this stuff. He has campaign aides who should be able to handle that. Not being prepared for a speech is not recoverable in an election campaign.

You claim "It's not like it was even a huge mistake." as a definite fact, no couching as "opinion". The very fact that he's running for office and it's on the news makes it a mistake.

What i see here is a pattern of "playing the victim", "ad hominem", "Appeal to Ridicule" fallacy, and "straw man" fallacy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 08, 2012, 04:14:04 am
I'll sprinkle some calm and cool fairy dust onto the above post by reminding people that there is no ill will intended at all-- pointing out someone is wrong, having a discussion with them at all, is an implicit indication that you take the person seriously enough to want to convince them of something.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 08, 2012, 04:20:23 am
I'm thinking of going outside, and putting a bar at the entrance to the thread, with a sign saying 'You must be this chill to enter!'
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 08, 2012, 04:24:36 am
I think the better goal would be to make this place a temple of chill where all are free to come and be refreshed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 08, 2012, 04:26:25 am
While we post links that a more religious man would consider proof of the oncoming biblical reckoning? Yea, that will work...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 08, 2012, 04:30:31 am
I only made the above post in response to criptfiend going "meta-discussion" on us and claiming the moral high-ground. Not intended to start a flame-war, but what may come, may come. Last thing, criptfiend has started to nitpick on punctuation (while still managing to make himself look like a victim by nitpicking Capntastic's paraphrase, with criptfiend deliberately pretending he can't tell a quote from a paraphrase).

Seriously, we're being trolled.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 08, 2012, 04:32:00 am
Let's change subjects then.  Go back and discuss the effort posts I made last night, about GSCI speculation.   There's some meat there I'd like to yell about. 

Edit:  I'm not too keen on railing against Criptfiend on the whole punctuation/paraphrasing bits because I'm pretty sure he's not a native English speaker.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Blargityblarg on March 08, 2012, 04:36:00 am
Cript is American, I'm pretty sure.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 08, 2012, 04:38:35 am
If that's the case then, well, my apologies I guess.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 08, 2012, 11:25:37 am
This discussion about Gingrich falling asleep is over.

Ironically, I was asleep for the last stretch of it or I would have ended it sooner.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 08, 2012, 12:00:30 pm
Snoozegate basically ran its course.

http://news.yahoo.com/sandra-fluke-her-role-contraception-controversy-again-110000215.html and Fox News has taken to calling her a "liberal plant," because any failure shall be spun.... It couldn't possibly be that some sexist old guy was sexist, or if he was, then it was the equivalent of entrapment. She simply must have set him up.... ::) Really?

Quote from: Capntastic on March 08, 2012, 04:32:00 am
Let's change subjects then.  Go back and discuss the effort posts I made last night, about GSCI speculation.   There's some meat there I'd like to yell about. 

The idea of funneling money to places it needs invested is a good idea and it works, in theory. In reality, there are a ton of things that can go wrong and we're so in love with the theory that we deny the existence of its flaws. Wall St. be damned, financial markets work best when heavily regulated with well designed rules aimed at stability. Saying we should just ... let things go where they will due to some imaginary invisible hand is irresponsible in the extreme. The invisible hand exists, but real hands exist even more and who are we kidding, those real hands reach into the til or just plain old don't get it sometimes. Then we have a "correction," or a nice big loss, which none of the economics text books talk about in great detail....

That doesn't even start on the secondary effects and the feedback loop where it all becomes a vicious cycle....

Commodities futures markets are not a bad thing and I've explained before how it was a sort of ... I guess you could call in "insurance" in a non technical sense. They guaranteed a farmer a certain price, thus insulating the food producers from price shocks. This is wonderful. But, then people came along and sought to maximize the profits beyond reason and promptly ruined it.

It's to the point where, we aren't going off price value, we're going off "perception." This is why every time something happens anywhere, the price of oil goes up despite demand being weak and supply being high in the US. If things are bad now and gas is $3.75-$4.00/gallon, then what the crap is it going to be when things get good? We're going to be talking $5-$6/gallon minimum then (if that doesn't kill any economic recovery we might have). Drilling for more oil won't help when the problem is commodities speculation. The US has lots of oil, and we're currently exporting it after we put it through our refineries. There is positively no logic as to why the price is going up.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 08, 2012, 07:12:46 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/family-florida-boy-killed-neighborhood-watch-seeks-arrest-044537742.html

???

How is this guy not arrested? They have all the probable cause in the world: dead body and he admits to shooting the kid. The only issue is "possible" self defense. A.) based on what?, B.) totally disproportionate use of force C.) So we're just gonna take his word for it and let him roam around a bit for now?

Also: "'Why is this kid suspicious in the first place? I think a stereotype must have been placed on the kid,' Crump said." Black kid visits gated community (where family lives), gets reported as "suspicious" (no one says why), and the man who admits shooting him in the chest, is not arrested....

[sigh]
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 09, 2012, 01:16:06 pm
So, I know the argument is over, and I sorta agree it might as well be a good thing, but I did want to clear up one or two things.

1: I am a American and my first language is American English. There are a few reasons I type oddly, but foremost among them is that I am unable to spell.

2: When talking to people I both assume that they are the same level of intelligence as me, and that they follow the same thought processes, I do this because I feel that avoiding being condescending/(what ever the opposite of condescending is) or even more confusing is worth what confusion I feel it might cause.

3: I do not put hidden agendas in my words, I do avoid saying many things because I am a non verbal communicator, but nothing in contradiction or opposition to my meaning. IE: I do not "play the victim" or "troll."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on March 09, 2012, 02:19:10 pm
Just gonna watch, as I did in the previous thread.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 09, 2012, 08:57:32 pm
The latest broadside on the "Sandra Fluke" story is this "she lied about her age" meme. Or someone lied. Probably in the "liberal media".

Whoopsie: Georgetown’s 23 year old “Coed” Sandra Fluke Is actually a 30 Year-Old Women’s Rights Activist (http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/03/02/whoopsie-georgetowns-23-year-old-coed-sandra-fluke-is-actually-a-30-year-old-womens-rights-activist/)

Quote
The Democrat’s token abused 23 year old college coed is actually a 30 year-old hardcore women’s rights activist.   Sandra Fluke is also the past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.

But none of the echo-chamber articles can cite anywhere anyone made claims about her age at all. And they mock her being called a "coed" but that was Rush's line, not the "liberal media". Also, she mentioned on the very first video of her appearing before congress that she's representing LSRJ. And how's her age / time out of college even relevant to that when it's "law students for reproductive justice". So she obviously was in that while a law student.

Lot's of bloggers on yahoo have been citing this and saying "you libs just won't let this story die" lol. Which makes even less sense.

Hell, if she's 31 and can pass for 23, good luck to her.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 09, 2012, 09:01:57 pm
"So these things nobody (except Rush) said about her turned out to be false. DAMN YOU LIEBERALS!"
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 09, 2012, 09:02:02 pm
As I understand it, Rush has been losing a lot of advertisers over this (he supposedly has started to have periods of dead air because of it), and now a bunch of artists are telling him not to use their music on his show anymore.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 09, 2012, 09:13:54 pm
His mistake was taking the blowtorch to someone who wasn't a professional politician, hence why all the conservatives are now trying to paint her as a professional agitator, or a deliberate democrat party plant. He should have stuck to sexist comments about Nancy Pelosi.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 09, 2012, 09:40:20 pm
Wait, I don't get it. It is not ok to call a 23 year old woman a prostitute and a slut and what not, but it is totally ok if she is a 30 year old woman's right activist?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 09, 2012, 09:47:15 pm
Quote from: Max White on March 09, 2012, 09:40:20 pm
It is not ok to call a 23 year old woman a prostitute and a slut and what not, but it is totally ok if she is a 30 year old woman's right activist/liberal media plant.
Welcome to American politics ::)

Seriously though, almost makes you wonder if RL 'imself, or someone backing him, started up that line about the age. Or just the "conservative media," I guess.

Yellow journalism... innit that the name for it?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 09, 2012, 10:15:09 pm
Guys, I don't think you've realised.  Being 30 years old, a woman and a women's rights activist instantly destroys your credibility.  Especially if you don't repeatedly state that you aren't a coed, otherwise you're misleading Rush Limbaugh because he will assume you are.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 09, 2012, 10:17:35 pm
Clearly... You would think that she would wear a collar around her neck with her name, age, and phone number to call in case she get's lost, being a woman's rights activist and all...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 10, 2012, 09:29:51 pm
I know it's a cracked article, but its actually fairly well written about a topic we've been discussing for quite some time now.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-archies-gay-friend-proved-internet-can-do-good/

Cracked.com is rarely work safe.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 10, 2012, 10:43:53 pm
This whole controversy keeps tempting me to read Archie.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 10, 2012, 11:30:45 pm
The same way Birdo (http://au.wii.ign.com/articles/116/1164533p1.html) make me more likely to check out Super Mario Bros

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birdo
Quote
Birdo's gender in the original manual for Super Mario Bros. 2 asserts that Birdo is a boy who believes that he is a girl, and would rather be referred to as "Birdetta".

Quote
Translation: "She appears to be Yoshi's girlfriend -- but is she really his boyfriend?!"

Other than these couple of references to Birdo's gender in the backstory, Yoshi and Birdo are treated the same as any other characters.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ggamer on March 11, 2012, 12:02:19 am
Interesting trend i've noticed lately:

When moderate-liberal or liberals are arguing, they cite A.M. radio, RL, and various other conservative media outlets as being the devil.

When moderate-conservatives or conservatives are arguing, they cite Newspapers, Mass media, and various other liberal media outlets as being the devil.

Is anyone else catching this?

On topic, what was the 23/30 year old woman even doing that pissed RL off so much? If she was trying to investigate college abuse, or claiming to have been abused to slander a public official, I could understand.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Realmfighter on March 11, 2012, 12:08:11 am
The chick that Rush called a whore? She was speaking in congress in support of requiring insurance providers to pay for contraception, which in Limbaugh's head meant that she could be only a prostitute.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 11, 2012, 12:12:29 am
More to the point, Catholic colleges are withholding medicine which was already covered by insurance plans paid for by student's school fees, based on the college administrations ideology. And, then, those students turn to tax-payer funded free clinics for treatment because the college is withholding stuff.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ggamer on March 11, 2012, 12:17:53 am
Quote from: Reelya on March 11, 2012, 12:12:29 am
More to the point, Catholic colleges are withholding medicine which was already covered by insurance plans paid for by student's school fees, based on the college administrations ideology.

Love how you phrase that to make it seem like the catholic schools are with holding medicine from dying african children.

No, the reason is that, from what I have heard, the government has started forcing various catholic institutions to pay for various contraceptive medications, i.e. abortion and morning-after pills.

Of course, that sounds like bullshit. If there's anything that people are adamant about, it's respect for religious beliefs, if you're a believer, and containment of religious beliefs, if you aren't. Plus, I doubt you could slip a measure like that past a republican majority congress.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 11, 2012, 12:21:55 am
Quote from: ggamer on March 11, 2012, 12:02:19 am
Interesting trend i've noticed lately:

When moderate-liberal or liberals are arguing, they cite A.M. radio, RL, and various other conservative media outlets as being the devil.

When moderate-conservatives or conservatives are arguing, they cite Newspapers, Mass media, and various other liberal media outlets as being the devil.
...Huh?  No, I don't see what point you're making, other than listing a bunch of possible news sources (with the liberal ones being much more vague than the conservative ones).

Fox News (IE a mass media source) is the main conservative one anyway, which is undeniably atrocious.  As in, regardless of your politics, their complete lack of journalistic standards is unforgivable.

Quote from: ggamer on March 11, 2012, 12:17:53 am
Quote from: Reelya on March 11, 2012, 12:12:29 am
More to the point, Catholic colleges are withholding medicine which was already covered by insurance plans paid for by student's school fees, based on the college administrations ideology.
Love how you phrase that to make it seem like the catholic schools are with holding medicine from dying african children.
Uh... no?  He said what they're actually doing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Realmfighter on March 11, 2012, 12:24:41 am
Quote from: ggamer on March 11, 2012, 12:17:53 am
No, the reason is that, from what I have heard, the government has started forcing various catholic institutions to pay for various contraceptive medications, i.e. abortion and morning-after pills.

Of course, that sounds like bullshit. If there's anything that people are adamant about, it's respect for religious beliefs, if you're a believer, and containment of religious beliefs, if you aren't. Plus, I doubt you could slip a measure like that past a republican majority congress.

If you're providing medical insurance you can't say I don't believe in this particular thing so I don't have to pay for it. If your boss didn't pay for your medicine even though you had insurance just because his religion disagrees with it I doubt you would be supporting him.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 11, 2012, 12:28:31 am
Quote from: ggamer on March 11, 2012, 12:17:53 am
Quote from: Reelya on March 11, 2012, 12:12:29 am
More to the point, Catholic colleges are withholding medicine which was already covered by insurance plans paid for by student's school fees, based on the college administrations ideology.

Love how you phrase that to make it seem like the catholic schools are with holding medicine from dying african children.

No, the reason is that, from what I have heard, the government has started forcing various catholic institutions to pay for various contraceptive medications, i.e. abortion and morning-after pills.

Actually it's about your job not denying you insurance coverage based on their own religious beliefs.  If you're a janitor for a private Catholic school, there's no reason they should be able to deny your ability to use your work provided insurance coverage to get contraceptives.  Obviously if you're a die-hard by the book Catholic you wouldn't be getting birth control anyways, so it's a moot point.  98% of Catholics these days use one form of birth control or another (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/06/cecilia-munoz/white-house-official-says-98-catholic-women-have-u/) anyways, so, again, it's a moot point on that end.

So yeah, please don't act like others are tilting at windmills when you're the one who is imagining giants.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 11, 2012, 12:29:01 am
Quote from: Realmfighter on March 11, 2012, 12:24:41 am
Quote from: ggamer on March 11, 2012, 12:17:53 am
No, the reason is that, from what I have heard, the government has started forcing various catholic institutions to pay for various contraceptive medications, i.e. abortion and morning-after pills.

Of course, that sounds like bullshit. If there's anything that people are adamant about, it's respect for religious beliefs, if you're a believer, and containment of religious beliefs, if you aren't. Plus, I doubt you could slip a measure like that past a republican majority congress.

If you're providing medical insurance you can't say I don't believe in this particular thing so I don't have to pay for it. If your boss didn't pay for your medicine even though you had insurance just because his religion disagrees with it I doubt you would be supporting him.
Huh. I thought that it would be more like your boss paying for your medicine, but then not letting you have it. But I might be wrong.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: G-Flex on March 11, 2012, 12:38:00 am
Quote from: Realmfighter on March 11, 2012, 12:24:41 am
Quote from: ggamer on March 11, 2012, 12:17:53 am
No, the reason is that, from what I have heard, the government has started forcing various catholic institutions to pay for various contraceptive medications, i.e. abortion and morning-after pills.

Of course, that sounds like bullshit. If there's anything that people are adamant about, it's respect for religious beliefs, if you're a believer, and containment of religious beliefs, if you aren't. Plus, I doubt you could slip a measure like that past a republican majority congress.

If you're providing medical insurance you can't say I don't believe in this particular thing so I don't have to pay for it. If your boss didn't pay for your medicine even though you had insurance just because his religion disagrees with it I doubt you would be supporting him.

Worse, it's not even the Catholic institutions paying for it; it's not as if they're the ones running the health insurance companies.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ggamer on March 11, 2012, 12:39:13 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on March 11, 2012, 12:21:55 am
Quote from: ggamer on March 11, 2012, 12:02:19 am
Interesting trend i've noticed lately:

When moderate-liberal or liberals are arguing, they cite A.M. radio, RL, and various other conservative media outlets as being the devil.

When moderate-conservatives or conservatives are arguing, they cite Newspapers, Mass media, and various other liberal media outlets as being the devil.
...Huh?  No, I don't see what point you're making, other than listing a bunch of possible news sources (with the liberal ones being much more vague than the conservative ones).

Fox News (IE a mass media source) is the main conservative one anyway, which is undeniably atrocious.  As in, regardless of your politics, their complete lack of journalistic standards is unforgivable.

Sorry bro, can't name very many lib news stations/mass media fixtures off the top of my head.

Of course. Fox news is the main conservative mass media station, because it is the only conservative mass media station. And a shitty one at that.

In fact, we can all agree that Fox news is basically run by a bunch of assholes.



Quote
Quote from: ggamer on March 11, 2012, 12:17:53 am
Quote from: Reelya on March 11, 2012, 12:12:29 am
More to the point, Catholic colleges are withholding medicine which was already covered by insurance plans paid for by student's school fees, based on the college administrations ideology.
Love how you phrase that to make it seem like the catholic schools are with holding medicine from dying african children.
Uh... no?  He said what they're actually doing.

Bro, i'm not going to get into an argument over semantics with you. It may be hard to believe, but some people can twist facts to force a certain view while still, technically, telling the truth.

I would rather not dwell on this, as I know jack shit about the issue, beyond what I've heard from other christians.

Quote from: Realmfighter on March 11, 2012, 12:24:41 am
Quote from: ggamer on March 11, 2012, 12:17:53 am
No, the reason is that, from what I have heard, the government has started forcing various catholic institutions to pay for various contraceptive medications, i.e. abortion and morning-after pills.

Of course, that sounds like bullshit. If there's anything that people are adamant about, it's respect for religious beliefs, if you're a believer, and containment of religious beliefs, if you aren't. Plus, I doubt you could slip a measure like that past a republican majority congress.

If you're providing medical insurance you can't say I don't believe in this particular thing so I don't have to pay for it. If your boss didn't pay for your medicine even though you had insurance just because his religion disagrees with it I doubt you would be supporting him.

If the government required that atheists pay for mission trips to help build houses for rural south african communities, would you oppose it?

@Capntastic

Catholics and Baptists are, though they are both christian, completely separate denominations.

If i'm reading this correctly, however, the issue is that the insurance plans already taken out by catholic churches have been changed to account for contraceptive costs.

Or they knew this and took out the insurance policy anyway. Which would be stupid.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 11, 2012, 12:46:04 am
Quote from: ggamer on March 11, 2012, 12:39:13 am
@Capntastic

Catholics and Baptists are, though they are both christian, completely separate denominations.

If i'm reading this correctly, however, the issue is that the insurance plans already taken out by catholic churches have been changed to account for contraceptive costs.

Or they knew this and took out the insurance policy anyway. Which would be stupid.

What do different denominations have to do with anything anyone's been arguing?

And reading what correctly?  Cite something.

And again this isn't about Church insurance policies, it's about businesses owned by religious people who don't want their employees (who may or may not be religious, and may or may not have problems with birth control) to have access to contraception.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 11, 2012, 12:46:16 am
Quote from: ggamer on March 11, 2012, 12:39:13 am
Sorry bro, can't name very many lib news stations/mass media fixtures off the top of my head.
CNN and NPR.
Quote
I would rather not dwell on this, as I know jack shit about the issue, beyond what I've heard from other christians.
You shouldn't run your typing fingers on issues where your only information is from people who have a reason to be biased on it.
Quote
If the government required that atheists pay for mission trips to help build houses for rural south african communities, would you oppose it?
Healthcare =/= Missionaries

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 11, 2012, 12:52:59 am
Quote from: ggamer on March 11, 2012, 12:39:13 am
If the government required that atheists pay for mission trips to help build houses for rural south african communities, would you oppose it?

I want to address this, because I don't know if you're trying to intentionally invoke an idea that atheists don't do altruistic things like this, or what.  The US does spend a certain amount of tax money on humanitarian efforts, and I'm completely fine with that, and wish the amount were higher.  But I would absolutely oppose the idea of tax money being spent on promoting any religion, not because I'm an atheist, but because government has no business doing that. 

To the same end, a person's personal religion should have no bearing on them being able to approve or deny medical stuff for others.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Realmfighter on March 11, 2012, 12:53:56 am
Quote from: ggamer on March 11, 2012, 12:39:13 am
If the government required that atheists pay for mission trips to help build houses for rural south african communities, would you oppose it?

I fail to see how the government making you pay for mission trips is related to the government requiring health insurance providers to, you know, provide health care
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 11, 2012, 12:58:13 am
I suggest we avoid a dogpile while GGamer gathers his thoughts.  I mean, he's admitted already he doesn't really know what he's talking about-- we should have the aim of guiding him to a better understanding. 

I'll try to gather some good summary articles on the whole healthcare/contraception debacle.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 11, 2012, 12:59:47 am
Quote from: ggamer on March 11, 2012, 12:17:53 am
Quote from: Reelya on March 11, 2012, 12:12:29 am
More to the point, Catholic colleges are withholding medicine which was already covered by insurance plans paid for by student's school fees, based on the college administrations ideology.

Love how you phrase that to make it seem like the catholic schools are with holding medicine from dying african children.

No, the reason is that, from what I have heard, the government has started forcing various catholic institutions to pay for various contraceptive medications, i.e. abortion and morning-after pills.

Of course, that sounds like bullshit. If there's anything that people are adamant about, it's respect for religious beliefs, if you're a believer, and containment of religious beliefs, if you aren't. Plus, I doubt you could slip a measure like that past a republican majority congress.

That "dying african children" thing is a total straw man, i never said anything of the sort. They "withholding" stuff - fact. it's medicine - fact. Already paid for by students - fact. The withholding is based on the colleges ideology -fact.

There's nothing in my statement which plays on any emotions about "dying children". They paid for it, give them what they paid for and don't be jerks about it, the college doesn't own the students.

---

Citation for this from a reputable source about the morning after pill thing?

Googling "Obama morning after pill" gives links which all cite this story :

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/us/obama-backs-aides-stance-on-morning-after-pill.html

"Obama Endorses Decision to Limit Morning-After Pill"
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 11, 2012, 01:02:32 am
The thing is, the institutions in question are paying for the contraception included in the plan. Spending money has nothing to do with it. What they're doing is buying plans that include these things, presumably because those are the most cost-effective plans, and then requesting that the insurance providers not pay for contraception. The reasoning here is purely that they don't want to have unwittingly contributed to a series of events that leads to something they find morally abhorrent; it isn't about spending money they don't want to or otherwise being compelled to make a material sacrifice. It's about avoiding being an accessory to a spiritual crime. That's as charitable a statement as I can make about it.

The problem with this reasoning is that literally anything they do could so contribute (Built a road lately? Oh jeez, look at that 32 car pileup. Held the door open at the gas station? Great, you just made it a little easier for that guy to rob the place. Bought bread lately? Turns out the baker is a child molester.). This is way beyond a reasonable action to take, and really needs to be left up to individual employees. Although really, I don't understand why health insurance is tied up with employers anyway. Probably because buying a huge batch of policies allows for a better rate than buying each individually, resulting in a savings for employees, but even so, it feels like an awful kludge to get things to work. It's like leaving an uncommented magic number as a critical part of your code.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 11, 2012, 01:03:39 am
Quote from: Reelya on March 11, 2012, 12:59:47 am
Citation for this from a reputable source?
Why would you need a citation for what he already called bullshit?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 11, 2012, 01:05:13 am
ggamer said
Quote
No, the reason is that, from what I have heard, the government has started forcing various catholic institutions to pay for various contraceptive medications, i.e. abortion and morning-after pills.

He stated this as fact. Where's the proof that this is the thing? Where did he hear this, i'd like to see the sources.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 11, 2012, 01:07:09 am
First off, no. That is a statement of what he has heard, not as statement of fact.

Secondly the very next sentence was saying he does not believe what he heard.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 11, 2012, 01:10:05 am
Oh, addendum to my post. Since employees also typically pay for their own insurance plans, or in some other way have the cost factored into their paycheck, that's another reason it shouldn't be up to the employer.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 11, 2012, 01:16:34 am
Quote from: Criptfeind on March 11, 2012, 01:07:09 am
First off, no. That is a statement of what he has heard, not as statement of fact.

Secondly the very next sentence was saying he does not believe what he heard.

He used the whole thing as a point contradicting what I said, and since he say's it's true then not true, i want to know specifically how that contradicts what i said.

Or is it just a babbling non-sequiter then?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 11, 2012, 01:20:46 am
Quote from: Reelya on March 11, 2012, 01:16:34 am
Or is it just a babbling non-sequiter then?

Seems likely.

That or a confession to ignorance in a plead to learn? Which is most likely chasing a pipe dream.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 11, 2012, 01:22:56 am
Quote from: Capntastic on March 11, 2012, 12:58:13 am
I suggest we avoid a dogpile while GGamer gathers his thoughts.  I mean, he's admitted already he doesn't really know what he's talking about-- we should have the aim of guiding him to a better understanding. 

Either go through his points and bring him up to speed or stop tag-teaming him over how wrong he is.  Keep the thread helpful and fun!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 11, 2012, 01:25:57 am
What do you want?

"Hey GG! You made no sense there! What the heck did you mean?"
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 11, 2012, 03:57:09 am
Making policy for others, based on what you personally believe makes them deal with your beliefs. Problem: if they don't share your beliefs, you've forced your belief's restrictions on them. Also if there are secondary consequences of such policy, you've also forced that on them too. This is even moreso when the other people involved have effectively no choice and will pay the immediate and long term costs where the decision maker will not.

Health insurance polices aren't often bought individually. Numerous people pay for them as a group and one person makes the decision. Employees (as part of compensation) or students (as part of tuition) pay for health insurance policies, but do not make the decisions about them. That decision maker doesn't have to pay any of the personal costs concerning the policy: financial or otherwise, but makes the decisions (with none of their own skin in the game).

This is about those decision makers, making decisions the people effected by them don't like. They make those decisions based upon reasons, religious ones sometimes, that the people effected by those decisions, don't share.

Just because the person who administers my insurance plan doesn't like contraceptives, doesn't mean I should be denied them. I have no problem with them. The only reason that administrator has a problem with them is due to his or her religion, which I don't share. By making a decision which effects me based upon their religion, they're forcing a part of that religion upon me.

Forgetting entirely the very valid non-sexual medical reasons birth control is prescribed, People banning contraceptives don't want to and won't pay for the unwanted or unable to be cared for children that will result from sex without contraceptives. Abstaining doesn't work.... People are simply going to have sex, no matter what. If history has proven anything, then it's that.

As for what Ms. Fluke did, she testified in Congress about why she thought it would be a good idea to have a law saying people can't be denied birth control pills in their health insurance coverage. This was largely due Congress recently having a laughably all male panel testify about womens' issues..... It's simple, she spoke her mind in front of Congress and Mr. Limbaugh assassinated her character and slandered her for his radio ratings.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 11, 2012, 04:23:36 am
Truean, great summation there. There's also sexism evident in how Rush mocks her for her youth ("college coed"), then later the conservative bloggers mock her for her age ("omg she's 30!"). Thus proving females can't win against sexist reporting, you're either too young or too old to be credible (youthful "bimbo" or "old hag", no in-between).

We can call this a "goldilocks" phenomena :D

except there's no "just right" age, since Sandra Fluke shows that you can be BOTH too young and too old at the same time :D

Ever heard a male attacked over their age? It's rare. Unless you're under 18 or over 70. I've certainly never seen a male attacked for BOTH being too old and too young at the same time.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 11, 2012, 07:43:47 am
Hey, I can contribute... sorta'. I actually asked about the contraception thing a bit back in the American Election Megathread, and got a response by RedKing, one of our more politically aware forumgoers. Here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=98262.msg3062309)* and here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=98262.msg3062409)**. It's genuinely somewhat depressing, because of how the media has been portraying things and how the message is being disseminated to those who are strongly for religious expression. There's basically, in a quite literal sense, no actual issue of religious expression whatsoever; no religious persecution, nothing stopping religiously funded organizations from simply purchasing health insurance that doesn't cover contraceptives, etc., so forth. The whole reason it's got as loud as it has is because someone politically motivated decided to spin up a wedge issue where none exists :-\

There's a progressive issue to be had with the subject, but one involving politics and media, not so much religion.

Spoiler: * (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: ** (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on March 11, 2012, 09:22:36 am
Basically it's like people turning "banning of public school prayers" to "you can't pray in schools" and screaming how their rights are violated?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 11, 2012, 01:42:52 pm
Quote from: justinlee999 on March 11, 2012, 09:22:36 am
Basically it's like people turning "banning of public school prayers" to "you can't pray in schools" and screaming how their rights are violated?

Only in the sense that it's totally blown out of proportion like that yeah.

It's basically a "The religious people in charge want to tell everyone what to do but don't you dare tell them what to do," issue.

It's all a bullshit right wing spin campaign to drum up election year opposition to Obama. Look at the wording. "Contraceptives," can mean a lot of different things that traditionally you pay for yourself. "Birth control," means those little pills to everyone. See how the second one is a narrower category (which happens to be more accurate)? Fewer people are opposed to "birth control" (pills is implied) than "contraceptives" in the US and the people who tried to run this spin campaign knew this.

Rush Limbaugh was part of this spin campaign but he grossly miscalculated. He really fucked up when he called her a "slut" and "prostitute" and tried to make the undertone that all "womens' rights activists" were also sluts and prostitutes.
Because his logic went that if she wanted the government to pay for a part of her having sex, then that made her a prostitute and he called for her to post a sex tape online "if we were paying for it; we should get something."

This is all part of a wider right wing spin campaign in support of the "War on Women." Bans or restrictions on abortion, forced ultrasounds, lack of funding and support for domestic violence prevention and remedy programs, saying being a single mom is a form of child abuse (they say dads prevent it and they don't say shit about single fatherhood being abuse), and also it seems they don't even like any form of contraceptive now.... It's a puppet show designed to distract you from long, pointless wars where we sink in $Trillions of dollars to accomplish very little while screaming there's no money for anything, eroding civil rights, a dismal economy, rich people and corporations paying lesser tax percentages than you, our crumbling infrastructure, the cost of college and lack of opportunity to rise in society through hard work, and every other thing they don't want you to focus on.

They know it's an election year, and they don't want you focused on that stuff. Instead, focus on some stupid little thing that gets people's attention, and let's have it be about sex, kinda, cause that'll keep their focus. Can you see the fucking strings?

And, once they started to realize just how incredibly badly Rush Limbaugh had fucked up and that it was going to cost them money, they immediately started blaming everyone but him. It couldn't possibly be that he's a right wing hate machine who randomly took a vocal blow torch to some innocent woman just for expressing her opinion. Rather, Ms. Fluke is a "liberal plant" (her fault), and this was all a trap set up and faked by "the left" (their fault). The advertisers that pulled out, "they're saying they don't want your [his listeners'] business." (their fault). "The drive by media" is also blowing this way out of proportion. (their fault). Because apparently Mr. Limbaugh can do no wrong and certainly not something completely despicable, like this.... Nobody believes his apologies, because they are forced and he also says things that void them right after he gives them.

Now that I see all the spin Limbaugh's been doing, I'm just dizzy. It fits right into his usual crap about how "liberals hate America" because we don't like his version of it. Naturally, he sees his version as the only legitimate one. Anything else is "Un-America." His way is the only right way and he can do no wrong, says he and his supporters. This was all a vast conspiracy to get Limbaugh, set him up and knock him down a peg? Or did he finally get shown for what he is?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 11, 2012, 02:29:11 pm
It's not even so much that things are being blown out of proportion (though it is) as the issue's being/been invented wholecloth. There isn't even something happening like mandated prayer in public schools being deemed impermissible. There's just... nothing there. No government mandate that religious institutions must fund insurance covering contraception, no new (emphasis on new, of course) push for government funded birth control, just... nothing.

The entire dialectic on the subject is just strange, at least from what I've been seeing. The conservative media is making this great hullabaloo over something that doesn't exist and the left is just... looking at them funny, I guess. Trying to defend themselves against allegations of behavior that doesn't exist. I don't pay terrible much attention to the news, honestly.

Even though it's a mostly unrelated subject, I'm being reminded of the Amendment Two propaganda that was being spread around in Florida, coached as a protection of marriage (read: Anti-homosexual marriage) law. The media coverage for the subject was just... completely divorced from the reality of the matter. Before A2, there were already two statues in the Florida lawbook deeming homosexual marriage illegal, one of which that explicitly stated that marriage was to be heterosexual. The only thing that A2 added was stripping some rights from unmarried couples. But the media machine didn't portray it as that, and people wondering what the blazes the point of A2 was were attacked as being pro-homosexual marriage (And hell, I knew people that weren't for homosexual marriage and still opposed A2. It took more from heterosexual couples than homosexual couples :-\).

With the contraceptive thing, it's being propagandized as anti-religious freedom, but... it's not. The accusation of curtailing religious expression is being made against imaginary acts. Y'can probably safely take away from that that the whole reason it's become an issue isn't the issue itself; someone's either trying to slip something in alongside a popularly supported subject, or it's just being used to polarize or energize a voting base. Same as with A2, really. Get 'em in the polling booth for one issue, expect 'em they vote partisan even if they don't really care about the rest of what's on the ballot, I guess...

I'unno. Guess just saying this highly polarized media feels stranger and stranger day in and day out. It's not a strictly conservative or strictly liberal issues, it's just entertainment media in general, I suppose. Big media's a g'damn mess these days.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 11, 2012, 02:38:42 pm
Quote from: Frumple on March 11, 2012, 02:29:11 pm
Big media's a g'damn mess these days.

Yes. Used to be, when Walter Cronkite said something, it was true and pretty much unbiased. You could take that shit to the bank. He has long since left the building.

Now everything is "entertainment," including the news. <-----WTF?

What the hell happened to just reporting factually? Journalistic Integrity? People used to be glued to the news and watch it religiously every night, so it didn't used to be a ratings issue. Now? How the hell do you even describe the situation?

Now, the news is always biased one way or the other and the networks cater to this bias rather than have any attempt to avoid it. We need the damn news back....

They sold the media and the media sold out....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 11, 2012, 03:17:25 pm
You need the BBC and its news section. A highly pleasing beacon of credability and integrity in an industry full of backstabbing, deviousness and corruption. You can be sure if they say its a spade, then its a spade. They legally HAVE to be politically neutral, which makes for some good reading/viewing. Thier current run on the Conservatives NHS reform is quite enlightening, and highlights the spin bullshit Cameron is spouting over it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: alway on March 11, 2012, 03:30:32 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-soldier-detained-after-opening-fire-on-afghans/2012/03/11/gIQAFFlW4R_story_1.html
Quote
A U.S. service member walked out of his base in southern Afghanistan before dawn Sunday and started shooting Afghan civilians, Afghan and NATO officials said. There were widely varying reports of casualties.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 11, 2012, 04:01:50 pm
what in the hell
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 11, 2012, 05:01:47 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on March 11, 2012, 03:17:25 pm
You need the BBC and its news section. A highly pleasing beacon of credability and integrity in an industry full of backstabbing, deviousness and corruption. You can be sure if they say its a spade, then its a spade. They legally HAVE to be politically neutral, which makes for some good reading/viewing. Thier current run on the Conservatives NHS reform is quite enlightening, and highlights the spin bullshit Cameron is spouting over it.
ABC and SBS in Australia fill the BBC role here, SBS is especially good for in-depth world news.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/

Lol, i just discovered the Daily Mail UK, consults long dead people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyo) for comments on new book releases (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394108/Heil-Papa-Smurf-French-sociologist-compares-Smurfs-Nazis-Stalinists.html) :-

Quote
The Smurfs creator, Belgian artist Peyo, told a Flemish paper: 'I disagree with his interpretation. It is between the grotesque and the not serious.'

EDIT: Ahh i checked other sources, and the quote was from Peyo's son, NOT Peyo himself, so this is a simple "mistake" from Daily Mail.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 11, 2012, 06:04:54 pm
He's a law student Gov'nor, which means he was at the top of his university class just to get into law school. "Idiot," is not the best way to describe your informed opposition. Didn't Rush Limbaugh also just call a law student stupid?
http://abovethelaw.com/2012/03/new-jersey-governor-chris-christie-calls-law-student-an-idiot/#more-141973

Non Lawyers have no business owning a single solitary bit of a law firm and need repeatedly yelled at until deaf if they think otherwise. Ownership means calling shots. The people calling the shots need to be personally responsible to the bar for ethics violations. What does the used car salesmen care if you violate your attorney oath? He doesn't.... This is kinda how investment banking got screwed over.... They incorporated and let stupid stockholders call shots. No.... No.... No....
http://abovethelaw.com/2012/03/new-york-says-no-for-now-to-non-lawyer-firm-ownership/

Justice Scalia.... I've had the displeasure of talking to him in person, several times to my dismay. I can't say anything nice about the man, so I suppose I won't say anything at all. 
http://abovethelaw.com/2012/03/justice-scalia-goes-to-wesleyan/

Unlike the author, I am a fan of protesting Supreme Court Justices if they are Scalia.
http://abovethelaw.com/2012/03/justice-scalia-at-wesleyan-now-with-photos-and-video/

Note: All of the authors featured above, are licensed practicing attorneys.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 11, 2012, 06:07:55 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 11, 2012, 06:04:54 pm
Justice Scalia.... I've had the displeasure of talking to him in person, several times to my dismay. I can't say anything nice about the man, so I suppose I won't say anything at all.
Woah now, you can't just drop on us that you personally met a Justice multiple times without telling us what happened. I know you and he are in the same basic field of work, but still! Especially when that Justice is Scalia. He does not seem like the social type.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 11, 2012, 06:38:01 pm
,
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: alway on March 11, 2012, 10:19:58 pm
http://thedailywh.at/2012/03/11/this-is-important-you-should-know-about-it-of-the-day-10/
Saw a bit about this the other day, now it seems there is more info.
Quote
Over the weekend, troubling allegations have emerged of many Iraqi teenagers being stoned to death for dressing in “emo fashion.”

Though the number might be lower — Reuters put the death toll at 14 — the terrifying trend appears to have at least a measure of consent from Iraq’s Interior Ministry, which suggests it could get much worse.

“[The Moral Police] have official approval to eliminate them as soon as possible, because the dimensions of the community began to take another course, and is now threatening danger,” read a statement from the ministry, which also compared “the Emo phenomenon” to “devil worshipping.”
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 11, 2012, 10:24:27 pm
OH MY GOD THEY ARE DRESSING DIFFERENTLY!!! DEVIL WORSHIP!!!
And people wonder why I generally have contempt for people who voice opinions based on religious views.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 11, 2012, 11:07:05 pm
See? They're Americanizing already.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Pnx on March 12, 2012, 01:13:41 am
Quote from: Truean on March 11, 2012, 11:07:05 pm
See? They're Americanizing already.
Do you suppose if we tell them that, they'll stop?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 12, 2012, 01:18:15 am
Who? The Americans or the Iraqi?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 12, 2012, 01:20:39 am
Yes. But I don't think the plan will succeed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 12, 2012, 01:21:51 am
Dammit Bauglir! Just dammit...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 12, 2012, 10:47:48 am
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/homemade-cannon-murder-charge-no-evidence-killing-intentional-113324685--abc-news.html

I think this story surfaced here a while ago, but I don't recall exactly. If so, this is an update.

After a night of drinking the woman retires inside the trailer. Her husband and a friend go outside and light their homemade cannon. The cannon explodes, moderately wounding the men, but a large piece of the cannon flies sideways through the wall of the trailer and impales the woman in the chest and killing her. He is now in jail on first degree murder charges with 1.3 million in bail which are for intentional premeditated murder, despite the prosecution stating that there is no evidence it was intentional.

What is wrong with this? There is no evidence, or even appearance of premeditation. There is no evidence or even appearance of intent: the cannon wasn't even pointed at the trailer. This was by every indication an accident. There may be an argument towards negligence or carelessness that might allow a manslaughter charge, but first degree murder is a completely fabricated charge.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 12, 2012, 01:33:12 pm
I really want to know how these trials happen. Like, at some point, was a lawyer accusing him of purposely pointing the side of his cannon toward his wife?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 12, 2012, 01:37:07 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on March 12, 2012, 10:47:48 am
What is wrong with this? There is no evidence, or even appearance of premeditation. There is no evidence or even appearance of intent: the cannon wasn't even pointed at the trailer. This was by every indication an accident. There may be an argument towards negligence or carelessness that might allow a manslaughter charge, but first degree murder is a completely fabricated charge.

There is no argument against it. 1st degree murder. Law system might need a reboot.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Darvi on March 12, 2012, 01:40:28 pm
Except that an argument for manslaughter is equivalent to an argument against murder, as the two are mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on March 12, 2012, 02:14:14 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 12, 2012, 01:33:12 pm
I really want to know how these trials happen. Like, at some point, was a lawyer accusing him of purposely pointing the side of his cannon toward his wife?
"I believe that this man deliberately fired the side of the cannon at his wife, his friends, and himself!"
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 12, 2012, 02:25:12 pm
"Right to DIe case to be heared in High Court. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17336774) Could lead to interesting changes in UK law... the individual in question raises many logical (if slightly uncomfortable) points.

The story behind a Chinese TV hit - "Interviews Before Execution". (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17303746) Again, challenging concepts raised.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Glowcat on March 12, 2012, 02:48:19 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on March 12, 2012, 02:25:12 pm
The story behind a Chinese TV hit - "Interviews Before Execution". (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17303746) Again, challenging concepts raised.

Quote
In China, 55 crimes carry the death penalty, from murder, treason and armed rebellion to bribery and smuggling. Thirteen other crimes, including VAT fraud, smuggling relics and credit fraud, were only recently removed from the list of capital offences.

VAT fraud? Really? Was jaywalking also recently removed or is that still in there?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on March 12, 2012, 05:47:55 pm
Parents keep childs gender undisclosed. (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/parents-keep-child-gender-under-wraps-170824245.html)

I'm not sure I like either side of this story, though I'm leaning towards the parents. I dislike how... pretentious they seem, but they may not be all that pretentious, instead being the bias from the reporting.

The other side is the reporter bias, going "Look at these idiots!". I think it's a cool idea, more or less. Not something to be mocked, at least.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on March 12, 2012, 06:12:49 pm
Yeah, I like the idea too, but you're also correct that they - the parents - seem really pretentious. The "unschooling" more than not naming their kids though. Not the idea, I agree with the basics of it, but calling it "unschooling" is just so damn pretto.

But anyway, I enjoy the thought if it, I really dislike how people heap social rules and pressure on children before even their skull-plates grown together. I'll try to remember this ifever I have a kid or two ;)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 12, 2012, 06:24:48 pm
I think they would have a hard time justifying to me how thier methods are in the long term best interestes of the child though - as far as I can see it makes minimal impact on the life of the child short term (based on my own 2 girls, kids just really want to be kids and have only a minimal understanding of the badges we give them at a very young age), and allows them to "pedastal" themselves as if on some kind of moral crusade against a "probably not really there" enemy. But hey, whatever works for them in terms of producing a stable and happy family unit - having my own kids makes me kind of biased here, which I am fully aware of.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on March 12, 2012, 06:37:38 pm
Oh no, trust me, kids have an excellent understanding of what society wants them to be. They're learning machines, it's the only thing they do besides eating and pooping. It's already been proven that people act different towards infants depending on what gender they think the infants have, laying the foundations for the gender roles, and yeah, socialisation starts from the minute we are born. There is no "imaginary enemy" here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: trees on March 12, 2012, 07:08:00 pm
Quote from: Descan on March 12, 2012, 05:47:55 pm
Parents keep childs gender undisclosed. (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/parents-keep-child-gender-under-wraps-170824245.html)

This is great.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 12, 2012, 07:16:13 pm
Those parents are tripping my Crazy Alarm.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on March 12, 2012, 07:18:11 pm
The Idea: Good, if a bit unorthodox. I don't think it was well executed in this case, though.

The Parents: Pretentious but well-meaning.

The Reporter: Asshat full of bias.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Virex on March 12, 2012, 07:23:50 pm
Quote from: scriver on March 12, 2012, 06:37:38 pm
Oh no, trust me, kids have an excellent understanding of what society wants them to be. They're learning machines, it's the only thing they do besides eating and pooping. It's already been proven that people act different towards infants depending on what gender they think the infants have, laying the foundations for the gender roles, and yeah, socialisation starts from the minute we are born. There is no "imaginary enemy" here.
Does that mean that treating girls as males would be an excellent way to get them into STEM fields?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on March 12, 2012, 07:33:49 pm
I don't know what that means.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 12, 2012, 07:36:01 pm
Quote from: scriver on March 12, 2012, 07:33:49 pm
I don't know what that means.
Science
Technology
Engineering
Mathamatics

Making sure most people are versed in at least one of these fields is a goalpost for public education.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Lysabild on March 12, 2012, 07:37:28 pm
Those parents are awesome.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Virex on March 12, 2012, 07:38:26 pm
^^ That. Unfortunately, women are still grossly underrepresented in those fields (at least, in the west. Ironically, in more patriarchal countries, the male/woman ratio in STEM fields is much closer to unity)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 12, 2012, 08:27:22 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 12, 2012, 10:55:04 pm
Hm. I think a different level of recklessness would be required for a murder charge instead of a manslaughter one. Like, running a red light and killing someone is vehicular manslaughter (I think), but playing chicken could be murder?

Quote from: Descan on March 12, 2012, 07:18:11 pm
The Idea: Good, if a bit unorthodox. I don't think it was well executed in this case, though.

I think the idea was perfectly executed. I mean, the it's just not telling anyone your kid's gender. What did they do wrong? It follows the kid named X pretty well.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 12, 2012, 10:58:27 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 12, 2012, 10:55:04 pm
Quote from: Descan on March 12, 2012, 07:18:11 pm
The Idea: Good, if a bit unorthodox. I don't think it was well executed in this case, though.

I think the idea was perfectly executed. I mean, the it's just not telling anyone your kid's gender. What did they do wrong? It follows the kid named X pretty well.
I think it's probably more than that. The article didn't go into very much detail about their other children, but that and the "unschooling" give off a very bad vibe. Also, Storm isn't that good of a name for someone to have. It's just out there enough to probably cause the kid trouble down the road.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: alway on March 12, 2012, 11:09:56 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un
Quote
The UN special rapporteur on torture has formally accused the US government of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment towards Bradley Manning, the US soldier who was held in solitary confinement for almost a year on suspicion of being the WikiLeaks source.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 12, 2012, 11:17:18 pm
Quote from: Virex on March 12, 2012, 07:38:26 pm
^^ That. Unfortunately, women are still grossly underrepresented in those fields (at least, in the west. Ironically, in more patriarchal countries, the male/woman ratio in STEM fields is much closer to unity)

This is covered in several books, e.g. Susan Pinkers book The Sexual Paradox. The idea that the two genders are exactly the same and that only socialization makes a difference was in vogue 40 years ago, there's little clinical evidence to state we're identical.

In third-world countries, you have few choices, those with the talent pick the career which will make the most money. Funny enough, Scandinavian countries - those with inarguably the best gender equity in the world have the highest divide between stereo-typical male / female roles in work. Why are the countries with the broadest choice for females (with paid maternity leave, equal pay laws, and the whole rest)  more likely not less to show a divide between "typical" male/female roles?

Also, the gay / transgender argument that people "knew" their gender identity from birth, at odds with what society was telling them, seems to confirm that there is some level of personality traits which are inherent (probably from hormones exposed in the womb).

If we assume people are a "blank slate" with gender, we also would have to assume we're a blank slate with other personality traits.

--

Consider something like Oxytocin hormone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin)

Quote
Oxytocin is best known for its roles in sexual reproduction, in particular during and after childbirth. It is released in large amounts after distension of the cervix and uterus during labor, facilitating birth, and after stimulation of the nipples, facilitating breastfeeding.
Recent studies have begun to investigate oxytocin's role in various behaviors, including orgasm, social recognition, pair bonding, anxiety, and maternal behaviors. For this reason, it is sometimes referred to as the "love hormone". The inability to secrete oxytocin and feel empathy is linked to sociopathy, psychopathy, narcissism and general manipulativeness.

Quote
Empathy in healthy males has been shown to be increased after intranasal oxytocin. This is most likely due to the effect of oxytocin in enhancing eye gaze. There is some discussion about which aspect of empathy oxytocin might alter - for example, cognitive vs. emotional empathy.

Basically clinical trials of oxytocin on men showed that the experimental groups are measurably more able to recognize facial emotions than a control group. This hormone exists in much higher levels in females, which would seem to indicate female empathy is not just a socially learnt response.

---

Whatever model we settle on in the future needs to account for both biology and socialization.

Or as we going to continue to say women don't know their own mind, but a "feminist" version of this now? How's that any less patriarchal than the old days? Now, we say that people are socialized from birth to "know their place" and women have internalized all the "you can't do that" stuff.

And we continue to exalt the "male" way of doing things as the "true" way. e.g. I was telling an older guy, a friend of a friend who's in the "arts" crowd, who disliked video games (he quoted GTA as a typical game) about games which were popular with both genders, e.g. "The Sims". He sniffed, "A glorified dolls house". So, even from someone who believed himself totally enlightened, that's bias against things women like.

Reminds me of a discussion we had once in the DF boards, why do more males play dwarf fortress than females. "The game is inherently sexist" was one answer, after further debate that'd shifted to "if only we brought females up properly they'd love dwarf fortress as much as men".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 12, 2012, 11:24:28 pm
Hey, this genderless kid thing.

Damn people its a baby, it doesn't even have a gender yet, anyways. Certainly nothing worth talking about. All telling people accomplishes is meaning you have to deal with their pushy bullshit and expectations. I am totally not telling anybody my kids gender either. Or even their sex. They really want to know, they can volunteer to babysit and change some diapers.

Plus it gets even more fun when their older, because then the whole thing becomes a huge game - one kids can get away with and they definitely love as long as that sort of play is encouraged. Let them be whatever.

As far as the unschooling goes - the oldest kid is 5, if the parents have time to be around all day and do appropriate learning encouraging activities, like reading to their kids or getting read to be them regularly, I don't see how that could be worse than the holding pen that is kindergarten.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on March 12, 2012, 11:28:29 pm
Unschooling: The problem ain't the concept, it's the name and the way it's described. Reeks of pretentious douchehippyery.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 12, 2012, 11:34:29 pm
The problem with unschooling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling) is that it's the same thing we all did as kids, run around, play, explore, with-or-without parents. But, rather than complementing traditional learning, it replaces it.

I used to fart around doing all that for 8 hours a day, plus school. Is farting around for 14 hours a day really optimal? Plus it has a complete dicky name.

Actually this was coined in the 1970's and they're basing their child-rearing on a 1978 book ... debunked 30+ year old social theories are the latest thing in this household.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 12, 2012, 11:43:33 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 12, 2012, 11:49:36 pm
Quote from: Reelya on March 12, 2012, 11:17:18 pm
This is covered in several books, e.g. Susan Pinkers book The Sexual Paradox. The idea that the two genders are exactly the same and that only socialization makes a difference was in vogue 40 years ago, there's little clinical evidence to state we're identical.
Question isn't, in my mind anyway, whether the genders are identical. It's whether whatever physiological differences that do exist are sufficient to warrant different (often extremely so) treatment.

Beyond that, it's whether outliers can exist. If it's oxytocin that engenders empathy, then we should formulate what parts of our society that are enhanced by empathy around oxytocin levels (perhaps finding ways to safely maintain a heightened level for those deficient in the chemical, but otherwise particularly capable of whatever role is in question), not reproductive organs. It stands to reason that it's possible for males to have heightened levels of the chemical, after all. Should we deny a heightened oxytocin male access to the potential oxytocin enabled social/professional roles, simply because of his sex? It goes both ways, of course, and even then we risk a sort of tyranny of the chemical...

I'm very strongly in favor of that sort of research, but we need to be really damn careful what we take away from it.

Quote
Whatever model we settle on in the future needs to account for both biology and socialization.
I may be (mis)reading to much into this, but just to be sure: Always be careful with this. Remember the naturalistic fallacy -- is does not entail should be. It may turn out we've got biological influences that are violently societally (or at least morally, if one's willing to go that route) maladaptive, after all.

Quote
Reminds me of a discussion we had once in the DF boards, why do more males play dwarf fortress than females. "The game is inherently sexist" was one answer, after further debate that'd shifted to "if only we brought females up properly they'd love dwarf fortress as much as men".
Properly is the wrong word, obviously, but it's equally obvious that some women do love DF as much as men. DF's radiance should be spread to all that can stomach it and all its lovers embraced equally by their brethren, yeah. But let us not deny that even if others dislike DF, that makes them no less human ;)

Anyway, I'unno. There's potential for both great good and horrific misuse in the whole research-into-biological-gender-differences thing. All I really know is that the biological influences of the human body should be viewed with great care, and possibly suspicion. There is a tremendous amount of work necessary to say something like women are biologically more empathic than men, ferex. On average, maybe, but that leaves us a lot of outlying individuals that deserve a great deal of incredibly careful consideration.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: G-Flex on March 12, 2012, 11:55:48 pm
Quote from: Frumple on March 12, 2012, 11:49:36 pm
Quote from: Reelya on March 12, 2012, 11:17:18 pm
This is covered in several books, e.g. Susan Pinkers book The Sexual Paradox. The idea that the two genders are exactly the same and that only socialization makes a difference was in vogue 40 years ago, there's little clinical evidence to state we're identical.
Question isn't, in my mind anyway, whether the genders are identical. It's whether whatever physiological differences that do exist are sufficient to warrant different (often extremely so) treatment.

Or stated differently: Whether those differences are significant compared to the differences between individuals. Even if men and women generally differ in some innate sense, the differences between individuals can be great enough that any sort of judgment based on physical sex is still pretty outlandish.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 13, 2012, 12:01:48 am
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/third-female-lawmaker-introduces-bill-limit-men-viagra-204340160.html

When the Shoe's on the other foot, don't you know that's when it hits the fan....:P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2012, 12:02:52 am
The unschooling philosophy, is, at its core
Quote
Since we can’t know what knowledge will be most needed in the future, it is senseless to try to teach it in advance. Instead, we should try to turn out people who love learning so much and learn so well that they will be able to learn whatever needs to be learned

While one can and should argue with such things, (for example, I think strong foundations in reason, logic, music, language (including reading), and various learning methodologies are all incredibly important bits of knowledge, core skills), the ultimate goal doesn't seem either bad or unreasonable. Especially when you're considering it in comparison to, you know, the grade school system we have now.

Quote from: Reelya on March 12, 2012, 11:34:29 pm
The problem with unschooling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling) is that it's the same thing we all did as kids, run around, play, explore, with-or-without parents. But, rather than complementing traditional learning, it replaces it.
Except thats not what the article you just linked describes.


Quote from: Reelya on March 12, 2012, 11:34:29 pm
I used to fart around doing all that for 8 hours a day, plus school. Is farting around for 14 hours a day really optimal? Plus it has a complete dicky name.
Of course not - that simply means its just as easy to do this poorly as it is to do "traditional" schooling poorly, if not more so. It doesn't mean the concept is worthless, or even bad. And also, those who actually go on to do great things? They aren't going to spend 14 hours a day wasting time. I know I certainly couldn't, as a kid. I learned more and did more on the weekends than I ever did during the week at school. The biggest problem wasn't even the time spent in school, but that the time spent in school was the BEST time to do stuff. Evenings are dark and worthless, school got out around 3:30, take away maybe half an hour to get home, and you've got an hour or two until it's too dark to get anything done. That's barely enough time to get into a good project or get to somewhere interesting, forget learning anything while you're at it.
Evenings were always spent reading or, less commonly, drawing or playing video games, because lets be honest what else are you going to do? It would have been a nice time for schooling though, as I wouldn't have spent the whole class staring longingly out the window wishing I could go and DO something or learn something or just move.

Quote from: Reelya on March 12, 2012, 11:34:29 pm
Actually this was coined in the 1970's and they're basing their child-rearing on a 1978 book ... debunked 30+ year old social theories are the latest thing in this household.
It's strange that you bring this up while arguing for the debunked 200+ year old social theories of "traditional" institutional education.

Most of the goods things I know and do, I learned outside of school - literature, art, music, politics, coding, engineering, construction, cooking.

What did school teach me, exactly? Well - it taught me not to try too hard, act too smart, or do too well, or you'll be punished. It taught me not I could put things off until later with no ill effects. It taught me it was safe to ignore authority figures and do whatever I wanted, because there would never be consequences. It taught me I could not trust my peers, or my mentors, to encourage, support, or even accept my desire to learn. It taught me that you could do your job poorly and still become the boss as long as you knew the right people. (a teacher I had for two years who was then principle, despite never having taught anyone a single thing in either of his two classes. Literally.) It taught me, most of all, that I did not have to work hard to achieve results, because putting in the bare minimum would always be enough to do well, and further effort would not be rewarded.

School had benefits too - well, high school did anyways. It was nice to meet people, and it was fun to see how much I could get away with.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 13, 2012, 12:15:35 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2012, 12:02:52 am
Quote from: Reelya on March 12, 2012, 11:34:29 pm
The problem with unschooling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling) is that it's the same thing we all did as kids, run around, play, explore, with-or-without parents. But, rather than complementing traditional learning, it replaces it.
Except thats not what the article you just linked describes.

Quote
Unschooling is a range of educational philosophies and practices centered on allowing children to learn through their natural life experiences, including play, game play, household responsibilities, work experience, and social interaction, rather than through a more traditional school curriculum. There are some who find it controversial.[1] Unschooling encourages exploration of activities, often initiated by the children themselves, facilitated by the adults.

That's exactly what it says. We did all those things when i was a kid, AS WELL as school. How did the "natural life experiences" of "play, game play, household responsibilities, work experience" when I was a kid not equate to the same thing as unschooling? We had all those experiences.

Quote
Unschoolers often state that learning any specific subject is less important than learning how to learn

Which is more crap because we did all the things that they describe in my household on top of regular schooling. Being able to deal with deadlines etc is an important skill in life, too, as well as "do it at your own pace". People do need to learn to deal with social pressure etc. Not everything in life can be effectively done "at your own pace".

And another main problem is that society doesn't give a hoot how englightened you are. Society wants to see a bit of paper saying you graduated from school with good marks! For better or worse, how are these "unschooled" people going to get into college?

Anyway, the oldest kid in that family is 5 years old. Let's see how their kids fare as they get older. Unschooling has been around since the 1970's surely we can have a case study somewhere of a success story to judge the theory?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2012, 12:28:47 am
I knew a couple of people in University who were homeschooled. You'd be surprised at what they'll accept in lieu of regular grades, so long as you can pass the various tests involved.

I also know plenty of people who make lots of money doing jobs they love that never went to University. University is a great thing, don't get me wrong, but its certainly not mandatory. Relevant experience counts for a lot more in many fields, and without all that school to get in the way a person could have a LOT of relevant experience.

Again, I'm not a huge fan of homeschooling in particular, I just don't see it as much worse than the institutional system.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 13, 2012, 12:41:24 am
World's best system = Finland

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8601207.stm

Quote
In 2006, Finland's pupils scored the highest average results in science and reading in the whole of the developed world. In the OECD's exams for 15 year-olds, known as PISA, they also came second in maths, beaten only by teenagers in South Korea.
This isn't a one-off: in previous PISA tests Finland also came out top.

The Finnish philosophy with education is that everyone has something to contribute and those who struggle in certain subjects should not be left behind.

A tactic used in virtually every lesson is the provision of an additional teacher who helps those who struggle in a particular subject. But the pupils are all kept in the same classroom, regardless of their ability in that particular subject.

According to the OECD, Finnish children spend the fewest number of hours in the classroom in the developed world.
This reflects another important theme of Finnish education.

Primary and secondary schooling is combined, so the pupils don't have to change schools at age 13. They avoid a potentially disruptive transition from one school to another.

Children in Finland only start main school at age seven. The idea is that before then they learn best when they're playing and by the time they finally get to school they are keen to start learning.

Teaching is a prestigious career in Finland. Teachers are highly valued and teaching standards are high.
The educational system's success in Finland seems to be part cultural. Pupils study in a relaxed and informal atmosphere.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2012, 12:53:47 am
Quote
Children in Finland only start main school at age seven. The idea is that before then they learn best when they're playing and by the time they finally get to school they are keen to start learning.
Interesting. That sounds... AWFULLY FAMILIAR.

I do think highly of the Finnish system, though. I'd like a better feel for their spread before I committed myself to saying it's the best system across the board. But it is a wonderful system, and takes a great many of the "unschooling" principles and really makes them work in conjunction with the best parts of institutional learning.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 13, 2012, 12:56:27 am
Well here we have kindergarten which is basically semi-structured free play time. Not much different at all to unschooling, except it's in a classroom.

Mostly i remember playing with blocks and plastic train sets from kindergarten. Probably the Fin's decided you could play with blocks at home, so kindergarten is unnecessary.

The real big differences between typical Anglo education and Finland happen later.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2012, 01:00:30 am
Where's "here", by the way?

And even later, they believe spending less time in school and more time out in the world is important, don't they?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 13, 2012, 01:22:50 am
Here = Australia. But, kindergarten is really just playtime, so it's not like you can't play at home. I doubt that the specific learning at kindergarten is as important to the next year as brain development in general is.

Quote
"It’s almost unheard of for a child to show up hungry or homeless. Finland provides three years of maternity leave and subsidized day care to parents, and preschool for all 5-year-olds, where the emphasis is on play and socializing."

^ AHAH - their "pre-school" is the same as our "kindergarten". So in this respect, school begins at the same age.

I should've known there was something fishy about the "school only starts at 7" thing. It's a difference of terminology, not practice.

And, here school is 6 hours for primary and 6.5 hours for secondary. Maybe Finland is less than USA but not less than Australia. I find it hard to believe that school would only last 5 hours there. What's the typical school hours in America?

EDIT: I checked and the school day in Finland is 6 hours (http://www.nais.org/publications/ismagazinearticle.cfm?ItemNumber=151216), about the same as Australia. Not much less than America either. So that's not a reason, and no evidence that the Fin's believe extra home-time helps.

====

But, even with (very marginally) shorter hours, that's not what the Fin's are saying is the "winning" point. So i don't think Finland's system can be used as a justification for "unschooling". In fact, all the "good" points of unschooling could be seen to be used within the Finnish education system. Which actually shows that there's no actual reason to home-school to get those benefits.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html?c=y&page=1
Quote
"Many schools are small enough so that teachers know every student. If one method fails, teachers consult with colleagues to try something else. They seem to relish the challenges."

"Nearly 30 percent of Finland’s children receive some kind of special help during their first nine years of school. The school where Louhivuori teaches served 240 first through ninth graders last year; and in contrast with Finland’s reputation for ethnic homogeneity, more than half of its 150 elementary-level students are immigrants—from Somalia, Iraq, Russia, Bangladesh, Estonia and Ethiopia, among other nations."

(NOTE: this actually contradicts the BBC article which claimed ethnic homogeneity was the reason they do so well).

"here are no mandated standardized tests in Finland, apart from one exam at the end of students’ senior year in high school. There are no rankings, no comparisons or competition between students, schools or regions. Finland’s schools are publicly funded. The people in the government agencies running them, from national officials to local authorities, are educators, not business people, military leaders or career politicians. Every school has the same national goals and draws from the same pool of university-trained educators. The result is that a Finnish child has a good shot at getting the same quality education no matter whether he or she lives in a rural village or a university town. The differences between weakest and strongest students are the smallest in the world, according to the most recent survey by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Equality is the most important word in Finnish education. All political parties on the right and left agree on this,” said Olli Luukkainen, president of Finland’s powerful teachers union."

" “We prepare children to learn how to learn, not how to take a test,” said Pasi Sahlberg, a former math and physics teacher who is now in Finland’s Ministry of Education and Culture. “We are not much interested in PISA. It’s not what we are about.” "

" “Play is important at this age,” Rintola would later say. “We value play.” "
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on March 13, 2012, 02:34:36 am
Of course "unschooling" can be done in schools, that's one of the main reasons I think the term is stupid and pretentious. The question is, can your kid get that sort of schooling in America's schools today?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 13, 2012, 04:30:05 am
Study finds median wealth for single black women at $5 (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10068/1041225-84.stm)

Quote
Among the most startling revelations in the wealth data is that while single white women in the prime of their working years (ages 36 to 49) have a median wealth of $42,600 (still only 61 percent of their single white male counterparts), the median wealth for single black women is only $5.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 13, 2012, 06:07:53 am
I doubt how that's even possible.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 13, 2012, 06:15:29 am
Large debts, and living week to week. Also, they are predominantly renters, not property owners. So the only asset they own is usually an old car.

This is net worth, how they define wealth. Assets minus liabilities.

Of course they might have non-liquid assets like a TV, clothes, etc. but those aren't counted in this sort of thing normally.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 13, 2012, 06:19:58 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 13, 2012, 06:07:53 am
I doubt how that's even possible.

Then you should read the article?

I remember discussing this with some folk back when this and a similar study came out back in 2010, and it basically shows how a lot of disenfranchised people in the US have basically no ability to get anywhere on life.  It's absolutely horrible, and people typically have reactions of apathy towards it, solely because of a just world mindset.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 13, 2012, 06:30:43 am
Actually this was the older report, but the data was from 2007, BEFORE the crisis, so they speculate it's actually worse now.

One site trying to debunk the study, said "in the original it said 'women of color' not 'black' women" and acted like that means the whole things a fraud. When, in fact, that means even more women are affected by this issue than otherwise.

Perhaps 'women of color' was a euphemism.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 13, 2012, 06:33:57 am
Quote from: Capntastic on March 13, 2012, 06:19:58 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 13, 2012, 06:07:53 am
I doubt how that's even possible.
Then you should read the article?
I did read the article, and I doubt how it's possible.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 13, 2012, 07:13:23 am
No savings, no assets, low income and debt. American minimum wage of only $7.25.

What don't you understand about net worth? Assets minus liabilities.

You might have $300 in cash but $1000 in debts. Which gives you a net worth less than zero. These people with  negative net worth balance out a few with positive net worth, and the average is $5.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Virex on March 13, 2012, 07:47:52 am
A negative net worth is well-possible and pretty common. As long as you can make the required payments on time, you can rack up a large debt without getting into trouble. Buying a house, a car and a new kitchen on loans could well put your net worth in the negative, but if you've got a stable job that's not going to be a problem. Again, this was before the crisis, when getting loans was easier and people didn't have a high chance of getting fired.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 13, 2012, 07:59:41 am
Median is $5, according to that article, Reel. Careful about that, the average is probably quite different. Average is also a pretty pisspoor measure of wealth in a large population, but that's neither here nor there.

As for the article itself... I'unno. To be honest, it doesn't exactly surprise me. The thing in particular is that $5 is for a particular age bracket (36 to 49) -- but a wider picture (18-64) isn't much better (at $100, which is still pretty g'damn bad :-\). The tentative explanation given in the article doesn't trigger any bullshit detection either, which means -- unless the study's methodology is screwed pretty badly -- I wouldn't have much trouble accepting those numbers as fact. It's certainly possible.

MSH, out of curiosity, why do you doubt the how of it? What are we missing?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 13, 2012, 08:00:45 am
I have a negative net worth, if you count student loans without considering the intangibe asset of education.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2012, 09:01:17 am
Quote from: Reelya on March 13, 2012, 01:22:50 am
^ AHAH - their "pre-school" is the same as our "kindergarten". So in this respect, school begins at the same age.
Preschool generally indicates something optional, and isn't much more than daycare. I'm not surprised they have it, but I'd doubt attendance would be mandatory, which is a big deal.

Quote
The differences between weakest and strongest students are the smallest in the world, according to the most recent survey by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Equality is the most important word in Finnish education. All political parties on the right and left agree on this,” said Olli Luukkainen, president of Finland’s powerful teachers union.
This... actually really worries me. And was part of why I was talking about the spread earlier. Finland's system seems keen on pulling up the underachievers, but what about those who could excel? Are they being failed, is their potential being cut off for the benefit of the others? I'm not sure that sort of thing sits well with me. Quite a few things of Finland's system don't, looking at it more in depth. I certainly explains why they are doing well - they seem to CARE about doing well, but I'm not sure the goals they have would be my own.

Also, the wonder of the Finnish system in no way proves a lack of reason to homeschool in places that are, ya know, NOT Finland.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 13, 2012, 09:19:12 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2012, 09:01:17 am
This... actually really worries me. And was part of why I was talking about the spread earlier. Finland's system seems keen on pulling up the underachievers, but what about those who could excel? Are they being failed, is their potential being cut off for the benefit of the others? I'm not sure that sort of thing sits well with me. Quite a few things of Finland's system don't, looking at it more in depth. I certainly explains why they are doing well - they seem to CARE about doing well, but I'm not sure the goals they have would be my own.
Since they're topping the world tests, I'd say they're doing ok across the board, although in the articles they do talk about targeted programs to push the top students further.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2012, 09:01:17 am
Also, the wonder of the Finnish system in no way proves a lack of reason to homeschool in places that are, ya know, NOT Finland.

Homeschooling is just creepy. Sorry. Very few countries even allow it. Almost all of them are from us in-bred English-speaking nations. Most non-English speaking nations aren't crazy enough to allow it, except for some third-world places which haven't invented school yet.

"Countries with the most prevalent home education movements include Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. ".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 13, 2012, 09:38:50 am
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." - Albert Einstein

Sadly my experience is on par with this. I'm mostly self taught from hanging out in libraries for hours on end; still am. It's kind of a sad thing if you think about it. America has a school system that teaches to the test and still fails. The tests don't measure anything like practical skills, even in academic subjects like reading comprehension and writing. Nobody sits down with you and just goes over how to figure out what to put on a blank piece of paper (or a computer screen, whatever). In writing, there's a process and an organization (several types and you can pick one) and nobody shows you that. The reason there is an organizational method to writing (or was) is to ease reading comprehension and further the overall purpose of communication.

I am glad I was not home schooled, because my family are neanderthals, who have restraining orders against one another (I couldn't make this stuff up). Often the worst thing for a kid are the parents....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 13, 2012, 10:01:23 am
Quote from: Reelya on March 13, 2012, 09:19:12 am
Homeschooling is just creepy. Sorry. Very few countries even allow it. Almost all of them are from us in-bred English-speaking nations. Most non-English speaking nations aren't crazy enough to allow it, except for some third-world places which haven't invented school yet.
I... what? "Creepy" and "Used by few countries" isn't exactly a stunning defeat of the merits of homeschooling, nor is homeschooling somehow "crazy." If the parents are capable of teaching the material and understand (and compensate for) the issues (generally re: socialization) involved with homeschooling, there's no big reasons I'm aware of to not homeschool (and depending on the area, possibly a number of reasons to.). If there are, I'd love to hear about it.

I can understand if you're leery about homeschooling (the sentiment's fairly common in the states, too, if generally unmerited) but I've personally met a number of partially and fully homeschooled individuals -- my mother did some teaching for several, actually -- who were no more maladjusted than most of the people I've met that weren't homeschooled.

The biggest issue I know of with homeschooling is ensuring the quality of education; making sure the teacher (read: the parent(s)) knows what they're talking about. That's usually pretty easy to pull off, though, from what I've seen. In the US, at least, most states (at the very least the ones I'm semi-familiar with) have a pretty specific test standard even for homeschooled kids and it's quite easy to hire teachers for temporary supplementary tutoring (especially considering how shitty teacher salaries are), to make sure the student's on top of the material.

Basically, I'll give that maybe the Australian situation is such that public schooling is notably better than home, but in the states... no. Public schools in most areas are varying shades of shit. It's not even remotely difficult to match or surpass them with alternative education methods. What are your reasons to distrust homeschooling in particular, Reel?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 13, 2012, 10:14:43 am
The most common reason for homeschooling around here is that the parents hold the religious belief that public school will expose their children to sin and challenge their faith. For some this belief is so strong that they believe that the school is actively conspiring to lead their children astray and convert them to evil by teaching about evolution, space, history, sex education and tolerance for blacks and gays.

So yes, "creepy" is a fairly good description of it.

Edit: Also, it looks like religious discrimination against Christians actually does exist, at least a tiny bit. Two women were fired in Britain for violating their employee dress code for wearing crucifixes. The reasoning behind that argument is that wearing the crucifix is not a requirement of the faith, only a voluntary expression, so it is not protected like other religious wardrobe.

http://news.yahoo.com/british-women-sue-crucifix-necklaces-cost-them-jobs-112000077.html
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 13, 2012, 10:28:12 am
Well, i was a little tongue in cheek with the "creepy" comment xD we only hear about home-schoolers in related to American religious extremists here who want to avoid teaching their kids evolution, etc. I don't think I ever met a home-schooled person, to be honest. And, i did some checking around and the largest advocacy group in the USA sells the idea on the anti-evolution band-wagon, secular home-schoolers were complaining about that, which makes them look bad, i can accept that.

Australia's doing a lot better in the PISA rankings than USA (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading), so I'd merit public education in Australia is a notch above that of the United States. Certainly with a free, universal, and top-notch system like Australia, i would never consider using home-schooling here for my kids if I had any.

But the argument about relative school quality can work both ways for home-schooling. You might say given the appalling public system in the United States, that home-schooling is the way to go, but that can only ever be a stop-gap measure. I'd say that if you feel compelled to home-school it just means you should start advocating for a decent school system instead, then home-schooling wouldn't be needed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 13, 2012, 10:45:55 am
Yeah, I definitely wouldn't advocate for universal -- or even particularly widespread, really -- homeschooling, I just think it shouldn't be outright dismissed without good reason. The practice does have its problems, but the examples I've personally seen (including a couple of religiously motivated examples! Most I've known were either medically or socially motivated.), at least, turned out alright. So it seems like a relatively viable alternative, when the kid (/their parents) runs into problems (whatever those problems may be, including religious) with the local schools. There's merits to the practice, basically, and they don't seem to necessarily not stack up to the merits of public schooling.

The usage by religious extremists is an issue, but there's still a fair number of folks that homeschool for other reasons; relative quality of education is sometimes an issue, as is simply school availability -- sometimes a student just has trouble with the schools in their area, so they get pulled out, ferex. The religiously motivated do get a lot more air-time, though. They're disproportionately (to their population) loud in the states. Makes "good" news, I guess.

But yeah, my experience is US-filtered, and we're pretty notorious over here as having one of the worst public school systems in the first world. Homeschoolers turning out as well as our public schoolers might say more about the latter than the former :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on March 13, 2012, 10:51:49 am
Was homeschooled before, one of the best moments in my life, I learned fairly fast, too.

But while the books were mostly well written, it was Christian, and thus fairly biased and Creationist, always trying to shove anti-evolutionism into my face, hiding facts support evolution away.

My mom brought me into homeschooling because it was way better than most public schools (which it is, if not for the Creationist teaching, but last I heard the public school syllabus is fairly Creationist as well). Not for any religious reasons like "HURR DURR EXPOSE CHILD TO SINS".

My country is a heavily religious country, and people usually assume you believe in God, even teachers. Public schools here suck heavily, so homeschooling is honestly a better choice most of the time.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2012, 10:53:46 am
Saying homeschooling shouldn't be allowed because religious folks use it is incredibly stupid. No one here has said home schooling can't be done poorly. But I've seen it done really really well, as well.

Of course, I'm from liberal New England - most of our homeschooling tradition isn't religious based but rather teacher-based. In other words, public education here is so bad I know quite a few teachers who form outside-work education pools and homeschool their kids amongst themselves because they actually know what they're doing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on March 13, 2012, 10:57:45 am
Them Finnish education articles makes me wish to be born in Finland. So much cheaper than my current education, and it sounds so much better too.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 13, 2012, 11:01:10 am
My wife and I are seriously considering homeschooling for our kids when they're around the middle-school age (10 to 13 or so). Reason being, my middle school experience was absolutely horrific. I like to joke that I went to "William Golding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies) Junior High". Massively overcrowded, underfunded, the teachers were mostly burnt out and had reached the point of hating children, and attempts at discipline were usually mistargeted when they were applied at all. This is the same school where I saw two girls get into a fight which involved a length of bicycle chain and a steel pipe, and one of the vice-principals ended up in the hospital. The same school where more than one girl was gang-raped in the back of the bus. The same school where all ~1,000 6th and 7th graders were packed into the lobby before classes (said lobby was designed to only hold about 200 people) and the exit points were secured with padlocked sections of chain-link fencing which were only opened when the first bell rang. This meant a daily stampede to fight your way through crowd, reach your locker, then reach your class in the five minutes until the next bell. Tardiness was typically heavily penalized, even if the teacher saw you desperately clawing your way through the crowd trying to reach the door.

My wife's experience was nowhere near as traumatic, but she also at one point was in training to be a teacher. She withdrew from that program when she looked around at her classmates and realized just how stupid most of them were. Nice enough people, but frankly if they didn't have the teacher workbook with all the answers in it, they wouldn't have been able to answer half the questions themselves.

I'll grant that homeschooling in the US (especially in the South) gets a bad rap because a lot of people that choose to do so belong to the "I ain't letting no libruhl book-larning mess with my young'uns head" crowd. But the other large contingent of homeschoolers are the people with MAs and Ph.Ds who realize that they know these subjects far better than their kids' teachers do. Given that my community is rife with people with advanced degrees, I've considered looking into forming some kind of "homeschool co-op", where people could pool their resources and knowledge to form something like a "homeschool" school, maybe with online components to allow different people to teach their area of expertise.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2012, 11:03:39 am
The "co-op" homeschool has, in my experience, the best sort of results. If you go forit, good luck! I hope it works out.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on March 13, 2012, 11:04:03 am
Quote from: RedKing on March 13, 2012, 11:01:10 am
My wife and I are seriously considering homeschooling for our kids when they're around the middle-school age (10 to 13 or so). Reason being, my middle school experience was absolutely horrific. I like to joke that I went to "William Golding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies) Junior High". Massively overcrowded, underfunded, the teachers were mostly burnt out and had reached the point of hating children, and attempts at discipline were usually mistargeted when they were applied at all. This is the same school where I saw two girls get into a fight which involved a length of bicycle chain and a steel pipe, and one of the vice-principals ended up in the hospital. The same school where more than one girl was gang-raped in the back of the bus. The same school where all ~1,000 6th and 7th graders were packed into the lobby before classes (said lobby was designed to only hold about 200 people) and the exit points were secured with padlocked sections of chain-link fencing which were only opened when the first bell rang. This meant a daily stampede to fight your way through crowd, reach your locker, then reach your class in the five minutes until the next bell. Tardiness was typically heavily penalized, even if the teacher saw you desperately clawing your way through the crowd trying to reach the door.

My wife's experience was nowhere near as traumatic, but she also at one point was in training to be a teacher. She withdrew from that program when she looked around at her classmates and realized just how stupid most of them were. Nice enough people, but frankly if they didn't have the teacher workbook with all the answers in it, they wouldn't have been able to answer half the questions themselves.

I'll grant that homeschooling in the US (especially in the South) gets a bad rap because a lot of people that choose to do so belong to the "I ain't letting no libruhl book-larning mess with my young'uns head" crowd. But the other large contingent of homeschoolers are the people with MAs and Ph.Ds who realize that they know these subjects far better than their kids' teachers do. Given that my community is rife with people with advanced degrees, I've considered looking into forming some kind of "homeschool co-op", where people could pool their resources and knowledge to form something like a "homeschool" school, maybe with online components to allow different people to teach their area of expertise.
For a moment I thought that was in a third-world country.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 13, 2012, 11:14:59 am
What, the middle school stories? lol, it felt like being in a third-world country. There's also the fact that that age bracket is when kids can be the most vicious. They're old enough to have outgrown their childhood deference to authority and "grown-ups", and still too young to have fully developed a sense of personal identity and empathy. So you wind up a clique-based hierarchy, where the only way to move up the chain is to drag someone else down.

Want to be more popular? Make fun of someone else.
Want to stop being the omega (i.e. lowest-ranking member of a group and common target for aggression)? Find someone else to take your place.

I can't see putting my daughter through that emotional meat-grinder.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on March 13, 2012, 11:20:37 am
Quote from: RedKing on March 13, 2012, 11:14:59 am
What, the middle school stories? lol, it felt like being in a third-world country. There's also the fact that that age bracket is when kids can be the most vicious. They're old enough to have outgrown their childhood deference to authority and "grown-ups", and still too young to have fully developed a sense of personal identity and empathy. So you wind up a clique-based hierarchy, where the only way to move up the chain is to drag someone else down.

Want to be more popular? Make fun of someone else.
Want to stop being the omega (i.e. lowest-ranking member of a group and common target for aggression)? Find someone else to take your place.

I can't see putting my daughter through that emotional meat-grinder.
Indeed, but holy shit, gang rape at 13, and injuring the vice-principal? Batshit insane.

Past that age now, but I've never actually thought of raping someone, I'd blame the overpopulation and under-education rather than the middle school age bracket.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 13, 2012, 11:35:21 am
http://news.yahoo.com/fear-death-squads-hunt-iraqs-gays-emos-153725256.html

Don't read the comments. It is mostly people shouting "finally something to like about muslims" and "wish we could do that in the US".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Dutchling on March 13, 2012, 11:40:18 am
As some US religious people apparently want their kids homeschooled, I assume you don't have religious public schools? This seems kinda strange to me as in the Netherlands there are plenty and I thought the US of all (Western) nations would have them as well.

I'm actually going to one right now, although my schools doesn't teach anything regarding creationism (creationism is trying to prove faith if I understood it correctly) and during Biology classes evolution is obviously seen as correct.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 13, 2012, 11:52:44 am
Quote from: Dutchling on March 13, 2012, 11:40:18 am
As some US religious people apparently want their kids homeschooled, I assume you don't have religious public schools? This seems kinda strange to me as in the Netherlands there are plenty and I thought the US of all (Western) nations would have them as well.

I'm actually going to one right now, although my schools doesn't teach anything regarding creationism (creationism is trying to prove faith if I understood it correctly) and during Biology classes evolution is obviously seen as correct.

There are many accredited religious private schools, and some of them receive partial state funding, but no fully funded religious public schools (yet).

Creationism isn't trying to prove faith, its about trying to find a way to justify a literal biblical interpretation of genesis as being equally as or more valid than the evidence based scientific inquiry that has led to our understanding of evolution and the formation of the cosmos.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 13, 2012, 11:54:38 am
Quote from: Nadaka on March 13, 2012, 11:35:21 am
http://news.yahoo.com/fear-death-squads-hunt-iraqs-gays-emos-153725256.html

Don't read the comments. It is mostly people shouting "finally something to like about muslims" and "wish we could do that in the US".
Huh...I'm kinda seeing the opposite. "See, these bastard Muslims like to kill people" and "This is what we fought for?"

Of course, I'd like to see someone say "This is Rick Santorum's wet dream for America."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2012, 12:05:29 pm
Why WOULD you have a religious public school? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Especially with spread out populations like the US has, that's essentially forcing kids to go to schools of other religions and that would get a hell of a lot more anger directed at it than forcing kids to go to a strictly secular school.

I don't... I just can't see any possible way you'd want a public school to be religious. It just seems like a recipe for disaster unless you've got some sort of monoculture so intense that no one cares. And even then it just seems like a good way to isolate the outliers.


And as an expressly secular state, it should be pretty much impossible in the US.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on March 13, 2012, 12:14:51 pm
I'm not sure Dutchling means what he says. I've never heard of religious public schools either. Private schools, sure, we have them here too, but never public.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 13, 2012, 12:26:22 pm
A lot of Christians here got angry when some Muslims wanted to build their own private school under the religious school laws which allow Catholics and Anglicans to run schools. Very angry.

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=14173

Quote
After months of controversy, the NSW Land and Environment Court has rejected the Quranic Society's application to build a $19 million school for 900 students in a rural area near Camden south-west of Sydney.

The court found that the plans were inconsistent with the site's zoning restrictions, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Camden City Council cited planning arguments when it first blocked the proposal a year ago.

But fierce community opposition to the project often relied on racial and religious arguments.

At the hearing in April, the council's evidence included a letter signed by four Christian churches stating that Islam espoused views that were "incompatible with the Australian way of life".
The council's legal team also presented a DVD featuring the views of concerned residents, one of whom said the school would be a "breeding ground for terrorists".

However the council insisted its refusal was based on planning grounds, arguing it was incompatible with the rural zoning and would cause problems for traffic and neighbouring farms.

But then ...

http://cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=8931

Quote
Months after turning down a proposal for a Muslim school, residents of Camden in Sydney's west have welcomed plans for a Catholic school in the historic town.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports the Camden/Macarthur Residents' Group that fought a Muslim proposal for a school in rural Camden has welcomed Catholic plans to build a school nearby because "Catholics are part of our community."

Residents group president, Emil Sremchevich, said the Catholic school plan "ticked all the right boxes", even though he is yet to see its development application.

"Catholics are part of our community so we should be supporting it on this basis alone. We have to welcome them," Mr Sremchevich told the Herald.


"To become part of a community, you need to live in the community. You can't just turn up."

The Quranic Society said Mr Sremchevich's comments were racist but he rejected that tag.

"Why is that racist? Why is it discriminatory? It's very simple: people like some things but don't like other things. Some of us like blondes, some of us like brunettes. Some of us like Fords, some of us like Holdens. Why is it xenophobic just because I want to make a choice? If I want to like some people and not like other people, that's the nature of the beast."

Mr Sremchevich was among those who applauded a Camden Council decision in May to reject the Quranic Society's application to build a 1,200 student school at Burragorang Road, Cawdor.

Now the Catholic Education Office of Wollongong has bought the 150 student Mater Dei special needs school in Macquarie Grove Road.

It wants to retain Mater Dei and build a 1,000 student high school on the same plot, which is already zoned for a school.

The Quranic Society application would have required rezoning.

A spokesman for the Quranic Society, Issam Obeid, said: "Everyone can see there is a double standard ... No one knows anything about the Catholic school and they say, 'Yeah, give it a tick already.' I think racism is affecting this."

A spokesman for Wollongong's Catholic Education Office, Peter McPherson, said more schools were needed in south-west Sydney to cope with population growth.

"Our site is currently a school zoning so we don't believe we will have any problems with rural zoning issues," he said.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2012, 12:28:37 pm
It's not like they could stop them, though, right? I mean we have a whole bunch of them in the US (along with various other religious private schools) and I've never seen much in the way of opposition to them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 13, 2012, 12:31:45 pm
See my edit, i just found out they built a catholic school in the place where they had riots about an Islamic one.

There's quite a bit of racism amongst some Australians. Especially in rural areas.

The paranoia they hold is so great, that some people in a related news article said they feared revenge attacks for opposing the Islamic school in Camden. e.g. these people in a farming town outside the city, think they're going to be personally targeted by Islamic terrorists.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 13, 2012, 12:40:47 pm
To be fair "In the place" is a fairly inaccurate. The catholic school is going to be built (from what it looks like to me) in the same place as there already is a school.

There very well might be a valid point about the zoning. But by the comments from the people it is clear that zoning is a secondary concern.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2012, 12:47:28 pm
Bluh. Suffice to say, I'm not surprised to see something like that happen in Australia, but I am disappointed.

Mind you, NZs one Islamic school is looking like it will get shut down, but at least that has a damn good reason (and its mostly muslim families making the complaints, I believe)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 13, 2012, 12:50:01 pm
It's the same city, and the state commisioner involved said "he rejected plans for the school on Burragorang Rd because the development would not be in keeping with Camden’s rural character and heritage". (http://macarthur-chronicle-camden.whereilive.com.au/news/story/camden-islamic-school-plans-turned-down-by-nsw-land-and-environment-court/)

So he claimed Camden, as a whole, was not "in keeping" with a large high-school. Then they dropped that logic because it was a Catholic school.

The council / state can still refuse the Catholic school, regardless of zoning. Hell, technically, you need council planning approval for a garden shed.

For the Islamic school, they said other factors, other than the site's zoning were relevant : specifically as i said above "Camden’s rural character and heritage" wasn't compatible with a high-school.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 13, 2012, 01:09:30 pm
I can't help but LOL that the guy who's talking about Muslims not being an integral part of the community is named Emil Sremchevich. I'm guessing the Sremcheviches didn't come over in chains from Old Mother England.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 13, 2012, 01:15:00 pm
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/11167-bankruptcy-attorneys-predict-a-student-loan-qdebt-bombq

Yup. I've seen the hardship test to get out of student loans in bankruptcy. It's possible, but exceedingly unlikely. You've got... perhaps a 2% chance and that's being generous, quite frankly. Thus if you've got a 2% success rate, then you've got a 98% failure rate.... Yeah....
__________________________________________________________________

As for the middle school thing, yeah many US schools are horrible for that age. Not sure if it's the school, the age bracket or (probably) a combination of both). [shrugs]
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 13, 2012, 01:21:02 pm
I was on board with that article up until it explained how everything was the government's fault, and while I can't say federal policy is entirely free of blame, I think it's kind of dishonest to talk about how the result was inevitable and therefore it's the fault of government subsidies, as if the institutions exploiting them are some sort of inevitable force of nature, free of blame.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 13, 2012, 01:28:34 pm
Quote from: RedKing on March 13, 2012, 01:09:30 pm
I can't help but LOL that the guy who's talking about Muslims not being an integral part of the community is named Emil Sremchevich. I'm guessing the Sremcheviches didn't come over in chains from Old Mother England.

Funnily enough, when you add up all the people who actually came " in chains from Old Mother England" and compare to non-convict settlers, even in the same time period (let along 20th century), the amount is best described as "not many".

Though it's exceeding trendy to claim (one) convict ancestor in old-money families.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convicts_in_Australia

Quote
Over the 80 years more than 165,000 convicts were transported to Australia.[...]The number of convicts pales in comparison to the immigrants who arrived in Australia in the 1851-1871 gold rush. In 1852 alone, 370,000 immigrants arrived in Australia. By 1871 the total population had nearly quadrupled from 430,000 to 1.7 million people.

Even the population by 1850 was 405,000 which is more than double the number of total convicts. And there was a large influx of immigrants after World War II from all over Europe, and Asia, etc.

So the odds of any particular person in Australia being able to claim a convict ancestor is surprisingly low, even for those who's family has been here 6 generations or more.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 13, 2012, 01:29:48 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on March 13, 2012, 01:21:02 pm
I was on board with that article up until it explained how everything was the government's fault, and while I can't say federal policy is entirely free of blame, I think it's kind of dishonest to talk about how the result was inevitable and therefore it's the fault of government subsidies, as if the institutions exploiting them are some sort of inevitable force of nature, free of blame.

Ditto. The article (assuming you're talking about mine) should be mostly cited for the facts rather than the theory. First, it is monstrously difficult to discharge student loan debt in bankruptcy. Second, many bankruptcy attorneys in the trenches of this shit feel it isn't really fair based upon their personal practice experiences. Third, student loan debt is a huge bubble that will have larger consequences when/if it bursts, which given that there practically are no jobs (nowhere near enough) might be sooner rather than later.

The theorizing about causes, the blame, etc, that isn't supported by a cogent argument with any cohesive logic. To say "the facts presented prove theory X. Rather the facts are dead on, but the causation to the proposed theory doesn't follow. Said theory may or may not be the case, but what they have proven is that there is a problem. They have not proved the cause of said problem is "the government."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 13, 2012, 01:31:05 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on March 13, 2012, 01:21:02 pm
I was on board with that article up until it explained how everything was the government's fault, and while I can't say federal policy is entirely free of blame, I think it's kind of dishonest to talk about how the result was inevitable and therefore it's the fault of government subsidies, as if the institutions exploiting them are some sort of inevitable force of nature, free of blame.
Hey, that sounds like what my dad says. Education is expensive because of the government getting involved in it (fun fact: apparently before equal opportunity there were actually more minorities in higher education because the free market or something) and right now there's an education bubble that's going to pop. Ron Paul predicted it or somesuch.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2012, 01:40:06 pm
I think its the government's fault, but not because of the subsidies, no.

Rather by insuring that students won't be able to bankrupt their way out of the debt.

Loaning money to students is all about "I will give them the money to do this that that will increase their income, and in exchange they will give me back more money later." Built into it is this assumption that if they don't make more money later, you won't get a return on your investment, and suddenly there's all sorts of incentive to make school GOOD.

The government has, however, removed that. Now it doesn't MATTER if the school fulfills any of its promises, the lenders still get their money back. No risk.

It's the lack of risk - this sureness that no matter how much shit private industry spews out the government will pick up whats leftover or force the worse off to pay for it, so industry doesn't need to worry about quality so much as finding as many suckers as possible to take their dangled carrot.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 13, 2012, 01:42:22 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2012, 01:40:06 pm
I think its the government's fault, but not because of the subsidies, no.

Rather by insuring that students won't be able to bankrupt their way out of the debt.

Loaning money to students is all about "I will give them the money to do this that that will increase their income, and in exchange they will give me back more money later." Built into it is this assumption that if they don't make more money later, you won't get a return on your investment, and suddenly there's all sorts of incentive to make school GOOD.

The government has, however, removed that. Now it doesn't MATTER if the school fulfills any of its promises, the lenders still get their money back. No risk.

It's the lack of risk - this sureness that no matter how much shit private industry spews out the government will pick up whats leftover or force the worse off to pay for it, so industry doesn't need to worry about quality so much as finding as many suckers as possible to take their dangled carrot.

Yes. It's also old political backlash from urban legends. Seems that some time ago people started getting angry about some manufactured bullshit about "kids getting out of paying for college by declaring bankruptcy." So they made it nearly impossible to do that....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 13, 2012, 01:42:38 pm
There is an education bubble. But it isn't caused by the government (not directly, though they do contribute).

It is caused by people saying "we don't have enough people to fill positions in X field, gotta get more people with degrees for X" when the truth is closer to "we don't have enough people to fill positions in X field at the slave wages we want to pay them, better sucker them into an expensive education in field X so they feel they can't do anything but X but are desperate enough to accept slave wages".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 13, 2012, 01:47:11 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on March 13, 2012, 01:42:38 pm
There is an education bubble. But it isn't caused by the government (not directly, though they do contribute).

It is caused by people saying "we don't have enough people to fill positions in X field, gotta get more people with degrees for X" when the truth is closer to "we don't have enough people to fill positions in X field at the slave wages we want to pay them, better sucker them into an expensive education in field X so they feel they can't do anything but X but are desperate enough to accept slave wages".

There is a massive mismatch between what we are told the "value of education" is, and what it actually is in the working world. It's become where the cost of becoming X Job is greater than the pay from X Job even assuming you can get any job after graduation, at all.

They fill these kid's heads with stuff about college = a job and then deny it. They're told from the time they're small to "study hard, get good grades, go to college and get a good job." Also there's, "you don't wanna end up flipping burgers, do you?" along with a million other phrases you hear.

We then act astonished and say "we never promised you a job." Yes, yes they did, from the time they were children. We also say, "today's kids are lazy and too stubborn to flip burgers." That job has been demonized and degraded and we wonder why people don't wanna do it? ??? Society makes fun of people who do this and tells people to go to college so they don't have to do it.... That's wrong....

This isn't as hard as people are hopefully only pretending it is.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Dutchling on March 13, 2012, 02:14:59 pm
Quote from: scriver on March 13, 2012, 12:14:51 pm
I'm not sure Dutchling means what he says. I've never heard of religious public schools either. Private schools, sure, we have them here too, but never public.
Iirc, the dutch socialists gave their support for public religious schools so the christian parties gave their support for a law that allowed more (poorer) people to vote.
This was like a hundred years ago, but there are certainly still a lot of christian and sone muslim/jewish public schools.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Strange guy on March 13, 2012, 05:23:31 pm
Quote from: scriver on March 13, 2012, 12:14:51 pm
I'm not sure Dutchling means what he says. I've never heard of religious public schools either. Private schools, sure, we have them here too, but never public.

I went to a Church of England primary school which was a public school (actually in the UK public school is usually used to refer to private schools- wikipedia says because they were open to any member of the public who paid, and back when the term was coined when most other schools were church or guild).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 13, 2012, 05:35:59 pm
So there were a bunch of anti-abortion activists at school today. Giant gruesome images and all.

I didn't go up to the booth they had set up, and the guy wandering around with pamphlets didn't even offer one to me, but I loitered nearby in between classes. By far the most idiotic statement I picked up came from Pamphlet Guy, who insisted that a woman did not have the right to her own body:

PG: You do not have the right to kill children. No one has that right.
Woman: I have the right to make choices about my own body.
PG: No you do not. That's not a right, that's a wrong. Because it's legal.
Woman: *walks away*
PG: Come talk to me later.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 13, 2012, 05:37:14 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/rush-limbaugh-calls-national-organization-women-nags-204036024.html

Really? He just keeps on goin' doesn't he....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 13, 2012, 05:45:33 pm
He really wants to get rid of all his financial support, doesn't he?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 13, 2012, 05:45:45 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 13, 2012, 05:37:14 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/rush-limbaugh-calls-national-organization-women-nags-204036024.html

Really? He just keeps on goin' doesn't he....
Dem comments, man...I'm assuming for my Faith in Humanity Meter(tm) that at least half of them are trolls.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on March 13, 2012, 06:39:35 pm
He really is an idiot. He might have been able to get away with stuff like that in usual times, but keeping at it while the opinion is against him? Poor fool doesn't even have a pr sense.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 13, 2012, 07:09:49 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 13, 2012, 05:45:45 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 13, 2012, 05:37:14 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/rush-limbaugh-calls-national-organization-women-nags-204036024.html

Really? He just keeps on goin' doesn't he....
Dem comments, man...I'm assuming for my Faith in Humanity Meter(tm) that at least half of them are trolls.

Sorry, to burst your bubble, but look at the politics board of Yahoo Answers :-

http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index?link=list&sid=396545450

Not trolls, at least not in thr way you think.

"Who are Obama's top adiviser " TO BOMB SYRIA "...... ALL jEWS .... OR MAJORITY jEWS?"

"What r the % of Jews on the Federal Reverse + Supreme Court + Presidential Advisers?"

etc

Comments on the news section of Yahoo don't phase me, they're normal compared to Yahoo Answers / Politics
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Virex on March 13, 2012, 07:47:21 pm
Quote from: Reelya on March 13, 2012, 01:28:34 pm
So the odds of any particular person in Australia being able to claim a convict ancestor is surprisingly low, even for those who's family has been here 6 generations or more.
That's not how genealogy works. Let's assume for the moment that at any point in the time frame we're considering, 10% of the Australian male population was a convict. Let's also assume that said time frame lasted 6 generations and that the chance for marrying a convict and a non-convict are equal. Then we get, for a single generation, a chance of 90% that the father was not a convict. Over the whole 6 generations, this chance is (1-0.96)*100% = 47%. So, at the end of the time frame under consideration, about half the population had at least one convict in the male line.
Now, assuming that the time between the end of the incarceration era and right now is 4 generations, that in each generation 20% of the population growth could be attributed to migration and again assuming no bias in partner selection, we get the following:
Chance that either the mother or the father is descendant from a convict (note we're looking at the children of each generation)
Generation 1: (1-(1-0.47*0.8 )2)*100% = 61%
Generation 2: (1-(1-0.61*0.8 )2)*100% = 74%
Generation 3: (1-(1-0.74*0.8 )2)*100% = 83%
0.83*0.8*100% = 66%
In other words, in the 4th generation, 66% of the population will be able to trace their linage to at least 1 convict.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 13, 2012, 07:54:51 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 13, 2012, 05:37:14 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/rush-limbaugh-calls-national-organization-women-nags-204036024.html

Really? He just keeps on goin' doesn't he....
Quote
Limbaugh, who referred to NOW members as "Nags," continued: "A godsend! The Nags called me a godsend. So not only am I God's gift to Obama, I'm God's gift to women."
The thing I'm struggling with most is Limbaugh's complete lack of irony detection.  As in, his sense of humour is either completely absent or horribly misfiring.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 13, 2012, 07:57:03 pm
Quote from: Virex on March 13, 2012, 07:47:21 pm
In other words, in the 4th generation, 66% of the population will be able to trace their linage to at least 1 convict.

Unfortunately, that's factually incorrect as far as actual Australians go. Which shows there's a flaw in one of the assumptions.

Closest figure i can find is that between 5% - 22% of Australians have a convict in their family tree.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on March 13, 2012, 08:06:04 pm
Probably the equal chance to marry a convict as non. Neverminding the numbers, would you marry a convict? :P The General You, I mean.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Pnx on March 13, 2012, 08:14:13 pm
Well you have to ask the question... how much inbreeding was going on there?

It might explain why "bastard" is not so much of an insult in Australia.

...

Ok, but seriously. A less insulting to Australians question to ask would be "Were convicts more likely to marry other convicts, or never marry at all?"

Fake edit: Damn, ninja.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 14, 2012, 04:22:27 pm
http://jezebel.com/5893011/law-will-allow-employers-to-fire-women-for-using-whore-pills

Really Arizona? Really?

So your boss can fire you for using birth control pills if this law passes?

"Yesterday, a Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed Republican Debbie Lesko's HB2625 by a vote of 6-2, which would allow an employer to request proof that a woman using insurance to buy birth control was being prescribed the birth control for reasons other than not wanting to get pregnant. It's all about freedom, she said, echoing everyone who thinks there's nothing ironic about claiming that a country that's "free" allows people's bosses to dictate what medical care is available to them through insurance. First amendment. The constitution. Rights of religious people to practice the treasured tenets of their faiths, the tenets that dictate that religious people get to tell everyone who is not of faith how they're supposed to live, and the freedom to have that faith enforced by law. Freedom®."<----Huh?

Further, Lesko states, with a straight face, that this bill is necessary because "we live in America; we don't live in the Soviet Union." <--- What the hell does this mean?

Religious Freedom TM-- Passing laws letting you fire people for doing something they're allowed to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? Wait wait wait, where is the law saying you can fire men for using Viagra, which has no other purpose than to be sexual? I mean hey, if you're going to impliedly call people sexually promiscuous and fire them for it, then, ... something about what's good for the goose being good for the gander? Lil sexist? Just a bit?

Wow, how... how exactly would you even "submit evidence that it wasn't for sexual reasons," anyhow? Nevermind why you should ever have to, how the crap would you? Note from your doctor? Ok, I'm pretty sure a female gynecologist and write whatever the crap is required, so the law is a nullity in practice anyhow. It does create an embarrassing roadblock, though. Then of course there's Griswald v. Conn. which stated an individual right to purchase contraceptives, but whatever....

[burst out laughing] O God, it's not an Onion Article Joke.... :( O ... they're ... they're actually serious....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on March 14, 2012, 04:31:26 pm
Quote
Further, Lesko states, with a straight face, that this bill is necessary because "we live in America; we don't live in the Soviet Union."
This is what I've been saying. The whole anti-russian/commie thing is ridiculous. We should really grow up and get over it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 14, 2012, 04:32:36 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on March 14, 2012, 04:31:26 pm
Quote
Further, Lesko states, with a straight face, that this bill is necessary because "we live in America; we don't live in the Soviet Union."
This is what I've been saying. The whole anti-russian/commie thing is ridiculous. We should really grow up and get over it.
And here I thought that most of us have. Fucking hell, I'm glad I don't live in Arizona.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on March 14, 2012, 04:35:44 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 14, 2012, 04:32:36 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on March 14, 2012, 04:31:26 pm
Quote
Further, Lesko states, with a straight face, that this bill is necessary because "we live in America; we don't live in the Soviet Union."
This is what I've been saying. The whole anti-russian/commie thing is ridiculous. We should really grow up and get over it.
And here I thought that most of us have. Fucking hell, I'm glad I don't live in Arizona.
Yeah. I understand why people who lived back in that time, or served in Vietnam, would still be bigoted. But its kinda ridiculous that everyone in the schools near me uses "communist" as an insult.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 14, 2012, 04:36:28 pm
Another day passes, and as usual, the rest of the Western world rolls thier eyes at that good old crazy USA. Where it seems that freedom more and more seems to mean the opposite to what we generally understand the word to mean. I dont want to piss you off or anything, but here in the UK, if a woman of any age wishes to be put on birth control pills by thier GP, they can, confidentially (which is a big deal for teenage girls), and for free through the NHS. Of course, to certain conservative elements of the USA, this very thing would no doubt be held to be some kind of ultimate evil - a socialist, nay communist system encouraging the spread of STD'S and underage sex.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on March 14, 2012, 04:47:55 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on March 14, 2012, 04:36:28 pm
Another day passes, and as usual, the rest of the Western world rolls thier eyes at that good old crazy USA. Where it seems that freedom more and more seems to mean the opposite to what we generally understand the word to mean. I dont want to piss you off or anything, but here in the UK, if a woman of any age wishes to be put on birth control pills by thier GP, they can, confidentially (which is a big deal for teenage girls), and for free through the NHS. Of course, to certain conservative elements of the USA, this very thing would no doubt be held to be some kind of ultimate evil - a socialist, nay communist system encouraging the spread of STD'S and underage sex.
Trust me, your not gonna piss me off. I agree with you about all of that. Its ridiculous that thinking that withholding birth control will deter underage sex. All its gonna do is increase underage pregnancies.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ggamer on March 14, 2012, 04:59:34 pm
((Thanks for explaining the catholic-abortion issue earlier. Sorry I never replied, twas pre-ocuppied))

I'm pissed. All of these people that, if I spotted them in a restaurant in Rural Georgia, I would identify as my comrade and joke with are citing all things negative as communism.

There are two reasons this might be.

1- The interviewee is joking, and was not aware that he was being recorded, i.e. "Boa, them fuckin' birth control pills aught' to be fuckin' outlawed man, they're fuckin' communist!"

2- They are completely sincere, and actually think that Josef Stalin himself created the institution of birth control. i.e. "No, in all seriousness, the commies probably made birth control. Just sayin'."

I kid with the best of em' about negative things being secretly orchestrated by socialist bastards, but getting interviewed and officially stating seems a little off the wall.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 14, 2012, 05:00:36 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on March 14, 2012, 04:36:28 pm
Another day passes, and as usual, the rest of the Western world rolls thier eyes at that good old crazy USA. Where it seems that freedom more and more seems to mean the opposite to what we generally understand the word to mean. I dont want to piss you off or anything, but here in the UK, if a woman of any age wishes to be put on birth control pills by thier GP, they can, confidentially (which is a big deal for teenage girls), and for free through the NHS. Of course, to certain conservative elements of the USA, this very thing would no doubt be held to be some kind of ultimate evil - a socialist, nay communist system encouraging the spread of STD'S and underage sex.

The Cold War has been over for 20 something years and thus, we've lost our common enemy to unite against. So, we're looking for someone to take the USSR's (CCCP's) place as chief scapegoat. So far, possible unwilling, matches may include women, gays, immigrants, Muslims, certain minorities, the unemployed, etc. You can't even effectively peacefully protest anymore without risking a face full of pepper spray or worse. A corporation has first amendment rights, but not a real, live person? Fabulous.

Once again, you're correct in saying underage sex will not stop due to restrictions on birth control, if that's even what they're getting at. Rather, you're going to have a ton of unwed teenage moms and unfed kids.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 14, 2012, 05:04:25 pm
The part of the UK that I live and work in has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Western Europe. I dread to think what it would be like if we didnt have as full on an approach to education and services relating to sexual health as we do. geuss we might find out by watching Arizona.  ???
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on March 14, 2012, 05:35:13 pm
This is all highly sexist. A man having a condom on him is fine, but a woman taking a pill is tantamount to the highest of sins.

I can really see no point to this crusade against contraception other than being a complete attack on womens rights.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 14, 2012, 05:37:39 pm
Guess we just have to wait for someone to try and get thier medical insurance to pay for condoms and see what kind of shit hits the USA's media fan.

BTW the NHS will give them away for free to people too...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 14, 2012, 05:42:49 pm
Can we just give Arizona back to Mexico?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 14, 2012, 05:45:12 pm
The funny thing is that condoms basically have no use other than sex (well, I guess you could make water balloons out of them...), while "the pill" can be used for valid medical purposes. Guess which one has the greatest stigma attached?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 14, 2012, 06:31:53 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 14, 2012, 05:45:12 pm
The funny thing is that condoms basically have no use other than sex (well, I guess you could make water balloons out of them...), while "the pill" can be used for valid medical purposes. Guess which one has the greatest stigma attached?

Basically, girls are held to a different standard, as Vector said constantly. If a guy is sexually promiscuous, then he's a "stud" and we think he's just awesome. If a girl is sexually promiscuous, then she's a "slut" and we think she's terrible. Think about how that relates to things for girls and separately things for boys, concerning sex.... Kinda like how sexual assault prevention is focused towards things "girls can do about it," like never being alone, and always watching your drink, etc. How about talking to guys and saying "don't do bad things to people?" Instead, every college in the US has a "Code Red" week for female students warning about sexual assault that scares the shit out of female students for about a couple weeks when school starts.... This is jokingly known in fraternities as, "the time to never ask a girl out because the school has just scared the hell out of them all that they'll be raped."

It's a massive double standard.... It's also a test case to see how much they can get away with. I always found it funny that many people saying there is no right to privacy in constitution are the same people who want the government to "butt out," of their affairs. It's there and it's  implied but never stated, just like the right to vote, which is also implied but never stated. It's a wider pattern of forcing medical procedures, drug testing, and who knows what else on people by law.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ggamer on March 14, 2012, 06:54:32 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 14, 2012, 06:31:53 pm
If a guy is sexually promiscuous, then he's a "stud" and we think he's just awesome.

I call those kinds of people assholes, but whatever floats your boat broseph. 
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 14, 2012, 06:59:00 pm
Well I found this entertaining, mostly because it is so bad, it is a parody of itself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lDHtJa0krc)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 14, 2012, 07:00:57 pm
Yay, America isn't the only Western society with irrational homophobia!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 14, 2012, 07:02:21 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 14, 2012, 07:08:01 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 14, 2012, 07:00:57 pm
Yay, America isn't the only Western society with irrational homophobia!
The best bit is that the guy running the ads half brother is gay...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 14, 2012, 07:13:11 pm
I assume ggamer was talking about the more manipulative guys who move from "conquest" to "conquest." Those are definitely assholes, but not every guy that has lots of girlfriends or whatever is inherently an asshole. Demonzing sexual activity for both genders instead of one isn't a step in the right direction.



Western dating, courtship, and sex is an absolute mess of stupid double standards (as it is most everywhere else too, but in different ways). Untangling the web and pointing out every social problem related to it would take all day.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaenneth on March 14, 2012, 07:17:13 pm
A moderately offensive joke that illustrates societies double-standards.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 14, 2012, 07:34:22 pm
Something easier to visualize might be someone going into a room and announcing they got laid last night. A guy will get praised. A girl? That's hard to visualize because it doesn't happen.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 14, 2012, 07:48:23 pm
Quote from: Max White on March 14, 2012, 07:08:01 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 14, 2012, 07:00:57 pm
Yay, America isn't the only Western society with irrational homophobia!
The best bit is that the guy running the ads half brother is gay...

The story's not all bad, since Queensland is the closest place that Australia has to Alabama, and the LNP is the major right wing party there, and even their state leader supports gay marriage. Bob Katter is a renegade from that party with more extreme views.

And both major parties are going "omg there was an attack ad!". Such ads would be de rigueur in the USA i think. Attack ads are known here but not to the same level of viciousness:

Quote
Labor Premier Anna Bligh said the ad was “bizarre'' and “way, way beyond what we expect in a political campaign''.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 14, 2012, 07:57:47 pm
Seriously? It is just expected over there?
It is making fucking national news over here for the controversy... People are either up in arms and insulted, laughing at just how bad the entire thing is, or thumping bibles. Protip: Katter is the only one with a bible in hand.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 14, 2012, 08:09:48 pm
Well, typically attack ads in the States don't feature censored images of naked men, but yeah. Pretty common up here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on March 14, 2012, 09:13:53 pm
That censorship was really weird. Why were they censored at all, actually? :I
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 14, 2012, 09:17:10 pm
Maybe bare chests are offensive in Australia?  ;D
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 14, 2012, 09:18:05 pm
Not really, it has more to do with being an ad coming out of a religious conservative who thinks men holding hands is offensive.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 14, 2012, 09:21:52 pm
The whole thing is just playing on the "ick" factor. But showing someones grandparents "doin' the do" is pretty "ick" too, yet nobody would take that to mean it should be illegal.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 14, 2012, 09:27:12 pm
Quote from: Reelya on March 14, 2012, 09:21:52 pm
The whole thing is just playing on the "ick" factor. But showing someones grandparents "doin' the do" is pretty "ick" too, yet nobody would take that to mean it should be illegal.
Ah, but grandparents have already bred, hopefully as many times as biologically possible! Thus they have fulfilled their duty to society, unlike those evil gays.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Flying Dice on March 14, 2012, 09:32:50 pm
Quote from: Max White on March 14, 2012, 07:57:47 pm
Seriously? It is just expected over there?
It is making fucking national news over here for the controversy... People are either up in arms and insulted, laughing at just how bad the entire thing is, or thumping bibles. Protip: Katter is the only one with a bible in hand.

Attack ads worse than that wouldn't raise any eyebrows on my part. As far as I'm concerned, it just gives me an extra reason to avoid television.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 14, 2012, 09:34:49 pm
Ok, I think I may have found one of the causes of why your nation is the way it is... Firstly, politics is not meant to be about who has the biggest, holiest dick.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on March 14, 2012, 09:39:08 pm
"My dick is 80 million dollars long"
^^^^^
Complete summary of our politics.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaenneth on March 14, 2012, 09:40:06 pm
I think it's partly because we tried to set limits on how much candidates could advertize themselves.

So, to get around that limit, a legally unrelated organization shows ads against the other guys.

It might be better to just allow them to put all their money into positive ads for themselves, than have to listen to all this bile.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 14, 2012, 09:51:18 pm
Quote from: kaenneth on March 14, 2012, 09:40:06 pm
I think it's partly because we tried to set limits on how much candidates could advertize themselves.

So, to get around that limit, a legally unrelated organization shows ads against the other guys.

It might be better to just allow them to put all their money into positive ads for themselves, than have to listen to all this bile.

You know that they'd just directly pay for the personal attacks then though.... :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on March 14, 2012, 10:39:52 pm
What country are we talking about?

Attack ads pretty much run on the logic that, "If I convince [audience] that the other guy is wrong (or just a dick), then by logical deduction I must be correct, so [audience] will vote for I"

Which is bullpocky, since it is entirely possible (and altogether common) for everyone to be wrong at the same time. And probably dicks too.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 14, 2012, 10:42:44 pm
Quote from: darkrider2 on March 14, 2012, 10:39:52 pm
What country are we talking about?

Attack ads pretty much run on the logic that, "If I convince [audience] that the other guy is wrong (or just a dick), then by logical deduction I must be correct, so [audience] will vote for I"

Which is bullpocky, since it is entirely possible (and altogether common) for everyone to be wrong at the same time. And probably dicks too.

Well, We're sorta comparing the US to Aus from what I can tell.

As for the rest of what you said, you're right with one critical flaw. "Logic," most people tragically don't use it. It is often choosing the lesser of two evils, so they make the other guy out to be the greater evil....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on March 14, 2012, 10:45:16 pm
Yeah, one reason I wish we had more than two parties to vote for over here (US).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 15, 2012, 12:10:30 am
Quote from: Scelly9 on March 14, 2012, 09:39:08 pm
"My dick is 80 million dollars long"
^^^^^
Complete summary of our politics.

wisest post in the entire thread
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 15, 2012, 12:42:06 am
Rick Santorum doesn't know what he's talking about and no one should be surprised: http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-doesnt-seem-mind-offending-puerto-rico-210301975.html

There is no such law saying you have to speak English to be a U.S. State.... Come on man, the place has a Spanish name....

He's also trying to jump on Obama for still saying "57 States Primaries, instead of 50, duh." Wait, wait, wait, I know what you might be thinking. Yes, there are 50 states, but there are 57 primaries. How you ask? What we do have 57 of? States, commonwealths, another kind of commonwealths, districts, and territories. In other words, we have 57 primaries and caucuses.

As mentioned in the article above. Puerto Rico, not a state, has a primary with I think 23 delegates total? Then there's Guam (9 delegates), Northern Mariana Is.(9 delegates), U.S. Virgin Islands (9 delegates), American Samoa (9 delegates), Washington, D.C. (19 delegates) and I'm forgetting one, but meh. Let's say I'm in the ballpark with those delegate numbers in as close a race as we're running, that's 78 delegates up for grabs.... That could make a pretty big difference.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 15, 2012, 12:55:23 am
I swear, it's like Santorum wants everyone to hate him. I can see the reactionary pro-English nonsense getting support, but openly opposing a statehood movement? That isn't going to set well with the vast majority of people.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 15, 2012, 10:21:50 am
An update on an issue I (and a few others) posted about back in Vectors thread:

The US pastor who crusaded against homosexuals in Uganda and inspired an attempt to set the death penalty for homosexual behavior is now facing a lawsuit for his involvement.

http://news.yahoo.com/lawsuit-us-pastor-runs-anti-gay-effort-uganda-190148480.html
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on March 15, 2012, 10:43:22 am
Also on "anti gay efforts", did you know that from tomorrow and on, waving a rainbow flag in Saint Petersburgh might be counted as illegal? It's part off some new law against "gay propaganda".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 15, 2012, 11:20:51 am
How popular is the statehood movement in Puerto Rico? It's not something people talk about very often (though it's not surprising that as soon as something's brought up Santorum's views on it turn out to be horrible (http://www.theonion.com/articles/rick-santorum-relieved-no-one-has-asked-him-about,27630/)).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 15, 2012, 11:49:17 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 15, 2012, 11:20:51 am
How popular is the statehood movement in Puerto Rico? It's not something people talk about very often (though it's not surprising that as soon as something's brought up Santorum's views on it turn out to be horrible (http://www.theonion.com/articles/rick-santorum-relieved-no-one-has-asked-him-about,27630/)).

In puerty rico, the support varies depending on how the question is asked. somewhere between 30% and 60% give or take. Its not just a question of "remain a territory" and "become a state". There are also movements for independence and commonwealth.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 15, 2012, 12:00:05 pm
I'd love for Puerto Rico to become a state, if just to see the racists recoil in horror.

Latin americans... err, I mean, "mexicans" gaining a state? How barbarous!


Plus 50 is a boring number.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 15, 2012, 01:09:16 pm
Single parenthood is apparently a form of child abuse, according to a Wisconsin senator. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/glenn-grothman-wisconsin-law-single-parenthood-child-abuse_n_1316834.html)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Levi on March 15, 2012, 01:26:36 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 15, 2012, 01:09:16 pm
Single parenthood is apparently a form of child abuse, according to a Wisconsin senator. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/glenn-grothman-wisconsin-law-single-parenthood-child-abuse_n_1316834.html)

How the heck do these people get elected?  Between this and the "Whore Pill" thing yesterday my brain is starting to want to leak out my ears.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: fqllve on March 15, 2012, 01:27:18 pm
Quote
State senator Glenn Grothman, an admitted opponent of the social welfare establishment that he believes encourages women to have children out of wedlock. . .

What...the...fuck.

Coming from a single parent household yes, it is a poor situation and is best for a child to have two present and loving parents, but speaking from my experience and the experience of other single parent people I know, in the majority of cases it's the father who made the decision to not have anything to do with the child.

On the other hand, single parenthood can be a contributing factor to abuse and neglect. It is much easier to abuse a child when you are their only supervision and it is much easier to get depressed and neglect your children when you have to raise them on your own. Somehow, I suspect Grothman isn't trying to get at that here, though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 15, 2012, 01:51:13 pm
Just read about the "whore pill" thing. I'm increasingly thinking we need to talk Arizona into seceding as quickly as possible. And put up a border fence. Then when conservatives complain about how we do things here in "liberal-infested America" we can chuck 'em over the wall into Arpaiostan.

Also, someone needs to check Ms. Lesko's family records. If she doesn't have a dozen or more kids, I'm calling bullshit on this, because I'm betting her birth control is paid for by the Arizona taxpayers.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 15, 2012, 01:53:45 pm
Quote
On the other hand, single parenthood can be a contributing factor to abuse and neglect. It is much easier to abuse a child when you are their only supervision and it is much easier to get depressed and neglect your children when you have to raise them on your own. Somehow, I suspect Grothman isn't trying to get at that here, though.
It is a "contributing factor" as much as any other source of high stress, like say... financial situation. It is neither an excuse nor a proof of guilt.

Single parenthood ain't ideal. No one would argue against that. But it is not something to be demonized, either. The dude's intention obviously is to scare people; if you have sex, and your partner leaves you with a kid, you're contributing to child abuse. That train of logic is bullshit, not only because it'll do squat to prevent anything, but because it throws guilt on people not guilty of anything.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 15, 2012, 02:04:24 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 15, 2012, 01:53:45 pm
Quote
On the other hand, single parenthood can be a contributing factor to abuse and neglect. It is much easier to abuse a child when you are their only supervision and it is much easier to get depressed and neglect your children when you have to raise them on your own. Somehow, I suspect Grothman isn't trying to get at that here, though.
It is a "contributing factor" as much as any other source of high stress, like say... financial situation. It is neither an excuse nor a proof of guilt.

Single parenthood ain't ideal. No one would argue against that. But it is not something to be demonized, either. The dude's intention obviously is to scare people; if you have sex, and your partner leaves you with a kid, you're contributing to child abuse. That train of logic is bullshit, not only because it'll do squat to prevent anything, but because it throws guilt on people not guilty of anything.

And because forcing two people who don't want to stay together to do so because of an unplanned child is a fantastic recipe for child abuse.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: fqllve on March 15, 2012, 02:08:19 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 15, 2012, 01:53:45 pm
It is a "contributing factor" as much as any other source of high stress, like say... financial situation. It is neither an excuse nor a proof of guilt.
I think in many states poor financial situation is considered a contributing factor to abuse. I'm not saying it's proof of guilt, but there is a higher rate of abuse and neglect among children of single parents and something needs to be done to provide these families support. Obviously, this bill doesn't have that goal in mind.

I think it's worth pointing out that it only becomes a contributing factor once abuse or neglect has already occured. It is neither proof of guilt nor warrant for suspicion.

Quote
Single parenthood ain't ideal. No one would argue against that. But it is not something to be demonized, either. The dude's intention obviously is to scare people; if you have sex, and your partner leaves you with a kid, you're contributing to child abuse. That train of logic is bullshit, not only because it'll do squat to prevent anything, but because it throws guilt on people not guilty of anything.
Actually, I think his intention is much worse. The wording of the bill states "nonmarital parenthood," which I suppose was used to include those sex-loving non-marrying hedonists and, of course, gay parents.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 15, 2012, 02:19:01 pm
Quote from: RedKing on March 15, 2012, 02:04:24 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 15, 2012, 01:53:45 pm
Quote
On the other hand, single parenthood can be a contributing factor to abuse and neglect. It is much easier to abuse a child when you are their only supervision and it is much easier to get depressed and neglect your children when you have to raise them on your own. Somehow, I suspect Grothman isn't trying to get at that here, though.
It is a "contributing factor" as much as any other source of high stress, like say... financial situation. It is neither an excuse nor a proof of guilt.

Single parenthood ain't ideal. No one would argue against that. But it is not something to be demonized, either. The dude's intention obviously is to scare people; if you have sex, and your partner leaves you with a kid, you're contributing to child abuse. That train of logic is bullshit, not only because it'll do squat to prevent anything, but because it throws guilt on people not guilty of anything.

And because forcing two people who don't want to stay together to do so because of an unplanned child is a fantastic recipe for child abuse.

Staying with an child abusing spouse contributes far more to child abuse and neglect than leaving a child abusing spouse.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on March 15, 2012, 02:23:35 pm
Quote from: fqllve on March 15, 2012, 02:08:19 pm
Quote
Single parenthood ain't ideal. No one would argue against that. But it is not something to be demonized, either. The dude's intention obviously is to scare people; if you have sex, and your partner leaves you with a kid, you're contributing to child abuse. That train of logic is bullshit, not only because it'll do squat to prevent anything, but because it throws guilt on people not guilty of anything.
Actually, I think his intention is much worse. The wording of the bill states "nonmarital parenthood," which I suppose was used to include those sex-loving non-marrying hedonists and, of course, gay parents.
Yeesh. Never saw that wording.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 15, 2012, 02:24:39 pm
Yeah... t'be honest, the way the bill's worded almost looks to me like something designed to push for strictly-paper marriages. If you're going to be under suspicion for child abuse for not being married but have no interest in marriage or cohabitation for whatever reason, then the answer is to be married in name only, just to avoid that law. Marriage doesn't necessarily entail cohabitation, after all, nor does it force certain financial burdens on either partner to the best of my knowledge -- unlike, say, child support does on unmarried parents.

If it's possible for an outside organization to dissolve a marriage without the consent of the married, I haven't heard of it; so marrying someone and then living elsewhere, cohabiting with someone else or no one, etc., so forth, so on, would seem to be the obvious solution.

I'm now kinda' curious how many people have something set up like that... it'd make a lot of sense to do that sort of thing, and a cursory search for information isn't pulling up anything designed to disincentivise that kind of arrangement.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 15, 2012, 02:41:56 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on March 15, 2012, 11:49:17 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 15, 2012, 11:20:51 am
How popular is the statehood movement in Puerto Rico? It's not something people talk about very often (though it's not surprising that as soon as something's brought up Santorum's views on it turn out to be horrible (http://www.theonion.com/articles/rick-santorum-relieved-no-one-has-asked-him-about,27630/)).

In puerty rico, the support varies depending on how the question is asked. somewhere between 30% and 60% give or take. Its not just a question of "remain a territory" and "become a state". There are also movements for independence and commonwealth.
Although it effectively is between remaining a territory and becoming a state, as the commonwealth, free association, and full independence movements are very weak. The last time Puerto Rico had a referendum on this statehood got 46% of the vote and status quo got 50.5% of the vote. That was in 1998, and the statehood movement has gotten stronger since then.

In short, we may have to change the flag again come November. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_2012)
Spoiler: I like this one, myself. (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: These two are rather boring. (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 15, 2012, 03:47:09 pm
If we kick out Arizona and upgrade Puerto Rico, we don't even have to change the flag.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 15, 2012, 04:01:41 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 15, 2012, 02:41:56 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on March 15, 2012, 11:49:17 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 15, 2012, 11:20:51 am
How popular is the statehood movement in Puerto Rico? It's not something people talk about very often (though it's not surprising that as soon as something's brought up Santorum's views on it turn out to be horrible (http://www.theonion.com/articles/rick-santorum-relieved-no-one-has-asked-him-about,27630/)).

In puerty rico, the support varies depending on how the question is asked. somewhere between 30% and 60% give or take. Its not just a question of "remain a territory" and "become a state". There are also movements for independence and commonwealth.
Although it effectively is between remaining a territory and becoming a state, as the commonwealth, free association, and full independence movements are very weak. The last time Puerto Rico had a referendum on this statehood got 46% of the vote and status quo got 50.5% of the vote. That was in 1998, and the statehood movement has gotten stronger since then.

In short, we may have to change the flag again come November. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_2012)
Spoiler: I like this one, myself. (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: These two are rather boring. (click to show/hide)

I kinda like the sine-wave looking one. It'd be emblematic of our national mood swings.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 15, 2012, 04:14:13 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 15, 2012, 03:47:09 pm
If we kick out Arizona and upgrade Puerto Rico, we don't even have to change the flag.
Best solution.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 15, 2012, 06:19:38 pm
This Puerto Rico thing made me realize Hawaii has only been a state for 53 years. There are people around who remember having 49 states. Of course, this destroys any "tradition" arguments about not allowing a 51st state into the union.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 15, 2012, 06:21:53 pm
Wait, are there any national monuments or parks in Arizona? If so, is it possible to remove them before they secede?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Fenrir on March 15, 2012, 06:24:34 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 15, 2012, 06:19:38 pm
Of course, this destroys any "tradition" arguments about not allowing a 51st state into the union.

That will not stop anyone from using one, though.

It is moot, however, as no one likes odd numbers. Sorry, Puerto Rico, request denied.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 15, 2012, 06:26:38 pm
Quote from: Fenrir on March 15, 2012, 06:24:34 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 15, 2012, 06:19:38 pm
Of course, this destroys any "tradition" arguments about not allowing a 51st state into the union.

That will not stop anyone from using one, though.

It is moot, however, as no one likes odd numbers. Sorry, Puerto Rico, request denied.
The 13 colonies disagree. I don't see much of a problem with letting Puerto Rico in.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 15, 2012, 06:30:11 pm
I'm still convinced any major opposition to it (outside of Puerto Rico anyway) would be almost entirely based in racism. "Tradition" and etc would be flimsy excuses.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Fenrir on March 15, 2012, 06:36:59 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 15, 2012, 06:26:38 pm
The 13 colonies disagree. I don't see much of a problem with letting Puerto Rico in.

That is just typical Liberal revision of historical fact. You people do this all of the time. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Revisionism)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 15, 2012, 06:39:09 pm
Quote from: Fenrir on March 15, 2012, 06:36:59 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 15, 2012, 06:26:38 pm
The 13 colonies disagree. I don't see much of a problem with letting Puerto Rico in.

That is just typical Liberal revision of historical fact. You people do this all of the time. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Revisionism)
Oh geez, Conservapedia. Is Andy still doing his conservative Bible "translation"?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 15, 2012, 06:40:00 pm
I think they finished it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: fqllve on March 15, 2012, 06:40:38 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 15, 2012, 06:30:11 pm
I'm still convinced any major opposition to it (outside of Puerto Rico anyway) would be almost entirely based in racism. "Tradition" and etc would be flimsy excuses.
Economically speaking, Puerto Rico isn't doing well at all right now (understatement), so we'd probably see that being used as an argument against statehood. Of course I see it as an argument for it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Fenrir on March 15, 2012, 06:41:45 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 15, 2012, 06:39:09 pm
Oh geez, Conservapedia. Is Andy still doing his conservative Bible "translation"?

I thought it [Conservapedia] was satire for some time. It surprised me to discover that they are actually serious.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: fqllve on March 15, 2012, 06:44:07 pm
It is satire, they just don't know it. Which makes it the best kind of satire.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 15, 2012, 06:44:20 pm
I'm guessing that some of it is submitted as satire. Problem is that Andy himself is quite sincere, and he deletes anything he doesn't agree with.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Delta Foxtrot on March 15, 2012, 06:45:37 pm
It was started as a serious project by a serious man. Then the trolls came. It's pretty much 50/50* satire/real deal these days.

* = arbitrary numbers chosen randomly.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 15, 2012, 06:50:04 pm
These days, Conservapedia is basically a giant game of internet espionage-trolling between the actual reactionaries and the horde of people pretending to be like said reactionaries while they all laugh at them while they aren't looking.

There was once a point where Andy's second-hand man was, in fact, someone playing a very impressive long troll.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 15, 2012, 06:50:28 pm
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/southern-miss-band-chants-where-green-card-puerto-205326741.html

As the article says, Puerto Rico is a part of the United States. People there are American Citizens. Thus, no green card is required (a type of immigration paper). Asking where his is, is rude.

...:(
_________________________________

So, Flashlight...?  http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/google-low-tech-security-plan-remove-lightbulbs-193423347.html They'll never see that lone black cable pumping out all the secrets in all that darkness....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 15, 2012, 06:53:55 pm
In a perfect world, the correct response would be, "Why, right here, in my fist. Why don't I give you a closer look?"

I kid, of course. In a perfect world, such preposterous questions would not be asked.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 15, 2012, 06:54:27 pm
I'm personally annoyed that nobody gets taught about the US territories in school. 50 states, 50 states, 50 states. I feel like that contributes a lot towards the racism/disrespect.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 15, 2012, 06:54:34 pm
Yeah it's pretty disgusting.

Nitpick on that article though:
Quote
Ignorant ignorance; it's the best kind.
Err, the only kind. Common things misconstrued as ignorance would be delusion and malice.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Fenrir on March 15, 2012, 06:55:58 pm
Joking aside, I agree that Puerto Rico should be a state. I am not even sure why a racist would care, as the United States has not been comprised wholly of a single race in hundreds of years (if it ever has).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 15, 2012, 06:57:31 pm
MEXICANS TAKIN' OUR JOBS N VOTIN' IN OUR CONGRESS


I think I'll mention it to my rather racist family and see what they have to say. Once I explain the concept of non-state territories and all that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: fqllve on March 15, 2012, 07:00:44 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 15, 2012, 06:54:27 pm
I'm personally annoyed that nobody gets taught about the US territories in school. 50 states, 50 states, 50 states. I feel like that contributes a lot towards the racism/disrespect.
It's not just school, how often do you ever hear about the Commonwealths and territories at all? I would not be surprised to learn that many adults do not even know about them. Heck, I have met people who do not even know the difference between Puerto Rico and Costa Rica.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 15, 2012, 07:15:02 pm
People mention the Virgin Islands every once in a while, but it's generally only about vacations and fails to make the distinction that some of the islands are owned by the U.K. and some others by the U.S.

Guam is fairly often mentioned for various reasons, but it isn't immediately obvious to a lot of people that the U.S. owns that too.

America Samoa gets a little attention, but not much.

The Northern Mariana Islands, on the other hand, are the forever alone of U.S. territory.

There's also Wake, Midway, and the other minor pacific islands that have been uninhabited for a while now, but those hardly count.

Not many people know that the U.S. used to own the Philippines as well.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: fqllve on March 15, 2012, 07:24:55 pm
I'd say that after Guam and Puerto Rico, Midway and Wake are the most mentioned US territories. Wake often gets overshadowed by Pearl Harbor, but Midway is certainly well known. They're also both astoundingly beautiful
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on March 15, 2012, 07:50:43 pm
Of course, historically, we almost annexed Nicaragua and Cuba and made them states. Thing is, Puerto Rico is likely to become the last state, until Newt gets his way with the moon base- we simply don't have any other territories that are big enough to even think about qualifying. Well, there's DC...but since it's full of black people and is very heavily Democratic-leaning, it'll have to wait until the Republicans start languishing in obscurity.


Assuming, of course, that a small clan of reactionary Kiwis don't get their way. (http://51st-state.com/)

Off the top of my head, too, I can think of the various following proposals for the 51st state that have been floated at one time or another: Québec; Long Island; the east coast of Maryland; Jefferson (almost became a reality!); the upper peninsula of Michigan; Taiwan; and Albania.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 15, 2012, 07:54:35 pm
What is this? New Zealand belongs to us, like an angsty teenager we let think have his own way just because it is easier at the time than sending him to his room. And don't let any rabbits tell you otherwise!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ggamer on March 15, 2012, 08:36:08 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 15, 2012, 06:50:28 pm
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/southern-miss-band-chants-where-green-card-puerto-205326741.html

As the article says, Puerto Rico is a part of the United States. People there are American Citizens. Thus, no green card is required (a type of immigration paper). Asking where his is, is rude.


THANKS SOUTHERN MISS, DOING US ALL PROUD GUYS.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 15, 2012, 08:40:42 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 15, 2012, 06:44:20 pm
I'm guessing that some of it is submitted as satire. Problem is that Andy himself is quite sincere, and he deletes anything he doesn't agree with.
Yeah, I think it's an interesting case study.  Andy bans anyone who openly disagrees with him on any issue.  So any genuine user is bound to disagree with him eventually and get banned.  While parodists are prepared to back him up on literally everything he says in order to ingratiate themselves.  So he ends up selecting towards parodists.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 15, 2012, 08:46:44 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on March 15, 2012, 08:40:42 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 15, 2012, 06:44:20 pm
I'm guessing that some of it is submitted as satire. Problem is that Andy himself is quite sincere, and he deletes anything he doesn't agree with.
Yeah, I think it's an interesting case study.  Andy bans anyone who openly disagrees with him on any issue.  So any genuine user is bound to disagree with him eventually and get banned.  While parodists are prepared to back him up on literally everything he says in order to ingratiate themselves.  So he ends up selecting towards parodists.
That just makes the site even scarier. The guy in charge (and probably at least 50% of the viewers and contributors) genuinely believe the nonsense posted. Some theorize that Andy is a ultra-deep-cover troll. Considering that he teaches college students this stuff (or at least he used to, haven't really been keeping tabs) in real life, that's somewhat unlikely.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 15, 2012, 09:53:37 pm
Quote from: ggamer on March 15, 2012, 08:36:08 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 15, 2012, 06:50:28 pm
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/southern-miss-band-chants-where-green-card-puerto-205326741.html

As the article says, Puerto Rico is a part of the United States. People there are American Citizens. Thus, no green card is required (a type of immigration paper). Asking where his is, is rude.


THANKS SOUTHERN MISS, DOING US ALL PROUD GUYS.

Damn it, that's my alma mater. I was actually proud for a bit that they made the playoffs. ::)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 15, 2012, 11:17:57 pm
Quote from: dhokarena56 on March 15, 2012, 07:50:43 pm
Thing is, Puerto Rico is likely to become the last state, until Newt gets his way with the moon base- we simply don't have any other territories that are big enough to even think about qualifying.
The U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the the Northern Mariana Islands are all currently capable of applying for statehood.

Also, it's funny that you'd mention Taiwan, because a poll done there found that if given the choice between joining the U.S. and joining the PRC, the majority would elect to join the U.S. Granted, that is probably more because of hate for the PRC than love for the USA, but still.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: fqllve on March 15, 2012, 11:29:23 pm
Not that it'll ever happen. Xi Jingping was just in the states playing lip service to the One China Policy. The PRC wouldn't forgive us if we annexed Taiwan.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 15, 2012, 11:31:08 pm
Of course it'll never happen, but it certainly does demonstrate that Taiwan isn't going to cave to the PRC any time soon.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 16, 2012, 08:40:14 am
It's a generational thing. Older Taiwanese are actually more pro-mainland than the younger ones (either because they were born there, or their parents were). Twentysomethings in Taiwan tend to be more nationalist and more "Fuck China" in attitude. It makes me worry about the potential for conflict in another 10-20 years as the increasingly nationalist youth in the mainland and the nationalist youth in Taiwan start moving into their respective political and military positions.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 16, 2012, 09:42:02 am
The way the whole Taiwan situation is handled is just....

U.S. 6th Naval Fleet has been stationed there forever and the Chinese Navy hangs around too. Every once in a while they have war games and shoot a lot in the general direction of our ships with no intention of hitting anything whatsoever. Not to be outdone, we do the same damn thing. If we hit them or they hit us, I'm sure the apologies couldn't come fast enough. It's the military equivalent of a sitcom's idiotic trashtaking, becoming idiotic slapfight, becoming a "very special episode" about never meaning to have hurt anyone....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: fqllve on March 16, 2012, 09:49:17 am
Quote from: RedKing on March 16, 2012, 08:40:14 am
It's a generational thing. Older Taiwanese are actually more pro-mainland than the younger ones (either because they were born there, or their parents were). Twentysomethings in Taiwan tend to be more nationalist and more "Fuck China" in attitude. It makes me worry about the potential for conflict in another 10-20 years as the increasingly nationalist youth in the mainland and the nationalist youth in Taiwan start moving into their respective political and military positions.
Older Taiwanese remember what the Nationalist government was actually like as well. After Mao's death it was hard to tell which government was worse until martial law was lifted.

Quote from: Truean on March 16, 2012, 09:42:02 am
The way the whole Taiwan situation is handled is just....

U.S. 6th Naval Fleet has been stationed there forever and the Chinese Navy hangs around too. Every once in a while they have war games and shoot a lot in the general direction of our ships with no intention of hitting anything whatsoever. Not to be outdone, we do the same damn thing. If we hit them or they hit us, I'm sure the apologies couldn't come fast enough. It's the military equivalent of a sitcom's idiotic trashtaking, becoming idiotic slapfight, becoming a "very special episode" about never meaning to have hurt anyone....
Idiots shouldn't be allowed to play with guns. For some reason I'm reminded of my neighbor who likes to fire off his rifle...in the middle of a residential circle.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 16, 2012, 09:55:48 am
Meh, we did the same thing with the Soviets for 50 years. Fighter pilots would play games of chicken at Mach 3, because they didn't have any other way to "test" each other. Subs and opposing surface fleets played "cat and mouse" in the open ocean, even ground forces would stage these big mock drills to test how fast the other side could react.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 16, 2012, 11:55:33 am
http://news.yahoo.com/dharun-ravi-found-guilty-rutgers-trial-212458885--abc-news.html

"Altman argued that Ravi only activated the webcam to keep an eye on his belongings while an older 'creepy' stranger was in the room, and that Ravi's messages on Twitter and to his friends about the spying were just immature joking. "

So you admitted to the camera ... thing ... in writing which the prosecution has and you're saying you were just keeping an eye on your stuff to make sure it wasn't stolen?

Wow, really? First of all, his date wasn't that much older than him and second if it were an older woman, would you've used a camera to "keep an eye on your stuff," then?

He should have take the 600 hour community service plea, which his lawyer advised him to do, but naturally, no one listens.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 16, 2012, 01:35:26 pm
You'd have to be really stupid not to take that plea deal. No one should even need a lawyer to see how good of a deal that is.

Then again, if he were smart he wouldn't have gotten caught or even spied on his roommate in the first place.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 16, 2012, 02:45:16 pm
Err, educate me:


Having your webcam on in your apartment is illegal? Or is "intent" the illegal thing?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 16, 2012, 02:53:12 pm
Having your webcam on in a shared apartment to spy on your coinhabitant without their knowledge is illegal, yes.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 16, 2012, 02:57:48 pm
Which is actually kind of bullshit, imo, if true.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Darvi on March 16, 2012, 02:58:15 pm
Why?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 16, 2012, 03:00:38 pm
Say I do webcam livestreaming off my laptop and forget to turn it off. Would that be illegal?


It seems to come down to the "to spy" part, which means intent is the incriminating action.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: fqllve on March 16, 2012, 03:05:26 pm
Actually, depending on what was streamed you may still be subject to damages. It wouldn't necessarily be criminal in that case, but yeah, I could see someone making a civil suit out of something like that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Pnx on March 16, 2012, 03:08:26 pm
Turning on your webcam cam to spy on your roommate having sex, and encouraging your friends to come watch your roommate have sex without them knowing is er... yeah.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 16, 2012, 03:18:35 pm
I'm opposed to most limitations on the act of private surveillance in general to be bullshit, surveilling the property where you live to ascertain truths about shared spaces is not something I believe to be wrong.

If I come home every day to find a big oil slick across my floor, I do not see it as an immoral act to set up a camera and try to figure out whodunnit.

And I don't think it should be illegal - regardless of what you pick up in the process.

I'm strongly anti-privacy and find modern societies obsession with secrets to be outright sick, though, so while my opinions on this issue are pretty strong, sharing them more than I have probably isn't worth much.

Different axioms and all that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 16, 2012, 03:21:27 pm
It's not the surveillance that's the issue. It's what he did with his roommate's private information and what that misuse lead his roommate to do in response.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Pnx on March 16, 2012, 03:34:00 pm
The thing about secrets is that we keep them to protect ourselves from other people. You might not need to keep secrets because you deal with people who wouldn't hold your potential secrets against you, or you simply don't have the kinds of secrets that are likely to be held against you. There are a lot of people that do have secrets that can and will be used against them if they are discovered, there are just too many jerks in the world to let us live without secrets.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 16, 2012, 03:37:41 pm
It doesn't even have to be a harmful secret. Would GG be willing to share her password to her account on this site? By definition, that's a secret.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 16, 2012, 03:39:11 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 16, 2012, 03:21:27 pm
It's not the surveillance that's the issue. It's what he did with his roommate's private information and what that misuse lead his roommate to do in response.

You should't purposefully, publicly show someone having sex without their knowledge and you sure shouldn't encourage others to do so.

People seem incapable of seeing the other side of things, or how there are effects they don't understand or even consider. The guy is comparable to a peeping tom.

The gay thing just adds another twist to it and makes the exposure for the victim worse, because the fact of the matter is, most people are jackasses concerning how they view gays in the US. Even taking that out of the picture, laughing at someone having sex, because they're doing so, and because you're improperly getting, sharing, and encouraging others to get and share that footage is wrong. Laughing at them because they're gay and doing what gay people do is just a bit worse.

Poor kid was just trying to live his life (and forced to do so in secret), and along come the bullies to laugh at him for doing that and make his life hell.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 16, 2012, 03:48:36 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 16, 2012, 03:21:27 pm
It's not the surveillance that's the issue. It's what he did with his roommate's private information and what that misuse lead his roommate to do in response.

This is something I find acceptable as an argument, by the way. I can see display and distribution of video with individuals having sex (who do not want the video distributed) as wrong, and I do, regardless of how the video was generated. That's not the part I have a problem with, I'm okay with that being illegal, to a certain extent. I could at least see a legal obligation for the person to let those recorded know the film exists, is possible, so they could immediately respond appropriately.

Quote from: Sirus on March 16, 2012, 03:37:41 pm
It doesn't even have to be a harmful secret. Would GG be willing to share her password to her account on this site? By definition, that's a secret.
I'm not opposed to secrets as a general rule, especially secrets that act primarily to protect us from the secret actions of others - which is why, yes, I would be more than willing to share that particular secret. Because I can respond to it, the risk of secret abuse is nil. It is:
"buy me a pie charles choo choo".

Yeah, kind of dumb. :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 16, 2012, 03:56:20 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 16, 2012, 03:57:09 pm
Ok, assuming that was the real password, that was an incredibly stupid thing to do. If there's a person on this site with malicious intent;
Bye bye account! Password and email address have been changed.
Oops, hope you don't have anything important like CD-keys or love letters in your private messages. They're all gone!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 16, 2012, 03:59:08 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 16, 2012, 03:57:09 pm
Ok, assuming that was the real password, that was an incredibly stupid thing to do. If there's a person on this site with malicious intent;
Bye bye account! Password and email address have been changed.
Oops, hope you don't have anything important like CD-keys or love letters in your private messages. They're all gone!

Or a trollololol will get a hold of it and use it to break the C.o.C. with impunity from a public terminal and get your account banned. That IS the nice version.... Seriously, edit post and/or change that....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: fqllve on March 16, 2012, 04:01:35 pm
Remember, it logs what IP address you've logged in from. If someone gets on GG's account and trololols then Toady will see that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 16, 2012, 04:03:24 pm
Quote from: fqllve on March 16, 2012, 04:01:35 pm
Remember, it logs what IP address you've logged in from. If someone gets on GG's account and trololols then Toady will see that.

Quote from: Truean on March 16, 2012, 03:59:08 pm
Or a trollololol will get a hold of it and use it to break the C.o.C. with impunity from a public terminal and get your account banned. That IS the nice version.... Seriously, edit post and/or change that....

"public terminal." A la internet cafe' or library computer. See the significance?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on March 16, 2012, 04:08:45 pm
Or proxie or a something like TOR.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: fqllve on March 16, 2012, 04:14:23 pm
Well then maybe Toady would take this into account and only give GG a warning or a mute for it, for being somewhat irresponsible.

I'm just trying to be foolishly optimistic here! I want to believe that people are mostly good, okay! :(

I guess... someone could sign into her account, change the password, and then email the new one to her?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 16, 2012, 04:27:07 pm
Or, just maybe, I responded appropriately to the knowing exchange of information "other people now have access to my account" by changing my password.

The point was that a password isn't "private" or even a "secret" in the way other things are private or secret. There is value in others not knowing them, but the value isn't in the information being kept hidden.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 16, 2012, 04:30:17 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 16, 2012, 04:27:07 pm
Or, just maybe, I responded appropriately to the knowing exchange of information "other people now have access to my account" by changing my password.

The point was that a password isn't "private" or even a "secret" in the way other things are private or secret. There is value in others not knowing them, but the value isn't in the information being kept hidden.

You're assuming you can un-ring bells: that there is a remedy for a secret getting out.

What if there isn't?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 16, 2012, 04:42:33 pm
My point was that a key isn't a privacy issue, because it isn't the information that has value. The conversation that follows, however, illustrated the other half of the point I wanted to make perfectly - the request was a silly one, because the information exchange was lopsided, and we couldn't know who might have ended up using the account.

Essentially - I'm okay with secrets kept to protect us from the deceptions of others. I'm okay with keys that restrict access to those who should have it. I prefer these methods of combating the secret actions of others over laws curtailing our ability to uncover secrets through our own actions.

When I talk about being generally anti-privacy, I am not talking about either of these things. I'm talking about being opposed to the sort of secrets that let others act openly and honestly in superior ways.

Because trust me, you and I do not benefit from the worship of the ideal of privacy anywhere near as much as politicians and banking executives do.

And once we've given those with power over us the right to privacy, they will assert that it only counts for them, and they will get away with it, because we won't try to take away theirs (privacy is too important!) but it gives them the strength to take away ours (No, you can't film the police, but yes, we can film you)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Pnx on March 16, 2012, 04:47:54 pm
Having no privacy or secrets is only actually feasible if nobody else has any either. Unfortunately to keep that up we'd have to have extremely effective ways of keeping track of everything about everyone, which just isn't possible.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 16, 2012, 04:49:04 pm
As far as I can tell GG is fine with having no secrets and therefore assumes that everyone else can live the same way.  It seems silly.  I mean, the fact that some people can take a punch to the gut doesn't mean that we should be allowed to punch anyone we like in the gut.

Quote from: kaijyuu on March 16, 2012, 03:00:38 pm
Say I do webcam livestreaming off my laptop and forget to turn it off. Would that be illegal?


It seems to come down to the "to spy" part, which means intent is the incriminating action.
Really you could say the same about almost any crime if you're prepared to make up a contrived example.  Falling asleep with a cigarette in your mouth won't get you charged with arson while setting fire to the bed would, for instance (let's say it's in a shared building so it's not yours to burn down).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Fenrir on March 16, 2012, 04:51:11 pm
Well, GG, it would appear that you are just an odd one. I, like many others, do not like the idea of being observed, tracked, profiled, or otherwise studied when we are at home, and any explanation we could give for this desire for privacy would probably come from a psychologist.

I would agree with you that, when in public, or performing acts related to a public service, surveillance is permissible, but I would seriously doubt that we put ourselves at risk by forbidding people to monitor the activies of their neighbors—you will remember that such an incident was the topic of discussion.

It is here that I would lighten a rather dry and accusative post with a cheery icon to indicate my intended goodwill, but I feel that contemporary iconography is a crutch I would use to prop up my poor writing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 16, 2012, 04:55:14 pm
I firmly believe that all of us having no secrets is better than only some of us having no secrets, and the way our society is structured, most of our secrets are not nearly to the extent we think they are, and the secrecy around those using the information is so thick we'll never even know we've been compromised. And those using the information do not have our best interests at heart.

This whole derail was about this guy having legal troubles for taping his roommate coupled with the new NSA center stuff, really.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 16, 2012, 05:00:56 pm
Just don't publicly post your password....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: alway on March 17, 2012, 01:24:54 am
You may remember that This American Life episode on FoxConn. It was retracted; turns out a decent portion of it was invented by the guy to sell his story. http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/16/10720955-this-american-life-retracts-damning-report-on-apple-manufacturer-foxconn

Quote
"Daisey lied to me and to 'This American Life' producer Brian Reed during the fact checking we did on the story, before it was broadcast," Glass said. "That doesn't excuse the fact that we never should've put this on the air. In the end, this was our mistake." 'This American Life' will devote its entire program this weekend to detailing the errors in the story," the press release said.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on March 17, 2012, 01:47:47 am
Quote from: Truean on March 16, 2012, 05:00:56 pm
In other news, more details of what's beginning to look like police covering up; shit is surfacing:
http://news.yahoo.com/family-slain-black-fla-teen-hear-911-calls-013325111.html
The article says white person, then later in the article it says the murderer was Hispanic.

What!?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 17, 2012, 01:56:50 am
Because he's a white hispanic?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 17, 2012, 02:11:42 am
Quote from: justinlee999 on March 17, 2012, 01:47:47 am
Quote from: Truean on March 16, 2012, 05:00:56 pm
In other news, more details of what's beginning to look like police covering up; shit is surfacing:
http://news.yahoo.com/family-slain-black-fla-teen-hear-911-calls-013325111.html
The article says white person, then later in the article it says the murderer was Hispanic.

What!?

I doubt american's differentiate hispanics based on racial origins, e.g. Brazillian businessman Ricardo Semler would be considered hispanic in the USA, even though his family came from Austria. So it in no way delineates a racial boundary.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on March 17, 2012, 02:37:20 am
Hispanics never really struck me as "White" people, I guess it's all about cultural differences.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: fqllve on March 17, 2012, 02:58:03 am
Quote from: alway on March 17, 2012, 01:24:54 am
You may remember that This American Life episode on FoxConn. It was retracted; turns out a decent portion of it was invented by the guy to sell his story. http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/16/10720955-this-american-life-retracts-damning-report-on-apple-manufacturer-foxconn

Quote
"Daisey lied to me and to 'This American Life' producer Brian Reed during the fact checking we did on the story, before it was broadcast," Glass said. "That doesn't excuse the fact that we never should've put this on the air. In the end, this was our mistake." 'This American Life' will devote its entire program this weekend to detailing the errors in the story," the press release said.
Ah, I'm disappointed but not surprised. Daisey is an entertainer not a journalist, but exaggerating conditions makes it harder to solve any real problems and gives people fuel for disregarding the situation completely. Still, This American Life is a good program and I'm interested to hear what all was fabricated.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: G-Flex on March 17, 2012, 03:23:07 am
Sadly, it wasn't simple exaggerations, either. He totally fabricated details and made up interactions that didn't even happen, and then lied to This American Life about it because he was afraid of what might happen. He seems to very much regret allowing them to use the story and misleading their fact-checking, but he seems to stand by the weird notion that it's acceptable as theater to get up on stage and lie to people for emotional effect.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 17, 2012, 03:34:03 am
Quote from: G-Flex on March 17, 2012, 03:23:07 am
the weird notion that it's acceptable as theater to get up on stage and lie to people for emotional effect.

That's not a weird notion. Storytellers often exaggerate or even lie, believe it or not!  His sin is that he told TAL that it was a factual account. His stance is that he lied, but only in as much as the events he claimed to have taken part in didn't happen specifically to him.  IE, those things happen, and his stories are abstraction of that. 

Further, TAL contacted him without taking due diligence on researching the story, and they admit that wholly.  They were both partially to blame for the story being construed as fact.

So yes, it's awful of Daisy, and detrimental to his cause, to say it's factual like he did.  But that doesn't make what his story is about (awful labor conditions) less important.  To him, the net gain of that burst of awareness his story inspired was worth it.  Not that it absolves him, of course, but that's his reasoning.  I'm not even going to discount that he might have had sights set on furthering his own career, either. 

There's not one single 'thing' here to blame, there's a lot of angles.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 17, 2012, 03:38:22 am
Quote from: justinlee999 on March 17, 2012, 02:37:20 am
Hispanics never really struck me as "White" people, I guess it's all about cultural differences.
Yes, Hispanic is a cultural (and lingual) term.  It's got nothing to do with race.

At least it wasn't a white African-American, would have confused you even more I'm sure. Although I did know one of those a couple years back.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on March 17, 2012, 03:49:12 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 17, 2012, 03:38:22 am
At least it wasn't a white African-American
Derp.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: G-Flex on March 17, 2012, 05:27:46 am
Quote from: Capntastic on March 17, 2012, 03:34:03 am
Quote from: G-Flex on March 17, 2012, 03:23:07 am
the weird notion that it's acceptable as theater to get up on stage and lie to people for emotional effect.

That's not a weird notion. Storytellers often exaggerate or even lie, believe it or not!  His sin is that he told TAL that it was a factual account.

But it's okay to get on stage and present a story as factual, as something that actually happened to him, and in doing so defame a company (well, two companies) by lying about them? I really can't get behind that. Yeah, embellishing a story is fine, but I've heard this guy's story, and he very clearly presents it as a factual account of stuff that happened to him, even if it is geared toward emotional effect.

Quote
There's not one single 'thing' here to blame, there's a lot of angles.

Of course. I feel like Ira Glass/TAL have come clean a lot more than Daisy has, though. Daisy has apologized, but it's also not quite the sort of apology he should be giving. He repeatedly apologizes for bringing the story to TAL, but seems totally fine with the idea of perpetrating this narrative of events that never actually happened to him. Hell, it wasn't even just "abstractions"; it was other things as well that may or may not ever actually happen, like the guards carrying guns, the dormitories containing surveillance cameras, the one worker being totally mystified by the iPad/iPhone, and other embellishments.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 17, 2012, 05:57:57 am
G-Flex, all I was taking issue with was your apparent surprise that people who do monologues or similar theater acts aren't typically expected to be held to high standards of veracity.  It was the TAL approval that gave him the sheen of truth-- if I'd seen him do his stage act at some random club I wouldn't think it to be true.  Lying to people for emotional effect in theater isn't 'a weird notion'.

As I stated, the reason it's even a big deal is that he lied to TAL.  And, again, TAL came to him asking to use his story, not the other way around.   Nowhere did I say his actions were commendable.  If you're trying to pin me for not condemning him enough, all I can say is point to my above post and remind you that I don't condone his actions, but can see what his failing is. His own personal value system places the awareness gained and over the truth.  Even getting 'caught', he's succeeded in his mission to get his story out there, for both personal and altruistic reasons.  His apology is perfectly in line with this line of thought.

It's similar in a lot of ways to the Kony 2012 thing, because both Daisy and IC value the awareness over the actual truth and specific information pertaining to their scenarios.  Of course, IC is infinitely worse for various reasons.  The key point is that they're trying to get people riled up over good causes, using bad methods. 

Basically, as bad as a dude Daisy is, his actions will probably spur some people to make better decisions.  Not that I'm taking a broken window stance on the morality of this, since he could've used the truth to gain equal or better results.  Regardless, it's up to people beyond him to use the small bit of empathy his story dredged up to look into things on their own and make the best of it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 17, 2012, 06:05:34 am
http://news.yahoo.com/regulator-questions-bill-ease-capital-raising-062223184.html

....

There are disclosure regulations for businesses dealing with investors. Many of the main ones were put into place in 1933-34, right after the 1929 stock market crash.... This bill lowers even those.

And the term, "Small business," is completely misapplied and asinine here:

"The House bill had allowed fairly large companies - those with up to $1 billion in annual gross revenue - to qualify for certain key regulatory exemptions -- like an extended pass on external audits -- after their initial public offerings."

"Senate Democrats proposed lowering the threshold for the exemption to $350 million." (and from the committee note, tried to go lower, but really couldn't get traction even on the $350 million mark).

Translation:
"An extended pass on external audits." ~We trust you "small businesses" (Up to $one billion revenue/year) completely.
???

A.) This doesn't create jobs, especially for numerous book keepers and accountants who keep companies at least in some small sense honest.

B.) An external audit has been part of American businesses like this for decades with no ill effect.

C.) You wanna actually create jobs? Make it so ordinary people can afford to buy things, that is: be clients/customers. Jobs aren't these magic things; they happen when someone can afford to buy something or something you do from you or a business you work for. If anything is holding businesses back, it's not regulation, it's lack of people who are able to be paying customers. <--- Nobody's trying to fix this.... That's why we have a problem.

"GOP 2012, corporations are people and have free speech; you don't, so shut up." <-- Seems what they're really saying....

Quote from: Capntastic on March 17, 2012, 05:57:57 am
G-Flex, all I was taking issue with was your apparent surprise that people who do monologues or similar theater acts aren't typically expected to be held to high standards of veracity.  It was the TAL approval that gave him the sheen of truth-- if I'd seen him do his stage act at some random club I wouldn't think it to be true.  Lying to people for emotional effect in theater isn't 'a weird notion'.

As I stated, the reason it's even a big deal is that he lied to TAL.  And, again, TAL came to him asking to use his story, not the other way around.   Nowhere did I say his actions were commendable.  If you're trying to pin me for not condemning him enough, all I can say is point to my above post and remind you that I don't condone his actions, but can see what his failing is. His own personal value system places the awareness gained and over the truth.  Even getting 'caught', he's succeeded in his mission to get his story out there, for both personal and altruistic reasons.  His apology is perfectly in line with this line of thought.

It's similar in a lot of ways to the Kony 2012 thing, because both Daisy and IC value the awareness over the actual truth and specific information pertaining to their scenarios.  Of course, IC is infinitely worse for various reasons.  The key point is that they're trying to get people riled up over good causes, using bad methods. 

Basically, as bad as a dude Daisy is, his actions will probably spur some people to make better decisions.  Not that I'm taking a broken window stance on the morality of this, since he could've used the truth to gain equal or better results.  Regardless, it's up to people beyond him to use the small bit of empathy his story dredged up to look into things on their own and make the best of it.

Unfortunately, everyone's apathetic about everything. They just don't care. Not that much of an over-generalization really, either. There is an issue not that he lied, but but he lied while saying it was true. "Fiction" means you are expected to lie. "Non Fiction" means you are expected to not lie. He said it was non fiction, and sold it to a non fiction publisher as non fiction and that's the problem. Sometimes embellishment is the only way to get people to care, but where's the line between that and fraud?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 17, 2012, 06:13:51 am
Nowhere did I dispute that he lied, both about his content, and what he construed himself as, and that he shouldn't have.  I'm just trying to ensure that people don't rail so hard against Daisy that they forget that the undeniably true core of his story- That Consumerism's Led to Horrible Manufacturing Conditions in China and Other Places- shouldn't be drowned out.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 17, 2012, 06:27:06 am
Quote from: Capntastic on March 17, 2012, 06:13:51 am
Nowhere did I dispute that he lied, both about his content, and what he construed himself as, and that he shouldn't have.  I'm just trying to ensure that people don't rail so hard against Daisy that they forget that the undeniably true core of his story- That Consumerism's Led to Horrible Manufacturing Conditions in China and Other Places- shouldn't be drowned out.

Fair point. I'm actually perfectly ok with "ends justifies the means," in many but not all situations. If "lying satire" is what it takes to get a bunch of price obsessed tech consumers to consider that their toys are "cheap" due to slave labor, then fine.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 17, 2012, 06:43:14 am
I just keep seeing a lot of really weird contrarian arguments lately, and it's doubly odd that when I put forth a purposefully even-handed analysis of the situation, people still take it upon themselves to split hairs that I'm not as angry as I should apparently be.  I mean, this is a minor scandal compared to the huge wealth of straight up counterfactual, purposefully crafted lies being taken not just as truth, but as Gospel, that are spewed out by, say, FOX news, every single minute.  Many of them are also catalogued in this thread.  So yeah, TAL fucked up, but on their part it was an honest mistake.  Daisy fucked up by not being upfront with TAL and misconstruing himself in general, but his actions are infinitely less malicious than so many other things that the despise I feel for him is so much less than I feel for, say, Goldman Sachs or Monsanto or Alice Walton that it's negligible.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: G-Flex on March 17, 2012, 10:35:18 am
Quote from: Capntastic on March 17, 2012, 06:13:51 am
Nowhere did I dispute that he lied, both about his content, and what he construed himself as, and that he shouldn't have.  I'm just trying to ensure that people don't rail so hard against Daisy that they forget that the undeniably true core of his story- That Consumerism's Led to Horrible Manufacturing Conditions in China and Other Places- shouldn't be drowned out.

This is why I'm so mad that he lied in the first place. Complete fabrications are easy to deal with, because you just dismiss them. Things like this are harder to deal with, because you don't know how much you can believe about his experience. I heard the story, and it affected me pretty strongly, and now I have no idea how much of it even happened. I don't know how much I believe Mike Daisy, or hell, how much I believe his interpreter either. The whole thing is basically shot.

On the other hand, I'm glad TAL's retraction episode did touch upon the actual issues represented in the story; some good should come out of this, and it's nice to walk away from the situation with at least some trustworthy information.

Quote from: Truean on March 17, 2012, 06:27:06 am
Quote from: Capntastic on March 17, 2012, 06:13:51 am
Nowhere did I dispute that he lied, both about his content, and what he construed himself as, and that he shouldn't have.  I'm just trying to ensure that people don't rail so hard against Daisy that they forget that the undeniably true core of his story- That Consumerism's Led to Horrible Manufacturing Conditions in China and Other Places- shouldn't be drowned out.

Fair point. I'm actually perfectly ok with "ends justifies the means," in many but not all situations. If lying is what it takes to get a bunch of price obsessed tech consumers to consider that their toys are "cheap" due to slave labor, then fine.

So if lying is necessary to get people to care about the truth, you're okay with that? That's pretty ironic, especially when a major part of the problem is lack of transparency/awareness in the first place.

I also believe that in this case, the truth of the matter was sufficiently powerful that there was really no need to lie about it. There are ways to dramatize something other than making shit up.

Also: Please bear in mind your own argument here the next time you feel the need to complain about Fox News or any other organization or individual fabricating stories or not engaging in good journalism, because they're doing the exact same thing you're encouraging here: Deciding that if you feel the need to push an agenda, cause, or effect some sort of social change, that it's okay to lie in order to do it. It doesn't matter how "right" you are; when you start lying in order to promote your views, it ceases to matter how "correct" your views are, because you've effectively removed yourself from rational discussion. We both see the effects of bad journalism and misrepresentation in the media pretty much constantly, and it's pretty hypocritical to say that it's okay as long as the people doing it are the ones we agree with.

Quote from: Capntastic on March 17, 2012, 06:43:14 am
I just keep seeing a lot of really weird contrarian arguments lately, and it's doubly odd that when I put forth a purposefully even-handed analysis of the situation, people still take it upon themselves to split hairs that I'm not as angry as I should apparently be.  I mean, this is a minor scandal compared to the huge wealth of straight up counterfactual, purposefully crafted lies being taken not just as truth, but as Gospel, that are spewed out by, say, FOX news, every single minute.  Many of them are also catalogued in this thread.  So yeah, TAL fucked up, but on their part it was an honest mistake.  Daisy fucked up by not being upfront with TAL and misconstruing himself in general, but his actions are infinitely less malicious than so many other things that the despise I feel for him is so much less than I feel for, say, Goldman Sachs or Monsanto or Alice Walton that it's negligible.

Of course those other things are worse, which is why people complain about them. However, I'm a bit more personally and directly affected by this because I did not expect this to happen on TAL, and the story was pretty hard-hitting. Fox News is more of a problem by orders of magnitude, but they haven't violated my trust because I have none in them. For what it's worth, I don't really think TAL specifically violated my trust a hell of a lot; they got a bit lax with the fact-checking, but they owned up to it and rebounded pretty well and honestly. But the story certainly did.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 17, 2012, 01:36:43 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: alway on March 17, 2012, 03:10:15 pm
The story of the retraction is up: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/460/retraction
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: G-Flex on March 17, 2012, 03:22:07 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 17, 2012, 01:36:43 pm
There's an absolute difference between Fox and any rational cause

A cause ceases to be rational when people believe in it for irrational reasons, or based on lies. How exactly can you call a cause "rational" when it's no longer even based on the truth?

Quote
If you made a 100% truthful documentary about how fucking horrible we are for using slave labor to build our little toys, no one would fucking watch it. They don't care.

Er... then why was this man's story at all effective? Most of what he said was at least sort of based in truth, and could have been effectively researched and made into a story that was both effective and truthful. It just would have required a bit more journalistic/investigative legwork.

Quote
People like that are not worthy of the truth, they don't fucking deserve it, because when presented with it and the inescapable conclusion that if they paid a few dollars more for their Ipad, then they could drastically improve slave level labor conditions, they don't care. They just don't care.

... And what about the rest of us? What about the people who do have the potential to care? Do they deserve to be lied to and manipulated as well in order to serve your own version of the truth? Do you deserve that? Not to mention that this story being effective on a person means that person isn't totally apathetic in the first place, so the people you're saying "deserve" this are the very same people who won't react to it meaningfully in the first place.

What makes you think that, apparently, you're the only person who should be making decisions based on what the actual truth is? Yes, there are causes worth lying for, but here the cause starts with making people aware of what the truth is. Do you really think it's at all rational, logical, or ethical to inform people of the truth by lying to them? That doesn't even make sense. At that point, it's not even about the truth, it's just about who can lie more effectively, and you're no better than a Fox News contributor telling lies about, say, Planned Parenthood. You might say "but it's okay if I do it, because I'm the one who's correct" but the entire meaning of "correct" or "true" goes out the window when what is seen as "true" is not even based in truth to begin with, which is exactly what happens when you further an opinion, a cause, or a perspective based on lies and other irrational behavior.

Quote
Fox News, on the other hand, is not only in it for their own gain, but also for the suffering of others to get that gain. Moreover, Fox News LOVES an uninformed public and does everything it can to keep the truth from said public, again for its own gain. Meanwhile this guy's lies actually managed to get people talking about an important factual, true issue, that if we actually gave a fuck about it would help millions of disadvantaged people we exploit for cheap material wealth.

That's sort of a point, but what about the hardcore conservatives who do legitimately believe that they're right and that their viewpoint is correct and should be encouraged for the good of the country/people/world? Is it okay for them to lie in order to do that? Is intent really enough to justify that?

Not to mention that propaganda has its own terrible way of shooting itself in the foot. Here, TAL's reputation probably took a hit, or at least would have if they hadn't retracted the story, Mike Daisy looks like a total ass, and everything he said gets called into question. Yes, he dredged up some support for the cause by doing this, but it didn't have to be done that way. It could have been done honestly.

Quote
Lie more. Just lie better next time, because the lie wasn't the problem. The lie was good, the lie made a couple overprivileged morons think about the consequences of their actions for once. The problem was that he got caught lying and didn't do a good job being convincing and thus ended up hurting the cause he was promoting.

If you need to lie to someone in order to convince them of something, then that's not something they should be convinced of. Making people think about things is great, but causing their opinions to be partially based on erroneous information is not, can be harmful in the long term to the cause itself, and is just goddamn unnecessary in addition to being unethical.

Quote
Lying is a tool like anything else. It's how you use it, why, and to what end. Lying is often the only thing that works, because people can't handle the truth, don't want the truth, and won't listen to the truth.

It's pretty ironic you keep saying things like this, even though the entire point of this lie was to expose people to what the truth is, and the actual truth of the matter is very, very similar to the lie that was told anyway; the untrue parts were mostly for dramatic effect. Evidently, the people who responded to this story did respond to the truth, or at least some rough facsimile thereof, and would have also responded to a well-told story that also happened to be grounded more in reality. What makes you think people "can't handle" the truth or "don't want it", yet do want the story that was told, which is even more heartbreaking and dramatic than what actually happened? Hell, that's exactly why it was effective; because it was very much what people don't like to hear. A real journalist, or even that same guy, with a little more effort, could have done some reporting and constructed a narrative that was just as compelling without requiring lies or embellishment.


Quote
Good lies, white lies, large or small, are how we deal with the fact that the world is fucked up and many of its people are evil. Lies aren't the problem; lies are sometimes the solution. The problem is bad motives and doing things for the wrong reasons. Lie. Lie your fucking head off, but do it for the right reasons and be damn good and sure about that before you do it.

I never meant to imply that lying is wrong, and a lot of your strangely personal rambling here is pretty out of place. I'm aware that lying can sometimes be okay. What I don't believe is that using lies and propaganda in order to promote one's version of the truth is okay. It's not. That is, historically speaking, how some incredibly bad trends have started socially and politically, and it's completely averse to the concept of truth in the first place.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: fqllve on March 17, 2012, 03:35:27 pm
Quote from: G-Flex on March 17, 2012, 03:22:07 pm
and everything he said gets called into question.
This is what I see as the biggest problem with what Daisey did. By suggesting that his embellished monologue was journalism he traded immediate benefit toward his cause for later potential damage to that same thing. Hopefully TAL's retraction has mitigated that but it doesn't change the fact that there are assuredly some people out there who feel so betrayed and alienated by the whole escapade that they either no longer believe anything he said is true or they no longer care if it is. Not only that, but Daisey has provided more ammunition for people who didn't care in the first place.

What he did was extremely short-sighted, damaging, and as has been said, completely unnecessary anyway.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 17, 2012, 04:42:19 pm
G-Flex I'm not gonna bother quoting your last post or replying line by line but you're trying really hard to provoke an argument of moral superiority by trying to say I 'approve' of Daisy's actions and 'encourage' them, when I have said and continue to say what he did was wrong and dumb and hurts his own cause.  I'm not saying everyone needs to agree on all things forever, but you're sort of being aggressive as heck, to the point of misconstruing things I've said multiple times for clarity, because of people not having the same reaction to the same degree as you.

Truean's case here is that most of the lies Daisy told about poisoned, injured, or underaged workers, as well as squalid living conditions, actually do happen- just not to him.  So, while Daisy's account isn't factual by any means, there is a lot of 'truth' in it, from an informational standpoint.  For your sake G-Flex, I'll say for maybe the second or third time that it does not excuse his lack of being upfront about his level of veracity. 

So in the name of moving on amicably, Daisy is literally Satan the Great Deceiver, case closed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 17, 2012, 04:53:06 pm
^^^^

This.

Also, [sigh] I just spent roughly [looks at watch] 20 minutes composing a reply to that which is 7 pages long in microsoft word, but I noticed Capntastic's post while I was previewing it. It had Santa and office thermostats, a hypothetical about convincing people littering would cause some make believe disease in order to make them pick up their stupid trash instead of leaving it all over the park, and lots of other stuff, about how it's perfectly OK to satire a bit like in my last post.

Capn's right though, there's only one way this line can go from here: down. So I'm gonna save it on my hard drive and move on.

We tell kids to brush their teeth because if they don't, "they will all fall out." Maybe they won't all fall out, but dental problems are real.... Try explaining that to a 5 year old with a wall of factual text approach and it doesn't work.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: G-Flex on March 17, 2012, 04:55:28 pm
Quote from: Capntastic on March 17, 2012, 04:42:19 pm
G-Flex I'm not gonna bother quoting your last post or replying line by line but you're trying really hard to provoke an argument of moral superiority by trying to say I 'approve' of Daisy's actions and 'encourage' them, when I have said and continue to say what he did was wrong and dumb and hurts his own cause.  I'm not saying everyone needs to agree on all things forever, but you're sort of being aggressive as heck, to the point of misconstruing things I've said multiple times for clarity, because of people not having the same reaction to the same degree as you.

I'm looking at the last post I made in response to you, and I honestly don't see any of that. I was just explaining why I reacted to it strongly (even though worse lies happen on a daily basis) and why it mattered to me. I don't think you were trying to "approve of" or "encourage" it.

Quote from: Capntastic on March 17, 2012, 04:42:19 pm
Truean's case here is that most of the lies Daisy told about poisoned, injured, or underaged workers, as well as squalid living conditions, actually do happen- just not to him.  So, while Daisy's account isn't factual by any means, there is a lot of 'truth' in it, from an informational standpoint.  For your sake G-Flex, I'll say for maybe the second or third time that it does not excuse his lack of being upfront about his level of veracity.

I understand that, but in my response to Truean, that portion I bolded is what I was trying to say. Truean is excusing Daisy's lack of being upfront.


Also: I don't think Mike Daisy is some incredibly awful demonic being. I listened to TAL's retraction episode, and I felt bad for the guy. I was a little surprised he came back to the show, and that he apologized at all, even if he tried to cover his own ass a bit. It was obviously an incredibly awkward situation, and I'm inclined to believe his explanation for why he wasn't very up-front with TAL's producers, although I can't assume it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: alway on March 17, 2012, 09:02:41 pm
Yeah, after listening to that, I would not want to be on the receiving end of a PO'ed Ira Glass.

In unrelated news, Utah's governor vetoed the bill (http://thedailywh.at/2012/03/17/follow-up-of-the-day-utah-gov-vetoes-abstinence-only-bill/) from this post I made a few days ago:
Quote from: alway on March 06, 2012, 10:59:29 pm
http://thedailywh.at/2012/03/06/abstinence-only-bill-of-the-day/
Quote
Abstinence-Only Bill of the Day: With the nation’s attention trained on the media’s breathless coverage of Super Tuesday, Utah’s legislature this evening quietly passed a bill requiring schools to teach abstinence-only sex education, or else skip the classes altogether.

Additionally, both teachers and students would be prohibited from discussing contraception and homosexuality in the classroom.
Quote
Senator Stuart Reid (R-Ogden) said the legislation takes sex ed out of the hands of teachers “who we have no idea what their morals are” and turns it over to parents.
ಠ_ಠ

Though with an odd quote from the bill's supporter:
Quote
The legislation’s co-sponsor, Sen. Margaret Dayton (R), expressed her disappointment at the governor’s decision, saying she found teaching students about contraception akin to telling them to avoid drugs while showing them how to “mainline” heroin.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Darvi on March 17, 2012, 09:05:24 pm
Somebody tell me that man's name so I can spare him from my plots.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 17, 2012, 10:25:12 pm
Quote from: Capntastic on March 17, 2012, 04:42:19 pm
So in the name of moving on amicably, Daisy is literally Satan the Great Deceiver, case closed.

Quote from: G-Flex on March 17, 2012, 04:55:28 pm
I understand that, but in my response to Truean, that portion I bolded is what I was trying to say. Truean is excusing Daisy's lack of being upfront.

I thought we were moving on from this? No? I've repeatedly said satire is ok. Swift wasn't really saying we should eat the babies in "A Modest Proposal." Done please?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on March 18, 2012, 12:34:03 am
Quote from: fqllve on March 16, 2012, 04:14:23 pm
I guess... someone could sign into her account, change the password, and then email the new one to her?
GlyphGryph is a girl? I could have sworn that [pronoun?] was a he.

I'm glad that the governor of Utah realized the errors inherent in that bill's "plan".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 18, 2012, 12:43:30 am
Anyone with a brain and not stuck in some fantasy world would.


Utah occasionally brushes with sanity. I think we just have different baggage than the other heavily conservative states, though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 18, 2012, 01:31:55 am
Considering the fact that parents have to opt in, in writing, to the current sex ed classes, which most do, really drives home how silly this new Utah law was. You're not just saying teachers don't know their own morals, you're saying the government knows better than the parents.

I for one was really turned on learning about venereal diseases and condoms :D [/sarcasm]
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 18, 2012, 07:01:38 am
So my insane Tea Party fundamentalist co-worker (who doesn't have a clue as to my political leanings) breathlessly regales me this morning with stories of how Obama has passed a new executive order that makes him God-Emperor for Life. Quick scan of the Googlesphere shows a lot of furor over it on the right-wing blogs and such, but no coverage in anything that I'd call a credible or mainstream source. Anybody heard anything about this order?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on March 18, 2012, 08:48:11 am
...I... What?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 18, 2012, 08:53:57 am
I guess RK's referring to this (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness). The order itself, anyway. Haven't read it, because I'm both too sleepy to think straight and probably have no idea what the wording entails even without that. Someone else can dissect it :-\
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 18, 2012, 11:20:12 am
Yeah, that's the one. I've glossed over it a couple of times, and it doesn't seem that wild to me. Basically "if the shit hits the fan, the government has the power to step in and redirect resources as needed to address war priorities/disaster response". I keep seeing all this talk about how it gives Obama dictatorial powers in peacetime, but I'll be damned if I can see where they're pulling that from.

The Paulites have already concocted a conspiracy theory that this is in advance of Israel launching airstrikes against Iran, and that Obama is preparing for a long multi-year war with Iran as a result and is going to use this to ensure American compliance without Congressional approval. So...yeah.  ::)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 18, 2012, 12:24:37 pm
Are you guys shitting me? People think that? That's the same thing they've been doing since Eisenhower and arguably FDR. Basically:

If the Soviet Union or Communists China or Terrorists start something and it's for real, then we ramp up the military industrial complex....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Euld on March 18, 2012, 01:07:30 pm
And why would Obama go to war with Iran for the sake of Israel exactly?  Isn't that what the conservatives want to pull off someday anyway to protect Israel?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 18, 2012, 01:12:50 pm
Quote from: Euld on March 18, 2012, 01:07:30 pm
And why would Obama go to war with Iran for the sake of Israel exactly?  Isn't that what the conservatives want to pull off someday anyway to protect Israel?

Yea... I thought they were blasting Obama for not unilaterally and unconditionally endorsing Israel attacking Iran by any means necessary up to and including a nuclear strike on Iran?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 18, 2012, 07:01:01 pm
God, Obama. He hates Israel so much that the only thing that would make him support it is if he could manipulate it to gain more power.

Also, that lying discussion was dropped precisely when I was about to tell you guys to drop it. Good job there.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on March 18, 2012, 09:13:57 pm
Quote from: RedKing on March 18, 2012, 07:01:38 am
So my insane Tea Party fundamentalist co-worker (who doesn't have a clue as to my political leanings) breathlessly regales me this morning with stories of how Obama has passed a new executive order that makes him God-Emperor for Life.
*Insert mandatory Warhammer 40k joke*
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 18, 2012, 11:07:43 pm
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-host-call-monday-morning-002450673.html

Slave labor made products.
Expensive products.
Overpaid executives.
$600/share stock price.
$98 Billion cash on hand surplus....
....

I've said it once and I'll say it again, somehow, tax the shit out of these corporations already. Tax cuts won't do anything but give them even larger piles of money that they admittedly don't need. Regulate away some of that slave labor. Raise working wages. Bring down the cost of the products, reform some of the more egregious and unnecessary contract provisions, something.... Anything....

I'm sorry; you have enough. This is asinine. "Give them even more money," isn't the answer. People, real... real... people, living beings, need money in order to buy all that crap companies produce. <--- This is the cause for sluggish sales and thus the recession. Home prices, student loan debt, none of it would be an issue, if everyone were making a decent wage, because then, they could afford it....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 18, 2012, 11:17:02 pm
"But Truean," opponents will reason, "what if they don't deserve that money? What if they haven't worked hard for it? Truth be told, most Westerners live a life of incomparable luxury. Complaining about that is just self-centered whining!"

Completely failing to see the hypocrisy there, or question why the use of slave labor is apparently morally right if it justifies obscene profit margins because of the invisible hand's infallibility, or that hardship is necessarily relative due to that whole human psychology thing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 18, 2012, 11:21:32 pm
98 billion could give 1 million people 98 thousand dollars. That is something like 4 to 10 years wages at the US poverty line depending on size of household and local cost of living. *Note that this is a very rough estimate.

And it could be used to set up their hundred thousand + Chinese laborers an solid middle class income (by Chinese standards) for the several decades, possibly their entire lives.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 18, 2012, 11:22:44 pm
Give every person in the world 10 dollars.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 18, 2012, 11:23:51 pm
People often say this about Western nations, but I think that the true collapse of the global economy will come when China's workforce starts to retire. Assuming the PRC has not internally collapsed by then, anyway.

Come on, post-scarcity nanofabrication....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 18, 2012, 11:27:06 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on March 18, 2012, 11:17:02 pm
"But Truean," opponents will reason, "what if they don't deserve that money? What if they haven't worked hard for it? Truth be told, most Westerners live a life of incomparable luxury. Complaining about that is just self-centered whining!"

Completely failing to see the hypocrisy there, or question why the use of slave labor is apparently morally right if it justifies obscene profit margins because of the invisible hand's infallibility, or that hardship is necessarily relative due to that whole human psychology thing.

If "most Westerners live a life of incomparable luxury," then give it to their third world factory slave labor.... What's that, o corporate tool? You don't ... want... to give it to your third world slave labor factory workers? I thought something was said about "working hard" for it...?" [Note: I know Bauglir isn't the aforementioned corporate tool]
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 19, 2012, 12:15:42 am
"Well, sure, but they don't have that kind of luxury so obviously they don't deserve it."

There's no mental dissonance here at all, I'm sure. Clearly, the belief that hard work is all you need to succeed (and therefore if you haven't succeeded, you aren't working hard enoguh) is consistent with the belief that some people have it too easy when compared to all those people who work hard and still haven't succeeded.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 19, 2012, 12:54:10 am
Quote from: Bauglir on March 19, 2012, 12:15:42 am
"Well, sure, but they don't have that kind of luxury so obviously they don't deserve it."

There's no mental dissonance here at all, I'm sure. Clearly, the belief that hard work is all you need to succeed (and therefore if you haven't succeeded, you aren't working hard enough) is consistent with the belief that some people have it too easy when compared to all those people who work hard and still haven't succeeded.

Thinking the world is fair and just lets us do our two most favorite things: look down at other people, and praise ourselves. Simply, "we worked hard; they didn't, so screw them."

It's all crap. Yeah, there's clearly something to be said for merit, but people have no idea how much luck really factors into it. Did you graduate college or high school in a good or bad economy? In an area with plenty of jobs around? Was your dad an alcoholic who beat the living shit out of you every chance he got? Was your mom addicted to meth? Was your high school's funding cut denying you a decent education? Did you or your parents get sick and have to declare medical bankruptcy? Were your parents able to help pay for college and reduce or eliminate that student loan debt you'll be paying for at least 10 years, if not many more than that...? There's a lot of stuff.

Should you be rewarded for merit: absolutely.
Should you look down on people: not normally.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 19, 2012, 01:33:26 am
In that discussion I had with my dad/uncle, I brought up that the free market was flawed because people don't care about things like slave labor in china. To which they responded, "Those people wouldn't have jobs at all otherwise." This is stupid, so of course I said there would be someone else to make use of the available labor and their response was that it was the government's fault for being corrupt and making it really hard for businesses to start up in China, requiring bribes and stuff. I have no clue why that justifies sweatshops, but apparently it does.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 19, 2012, 01:39:36 am
I hope that's your dad AND your uncle not your "dad/uncle". J/K
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 19, 2012, 02:53:42 am
Quote from: Truean on March 19, 2012, 12:54:10 am
Quote from: Bauglir on March 19, 2012, 12:15:42 am
"Well, sure, but they don't have that kind of luxury so obviously they don't deserve it."

There's no mental dissonance here at all, I'm sure. Clearly, the belief that hard work is all you need to succeed (and therefore if you haven't succeeded, you aren't working hard enough) is consistent with the belief that some people have it too easy when compared to all those people who work hard and still haven't succeeded.

Thinking the world is fair and just lets us do our two most favorite things: look down at other people, and praise ourselves. Simply, "we worked hard; they didn't, so screw them."

It's all crap. Yeah, there's clearly something to be said for merit, but people have no idea how much luck really factors into it. Did you graduate college or high school in a good or bad economy? In an area with plenty of jobs around? Was your dad an alcoholic who beat the living shit out of you every chance he got? Was your mom addicted to meth? Was your high school's funding cut denying you a decent education? Did you or your parents get sick and have to declare medical bankruptcy? Were your parents able to help pay for college and reduce or eliminate that student loan debt you'll be paying for at least 10 years, if not many more than that...? There's a lot of stuff.

Should you be rewarded for merit: absolutely.
Should you look down on people: not normally.
Agreed. I think I've probably expounded on the matter enough, but since I'm posting anyway I might as well say it without the sarcasm this time: I agree completely.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 19, 2012, 12:22:03 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 19, 2012, 01:33:26 am
In that discussion I had with my dad/uncle, I brought up that the free market was flawed because people don't care about things like slave labor in china. To which they responded, "Those people wouldn't have jobs at all otherwise." This is stupid, so of course I said there would be someone else to make use of the available labor and their response was that it was the government's fault for being corrupt and making it really hard for businesses to start up in China, requiring bribes and stuff. I have no clue why that justifies sweatshops, but apparently it does.

What they're saying, has no relevance whatsoever. It's cheaper to start a factory in China than most other places and further than has no logical connection at all to paying slave wages. There is nothing preventing these companies from paying above slave labor. Except of course, they specifically outsourced to China FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of cheaper slave labor.... If they wanted to actually pay someone a living wage, then the company could've stayed in the US.

What happened to all that anti communist rhetoric I grew up with about how they were basically "Godless Commies?" Now we're doing business with them? Why? Because, survey says, it's cheaper and we don't mind exploiting their population and unemploying our own. Wait, didn't we used to yak about communists killing freedom and taking away people's freedoms? I'm pretty sure we did.

O, I see, it's ok if WE take away freedoms from people for profit. (especially if they're in another country).
It's bad if communists take away people's freedoms for direct power? ???

We're not hypocrits. We believe in a "Free Market," except when we want slave labor, in which case, we love communist China's controlled economy.... And apparently we're doing them a favor by giving them jobs at all, slave labor or otherwise....

So, all this "Free Market" stuff disappears when dollars start showing up? Got it. (And most people don't understand we really don't have an economic free market anyhow, because there's a definition of free market and we don't/can't possibly meet it).

Quote from: Bauglir on March 19, 2012, 02:53:42 am
Quote from: Truean on March 19, 2012, 12:54:10 am
Quote from: Bauglir on March 19, 2012, 12:15:42 am
"Well, sure, but they don't have that kind of luxury so obviously they don't deserve it."

There's no mental dissonance here at all, I'm sure. Clearly, the belief that hard work is all you need to succeed (and therefore if you haven't succeeded, you aren't working hard enough) is consistent with the belief that some people have it too easy when compared to all those people who work hard and still haven't succeeded.

Thinking the world is fair and just lets us do our two most favorite things: look down at other people, and praise ourselves. Simply, "we worked hard; they didn't, so screw them."

It's all crap. Yeah, there's clearly something to be said for merit, but people have no idea how much luck really factors into it. Did you graduate college or high school in a good or bad economy? In an area with plenty of jobs around? Was your dad an alcoholic who beat the living shit out of you every chance he got? Was your mom addicted to meth? Was your high school's funding cut denying you a decent education? Did you or your parents get sick and have to declare medical bankruptcy? Were your parents able to help pay for college and reduce or eliminate that student loan debt you'll be paying for at least 10 years, if not many more than that...? There's a lot of stuff.

Should you be rewarded for merit: absolutely.
Should you look down on people: not normally.
Agreed. I think I've probably expounded on the matter enough, but since I'm posting anyway I might as well say it without the sarcasm this time: I agree completely.

Thanks.

It's an ancient and unanswerable question: merit or equality. Goes back to Athens. The Polis (City) was about 50,000 people. There were two equally valid ways of looking at things for who got what.

Some said everyone should get things equally (hypocritically excluding slaves) because when the Spartans came knocking, everyone went out to fight them off. The argument very clearly went, "And I bleed less than you for Athena?"
The Spartans' blades were indiscriminate: they killed everyone they could equally, and since they all had a pretty equal chance of dying to defend Athens, it was a compelling argument that everyone got the same treatment and things.

Some said, that's all fine and good, but forget not merit. "The smith not only fights as an equal to you against Sparta, but forges the bronze that might save your life and take a Spartan's. The horse saddler, the mason, the farmer, the shipwright, the scribe and many more do things you cannot do. Without them, there would be no Athens to defend, Athens worth defending, or Athens able to defend itself.  Whatever that means, surely that means something worth some reward, for there would be no reward to give without it."

There is merit to each point and position that has lasted unbroken for over 3,000 years.
Tragically, we've largely forgotten the first position: that of the citizen and equal. Though we've glorified some merit (sometimes even the illusion of merit) and let other merit languish.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 19, 2012, 12:53:07 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 19, 2012, 12:22:03 pm
What they're saying, has no relevance whatsoever. It's cheaper to start a factory in China than most other places and further than has no logical connection at all to paying slave wages. There is nothing preventing these companies from paying above slave labor. Except of course, they specifically outsourced to China FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of cheaper slave labor.... If they wanted to actually pay someone a living wage, then the company could've stayed in the US.

The logic was that, because of the government corruption and bribery required, there is a barrier to starting a business there that allows the currently existing factories to abuse their workers because the free market is being inhibited. It's not right, but you can follow it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 19, 2012, 01:02:52 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 19, 2012, 12:53:07 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 19, 2012, 12:22:03 pm
What they're saying, has no relevance whatsoever. It's cheaper to start a factory in China than most other places and further than has no logical connection at all to paying slave wages. There is nothing preventing these companies from paying above slave labor. Except of course, they specifically outsourced to China FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of cheaper slave labor.... If they wanted to actually pay someone a living wage, then the company could've stayed in the US.

The logic was that, because of the government corruption and bribery required, there is a barrier to starting a business there that allows the currently existing factories to abuse their workers because the free market is being inhibited. It's not right, but you can follow it.

Inconsistent and unreasonable. The turtle asked the snake why it bit him after he was nice enough to give it a ride across the river. Said the snake, "I am a snake and this is what I do. What did you expect?" Of course the snake bit the turtle; that's what they do.

We knew and have known the Chinese were Communists long before we ever thought about moving businesses there. We knew they had a planned economy and not a "Free Market."

We knew they were communists, and don't have a free market. Now complain that they don't have a free market without barriers to entry? ??? "They are communists and this is what they do. What did you expect?" Of course the communists don't have a free market; that's what they do.

That's like building your house in the city dump and complaining it smells like trash.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 19, 2012, 01:28:54 pm
I'd argue we've glorified merit because it fits the American mythic ideal. When in fact, we're nowhere near a meritocracy. Tell people that their prosperity is in their own hands (with the implicit corollary that if they're unsuccessful it's their own damn fault), and they won't hate the rich or see the inherent power structures that keep them out. People in general (and Americans in particular) are horrible at understanding probability. We love 'rags-to-riches' stories, because then we can all say "If that guy started out with nothing and is now rich, then I can be too!" without looking at either the magnitude of improbability involved, or the things that guy had to do to get to that point.


@penguinofhonor:
Of course, there's three much bigger reasons that allow Chinese entrepeneurs to exploit their labor forces:

1. The hukou system. This is the "household registration" system that says "Your family lives in X Village in Y District, Z Province. Therefore, so do you. You are not allowed to change your residence without government permission." It's internal immigration control, and not entirely unjustified or oppressive. Without it, hundreds of millions of people would pick up and leave the countryside and head for places like Shenzhen, Guangzhou and Shanghai, to get a piece of the prosperity there. This would utterly overwhelm those cities' infrastructure, housing, sanitation, etc. and leave you with double-digit unemployment in many cities.

The problem is that even with the system, people are willing to violate it. Instead of hundreds of millions, it's tens of millions. These are the folks that wind up as disposable labor. Safety standards are utterly appalling in many industries, for the same reason that it was in the US at the turn of the century: safety gear is expensive, people are a dime a dozen and there's plenty more that'll take that job if you don't. And because these people are "illegal immigrants", their options for recourse with the authorities are highly limited. Being caught as a hukou violator means deportation back to your village and can result in a fine which, while modest by urban standards, could be a few months' income for rural families. So they're left at the mercy of their employers for the most part.

2. Government corruption. But not in the way you describe. Calling in some guanxi to get your application through the red tape is more of an annoyance than anything, not a terrible hindrance to entrepeneurship. The bigger problem is that local bureaucrats often develop partnerships with local entrepeneurs, which then means that even if the workers are legal residents and/or decide its worth risking deportation to bring abuses to the authorities, the authorities are likely to be in collusion with the factory owners and turn a blind eye or even use government resources like the police to harass workers into silence.

3. Business competition. Competition is supposed to be good for the market and (in theory) for consumers, but nobody ever said it was good for workers. And Chinese domestic competition is insanely fierce. You'd think that the pie would be big enough to support multiple companies in any sector, but the result is that everyone's market share is so tiny that they're constantly fighting for turf. I'll never forget coming out of the main airport in Beijing, trying to find the cheapest cab out of the fifty or so cab drivers waiting around, and seeing some of their "hawkers" (the drivers don't have time to find customers and negotiate fares, so they have a colleague who runs around and pitches their services to every haggard traveller they can find) get into fist-fights over a customer. In manufacturing, competition means shaving profit margins down to the bone. One way of doing this is paying shit for wages and cutting corners on worker safety (and product safety).


I've said it before, and I'll say it again: China is not Communist (at least in the SEZ's on the coast), it's laissez-faire capitalism cranked up to 11. With all of the atrocious worker conditions and a growing resentment of the monumental class divide between the uber-wealthy and the average workers....China may have the ironic fate of being swept by *another* socialist revolution.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 19, 2012, 06:10:20 pm
I don't think there's very much that the West can actually feasibly do for China other than to back their revolution when it finally comes to pass. Hopefully for the world economy it will be a revolution in the same vein of the USSR's major reforms leading to its end.

Ultimately, the only people who can really help the Chinese are the Chinese.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 19, 2012, 07:52:53 pm
Yup, to Redking and Metal Slime Hunt. Note, I was disproving "logic" by assuming it was all true by giving them the benefit of the doubt in all cases in my last post(s) here.

Sarah Palin, the right wing's golden girl, knew she was carrying a baby with Down's Syndrome and so was able to adequately prepare for what that baby would need. Seems that preparation won't happen in OK state; the doctor will have carte blanche to lie to pregnant women about prenatal testing. "Religious Freedom," what you believe is not the problem, what you believe I should believe is the problem. What happened to "small government?" Wasn't that a buzz phrase of the right wing a while back?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/28/carr.abortion.oklahoma/index.html

It's been mentioned before, but here it is again. Corporations can corrupt and disrupt democracy with bribery; that is free speech. But if a real live person protests peaceably, then that's becoming illegal....
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/the_anti_protest_bill_signed_by_barack_obama_is_a_quiet_attack_on_free_speech_.html
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: fqllve on March 19, 2012, 08:16:13 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 19, 2012, 07:52:53 pm
Sarah Palin, the right wing's golden girl, knew she was carrying a baby with Down's Syndrome and so was able to adequately prepare for what that baby would need. Seems that preparation won't happen in OK state; the doctor will have carte blanche to lie to pregnant women about prenatal testing. "Religious Freedom," what you believe is not the problem, what you believe I should believe is the problem. What happened to "small government?" Wasn't that a buzz phrase of the right wing a while back?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/28/carr.abortion.oklahoma/index.html
"The Ultra-Progressive state of Oklahoma passed legislation today that allows doctors to withold and even fabricate information about a patient's potentially life-threatening illness if the doctor 'kinda thinks that it may cause the patient to contemplate suicide' according to the wording of HB 4718. We approached state Senator Finkle from the 720th District with questions.

"'A good physician isn't only concerned with the patient's body,' Sen. Finkle said, 'but also the patient's immortal soul. We want doctor's to feel secure when they act in the interest of both these things and believe that this legislation will allow that feeling of security.'"


I can't even begin to comment on Trayvon Martin. I just had a long phone conversation with a friend about it and am basically dead inside.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 19, 2012, 08:20:12 pm
Yes, let doctors make decisions based upon a metaphysical concept that totally lacks any evidence of actual existence and is in fact disputed by what we know about neurology. That's a smart idea. Really.


Well, time for another entry on the "Reasons MetalSlimeHunt Hates MD's List".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 19, 2012, 08:28:05 pm
It doesn't seem like a reason to hate MDs to me.  It's not even a matter of "bad apples" - it was politicians who got this stupid law on the books.  Although this law is horrible... it somewhat reminds me of the "the military should censor information or the public might want the war stopped" argument that comes up every now and again.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 19, 2012, 08:30:52 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on March 19, 2012, 08:28:05 pm
It doesn't seem like a reason to hate MDs to me.
There is no doubt in my mind that they will abuse this law for their own benefit and at cost to their patients. My only solace is that such a law is not passed in my state for the moment.

I have other reasons, but suffice it to say that I hate medical doctors in general.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on March 19, 2012, 08:41:22 pm
I'm going to have to agree with Leafsnail on this one. This seems less of a problem with MDs than with religious people who are also doctors
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 19, 2012, 08:52:38 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 19, 2012, 08:30:52 pm
There is no doubt in my mind that they will abuse this law for their own benefit and at cost to their patients. My only solace is that such a law is not passed in my state for the moment.

I have other reasons, but suffice it to say that I hate medical doctors in general.
But... this law isn't a reason to hate doctors at all.  If you already hate doctors then it's a reason to be fearful that they will do bad things with it.  Maybe if we hear stories about it consistently being abused (well, to be honest, "used".  Lying to people about their situation was pretty much the intent of this law, afterall) then that would be another reason to hate doctors.  But at the moment it's just "politicians pass really stupid law", and it's only your pre-emptive assumption that gives additional reasons to hate doctors.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 20, 2012, 02:19:19 am
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-20/palmer-says-green-groups-funded-by-cia/3901920
Ok... This is pretty much the funniest shit in the universe. You guys should love in.
They guy has managed to mistake the AGP (Australian Green Party, better known as 'The greens') for Green Peace, then accused this party of accepting funds from the US CIA in an attempt to undermine the Australian economy and thus help the US economy.
Where to even begin...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 20, 2012, 12:07:02 pm
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2012/03/private-student-loans-should-be-dischargeable-in-bankruptcy-courts-senator-says.html

It's about time, and let's hope he gets taken seriously, but I doubt it.

Jolly old England had debtor's prisons, but they realized this didn't get anyone paid, cost the king to maintain the prisons and ruined the debtor's lives: triple negative. Everyone lost. Gotten rid of. We got rid of debtor's prisons and gave debtors a "fresh start," because it was useless to penalize them/no one gained anything. Now we have this:

“How in the world did that provision get into the law?” Durbin said. “It was a mystery amendment. We can’t find out who offered it.”

Usually, we know who writes the laws and when we don't, it's kinda shady, because they track that stuff closely. All of my student loans are federal Stafford, non private loans. This measure wouldn't benefit me in the slightest in any scenario and I favor it. Those private loans shouldn't be government insured in any form (and certainly not if the investors want to keep their lovely tax benefits).

What is the point and reason for making PRIVATE student loans protected by the government through bankruptcy law or otherwise? They're already charging over twice what the stafford public loans are in interest. Isn't that enough? Given lender misconduct through misleading students away from cheaper public loan options, should they benefit from their misdeeds? Moreover, are we going to keep denying the reality that there is something seriously wrong with American Higher Education and that there is a huge gap between schooling and employment?

Edicts and Declarations do not practical results make.... How about reform and solution instead of dead weight punishment?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: alway on March 20, 2012, 01:38:55 pm
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/20/10776901-dutch-church-accused-of-castrating-young-boys-in-1950s
Quote
At least 10 men and boys under the age of 21 were castrated in a bid to rid them of homosexuality while under the care of the Dutch Roman Catholic Church in the 1950s
Quote
The NRC Handelsblad newspaper identified Henk Heithuis, who was castrated in 1956 as a minor after he reportedly went to authorities about abuse he suffered at a Catholic boarding house, The Telegraph reported.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on March 20, 2012, 01:41:51 pm
Quote from: alway on March 20, 2012, 01:38:55 pm
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/20/10776901-dutch-church-accused-of-castrating-young-boys-in-1950s
Quote
At least 10 men and boys under the age of 21 were castrated in a bid to rid them of homosexuality while under the care of the Dutch Roman Catholic Church in the 1950s
Quote
The NRC Handelsblad newspaper identified Henk Heithuis, who was castrated in 1956 as a minor after he reportedly went to authorities about abuse he suffered at a Catholic boarding house, The Telegraph reported.
Bastards.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 20, 2012, 01:49:31 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on March 20, 2012, 01:41:51 pm
Quote from: alway on March 20, 2012, 01:38:55 pm
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/20/10776901-dutch-church-accused-of-castrating-young-boys-in-1950s
Quote
At least 10 men and boys under the age of 21 were castrated in a bid to rid them of homosexuality while under the care of the Dutch Roman Catholic Church in the 1950s
Quote
The NRC Handelsblad newspaper identified Henk Heithuis, who was castrated in 1956 as a minor after he reportedly went to authorities about abuse he suffered at a Catholic boarding house, The Telegraph reported.
Bastards.

Where western European eunuchs came from and why: the catholic church doesn't like gays.... [sigh] :(

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

~ Mahatma Gandhi
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 20, 2012, 02:10:35 pm
Da fuq? (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/19/446875/tennessee-bill-may-expose-identities-of-women-seeking-abortions/?mobile=nc) The linked source is probably not the least biased out there, but it's got a direct link to the bill itself. And I'm not sure any degree of neutrality could make the bill seem less obnoxious.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on March 20, 2012, 02:15:24 pm
"Billy May here! Do you want to know the names of women seeking abortions?"

I had to, sorry.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 20, 2012, 02:23:53 pm
Quote from: JoshuaFH on March 20, 2012, 02:15:24 pm
"Billy Mays here!
GET ON THE BALL
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 20, 2012, 02:42:05 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on March 20, 2012, 02:10:35 pm
Da fuq? (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/19/446875/tennessee-bill-may-expose-identities-of-women-seeking-abortions/?mobile=nc) The linked source is probably not the least biased out there, but it's got a direct link to the bill itself. And I'm not sure any degree of neutrality could make the bill seem less obnoxious.
Well, I think the potential effect is somewhat overstated. The argument is that it's going from state aggregate data to county-level aggregate data, and that this allows people to potentially ID a woman by saying "Hmm...a 40-year old Hispanic woman got an abortion, and we only have one person in this county that fits that description..."

But even rural Tennessee isn't *that* rural. We're not talking population densities like Alaska or Wyoming. It would still be hard to ID someone from aggregate data.

The much bigger concern for me is that the doctors performing the abortions would be flat-out identified: name and address. Might as well include best sight lines into the office windows and preferred sniping positions while you're at it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 20, 2012, 03:20:50 pm
Quote from: RedKing on March 20, 2012, 02:42:05 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on March 20, 2012, 02:10:35 pm
Da fuq? (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/19/446875/tennessee-bill-may-expose-identities-of-women-seeking-abortions/?mobile=nc) The linked source is probably not the least biased out there, but it's got a direct link to the bill itself. And I'm not sure any degree of neutrality could make the bill seem less obnoxious.
Well, I think the potential effect is somewhat overstated. The argument is that it's going from state aggregate data to county-level aggregate data, and that this allows people to potentially ID a woman by saying "Hmm...a 40-year old Hispanic woman got an abortion, and we only have one person in this county that fits that description..."

But even rural Tennessee isn't *that* rural. We're not talking population densities like Alaska or Wyoming. It would still be hard to ID someone from aggregate data.

The much bigger concern for me is that the doctors performing the abortions would be flat-out identified: name and address. Might as well include best sight lines into the office windows and preferred sniping positions while you're at it.

I'm just sick of this scapegoating and puppet show distraction. The real issue has been for some time: jobs. We don't have them, and all our politicians want to do to fix that is throw money and tax breaks at companies who just refuse to spend on personnel. We've got some serious problems, but what are we focused on: women's reproductive rights. That's more fun to talk about I guess. It involves sex, you can look down on people, and it doesn't cost the people most concerned with regulating it anything personally.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 20, 2012, 06:03:17 pm
Surprised no-one's noticed this:
Rush Limbaugh blasted Barack Obama for sending troops to Uganda to help fight the Lord's Resistance Army, implying it to be an anti-Christian crusade. (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/14/obama_invades_uganda_targets_christians) Furthermore, he parroted the LRA's supposed objectives and implied them to be factual. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/yes-rush-limbaugh-even-to_b_1328583.html)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: lemon10 on March 20, 2012, 06:05:15 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 20, 2012, 06:03:17 pm
Surprised no-one's noticed this:
Rush Limbaugh blasted Barack Obama for sending troops to Uganda to help fight the Lord's Resistance Army, implying it to be an anti-Christian crusade. (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/14/obama_invades_uganda_targets_christians) Furthermore, he parroted the LRA's supposed objectives and implied them to be factual. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/yes-rush-limbaugh-even-to_b_1328583.html)
Yeah, its been noted in this/the last thread, it just happened a really long time ago.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 20, 2012, 06:07:15 pm
Quote from: lemon10 on March 20, 2012, 06:05:15 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 20, 2012, 06:03:17 pm
Surprised no-one's noticed this:
Rush Limbaugh blasted Barack Obama for sending troops to Uganda to help fight the Lord's Resistance Army, implying it to be an anti-Christian crusade. (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/14/obama_invades_uganda_targets_christians) Furthermore, he parroted the LRA's supposed objectives and implied them to be factual. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/yes-rush-limbaugh-even-to_b_1328583.html)
Yeah, its been noted in this/the last thread, it just happened a really long time ago.
Ah. That explains why I didn't see it, I never posted in the old thread >.<
The Huffington Post article is just from last week though. Did Limbaugh's comment go unnoticed for that long?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: lemon10 on March 20, 2012, 06:09:56 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 20, 2012, 06:07:15 pm
Quote from: lemon10 on March 20, 2012, 06:05:15 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 20, 2012, 06:03:17 pm
Surprised no-one's noticed this:
Rush Limbaugh blasted Barack Obama for sending troops to Uganda to help fight the Lord's Resistance Army, implying it to be an anti-Christian crusade. (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/14/obama_invades_uganda_targets_christians) Furthermore, he parroted the LRA's supposed objectives and implied them to be factual. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/yes-rush-limbaugh-even-to_b_1328583.html)
Yeah, its been noted in this/the last thread, it just happened a really long time ago.
Ah. That explains why I didn't see it, I never posted in the old thread >.<
The Huffington Post article is just from last week though. Did Limbaugh's comment go unnoticed for that long?
No, its that the article is being posted in light of the recent stuff about invisibile children and kony.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 20, 2012, 06:18:24 pm
Quote from: lemon10 on March 20, 2012, 06:09:56 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 20, 2012, 06:07:15 pm
Quote from: lemon10 on March 20, 2012, 06:05:15 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 20, 2012, 06:03:17 pm
Surprised no-one's noticed this:
Rush Limbaugh blasted Barack Obama for sending troops to Uganda to help fight the Lord's Resistance Army, implying it to be an anti-Christian crusade. (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/14/obama_invades_uganda_targets_christians) Furthermore, he parroted the LRA's supposed objectives and implied them to be factual. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/yes-rush-limbaugh-even-to_b_1328583.html)
Yeah, its been noted in this/the last thread, it just happened a really long time ago.
Ah. That explains why I didn't see it, I never posted in the old thread >.<
The Huffington Post article is just from last week though. Did Limbaugh's comment go unnoticed for that long?
No, its that the article is being posted in light of the recent stuff about invisibile children and kony.
Derp. I guess I'm just being a little off today.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 20, 2012, 07:15:57 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/chuck-winder-rape-abortions_n_1366994.html

???

I'm sorry, do women count as a portion of the population they want votes from?

“Rape and incest was used as a reason to oppose this," Winder said on the Senate floor. "I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape. I assume that's part of the counseling that goes on.”

??? WTF? Wait wait, so a rape, one of the most intimate and horrible crimes is reported (they aren't always), and you expect the doctor to grill her about it and ask if shes married, etc?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 20, 2012, 07:22:21 pm
It's so they can determine whether to stone her for adultery or flog her for being alone with an unrelated man.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on March 20, 2012, 07:27:29 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 20, 2012, 07:22:21 pm
It's so they can determine whether to stone her for adultery or flog her for being alone with an unrelated man.
Exactly.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 20, 2012, 11:00:00 pm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-03-20/job-applicants-facebook/53665606/1

Huh?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 20, 2012, 11:04:58 pm
I've heard it suggested that some of these "so give me your passwords" incidents aren't trying to get inside your Facebook to look at it at all. They're trying to see if you can keep important secrets under any kind of pressure.

Only some, mind you.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: fqllve on March 20, 2012, 11:05:14 pm
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What the hell? How are they that stupid? Are they gonna start asking me to read the most embarrassing excerpts from my diary next? Truean, I would love to be the person to pay you to sue these dicks.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 20, 2012, 11:07:27 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 20, 2012, 11:04:58 pm
I've heard it suggested that some of these "so give me your passwords" incidents aren't trying to get inside your Facebook to look at it at all. They're trying to see if you can keep important secrets under any kind of pressure.

Only some, mind you.

"We were just testing you.... Psych!" <--- Not the defense I'd bank on.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 20, 2012, 11:09:24 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 20, 2012, 11:07:27 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 20, 2012, 11:04:58 pm
I've heard it suggested that some of these "so give me your passwords" incidents aren't trying to get inside your Facebook to look at it at all. They're trying to see if you can keep important secrets under any kind of pressure.

Only some, mind you.

"We were just testing you.... Psych!" <--- Not the defense I'd bank on.
Certainly not a strong defense, no. But it would be interesting if getting a job or not were to hinge on keeping information instead of giving it, seeing how that is completely counter-intuitive.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 20, 2012, 11:35:46 pm
Yeeaaah... there is absolutely zero chance I'd willingly give that kind of information to anyone, nevermind someone I don't know personally and well (and where lives, just in case). Is our new generation so poorly trained on basic internet security practices that this sort of thing actually flies?

I'unno, maybe I'm a throwback to an earlier time or something. I can't help be surprised how much the sheer audacity of asking someone for passwords and suchlike strikes me as just... impudent, or something. *channels old biddy* Nosy beyond public decency. It's like someone flipping up your skirt or yanking your pants down to check the package or something, y'anno'? S'just not something a civilized person does. And these people doing it as a matter of course? As part of their hiring practices!? That is shameful. These employers should be ashamed of themselves!

... now let's everyone internalize that last bit of huff and then disseminate it into public consciousness. Stir up some nice indignation. That kind of action is an insult to our honor, decency, and moral fiber! It should not stand!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 21, 2012, 12:11:25 am
Anyone asks me, I'll just say I don't have one. They can make of that what they will.

Hopefully they wouldn't hire me, and I wouldn't have to spend the next god knows how long barely resisting the urge to punch them in the face every time I see them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 21, 2012, 12:13:21 am
They're welcome to look at mine. It hasn't been used in over a year, has no friends or posts or anything. I just don't care very much about social networking :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Max White on March 21, 2012, 12:20:54 am
And that is a privilege you are willing to give them, but that hardly makes it a right that can be demanded of somebody.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 21, 2012, 12:22:57 am
Well, of course not. I recognize that my personal views aren't (and shouldn't be!) the law of the land.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 21, 2012, 12:25:16 am
It's not about what information they can gain by access, it's the principle of your willing surrender of your own privacy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 21, 2012, 12:27:28 am
That might be a problem for people who have more than their name on a blank Facebook page. As I said though, it's not a problem for me. I still wouldn't be willing to give employers my password, and I wouldn't want them to see my private information (which is kinda the whole reason for having both publicly and privately visible versions).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 21, 2012, 01:24:02 am
Silly idiots, you should have 2 facebooks, 1 with your real name, school "friends", family, links to church membership. And another with a pseudonym and your links to your crazy drug-addled friends :/
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 21, 2012, 08:18:37 am
Plus using someone else's facebook password can also be considered criminal hacking.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 21, 2012, 02:41:54 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on March 21, 2012, 08:18:37 am
Plus using someone else's facebook password can also be considered criminal hacking.

Though Facebook hasn't commented on it publicly:
It violates the terms of service of the website/they can close down your account. Whether or not they'd do this: who knows, but they could.

The person has not made the information "publicly available," rather they've restricted access to it via privacy settings. If it were publicly available information, then there'd be no need to gain access to it. Only certain people, "friends" may view this information. So a potential employer demanding access to information just because you showed it to a few friends, makes no sense at all. You told your friends, you did not make it public and specifically took steps to keep the general public from seeing it....

That certain schools aren't teaching cursive anymore is odd. How are you supposed to get a signature? We aren't going to adapt to that one easily if we ever do. This is the problem with short sighted people being involved in education. "O everything's going computerized now, we don't need to teach cursive :D." I make it a point to both teach certain children I care about cursive (which their parents appreciate), and to talk to administrators who champion not teaching it. The fact that you admins and all your over-privileged, yuppie friends have neat new smart phones, doesn't mean cursive signatures are dead.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 21, 2012, 02:46:37 pm
You don't need to learn cursive to have a signature, as signatures don't have to be in cursive. (In the states where I've looked at the law, anyways, which is only like 3)

Cursive IS dead, and it was never actually useful. It's a waste of valuable education time.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 21, 2012, 02:47:27 pm
I don't think the schools should teach cursive anymore. It's a waste of time. Teach the kids how to sign their own names and leave it, because that's all cursive is good for now.

My elementary school practiced us to blisters about writing in cursive, because, as they put it: "Everything after the fifth grade has to be written in cursive or it won't be accepted". Fucking liars. I have never written in cursive since, other than to sign my name, even though how to do it is seared into my mind.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 21, 2012, 02:51:05 pm
And I, like many other people, don't even sign my name in anything approaching the "cursive" they teach in schools.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Levi on March 21, 2012, 02:53:48 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 21, 2012, 02:47:27 pm
My elementary school practiced us to blisters about writing in cursive, because, as they put it: "Everything after the fifth grade has to be written in cursive or it won't be accepted". Fucking liars. I have never written in cursive since, other than to sign my name, even though how to do it is seared into my mind.

Ha, that was my experience too.  Heck, in university I was always told NOT to use cursive or else it wouldn't be accepted.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 21, 2012, 02:54:11 pm
Same here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 21, 2012, 02:55:07 pm
Heh... yeah, they taught us cursive in like... 3rd, 4th grade? At this point (Got BA, etc., so forth), I've used it and seen it used so little I'm completely incapable of writing in it and barely capable of reading it. I can sign my name in it, but that's about it.

We should probably be spending the time we teach cursive teaching actual other languages instead of just a fancy font :P

Why do we teach cursive nowadays, anyway?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on March 21, 2012, 02:57:08 pm
I always thought it was because it was flowy and pretty.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on March 21, 2012, 02:59:33 pm
Because it has formal use. Kinda like learning to put on a tie. Sure, you don't need it for the most part but some people do appreciate it when you put the extra effort in
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 21, 2012, 03:01:33 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 21, 2012, 02:47:27 pm
My elementary school practiced us to blisters about writing in cursive, because, as they put it: "Everything after the fifth grade has to be written in cursive or it won't be accepted". Fucking liars. I have never written in cursive since, other than to sign my name, even though how to do it is seared into my mind.

There was a super-religious priest at my school who only accepted cursive. He left the year before I would have been in his class. I would have failed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Darvi on March 21, 2012, 03:03:05 pm
I write faster in cursive. But then again, my writing also becomes near illegible.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 21, 2012, 03:04:44 pm
Quote from: Luke_Prowler on March 21, 2012, 02:59:33 pm
Because it has formal use. Kinda like learning to put on a tie. Sure, you don't need it for the most part but some people do appreciate it when you put the extra effort in.
No they don't. When I have to read someone else's cursive, my first thought is "Oh sweet Nicodemus is this even English what the hell am I looking at".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 21, 2012, 03:07:11 pm
Cursive is more like knowing how to put on one of those ridiculous old-fashioned dresses with the sacks in them to make them poofier. Maybe not exactly, but it's gaudy and cumbersome and unnecessary.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 21, 2012, 03:07:54 pm
Quote from: Luke_Prowler on March 21, 2012, 02:59:33 pm
Because it has formal use. Kinda like learning to put on a tie. Sure, you don't need it for the most part but some people do appreciate it when you put the extra effort in
Well... sure, if it were part of some sort of formal etiquette class, that'd be kinda' interesting, probably quite useful, too.

But... they didn't teach us how to wear ties at my school :( Cursive and a degree of formal writing was it, and they were both separated by years, not part of some kind of integrated program.

Though a sort of social interaction class or series of classes inserted into public curriculum would probably help a lot of people a tremendous amount. But ahahaha yeah no. Not going to happen, at least not in public schools.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 21, 2012, 03:04:44 pm
No they don't. When I have to read someone else's cursive, my first thought is "Oh sweet Nicodemus is this even English what the hell am I looking at".
Some people, MSH ;)

Let us abhorers of cursive rejoice the number is shrinking :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 21, 2012, 03:10:37 pm
I think we went off the rails here, unless writing in cursive (or not) is now considered a progressive issue.
FWIW, I'm in the same boat as Frumple, Levi, et al; Was taught cursive in elementary school, told that everything I ever wrote would have to be in cursive from then on, got to high school and no one used it. I can write my name in cursive, still remember most of the letters, but I haven't used it in any real capacity for years.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 21, 2012, 03:14:07 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 21, 2012, 02:47:27 pm
I don't think the schools should teach cursive anymore. It's a waste of time. Teach the kids how to sign their own names and leave it, because that's all cursive is good for now.

My elementary school practiced us to blisters about writing in cursive, because, as they put it: "Everything after the fifth grade has to be written in cursive or it won't be accepted". Fucking liars. I have never written in cursive since, other than to sign my name, even though how to do it is seared into my mind.

FWIW, that was actually somewhat true for me, because PCs and home printers that could be measured in PPM (and not MPP like my old Okimate 10) didn't really hit critical mass until the early 90's. I still did a LOT of blue-book exam essays in college in cursive (and staggered out with claw-like cramped-up hands)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on March 21, 2012, 03:42:50 pm
I couldn't write the cursive they tried to teach me in school if my life depended on it, but my own handwriting style has over time developed into some characters hanging on to each other. It goes faster to write when they flow together, after all. It's just that classical cursive characters doesn't completely look like the letters we write today, so it doesn't come natural.

As for signature, mine is just a flowing scribble somewhat in the shape of my name.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Dutchling on March 21, 2012, 03:52:47 pm
My signature is just my two initials with something resembling some more letters attached to it. It isn't cursive at all actually, although I do write it as if it was which makes it completely unreadable.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 21, 2012, 03:54:15 pm
.... :( So it's come to this has it?

Cursive is faster than print writing, and while my boss' cursive looks like obscenities aliens would justifiably scream upon seeing any movie by Micheal Bay, at all, if you do it right, then it's legible and actually somewhat pretty. Many people I've seen print illegibly as well and with poor sentence structure producing incomprehensibility at best.

Moreover, writing things out by hand, is often cheaper than printing them. A ream of 500 pages of paper cost about $6.00 in bulk. At a commercial copying rate we pay about $.02 per printed page, not including the cost of the copier which can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars. your average desktop printer ink costs a lot more than toner.... Per 500 pages of notes, you save $10, and that's at the rate of $0.02 per page. It adds up over large numbers.

From a more "everyday practical" way of looking at things for most people. You had better look freaking busy at your job these days, because it seems every boss is looking to fire people to cut costs. This is an old trick and it's been used a lot:  to make it look like you know what the hell you're doing when you don't, so you're not sitting there with a blank look on your face. (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/17/papers-reveal-thatcher-kept-reagans-doodles/)

And that's why I think they should keep cursive.

I'll be here until they stop serving the veal, nursing throbbing hand pains and being generally snarky as usual. :P

Edit: Also what happens when something goes wrong and we're completely dependent upon technology. I tried to buy lunch the other day and their computer wasn't working at the register. They couldn't even make change cause they have a machine to do it. Same thing when the printer is on the fritz:
http://www.emmitsburg.net/humor/archives/computer/computer_9.htm
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 21, 2012, 04:04:19 pm
Truean has a conservative opinion, I'm not sure what to do.

Honestly, if I was really determined to save time and paper I'd learn a shorthand.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Levi on March 21, 2012, 04:26:25 pm
It would be fine if we were all supposed to learn one or the other, but the way its taught right now is pointless.  Most of the people I know can't read cursive(I certainly can't anymore), so its usefulness is kind of limited now. 

If they had just taught us as kids one writing style instead of two and we were expected to keep using it past elementary school it would be fine.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 21, 2012, 04:30:53 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 21, 2012, 04:04:19 pm
Truean has a conservative opinion, I'm not sure what to do.

Honestly, if I was really determined to save time and paper I'd learn a shorthand.


The funny thing about being able to see both sides of an issue is, sometimes you agree with the other side.

Quote from: Levi on March 21, 2012, 04:26:25 pm
It would be fine if we were all supposed to learn one or the other, but the way its taught right now is pointless.  Most of the people I know can't read cursive(I certainly can't anymore), so its usefulness is kind of limited now. 

If they had just taught us as kids one writing style instead of two and we were expected to keep using it past elementary school it would be fine.

If we let our skills rust, they will.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Realmfighter on March 21, 2012, 07:33:28 pm
I have been informed my printing looks like a seven years old's presuming that child has hand tremors so I just use that for signatures.

No one's complained yet, and it's already on a few legal documents.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 21, 2012, 08:28:42 pm
Don't use your regular email address for this unless you want them to email you about causes they want you to sign for:
http://signon.org/sign/support-the-student-loan.fb1?source=s.fb&r_by=3715985
http://hansenclarke.house.gov/sites/hansenclarke.house.gov/files/documents/1-pager%20SLFA.pdf

Student loan debt is approaching $1 Trillion in this country. It's about time we did something about forgiving some of it given that A.) the education we bought wasn't worth it, and B.) The jobs for this generation don't cover the cost of the education it took to get them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 21, 2012, 08:38:41 pm
Hahaa... that kinda' puts those of us who can't consistently reproduce handwriting patterns in a bit of a hole. I write a cursive L ten times in a row and all ten will be different :-\

Write a bloody print L ten times in a row and all ten will be different, some of them radically so. There's a reason I can't draw straight lines, bleh. Closest to a consistent habit I get with my signature is I usually (Usually) skip lowercase Is and just put a dot between the other letters, heh.

On the bright side, if there's two forged signatures involved and they actually look highly related, that's probably not me. Which... probably wouldn't help, I'unno. I guess it'd be a vaguely amusing defense, though. "Your honor, these two signatures look alike. It was obviously not me signing those documents."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on March 21, 2012, 10:01:25 pm
Paul Ryan has a new tax plan. It consists of:
-5.3 trillion in cuts, all of it to social programs, not much of it in Social Security or Medicare.
-4.3 trillion in tax cuts to wealthy people.

The senate and president will refuse to pass it, but it makes you wonder just how far this insanity can keep rolling before either they get their way and incite a revolution, or roll themselves so far right they become irrelevant.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 21, 2012, 10:02:31 pm
But, see, it makes the budget a trillion dollars more balanced! That's the important part.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 21, 2012, 10:19:27 pm
Well, actually, it ALSO increases military spending and some other stuff.

So it actually ends up increasing the size of the deficit.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on March 21, 2012, 10:29:54 pm
I would sincerely like to see a movie in which three people take a step into a wormhole and end up on an alternate Earth in which the collective worldview of Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Paul Ryan, and Michelle Bachmann is, in fact, reality.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 21, 2012, 10:51:01 pm
Quote from: dhokarena56 on March 21, 2012, 10:01:25 pm
Paul Ryan has a new tax plan. It consists of:
-5.3 trillion in cuts, all of it to social programs, not much of it in Social Security or Medicare.
-4.3 trillion in tax cuts to wealthy people.

The senate and president will refuse to pass it, but it makes you wonder just how far this insanity can keep rolling before either they get their way and incite a revolution, or roll themselves so far right they become irrelevant.

I'd like to know when they intend to stop cutting taxes, if ever. The government is broke, so clearly we cut tax revenue...? ??? Just like every other time and situation....
_____________________________________________________________
http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-marine-critical-obama-faces-charge-012104515.html

Every soldier knows civs get to talk politics and you don't, especially not "as a soldier." Been like that basically forever. "Armed Forces Tea Party" facebook group.... The words "Armed Forces," invokes not just "as a soldier" capacity, but the military's capacity, which is hugely forbidden. Plus, he, as an NCO (Non Commissioned Officer), is encouraging other soldiers to break longstanding pentagon policy like him.... He was nicely asked to remove the page and temporarily did. Except then:

"He said he determined he was not in violation and relaunched the page." <--- No.... You check with stationed JAG, and personnel and have someone backing you from those departments in writing before you even think about anything like this. Pretty sure he didn't. [facepalm]
____________________________________________________
http://news.yahoo.com/senate-votes-move-ahead-small-business-bill-163255609.html

So now we have even less investor protections, great.... [sigh] So companies just screwed us all over and now we're gonna let them flout the rules...? Calling it a "Small Business" doesn't make it "small business."

"....and allow smaller companies to sell up to $50 million in shares, compared with $5 million now, without filing some SEC paperwork.

So $50 Million is a small business huh?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 21, 2012, 11:01:19 pm
A Family's Cat Is Murdered In the Name of Politics and Conservatism (http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/familys-cat-is-murdered-in-name-of.html) Jan 24 2012

Quote
The campaign manager for a Democratic Congressional candidate returned to his Russellville, Arkansas home, to find that the family cat had been killed. The word "liberal" had been scribbled across the cat's body in paint.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 21, 2012, 11:02:12 pm
Quote from: Reelya on March 21, 2012, 11:01:19 pm
A Family's Cat Is Murdered In the Name of Politics and Conservatism (http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/familys-cat-is-murdered-in-name-of.html)

Quote
The campaign manager for a Democratic Congressional candidate returned to his Russellville, Arkansas home, to find that the family cat had been killed. The word "liberal" had been scribbled across the cat's body in paint.
Whoever did that is dead to me now  >:(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 21, 2012, 11:07:22 pm
Uh-oh. Harming cats is one of the proven ways to attract internet vigilantes. Whomever did that is going to find themselves outed to the police very quickly if they left any evidence behind.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 21, 2012, 11:14:35 pm
It's also months old. I thought it had finished making the rounds.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 21, 2012, 11:16:04 pm
First I've heard of it. Did they catch anyone?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: alway on March 22, 2012, 01:39:20 am
Ah, that reminds me; http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/21/10791923-firebombs-set-off-at-texas-state-senators-office
A texas democratic senator's office was firebombed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 22, 2012, 01:51:00 am
Ain't politically motivated arson awesome?  :-\
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: alway on March 22, 2012, 01:53:01 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 22, 2012, 01:51:00 am
Ain't politically motivated arson awesome?  :-\
May or may not be the case; not seeing any confirmation yet either way.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 22, 2012, 02:01:02 am
My money (if I had any, that is) is on it being politically motivated. I don't have any proof or citations, just a gut feeling.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: alway on March 22, 2012, 03:52:56 am
Quote from: Sirus on March 22, 2012, 02:01:02 am
My money (if I had any, that is) is on it being politically motivated. I don't have any proof or citations, just a gut feeling.
Yes well, gut feelings aren't worthy diddly.

http://www.kgoam810.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=118&itemid=29818893
Quote
Police do not believe the fire-bombing was politically motivated. They believe it was an isolated incident committed by a mentally unstable man.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20120321-man-accused-of-firebombing-state-senators-office-called-unstable.ece
Quote
A homeless man who police say ignited Molotov cocktails at the door to the offices of state Sen. Wendy Davis exhibited unstable behavior and spoke of aliens after the attack, according to police documents.

The affidavit said that Steele visited Davis’ office Friday and again Monday “to speak with the Senator about a tazing [sic] incident that occurred in Michigan. Steele then left an unknown part of a dead animal stating it was a new species and wanted the Senator to see it,” the affidavit states.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 22, 2012, 03:56:08 am
Ah okay.


Another reason I never want to be famous.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 22, 2012, 12:44:19 pm
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/too-many-jobs-look-ahead-next-labor-market-144556623.html

This is another reason I'm a rationalist and not an empiricist....

Yes, there will be a crapton of people who are of retirement age. Yes, compared to that raw number, there is a big difference between the number of people of retirement age and those coming into the workforce. However:

a.) That assumes older people can afford to retire (many can't).
b.) That assumes immigration won't fill any gaps (it would, gladly)
c.) What about all the working age and close to retirement age people who recently lost jobs, or had their home values fall greatly. Even if they can afford to retire, will they?

I happen to like this comment:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The numbers for this argument make perfect sense, just like how "the recession ended years ago." Except that's not true at all in a practical sense.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 22, 2012, 01:03:36 pm
God, I know all about the problem with the "retirement gap". When I was in grad school, the future was bright and shining for us future govenrment workers because there was a wave of Baby Boomer retirements approaching, and with the likely prospect of a Democratic administration taking over, new funds for the State Department, which was said to be planning on hiring tens of thousands of new employees!

Jump forward a couple of years, and instead there are millions of Federal employees who are clinging desperately to their positions, and the State Department's funding has been gutted by the Republican Congress. And me and my posse who were looking forward to going out and bringing some mad diplomacy skillz to the government are stuck working mall kiosks and tech support and student exchange programs (and trying to pay back 5-digit student loans).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 22, 2012, 01:09:03 pm
Quote from: RedKing on March 22, 2012, 01:03:36 pm
God, I know all about the problem with the "retirement gap". When I was in grad school, the future was bright and shining for us future govenrment workers because there was a wave of Baby Boomer retirements approaching, and with the likely prospect of a Democratic administration taking over, new funds for the State Department, which was said to be planning on hiring tens of thousands of new employees!

Jump forward a couple of years, and instead there are millions of Federal employees who are clinging desperately to their positions, and the State Department's funding has been gutted by the Republican Congress. And me and my posse who were looking forward to going out and bringing some mad diplomacy skillz to the government are stuck working mall kiosks and tech support and student exchange programs (and trying to pay back 5-digit student loans).

[Edit:] Same thing with lawyers, except 6 digit student loans.... They lied to us all basically.

Don't use your regular email address for this unless you want them to email you about causes they want you to sign for:
http://signon.org/sign/support-the-student-loan.fb1?source=s.fb&r_by=3715985
http://hansenclarke.house.gov/sites/hansenclarke.house.gov/files/documents/1-pager%20SLFA.pdf

Student loan debt is approaching $1 Trillion in this country. It's about time we did something about forgiving some of it given that A.) the education we bought wasn't worth it, and B.) The jobs for our generation don't cover the cost of the education it took to get them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 22, 2012, 01:13:13 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 22, 2012, 01:09:03 pm

Same thing with lawyers, except 60 digit student loans.... They lied to us all basically.

I...I really hope that's a typo. Or that you guys just track your loans with a ridiculous number of leading and/or trailing zeroes.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 22, 2012, 01:17:26 pm
Quote from: RedKing on March 22, 2012, 01:13:13 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 22, 2012, 01:09:03 pm

Same thing with lawyers, except 60 digit student loans.... They lied to us all basically.

I...I really hope that's a typo. Or that you guys just track your loans with a ridiculous number of leading and/or trailing zeroes.

Yes, typo. :P 6 digit That's what I get for trying to reward myself with posting privileges while doing record keeping.  When I input X pages of stuff, I get to come here for a second. Motivation, it helps.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Virex on March 22, 2012, 01:52:41 pm
Quote from: RedKing on March 22, 2012, 01:13:13 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 22, 2012, 01:09:03 pm

Same thing with lawyers, except 60 digit student loans.... They lied to us all basically.

I...I really hope that's a typo. Or that you guys just track your loans with a ridiculous number of leading and/or trailing zeroes.
That's what happens if you convert your debt into Pengo's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_peng%C5%91) :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 22, 2012, 01:54:39 pm
...And that's 100,000,000,000,000 pengo change!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 23, 2012, 09:44:52 am
http://news.yahoo.com/several-executives-leave-komen-controversy-212830497.html

Good, actual consequences. They've messed up a charity's hard earned reputation for their politically motivated crap, which is the opposite of what their job is. That reputation took years to build and only a short time to severely damage. Their job wasn't to crush Planned Parenthood, it was to advance the interests of the charity they worked for. The motivation was all wrong and so was the result.

Thanks to them, lots of people will have a sour taste in their mouths from the word "Komen," for quite some time. I know several women, who spent years fund raising for them, who now will have nothing to do with the organization. I'm not even sure what you can do to repair that kind of damage or if it can be repaired.

Essentially, "The charity's policy chief, Karen Handel, was running for governor of Georgia on a republican ticket opposing abortion," so she tried to abuse her position for direct electoral political gain. Nice....

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 23, 2012, 10:01:30 am
Quote from: Virex on March 22, 2012, 01:52:41 pm
Quote from: RedKing on March 22, 2012, 01:13:13 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 22, 2012, 01:09:03 pm

Same thing with lawyers, except 60 digit student loans.... They lied to us all basically.

I...I really hope that's a typo. Or that you guys just track your loans with a ridiculous number of leading and/or trailing zeroes.
That's what happens if you convert your debt into Pengo's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_peng%C5%91) :P

Spoiler: This was my first thought when I read that. (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: This was second. (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 23, 2012, 11:19:55 am
Apologies if this has been batted around on here already, but I have been a little out of the loop after a few days devoted to professional practice...

So, yea. Trayvon Martin. Can someone please explain the "stand your ground law" that applies in Florida to me please. From what I have gathered through reading up via the BBC, a "chase and fight" was involved in the shooting. Chasing someone before killing them doesnt sound a whole lot like self defence to me.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 23, 2012, 11:37:25 am
Well, what if he got some friends and came back? (This is a sarcastic post)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 23, 2012, 11:52:29 am
You can see the statute itself here (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html). Section 3 is the SYG part. Basics of it is if you're in a place you have a right to be outside the home, you can defend yourself with lethal force if you have good reason to believe the situation calls for it; you're not legally required to retreat.

The details released to the public seem to have it pretty clear cut that Zimmerman isn't protected by Florida's SYG law (and thus should be in the process of facing trial), but it's possible there's more to the story than publicly released. Unless more news hits the public, there's not much more that could be said.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 23, 2012, 12:20:29 pm
I make it a point not to pass judgement on crime stories in regards to the guilt or innocence of specific persons (though I will comment on a refusal to prosecute just because the alleged is a cop or politician or has a lot of money), specifically for that reason. We don't - can't, even - know the details the jurors know. There's a reason this is such a long process, after all.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 23, 2012, 01:31:37 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Euld on March 23, 2012, 01:55:03 pm
China continues to prove (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/world/asia/in-self-immolations-signs-of-new-turmoil-in-tibet.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&smid=fb-share) that it's just... augh I can't think of anything funny.

edit: They forced people to put up pictures of Mao in their homes?  Seriously ._. I might have a picture of Obama somewhere, except with funny text on it that makes fun of him too :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 23, 2012, 02:08:28 pm
Sadly, the Tibet question is one of those areas that just seems to trigger a knee-jerk response by the CCP, regardless of how bright and forward-thinking its members want to be.

The whole "putting up pictures of Mao" thing is really bizarre, considering that most Chinese (including CCP members) will privately admit that Mao was a total bastard. But it hasn't quite reached the same level that "de-Stalinization" did in the Soviet Union. It's still bad form to publicly criticize Mao, and there's a new crop of young nationalists (who never lived through the excesses of the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward) who will harass and vilify anybody who dares criticize Mao or the Communist system.

These same fen qing ("angry youth") are also virulently anti-Tibetan, anti-Japanese, anti-Taiwanese, anti-anybody that dares upset the apple cart and/or criticize China. Frankly, I think the CCP is as scared of them as anyone else, in the same way that Mao eventually had to purge the Red Guards youth cadres he helped to create, because they had gone too far.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: G-Flex on March 23, 2012, 03:05:59 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 23, 2012, 01:31:37 pm
The police aren't going to investigate practically. The ability of the police to arrest someone in a violent crime claiming self defense is severely limited under the "Stand your Ground" law and it makes arrest difficult if not impossible without direct evidence of malice.

In principle, this makes sense, but in this case the killer directly sought out a confrontation unnecessarily even after instructed by emergency services to let the police handle it. I'd think that would at least be enough evidence to arrest the guy and investigate further.

Also: Even under Florida's law:
Quote
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
I'd think they would at least arrest him based on the simple fact that he killed a guy, and then investigate or allow an affirmative defense that he was the one attacked first and felt it necessary to use deadly force... and there's some very basic evidence against that in the fact that he sought out the victim, apparently seeking confrontation when it wasn't necessary.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 23, 2012, 03:16:34 pm
How dare he wear a hoodie.... http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/geraldo-rivera-finds-real-culprit-trayvon-martin-slaying-182043689.html

"Alert: hoodies can get your kid killed," he tweeted.

.... If you kill someone based solely upon what they wear, then you are wrong. If you attempt to justify or mitigate murder based upon clothing, then you are wrong.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: G-Flex on March 23, 2012, 03:18:41 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 23, 2012, 03:16:34 pm
He won't say that he went out there to pursue him. He will say that he went out there because he looked like he was going to break into someone's house. Good luck proving he didn't believe that reasonably beyond a reasonable doubt.

There was a 911 call where he was instructed to leave the situation alone and not pursue him, wasn't there?

I know how burden of proof works; I'm just not sure why self-defense is normally an affirmative defense and this apparently isn't.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 23, 2012, 03:23:37 pm
If an arrest were made, and the system did its thing and it turns out that actually there was a just cause for Zimmerman's actions, then fair enough. But for the state to apparently dismiss it and for there to be material that appears to be evidence suggesting his actions were illegal circulating in the worlds media just smacks of something wrong.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 23, 2012, 03:26:19 pm
Whole thing is just sad.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 23, 2012, 03:33:19 pm
I remember when they passed this law, cause we were heading down to Disney World a month or so after that. Perusing the text of the law, I surmised it was basically "You are entitled to shoot first if threatened, or if you feel threatened. No questions asked."

So once we got down to Kissimmee, I stayed in the condo as much as possible, and when we went out, I didn't so much as make eye-contact with anybody. Fuck that noise, I'm not going to get shot because Bubba thinks I was giving him the stink-eye.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 23, 2012, 03:35:15 pm
Quote from: RedKing on March 23, 2012, 03:33:19 pm
I remember when they passed this law, cause we were heading down to Disney World a month or so after that. Perusing the text of the law, I surmised it was basically "You are entitled to shoot first if threatened, or if you feel threatened. No questions asked."

So once we got down to Kissimmee, I stayed in the condo as much as possible, and when we went out, I didn't so much as make eye-contact with anybody. Fuck that noise, I'm not going to get shot because Bubba thinks I was giving him the stink-eye.

Legalese trying at justifying murder? Like I said, whole thing is just sad.


Edit 1:
http://news.yahoo.com/facebook-warns-employers-dont-ask-passwords-163806953.html

What did I say? Violates terms of service....
_____________________________________________________________________________
Edit 2:

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/03/23/wisconsin-lawmaker-you-are-being-beaten-just-remember-things-you-love-about-your

So I don't know what to think about this.... "Instead of leaving an abusive situation, women should try to remember the things they love about their husbands," Representative Don Pridemore said. "If they can re-find those reasons and get back to why they got married in the first place it might help," he told a local news station.

???

So let me see if I have this right. Ladies, if your man is beating you, remember why you fell in love with him. That'll help.... Your esteemed state senator says so.... Same one who passed a law making them consider being a single mom a factor in child abuse.... I don't get what this guy is going for. Is he joking? Please say he's joking, and even then it isn't funny.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on March 23, 2012, 10:23:19 pm
I am still waiting for those feminazis the Republicans think are hiding around every corner to come out of the woodwork and do a number on these bastards.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 24, 2012, 03:41:37 pm
Quote from: dhokarena56 on March 23, 2012, 10:23:19 pm
I am still waiting for those feminazis the Republicans think are hiding around every corner to come out of the woodwork and do a number on these bastards.

Not sure how to respond to that, but yeah, the demonization doesn't seem to be holding up to reality. How dare females want equal rights.... :P

 Ladies and gentlemen, the Amish are running amok, again.  (http://www.loweringthebar.net/2012/03/amish-on-the-loose.html)

Yet more proof that "traditional" or "conservative" values do not equate to "social stability...." Moreover, I can't believe I'm seriously quoting but, "So if I understand correctly, they are claiming Amish-on-Amish violence simply cannot be a hate crime." Yes, that's a legal argument....

It's the heart of progressiveness v. stagnation. Standing still doesn't mean you won't lose. It's the Red Queen's Riddle.

____________________________________________
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Relevant....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 24, 2012, 03:50:17 pm
That picture is too huge to not be spoilered.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 24, 2012, 03:51:36 pm
Your monitor and/or resolution is too small!



In serious, aren't drones that go over civilian areas (for surveillance and the like) unarmed?

EDIT: I should clarify, civilian areas on US soil. Civilians getting shot elsewhere by them I know isn't totally uncommon.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 24, 2012, 03:52:00 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 24, 2012, 03:51:36 pm
In serious, aren't drones that go over civilian areas (for surveillance and the like) unarmed?
For now.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 24, 2012, 03:52:42 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 24, 2012, 03:50:17 pm
That picture is too huge to not be spoilered.

K

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 24, 2012, 03:52:00 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 24, 2012, 03:51:36 pm
In serious, aren't drones that go over civilian areas (for surveillance and the like) unarmed?
For now.

Until they start loading them, yes. The USA, land of the free and home of the brave, a scared police state that can kill anyone, anytime anywhere.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 24, 2012, 03:53:19 pm
Got a reason to believe they will be later?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 24, 2012, 03:54:33 pm
Because TERRISTS ATTACKING ARE FREEDOMS, of course.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 24, 2012, 03:55:39 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 24, 2012, 03:53:19 pm
Got a reason to believe they will be later?

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2012/03/ag-sort-of-explains-when-and-why-the-president-could-drop-a-bomb-on-you.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinunderhill/2011/12/07/you-say-indefinite-military-detention-of-citizens-like-its-a-bad-thing/

If the government thinks you are a "terrorist," (an undefined term) based on "evidence" no one can see or question, then without any real due process, they can kill you, according to the Attorney General of the United States. But, don't worry, they won't abuse this power, they promise.... They also don't need checks and balances to make sure of that, scout's honor...? Pinkie swear?

This is not good.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 24, 2012, 04:02:16 pm
I'm trying to see how you're not using a slippery slope fallacy, so pointing to non-drone related things isn't helping.

Closest to relevant that I found was this, linked from the first humor article you linked:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinunderhill/2012/03/05/attorney-general-explains-why-its-okay-to-kill-u-s-citizens-without-a-trial/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinunderhill/2012/03/05/attorney-general-explains-why-its-okay-to-kill-u-s-citizens-without-a-trial/)

It specifies "in a foreign country." So I don't see any evidence of drones killing US citizens on US soil anytime soon. Outside, maybe. Under weak suspicions, sure. But not with the drones we're talking about.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 24, 2012, 04:04:41 pm
I mean, we've been using armed drones in the middle east, so we have the capability to. I'm not sure if that's going to lead to it. All it could take would be some McCarthyism, sure, but we're a little more protective of our own people than the brown ones over there (i.e. the whole "it's not okay to hold US citizens without trial" yet finding no problem with holding non-citizens).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on March 24, 2012, 04:14:51 pm
I really doubt they'll ever use drones on US soil though, unless they become a whole lot more focusable. I mean the targets can be explained away, but when they blow up the local barbershop, bystanders, or a school by mistake? There are more efficient ways to assassinate unwanteds.

Is the bill allowing them to kill citizens by any means or just drop bombs on them?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 24, 2012, 04:16:57 pm
Quote from: scriver on March 24, 2012, 04:14:51 pm
I really doubt they'll ever use drones on US soil though, unless they become a whole lot more focusable. I mean the targets can be explained away, but when they blow up the local barbershop, bystanders, or a school by mistake? There are more efficient ways to assassinate unwanteds.

Is the bill allowing them to kill citizens by any means or just drop bombs on them?

The bill doesn't specify a method of execution. Also see below, they are using drones domestically.

Quote from: kaijyuu on March 24, 2012, 04:02:16 pm
I'm trying to see how you're not using a slippery slope fallacy, so pointing to non-drone related things isn't helping.

Closest to relevant that I found was this, linked from the first humor article you linked:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinunderhill/2012/03/05/attorney-general-explains-why-its-okay-to-kill-u-s-citizens-without-a-trial/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinunderhill/2012/03/05/attorney-general-explains-why-its-okay-to-kill-u-s-citizens-without-a-trial/)

It specifies "in a foreign country." So I don't see any evidence of drones killing US citizens on US soil anytime soon. Outside, maybe. Under weak suspicions, sure. But not with the drones we're talking about.

Both articles are written by Kevin Underhill. Basically, same thing. We're essentially posting to the same thing written by the same lawyer who writes for both this site and Forbes. Everything I'm posting is on the policy behind drone use, which is just a tool to carry out said polices. Don't focus on the tool (the drone), focus on the polices they are being used to carry out.

They are going to use those drones domestically http://rt.com/usa/news/us-drones-border-patrol-489/.
And people are worried about it: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/07/10344710-pilots-worry-about-safety-of-allowing-domestic-drones-in-us-skies
Police are using them: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2011-01-13-drones_N.htm

As for the slippery slope thing, I've never bought into that being a "logical fallacy," per se on its own. No, they don't currently load domestic drones. No, there are no immediate plans to arm them, keyword, "immediate." There's also nothing stopping them from arming them and being worried about that risk isn't nuts, nor is it unreasonable. These damn things are military grade hardware, and there is absolutely nothing preventing them from being armed in one fashion or another. And as the government slowly strips away our civil liberties, there will be less and less of a reason not to arm them. All it takes is one little fear driven policy change and they can be armed.

Is it certain, no, not currently. Is there anything preventing it, no. Do they want to do this, probably yes. They'll use it as surveillance at first, and then see how that goes. After that it'll become a "why not arm them" thing.

Do you have any reason to think they WON'T eventually arm drones in the US?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 24, 2012, 04:20:49 pm
Also, the fact that the government currently bans U.S. civilians from using drone technology or jamming technology under harsh penalty is not a good sign.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 24, 2012, 04:32:58 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 24, 2012, 04:02:16 pm
I'm trying to see how you're not using a slippery slope fallacy, so pointing to non-drone related things isn't helping.


In this case it's not a "slippery slope" because we're talking about legal interpretations of the current legislation.

Exactly what is a "terrorist". The  legal meaning for that is pretty broad.

Truean's pointing out that the legislation allows them to target any behavior, links, traits they like and have a non-judicial death sentence, anywhere anytime, more or less.

The best i can find of is this (http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism_5.htm) :-

Quote
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

But, you don't have to have actually done this to be a terrorist. Just talking about it is enough.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 24, 2012, 05:01:03 pm
^
Yup

Also if you have any student loans, yeah....

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/reid_federal_student_loans/?rc=fb_share1

The republicans are going to double the interest rate you're paying effectively....

Subsidized Stafford loans will go from 3.4% interest to 6.8% interest this summer unless someone does something like renewing the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. Fun....

"As Sarah Jaffe observed in her excellent piece in AlterNet:

    "It's worth noting, as well, that many of the big banks that make a killing on private student loans and still have billions of government-subsidized student debt on their books, are able to borrow money from the government through the Federal Reserve's discount window at nearly no interest at all. Why, then, are young people, who aren't guilty of trashing the economy but remain the victims of a rate of unemployment nearly twice that of the rest of the population, expected to pay more?""

Good question. Why are we rewarding these banks in so many ways after they've screwed us.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 24, 2012, 05:10:04 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 24, 2012, 05:01:03 pm
Why are we rewarding these banks in so many ways after they've screwed us.
Stockholm syndrome.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 24, 2012, 05:13:13 pm
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on March 24, 2012, 05:10:04 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 24, 2012, 05:01:03 pm
Why are we rewarding these banks in so many ways after they've screwed us.
Stockholm syndrome.

Sure, I'd agree with that. Basically we're screwed and see no other way out besides to hope and pray these morons help us.

That's like relying upon firemen who are also the arsonist.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 24, 2012, 05:20:17 pm
Or voting an anti-terrorist government back in because they tell you "well, the terrorists are really mad at us now, if you don't vote for us again the terrorists will definitely get you."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 24, 2012, 05:22:10 pm
Quote from: Reelya on March 24, 2012, 05:20:17 pm
Or voting an anti-terrorist government back in because they tell you "well, the fat cats are really mad at us now, if you don't vote for us again the FBI will definitely get you."

Ftfy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on March 24, 2012, 05:31:01 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 24, 2012, 04:16:57 pm
Quote from: scriver on March 24, 2012, 04:14:51 pm
I really doubt they'll ever use drones on US soil though, unless they become a whole lot more focusable. I mean the targets can be explained away, but when they blow up the local barbershop, bystanders, or a school by mistake? There are more efficient ways to assassinate unwanteds.

Is the bill allowing them to kill citizens by any means or just drop bombs on them?


The bill doesn't specify a method of execution. Also see below, they are using drones domestically.

Well, drones are surveillance equipment as well, right? Doing away with unwanteds is still a lot simpler, cleaner, less risky, more discrete and most of all cheaper to do otherwise. Why use a drone to bomb someone when you can just put a few bullets in them?

That's why I asked about if it just let them kill people or just bomb them. Because if they're allowed to kill people by any means and do decide to go full dystopia, they're not going to start dropping bombs (that aren't even reliable to hit what they're aiming at) at them. In fact, I doubt they'll ever start bombing people on US soil unless it becomes and actual warzone. That just isn't sensible.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on March 24, 2012, 05:57:32 pm
One thing that's worth noting about the AG's speech, before commenting on the deeper problems.

While 'terrorist' is a broad and poorly defined term, the AG is using it as shorthand for those targeted by the AUMF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists). This gave the president power to wage war against a certain group. Specifically;
Quote
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
This is the definition that is in question in all these points of law. Holder's speech specified that the targeted individuals must be part of al Qaeda or an associated group to be sure of satisfying this definition.

The main point of that speech was to defend the legality of using against US citizens overseas what have been effectively accepted as legal actions when used against non-citizens.

Abstracting this further, I'm not sure I'm entirely opposed to the administration's logic here. Their argument boils down to these being military strikes against military targets. The decision to go ahead with one of these strikes does tend to be a military action, made with little time and based on changeable conditions and intelligence. If a US citizen had joined the ground forces of an enemy power I doubt you would have a due process case to make when he is killed in combat, even if his citizenship was known when the shots were authorised. The way the administration has laid out their case is dragging these extra-judicial killings towards that sort of case. Which is to say that their full set of conditions requires a situation that most people would probably agree is a military strike against a justified target where judicial review is impractical or even impossible.

I'd probably be more comfortable with the situation if there was guaranteed retroactive review, with the administration being required to put their case before a judge simultaneous to the strike. It might not prevent the first unjustified/illegal attack, but it would allow for consequences to such an action while also preventing or at least discouraging others. At the same time that might be enough to discourage the US from taking any such open actions. I don't doubt that this would force any such targeted killings underground rather than actually stopping them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: DrPoo on March 24, 2012, 06:30:47 pm
Why is everything going to hell?
I mean, jesus christ.. all theese shitty things ruining everything.. i want my free right to do whatever i want as long as it dosent hurt anybody..
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 24, 2012, 09:42:08 pm
Quote from: DrPoo on March 24, 2012, 06:30:47 pm
Why is everything going to hell?
I mean, jesus christ.. all theese shitty things ruining everything.. i want my free right to do whatever i want as long as it dosent hurt anybody..

People got scared and were stupid/didn't know how to handle it. This is the plot of every sit com ever, except worse.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 24, 2012, 10:47:01 pm
I was wondering what the sitcom would be called, then i remembered "This Modern World" !

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Tom Tomorrow never fails to deliver
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on March 24, 2012, 11:09:16 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 24, 2012, 04:20:49 pm
Also, the fact that the government currently bans U.S. civilians from using drone technology or jamming technology under harsh penalty is not a good sign.

Do you honestly not see why letting the average person run around with a jammer is a bad idea? Really?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 24, 2012, 11:12:15 pm
Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on March 24, 2012, 11:09:16 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 24, 2012, 04:20:49 pm
Also, the fact that the government currently bans U.S. civilians from using drone technology or jamming technology under harsh penalty is not a good sign.

Do you honestly not see why letting the average person run around with a jammer is a bad idea? Really?
If someone wishes to jam communications going into or out of their private property, that is their right.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on March 24, 2012, 11:19:26 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 24, 2012, 11:12:15 pm
Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on March 24, 2012, 11:09:16 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 24, 2012, 04:20:49 pm
Also, the fact that the government currently bans U.S. civilians from using drone technology or jamming technology under harsh penalty is not a good sign.

Do you honestly not see why letting the average person run around with a jammer is a bad idea? Really?
If someone wishes to jam communications going into or out of their private property, that is their right.
Really? You think they don't allow people to have jamming technology... because they want to stop people from using it on their own private property? You see no potential for abuse at all?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 24, 2012, 11:52:52 pm
Of course I see the potential for abuse. Personal freedoms bring potential for abuse in many things.

But I do think they want to stop people from using it on their private property. It's hard to spy on someone when they're jamming everything on their land.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on March 25, 2012, 12:02:17 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 24, 2012, 11:52:52 pm
Of course I see the potential for abuse. Personal freedoms bring potential for abuse in many things.

But I do think they want to stop people from using it on their private property. It's hard to spy on someone when they're jamming everything on their land.

Oh, of course it's to stop people from disabling wiretaps, and not say... preventing some jackoff from using one in the middle of time square, or near an airport. Gotcha. Just like how the government frowns of people trying to make nuclear reactors, their secret stranglehold on the power companies might be threatened.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 25, 2012, 12:06:14 am
I didn't say it wasn't for that as well, but if you introduced a bill to lift the ban on selling of short-range jammers I guarantee the Congressional session would get "closed as a matter of national security" so that the Congressmen could be persuaded to shoot it down in private.

The government shouldn't be spying on their own people, and if they won't ban government agencies from doing so then civilians should be allowed the tools to put a stop to it themselves. Jammers can do that, or at least a decent part of it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on March 25, 2012, 12:12:23 am
Given how how of most daily peoples lives depend of radio waves, they would never allow it. You might not think jammers are a big deal, but they are.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 25, 2012, 07:27:54 am
It also sounds like something that would just be bad for society in general.  I mean, suddenly noone can hear the radio/ use their phone nearby if you decide you want to jam signals in your area.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on March 25, 2012, 07:44:41 am
But what about my freedom and right to do what I want without thinking through the consequences first?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 25, 2012, 07:45:50 am
Needs of the many, and all that.....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 25, 2012, 08:08:20 am
Like I said, short range jammers. The kind of short range that won't extend past your property line. You could file a complaint with the local government if someone's jammer extends past that point and they won't readjust it.

Before you mention apartments, if jammers were legal every apartment block under the sun would contractually prohibit them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 25, 2012, 10:24:46 am
Yeaaah... america being america, I'd just kinda' note that just about everything that's being said for/against short-range jamming devices (so far) can be applied pretty directly in relation to firearms.

Mostly just noting that "potential for abuse" isn't exactly being consistently applied in this country. Whatever reason we've been (ostensibly) using to determine personal use laws, it's probably not that -- or at least a potential for abuse problem isn't sufficient in itself to restrict access.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 25, 2012, 10:33:52 am
The effects of jammers do not stop at your propert line. That's not how radio waves work. Interference follows the same inverse square law as a transmitter and will create a shadow in the signal.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 25, 2012, 10:39:56 am
Can we go back to the start of this argument for a second? MSH mentioned drones as well. That seems to me a even bigger deal then this jammer thing. I mean. Should a citizen be able to control a remote control killing/Spying device?

Am I missing something here?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 25, 2012, 10:43:27 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 25, 2012, 08:08:20 am
Like I said, short range jammers. The kind of short range that won't extend past your property line. You could file a complaint with the local government if someone's jammer extends past that point and they won't readjust it.
Because it'd be really easy to tell whose jammer is stopping you from using basic every objects, right?  It's not like in, say, a suburban area there'd be potentially dozens of people with jammers, any of whom could have deliberately or accidentally made theirs too big for their area.  Filing a complaint would involve them having to investigate and carefully test EVERYBODY's jammer (since they're pretty easy to make yourself or modify you wouldn't be able to just trust the label) in the area rather than just finding the person with the jammer like they could at the moment.  I feel like if you lived in a block with paranoid neighbours you could pretty much say goodbye to the prospect of listening to the radio or using a mobile phone or using wireless internet ever again.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 25, 2012, 08:08:20 am
Yeaaah... america being america, I'd just kinda' note that just about everything that's being said for/against short-range jamming devices (so far) can be applied pretty directly in relation to firearms.
You know what?  No, this is completely different from guns.

In a magical world where noone would "abuse" firearms, then yes, they wouldn't really cause any problems.

In a magicial world where noone would abuse jammers they would still cause huge problems (and this is ignoring the fact that there is also massive potential for abuse).  It'd be very easy to accidentally overreach your area slightly and knock out your neighbours' appliances.  The idea of pointing your jamming signals upwards to prevent drones (as MSH seems to be suggesting) would also cause horrible problems for civilian aircraft, especially in areas where planes take off and land.  There's also minor things like accidentally straying onto someone's expansive property and not being able to get off since they fucked up your GPS signals (which would also be an issue if emergency services ever had to cross your land... or do you have the right to deny someone on your land medical treatment/ police services?  Not that they'd be able to call them in since you blocked their mobile phone call).

Quote from: Criptfeind on March 25, 2012, 10:39:56 am
Can we go back to the start of this argument for a second? MSH mentioned drones as well. That seems to me a even bigger deal then this jammer thing. I mean. Should a citizen be able to control a remote control killing/Spying device?

Am I missing something here?
Spying is only bad if the government's doing it, I guess.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 25, 2012, 10:44:50 am
Quote from: Criptfeind on March 25, 2012, 10:39:56 am
Can we go back to the start of this argument for a second? MSH mentioned drones as well. That seems to me a even bigger deal then this jammer thing. I mean. Should a citizen be able to control a remote control killing/Spying device?

Am I missing something here?
I don't mean weapon drones. Camera drones are more in the line of what I'm thinking of.

I'd rather see them entirely eliminated from U.S. soil, but if the police are going to use them so should everyone else.

EDIT: Essentially, on both subject of drones and jammers, I'd rather see them either not present or available to everyone then in the hands of a small group of powerful elitists. Even if the latter causes chaos, it means that power remains evenly distributed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 26, 2012, 07:25:29 pm
http://shine.yahoo.com/beauty/miss-universe-canada-disqualifies-transsexual-contestant-she-born-192000420.html

Awww. I'm not really getting the rationale behind any of this.  Also don't read the comments. I made that mistake. I was kind of of the impression that you couldn't do this sort of thing in Canada? No? I mean I sorta thought GLBT people were more protected there than here. I remember watching a documentary about women's downhill bike racing that tried to exclude a transgender woman (MtF transsexual), and for whatever reason, they didn't disqualify her.

Whatever else you wanna say, you've sorta gotta (or should at least) give her credit for getting as far as she did. Being a national beauty pageant contestant is a hell of a thing, and not easy. I'm not saying being in a pageant is some sorta awe inspiring thing, because if the last few Miss America winners are any indication, they can say some pretty nutty things. I'm just saying, that's a heck of a long road to go from being a transgendered kid to a contestant in a beauty pageant.

I dunno, when if ever could someone just be considered a normal girl in that situation? That's kinda that goal....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Levi on March 26, 2012, 11:09:20 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 26, 2012, 07:25:29 pm
I was kind of of the impression that you couldn't do this sort of thing in Canada? No? I mean I sorta thought GLBT people were more protected there than here.

GLBT's still get a lot of discrimination here.  There are places in Canada where its better than others, but overall people are still pretty discriminatory.  The justice system usually does a good job protecting their rights, but stuff like this still happens.

Trump never really struck me as a bigot though, so maybe he'll get the organization to reverse their decision. :)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 27, 2012, 12:05:25 am
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/12/03/27/0039213/murdoch-faces-allegations-of-sabotage

So. The man behind the curtains of conservative world politics on 3 continents... That almost sounds like I am paranoid...

Ok, Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch conspires to collapse his competitors through rampant piracy hacking and fraud... That almost sounds like I am paranoid...

Stuff is going down. That is all.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on March 27, 2012, 12:34:44 am
Went and found a petition for that, Truean. (http://www.change.org/petitions/miss-universe-canada-donald-trump-reverse-the-unfair-disqualification-of-jenna-talackova) It's apparently not even in the rules!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Neonivek on March 27, 2012, 12:59:08 am
Quote
A lot of counter arguments, while directly attacking the argument rather than the person making it, leave subtle hints that "anyone who actually believes this garbage is an idiot." Most commonly seen with sarcasm and satire. This, to me, is no better than direct ad hominem

It is one of the reasons why most of the logical Falacies are not as clear cut as they seem. Since there are situations where they make logical sense.

As well "If you actually believe this you are stupid" isn't "no better" it isn't even related. Ad Hominem's fallacy is that it never deals with the arguement dirrectly but rather the person who is making it (assuming the person themselves are not part of the arguement. For example it is fair game to attack someone's qualifications if they are making an arguement on the basis of those qualifications and blaw blaw blaw).

What your refering to is I think more closely related to "poisoning the well". You are already telling the audiance that what they are hearing is stupid.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 27, 2012, 04:53:07 pm
Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on March 27, 2012, 12:34:44 am
Went and found a petition for that, Truean. (http://www.change.org/petitions/miss-universe-canada-donald-trump-reverse-the-unfair-disqualification-of-jenna-talackova) It's apparently not even in the rules!

[sigh] Thank you, at least some people seem to care.  It's just, I've seen things like this repeatedly. It's just sort of a question no one will answer directly, which answers it indirectly with "never." The question is, "when can you just be a normal woman as a transsexual?" Are you just marked forever as different and not good enough/never able to just exist as anything approaching "normal."

http://news.yahoo.com/congress-approves-startup-focused-jobs-act-154503076.html

This doesn't help "startups." What this does, is help existing, fairly large businesses, "$50 million in shares before having to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission." This is not a "startup" level of business.

All of this doublespeak, doesn't help solve the real purported problem.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/george-zimmerman-lawyer-abruptly-cancels-interview-lawrence-o-150530798.html

Huh?

This whole thing stopped being about justice and started being about a media frenzy a long time ago. The real problem is Florida's "Stand your Ground," law, which should probably be changed. That law makes it hard or impossible to arrest someone in this situation. The thing he could've done, is plead for people not to try this case in the media.

Instead of that, everyone's past is being brought out for the enjoyment of the viewing public on details that have nothing to do whatsoever with it. We're completely getting away from what happened that night and we're going necessarily back further for no other reason than a desperate grasp at ratings, because we've fired all the decent writers and reality shows are a little played out....

I have no idea what happened that night. It doesn't look good and maybe he did shoot the kid without a valid self defense defense. I don't know, but I'm willing to bet focusing on the kid's past school disciplinary record or the guy's past bad acts, doesn't tell us anything useful to determining what happened that night.

The problem here, is a law that is, no matter what it was intended to be, a license to kill. <--- This is the problem and it needs addressed. Has there been a serious effort to have the law repealed or reexamined? If there has been, then it hasn't been getting nearly as much media face time as the soap opera this is quickly becoming, tragically in the name of "Justice."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 27, 2012, 08:57:20 pm
I know this isn't really that new but

Oct 2011 - Under New GOP Law, Florida Teacher Faces Huge Fines For The Crime Of Registering Students To Vote (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/10/25/352081/under-new-gop-law-florida-teacher-faces-huge-fines-for-the-crime-of-registering-students-to-vote/)

What? They want to make it harder to vote, and make it a criminal offense to encourage people to register?

Quote
The teacher who heads up New Smyrna Beach High School’s student government association could face thousands of dollars in fines. Her transgression? Helping students register to vote.
Prepping 17-year-olds for the privileges and responsibilities of voting in a democracy is nothing new for civics teachers, but when Jill Cicciarelli organized a drive at the start of the school year to get students pre-registered, she ran afoul of Florida’s new and controversial election law.
Among other things, the new rules require that third parties who sign up new voters register with the state and that they submit applications within 48 hours. The law also reduces the time for early voting from 14 days to eight and requires voters who want to give a new address at the polls to use a provisional ballot.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 27, 2012, 11:49:48 pm
Quote from: Reelya on March 27, 2012, 08:57:20 pm
I know this isn't really that new but

Oct 2011 - Under New GOP Law, Florida Teacher Faces Huge Fines For The Crime Of Registering Students To Vote (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/10/25/352081/under-new-gop-law-florida-teacher-faces-huge-fines-for-the-crime-of-registering-students-to-vote/)

What? They want to make it harder to vote, and make it a criminal offense to encourage people to register?

Quote
The teacher who heads up New Smyrna Beach High School’s student government association could face thousands of dollars in fines. Her transgression? Helping students register to vote.
Prepping 17-year-olds for the privileges and responsibilities of voting in a democracy is nothing new for civics teachers, but when Jill Cicciarelli organized a drive at the start of the school year to get students pre-registered, she ran afoul of Florida’s new and controversial election law.
Among other things, the new rules require that third parties who sign up new voters register with the state and that they submit applications within 48 hours. The law also reduces the time for early voting from 14 days to eight and requires voters who want to give a new address at the polls to use a provisional ballot.

We used to call that "civics class."

Florida, no civics class and yes license to shoot to kill...? :(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 28, 2012, 12:07:48 am
Quote from: Truean on March 27, 2012, 11:49:48 pm
Florida, no civics class and yes license to shoot to kill....

Is it wrong that I am actually getting annoyed that someone in Mr. Palau's thread is saying Trayvon and Zimmerman are both to blame?

It might just because he keeps using the phrase 'full retard', and I've spent some amount of time working with special needs people.  Either way, it's pretty dumb, since he seems to be relying on the misinformation (http://www.streetwisepundit.com/wrong-trayvon-martin-photo-on-facebook.html) spread by Stormfront to form his conclusions, and despite being shown that, he's yet to concede on that argument.

Edit:  Nevermind, he just explained that he doesn't know or care about what he's talking about, that's good enough for me.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 28, 2012, 12:37:38 am
Quote from: Capntastic on March 28, 2012, 12:07:48 am
Quote from: Truean on March 27, 2012, 11:49:48 pm
Florida, no civics class and yes license to shoot to kill....

Is it wrong that I am actually getting annoyed that someone in Mr. Palau's thread is saying Trayvon and Zimmerman are both to blame?

It might just because he keeps using the phrase 'full retard', and I've spent some amount of time working with special needs people.  Either way, it's pretty dumb, since he seems to be relying on the misinformation (http://www.streetwisepundit.com/wrong-trayvon-martin-photo-on-facebook.html) spread by Stormfront to form his conclusions, and despite being shown that, he's yet to concede on that argument.

I learned a while ago that you can never let online stuff get to you.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
Except this applies to real life quite a bit too unfortunately. People are never taught HOW (that is in what form or procedure) to think as opposed to WHAT to think (what conclusions you reach). Thus, the pictures of the wrong Trayvon Martin spreading like wildfire. Nobody even knows how to fact check. Then add to that derogatory language being the norm for kids and even as they grow into adults, and you've got a perfect storm of unnoticed, institutionalized, sometimes unintentional, prejudice. This is why I find it hard to play online games as it seems the only adjective kids know is "gay;" it's treated like a curse word you don't get in trouble for saying.

That said, many people will never agree with you no matter how much you prove your case or how much you disprove theirs. They have preconceived notions and favor anything that bolsters them while trying to discredit anything that tears them down. Asking people to be reasonable in real life or on the internet is often tilting at windmills at some point in time, someone necessarily has to determine what is and is not acceptable.

In the end, the following we know: a.) The guy should've listened to the police dispatch and not pursued the kid, b.) Kid may or may not have contributed to a bad situation, c.) regardless of any contribution or lack thereof by kid to bad situation, guy shot kid in the damn chest, fatally, d.) Kid had no weapons (though conceivably guy could argue bulges in pockets.... I don't know) and finally e.) guy vastly outweighed kid.

In any event, don't let stuff get to you. It also bothers me when people use "gay," "retarded," or similar words as adjectives but I pick my battles. Feel free to try and rationally change people's minds but know that more often than not, it's gonna be difficult and sometimes impossible.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on March 28, 2012, 12:45:30 am
Capntastic, I'm sorry if I offended you. I just don't take discussions on the internet very seriously, and you shouldn't take what I say very seriously. Some of the information I got was in fact from a Chan, but not 4chan, and I thought the information they provided seemed likely enough. Also blame the "full retard" thing on robert downey jr, he's the one that ingrained it into my brain.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on March 28, 2012, 01:00:20 am
I'm not offended, Kilroy, I just think that if you're going to pose an argument or try to tell people they're getting too worked up over something, you should make a proper case with like, evidence or reasoning.  You have to admit that "I don't care, but y'all're too mad about this" is sort of asking to have people take issue, when it's a pretty important thing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 28, 2012, 01:19:14 am
Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on March 28, 2012, 12:45:30 am
Capntastic, I'm sorry if I offended you. I just don't take discussions on the internet very seriously, and you shouldn't take what I say very seriously. Some of the information I got was in fact from a Chan, but not 4chan, and I thought the information they provided seemed likely enough. Also blame the "full retard" thing on robert downey jr, he's the one that ingrained it into my brain.

Quote
from a Chan, but not 4chan

There's your trouble. I commend your honesty though.

Even if there were some decent stuff there, so much shit is mixed in that it's impossible to filter fact from fiction. As for the Chan/4Chan distinction, you're talking about the difference between the internet's hate machine toilet and the bathroom floor tiles right around the internet's hate machine toilet. Neither passes the smell test and I'm not swallowing anything from either.... Anything from those places should be thoroughly researched before being relied upon.

That said, we shouldn't mention the chans and especially not 4chan for two reasons. 1.) Information there is hard to factually verify. 2.) I really, really don't feel it's worth it to piss them off because they hate being talked about and we don't need them deciding it'd be fun to trollololol us. No good can come from this.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 28, 2012, 06:55:03 pm
Sorry for the double post but this warrants it:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/scalia-mocks-health-care-law-cornhusker-kickback-provision-205148292.html

Highlights: Health care law debate~
1.) Scalia is the champion of texualism. He has written several books on it.

2.) He threatens to strike down a portion of the law that was never passed into law.

3.) Then he says the court shouldn't have to read the bill before it in order to decide its constitutionality....

If you don't feel like reading the bill you're supposed to determine is constitutional or not, then retire. Do your job in the way you, yourself, have stated your job should be done, or let someone else do it.

Whether you love or hate this law, no one has read it. The Congress didn't read it when they passed it; the president didn't read it when he signed it; the Supreme Court isn't reading it in the court case about it. How the hell is this possible? How is it that the people passing, enforcing, and interpreting the law just don't read it?

How can pretty much everyone in the government approve sweeping legislation they don't even understand?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 28, 2012, 07:01:29 pm
Some constituents: Pass the healthcare bill! I don't care what it actually says, it's got to be better than what we got!
Other constituents: Don't you dare pass the healthcare bill! I don't care what it actually says either, it's evil and rewarding laziness or something!
Politicians themselves: I don't care at all! It doesn't line my pockets in any way!



May or may not be a gross oversimplification.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 28, 2012, 07:08:15 pm
And the infinite "Why the hell are we paying these people to not do what we're paying them to do?" question raises its ugly head.

I mean... shit, yeah, 2.7k pages of legalese is a bit of a bitch. It'd probably take a couple weeks of actual 9-5 to go through and analyze appropriately, though I'm almost certainly leaning towards overestimate there -- people ostensibly trained for legal work should probably be able to go through that a lot faster. But... yeah. That's what they're getting paid to do, in both power and money. Own up politibastards! Do your job!

Gods fuck, seriously, something like that coming out of the mouth of one of our preeminent social figures is just freaking infuriating. That's the shit that comes spewing forth from spineless undergrads that aren't going to pass the final, not people that's supposed to be running this country.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 28, 2012, 09:17:22 pm
Actually I think that's modernity for you in general. How many in the Pentagon understand the technical aspects of the technological systems they're implementing? They might have a vague idea, but most of the details are understood by engineers (and one engineer probably only fully understands his little corner).

Obviously, if providing health care has become so complex in America that you need 2700 pages of document for just an update, then it's probably beyond any one person to know all the details. Maybe the bill contains too much detail, and there should have been legislation that provides just a framework which regulations can fill in, but I don't know if that itself would have been viable, does anyone know?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 29, 2012, 01:10:48 pm
Frankly, when you're talking about health care for about 310,000,000 people (probably more) I'd say 2,700 pages is on the light side of things.... It's all about how its organized.

This is something that needs a dedicated person whose full time job and profession it is to is handle this. Maybe it's an accountant, or a lawyer, or who knows, but someone.... We have people responsible for nuclear reactors, this can't be beyond the scope of human comprehension. You can delegate and subdivide duties all you want, but at some point, somebody has to be there running the show or else you've got a headless monster who rather than actively wrecking things, is just sitting around being ineffective.

The parts of a car are immensely complex (don't think so? Try to design your own transmission from scratch starting with nothing), but we have lead engineers responsible for the whole car who delegated out those tasks. We also have mechanics who have a working knowledge of the system. This isn't impossible, it just takes a lot of work (and yes that costs and should cost money).

That said, nobody is really understanding what they're doing, and that's the problem, or worse yet, they do understand what they're doing:
_______________________________________________
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-goads-congress-end-subsidies-large-oil-companies-153416100.html

Why the heck are my tax dollars paying for oil companies? Even a part of the oil companies? These damn companies are enormous and generating record, obscene profits. Why the heck are we subsizing them at all. We're going to cut vital social programs, but clearly we need to prop up the oil companies...?

And you know why these tax subsidies aren't being repealed? Because the oil companies are lining the pockets of congress.... So they "donate" campaign funds which quite frankly are bribes, but Scalia thinks they're "free speech." Then they get way more in tax cuts than they ever spent on buying politicians. What a business model....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 29, 2012, 01:37:33 pm
Hell yeah, if anyone but a politician openly took cash from an external party to alter how they did their job, you KNOW what they'd call that.

What would they say if some external party (other than your client / employer of course) was offering you cash to conduct a case differently than you should? Or if I offered a police officer cash in exchange for doing his job differently?

Pharmaceutical companies get away with it a little with doctors, but they have to make it at least a little plausible, supplies, equipment etc. Not outright cash in the pocket for prescribing the right drug, not openly at leas.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 29, 2012, 02:46:13 pm
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/4-gas-no-justification-high-prices-says-fmr-160209651.html

And frankly he's right. $4.00/gallon gas has absolutely nothing at all to do with supply and demand, whatsoever. If it reaches $5.00/gallon gas, then that's even worse with less justification.

This is a prime example of the free market failing miserably. It is also a prime example of globalization failing miserably.

The problem here is that the US is powerless to do jack because it isn't just happening in the US, oil speculation happens all over the world. I think UK's is called "ICE" commodities exchange. Japan does it, so do a lot of other places. Hypothetically, if the US just somehow ended oil speculation on its own, then it wouldn't matter. Other countries would continue to do it. Without a global accord vigilantly enforced to make sure NO ONE speculates on oil, this can't possibly amount to anything.

Every time any rumor or news story or anything at all, real or imagined, happens, or is hallucinated to have happened, comes around... the price of oil goes up? Based on what? Hearsay, conjecture, and basically bullshit. The US is currently Exporting tons of gasoline, and supply stocks are through the roof. Why the hell are prices so high? Because, people are greedy....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 29, 2012, 03:10:05 pm
Market speculation in general is what is steadily killing the Western world. People have figured out the best way to game the market, and to hell with everyone else.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 29, 2012, 10:36:11 pm
Quote from: RedKing on March 29, 2012, 03:10:05 pm
Market speculation in general is what is steadily killing the Western world. People have figured out the best way to game the market, and to hell with everyone else.

Tragically yes.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/carl-pavano-targeted-extortion-plot-153750085.html

This is yet another reason having gays be taboo doesn't work. My sister tried this on me once, tried....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 29, 2012, 10:58:25 pm
Haha, one of the comments made me chuckle.

Quote
Guilty or not guilty, he still had sex with Alyssa Milano and we didn't.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on March 30, 2012, 12:18:29 am
Your rage-inducing news for today:
A 68 year old man with heart problems accidentally triggers his medical alert system. Instead of medical professionals, a squad of armed police show up at his door.  The police proceed to mock him while demanding entry, break his door down, taze him, and shoot him dead without even demanding he put his hands up.

...And of course the elderly man was black, so there has been fairly little local outcry.

(Summary of the story) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/nyregion/fatal-shooting-of-ex-marine-by-white-plains-police-raises-questions.html
(Interview with the dead man's son, goes into more detail about the multiple recordings of the event (from the alert system and built-in cameras on the tazers)) http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/29/killed_at_home_white_plains_ny
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 30, 2012, 07:01:41 am
And people act all shocked when I say I have zero sympathy left for cops.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on March 30, 2012, 07:12:45 am
Quote from: EveryZig on March 30, 2012, 12:18:29 am
Your rage-inducing news for today:
A 68 year old man with heart problems accidentally triggers his medical alert system. Instead of medical professionals, a squad of armed police show up at his door.  The police proceed to mock him while demanding entry, break his door down, taze him, and shoot him dead without even demanding he put his hands up.

...And of course the elderly man was black, so there has been fairly little local outcry.

(Summary of the story) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/nyregion/fatal-shooting-of-ex-marine-by-white-plains-police-raises-questions.html
(Interview with the dead man's son, goes into more detail about the multiple recordings of the event (from the alert system and built-in cameras on the tazers)) http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/29/killed_at_home_white_plains_ny

I still can't wrap my head around this. It's too ridiculous.

Also, did not know that there were cameras in tazers. You learn something new every day.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 30, 2012, 07:39:48 am
This is *why* there are cameras in tazers.

This deal in White Plains is pretty fucked up. Already not feeling too much love for cops in NY after they gunned down an off-duty ATF agent who was subduing a would-be pharmacy robber. That one, I can sort of understand what happened, but still....think first, shoot second, motherfuckers.

EDIT:
Quote from: Truean on March 29, 2012, 10:36:11 pm
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/carl-pavano-targeted-extortion-plot-153750085.html

This is yet another reason having gays be taboo doesn't work. My sister tried this on me once, tried....

For once, Yahoo comments are actually restoring my faith in humanity.  :o
90% of the comments are "who the hell cares?"
The other 10% are relatively innocuous jokes like "Hey, this could be handy in the playoffs. Now we know he can switch hit."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on March 30, 2012, 07:49:54 am
...What the FUCK.

"I need help!"
"Alright, it's on the way."

And then... they send the police to shoot and kill him? Fuck, I'm never signing up for one of those medical alert programs. I'll carry a damn phone with me all the time.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Darvi on March 30, 2012, 07:51:14 am
Well... he doesn't need help now does he?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 30, 2012, 07:54:29 am
After all the stories I've seen I'm fairly resolved to never call the police or anyone who might in turn call the police. They seem to have this knack for being able to only make situations worse instead of better.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on March 30, 2012, 10:36:46 am
sad
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 30, 2012, 06:19:38 pm
So it seems we have a separate thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=106034.0) for our Santorum slur shenanigans. I guess keep that stuff there for ease of communication.

Anyways, it seems like Apple might be doing something (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/30/uk-apple-foxconn-idUSLNE82T00B20120330) about the human rights violations in its factories in China?

Quote
Taiwan's Foxconn Technology Group, whose subsidiary Hon Hai Precision Industry assembles Apple devices in factories in China, will hire tens of thousands of new workers, eliminate illegal overtime, improve safety protocols and upgrade workers' housing and other amenities.

It is a response to one of the largest investigations ever conducted of a U.S. company's operations outside of America. Apple (AAPL.O) had agreed to the probe by the independent Fair Labor Association FLA.L to stem a crescendo of criticism that its products were built on the backs of mistreated Chinese workers.

The association, in disclosing its findings from a survey of three Foxconn plants and over 35,000 workers, said it had unearthed multiple violations of labour law, including extreme hours and unpaid overtime.

This quote makes me angry:
Quote
Still, labour costs are a fraction of the total cost of most high-tech devices, so consumers might not see higher prices.

Why has this not been done before? And why haven't consumers demanded it? I can understand the line of thought (however horrible) that thinks paying an extra 10% for your products is not worth it for better working conditions in China, but if this isn't going to affect the consumer then why don't more consumers seem to care?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: sluissa on March 30, 2012, 11:50:01 pm
Furthermore, will this investigation go beyond foxconn? What about the sources of the parts that foxconn uses to assemble the products? As it is, part manufacturers go to great lengths to get apple contracts, simply because it looks good on their company resume, trying desperately to push down costs, occasionally making only marginal profits simply to have the prestige of being one of apple's suppliers. You know employees are going to be feeling some of these cost cutting measures.

What about other companies' factories?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 02, 2012, 02:30:17 pm
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0402/Supreme-Court-approves-strip-searches-for-minor-offenses

And once again, in a 5-4 majority right down party lines, the conservatives have taken away yet another of your rights.... 

"Prospective travelers are routinely forced to undergo the technological equivalent of a strip search as a condition of undertaking a journey by commercial aircraft." <---- You see this? This is what people don't understand about why I get worried about this crap. It isn't a "slippery slope" logical fallacy. This is how people who make decisions think. They do "one little thing," and then that just opens the door from there to whatever. The argument goes "if they can technologically strip search everyone at the airport without reasonable suspicion, then certainly they can do that to a jail inmate no matter how minor the crime."

Here, the guy was pulled over in a routine traffic stop and they brought him in for a warrant for civil contempt. Basically he didn't pay a court fine years ago. This lead to him being strip searched as part of the arrest. No violence suspected, no drugs either:

We used to be a free country.... Now, we're just a frightened one. Thank you GOP; not paying a small court fine now means 6 days in jail and two strip searches in front of other inmates and I'm not joking in the slightest. The liberals on the court think this is a problem; the conservatives do not....

I don't get it. It's sad
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 02, 2012, 02:41:47 pm
Hopefully some of the conservative judges will retire before Obama's second term is over. I'm surprised Scalia is still on the court, actually. He's really old (76) and doesn't look that healthy at all.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on April 02, 2012, 02:53:40 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 02, 2012, 02:30:17 pm
"Prospective travelers are routinely forced to undergo the technological equivalent of a strip search as a condition of undertaking a journey by commercial aircraft." <---- You see this? This is what people don't understand about why I get worried about this crap. It isn't a "slippery slope" logical fallacy. This is how people who make decisions think. They do "one little thing," and then that just opens the door from there to whatever. The argument goes "if they can technologically strip search everyone at the airport without reasonable suspicion, then certainly they can do that to a jail inmate no matter how minor the crime."
I really wish that the slippery slope went both ways sometimes.

"Proposition 8 wants to ban gay marriage in California! Just think, maybe they'll try and get rid of all marriage with their next proposition!"

But no, it's always a constant threat of things getting worse.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 02, 2012, 03:24:47 pm
Yeah, reading through that article... it was actually a bit worse than True summarized, as the guy did pay the court fines in question; the only reason he had a warrant out for 'im was a clerical error. Someone fucked up their filing, person got stripped twice, at least once in front of detainees. Fellow files lawsuit, SCOTUS says "Oh well, too bad. Safety, you know?"

It's two separate issues (Bad filing, plainface 4th amendment violation Now writ down as constitutional, ahahaha), but damn. Just... damn. The trend continues.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on April 02, 2012, 03:32:07 pm
Hey True, is it possible to sue the system for needless harm and incompetence?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on April 02, 2012, 03:36:04 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 02, 2012, 02:30:17 pm

We used to be a free country.... Now, we're just a frightened one. Thank you GOP; not paying a small court fine now means 6 days in jail and two strip searches in front of other inmates and I'm not joking in the slightest. The liberals on the court think this is a problem; the conservatives do not....

At least we're not Britain. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9179087/Internet-activity-to-be-monitored-under-new-laws.html)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: trees on April 02, 2012, 03:43:16 pm
I guess that someone tried to bomb a Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/bomb-explodes-planned-parenthood-wisconsin-small-fire-damages-exam-room-article-1.1054461) yesterday. No injuries, thankfully.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 02, 2012, 03:59:31 pm
Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on April 02, 2012, 03:36:04 pm
At least we're not Britain. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9179087/Internet-activity-to-be-monitored-under-new-laws.html)
Basically the exact same bill was whacked down last time it was tried in 2006, and the government wasn't in a coalition and there was more public panic about terrorism.  I don't see how it can pass considering what good political points the other parties would get for standing against it.  Not to mention it's a huge vote loser in an (admittedly not too important) election year...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Virex on April 02, 2012, 04:11:20 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on March 25, 2012, 10:39:56 am
Can we go back to the start of this argument for a second? MSH mentioned drones as well. That seems to me a even bigger deal then this jammer thing. I mean. Should a citizen be able to control a remote control killing/Spying device?


Wouldn't an armed drone fall under the second amendment?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on April 02, 2012, 04:12:29 pm
Quote from: Virex on April 02, 2012, 04:11:20 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on March 25, 2012, 10:39:56 am
Can we go back to the start of this argument for a second? MSH mentioned drones as well. That seems to me a even bigger deal then this jammer thing. I mean. Should a citizen be able to control a remote control killing/Spying device?


Wouldn't an armed drone fall under the second amendment?

I think there's a bit of a difference between owning a gun, and owning a robot with a gun.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on April 02, 2012, 04:31:23 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 02, 2012, 03:59:31 pm
Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on April 02, 2012, 03:36:04 pm
At least we're not Britain. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9179087/Internet-activity-to-be-monitored-under-new-laws.html)
Basically the exact same bill was whacked down last time it was tried in 2006, and the government wasn't in a coalition and there was more public panic about terrorism.  I don't see how it can pass considering what good political points the other parties would get for standing against it.  Not to mention it's a huge vote loser in an (admittedly not too important) election year...
It's probably going to be more interesting than that.

From what I've seen (and internal Tory politics is about as interesting as internal Republican politics; only when they are eating their own young) Dave and George are getting isolated at the top. George Osborn has been acting as both the Chancellor and head of Conservative political strategy. By all accounts he has sucked at it. His budget was simply stupid from a political point of view. Freezing pensioners tax allowance (instantly known as the Granny Tax (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17472829)) while cutting the top tax rate? Political suicide, even if the rest of the budget made more sense than it did. Then there is the NHS fiasco (they genuinely said - fortunately only once - that they wanted to use the US as a model...) which frankly should claim Lansley's head for being both the worst NHS reform bill I've seen (and that's saying something) and handled in the least politically competent manner possible. They don't have many tame Lib Dems left in the cabinet after David Laws got expelled. Other than Nick it's essentially just Vince Cable, and he isn't likely to offer much cover for much of anything. Maybe Danny Alexander can be used, but he isn't the most useful of fall guys either.

And now they are picking on the one issue both parties have shown opposition to when Labour tried to do it. You already have David Davis on the Tory side speaking out against it, and this is a man well seated to move back towards a leadership role as soon as one opens up. Which should be soon. I haven't heard a single Lib Dem speak in support of the idea, although most seem to be in wait and see mode. Right now the only group who seem to be in support of the idea are old Labour ministers.

And now they want to put this grossly unpopular idea that both sides of the coalition are on record as opposing into the Queens Speech. A speech that is followed by a major, extended debate (usually one of the few that news channels actually bother keeping an eye on) and then a guaranteed vote of confidence in the government.

I don't see how on earth this idea was even voiced. I simply can't believe that a bill with any sort of teeth will get put into the Speech (probably just a vague proposal). I also can't believe that anything not massively watered down would be passed. At best they could push something through resting on Labour support, but then Labour could easily defeat it just to hurt the government. And that's a black mark against Theresa May, one of Dave's loyalists.

So yeah, horrible idea. But could be entertaining to watch it make Dave squirm.

As for elections, yeah, not a big deal. Only councils and Mayoral left. I doubt the council elections would be decided over this sort of issue (people may vote to punish parties, but there are much more provincial reasons that they could give for punishing the coalition here). In the Mayoral... well, that's a hot mess anyway. Ken trying to play George Galloway's cards without being blatant about it (seriously, George basically said real Muslims vote for me (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/01/nick-cohen-george-galloway-livingstone) while Ken is just making references to rich Jews and previously backed a candidate who had been expelled from his own party for combined election fraud and financial links to an extremist Islamist group) while Boris is, well, Boris.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Levi on April 03, 2012, 10:30:50 am
Quote from: Truean on March 26, 2012, 07:25:29 pm
http://shine.yahoo.com/beauty/miss-universe-canada-disqualifies-transsexual-contestant-she-born-192000420.html

Awww. I'm not really getting the rationale behind any of this.  Also don't read the comments. I made that mistake. I was kind of of the impression that you couldn't do this sort of thing in Canada? No? I mean I sorta thought GLBT people were more protected there than here. I remember watching a documentary about women's downhill bike racing that tried to exclude a transgender woman (MtF transsexual), and for whatever reason, they didn't disqualify her.

Whatever else you wanna say, you've sorta gotta (or should at least) give her credit for getting as far as she did. Being a national beauty pageant contestant is a hell of a thing, and not easy. I'm not saying being in a pageant is some sorta awe inspiring thing, because if the last few Miss America winners are any indication, they can say some pretty nutty things. I'm just saying, that's a heck of a long road to go from being a transgendered kid to a contestant in a beauty pageant.

I dunno, when if ever could someone just be considered a normal girl in that situation? That's kinda that goal....

http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Transsexual+allowed+compete+Miss+Universe+Canada/6400095/story.html

She was un-disqualified.  :)  Nice to see a happy ending to one of these stories for once.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 03, 2012, 11:54:55 am
Quote from: Levi on April 03, 2012, 10:30:50 am
Quote from: Truean on March 26, 2012, 07:25:29 pm
http://shine.yahoo.com/beauty/miss-universe-canada-disqualifies-transsexual-contestant-she-born-192000420.html

Awww. I'm not really getting the rationale behind any of this.  Also don't read the comments. I made that mistake. I was kind of of the impression that you couldn't do this sort of thing in Canada? No? I mean I sorta thought GLBT people were more protected there than here. I remember watching a documentary about women's downhill bike racing that tried to exclude a transgender woman (MtF transsexual), and for whatever reason, they didn't disqualify her.

Whatever else you wanna say, you've sorta gotta (or should at least) give her credit for getting as far as she did. Being a national beauty pageant contestant is a hell of a thing, and not easy. I'm not saying being in a pageant is some sorta awe inspiring thing, because if the last few Miss America winners are any indication, they can say some pretty nutty things. I'm just saying, that's a heck of a long road to go from being a transgendered kid to a contestant in a beauty pageant.

I dunno, when if ever could someone just be considered a normal girl in that situation? That's kinda that goal....

http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Transsexual+allowed+compete+Miss+Universe+Canada/6400095/story.html

She was un-disqualified.  :)  Nice to see a happy ending to one of these stories for once.

[Hugs] Thank you for finding that. :) Really.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 03, 2012, 08:25:35 pm
http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/arizona-bill-could-criminalize-internet-trolling-184547052.html

It's clearly an election year, because Arizona is pretending to know what it's doing again while ignoring the real problems. Or do they do that all the time? Not sure.

Sad.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 03, 2012, 08:27:46 pm
Arizona is so politically divergent that if I had to pick a candidate for "first secession from the Union" it would be them, if not for the fact that Arizona is rather lacking in domestic resources.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 03, 2012, 08:30:03 pm
Maybe they all have heat stroke.



In serious, people have a right to be douchebags. No one has to like them for it, but so long as it doesn't constitute harassment, punishing people for "mean words" is ridiculous.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on April 03, 2012, 08:32:48 pm
Does this mean the trolls win?

Atleast against Arizona?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 03, 2012, 08:33:50 pm
Quote from: JoshuaFH on April 03, 2012, 08:32:48 pm
Does this mean the trolls win?

Atleast against Arizona?

I think so actually.... :(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 03, 2012, 08:34:08 pm
All I know is that Anon will have a field day when this law gets to them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 03, 2012, 08:50:01 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/gay-student-sues-ohio-school-district-over-t-201525784.html

Boy wears shirt saying "Jesus isn't a homophobe" to school and isn't allowed because of its "sexual nature". He/his mother are suing for violation of his right to free speech. They are asking for the right to wear the shirt and unspecified damages. There are also a few thousand horribly homophobic asshat comments.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 03, 2012, 08:53:09 pm
Because referencing heterosexuality is standard fare and referencing homosexuality is always perverted.

Excuse me while I try to ascertain the level of eye-rolling this requires.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 03, 2012, 09:01:53 pm
Yay Ohio, we're not nice at all.... :(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 03, 2012, 09:33:01 pm
Since when do kids have free speech?


Sit down and shut up is the usual response to violations of free speech for students.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: alway on April 04, 2012, 05:49:12 am
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/04/11013517-30-people-pepper-sprayed-at-santa-monica-college-course-fees-protest
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 04, 2012, 08:12:43 am
Quote from: alway on April 04, 2012, 05:49:12 am
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/04/11013517-30-people-pepper-sprayed-at-santa-monica-college-course-fees-protest

"What are you kids so upset about? We're just starting a trial program with tuition at 4x the current rate. First it'll run alongside the current program, but then we all know if we can charge four times as much for the same shit we give you now we will. The state cut our funding. What's your problem with making tuition four times as expensive. We've been explaining this to you for four hours and you're not understanding us...."

What's to fucking understand? 4x tuition cost for an education in a system that gets you no job and tons of debt. Of course I guess you don't "have" to go to school.... Then you still won't have a job and people will yell at you to go to school and get a job.....

So basically we can tax college kids (which is what this amounts to) but of course not the rich.... Taxes on college kids are great and they'll pay it through loans so their taxes will be taxed with interest to investors. It'll take them at least 10 years to pay off if they get a job. It's entirely possible it might take them 20 or 30 years to pay off at an extended payment plan. YAY.......

Really? Really people? This is ok? What he hell? Let's say your landlord just raised your rent to four times what it was before. $800/month. Screw you, now it's $3,200/month.... You wouldn't be the least bit upset? O you could move somewhere else or just not live there? Yeah, except you've been there for years and it's your home and you're sorta invested in the area etc....  Just wow. I know it's not a perfect analogy, but it's about the best you're gonna get.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 04, 2012, 09:40:11 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on April 03, 2012, 09:33:01 pm
Since when do kids have free speech?


Sit down and shut up is the usual response to violations of free speech for students.

Usual and wrong.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 04, 2012, 11:12:34 am
Well yeah, kids should probably come up with a reason why free speech should not be violated rather than telling whoever does it to shut up.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 04, 2012, 11:53:04 am
"The constitution says so" and "Essential freedom" aren't good enough for you?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 04, 2012, 11:54:41 am
Pretty sure Leafsnail is saying they need to be using real pro-free speech arguments instead of just getting angry, not that the young shouldn't have free speech.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on April 04, 2012, 12:09:32 pm
Pretty sure kaijyuu was being snarky and implying that the adult response to kids complaining of free speech violations is to tell them to sit down and shut up.

EDIT: The typical kid response isn't "Sit down and shut up", it's "Nuh-uh! You're not the boss of me!"  :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 04, 2012, 12:11:06 pm
It was a joke based on the fact that kaijyuu's phrasing implies it's the kids telling the adults to shut up and sit down.  I know what he means.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 04, 2012, 01:31:35 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/same-sex-marriage-amendment-ohio_n_1400714.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Round Two.... Preparations.

We'll probably lose again, but the jerks in this state come out again and reaffirm their bigotry. Shall ye be remembered as even bigger bigots when the history books cast down the truth? This is playing out just like interracial marriage, which used to be taboo.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nilik on April 04, 2012, 08:01:54 pm
This thread has become a lot less calm and cool than the title suggests.  :(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 04, 2012, 08:06:36 pm
We're friggin' CALM!

:D



Sorry if my phrasing was wacky. I did indeed mean that the adults were telling kids to sit down and shut up.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 04, 2012, 08:12:12 pm
I can't see anything uncalm about where the thread is at the moment.  "Cool" is ambiguous but providing you mean the version that's basically the same as calm (as opposed to fashionable or awesome or low temperature) I don't see the problem with that either.  I mean, noone's insulting anyone else or getting particularly emotional (other than the calm, relaxed progressive rage that is this threads lifeblood of course).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 04, 2012, 08:14:18 pm
Electronic surveillance is growing in Europe and the US :-(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 04, 2012, 09:33:52 pm
Foreclosure wave two, and after this there will be a third wave:
http://news.yahoo.com/americans-brace-next-foreclosure-wave-210253440.html

"The subprime stuff is long gone," said Michael Redman, founder of 4closurefraud.org. "Now the folks being affected are hardworking, everyday Americans struggling because of the economy."

"Principal reduction involves reducing the amount borrowers owe in order to make a loan modification affordable for struggling homeowners. Republicans and the FHFA oppose principal reduction because of the risk of "moral hazard"- that homeowners who do not need help will seek to abuse largesse and have their mortgages reduced too."

So, given that there WILL NECESSARILY be reductions in the principle because you just aren't getting the money and can't make it appear out of thin air/squeeze blood from a stone, why not reduce the principle beforehand and let people keep their houses? I'm getting sick of looking at vacant houses dragging down property values, attracting copper pipe thieves, and basically having people tossed out on their ear. Heck the City of Cleveland is spending a small fortune demolishing foreclosed homes.... Huh? We're gonna ... tear down houses... rather than let people live in them...? All of this on the taxpayer's dime and not the bank's of course. Though recently, they've been going after the people being foreclosed upon for the demolition costs, or trying to. Yeah.... The demolition costs alone are HUGE and nobody seems to be paying for it.

That said, why not just let the people keep their houses and pay what they can for right now? Seems to me it beats having them in the gutter, having the city pay to demo the house when it rots for two or three years, having property values dive from vacant homes, and let's say ... it has less fat ... for the hell of it. Seems everyone else throws in that last one for some reason lately. :):P

All in all, I'd rather have a sensible solution though.... Really. :(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 04, 2012, 09:37:36 pm
Quote
You know, doing foreclosure defense work, I heard a lot of bullshit about "people borrowing more than they could afford," etc, etc, etc. It's a lovely way to let us engage in our favorite pastime: complaining about others while implicitly glorifying ourselves.
It's also a lovely way for banks to shift the blame of this whole mess. Particularily since they were the ones giving those loans in the first place, and encouraging people to take larger ones.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 04, 2012, 09:39:49 pm
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on April 04, 2012, 09:37:36 pm
Quote
You know, doing foreclosure defense work, I heard a lot of bullshit about "people borrowing more than they could afford," etc, etc, etc. It's a lovely way to let us engage in our favorite pastime: complaining about others while implicitly glorifying ourselves.
It's also a lovely way for banks to shift the blame of this whole mess. Particularily since they were the ones giving those loans in the first place, and encouraging people to take larger ones.

Yups, cause the lenders work on commission. If the loan is for 100,000 and your commission is 3%, then you make $3000 as a loan officer. If it's for 300,000, then you get $9000! :D :D Figure that one out....

Absolutely NONE of the billions this government has tossed into the raging inferno of bad banking practices had touched any of john does' losses. Instead? These bilions went to shore up the bonuses and earnings of the very people that caused all of this. America will never be the same.

Moral Hazard: Bankers screwing up the whole system and getting bonuses for it.... ??? :) Lenders who get a bigger commission for convincing you to take out a larger loan, knowing you can't afford it. I think these qualify. But, I'll let you [looks at reader cheekily] decide.
______________________________________________________
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/washington-boy-9-writes-apology-girl-shot-221940033--abc-news-topstories.html

This is why we have a juvenile justice system. Though really, I'm glad they're prosecuting the parents on this one. This is why there are trigger locks and gun safes.... Just sad.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 05, 2012, 01:07:36 pm
http://www.uproxx.com/technology/2012/04/google-would-like-to-introduce-you-to-project-glass-the-eyewear-of-the-future/

....

Every once in a while there is something so smart it becomes stupid. Kinda like how if you drive your car enough the odometer will flip back over to 0 and "reset" or "roll over."

Government: "How do we get everyone to wear a camera so we can arrest them for anything they do?"
Google: "O we can help with that. We'll just make it 'cool'...."

[head desk]
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: sluissa on April 05, 2012, 01:42:36 pm
Ideally it will only record when you tell it to. I don't really see this as any different than what smart phones already do. Yeah, it's somewhat easy to accidentally record your actions/location/whatever with those already and this would make it even more convenient for you to do something silly, if you're careful, then it's really not any worse than what we're already dealing with.

It's not the technology so much that makes it bad, although the companies make it way too easy to do bad things with them. It's just that people need a lesson in what exactly is private information. If social networking has taught us one thing, it's that people tend to be blabber mouths, they want to talk about everything and anything and if you give them an outlet that even presumably is being listened to, then they'll tell everything.

Yeah, it can be kinda scary how much of ourselves we're putting out there, but honestly, this... sort of thing, at least... is what I've been dreaming of for years. Personally, I was hoping for a terminal prompt and a (virtual?*) keyboard, but the times they are a changing in this touch screen world.

*Yeah, I wanted to be one of those idiots that would stand there staring off into space typing on absolutely nothing. To me, at least, it seems a lot less silly than talking to yourself. "Tell me how to get to George's deli." and people looking at you funny when they think you're asking them out of nowhere. Even when they've been around for years now, bluetooth headsets still seem a bit odd and confusing if someone walks by talking and I'm not sure who they're talking to.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Levi on April 05, 2012, 01:48:01 pm
I'll rig up my glasses to self destruct.  :D

I think people will just have to start learning how to protect their privacy.  Governments are demanding more abilities to get this data and there isn't a lot we can do about it, so the only real thing we can do to fight back is adapt or die.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on April 05, 2012, 01:48:27 pm
Quote from: sluissa on April 05, 2012, 01:42:36 pm
Ideally it will only record when you tell it to. I don't really see this as any different than what smart phones already do. Yeah, it's somewhat easy to accidentally record your actions/location/whatever with those already and this would make it even more convenient for you to do something silly, if you're careful, then it's really not any worse than what we're already dealing with.

It's not the technology so much that makes it bad, although the companies make it way too easy to do bad things with them. It's just that people need a lesson in what exactly is private information. If social networking has taught us one thing, it's that people tend to be blabber mouths, they want to talk about everything and anything and if you give them an outlet that even presumably is being listened to, then they'll tell everything.

Yeah, it can be kinda scary how much of ourselves we're putting out there, but honestly, this... sort of thing, at least... is what I've been dreaming of for years. Personally, I was hoping for a terminal prompt and a (virtual?*) keyboard, but the times they are a changing in this touch screen world.

*Yeah, I wanted to be one of those idiots that would stand there staring off into space typing on absolutely nothing. To me, at least, it seems a lot less silly than talking to yourself. "Tell me how to get to George's deli." and people looking at you funny when they think you're asking them out of nowhere. Even when they've been around for years now, bluetooth headsets still seem a bit odd and confusing if someone walks by talking and I'm not sure who they're talking to.
This. It's not like these glasses (or the contact lenses the article theorizes in a hilariously paranoid manner) are mandatory, always-on, or surgically implanted. Doing something you don't want accidentally recorded? Take them off, shut them down, and do whatever you're gonna do.

ETA: Or you could just, I don't know, not buy them, Levi. If you don't want a computer that looks like a bad sci-fi prop, don't get it. Simple.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Levi on April 05, 2012, 01:51:01 pm
Quote from: Sirus on April 05, 2012, 01:48:27 pm
ETA: Or you could just, I don't know, not buy them, Levi. If you don't want a computer that looks like a bad sci-fi prop, don't get it. Simple.

Except that I DO want them.   :P  Just got to be careful about what software is enabled and such. 
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 05, 2012, 01:54:08 pm
http://www.ehow.com/how_4716707_prevent-webcam-being-hacked.html

Except now it's on your face.... :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 05, 2012, 01:56:37 pm
Jokes on you, my webcam is taped over when it isn't being used.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 05, 2012, 02:05:22 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 05, 2012, 01:56:37 pm
Jokes on you, my webcam is taped over when it isn't being used.

Here, the joke and the tape would literally be on you. :)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Pnx on April 05, 2012, 02:23:09 pm
This kind of thing is why webcameras have a light that switches on when they're being used.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: alway on April 05, 2012, 02:28:37 pm
EA gives homophobes the what-for. (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/04/05/ea-responds-to-hate-campaign-from-homophobes/)
Aside from EA's response, RPS does quite a humorous piece.
Quote
[snip]... the publisher has confirmed they’ve been on the receiving end of “several thousand” emails and letters protesting the inclusion of LGBT characters and relationship options. Because it’s 1950. Of course EA have, in slightly more polite terms, told these dismal hatemongers to fuck the fuck off.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 05, 2012, 02:30:08 pm
I'm... not seeing the problem with the google glasses here. In my life, I'd have had more opportunities to make use of this sort of thing in my defense than the number of times it worked against me. Talk about good supporting evidence for the alibi "I was home alone that night not doing anything". And, of course, to record the actions of police officers and others abusing power.

Even if it was always on/instant upload sort of thing, where I could never disable it or erase my trail... yeah, I could only see that to me being less likely to end up in jail. Obviously that's not true for the sort of people who, you know, commit crimes instead of tending to be the victims of crimes that go unprosecuted...

But don't you think justice for Trayvon Martin would have been more likely if we'd somehow gotten footage of his final moments? And hell, if he knew he was being recorded, Zimmerman might have thought twice about killing him, and he might still be alive.

As is, what with it being easy to /take it off/, I see this, like cellphone cameras, being far more likely to empower the common man than to harm him.

Not a great accessory for criminals though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: G-Flex on April 05, 2012, 02:39:27 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 05, 2012, 02:30:08 pm
Even if it was always on/instant upload sort of thing, where I could never disable it or erase my trail... yeah, I could only see that to me being less likely to end up in jail. Obviously that's not true for the sort of people who, you know, commit crimes instead of tending to be the victims of crimes that go unprosecuted...

Wonderful, the old "it's okay if the cops can get a warrant to see anything you've ever done, as long as you have nothing to hide" defense.

Works fine as long as long as you're never accused of a crime you haven't committed, or accused of some really minor crime. I don't know if I'd want the police to go through 24/7 footage of my entire life in order to find evidence that I, I don't know, smoked weed or some other ridiculous little thing.

If you want it to actually be empowering, then give the user the unrestricted ability to record, stop recording, and erase recordings at will, without it ever being transmitted to anyone else.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 05, 2012, 02:44:02 pm
Quote from: G-Flex on April 05, 2012, 02:39:27 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 05, 2012, 02:30:08 pm
Even if it was always on/instant upload sort of thing, where I could never disable it or erase my trail... yeah, I could only see that to me being less likely to end up in jail. Obviously that's not true for the sort of people who, you know, commit crimes instead of tending to be the victims of crimes that go unprosecuted...

Wonderful, the old "it's okay if the cops can get a warrant to see anything you've ever done, as long as you have nothing to hide" defense.

Works fine as long as long as you're never accused of a crime you haven't committed, or accused of some really minor crime. I don't know if I'd want the police to go through 24/7 footage of my entire life in order to find evidence that I, I don't know, smoked weed or some other ridiculous little thing.

If you want it to actually be empowering, then give the user the unrestricted ability to record, stop recording, and erase recordings at will, without it ever being transmitted to anyone else.

^^
This. Destruction of privacy ahoy.... Same thing if you're framed or set up. O you were at [place].... It can be abused.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 05, 2012, 03:38:12 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/fed-judge-denying-same-sex-benefits-discriminates-140459242.html

A federal judge in san fransisco ruled that denial of insurance rights to same sex married couples is discriminatory. If the anti-gay marriage folk keep up the fight, it could land in the supreme court and the 1996 defense of marriage act could be revoked...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 05, 2012, 04:12:47 pm
Quote
Wonderful, the old "it's okay if the cops can get a warrant to see anything you've ever done, as long as you have nothing to hide" defense.

No, it's "The cops can get a warrant to see everything you've ever done (in person, while wearing this device), and in return you can record everything they do to you (in person, while wearing this device). Also, by the way, volunteering in this program and accepting this tradeoff is completely optional."

I would hope the law would be applied in such a way that warrants could only cover those timespans in which a crime is already suspected to have been committed. It is possible, you know. Fishing trips, in general, are not allowed. (Not that this stops some individuals and organizations, of course...)

Quote
It can be abused.
Everything can be abused. There are benefits and drawbacks. Personally, the benefits would outweigh the drawbacks for myself. And everything I've seen indicates your requirements already exist!

Though I should note that while having the ability to not send, and to erase local copies, would be nice, it is worth far less to me, personally, than having the ability to quickly remotely store these recordings in a way that can't be easily deleted.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 05, 2012, 04:24:54 pm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=food-poisonings-hidden-legacy
#

I liked my properly regulating FDA and miss it terribly.
We all knew the meat could get you but the freaking cantaloupe ?
O no guys, watch out, we better make sure this....... cantaloupe.... isn't dangerous...... I can't even say it with a straight face. What happened to make vegitables dangerous? People never used to get sick off cantaloupe, or spinach. Who isn't doing what that they used to and how do we get them to do it again?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on April 05, 2012, 04:34:20 pm
After watching the video for those glasses, I hate them. I hate how annoyingly hipster the guy was, I hate the "ironic" 70's scfi look, I hate how stupidly over-reliant he was on it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 05, 2012, 04:38:56 pm
So you're trying to argue they're going to make these commonplace AND illegal in the way you describe? (always recording, illegal to record stuff) Despite the fact that mandated police recording (by cruisers and taser cams and stuff like that) seems to be even more popular?

Man, you live in an even harsher dystopia than me, don't you...

Or, you know, I could think those sort of laws about recording police are (and I have plenty of establishment support here in a ton of places) completely fucking stupid?

Anyways, yeah, turning it off for only that time could seem suspicious, but that's why we have defense attorney's. Lots of innocent people do lots of "suspicious" (according to the police) things, which is why they end up in court, and then the defense can show why its not really suspicious after all.

I'm sorry, I'm just not getting anything terrible out of what you're saying.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 05, 2012, 04:46:55 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 05, 2012, 04:24:54 pm
Alright, let's try something.... You're accused of a crime, arrested for it, etc. Let's pretend you're wearing one of these things, and that the police request the video from the relevant timeframe. You reply honestly, that, you didn't have it recording at the time in question.

The police then:
A.) Accuse you of lying and destroying the video file, trying to draw a negative inference against you for it.
B.) Accuse you of knowingly turning off your camera to commit the crime, "Now why would you suddenly turn off your camera for exactly the time it took you... o... o excuse me.... 'someone'... to commit this crime...?"
This seems extremely unlikely.  I'm not sure I want to live my life constantly terrified of the slight possibility that the police are going to frame me and use ridiculous non-evidence against me in court.  In any case, these things don't autorecord, and if they did, it'd be far more likely that you'd still have the video file of the timeframe in which you supposedly did the crime.

I mean, the situation you've described is bad, but you can come up with a crazy "worst case scenario" for anything.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 05, 2012, 04:48:52 pm
And is pretty much super-made-up for by the fact that HAVING the recording on when the crime committed is PRETTY SOLID evidence you didn't do it, while NOT having it on is at best circumstantial.

Unless of course you're stupid enough to have committed the crime while recording it, in which case, well...

You were probably gonna end up in jail sooner or later anyways... :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 05, 2012, 04:59:38 pm
sad really
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 05, 2012, 05:03:34 pm
People have also been convinced on the unverified words of a cop and absolutely nothing else.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 05, 2012, 05:04:44 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 05, 2012, 05:03:34 pm
People have also been convinced on the unverified words of a cop and absolutely nothing else.

"The officer detected the scent of marijuana." :).....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 05, 2012, 05:10:58 pm
You realize the current prison population has jack-shit to do with what we're discussing?

I know bad laws exist. I know they still have (terrible) effects on real people. I'm not an idiot. I know circumstantial evidence can get a person convicted (but not, hopefully, without more than one piece of it. In which case the defense fucked up their job, the jury fucked up their duty, and the prosecutors... well, good job, guys.). A legal case is always, to a certain degree, playing the odds with 12 people you never met and whether or not events have conspired to make you look worse (or better) than you deserve.

But I don't think bad laws existing is reason to say "we shouldn't do this other thing that does more harm than good."
I think bad laws existing indicates "We need to fix fucked up laws."

So, tell me, Truean - You have a client come in, who wears one of these, recording 24/7.

The police have accused him of a certain crime at a certain time in a certain place.

You have access to this recording that shows he wasn't even there.

Is this, in your mind, a bad thing? Is this... no helpful to you for some reason? Is this evidence in some way weaker than it appears?

You seem to be a victim, here and in other situations, of always being able to see what could go wrong, which I'm sure is useful in your line of work, but you seem to have difficulty in seeing what could go right. Do you honestly think there is no benefit a person could gain on a legal front (both as a defense, and in convicting those who committed a crime against them) to these items? Is it inconceivable that for at least some portion of the population, those benefits might be more likely than the negatives, and more valuable, and thus worth it?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on April 05, 2012, 05:14:50 pm
Truean, right now you're just a couple steps above "frothing-mouth tinfoil-wearing homeless man" paranoid on my scale. This is not a good thing, and pulling a worst-case scenario out of something that is barely even a prototype, is in no way mandatory, and has the same functions as the smart phone in my pocket does not an argument make.

Shit, I can pull worst-case scenarios out of eating bran flakes for breakfast. Doesn't stop me from eating them, and it doesn't mean that I should freak out about them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 05, 2012, 05:19:19 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 05, 2012, 04:59:38 pm
Respectfully to you both, this sorta shit happens. Basically everyone says, "O that'll never happen to me." And it doesn't happen to a lot of people, but it happens to enough of them. Seriously, why do you think we have procedures for dealing with all kinds of bad stuff? Cause it happens. We have an entire prosthesis industry for people who were never going to lose a limb.... Insurance, hospitals, psychiatric wards. Most people don't have to deal with it, but enough of them do.... Just because it probably won't happen to you, if you're lucky, doesn't mean it won't happen.
Quote from: Truean on April 05, 2012, 04:59:38 pm
You do realize most evidence is circumstantial right? That doesn't mean you can't get convicted on it. Lots of people have been convicted by circumstantial evidence. Scientific proof isn't required, not by a long shot.
Well uh... yeah?  It will happen to a tiny minority of people.  But if the risk is "creating circumstantial evidence" then there is literally no way to avoid that.  Because absolutely EVERYTHING you do could be "circumstantial evidence" that you did a crime you have no idea about.  I don't see how the extremely unlikely camera scenario is any more likely to be circumstantial evidence against you than, say, getting up and going to work (and happening to pass a crime scene on the way).

I mean, I feel you could make a similar argument why you shouldn't own a car/ knife/ rope/ hammer/ toaster because that could be circumstantial evidence that you ran over/ stabbed/ strangled/ beat/ electrocuted someone to death.

Quote from: Truean on April 05, 2012, 04:59:38 pm
Law of averages says it WILL happen. This is also not a worst case scenario. Come one come all into 1984....
I don't think law of averages says anything of the sort, considering the number of things that would have to line up for something that unlikely to happen (buy the camera + set the camera to record all the time + randomly decide to turn the camera off before the crime and turn it on again after the crime + police hate you and there happens to be a crime they can pin on you + prosecution doesn't understand how evidence works + jury hate you and the extremely flimsy camera evidence is what seals the case).

Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 05, 2012, 05:10:58 pm
Do you honestly think there is no benefit a person could gain on a legal front (both as a defense, and in convicting those who committed a crime against them) to these items?
Funny you should say this - I have a friend who was mugged while wearing a head mounted camera.  Apparently the muggers didn't notice, and now all 4 of them are behind bars.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 05, 2012, 05:23:48 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 05, 2012, 05:10:58 pm
So, tell me, Truean - You have a client come in, who wears one of these, recording 24/7.

The police have accused him of a certain crime at a certain time in a certain place.

You have access to this recording that shows he wasn't even there.

Is this, in your mind, a bad thing? Is this... no helpful to you for some reason? Is this evidence in some way weaker than it appears?
You are aware that evidence can be declared inadmissible and it's very existence kept from the jurors, correct?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on April 05, 2012, 05:30:20 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 05, 2012, 05:23:48 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 05, 2012, 05:10:58 pm
So, tell me, Truean - You have a client come in, who wears one of these, recording 24/7.

The police have accused him of a certain crime at a certain time in a certain place.

You have access to this recording that shows he wasn't even there.

Is this, in your mind, a bad thing? Is this... no helpful to you for some reason? Is this evidence in some way weaker than it appears?
You are aware that evidence can be declared inadmissible and it's very existence kept from the jurors, correct?
(http://cdn.gunaxin.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/paranoid1.jpg)

Why is it that every "progressive" thread I ever see invariably turns into a "omg guvmint out to GET me" thread? You're freaking out about a HEAD-MOUNTED iPHONE, people! Surely there's a charity running or something you can link to instead?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 05, 2012, 05:35:26 pm
huh?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 05, 2012, 05:41:36 pm
MSH - Yes, yes I am. Do you have a point here?

Or should we all just bow down and lick the boots of law enforcement, because after all, any evidence supporting us will be thrown out and any circumstantial evidence found will be enough to convict us. No escaping it, might as well just give in, right?

In which case the whole eyewear thing just becomes a retarded distraction anyway.

So, yes,
Quote
evidence can be declared inadmissible and it's very existence kept from the jurors
but there actually needs to be a reason beyond "it proves my client isn't guilty" or the judge isn't going to do it. And if the judge WOULD, well - you're going to jail whether or not you had a camera at that point.

Truean, I don't know what's up with you - but your managing to not only completely mischaracterize your opposition, but also rip up your own goalposts and run them to the other side of the field. Your arguing against strawmen as if you're trying to score points of some sort, no matter how relevant it is to the conversation.

We are not your clients.

We do not believe (or at least I don't) that bad things won't happen to me.

This does not stop me from going on the occasional car ride, because literally everything you do in life has risks, and sometimes those risks are worth it. No matter how much I value my limbs, skin, and life.

And arming the populace with recording devices, devices over which they themselves have control? History has shown that has a whole fuckload of positives that make the risks more than worth it - not just for the individuals, but for society as a whole. And you've failed to actually attempt to argue that your whole risk issue is even relevant in this case - to do that, you wouldn't have to show the "bad" is possible, but more likely than the "good" (though the degree of bad and good can certainly factor in if you think they are likely to be different).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 05, 2012, 05:57:45 pm
odd
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 05, 2012, 06:45:11 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 05, 2012, 05:41:36 pm
MSH - Yes, yes I am. Do you have a point here?

Or should we all just bow down and lick the boots of law enforcement, because after all, any evidence supporting us will be thrown out and any circumstantial evidence found will be enough to convict us. No escaping it, might as well just give in, right?

My point is to let as few of your activities as possible be documented, and more importantly to stay the hell away from cops.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 05, 2012, 08:30:19 pm
The issue I have is that it's a really small risk and also that you aren't really avoiding it by not buying the camera.  I mean, you can apply the logic to anything...

- Don't buy a car.  Someone could say that they saw a car that fits your cars description near a crimescene.  This would be circumstantial evidence against you.
- Don't buy a knife.  A murder could be committed with a knife similar to yours.  If they found your knife that would be circumstantial evidence against you, especially if you happened to have washed the knife recently.
- Don't buy a rope.  A murder could be performed by strangling near you with a similar kind of rope.  This would be circumstantial evidence against you, especially if you happened to have used that rope recently.
- Don't buy a hammer.  A murder could be performed with a similar brand to the one you use.  This would be circumstantial evidence against you.
- Don't buy a toaster.  If someone is killed by having a toaster dropped in their bath and you happen to have also dropped your toaster in water recently (without killing anyone) then this would be circumstantial evidence against you.
- Don't buy clothes.  Someone may describe someone at a crimescene who happens to be wearing similar clothes to you.  This would be circumstantial evidence against you.

It's just... you can construct a situation where any object can mildly incriminate you.  I don't see why your scenario is any more likely than the ones above (and I also think some of the scenarios above provide "stronger" circumstantial evidence than your case), and therefore I don't think the slight chance of something incriminating you under really unlikely circumstances is grounds to not obtain an object.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 05, 2012, 08:42:02 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

interesting video
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on April 05, 2012, 08:44:34 pm
The difference being that...

-Other people can own a car.
-Other people own knives.
-Other people have rope.
-Other people have hammers.
-Other people have toasters.
-Most people h ave clothes.

...whereas only you can have a video from your face that most likely can be traced back to the source, considering that the video appears to both be stored on a server and the glasses track your location. Also that you'll most likely be partially visible in the video. (Limbs, looking at mirrors, etc.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 05, 2012, 08:49:19 pm
Honestly, the thing that possibly bugs me more about the eye-camera thing is being recorded, especially if I'm not in an overtly public place or somethin', especially without consent or knowledge.

Though I guess as long as I can sue or something if someone knocks on my door with one of those things running I wouldn't complain... much. It's still a bit of one of those "Stay the fook out of my life" things, though. I don't mind fallible human memory as much as I do video recordings or pictures.

Still, knowing that some random frakker with no particular reason to do so could be recording me for whatever giggles they get out of it is... kind of annoying, really. I can give a bit on vested interest (security cameras, commercial or for home use), but just as a shits'n'giggles thing... ehn. That tweaks me a bit, it does.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: G-Flex on April 05, 2012, 08:52:52 pm
Quote from: Frumple on April 05, 2012, 08:49:19 pm
Honestly, the thing that possibly bugs me more about the eye-camera thing is being recorded, especially if I'm not in an overtly public place or somethin', especially without consent or knowledge.

This is actually illegal in plenty of places, at least in some ways, and definitely if it involves a conversation being recorded.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 05, 2012, 08:54:19 pm
Welll.....If you're in a public place you don't have an expectation of privacy, and in that case two-party consent laws about recording don't apply.

Not that the cops much care about that, but regardless.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 05, 2012, 08:57:39 pm
I've seen that video.  And I really don't see how it relates.  Wearing the camera doesn't magically force you to talk to police.  I guess there's a ridiculously small chance that if you constantly record everything (note that's not practical or something the product expects or requires you to do) you will somehow slightly incriminate yourself in spite of being innocent.  Ok.  But I don't think that chance is greater than the other chances I mentioned or worse ultimately.

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on April 05, 2012, 08:44:34 pm
...whereas only you can have a video from your face that most likely can be traced back to the source, considering that the video appears to both be stored on a server and the glasses track your location. Also that you'll most likely be partially visible in the video. (Limbs, looking at mirrors, etc.)
I was talking about Truean's "what if you turn it off during a crime" idea, but equally anything the camera records will be circumstantial evidence assuming you're not actually a criminal.  I'm not sure why "other people own those things" is relevant at all (let's say you're the only person in your area with that kind of car).

If you want a more direct example, how about "never meet up with anyone because they may provide you with an alibi that actually ends up incriminating you"?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: G-Flex on April 05, 2012, 08:58:26 pm
The supreme court has made at least one good decision (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57364153-281/why-supreme-courts-gps-ruling-will-improve-your-privacy-rights/) regarding one's expectation of privacy in public in the digital age.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: fqllve on April 05, 2012, 09:11:29 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 05, 2012, 08:57:39 pm
I've seen that video.  And I really don't see how it relates.  Wearing the camera doesn't magically force you to talk to police.  I guess there's a ridiculously small chance that if you constantly record everything (note that's not practical or something the product expects or requires you to do) you will somehow slightly incriminate yourself in spite of being innocent.  Ok.  But I don't think that chance is greater than the other chances I mentioned or worse ultimately.
Because if you're foolish enough to talk to the police, believing yourself to be completely innocent, and there are discrepancies between your statement and the video records the police have, which there most certainly will be, then the police will jump on that. And frankly, the last thing you want is to give the police ammunition because it seems like many of them have the attitude of arrest 'em and let the courts sort 'em out.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 05, 2012, 09:18:21 pm
...Except the camera doesn't force you to talk to police.  I'm not arguing about talking to the police being bad (although I think it's only bad due to horrible evidence being accepted in court).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 05, 2012, 09:24:06 pm
It does mean, though, that if you do talk in, say, court, that the discrepancies will capitalized on -- even if they're innocent. Having an absolute reference to measure your fallible memory against in a situation where any discrepancies may be enough to sink you is... undesirable. Regardless as to if you did or did not do anything. Think that's the major point trying to be made, here. That video records are more likely to do damage to you than not.

Honestly, it doesn't even have to be a situation involving you, specifically. You could be testifying about something else.

E: Really, what I'd say about all this is it's going to be facebook et al taken even more into the public sphere. That shit is a plainclothes trap -- albeit one with a certain degree of functionality outside of it -- and on the fly self-recording is just the next step up. Only now it can shove itself into other peoples lives without their consent :-\

I will say that now I'm probably going to have to look more carefully into what exactly counts as "in public." If there's going to be folks walking around randomly taping shit m'gonna' need to be more careful about that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Euld on April 06, 2012, 01:06:29 am
Sex offenders cannot play (http://gamasutra.com/view/news/168102/Sony_Microsoft_remove_sex_offenders_from_online_games_ACLU_questions_effectiveness.php) online multiplayer games in New York anymore.  Do we seriously need to start running petitions to protect our sex offenders from our own justice system?!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 06, 2012, 01:07:22 am
Just give them all the death penalty already. It's what everybody wants.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on April 06, 2012, 01:10:41 am
Quote from: Euld on April 06, 2012, 01:06:29 am
Sex offenders cannot play (http://gamasutra.com/view/news/168102/Sony_Microsoft_remove_sex_offenders_from_online_games_ACLU_questions_effectiveness.php) online multiplayer games in New York anymore.  Do we seriously need to start running petitions to protect our sex offenders from our own justice system?!
How do you think some of them become sex offenders in the first place?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Euld on April 06, 2012, 01:23:54 am
From either molesting someone they knew in their neighborhood, peeing in public, or impregnating their seventeen year old girlfriend after they turned eighteen.

Online games operate behind a strong wall of anonymity to protect everyone from each other.  In order for a sex offender to find a victim, they'd have to breach that wall somehow (probably in a guild) and manage to travel huge distances to find that person.  Chances of a sex offender finding an impressionable youth online within a short driving distance are pretty slim.

The idea that a sex offender cannot even play an online game in a controlled, anonymous environment is abhorrent, absurdly stupid, and absurdly cruel.  We already subject sex offenders to a lifetime of torment and exile from normal life, now we're taking away their right to freaken' entertain themselves.  The sex offender system is absolutely out of control and is ruining two lives for every rape instead of reconciling one while rehabilitating the other.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on April 06, 2012, 01:33:18 am
What the hell?

Quote from: Sirus on April 06, 2012, 01:10:41 am
How do you think some of them become sex offenders in the first place?
In the case of one of my friends who has since moved away, someone text him naked pictures of their underage self (they were both 15) and his phone was confiscated shortly for unrelated reasons. Because the phone wasn't locked (search and seizure laws.), the teacher could flip it open, just not press any buttons. The new text hadn't been read, so it was visible. Cue immediate sex offender status.

It's far from a perfect system.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 06, 2012, 01:58:16 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on April 06, 2012, 01:07:22 am
Just give them all the death penalty already. It's what everybody wants.
We should use concentration camps for that. They already carry badges around and have to announce to everyone their sex offender status. Not to mention being forced to live in the worst places in cities, in some cases that being under a bridge.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on April 06, 2012, 02:03:06 am
Ok, did no-one see the word "some"? I'll bold it next time, so people can see and comprehend it.

Of course not everyone in online gaming is a sexual predator, and not everyone gets on the list because of online gaming. But it is a risk.

Quote
In order for a sex offender to find a victim, they'd have to breach that wall somehow (probably in a guild)
You'd be surprised how open some people can be about their age, gender, etc. It's a stupid thing to do, but there's a reason the acronym "asl" exists, and that's because people will respond, truthfully in many cases.

Quote
and manage to travel huge distances to find that person.
I remember a story in which a pastor drove 200 miles, packing condoms, to meet an underage girl he met online (the girl was thankfully a police decoy). Long distances aren't a deterrent to everyone, and the distances aren't even that large sometimes. The larger the online community, the more likely you are to find someone nearby. And again, some people are stupid about online privacy and safety.

Quote
We already subject sex offenders to a lifetime of torment and exile from normal life, now we're taking away their right to freaken' entertain themselves.
They can entertain themselves with single-player games. Besides, I don't have much sympathy for people who take molest children or grope strangers without their consent.
Now, the ones who are falsely accused or whatever, they're a different story. It's the way I'd feel about anyone falsely accused of a crime. But honestly, if you're wrongfully labeled a sex offender, not being able to play WoW should be the least of your worries.

Quote
The sex offender system is absolutely out of control and is ruining two lives for every rape instead of reconciling one while rehabilitating the other.
Clarify? Aside from the trauma the victim suffers (which, by the way, would be the same no matter how fair and great the justice system is), who's life is getting ruined? The rapist, should he/she get caught, richly deserves a ruined life in my opinion.

@B TSG: To put it bluntly, your friend and his girlfriend(?) were idiots. No, assuming the story is factual, he does not deserve sex offender status, especially since both parties were minors. And no, it's not a perfect system. I've never tried to claim that, and in fact have repeatedly stated the exact opposite at various times and in various threads.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 06, 2012, 02:09:52 am
I think the logical disconnect here is you believe vengeance to be acceptable, and not only that, preferable to rehabilitation.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on April 06, 2012, 02:16:27 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on April 06, 2012, 02:09:52 am
I think the logical disconnect here is you believe vengeance to be acceptable, and not only that, preferable to rehabilitation.
Show me some statistics that rehabilitation succeeds, and I might change my viewpoint. You can't cure someone of being gay, so I'm not sure how you'd cure someone of an unhealthy domination fetish or pedophilia, but hey, surprise me.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 06, 2012, 02:23:13 am
Rehabilitation != curing. Any drug addict that has kicked the habit can tell you that.


Rehabilitation is getting a dangerous member of society to be able to live in society again without trouble. I don't think I need to prove to you that that is possible. How to do it effectively, though... that's something that can be argued for days. And in my opinion, our current methods are far from effective; they're more about punishment than prevention.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on April 06, 2012, 02:27:32 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on April 06, 2012, 01:07:22 am
Just give them all the death penalty already. It's what everybody wants.
(http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/280x280/9832066.jpg)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on April 06, 2012, 02:39:25 am
I don't think drug users and sex offenders are comparable. Most people (yes, there are some who genuinely do not) have a sex drive and something that turns them on. Unlike drugs, sex drives are perfectly natural and very hard to change. If some sick dude gets off on rape - the real thing, not a certain pornographic subtype - I'm not sure how much rehabilitation is gonna help. Thus my homosexual example.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 06, 2012, 03:00:42 am
Quote
If some sick dude gets off on rape - the real thing, not a certain pornographic subtype - I'm not sure how much rehabilitation is gonna help.
Help with what?

If the dude's rehabilitated, that means he's not a repeat offender. So... what's the problem, at that point?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on April 06, 2012, 03:12:38 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on April 06, 2012, 03:00:42 am
Quote
If some sick dude gets off on rape - the real thing, not a certain pornographic subtype - I'm not sure how much rehabilitation is gonna help.
Help with what?

If the dude's rehabilitated, that means he's not a repeat offender. So... what's the problem, at that point?
A dude who gets rehabilitated can screw up, especially since he's still gonna be attracted to the same things as before. If he can stay rehabilitated, good for him. Maybe implement a new law in which he can be dropped from the list after a certain number of years, and get back to a mostly normal life. On the other hand, if he falls off the wagon, that's at least one more rape victim.

I think we're working at opposite ends here. I don't like rapists, sex offenders, whatever. If there were a way, with a decent success rate, to rehabilitate them to the point that they wouldn't commit those crimes anymore, I'd vote for higher taxes to pay for those services. At this point however, I'm not sure how you could reliably tell which offenders were sorry and wanted to (and had the will to) change, and which wouldn't simply do something horrible all over again.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 06, 2012, 03:21:59 am
Well if we can rehabilitate some than it's certainly worth the effort, no?


And as for reliably determining who will fall back into old habits or not... well to answer that we'd have to jump into how we rehabilitate in the first place, which I said a few posts back could be debated all day. If ya wanna jump into that, sure, let's rumble.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on April 06, 2012, 03:29:35 am
Yeah, no thanks. (thankfully?) I'm not up on modern rehabilitation techniques; my only personal experience with the matter is my dad, who got treated for alcoholism when I was much younger. All I remember of the process is him being gone for a couple of weeks, and him going to AA meetings for a while. It stuck, and he remains sober to this day, but I know that he's one of the lucky ones.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: PhantomSpaceMan on April 06, 2012, 03:43:48 am
I'm just casually waltzing into this thread to say this: if you can get on the sex offender registry for pissing in public, or mooning someone, or doing any number of silly and sexual things as a young adolescent, than the practice of admitting someone to the sex offender registry is in dire need of reform.

As for reforming sexual deviants, such as pedophiles and rape fetishists, I recall reading somewhere(citation needed) that a link between pedophilia and feelings of inferiority and inability to socialize with peers. So pedophilia can be the result of a dysfunctional upbringing, in my opinion, not something you're born into and can be treated with therapy, for example. The sex offender registry should be reserved for individuals who have committed rape or have otherwise sexually assaulted someone, as they are very likely to re-offend.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 06, 2012, 04:08:30 am
If we can determine that they're very likely to re-offend, I must ask what they're doing outside of a mental facility.

If they're not likely to re-offend, I must ask why all the surveillance/restrictions/forced confessions/etc are necessary.



And yeah it's all sorts of fucked up right now, as evidenced by what started this thread: banning them from online social games. I think there's laws against them joining chat rooms, too.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Mech#4 on April 06, 2012, 04:20:01 am
Hnn, I don't know whether I should get involved in all this, but I'm going to anyway.

From my view, we tend to seperate people who are criminals, sexual or theft type, from the rest of the population as if they are completly different people. From this view it follows that we should be able to preempt crimes as those who perform them were going to anyway.

Ugh, this is why I'm kind of loathe to comment, it's difficult to express my views accurately through text.

Plowing on. I'll use the example of surveillence cameras. These were implemented to curtail crimes, catching people when they're performed as well as keeping watch over an area to discourage crime. As far as I can tell this hasn't had as great an impact on crime prevention as people thought, and I would hazard a guess that this is because they're generally ignored. Due to that, more people are caught after the crime, but the prevention of crime in the first place is not something they stop.
From that, the logical path would be to keep tabs on everyone so they can perceive crime before it's even perpetrated. That is a less than feasable or desirable action, because everyone is now a suspect.

If you read the above, then I might say that my view is that there's not much you can do to prevent crime with police or like, other than deal with it when it occurs. Now, don't follow the train of thought that I'm suggesting that then we shouldn't do anything, because I've had that happen before, and it's a rather unfair dismissal.
Now, I would suggest that the rise in crime is due to the increase in population. (a larger population means that there's a greater percentage of people who would perform crime, but that isn't specific people. Factors might contribute it, but it's down to the individual person to decide). This increase in population has meant that there is less of a community amongst neighbours. This drop in community would mean that there'd be less self policing, if that makes sense. If people know each other, than they can evaluate peoples personalities and judge those who are likely to do such things before they do.

It's difficult to foster a community over an entire city, thus we tend to see such closeknit communities in small villages, or in direct neighbours in a street. There is a lot of distrust protrayed over the news and media that makes people paranoid about going out and talking to each other, this would contribute quite heavily to the loss of community. People don't talk because they are suspicious of those they don't know.

Blah blah blah, has that all made sense? I hope people aren't going to judge me completely on a few sentences of musing.  :P

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 06, 2012, 04:39:44 am
Made sense to me! :D


As for crime:population, actually, cities have a lower crime rate per captia than rural areas. So, you're more likely to become a criminal by growing up in a small community than a large one. The reason cities are seen as full of crime is simply the volume of people; while any individual is less likely to commit a crime, you've got a much larger number of people in the same area (thus more criminals total).

It's hard to determine why. There are like a billion factors. For crimes motivated by desperation (IE stealing food), cities have more things like homeless shelters to deter the need. For crimes more... recreational in nature (drugs/etc), it's probably because cities simply have more things for people to entertain themselves with.

For sexual crimes, it actually has a much larger correlation with sexual repression than anything else. Someone can probably find better statistics than this, but you can go here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate) and sort by rape. Basically, the more open the culture is about sexual related things, the less likely people are to commit sexual crimes.  So, if it's "roots" of the problem we're after, that should probably be the first thing to focus on: more openness about sex.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on April 06, 2012, 08:36:57 am
Conservative Christian groups engaging in organized campaign against anti-bullying laws (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/05/anti-bullying-laws-christian-religious-freedom_n_1406757.html?ref=topbar) under the pretext of religious freedom. You know, because Jesus said "Love thy neighbor, unless he's gay, in which case thou shouldst totally beat up on that f*g."  ::)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on April 06, 2012, 10:34:29 am
Huh. I wonder how they're planning on spinning "Let the children be punched!" as they usually do. Normally they're all shouting, "protect the children!", but now they're doubling back. Bunch of weirdos, I say.

Quote from: A Christian Hard Rock Band
"They told these kids that anyone who was gay was going to die at the age of 42,"
Wha.... I don't even...?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Twi on April 06, 2012, 10:36:06 am
Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on April 06, 2012, 10:34:29 am
Quote from: A Christian Hard Rock Band
"They told these kids that anyone who was gay was going to die at the age of 42,"
Wha.... I don't even...?
I don't.
What.
Huh.
Who.
Why.
....
Okay seriously, how does that even make sense? How is that even supposed to make any sense?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: sluissa on April 06, 2012, 10:38:03 am
It's just one of those things they throw out there to scare kids. "If you make faces it'll stick that way."  "If you masturbate you'll go blind." "If you're gay you'll die when you're 42."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Shinotsa on April 06, 2012, 10:47:23 am
Being gay is the answer to life, the universe, and everything? Damnit, I'm doing it wrong.

On a serious note, they were probably referencing a statistic on the life expectancy of a subset of the homosexual population that was largely infected with HIV. At least that's my guess if they have ANY credibility behind their statements. Granted it's assuming a little much to think they'll have sources for such nonsense.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on April 06, 2012, 10:54:38 am
It's very simple. The number of the Beast is 666=(6+6+6)=18. The life expectancy of an American male is 78. Subtract the number of the Beast from that lifespan TWICE (because teh gay is just that evil) and you wind up with 42.

God has clearly spelled all this out through the holy texts of a man who was munching psychotropic mushrooms two millenia ago. WHY WONT YOU BELIEVE??!?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 06, 2012, 10:55:31 am
Quote from: RedKing on April 06, 2012, 10:54:38 am
WHY WONT YOU BELIEVE??!?
My tinfoil hat protects me from your mind control rays.

Weirdo.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 06, 2012, 11:16:59 am
http://www.securityweek.com/former-cia-officer-indicted-sharing-classified-data-journalists

http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/42-2012/1894-the-truth-about-the-espionage-act-prosecution-against-whistleblower-john-kiriakou

The wistleblower who revealed torture in US detainment facilities to the press has been indicted and faces decades in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. This is the 6th instance of the Obama administration prosecuting wistleblower under the espionage act and is the only person even remotely involved in the torture in detainment facilities to face prosecution.

Fuck you Obama and the Democratic party. You are as traitorous to the principals that America is supposed to strive towards as the republicans and conservatives.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 06, 2012, 11:21:04 am
http://abovethelaw.com/2012/04/yale-to-everybody-else-stop-scamming-people/

Sad.

Quote from: RedKing on April 06, 2012, 08:36:57 am
Conservative Christian groups engaging in organized campaign against anti-bullying laws (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/05/anti-bullying-laws-christian-religious-freedom_n_1406757.html?ref=topbar) under the pretext of religious freedom. You know, because Jesus said "Love thy neighbor, unless he's gay, in which case thou shouldst totally beat up on that f*g."  ::)

http://www.danoah.com/2011/11/im-christian-unless-youre-gay.html

And the response, which unfortunately ends badly more often than not:

http://www.danoah.com/2012/04/a-teens-brave-response-to-im-christian-unless-youre-gay.html/2/

People do not get how sucky it is being gay in America. Jacob's story is the norm more often than not. Your "friends" with very few exceptions just disappear once they figure it out. Damned if you can keep it secret forever too cause when you're 30 and have never had a girlfriend, and aren't looking for one, people figure it out. You'd be surprised how many say they are cool with it, but then suddenly chose not to associate with you.... :D ....:(

Quote from: Shinotsa on April 06, 2012, 10:47:23 am
Being gay is the answer to life, the universe, and everything? Damnit, I'm doing it wrong.

On a serious note, they were probably referencing a statistic on the life expectancy of a subset of the homosexual population that was largely infected with HIV. At least that's my guess if they have ANY credibility behind their statements. Granted it's assuming a little much to think they'll have sources for such nonsense.
Quote from: RedKing on April 06, 2012, 10:54:38 am
It's very simple. The number of the Beast is 666=(6+6+6)=18. The life expectancy of an American male is 78. Subtract the number of the Beast from that lifespan TWICE (because teh gay is just that evil) and you wind up with 42.

God has clearly spelled all this out through the holy texts of a man who was munching psychotropic mushrooms two millenia ago. WHY WONT YOU BELIEVE??!?

This is another stereotype: "there are no old gays." :D [bursts out laughing]. It's a mixture of "there weren't any gays when I was a kid," from old people (because they were terrified you'd arrest and imprison or just plain old lynch them), and  "o you grow out of it/ it's just a phase."

Response: :D
(http://media.fukung.net/images/13409/602d853630e35945ebda1fc6815c8d11.jpg)
Pictured: a guy who's been treated worse than most.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: sluissa on April 06, 2012, 01:15:24 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 06, 2012, 11:21:04 am
Response: :D
(http://media.fukung.net/images/13409/602d853630e35945ebda1fc6815c8d11.jpg)
Pictured: a guy who's been treated worse than most.

I don't know what his history is, but that picture is absolutely adorable.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Darvi on April 06, 2012, 01:16:40 pm
Actually homophobia as a whole can be considered a phase humanity goes through.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 06, 2012, 01:25:52 pm
It's not a phase. It's a long-standing attitude from older western culture (and some others, but for the most part western culture). The West just happened to collectively take over most of the world after the end of the middle ages. Europe, Africa, the Americas, Austrialia, and about half of Asia have been under western control at some point, and all but Africa, Asia, and arguably South America still are.

It is thus no surprise that homophobia became so wide spread. I actually remember reading about some groups in Africa that found homosexuality culturally acceptable until the European powers took over the entire continent (minus Ethiopia).

It just so happens that these days the West itself has lost and is losing it's acceptance of homophobia and other forms of intolerence in general.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on April 06, 2012, 01:49:15 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 06, 2012, 01:25:52 pm
I actually remember reading about some groups in Africa that found homosexuality culturally acceptable until the European powers took over the entire continent (minus Ethiopia).
Well obviously that acceptance was just proof that they needed "civilizing".

Transvestitism used to be reserved for the priesthood, too. (at least in Near Eastern cults like that of Dionysus, El-Gabal, and a number of goddesses)
It's been theorized that some of the most strident anti-homosexual and anti-female language used by St. Paul was designed to draw a sharp distinction between early Christianity and these other cults, many of whom would have been existing side by side with Christians in Asia Minor.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on April 06, 2012, 10:26:29 pm
A petition that just went up a few minutes ago. (http://wh.gov/QNB) The White House responded to the last anti-PATRIOT-Act petitions without actually saying much, so another one has formed. (The plan being to keep a constant presence. If they have to keep writing responses, they might one day think of an alternative.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 06, 2012, 10:34:42 pm
Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on April 06, 2012, 10:26:29 pm
A petition that just went up a few minutes ago. (http://wh.gov/QNB) The White House responded to the last anti-PATRIOT-Act petitions without actually saying much, so another one has formed. (The plan being to keep a constant presence. If they have to keep writing responses, they might one day think of an alternative.)

Yea. The response to he last anti-patriot act petition was some bullshit about how awesome the patriot act is.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 09, 2012, 03:09:20 pm
Pat Robertson, Demon Hunter (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204090006)
Quote
Televangelist Pat Robertson recently made headlines for suggesting that homosexuality may be driven by "demonic possession." In recent years, Robertson has labeled a wide (and frequently bizarre) range of things as demonic, including: feng shui, yoga, karate, horoscopes, Twilight, paintings of Buddha, television shows about ghosts, Halloween, psychics, young girls levitating their friends at sleepovers, and (sometimes) adopted children from other countries.

He nailed Twilight on the head, but the rest is way off.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 09, 2012, 03:12:08 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on April 06, 2012, 10:34:42 pm
Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on April 06, 2012, 10:26:29 pm
A petition that just went up a few minutes ago. (http://wh.gov/QNB) The White House responded to the last anti-PATRIOT-Act petitions without actually saying much, so another one has formed. (The plan being to keep a constant presence. If they have to keep writing responses, they might one day think of an alternative.)

Yea. The response to he last anti-patriot act petition was some bullshit about how awesome the patriot act is.
The response to all the White House petitions is some bullshit about how everything is awesome as is. Not even good rebuttals either; I seriously question the competency of the staffer they have writing these dismissive responses.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 09, 2012, 03:27:44 pm
Quote from: Reelya on April 09, 2012, 03:09:20 pm
Pat Robertson, Demon Hunter (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204090006)
Quote
Televangelist Pat Robertson recently made headlines for suggesting that homosexuality may be driven by "demonic possession." In recent years, Robertson has labeled a wide (and frequently bizarre) range of things as demonic, including: feng shui, yoga, karate, horoscopes, Twilight, paintings of Buddha, television shows about ghosts, Halloween, psychics, young girls levitating their friends at sleepovers, and (sometimes) adopted children from other countries.

He nailed Twilight on the head, but the rest is way off.

I'm getting sick of these people saying everything bad imaginable about being gay, but if you ever say anything bad about them, it's "disrespecting their religion."

Bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 09, 2012, 03:35:36 pm
I'm pretty sure by this point that Pat Robertson is starting to undergo mental degradation. His ranting has gotten even more crazy in the last few months, and I didn't even think that was possible.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on April 09, 2012, 03:48:42 pm
Quote from: Reelya on April 09, 2012, 03:09:20 pm
Pat Robertson, Demon Hunter (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204090006)
Quote
Televangelist Pat Robertson recently made headlines for suggesting that homosexuality may be driven by "demonic possession." In recent years, Robertson has labeled a wide (and frequently bizarre) range of things as demonic, including: feng shui, yoga, karate, horoscopes, Twilight, paintings of Buddha, television shows about ghosts, Halloween, psychics, young girls levitating their friends at sleepovers, and (sometimes) adopted children from other countries.

He nailed Twilight on the head, but the rest is way off.
Wow. He just managed to piss off a large chunk of the population.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 09, 2012, 03:53:00 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on April 09, 2012, 03:48:42 pm
Quote from: Reelya on April 09, 2012, 03:09:20 pm
Pat Robertson, Demon Hunter (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204090006)
Quote
Televangelist Pat Robertson recently made headlines for suggesting that homosexuality may be driven by "demonic possession." In recent years, Robertson has labeled a wide (and frequently bizarre) range of things as demonic, including: feng shui, yoga, karate, horoscopes, Twilight, paintings of Buddha, television shows about ghosts, Halloween, psychics, young girls levitating their friends at sleepovers, and (sometimes) adopted children from other countries.

He nailed Twilight on the head, but the rest is way off.
Wow. He just managed to piss off a large chunk of the population.

Much as I think the idea of sparkly vampires is beyond the 27 allowable types of bullshit, I agree with you. Granted, vampires have never reacted well to anything religious, what with the crosses, holy water, and their notably fatal reaction to Gregorian Monk Chanting (or is that just everyone).... Regardless, the idea of teen and 20 somethings all pissed off at him for not liking vampires and werewolves is just too damn ironic to pass up.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on April 09, 2012, 03:56:36 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 09, 2012, 03:53:00 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on April 09, 2012, 03:48:42 pm
Quote from: Reelya on April 09, 2012, 03:09:20 pm
Pat Robertson, Demon Hunter (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204090006)
Quote
Televangelist Pat Robertson recently made headlines for suggesting that homosexuality may be driven by "demonic possession." In recent years, Robertson has labeled a wide (and frequently bizarre) range of things as demonic, including: feng shui, yoga, karate, horoscopes, Twilight, paintings of Buddha, television shows about ghosts, Halloween, psychics, young girls levitating their friends at sleepovers, and (sometimes) adopted children from other countries.

He nailed Twilight on the head, but the rest is way off.
Wow. He just managed to piss off a large chunk of the population.

Much as I think the idea of sparkly vampires is beyond the 27 allowable types of bullshit, I agree with you. Granted, vampires have never reacted well to anything religious, what with the crosses, holy water, and their notably fatal reaction to Gregorian Monk Chanting (or is that just everyone).... Regardless, the idea of teen and 20 somethings all pissed off at him for not liking vampires and werewolves is just too damn ironic to pass up.
I was more talking about this:
Quote
yoga, karate, paintings of Buddha, Halloween, psychics, young girls levitating their friends at sleepovers, and (sometimes) adopted children from other countries.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 09, 2012, 04:02:09 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on April 09, 2012, 03:56:36 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 09, 2012, 03:53:00 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on April 09, 2012, 03:48:42 pm
Quote from: Reelya on April 09, 2012, 03:09:20 pm
Pat Robertson, Demon Hunter (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204090006)
Quote
Televangelist Pat Robertson recently made headlines for suggesting that homosexuality may be driven by "demonic possession." In recent years, Robertson has labeled a wide (and frequently bizarre) range of things as demonic, including: feng shui, yoga, karate, horoscopes, Twilight, paintings of Buddha, television shows about ghosts, Halloween, psychics, young girls levitating their friends at sleepovers, and (sometimes) adopted children from other countries.

He nailed Twilight on the head, but the rest is way off.
Wow. He just managed to piss off a large chunk of the population.

Much as I think the idea of sparkly vampires is beyond the 27 allowable types of bullshit, I agree with you. Granted, vampires have never reacted well to anything religious, what with the crosses, holy water, and their notably fatal reaction to Gregorian Monk Chanting (or is that just everyone).... Regardless, the idea of teen and 20 somethings all pissed off at him for not liking vampires and werewolves is just too damn ironic to pass up.
I was more talking about this:
Quote
yoga, karate, paintings of Buddha, Halloween, psychics, young girls levitating their friends at sleepovers, and (sometimes) adopted children from other countries.

Well yeah, "clearly" adopting children from other countries is demonic. They're supposed to stay miserable in those "other countries" so people like Mr. Robinson can hit you up for donations to "help them." Adopting them and bringing them here cuts out the middle man: him. Thus... demonic :).

Any bodily movement is also clearly demonic, which naturally includes yoga, karate and most certainly levitation ('cept when it's Jesus over water, natch...). :P

Pat Robertson everybody. Giving you your daily dose of batshit crazy....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on April 13, 2012, 08:03:03 pm
I think I encountered a crazy conservative today. Dude was driving a horrifically painted and remodeled jeep, but that wasn't the crazy part. It was the bumper stickers saying things like "Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat" (I'm not quite sure what that one means) and "Imagine a world without liberals".

This depresses me, because for the most part my town is moderate-leaning-towards-progressive. I only knew of one guy in high school who spoke out against the Gay-Straight Alliance and the Day of Silence out of a few thousand students.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 13, 2012, 08:14:13 pm
I'unno, it's pretty rare to see a monarchist in the states nowadays, especially one that hates the constitution and (by extension) America. Though I guess the sort of liberalism they like is okay... or something.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on April 13, 2012, 08:17:41 pm
I don't think he was a monarchist. Just some dude who was probably taught that liberal=bad for most of his life.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: fqllve on April 13, 2012, 08:18:33 pm
Quote from: Sirus on April 13, 2012, 08:03:03 pm
"Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat"
Well then by that logic we should keep guns and outlaw bullets.

I, personally, don't have a problem with conservatives. I have some conservative friends and we get along just fine, maybe don't necessarily see eye-to-eye on everything but I could say the same about my ultra-liberal friends as well. That guy, though, that guy sounds like a dick. Anyone with the bumper sticker "Imagine a world without liberals" is just encouraging the destructive, vitriolic, and divisive political climate that is already so disgraceful to the US.

I like to imagine a world without jerks.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on April 13, 2012, 08:24:52 pm
But then what would we do with all the porn?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on April 13, 2012, 08:26:46 pm
Quote from: Descan on April 13, 2012, 08:24:52 pm
But then what would we do with all the porn?
I...don't see the connection :-\

@ fqllve: I'm the same way, I don't automatically like or dislike conservatives or liberals or whatever. Just the jerks.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on April 13, 2012, 08:28:33 pm
If the world has no jerks, then at least the porn for men will be useless! D:
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 13, 2012, 08:29:46 pm
Naaah. We've got an entire industry already bypassing that limitation.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 13, 2012, 08:59:14 pm
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/resolution_amend_constitution_banning_corporate_personhood_vermont_20110124/?ln

Dunno if it'll go anywhere, but it really should. The real problem with "corporate personhood," is that they aren't really people and can't have the limitations of people. They're immortal, you can't imprison them for their crimes, etc.

I have an interesting argument I'm certain would never fly:

If slavery is unconstitutional and slavery is the ownership of people, which apparently includes corporations, then no one can own a corporation, because doing so would be owning a person.... Slavery. The number of owners of a person is irrelevant as is the division of ownership. The existence of ownership of a person is sufficient to establish slavery.... He'll it's ownership of a person expressly for profit....

That's right Scalia, you insufferable hack, look at the shit you just stepped in.... You short sighted moron.... It's kinda on you rather than me if the result is entirely impractical and stupid, huh?

Logically, corporate ownership is slavery for profit if corporations are people.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on April 13, 2012, 09:05:24 pm
Somebody needs to make a "Is Scalia Dead Yet?" site in the vein of "Is Thatcher Dead Yet?" His leaving the Court, one way or another, will be a great victory for justice.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Glowcat on April 13, 2012, 09:20:02 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 13, 2012, 08:59:14 pm
That's right Scalia, you insufferable hack, look at the shit you just stepped in.... You short sighted moron.... It's kinda on you rather than me if the result is entirely impractical and stupid, huh?

I don't believe he can hear you. He's too busy pissing on the words 'Conflict of Interest.'
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Pnx on April 13, 2012, 09:28:14 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 13, 2012, 08:59:14 pm
I have an interesting argument I'm certain would never fly:

If slavery is unconstitutional and slavery is the ownership of people, which apparently includes corporations, then no one can own a corporation, because doing so would be owning a person.... Slavery. The number of owners of a person is irrelevant as is the division of ownership. The existence of ownership of a person is sufficient to establish slavery.... He'll it's ownership of a person expressly for profit....

That's right Scalia, you insufferable hack, look at the shit you just stepped in.... You short sighted moron.... It's kinda on you rather than me if the result is entirely impractical and stupid, huh?

Logically, corporate ownership is slavery for profit if corporations are people.
They'd probably just argue that slavery is the ownership of human beings rather than people, and that human beings and people are different things.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 13, 2012, 09:29:26 pm
Quote from: Pnx on April 13, 2012, 09:28:14 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 13, 2012, 08:59:14 pm
I have an interesting argument I'm certain would never fly:

If slavery is unconstitutional and slavery is the ownership of people, which apparently includes corporations, then no one can own a corporation, because doing so would be owning a person.... Slavery. The number of owners of a person is irrelevant as is the division of ownership. The existence of ownership of a person is sufficient to establish slavery.... He'll it's ownership of a person expressly for profit....

That's right Scalia, you insufferable hack, look at the shit you just stepped in.... You short sighted moron.... It's kinda on you rather than me if the result is entirely impractical and stupid, huh?

Logically, corporate ownership is slavery for profit if corporations are people.
They'd probably just argue that slavery is the ownership of human beings rather than people, and that human beings and people are different things.
Exactly. It's a crazy distinction. That's why I said it'd certainly never fly. The argument you said would win, probably with 99.9% certainty. Yet, it doesn't make sense.

Corporations are people when they want to be and not people when they don't want to be is roughly the effect of it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Euld on April 13, 2012, 09:46:35 pm
Got another email from the Christian ministry I signed up for years ago.  This email so completely misses the point o_O  It's like they absolutely must disagree with the GLBT community at all costs, even if they're essentially fighting on the same side.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I don't even.... AUGH.  Gays are driven into silence because honest dialogue doesn't occur.  And now they're blaming gays for being driven into silence... almost like they believe gays make up stories about being bullied, then go around NOT talking about being gay, and somehow make things worse?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Epithemius on April 16, 2012, 02:25:03 am
Quote from: Euld on April 13, 2012, 09:46:35 pm
Got another email from the Christian ministry I signed up for years ago.  This email so completely misses the point o_O  It's like they absolutely must disagree with the GLBT community at all costs, even if they're essentially fighting on the same side.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I don't even.... AUGH.  Gays are driven into silence because honest dialogue doesn't occur.  And now they're blaming gays for being driven into silence... almost like they believe gays make up stories about being bullied, then go around NOT talking about being gay, and somehow make things worse?
I'm having the same issue, except it's from a bible college that I've been getting calls and emails from. I keep getting scripture sent to me that's similar to that in nature. Frankly, this hatred of a group of people due to sexual orientation is sickening. I don't care what your orientation is, as long as you're a good person, no problem here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 16, 2012, 03:15:38 am
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 16, 2012, 06:57:55 am
Quote
"Yeah, because having someone on the internet who's never met me hate me without even knowing me isn't supposed to bother me."
Admittedly, you're on the internet. This is probably true whoever you are. The difference is mostly in quantity rather than kind.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 16, 2012, 07:15:03 am
There's an actual person making those comments, though. (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/internet_argument.png) It's really no different than a random passerby on the street insulting you for no reason. In both cases, you have no idea who the person is and will probably never meet them again... you just can't walk over and punch them in the face on the internet.


I'm not sure advocating apathy is a proper response to people being jerks, no matter the communication medium. "Grow a thick skin" and "serious business" puts the blame on the target of the insult, not the person making it, as if throwing insults is fine and dandy but responding to them is not. Of course, a hypersensitive inappropriate response can make the target guilty of being a jackass as well ("they started it" is a pathetic mindset), but it won't absolve the instigator.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 16, 2012, 09:59:48 am
Oh right.  Speaking of which:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/12/anti-gay-adverts-boris-johnson

Essentially some extremely homophobic adverts well pulled from appearing on London buses at the last minute.  The reason cited were that they were offensive, which is true, although I don't think that's the core issue.  The core issue is that the study they're citing as their scientific evidence is bullshit (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/12/scientific-support-anti-gay-campaigners), meaning that they're simply falsely advertising.  I guess this will turn into a debate about censorship and whether you're allowed to straightup lie to people through adverts, but hey.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on April 16, 2012, 10:08:55 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 16, 2012, 09:59:48 am
Oh right.  Speaking of which:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/12/anti-gay-adverts-boris-johnson

Essentially some extremely homophobic adverts well pulled from appearing on London buses at the last minute.  The reason cited were that they were offensive, which is true, although I don't think that's the core issue.  The core issue is that the study they're citing as their scientific evidence is bullshit (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/12/scientific-support-anti-gay-campaigners), meaning that they're simply falsely advertising.  I guess this will turn into a debate about censorship and whether you're allowed to straightup lie to people through adverts, but hey.
It has always been illegal in almost any sensible country to quote false sources and use them as advertisements, I do think, no one really complained about this.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 16, 2012, 10:18:18 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on April 16, 2012, 07:15:03 am
It's really no different than a random passerby on the street insulting you for no reason.
I actually hate when this happens. Fucking assholes. But I'm not advocating apathy here, and I don't think anyone else is either. But what can you do? You're going to rage against the wind, or wrap yourself up a bit tighter to cut the bite?

Mind you I would pretty much advocate stabbing the wind if it were possible, but you're not allowed to do that to the people either. So we should definitely find ways to make this sort of thing less common, if possible, but we also need to focus on giving people (and not just gay people) the sort of support and acceptance they need to weather the brunt of verbal assaults from strangers. Because if there's one thing that makes something like this better, it's having a group of people agree about what a dick that guy is.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on April 16, 2012, 10:22:30 am
You could also creep them out by being unusually kind to your insulters, might work.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 16, 2012, 10:34:54 am
I've never noticed it to have any sort of success.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on April 16, 2012, 10:42:40 am
You can also drool and be as disgusting as possible, might ruin your reputation, but eh.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 16, 2012, 10:46:49 am
Backhanded compliments?

"You leave every room you enter better...."

Im not getting it
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 16, 2012, 03:36:01 pm
No, you should make them think you're unstable by having wrong reactions. Not contrarian reactions, mind you, but things which have absolutely no social connection to what they're saying.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 16, 2012, 03:40:16 pm
I don't like ham sandwiches. They make gasoline expensive and the moon is blue today.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaenneth on April 16, 2012, 04:11:03 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 16, 2012, 03:36:01 pm
No, you should make them think you're unstable by having wrong reactions. Not contrarian reactions, mind you, but things which have absolutely no social connection to what they're saying.

Watch a few episodes of the Beverly Hillbillies for examples.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on April 16, 2012, 04:18:54 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on April 16, 2012, 03:40:16 pm
I don't like ham sandwiches. They make gasoline expensive and the moon is blue today.
Everything makes Gasoline expensive. Unrest in the middle east? Gas price goes up. A new electric car coming out? Gas price goes up. Someone jay walks in New Hampshire? Gas price goes up.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: sluissa on April 16, 2012, 04:43:53 pm
Do this (http://xkcd.com/178/).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaenneth on April 16, 2012, 07:56:00 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on April 16, 2012, 03:40:16 pm
I don't like ham sandwiches. They make gasoline expensive and the moon is blue today.

Talking about corn for fodder vs corn for ethanol? or was that intended as a whole non-sequetor?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 16, 2012, 08:07:33 pm
Quote from: kaenneth on April 16, 2012, 07:56:00 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on April 16, 2012, 03:40:16 pm
I don't like ham sandwiches. They make gasoline expensive and the moon is blue today.

Talking about corn for fodder vs corn for ethanol? or was that intended as a whole non-sequetor?
The ladder.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 16, 2012, 08:07:54 pm
Since this was all in response to some strangerEver shouting random insults/being a dick at you either online or on the street...

Everyone of these ideas are pretty much useless.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 17, 2012, 01:46:24 am
http://news.yahoo.com/dog-seamus-loved-trips-atop-family-car-says-230153730--abc-news-politics.html

Seems borderline animal abuse is the closest the GOP frontrunner can come to relating to people.... You strapped the dog to the roof of the car in a crate.... That's the best you got? [sigh]
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: fqllve on April 17, 2012, 02:09:33 am
Well, he obviously can't have the dog drooling all over the leather seats in the muscle cars he loves so much, can he? Plus we all know how dogs love to be stuck in a box and then strapped to a car moving 60 mph.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 17, 2012, 03:11:33 am
Quote
Seamus, Mitt Romney's Irish setter who traveled with his young family strapped to the roof of their station wagon, "loved" those trips, despite once getting ill, Ann Romney told ABC's Diane Sawyer in an exclusive interview.

I love ambiguous language, that could be interpreted as the wife and kids on the roof and the dog inside with Mitt.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 17, 2012, 07:38:28 am
You know... I don't know. I can imagine my dog would absolutely love a cage or something on the roof so he could just sit in the wind.

And then he wouldn't be constantly scrabbling at the window because he wants to put his head out.

And then he wouldn't keep nearly falling out the window because he was trying to lean out so far...

Of course, this was enclosed, so I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between a kennel on the roof and a kennel in the back, which is how most people (including animal transportation vehicles) do it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on April 17, 2012, 08:10:37 am
Besides being much more dangerous, you mean?

Furthermore, there is whole lot of difference between wanting to put your face in the wind and being forced to sit in the wind for the whole trip.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 17, 2012, 08:30:16 am
Enclosed container, supposedly. Also, I'm not sure what he uses for fastening, but done properly (no clue if he did it properly), it's not really dangerous. Not appreciably more dangerous than taking him along in the car trip at all.

Of course, that's a whole lot of supposition. I don't know the full details. I'm just saying its certainly possible to have a roof top kennel that leaves the dog better off than if he was in a back of the vehicle kennel.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on April 17, 2012, 09:52:14 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 17, 2012, 08:30:16 am
Enclosed container, supposedly.
 

That latter part was responding more to your "my dog liked hanging out the window so he would have liked being in the wind on the roof too" statement than having anything to do with the  the Mitt situation.


Quote
Also, I'm not sure what he uses for fastening, but done properly (no clue if he did it properly), it's not really dangerous. Not appreciably more dangerous than taking him along in the car trip at all.

Of course, that's a whole lot of supposition. I don't know the full details. I'm just saying its certainly possible to have a roof top kennel that leaves the dog better off than if he was in a back of the vehicle kennel.

I really doubt he welded the kennel stuck to or had the roof customized to have a secure lock mechanism. There's a reason we pack baggage on the roof, not people (or animals). It's not safer than inside the car.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 17, 2012, 09:56:49 am
I've seen quite a few vehicles with roof object locking mechanisms. And its not like we're talking about someone who can't afford it.

And as for the open cage, I wouldn't do that for anything more than short rides. But I might do it for short rides. :P

Definitely not a trip to Ontario! I'm sure any enjoyment for the dog would wear off pretty quickly.

Would the back of a pickup or a trailer have been acceptable, assuming is was securely fastened?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on April 17, 2012, 10:12:21 am
You mean secured as in hooked unto the car? Those are already dangerous as well, I wouldn't do it personally unless the animal was too big to fit in the car. Or too big a number. And I'd drive really, really slow instead of just overly careful.

As for a pick-up-like, I can't say, I don't know how nun you can secure things to the back of it. Overall, if I wouldn't put a human through it, I certainly wouldn't put an animal through it either ;)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Levi on April 17, 2012, 10:39:43 am
I was entertained a bit by this today:  http://sopatrack.com/

It shows which congressmen vote for whoever gives them money.  They almost all do, but interestingly the top offenders are all republicans, and the congressmen who most often vote against big money seem to be democrats.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 17, 2012, 01:25:35 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/karzai-wants-least-2-billion-us-141710318.html

....

[start rant] Horrid timing aside, what is this inefficient de facto "protectorate state" thing we're doing? We've been propping up South Korea for over half a century, but have roughly under 1/3 the troops there and the Koreans have stepped up with their very own armed forces and intel. network. Don't give me that "we can't tell which ones are which and it's a terrible situation" cause we couldn't tell the difference between North and South Korean citizens either and "Dear Leader" was a nutjob ready to send more troops than we had bullets against us. [/end rant]

We are handling this FUBAR and I foresee SNAFU.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 17, 2012, 01:33:25 pm
... shouldn't those acronyms be reversed in placement? We have a SNAFU just waiting to go even more FUBAR.

That said, everything else aside, I liked the afghan prez's sentiment. "Get it in writing" is pretty much always a good idea.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 17, 2012, 01:41:32 pm
Quote from: Frumple on April 17, 2012, 01:33:25 pm
... shouldn't those acronyms be reversed in placement? We have a SNAFU just waiting to go even more FUBAR.

That said, everything else aside, I liked the afghan prez's sentiment. "Get it in writing" is pretty much always a good idea.

Mine is the more pessimistic acronym placement, though either is acceptable.

I do not find the prospect of just handing over at least $2 Billion/year over to "Friendly" politicians good. Generally, any foreign politicians you have to refer to as "friendly" are dubiously so as a rule. Moreover he's coming off as "entitled" when but-for us he wouldn't be in power currently. This is a tactical blunder on his part at best.

In other news:
"High Court Rejects Former Enron Chief's Latest Appeal

 The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the latest appeal by Jeffrey Skilling, the former chief executive of Enron serving a 24-year sentence in a federal prison for his role in the energy company's collapse. Without comment, the justices refused to grant Skilling's challenge to a federal appeals court ruling that any error committed by the trial judge was "harmless."" (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/supreme-court-rejects-former-enron-chiefs-latest-appeal/)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 17, 2012, 01:50:14 pm
Quote from: scriver on April 17, 2012, 10:12:21 am
Overall, if I wouldn't put a human through it, I certainly wouldn't put an animal through it either ;)
Yes... I see...
Well, lets just say I'm... not sure that's the best standard. To use. If you care about the animals safety.

Not that I've strapped anyone to the roof with a couple ropes. Or stuck a couple people in the trunk for a somewhat long car ride. Or had them unsecured in the back of a pickup with explicit instructions to "keep their heads down".

That would be silly. Haha.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on April 17, 2012, 01:53:19 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 17, 2012, 01:50:14 pm
Quote from: scriver on April 17, 2012, 10:12:21 am
Overall, if I wouldn't put a human through it, I certainly wouldn't put an animal through it either ;)
Yes... I see...
Well, lets just say I'm... not sure that's the best standard. To use. If you care about the animals safety.

Not that I've strapped anyone to the roof with a couple ropes. Or stuck a couple people in the trunk for a somewhat long car ride. Or had them unsecured in the back of a pickup with explicit instructions to "keep their heads down".

That would be silly. Haha.

You can just say it,  I've had most of those things happen to me. The truck thing isn't even worth mentioning if you lived in the country.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 17, 2012, 01:53:59 pm
In the country you don't have to tell them to keep their heads down. :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 17, 2012, 01:55:16 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 17, 2012, 01:41:32 pm
I do not find the prospect of just handing over at least $2 Billion/year over to "Friendly" politicians good. Generally, any foreign politicians you have to refer to as "friendly" are dubiously so as a rule. Moreover he's coming off as "entitled" when but-for us he wouldn't be in power currently. This is a tactical blunder on his part at best.
Looking at the article again, it seems less like it's for Karzi (or "friendly politicians") specifically and more for... well, the specific mention was "security," so presumably reestablishment (or further build up) of martial power (for law enforcement, counter-insurgency work, etc.) by the government.

It'd depend on what exactly the money was going to, really. I can sorta' see a bit of entitlement involved if it was for rebuilding some of the mess we made over there.

I'd personally need a hell of a lot more details and background information before I could say anything negative about what the guy was saying. Will say that the article itself was incredibly shittily written. Seemed to be aiming more to rabble rouse than provide actual information :-\
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on April 17, 2012, 02:00:21 pm
The way the article is worded, it sounds like the U.S. was planning to informally give him more than 2 billion but he wants to lessen the amount but make it official? Hard to tell.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: alway on April 18, 2012, 05:04:19 pm
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/04/201241682318260912.html
Massive quantities of mutant and dying seafood animals being found in the Gulf, with the oil spill being the likely cause. Fish with lesions, crabs without claws, shrimp without eyes or eye sockets, ect.
Quote
"At the height of the last white shrimp season, in September, one of our friends caught 400 pounds of these," Kuhns told Al Jazeera while showing a sample of the eyeless shrimp.

According to Kuhns, at least 50 per cent of the shrimp caught in that period in Barataria Bay, a popular shrimping area that was heavily impacted by BP's oil and dispersants, were eyeless. Kuhns added: "Disturbingly, not only do the shrimp lack eyes, they even lack eye sockets."

"Some shrimpers are catching these out in the open Gulf [of Mexico]," she added, "They are also catching them in Alabama and Mississippi. We are also finding eyeless crabs, crabs with their shells soft instead of hard, full grown crabs that are one-fifth their normal size, clawless crabs, and crabs with shells that don't have their usual spikes … they look like they've been burned off by chemicals."
Quote
While on a shrimp boat in Mobile Bay with Sidney Schwartz, the fourth-generation fisherman said that he had seen shrimp with defects on their gills, and "their shells missing around their gills and head".

"We've fished here all our lives and have never seen anything like this," he added.

Ladner has also seen crates of blue crabs, all of which were lacking at least one of their claws.

Darla Rooks, a lifelong fisherperson from Port Sulfur, Louisiana, told Al Jazeera she is finding crabs "with holes in their shells, shells with all the points burned off so all the spikes on their shells and claws are gone, misshapen shells, and crabs that are dying from within … they are still alive, but you open them up and they smell like they've been dead for a week".

Rooks is also finding eyeless shrimp, shrimp with abnormal growths, female shrimp with their babies still attached to them, and shrimp with oiled gills.

"We also seeing eyeless fish, and fish lacking even eye-sockets, and fish with lesions, fish without covers over their gills, and others with large pink masses hanging off their eyes and gills."

Rooks, who grew up fishing with her parents, said she had never seen such things in these waters, and her seafood catch last year was "ten per cent what it normally is".

"I've never seen this," he said, a statement Al Jazeera heard from every scientist, fisherman, and seafood processor we spoke with about the seafood deformities.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Durin Stronginthearm on April 18, 2012, 05:16:50 pm
Quote from: alway on April 18, 2012, 05:04:19 pm
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/04/201241682318260912.html
Massive quantities of mutant and dying seafood animals being found in the Gulf, with the oil spill being the likely cause. Fish with lesions, crabs without claws, shrimp without eyes or eye sockets, ect.

Either an oil spill, or someone's been messing about with the raws.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 18, 2012, 05:20:25 pm
The mutant/ deformed/ unhealthy sealife story has not been in the local news.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: alway on April 18, 2012, 09:28:51 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on April 18, 2012, 05:20:25 pm
The mutant/ deformed/ unhealthy sealife story has not been in the local news.
Well, it was just published today (that AJ story was the original source), so you can probably expect to see it on the news in about 2 days or so.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: sluissa on April 18, 2012, 09:42:30 pm
Gulf coast here, been hearing rumors of this for months now, but every time it comes up some lab somewhere claims they've been doing studies and have found nothing out of the ordinary. Fishermen claim odd things, science types claim nothing unusual.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on April 18, 2012, 10:08:11 pm
Every once in a while I hear republicans say something about 48% of Americans not paying taxes. Does anyone know what in the world they are talking about?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Glowcat on April 18, 2012, 10:12:19 pm
Quote from: EveryZig on April 18, 2012, 10:08:11 pm
Every once in a while I hear republicans say something about 48% of Americans not paying taxes. Does anyone know what in the world they are talking about?

Poor people. They are referring to people who receive so little income that the government doesn't tax them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Euld on April 18, 2012, 10:12:46 pm
My guess is 48% of Americans are so poor that taxing them would be a crime.  Kidding :X  That statistic sounds incredibly made-up and they probably use it to justify lower taxes on the wealthy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: sluissa on April 18, 2012, 10:15:33 pm
Quote from: EveryZig on April 18, 2012, 10:08:11 pm
Every once in a while I hear republicans say something about 48% of Americans not paying taxes. Does anyone know what in the world they are talking about?

Perhaps this? http://money.howstuffworks.com/only-53-percent-pay-income-tax.htm (http://money.howstuffworks.com/only-53-percent-pay-income-tax.htm)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: G-Flex on April 19, 2012, 02:35:53 am
Which is silly anyway, as there are many more taxes to go around, like property tax and sales tax. Finding someone who actually pays no taxes at all is difficult.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Darvi on April 19, 2012, 02:37:31 am
I'm sure you'll find plenty in kindergardens.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on April 19, 2012, 05:52:08 am
Look, if we keep coddling these poor people, they won't have any incentive to work hard and it'll wreck our economy.  It's unethical.  Instead we need to coddle the rich, because,
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on April 19, 2012, 06:52:31 am
Quote from: Capntastic on April 19, 2012, 05:52:08 am
Look, if we keep coddling these poor people, they won't have any incentive to work hard and it'll wreck our economy.  It's unethical.  Instead we need to coddle the rich, because,
They work hard, obviously.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 19, 2012, 09:58:10 am
You can only get poor people to work harder by paying them less, while you can only get rich people to work harder by paying them more.  I don't see what part of this is hard for people to get.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on April 19, 2012, 10:19:56 am
How does paying rich people more make them work harder?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on April 19, 2012, 10:23:45 am
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on April 19, 2012, 10:19:56 am
How does paying rich people more make them work harder?
Silence, heathen!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Johuotar on April 19, 2012, 10:25:15 am
It makes them create more jobs, or so they say.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 19, 2012, 10:27:03 am
Quote from: Johuotar on April 19, 2012, 10:25:15 am
It makes them create more jobs, or so they say.

Its true. With more money that can afford more hookers and blow, not only on the weekend but on weekdays as well.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on April 19, 2012, 11:00:43 am
Quote from: sluissa on April 18, 2012, 10:15:33 pm
Quote from: EveryZig on April 18, 2012, 10:08:11 pm
Every once in a while I hear republicans say something about 48% of Americans not paying taxes. Does anyone know what in the world they are talking about?

Perhaps this? http://money.howstuffworks.com/only-53-percent-pay-income-tax.htm (http://money.howstuffworks.com/only-53-percent-pay-income-tax.htm)
Thank you, now I have some specific things to bring up if I am discussing it.

Of course, on the gripping hand it doesn't matter much, because it is silly to talk about how 'unfair' increased taxes on the rich are when they are still constantly getting richer.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 19, 2012, 11:17:03 am
Quote from: justinlee999 on April 19, 2012, 06:52:31 am
Quote from: Capntastic on April 19, 2012, 05:52:08 am
Look, if we keep coddling these poor people, they won't have any incentive to work hard and it'll wreck our economy.  It's unethical.  Instead we need to coddle the rich, because,
They work hard, obviously.

They actually want jobs? Figure out the variables that actually, really lead to people being hired. Figure out the impediments to starting or staffing a firm and place resources behind making them more available and less burdensome.

No, no, we'll just throw money at the problem, to the rich people only, and pray it works....

:)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 19, 2012, 11:38:22 am
Come on Truean, this is AMERICA. You just gotta have FAITH and CAPITALISM will see us through!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 19, 2012, 11:41:24 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 19, 2012, 11:38:22 am
Come on Truean, this is AMERICA. You just gotta have FAITH and CAPITALISM will see us through!

Capitalism: The government giving money to large businesses and rich people? :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on April 19, 2012, 11:43:13 am
Quote from: Truean on April 19, 2012, 11:41:24 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 19, 2012, 11:38:22 am
Come on Truean, this is AMERICA. You just gotta have FAITH and CAPITALISM will see us through!

Capitalism: The government giving money to large businesses and rich people? :P
Bingo.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 19, 2012, 11:45:02 am
Of COURSE! What else could CAPITALISM possible mean here in the great land of AMERICA!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on April 19, 2012, 11:54:23 am
Of course! Enriching rich is and deregulation are the sacred rituals laid out in the Economicon for summoning the great Invisible Hand to grant your wishes. Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Market Forces R'egan wgah'nagl fhtagn!  :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 19, 2012, 11:59:40 am
Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.
CEO Nwabudike Morgan "The Ethics of Greed"

(And by us, of course, he means the people in charge. Everybody else can go and get themselves nerve-stapled)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Darvi on April 19, 2012, 12:01:55 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 19, 2012, 11:45:02 am
Of COURSE! What else could CAPITALISM possible mean here in the great land of AMERICA!
Well, you can't write AMERICA without C, A ,P... damn.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 19, 2012, 12:17:59 pm
PROTESTANT AMERICA!

That's C, A, P, I, T, A... still no L. Crap. Capita is good enough, right?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 19, 2012, 12:20:42 pm
We could throw in a "male" for good measure?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 19, 2012, 12:23:55 pm
This is a classic confusion of motivations. It's also classic failure to adapt.

"Corporations and the rich will employ us." Perhaps, but that's conditional. It was once the case. Is it still?

This does not understand the fundamentals of logic and misses the mark by a wide margin. It mistakes corporate motive, or it draws a false conclusion from it.

Corporate motive is to make the most money possible from all options. If hiring Americans will make corporations the most money possible from all options, then they will hire Americans. This implies correctly that if other options will make corporations more money, then the corporations will foresake hiring Americans to pursue those options. Profit maximization....

The error feeds into the classic ego complex. People believe they are worth something. The corporation only believes they are worth something if they not only make it money, but make it more money than all other choices. This is no longer so.... We are no longer the cheapest possible option, especially with overseas de facto slavery.

IT used to be, USED TO BE, that by helping the health of the corporation you were helping the health of those employed by it. Now this is no longer so. Once the corporation has the ability to pursue cheaper but initially costlier to set up alternative options, it will. Moving to China costs money and requires a transportation network. But once the company can afford those initial costs, it will to reap the return on that investment.

The barrier to overseas slave labor is the cost of moving....

Luckily, we're giving companies money so they can do it....

If you give the rich and their companies money, they will profit maximize, not "hire." They will only "hire" if that is greater than all other alternatives, including de facto slavery in the 3rd world countries.

This old theory is dead for large corporations and operates on what politicians fail to recognize is what they used to know. Past tense. It may still work for smaller enterprises, but it seems no one cares about them and the larger ones are killing them.

Here is an actual entrepreneur taking the company PRIVATE and out of the public stock market.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/clark-fortune-estimated-hundreds-millions-071612433.html
He didn't meet Wall St.'s earning projections which are unreasonable as a rule. He told the stockholders to get out. He got them out. It worked.
_______________________________________________________

 We are a police state. (http://news.yahoo.com/us-muslim-tortured-fbis-behest-uae-153507891.html)

When Fikre was released on Sept. 14, he had lost nearly 30 pounds. He has applied for asylum in Sweden.

Yeah, he wasn't tortured. He was just on a diet.... Really?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on April 19, 2012, 06:07:58 pm
Capitalism believes that competition drives innovation, but we should shut down all government services because they are an unfair intrusion into the market,
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Pnx on April 19, 2012, 06:21:14 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 19, 2012, 12:23:55 pm
We are a police state. (http://news.yahoo.com/us-muslim-tortured-fbis-behest-uae-153507891.html)

When Fikre was released on Sept. 14, he had lost nearly 30 pounds. He has applied for asylum in Sweden.

Yeah, he wasn't tortured. He was just on a diet.... Really?
So...

Is this a, "if you're Muslim, you're fair game, and your rights will be violated" thing?

Why does this remind me of the "War Relocation Camps" Japanese Americans went to?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 19, 2012, 06:44:35 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 19, 2012, 07:05:33 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 19, 2012, 06:44:35 pm
Meh. Does multiculturalism include respecting cultural aspects that discriminate against women?
No.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 19, 2012, 07:16:43 pm
I don't believe there's ever a good reason to respect something you morally disagree with (save maybe some auxiliary pragmatic goal).


When it comes to respecting culture, you just need more reason than "I don't understand it" or "I don't like it" before you're justified in mocking it, I think. There's no further obligation.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Virex on April 19, 2012, 07:21:03 pm
There's a difference between respecting a culture and respecting it's aspects though. You can criticize misogynist practices in Arab culture without disrespecting people for being Arab.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 19, 2012, 07:28:43 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-pushes-business-tax-cut-divided-house-175922596--finance.html
Lick your masters' hands for the scraps.... Maybe they'll give you some, maybe they won't. "Small business tax cut" [smirks] either show me specifically where there is an upper limit to this tax break that doesn't include Mr. Burns, or have the decency to call it what it is....

"The House GOP measure would let employers with fewer than 500 workers deduct 20 percent of their domestic earnings this year."

So, are they incompetent, in a coma, or just plain old in on it? Your "Jobs Bill" rewards people with FEWER employees? Fewer? Why not cap the earnings, even at a couple or a few million? Why not have the tax break scale up and provide a greater tax break to businesses who employ MORE employees? Especially reward businesses who hire NEW employees.... Did they just not think of that or were they paid not to? So now with a dummy corporate structure, you can use accounting tricks to move domestic earnings to a smaller subsidiary company with no or few employees and...... Does everyone see the tax loophole giant expressway with a sign saying how to get out of paying taxes for bigger businesses?

Quote from: kaijyuu on April 19, 2012, 07:16:43 pm
I don't believe there's ever a good reason to respect something you morally disagree with (save maybe some auxiliary pragmatic goal).


When it comes to respecting culture, you just need more reason than "I don't understand it" or "I don't like it" before you're justified in mocking it, I think. There's no further obligation.

I like treating everyone the same. Doesn't matter who you are or where you come from. That's colorblindness. This multiculturalism thing, I don't care for it. It's completely impractical in the real world. You're just a collection of atoms and molecules like everybody else. Don't give a shit what color you are; don't care about anything about you. Next person in line please.... Don't give a shit, I got 20 more to do today and do not have time to care about those details. I said NEXT! :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on April 20, 2012, 12:56:49 am
I don't think you understand what "multiculturalism" even means, Truean. Care to explain what you believe it is?


Quote from: kaijyuu on April 19, 2012, 07:16:43 pm
I don't believe there's ever a good reason to respect something you morally disagree with (save maybe some auxiliary pragmatic goal).

The difference is that while you might disagree with and argue and work against the misogynic parts of the culture, you should still respect an adult woman's choice to wear depersonalising clothing. It doesn't matter if she has been brainwashed or indoctrinated, it's still her choice.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 20, 2012, 12:59:21 am
'Course. Forcing them to wear some other type of clothing would be exactly the same, just with a different outfit.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on April 20, 2012, 02:34:35 am
As for the 500 and under tax cuts deal, while not a real solution by any means (We need to tax people who own the wealth, not the people who are already living hand to mouth), it's not quite as bad as you make it out to be.  I'd actually be fine with smaller companies in general being taxed far less than larger ones.  Of course, employee count is a dumb metric to go by, and a very gameable one.  Of course, it's important to note that literally none of these tax savings will trickle down or create jobs.  Companies will always tend to run as close to the metal as they can, and any savings in overhead are going to be pocketed directly. 

Edit:  To go further on the whole "rewarding people who create less jobs", I see that as a fallacy, but only because capitalism's entire drive is not to create jobs at all.  The endgame of capitalism is basically one company that is entirely automated with everyone in the world reliant on their products.  There's very little you can do to coax people with capital people into creating jobs, so long as manpower is undervalued, and it's always more profitable and less risky to simply invest excess money in financials.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on April 20, 2012, 07:33:35 am
Some issues with the Arpanio case. (http://www.samefacts.com/2012/04/crime-control/the-arpaio-case-when-to-come-down/)
Quote
Now that Arpaio’s prosecutor sidekick has been disbarred for what the a panel of the Arizona court system found to be “evidence … beyond a reasonable doubt” of “a criminal conspiracy,” the odds that there is enough to convict Shurf Joe have shortened enormously. [ Text of Arizona disbarment findings.] That makes me tend to agree with the four prosecutors who just issued a statement calling on Eric Holder to fish or cut bait.

Still, this isn’t a simple problem. Holder works for Barack Obama. Barack Obama is running for re-election, with Arizona in play. Arpaio is a  pillar of Arizona’s Republican establishment, and just pulled a “birther” stunt - covered as straight news by media outlets that should have known better - which might well have been designed to make an indictment appear to be retaliation.

The day Arpaio is indicted, the Shurf himself, with half of Wingnutistan on his side, is going to start howling about politicized law enforcement. And even his enemies have to admit that, on that topic, Arpaio is an accredited expert.
Links at original.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on April 20, 2012, 10:06:12 am
Quote from: scriver on April 20, 2012, 12:56:49 am
I don't think you understand what "multiculturalism" even means, Truean. Care to explain what you believe it is?
What is multiculturalism? Different people seem to use it to refer to very different concepts.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on April 20, 2012, 10:50:51 am
True, that's why I asked True to explain her idea of it before I start ranting about my own.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 20, 2012, 11:10:55 am
Quote from: scriver on April 20, 2012, 12:56:49 am
I don't think you understand what "multiculturalism" even means, Truean. Care to explain what you believe it is?


 Much to my dismay, I do. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/multiculturalism) I know what it pretends to be: the answer to human conflicts based on different cultures through tolerance, education and understanding of said cultures.  Human beings, all of them, are despicable things incapable of understanding, tolerance or being educated. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy) Teaching people about other cultures and tolerance thereof?  It's a wasted effort at best.  (http://www.foxnews.com/)

Want different people to "play nice together?" The best you can hope for is colorblindness and the idea that people just treat everyone the same. An individual person [singular] might, MIGHT be able to be smart.  People [plural] are dumb, dangerous, panicky stupid animals and you know it. They'll literally kill other people to save a few dollars.  (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/business/29walmart.html) If we can't explain to people why trampling someone else for a better deal on some stupid product or products is a bad idea, then how does anyone intend to teach them about other cultures? You might as well be trying to teach them trigonometry; people won't get it. And even if they had the slightest possibility of being able to so much as comprehend it, they'd never accept it, really accept it when no one is watching.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 20, 2012, 11:13:19 am
Are you being hyperbolic or did you just call every single human being a misanthropic?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 20, 2012, 11:18:01 am
And do you realise you contradicted your linked definition of multiculturalism in your rant?  It's about allowing multiple cultures in society rather than trying to push everyone towards the same one.

Other than that it's quite difficult to respond since none of your links are relevant to your points, and your points seem to just be asserting that people are too stupid to get multiculturalism.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 20, 2012, 11:18:44 am
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Shinotsa on April 20, 2012, 11:24:01 am
I'm not sure misanthropic is exactly the word to use. I think she put it beautifully. A vast majority of people are morons. On top of that, people suck. Thus it's useless trying to teach them ideals that, while they may be adopted by a small number of intellectuals, have a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting through to the uneducated masses. The best thing you can hope for is that people will eventually be morons to all other people equally, and even that is pretty unattainable.

Ninja: She didn't seem to contradict herself to me. Multiculturalism isn't only about allowing cultures together, but having a knowing acceptance that that is going on. People accepting differences, from what I have seen in my short life, is a pipe dream.

Doesn't stop me from being an idealist when it comes down to it. Though I'm fairly sure that'll wear off in a few years.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 20, 2012, 11:29:43 am
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 11:18:44 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on April 20, 2012, 11:13:19 am
Are you being hyperbolic or did you just call every single human being a misanthropic?

I'm a misanthrope, notoriously so.

 I know you saw where I suggested humanity sucked and the only solution was nuking everyone. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=43236.msg3209775#msg3209775)  You replied to it.  (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=43236.msg3209787#msg3209787)
Yeah, I remember.

*points to first line of signature*

/shrug
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 20, 2012, 11:31:57 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on April 20, 2012, 11:29:43 am
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 11:18:44 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on April 20, 2012, 11:13:19 am
Are you being hyperbolic or did you just call every single human being a misanthropic?

I'm a misanthrope, notoriously so.

 I know you saw where I suggested humanity sucked and the only solution was nuking everyone. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=43236.msg3209775#msg3209775)  You replied to it.  (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=43236.msg3209787#msg3209787)
Yeah, I remember.

*points to first line of signature*

/shrug

"Fighting monsters does not excuse you from becoming one."
Whole thing is sad. hyperbole
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Darvi on April 20, 2012, 11:35:27 am
I think Truean stared at the abyss for so long that the thing just got bored and stared away.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on April 20, 2012, 11:54:55 am
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 11:31:57 am
Monsters don't seek excuses, least of all from species they hate. :)
Plenty of monsters love having excuses. Providing them in bulk is one of the primary functions of religion.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 20, 2012, 12:04:34 pm
Yeah, one of the defining traits of "monstrosity" as I define it is rationalization. Solving cognitive dissonance by violently beating down one side with weak excuses.


People who don't care are just jerks. People who think they're awesome when they're really not (oft by their own definitions!) are monsters.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 20, 2012, 12:11:32 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 11:18:44 am
My rant is basically that humanity sucks. My definition of Multiculturalism is a philosophy that teaches tolerance, understanding and education of other cultures. It's a decent philosophy, and thus incompatible with an indecent human race. Cynical as hell, but consistent. The argument is that it's impractical.
This isn't a coherent argument.  It's just straight-up defeatism based on a premise that I find arrogant ("we might be clever enough to understand multiculturalism, but normal people are just too stupid!").  But the premise that people are too stupid to get it even though multiculturalism tends to work in places that aren't overly segregated isn't the main problem.  The main problem is that you aren't explaining what alternative would work better in this world of stupid people - ok, let's say people are too stupid to get multiculturalism.  What do you think we should feed their stupid minds instead?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Shinotsa on April 20, 2012, 12:16:32 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on April 20, 2012, 12:04:34 pm
Yeah, one of the defining traits of "monstrosity" as I define it is rationalization. Solving cognitive dissonance by violently beating down one side with weak excuses.


People who don't care are just jerks. People who think they're awesome when they're really not (oft by their own definitions!) are monsters.

I have to disagree on that. I feel that the mere fact that you have to rationalize means you're human. Once you stop caring you get into the territory of anti-social personality disorder... and that's a neighborhood you drive around in with your doors locked. Those are the true monsters, and there are many more of them than we realize.

Speaking of psychopathology I seem to recall an article a few months back comparing the personality traits of CEOs of large businesses with those of people with Axis II disorders. There were remarkable similarities in just about everything excluding family affluence.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 20, 2012, 12:33:34 pm
 "The best you can hope for is colorblindness and the idea that people just treat everyone the same."  (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg3211604#msg3211604) I've said it several times.

Quote
This isn't a coherent argument.  It's just straight-up defeatism

Furthest thing from.... A.) I already gave an alternate option: colorblindness. B.) if something really is impractical, then advocating it as a practical solution doesn't make sense.

Multiculturalism doesn't exist for any other reason than to accomplish a purpose. I'm saying it can't accomplish that purpose because the thing it would need to do so doesn't exist: decent people. Or if you prefer a sliver of hope which I don't, the number of decent people is so vastly dwarfed by the sheer massive number of indecent people as to be negligible.

Colorblindness, on the other hand, can work with the worst of humanity. A judge isn't going to shout at the criminal the various lovely nuances of different cultures and how they're all special and respectable and whatever. You know what a judge can shout at a criminal, "Mr. [Name]! I KNOW I'm not going to see you in my courtroom for beating somebody up again just cause they're darker skinned. I'm right aren't I? AREN'T I?" <---- This might actually stand a chance of working.

Summation:
Multiculturalism needs decent people to function. People aren't decent; multiculturalism won't function.
Colorblindness doesn't need decent people to function. Thus lack of them won't deter its function.

Work through the logic of my statements; its there. It's horrid and cynical and you can  disagree with me very reasonably and I wouldn't think less of you for it. (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/race/2009/03/is-colorblindness-or-multiculturalism-better-for-minorities.html) It just means you still have some hope for humankind, which I most certainly do not.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on April 20, 2012, 12:47:45 pm
Quote from: Shinotsa on April 20, 2012, 12:16:32 pm
I have to disagree on that. I feel that the mere fact that you have to rationalize means you're human. Once you stop caring you get into the territory of anti-social personality disorder... and that's a neighborhood you drive around in with your doors locked. Those are the true monsters, and there are many more of them than we realize.
Rationalization is how many people stop caring. Yes, everyone has to rationalize some amount, but that doesn't mean that too much of it won't make you go nuts.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on April 20, 2012, 12:50:21 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 12:33:34 pm
Work through the logic of my statements; its there. It's horrid and cynical and you can  disagree with me very reasonably and I wouldn't think less of you for it. (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/race/2009/03/is-colorblindness-or-multiculturalism-better-for-minorities.html) It just means you still have some hope for humankind, which I most certainly do not. Those statements of mine, also perfectly logical.
I think that article provides the strongest case against 'colourblindness' as a solution. Treating everyone the same doesn't really work without an understanding of the cultural and racial differences that exist. Even if you don't discriminate by race, society does and ignoring that fact tends to only feed into that discrimination.

I'm also cynical enough to think that people claiming to be colourblind are probably liars more often than not. It's like people who describe themselves as 'allies' when it comes to race or feminism or gay rights. Most of the time they are saying that they are not racist by definition, so any discrimination they do do is obviously not racist, it's entirely justified based on other factors like how they dress or speak, or what neighbourhood they live in, etc. And so they act just as racist as everyone else while satisfied that they aren't one of those horrid racist rednecks.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 20, 2012, 12:57:59 pm
Moving towards colorblindness isn't bad.  Brown v. Board of Education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education) wasn't founded on multiculturalism. It was founded on giving people the same stuff and saying that separate wasn't equal and that differences shouldn't matter or be considered at all.... One standard, one rule, one application for all. That'd be fair. Too bad we don't have it.

Person number 4332, should be treated the exact same as person number 301 regardless of anything including race, sex, national origin, or anything. Differences shouldn't be known, cared about, or mentioned.

Here's the problem with the second part of your argument: about people only pretending.

You basically made the point that people can pretend to be colorblind. True. People can also pretend to be "multicultural," and I've seen shitloads of them. It's just a different BS Public Relations message to them. You CAN fake it. Hell, I've known too many people who found out I wasn't exactly straight and SAID they were OK with it; many of them will then have nothing to do with me after that. I get it. The implication that you can't fake being multicultural or that you can more easily fake being colorblind, doesn't make sense to me.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 20, 2012, 01:06:48 pm
Quote from: Shinotsa on April 20, 2012, 12:16:32 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on April 20, 2012, 12:04:34 pm
Yeah, one of the defining traits of "monstrosity" as I define it is rationalization. Solving cognitive dissonance by violently beating down one side with weak excuses.


People who don't care are just jerks. People who think they're awesome when they're really not (oft by their own definitions!) are monsters.

I have to disagree on that. I feel that the mere fact that you have to rationalize means you're human.
I'm not rallying against every sort of "end justifies the means" thinking, just the irrational ones. This includes:
- The ones that justify with irrelevant excuses, ie: "I had a bad day so I was a jerk to the waiter."
- The ones that abandon their ideals due to zealous indignation, ie: "pedophiles are evil and don't deserve a fair trial."

Both of those I've actually heard. People who use such lines of thinking are the true monsters, imo.


Quote
Once you stop caring you get into the territory of anti-social personality disorder... and that's a neighborhood you drive around in with your doors locked. Those are the true monsters, and there are many more of them than we realize.
Eh, I already ranted quite a bit about socipaths/psychopaths/people who plain lack empathy in another recent thread. These people are harmless unless you get in their way. It's the ones who DO care that you want to avoid, such as the morally indignant, sadists, etc. Those will seek you out and beat you up.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 20, 2012, 01:20:22 pm
One could make the argument that multiculturalism is in the First amendment of the constitution, the separation of church and state falls under the umbrella term multiculturalism.

Promoting tolerance amongst the populace for your neighbors is only the tip of the iceberg as far as "multiculturalism" goes, and that's hardly a goal limited to multicultural policy goals.

Multicultural philosophy is more about how the government itself interacts with those populations. Forced Assimilation to a single "way of life" is the other end of the spectrum. Tolerance of diverse political opinion, as well being able to dress how you like, sexual identity, are also part of a multicultural nation's identity. There's no more reason to force immigrants to dress and act like "proper Americans" than there is to force young Americans to all dress and act the same. Who is this proper American that the immigrant must

And it wasn't really that long ago that everyone had to conform to a christian, church-going, straight, conservatively-dressed "normality", otherwise bad, bad things would happen to you (probably locked up in an asylum or beaten to death in the street).

This is where the meat multiculturalism really is. We take for granted being able to pretty much act as we please without the government crushing us for not conforming to a monoculture. I read once about an Alabama man put in a mental institution in the 1943 because he told a colleague he had sex with his wife 4-5 times a week. He was diagnosed as a dangerous sex-addict. 2 times a week was the max. "normal" times.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 20, 2012, 01:27:13 pm
???

The first amendment says you get to say/worship/associate with what you wanna within certain guidelines. That's the "one rule" from colorblindness.

Different cultures, have nothing to do with individual variances. cultures and groups don't and should NEVER have rights or considerations under any circumstances whatsoever. INDIVIDUALs should have rights not defined by the group they are in and with no consideration or deference to said group or any group. This is yet another reason corporations shouldn't be "people" or have "rights."

Tolerate different individual people. You're a person, not a "group member...." That's where it comes from.... When people start saying "Groups" (of whatever type) have rights based upon the kind of group they are, then shit like this happens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: lorb on April 20, 2012, 01:46:52 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 01:27:13 pm
[...] cultures and groups don't and should NEVER have rights or considerations under any circumstances whatsoever. [...]

Not agreeing with you Truean. Where i live we have a law that says that if a certain number/percentage of people speaks X as a mother language certain provisions are to be made. eg: official documents have to be translated to language X and local authorities are required to offer some things in language X etc.

Do you think that's bad?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 20, 2012, 01:55:00 pm
That sounds to me like a practical concern. An ideal system would provide translations into every language, to serve each individual, but that's obviously impractical, so a system that serves as many individuals as possible within the bounds of reason is substituted. That might be stretching definitions, though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 20, 2012, 02:02:31 pm
I'm going to have to disagree with you Truean, there's been a long history of forcing people - individuals - to stop speaking their "born" language and dressing the way they want, under the rubric of "assimilation".

It's a false dichotomy to make the antithesis of multiculturalism to be "colorblindness". The polar opposite of multicultural is forced government assimilation to a dictated "norm".

And this is all about individual rights, the right to practice whatever traditions you like without persecution, assuming those practices are within the law. Promoting diversity tolerance between citizens is just a logical corollary of government tolerance of diversity.

As lorb hinted, a "colorblind" system which is blind to individual needs, can be highly prejudicial whilst praising itself for "fairness". e.g. if every sign is in only 1 language, that's "fair" right? It's "equal treatment" right?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 20, 2012, 02:10:20 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 12:33:34 pm
Furthest thing from.... A.) I already gave an alternate option: colorblindness. B.) if something really is impractical, then advocating it as a practical solution doesn't make sense.

Multiculturalism doesn't exist for any other reason than to accomplish a purpose. I'm saying it can't accomplish that purpose because the thing it would need to do so doesn't exist: decent people. Or if you prefer a sliver of hope which I don't, the number of decent people is so vastly dwarfed by the sheer massive number of indecent people as to be negligible.

Colorblindness, on the other hand, can work with the worst of humanity. A judge isn't going to shout at the criminal the various lovely nuances of different cultures and how they're all special and respectable and whatever. You know what a judge can shout at a criminal, "Mr. [Name]! I KNOW I'm not going to see you in my courtroom for beating somebody up again just cause they're darker skinned. I'm right aren't I? AREN'T I?" <---- This might actually stand a chance of working.


Summation:
Multiculturalism needs decent people to function. People aren't decent; multiculturalism won't function.
Colorblindness doesn't need decent people to function. Thus lack of them won't deter its function.

Work through the logic of my statements; its there. It's horrid and cynical and you can  disagree with me very reasonably and I wouldn't think less of you for it. (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/race/2009/03/is-colorblindness-or-multiculturalism-better-for-minorities.html) It just means you still have some hope for humankind, which I most certainly do not. Those statements of mine, also perfectly logical. You'll know when I'm arguing defeatism, because I'll say things like "we should just nuke everyone." <--- Now that's defeatism, and I admit it. Advocating colorblindness, isn't.
You mentioned it but I don't understand how it's more practical at all (indeed, I thought it was just something you yourself practice since it'd be so difficult to roll out).  Under a multiculturalist model you can teach people about other cultures and use integration to help people see that actually those of other races aren't that different to themselves.  Under colourblindness you can... what, exactly?  It's really just telling people not to be racist and hoping for the best, which isn't helpful.

I don't see how either requires "more decent" people.  Multiculturalism makes an active effort to get rid of racism, colour blindness ignores the problem and hopes it'll go away (hence defeatism).  You'll need to explain to me why exactly colourblindness works on "non decent" people.  And also why it's more effective, when your own article says it isn't.

Quote from: kaijyuu on April 20, 2012, 01:06:48 pm
Eh, I already ranted quite a bit about socipaths/psychopaths/people who plain lack empathy in another recent thread. These people are harmless unless you get in their way. It's the ones who DO care that you want to avoid, such as the morally indignant, sadists, etc. Those will seek you out and beat you up.
I'm not sure what you mean by "morally indignant" but pretty sure "sadist" generally just means they get off on hurting (usually willing) people during sex acts.  Certainly there's nothing in it that implies they'll seek anyone out or beat them up.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 20, 2012, 02:20:47 pm
Truean's "colorblindness" doesn't sound like that at all to me. It sounds more like Paternalism.

The logic goes, people are like naughty children who need the heavy hand of government to slap them back into line. Don't bother trying to reason with them (teach tolerance), use threats of violence "from above" (equivalent to smacking your baby) to force them into line.

Am i reading this right Truean?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 20, 2012, 02:27:51 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 20, 2012, 02:10:20 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on April 20, 2012, 01:06:48 pm
Eh, I already ranted quite a bit about socipaths/psychopaths/people who plain lack empathy in another recent thread. These people are harmless unless you get in their way. It's the ones who DO care that you want to avoid, such as the morally indignant, sadists, etc. Those will seek you out and beat you up.
I'm not sure what you mean by "morally indignant" but pretty sure "sadist" generally just means they get off on hurting (usually willing) people during sex acts.  Certainly there's nothing in it that implies they'll seek anyone out or beat them up.
Admittedly I'm using blanket terms.

By moral indignation I mean stuff like homophobia. People who justify violence and aggression on moral grounds.
By sadism I mean stuff like bullying. People who justify violence and aggression on... well, just 'cause they like hurting and humiliating people.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 20, 2012, 03:06:47 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 20, 2012, 02:10:20 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 12:33:34 pm
Furthest thing from.... A.) I already gave an alternate option: colorblindness. B.) if something really is impractical, then advocating it as a practical solution doesn't make sense.

Multiculturalism doesn't exist for any other reason than to accomplish a purpose. I'm saying it can't accomplish that purpose because the thing it would need to do so doesn't exist: decent people. Or if you prefer a sliver of hope which I don't, the number of decent people is so vastly dwarfed by the sheer massive number of indecent people as to be negligible.

Colorblindness, on the other hand, can work with the worst of humanity. A judge isn't going to shout at the criminal the various lovely nuances of different cultures and how they're all special and respectable and whatever. You know what a judge can shout at a criminal, "Mr. [Name]! I KNOW I'm not going to see you in my courtroom for beating somebody up again just cause they're darker skinned. I'm right aren't I? AREN'T I?" <---- This might actually stand a chance of working.


Summation:
Multiculturalism needs decent people to function. People aren't decent; multiculturalism won't function.
Colorblindness doesn't need decent people to function. Thus lack of them won't deter its function.

Work through the logic of my statements; its there. It's horrid and cynical and you can  disagree with me very reasonably and I wouldn't think less of you for it. (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/race/2009/03/is-colorblindness-or-multiculturalism-better-for-minorities.html) It just means you still have some hope for humankind, which I most certainly do not. Those statements of mine, also perfectly logical. You'll know when I'm arguing defeatism, because I'll say things like "we should just nuke everyone." <--- Now that's defeatism, and I admit it. Advocating colorblindness, isn't.
You mentioned it but I don't understand how it's more practical at all (indeed, I thought it was just something you yourself practice since it'd be so difficult to roll out).  Under a multiculturalist model you can teach people about other cultures and use integration to help people see that actually those of other races aren't that different to themselves.  Under colourblindness you can... what, exactly?  It's really just telling people not to be racist and hoping for the best, which isn't helpful.

I don't see how either requires "more decent" people.  Multiculturalism makes an active effort to get rid of racism, colour blindness ignores the problem and hopes it'll go away (hence defeatism).  You'll need to explain to me why exactly colourblindness works on "non decent" people.  And also why it's more effective, when your own article says it isn't.

Quote
And also [explain] why it's more effective, when your own article says it isn't.

 Well, I provided the article to show an opposing viewpoint to my own. That is to show the argument against myself. Hence why the text I linked it to said, "disagree with me very reasonably and I wouldn't think less of you for it." (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg3211858#msg3211858)

Once again, I expressly stated I provided an article that disagreed with me to show the counterpoint to my argument. I then countered that counterpoint in the same post. Again, I'd point to the history of US civil rights cases, Brown v. Board et seq. See linked post above. Moreover, I already provided an example, the judge, in the post you just quoted. It's an easier idea to explain to stupid people.

Quote
You mentioned it but I don't understand how it's more practical at all (indeed, I thought it was just something you yourself practice since it'd be so difficult to roll out).

You are seriously mixing up what I'm saying and missing points, man. Multiculturalism = hard to roll out. Colorblindness easier to roll out; been advocating it for pages.

Me? Prove colorblindness works? The entirety of U.S. Civil Rights law is based on it. It's been a rocky as hell road getting even to where we are now, but it was far worse than before the Warren Court advocated colorblindness. History has proven it slowly but steadily works by passing laws saying you can't treat people differently from Fair Housing law, to the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 to basically and without the slightest exaggeration every single solitary piece of US civil rights law. All of it.... All. of. it. It works. "Multiculturalism" wasn't around with the  Civil Rights Act of 1964. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)

Quote
You'll need to explain to me why exactly colourblindness works on "non decent" people.

Because the laws created under the colorblindness doctrine mandating everyone be treated the same and that you can't treat someone differently based on race, religion, sex, or national origin work. I don't care how much of a complete and utter slimeball, horrible racist bigoted whatever someone's boss is, if they sue the shit out of them for employment discrimination and cost him tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in total costs and legal fees, then he will stop it. He'll either notice how his wallet id lightened and change his behavior, or he won't and someone'll keep suing him until he has nothing left and can't afford to have a company to discriminate with.... You keep suing them until it sticks and they stop being racist shitheads.

It hits them square in the wallet. People don't like having their money forcibly and legally taken away from them. They will stop doing shit that leads to them losing money. You can force, yes force, them to stop treating people differently based on certain things like race, national origin, etc, but you can't force them to give a shit about various cultures. The jerk boss who discriminates in employment, doesn't think he's doing anything wrong and refuses to think he's doing anything wrong and wants to continue discriminating in employment, but sooner or later the loss of money will stop him. This is why colorblindness works on indecent people. You don't have to explain the various complexities of multiculturalism to them, which they refuse to hear anyhow.

Quote from: lorb on April 20, 2012, 01:46:52 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 01:27:13 pm
[...] cultures and groups don't and should NEVER have rights or considerations under any circumstances whatsoever. [...]

Not agreeing with you Truean. Where i live we have a law that says that if a certain number/percentage of people speaks X as a mother language certain provisions are to be made. eg: official documents have to be translated to language X and local authorities are required to offer some things in language X etc.

Do you think that's bad?

I expect not to be agreed with. That's your right, as an... individual... with your own opinions, no matter who shares them or doesn't share them.

As a practical matter, sooner or later people are going to have to be able to understand each other if they all live in the same country while conducting commerce and their lives. I have nothing against speaking multiple languages. I have nothing against people having a native tongue and don't care/don't think it should be extinguished or assimilated out. That said, due to practical concerns, it's going to be immensely hard to efficiently deal with complex government matters even if its only in one language. Thus, people should be encouraged to slowly learn a common language  to transact business and government in BUT SHOULD NOT have their native tongues silenced. There's really no practical purpose to that. That'd be assimilation, not colorblindness. (See below).

Quote from: Reelya on April 20, 2012, 02:02:31 pm
I'm going to have to disagree with you Truean, there's been a long history of forcing people - individuals - to stop speaking their "born" language and dressing the way they want, under the rubric of "assimilation".

It's a false dichotomy to make the antithesis of multiculturalism to be "colorblindness". The polar opposite of multicultural is forced government assimilation to a dictated "norm".

And this is all about individual rights, the right to practice whatever traditions you like without persecution, assuming those practices are within the law. Promoting diversity tolerance between citizens is just a logical corollary of government tolerance of diversity.

As lorb hinted, a "colorblind" system which is blind to individual needs, can be highly prejudicial whilst praising itself for "fairness". e.g. if every sign is in only 1 language, that's "fair" right? It's "equal treatment" right?

You seriously and sincerely do not get the difference between assimilation and colorblindness do you? I'm asking, really and honestly, because it seems many people don't.

First off, you're making a ton of assumptions I never said. Nobody mentioned "polar opposites" and there's no need to as a dichotomy isn't required or implicated here. I certainly never said colorblindness was the polar opposite of multiculturalism. The entire construct of "polar opposites" is completely inapplicable here. No. You've got entirely the wrong paradigm. It isn't A or B. It's "problem," "possible solution 1," "possible solution 2," and "possible solution 3."

Problem:
There are all these people of whatever type and they don't get along.

Possible Solution 1 (not "the best" or even "good" just logically an option and a bad one actually)
Assimilation. Well if the people aren't getting along because they're different, then make them all the same. This is the classic "solution" that comes from a conqueror model. You basically subjugate and forcibly integrate the people you've taken over. As a rule, if you don't meet the mainstream, then you're treated worse until you do. The problem is obvious: the people forcing the assimilation, much like the borg, are stepping on people's rights and individuality, for no good reason, especially when there are other options.


Possible Solution 2 (just logically an option)
Colorblindness. There's one rule, a fair standard and everyone complies. They're treated the same and no one is looked down upon based upon any differing characteristics. There are no "lesser people" there no conquered people and there are no masters. It's one law for everyone. The individual differences aren't forced to meet the mainstream. This is the main difference between assimilation and colorblindness, which for some reason you've confused it with. You don't force someone else to be the same as you. You don't give a flying shit. As long as they do the bare minimum to meet the basic little rules required to make society run smoothly it doesn't matter. Moreover, they have equal access to society because they can't be denied things like a job or a place to live or services because they are different.

Possible Solution 3 (logically an option  and a good one)
Multiculturalism. Teach everyone to play nice while knowing and respecting other people's differences rather than fighting about them. People are largely incapable of this. They will make fun of each other over tons of stuff that doesn't matter, I've shown before how  they will literally trample each other to death to get a better deal at a store. (http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-29/us/black.friday.death_1_wal-mart-united-food-jdimytai-damour?_s=PM:US) If they can't understand stuff like "don't fucking kill each other to save $20 on some product you want" then how do you expect them to learn this? They don't have the mental capacity, literally. "People are smart enough to handle it?" No. No they're not. Again, a person [singular] can be smart, people [pural] are dumb dangerous panicky animals and you know it if you're honest with yourself.

So to review, because people don't get the difference between these three possible solutions:
A.) Assimilation: Destroy all differences and force people to be one thing.
B.) Colorblindness: Ignore all differences. People cannot be excluded from society. Same rules to operate under.
C.) Multiculturalism: Embrace all differences.

Quote
I'm going to have to disagree with you Truean, there's been a long history of forcing people - individuals - to stop speaking their "born" language and dressing the way they want, under the rubric of "assimilation".
This is assimilation, not colorblindness. Colorblindness doesn't force people to assimilate, it forces society to treat them the same as everyone else and punishes them if they don't. Individual differences aren't forced out, they aren't noticed or cared about and you do whatever.

You're basically saying you can reason with people. If you could, then we wouldn't have police and courts and prisons to force them to do things.

Quote from: Reelya on April 20, 2012, 02:20:47 pm
Truean's "colorblindness" doesn't sound like that at all to me. It sounds more like Paternalism.

The logic goes, people are like naughty children who need the heavy hand of government to slap them back into line. Don't bother trying to reason with them (teach tolerance), use threats of violence "from above" (equivalent to smacking your baby) to force them into line.

Am i reading this right Truean?

.... ??? It isn't paternalism unless all government intervention is paternalism, including when the army fights off foreign invaders or the police arrest criminals. You CAN'T handle things on your own unless you believe in anarchy. It doesn't matter that people want to believe they can. They can't absent anarchy.

In the real world, people are bastards. They will do things they know they shouldn't but they don't care. You can nicely talk to them all you want, but most of the time they will ignore you. That is until you hire an attorney who sues them and forces them to come to court and defend themselves against a lawsuit they don't want to be a part of, or have them arrested. What all those laws under colorblindness doctrine do, is give you an avenue to sue someone. As stated above, if you sue someone for employment discrimination, then sooner or later, they'll stop it. Arguably (though I don't personally agree) if you tack on years more of a sentence for a hate crime, that'll reduce the number of people burning crosses and committing violent crimes against black people by the KKK.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all those legal avenues to sue someone to punish them go off colorblindness. It doesn't assimilate anyone. It does punish people for excluding people based on race, sex, national origin, etc.

This isn't an extreme view. It still has a way to go.... Don't confuse assimilation with colorblindness. I really do want equality for all by allowing differences.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on April 20, 2012, 03:12:48 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 20, 2012, 02:10:20 pm
I'm not sure what you mean by "morally indignant" but pretty sure "sadist" generally just means they get off on hurting (usually willing) people during sex acts.  Certainly there's nothing in it that implies they'll seek anyone out or beat them up.
Sadism just refers to deriving joy from the pain of others. The sexual kind is just one subtype.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 20, 2012, 03:27:15 pm
Also, my understanding is it differs from plain ol' vengeance by the person not needing a reason to hurt someone. It's the logical opposite of altruism.


EDIT: Or vengeance might be a subtype of it, not certain there. Feel free to educate this ignorant poster, linguists out there!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: lorb on April 20, 2012, 03:46:04 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 03:06:47 pm
Me? Prove colorblindness works? The entirety of U.S. Civil Rights law is based on it. It's been a rocky as hell road getting even to where we are now, but it was far worse than before the Warren Court advocated colorblindness. History has proven it slowly but steadily works by passing laws saying you can't treat people differently from Fair Housing law, to the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 to basically and without the slightest exaggeration every single solitary piece of US civil rights law. All of it.... All. of. it. It works. "Multiculturalism" wasn't around with the  Civil Rights Act of 1964. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)

IANAL but Grutter v. Bollinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger) seems multicultural to me. And very recent too, it being from 2003.

Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 03:06:47 pm
Quote from: lorb on April 20, 2012, 01:46:52 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 01:27:13 pm
[...] cultures and groups don't and should NEVER have rights or considerations under any circumstances whatsoever. [...]

Not agreeing with you Truean. Where i live we have a law that says that if a certain number/percentage of people speaks X as a mother language certain provisions are to be made. eg: official documents have to be translated to language X and local authorities are required to offer some things in language X etc.

Do you think that's bad?

I expect not to be agreed with. That's your right, as an... individual... with your own opinions, no matter who shares them or doesn't share them.

As a practical matter, sooner or later people are going to have to be able to understand each other if they all live in the same country while conducting commerce and their lives. I have nothing against speaking multiple languages; I do. I have nothing against people having a native tongue and don't care/don't think it should be extinguished or assimilated out. That said, due to practical concerns, it's going to be immensely hard to efficiently deal with complex government matters even if its only in one language. Thus, people should be encouraged to slowly learn a common language  to transact business and government in BUT SHOULD NOT have their native tongues silenced. There's really no practical purpose to that. That'd be assimilation, not colorblindness. (See below).

Correct me if i am wrong but to me it looks like those laws are in direct violation of your short quote about cultures and group. So do you think they should be abolished? What happens to a citizen who does not speak the language of the national majority? Is he excluded from participation in national affairs? (elections?) That's not just "encouraging to slowly learn a common language", imho.

edit: fixed quote tags
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 20, 2012, 04:02:03 pm
Re: cultural junk...



I'm sort of in the middle here.

1) I don't think you should respect or tolerate anything you morally disagree with (with some exceptions: see spoiler).
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
2) Don't shove your own culture on other people.
3) Don't feel obligated to have other people's culture shoved on you.
4) Tolerate anything you don't understand until you understand it.
5) Make concessions where courtesy demands.


I think that covers everything. Honestly it can all be boiled down to "respect": You don't have to like/agree with/etc any piece of culture whatsoever, but you do need to show respect to your fellow human beings, and you need reason beyond "I don't like it" to actively fight against any cultural thing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 20, 2012, 04:14:41 pm
Quote from: lorb on April 20, 2012, 03:46:04 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 03:06:47 pm
Me? Prove colorblindness works? The entirety of U.S. Civil Rights law is based on it. It's been a rocky as hell road getting even to where we are now, but it was far worse than before the Warren Court advocated colorblindness. History has proven it slowly but steadily works by passing laws saying you can't treat people differently from Fair Housing law, to the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 to basically and without the slightest exaggeration every single solitary piece of US civil rights law. All of it.... All. of. it. It works. "Multiculturalism" wasn't around with the  Civil Rights Act of 1964. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)

IANAL but Grutter v. Bollinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger) seems multicultural to me. And very recent too, it being from 2003.

Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 03:06:47 pm
Quote from: lorb on April 20, 2012, 01:46:52 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 01:27:13 pm
[...] cultures and groups don't and should NEVER have rights or considerations under any circumstances whatsoever. [...]

Not agreeing with you Truean. Where i live we have a law that says that if a certain number/percentage of people speaks X as a mother language certain provisions are to be made. eg: official documents have to be translated to language X and local authorities are required to offer some things in language X etc.

Do you think that's bad?

I expect not to be agreed with. That's your right, as an... individual... with your own opinions, no matter who shares them or doesn't share them.

As a practical matter, sooner or later people are going to have to be able to understand each other if they all live in the same country while conducting commerce and their lives. I have nothing against speaking multiple languages; I do. I have nothing against people having a native tongue and don't care/don't think it should be extinguished or assimilated out. That said, due to practical concerns, it's going to be immensely hard to efficiently deal with complex government matters even if its only in one language. Thus, people should be encouraged to slowly learn a common language  to transact business and government in BUT SHOULD NOT have their native tongues silenced. There's really no practical purpose to that. That'd be assimilation, not colorblindness. (See below).

Correct me if i am wrong but to me it looks like those laws are in direct violation of your short quote about cultures and group. So do you think they should be abolished? What happens to a citizen who does not speak the language of the national majority? Is he excluded from participation in national affairs? (elections?) That's not just "encouraging to slowly learn a common language", imho.

edit: fixed quote tags

Quote
IANAL but Grutter v. Bollinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger) seems multicultural to me. And very recent too, it being from 2003.

Depends on how you look at it doesn't it? Lawyers and judges are (in theory) supposed to look at precedent, what came before sets up a standard to be applied and create consistent results.

Your contention is a reasonable one, that this result comes from a multicultural point of view. I disagree entirely and look to history.

Brown v. Board began the main standing (long story just go with it) process of telling schools they had legal obligations with regards to admissions. From there a much too long to quote, because I've already written a book, line of cases expanded the basic premise in Brown.

Remember what I said about colorblindness saying laws created under it would punish those people who excluded different people from society? This result and indeed Brown and its progeny of cases fit nicely under this category. For every wrong, there is a remedy, so what's the remedy in brown: a court order forcing the school to accept black students, due to the history of racial segregation and discrimination. ( Incidentally and previously, when similar orders failed, President Eisenhower sent in the 101st airborne division to force a "govnor's" national guard troops to allow black students to attend a school to enforce the court order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine)).

Summation:
If colorblindness encourages ignoring differences and does not permit discrimination based on differences, then enforcing this rule is in accordance with it, not multiculturalism. Don't read too much into the language, "had a compelling interest in promoting class diversity." First of all this satisfies a legal test in civil rights cases for regulations and rules based on race or fundamental rights called  "Strict Scrutiny." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) It is "magic language," or legalese.... Second, again, it's just an enforcement of the rules from colorblindness cases about not discriminating. It may "seem," but it is not. 

Quote
Correct me if i am wrong but to me it looks like those laws are in direct violation of your short quote about cultures and group. So do you think they should be abolished? What happens to a citizen who does not speak the language of the national majority? Is he excluded from participation in national affairs? (elections?) That's not just "encouraging to slowly learn a common language", imho.

Well look at that, "victims" and people "left out." Who said anything about leaving people out exactly? You teach that person the national language, but by no means do you rob them of their own and yes this would necessitate printing things off in their native tongue (or else how would they ever learn off something in a language they couldn't read?). You impart skills; you don't take away speech. If they can't learn, then accommodate them as an individual. It may take generations but slowly people would learn the national language. In no way, shape, and/or form would this mean they had to stop speaking their own language. Hell they should be allowed to have their little festivals and whatever and talk in it, or just whatever. Don't care. I ignore that stuff. Do whatever.

The problem is mistranslations in the law.  There was a US Supreme Court case on the second amendment being argued with a decision on the placement of a comma. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) A comma.... Punctuation can change the rights and responsibilities in a legal code. Wow, do you then somehow allow for a mistranslation where the meaning isn't exactly the same? How does that work?  If the arguments in front of the US Supreme Court can hang on the placement of a single mark, such as a comma, in the second amendment, what would happen if in the various translations, a different word were used that had a slightly different meaning and someone relied upon that meaning to their legal detriment...?

Something as simple as:

"Don't. Stop." [cease desist]
v.
"Don't stop."  [keep going]

matters.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on April 20, 2012, 04:18:05 pm
I don't really care about the political side of Multiculturalism. *shrug* But on the individual scale, the extent I can while living in the suburbs (Admittedly of a large metropolitan city, and the bedroom community I live in also has it's share of other cultures) and on my own, I try and take what I like from other cultures and adapt them to my needs. Kind of like a melting pot, I guess? Though that term tends to mean something else... :3 Leads to interesting stuff!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 20, 2012, 04:23:23 pm
Quote from: Descan on April 20, 2012, 04:18:05 pm
I don't really care about the political side of Multiculturalism. *shrug* But on the individual scale, the extent I can while living in the suburbs (Admittedly of a large metropolitan city, and the bedroom community I live in also has it's share of other cultures) and on my own, I try and take what I like from other cultures and adapt them to my needs. Kind of like a melting pot, I guess? Though that term tends to mean something else... :3 Leads to interesting stuff!

psst... psst....

They want you to say "Salad Bowl" now, instead of "Melting Pot." Melting pots melt  things into one alloy. Salad bowls mix things up but allow them to retain their distinct ingredient selves. :P They like that metaphor better now. [shrugs].

(I don't care) :)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Shinotsa on April 20, 2012, 04:25:38 pm
But salad wilts rather quickly, whereas an alloy stays together until melted down again. Also I can see a great deal of salad tossing jokes coming from that metaphor.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 20, 2012, 04:28:15 pm
Quote from: Shinotsa on April 20, 2012, 04:25:38 pm
But salad wilts rather quickly, whereas an alloy stays together until melted down again. Also I can see a great deal of salad tossing jokes coming from that metaphor.

Me too.  I didn't make it up though. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salad_bowl_%28cultural_idea%29) :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 20, 2012, 04:45:58 pm
So I kindof get what you mean now Truean, and all I can say is why do you regard granting legal equality as mutually exclusive with promoting racial tolerence?  Yes, stuff like Brown v Board was good for promoting equality of rights, but it's a total non-sequiter to say that means colourblindness is the only way we can approach racism as a problem.

I see legal sanctions against racists as part of the solution.  The other part is to help show the racists that they are wrong.  I disagree with your contention that people are too stupid to understand the very simple idea that "other cultures are not inherently bad".  The thing is, legal sanctions will never completely eliminate problems for any racial minority.  Sure, they'll help in blatant cases like, say, being barred from attending a school or a cafe, but they can never help against more insidious kinds of racism.  Like, say, rating white applicants for a job as better than black applicants.  Or a reluctance to vote for people from racial minorities.  Or creating de facto segregation by refusing to interact with those of other races due to preconceived notions about them.  It's gonna be extremely difficult to impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that discrimination exists in any of those cases, and yet this racism can cause the marginalisation of racial groups.

For cases like those, you need to address the root cause - that racism exists.  I think that multiculturalism offers a way of addressing this (teaching people about other cultures and why they should be respected/ getting people to meet those who they are discriminating against) in a way that suing only the most blatant and obvious racists does not.  Because I don't think colourblindness has a more effective method of addressing racism itself than saying "hey, don't be racist" (which I think if anything depends more on an assumption that people are decent).

I guess I should to finish off state that I don't mean to belittle the legal victories won by Civil Rights campaigners - they were crucial to combatting some of the worse forms of racism, and indeed to further multiculturalism by allowing black people to mix more with white people in desegregated facilities.  That doesn't mean that colourblind laws are the whole solution, though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on April 20, 2012, 04:59:39 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 03:06:47 pm
Possible Solution 2 (not "the best" or even "good" just logically an option)
Colorblindness. There's one rule, a fair standard and everyone complies. They're treated the same and no one is looked down upon based upon any differing characteristics. There are no "lesser people" there no conquered people and there are no masters. It's one law for everyone. The individual differences aren't forced to meet the mainstream, they are ignored entirely. This is the main difference between assimilation and colorblindness, which for some reason you've confused it with. You don't force someone else to be the same as you. You don't give a flying shit. As long as they do the bare minimum to meet the basic little rules required to make society run smoothly it doesn't matter. Moreover, they have equal access to society because they can't be denied things like a job or a place to live or services because they are different.

Possible Solution 3 (not "the best" or even "good" just logically an option)
Multiculturalism. Teach everyone to play nice while knowing and respecting other people's differences rather than fighting about them. People are largely incapable of this. They will make fun of each other over tons of stuff that doesn't matter, I've shown before how  they will literally trample each other to death to get a better deal at a store. (http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-29/us/black.friday.death_1_wal-mart-united-food-jdimytai-damour?_s=PM:US) If they can't understand stuff like "don't fucking kill each other to save $20 on some product you want" then how do you expect them to learn this? They don't have the mental capacity, literally. "People are smart enough to handle it?" No. No they're not. Again, a person [singular] can be smart, people [pural] are dumb dangerous panicky animals and you know it if you're honest with yourself.

So to review, because people don't get the difference between these three possible solutions:
A.) Assimilation: Destroy all differences and force people to be one thing.
B.) Colorblindness: Ignore all differences. People cannot be excluded from society. Same rules to operate under.
C.) Multiculturalism: Embrace all differences.

No. This is not right. Multiculturalism does not mean "embracing all differences". It does not mean accepting female genital mutilation, halal/kosher slaughter, pre-18 marriages, honour crimes, institutionalized homophobia, or anything else than is provably wrong just because it comes from another "culture". It means accepting and respecting that your neighbour does not celebrate Christmas, or doesn't celebrate it the way you do. And if you find some custom bad or immoral, you're going to have to bring up real reasons and proof for why it is wrong, not just go "it's Hindu, all Hindu are demon worshipping dicks and therefore it is evil". You are thinking of multiculturalism as the arbitrarily amoral relativist philosphy caricature extremist rightists paint it as.

Quote
Colorblindness, on the other hand, can work with the worst of humanity. A judge isn't going to shout at the criminal the various lovely nuances of different cultures and how they're all special and respectable and whatever. You know what a judge can shout at a criminal, "Mr. [Name]! I KNOW I'm not going to see you in my courtroom for beating somebody up again just cause they're darker skinned. I'm right aren't I? AREN'T I?" <----This might actually stand a chance of working.

Also this is just ridiculous. There is no reason one couldn't just change that quote to " Mr. [Name]! I KNOW I'm not going to see you in my courtroom for beating somebody up again just cause they're of a different culture. I'm right aren't I? AREN'T I?" You seem to be under some strange belief that multiculturalism means you can't sue or prosecute someone for unequal actions. This is not true.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Shinotsa on April 20, 2012, 05:10:44 pm
Quote from: scriver on April 20, 2012, 04:59:39 pm
...or anything else than is provably wrong...
How do you prove something is good or evil, right or wrong? I understand not accepting anything that makes you uncomfortable, but it's dangerous to apply an assumption of proof to a subjective term.

Anyhow, as I understand it the basic difference here is that multiculturalism has a component of understanding, where as colorblindness does not. Culture and race is not what is being discussed here. If a man were sued by discrimination based on culture he might stop discriminating openly, but he would certainly not adopt multicultural values. He'd simply stop discriminating publicly  and hate without outwardly showing it. I'm sure Truean is going to lay everything out far better and in many more words in just a little bit, so feel free to ignore me and wait for a well written argument with sources and whatnot.

Edit: +1 to Glyph below me
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 20, 2012, 05:12:55 pm
Multiculturalism is about understanding that being different, having different beliefs and knowledge, is not bad, in and of itself, and that we can still work together, towards happiness, despite those differences (and often more easily because of them).

I think the salad bowl analogy is a terrible one - multiculturalism is not lumping people together while letting them remain isolate. Instead of a salad, if you don't want a melting pot, imagine a quilt - pieces, all very different, but tied together.

It also means allowing and even encouraging the rise and spread of subcultures and alternative cultures because different modes of thought have things of value they can contribute. It means that people can participate in the main culture or cultures without being afraid that their own culture will be subsumed by it.

Thats my opinion, anyways.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 20, 2012, 05:24:17 pm
Quote from: Shinotsa on April 20, 2012, 05:10:44 pm
Quote from: scriver on April 20, 2012, 04:59:39 pm
...or anything else than is provably wrong...
How do you prove something is good or evil, right or wrong? I understand not accepting anything that makes you uncomfortable, but it's dangerous to apply an assumption of proof to a subjective term.

Anyhow, as I understand it the basic difference here is that multiculturalism has a component of understanding, where as colorblindness does not. Culture and race is not what is being discussed here. If a man were sued by discrimination based on culture he might stop discriminating openly, but he would certainly not adopt multicultural values. He'd simply stop discriminating publicly  and hate without outwardly showing it. I'm sure Truean is going to lay everything out far better and in many more words in just a little bit, so feel free to ignore me and wait for a well written argument with sources and whatnot.

Edit: +1 to Glyph below me

^^^
Yes

Quote from: Leafsnail on April 20, 2012, 04:45:58 pm
So I kindof get what you mean now Truean, and all I can say is why do you regard granting legal equality as mutually exclusive with promoting racial tolerence?  Yes, stuff like Brown v Board was good for promoting equality of rights, but it's a total non-sequiter to say that means colourblindness is the only way we can approach racism as a problem.

I see legal sanctions against racists as part of the solution.  The other part is to help show the racists that they are wrong.  I disagree with your contention that people are too stupid to understand the very simple idea that "other cultures are not inherently bad".  The thing is, legal sanctions will never completely eliminate problems for any racial minority.  Sure, they'll help in blatant cases like, say, being barred from attending a school or a cafe, but they can never help against more insidious kinds of racism.  Like, say, rating white applicants for a job as better than black applicants.  Or a reluctance to vote for people from racial minorities.  Or creating de facto segregation by refusing to interact with those of other races due to preconceived notions about them.  It's gonna be extremely difficult to impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that discrimination exists in any of those cases, and yet this racism can cause the marginalisation of racial groups.

For cases like those, you need to address the root cause - that racism exists.  I think that multiculturalism offers a way of addressing this (teaching people about other cultures and why they should be respected/ getting people to meet those who they are discriminating against) in a way that suing only the most blatant and obvious racists does not.  Because I don't think colourblindness has a more effective method of addressing racism itself than saying "hey, don't be racist" (which I think if anything depends more on an assumption that people are decent).

I guess I should to finish off state that I don't mean to belittle the legal victories won by Civil Rights campaigners - they were crucial to combatting some of the worse forms of racism, and indeed to further multiculturalism by allowing black people to mix more with white people in desegregated facilities.  That doesn't mean that colourblind laws are the whole solution, though.

The real crux of it between you and I as I see it:
Ideally, you could do that. You could explain to people, exactly as you detail.... I don't think they'll listen, not really. You do.

You see legal sanctions as part of the solution alongside reasoning.
I see legal sanctions as the only thing that'll work because people aren't reasonable.

Quote from: scriver on April 20, 2012, 04:59:39 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 03:06:47 pm
Possible Solution 2 (not "the best" or even "good" just logically an option)
Colorblindness. There's one rule, a fair standard and everyone complies. They're treated the same and no one is looked down upon based upon any differing characteristics. There are no "lesser people" there no conquered people and there are no masters. It's one law for everyone. The individual differences aren't forced to meet the mainstream, they are ignored entirely. This is the main difference between assimilation and colorblindness, which for some reason you've confused it with. You don't force someone else to be the same as you. You don't give a flying shit. As long as they do the bare minimum to meet the basic little rules required to make society run smoothly it doesn't matter. Moreover, they have equal access to society because they can't be denied things like a job or a place to live or services because they are different.

Possible Solution 3 (not "the best" or even "good" just logically an option)
Multiculturalism. Teach everyone to play nice while knowing and respecting other people's differences rather than fighting about them. People are largely incapable of this. They will make fun of each other over tons of stuff that doesn't matter, I've shown before how  they will literally trample each other to death to get a better deal at a store. (http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-29/us/black.friday.death_1_wal-mart-united-food-jdimytai-damour?_s=PM:US) If they can't understand stuff like "don't fucking kill each other to save $20 on some product you want" then how do you expect them to learn this? They don't have the mental capacity, literally. "People are smart enough to handle it?" No. No they're not. Again, a person [singular] can be smart, people [pural] are dumb dangerous panicky animals and you know it if you're honest with yourself.

So to review, because people don't get the difference between these three possible solutions:
A.) Assimilation: Destroy all differences and force people to be one thing.
B.) Colorblindness: Ignore all differences. People cannot be excluded from society. Same rules to operate under.
C.) Multiculturalism: Embrace all differences.

No. This is not right. Multiculturalism does not mean "embracing all differences". It does not mean accepting female genital mutilation, halal/kosher slaughter, pre-18 marriages, honour crimes, institutionalized homophobia, or anything else than is provably wrong just because it comes from another "culture". It means accepting and respecting that your neighbour does not celebrate Christmas, or doesn't celebrate it the way you do. And if you find some custom bad or immoral, you're going to have to bring up real reasons and proof for why it is wrong, not just go "it's Hindu, all Hindu are demon worshipping dicks and therefore it is evil". You are thinking of multiculturalism as the arbitrarily amoral relativist philosphy caricature extremist rightists paint it as.

Quote
Colorblindness, on the other hand, can work with the worst of humanity. A judge isn't going to shout at the criminal the various lovely nuances of different cultures and how they're all special and respectable and whatever. You know what a judge can shout at a criminal, "Mr. [Name]! I KNOW I'm not going to see you in my courtroom for beating somebody up again just cause they're darker skinned. I'm right aren't I? AREN'T I?" <----This might actually stand a chance of working.

Also this is just ridiculous. There is no reason one couldn't just change that quote to " Mr. [Name]! I KNOW I'm not going to see you in my courtroom for beating somebody up again just cause they're of a different culture. I'm right aren't I? AREN'T I?" You seem to be under some strange belief that multiculturalism means you can't sue or prosecute someone for unequal actions. This is not true.

We seem to have lost something in translation somewhere. I'm rather far from right wing. I don't think of it that way. It appears I shouldn't have said "all." There are a slew of things multiculturalism doesn't accept, but a.) where do you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable? b.) what's accepted depends who you hear it from, my professors literally tried to say tolerate cannibalism as a cultural practice others didn't, c.) colorblindness is easier for stupid people to understand than "culture."

Moreover, no, the judge's example can't be changed from "darker skin" to "culture," and if you don't get that then you soon should. The criminal motivated by race doesn't know what culture is. He does know what darker skin is. He doesn't think of it in terms of "culture" here. He beat the guy up because he was black and the KKK member lit the cross on fire on his lawn because he was black. Culture never entered into the criminal's mind and if you say that, then he doesn't know what you mean. You can't just swap out a word like that because in this instance it has real meaning and it isn't interchangeable. You start talking about, "You beat him up because of his culture," around the jail and the response you'll get is "you mean cause he was black? (or more likely a derogatory term for black)" Simply the criminal isn't choosing based upon "culture;" he can't see that. He's choosing off skin color, which he can see. I honestly don't know what to say to you if that doesn't make sense, but it's totally true and I've seen it, repeatedly. Next month, I'll probably see it again.

You're dealing with this esoteric invisible concept called "culture." He's a guy who beats the crap out of people he doesn't like, all of whom happen to be black, and takes their money or shoes. Not the same. Explain to him, a man who beats the crap out of people and gets arrested for it, about culture.... Go ahead, try. He doesn't get it. He doesn't wanna get it. Go ahead, as the judge, threaten him with something he doesn't understand. Or, you can just say quit targeting the black people; he'll understand that. See that lack of understanding, thing coming in again?

Did I mention that as the judge you have a dozen more cases to deal with and you're hungry cause you've been sitting there for hours and there are other people waiting for their complex cases so you can't afford to spend time educating or failing to educate this guy?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Twi on April 20, 2012, 05:44:02 pm
(12 new replies have been posted!)
:c

In other news.
First post in this topic, and general opinion on 'colorblindness' (make people ignore differences) versus 'multiculturalism' (make people respect differences).
My answer: They're not mutually exclusive in any way. But colorblindness is something you can enforce by law. Multiculturalism seems to be an attitude, more or less, and pretty hard to enforce.. Hell, to some degree, multiculturalism could be defined as 'don't hate the people who aren't like you', which is really applicable to more than just culture. :P That said, it's entirely possible that people are going to start getting used to things being odd or unknown. It may take a loooong time, but if you put two groups that hate each other together and keep them from doing bad things to each other, I'd wager that they'd drift in the general direction of friendlyness, particularly if you provide some nudges along the way (with education and the like).

Replace two groups with humanity in general, and you see what I'm thinking.

Of course, if I'm wrong, then... D:
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 20, 2012, 06:22:28 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 05:24:17 pm
The real crux of it between you and I as I see it:
Ideally, you could do that. You could explain to people, exactly as you detail.... I don't think they'll listen, not really. You do.

You see legal sanctions as part of the solution alongside reasoning.
I see legal sanctions as the only thing that'll work because people aren't reasonable.
I've pointed out serious problems that legal sanctions can never do nothing to help.  So either you are being completely defeatist on those issues (something you denied earlier) or you don't think they are problems.

I don't get why you assume people can't respond to a multicultural message.  I mean, the racist BNP was almost completely wiped out in our last election in part due to multicultural initiatives in the towns where they previously had support (turns out a lot of their support came from the disaffected who wanted to find something to blame their situations on, and actually these people weren't too stupid or evil to be educated out of it).

Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 05:24:17 pm
Did I mention that as the judge you have a dozen more cases to deal with and you're hungry cause you've been sitting there for hours and there are other people waiting for their complex cases so you can't afford to spend time educating or failing to educate this guy?
Who the heck said that multicultural messages should be delivered entirely by judges?  This is a really weird strawman.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: lorb on April 20, 2012, 06:25:43 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 04:14:41 pm
Quote
IANAL but Grutter v. Bollinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger) seems multicultural to me. And very recent too, it being from 2003.

Depends on how you look at it doesn't it? Lawyers and judges are (in theory) supposed to look at precedent, what came before sets up a standard to be applied and create consistent results.

Your contention is a reasonable one, that this result comes from a multicultural point of view. I disagree entirely and look to history. [...]

If i look to history i see that Grutter v. Bollinger overturned Hopwood v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopwood_v._Texas) To me this looks like a decision to step a little back from total colorblindness and allow for a little multiculturalism. At least it states that "student body diversity" is something that should be promoted.

Quote
Quote
Correct me if i am wrong but to me it looks like those laws are in direct violation of your short quote about cultures and group. So do you think they should be abolished? What happens to a citizen who does not speak the language of the national majority? Is he excluded from participation in national affairs? (elections?) That's not just "encouraging to slowly learn a common language", imho.

Well look at that, "victims" and people "left out." Who said anything about leaving people out exactly? You teach that person the national language, but by no means do you rob them of their own and yes this would necessitate printing things off in their native tongue (or else how would they ever learn off something in a language they couldn't read?). You impart skills; you don't take away speech. If they can't learn, then accommodate them as an individual. It may take generations but slowly people would learn the national language. In no way, shape, and/or form would this mean they had to stop speaking their own language. Hell they should be allowed to have their little festivals and whatever and talk in it, or just whatever. Don't care. I ignore that stuff. Do whatever.[...]

So you force them to learn the language of the majority? (i'm especially looking at the part i highlighted) I agree very much that it's more practical to have a single language but it's not what reality is like. (Take a look at the EU for example. All the treaties and whatnot have to be translated into a lot of different languages.) If it takes generations to learn the national language, how will the needs of those generations that have not fully learned the majority language be dealt with?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 20, 2012, 06:55:28 pm
Quote from: lorb on April 20, 2012, 06:25:43 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 04:14:41 pm
Quote
IANAL but Grutter v. Bollinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger) seems multicultural to me. And very recent too, it being from 2003.

Depends on how you look at it doesn't it? Lawyers and judges are (in theory) supposed to look at precedent, what came before sets up a standard to be applied and create consistent results.

Your contention is a reasonable one, that this result comes from a multicultural point of view. I disagree entirely and look to history. [...]

If i look to history i see that Grutter v. Bollinger overturned Hopwood v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopwood_v._Texas) To me this looks like a decision to step a little back from total colorblindness and allow for a little multiculturalism. At least it states that "student body diversity" is something that should be promoted.

Quote
Quote
Correct me if i am wrong but to me it looks like those laws are in direct violation of your short quote about cultures and group. So do you think they should be abolished? What happens to a citizen who does not speak the language of the national majority? Is he excluded from participation in national affairs? (elections?) That's not just "encouraging to slowly learn a common language", imho.

Well look at that, "victims" and people "left out." Who said anything about leaving people out exactly? You teach that person the national language, but by no means do you rob them of their own and yes this would necessitate printing things off in their native tongue (or else how would they ever learn off something in a language they couldn't read?). You impart skills; you don't take away speech. If they can't learn, then accommodate them as an individual. It may take generations but slowly people would learn the national language. In no way, shape, and/or form would this mean they had to stop speaking their own language. Hell they should be allowed to have their little festivals and whatever and talk in it, or just whatever. Don't care. I ignore that stuff. Do whatever.[...]

So you force them to learn the language of the majority? (i'm especially looking at the part i highlighted) I agree very much that it's more practical to have a single language but it's not what reality is like. (Take a look at the EU for example. All the treaties and whatnot have to be translated into a lot of different languages.) If it takes generations to learn the national language, how will the needs of those generations that have not fully learned the majority language be dealt with?

Quote
If i look to history i see that Grutter v. Bollinger overturned Hopwood v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopwood_v._Texas) To me this looks like a decision to step a little back from total colorblindness and allow for a little multiculturalism. At least it states that "student body diversity" is something that should be promoted.

Not multiculturalism; enforcement of colorblindness. "Student body diversity," magic words for, we shouldn't allow people to discriminate and keep diverse people out of schools. Re-characterize it a hundred times. Same thing. You're looking at it like the definitions and common usage of the words mean anything at all.

Suspend your disbelief, the words mean nothing you think they mean. Absolutely nothing you reasonably think they mean.

What is a "compelling" state interest? Does that mean the state is "compelled" to do shit about it? no. Can the state chose to do nothing about it? Yes. So where's the compulsion? Where is something that must be done? It's no where. A "compelling state interest" under the rational basis test means whatever the flying crap the US Supreme Court says it means and nothing else at all. It allegedly means more than a "important state interest," from the next test down from "strict scrutiny,"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny which is intermediate scrutiny but what the hell does that mean?
And it's certainly more than a "legitimate state interest" which is used for rational basis, but what the hell does that mean?

What the hell is the difference between "legitimate," and "important" in that context? Answer: whatever the flying shit the SCOTUS says it is.

You're trying to interpret words as you understand them. This means positively nothing at all. "Student body diversity," does not relate to "multiculturalism" because diversity is whatever to that. In the court's mind, it means you put diverse people in the school to guard against discrimination colorblindness forbids.

Doesn't matter if people don't like it or agree with it. SCOTUS says X is only an "important" government interest and not a "compelling" one. what's the difference? Some Supreme Court Justices thought so. They can explain it kinda but it doesn't add up and you can argue about it forever.

Seriously, this is one of the major ways laypeople screw up horrendously without a lawyer when they represent themselves. "Well your honor doesn't this mean [thing a reasonable layperson would think it means]." No, there's a "legal definition," as it applies in the case at bar. Moreover it means different things in different contexts. "Notice" has more meanings than I can count depending upon exactly what specific situation you're talking about.

No, it didn't take a step back from anything in the slightest damn smidgen, because a certain word was used: "diversity." Unless of course you wanna say Brown v. Board itself was about "multiculturalism," because it made the student body by definition more "diverse" because after that, the school finally had to accept some black people.

Reinforced colorblindness theory of legal action to prevent discrimination under old theories.

If you're doing this for some stupid professor, then put down whatever that moron says, because they grade your paper, but they're wrong. Ignore me for the grade, cause that's what matters in that case if it applies.

Quote
So you force them to learn the language of the majority? (i'm especially looking at the part i highlighted) I agree very much that it's more practical to have a single language but it's not what reality is like. (Take a look at the EU for example. All the treaties and whatnot have to be translated into a lot of different languages.) If it takes generations to learn the national language, how will the needs of those generations that have not fully learned the majority language be dealt with?

I expressly said and you quoted me saying, "It may take generations but slowly people would learn the national language. In no way, shape, and/or form would this mean they had to stop speaking their own language. "

Imparting a skill to them is not force.

I also said and you quoted me saying, "yes this would necessitate printing things off in their native tongue,"

What more do you want?

Quote from: Leafsnail on April 20, 2012, 06:22:28 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 05:24:17 pm
The real crux of it between you and I as I see it:
Ideally, you could do that. You could explain to people, exactly as you detail.... I don't think they'll listen, not really. You do.

You see legal sanctions as part of the solution alongside reasoning.
I see legal sanctions as the only thing that'll work because people aren't reasonable.
I've pointed out serious problems that legal sanctions can never do nothing to help.  So either you are being completely defeatist on those issues (something you denied earlier) or you don't think they are problems.

I don't get why you assume people can't respond to a multicultural message.  I mean, the racist BNP was almost completely wiped out in our last election in part due to multicultural initiatives in the towns where they previously had support (turns out a lot of their support came from the disaffected who wanted to find something to blame their situations on, and actually these people weren't too stupid or evil to be educated out of it).

Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 05:24:17 pm
Did I mention that as the judge you have a dozen more cases to deal with and you're hungry cause you've been sitting there for hours and there are other people waiting for their complex cases so you can't afford to spend time educating or failing to educate this guy?
Who the heck said that multicultural messages should be delivered entirely by judges?  This is a really weird strawman.

Quote
Who the heck said that multicultural messages should be delivered entirely by judges?  This is a really weird strawman.


Not a strawman it's a direct response entirely on point to:  Also this is just ridiculous. There is no reason one couldn't just change that quote to " Mr. [Name]! I KNOW I'm not going to see you in my courtroom for beating somebody up again just cause they're of a different culture. I'm right aren't I? AREN'T I?" You seem to be under some strange belief that multiculturalism means you can't sue or prosecute someone for unequal actions. This is not true. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg3212514#msg3212514)

Sciver was asking why he couldn't just have the judge yell at the criminal and replace my having him scold the criminal for beating up "different cultures" rather than "darker skin." The explanation is the criminal doesn't know what the hell you mean.

Quote
I've pointed out serious problems that legal sanctions can never do nothing to help.  So either you are being completely defeatist on those issues (something you denied earlier) or you don't think they are problems.

I've repeatedly said I don't think you can really change people's minds. You want to call that defeatist, fine. I say it isn't defeatism if it's true that the thing can't be done. It's not possible. Let me tell you about impossible:

Alchemy? Lead into gold? That's nothing. Changing the human heart into anything but stone? That's impossible.

It's not defeatist if victory is impossible. Legal sanctions; not perfect but effective in their way. Teaching people to care... Good luck.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 20, 2012, 07:20:47 pm
Woah, a quote in italics?  Now I'm convinced.

I know you hate people, but I don't get why you keep asserting that it's impossible to ever change people's minds.  We used to think slavery was completely morally (as well as legally) acceptable, and that attitude has changed.  That didn't happen just because the government decided to change the law one day - it was in part due to a massive campaign by abolitionists to conclusively show that slavery is a moral evil.  That won over enough support to get slavery banned in Britain and the British Empire.  Try telling me that isn't "Changing the human heart into anything but stone".  Can you really so no progress in human attitudes?  If you can, why do you think that we've reached a point where we can never generate any more?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 20, 2012, 07:38:42 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 20, 2012, 07:20:47 pm
Woah, a quote in italics?  Now I'm convinced.

I know you hate people, but I don't get why you keep asserting that it's impossible to ever change people's minds.  We used to think slavery was completely morally (as well as legally) acceptable, and that attitude has changed.  That didn't happen just because the government decided to change the law one day - it was in part due to a massive campaign by abolitionists to conclusively show that slavery is a moral evil.  That won over enough support to get slavery banned in Britain and the British Empire.  Try telling me that isn't "Changing the human heart into anything but stone".  Can you really so no progress in human attitudes?  If you can, why do you think that we've reached a point where we can never generate any more?

You've no idea just how much I hate humanity, all of it....

Quote
I know you hate people, but I don't get why you keep asserting that it's impossible to ever change people's minds.
I hate them because their minds are impossible to change. Personal experience. Their minds; if they told me they changed them; then odds are they didn't. I could say all the right things at exactly the right times, in all the right ways, to all the right people, for all the right results and reasons, and they don't care.

Quote
Try telling me that isn't "Changing the human heart into anything but stone".

OK

Slavery? That's the example? Slavery which took a war to end here and many people still deny that war was about slavery while saying it was about "State's Rights" (to... chose whether or not to have... slavery...). All that stuff you said, abolitionists, etc, they couldn't convince enough of the country to take legal action to abolish slavery without a bloody war and the dissolution of the country that only ended with forcible military reintegration. Even after that segregation and discrimination continued for decades thereafter even with  Plessy v. Ferguson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson), which stood as the law of the land until Brown v. Board.

What part of that sounds voluntary and reasonable in changing people's minds. They seemed perfectly willing to kill one another over what they thought, and not to change what they thought. Even after being forced to change by military conflict, discrimination and segregation still prevailed for how many decades?  And even then some people still needed the real threat of military force to make them accept things a tad.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_9) Even today it's still not completely 100%....

No no. Most people's minds don't change. They form an idea and then that's set in cement. The next generation might FORM different ideas from their parents. 1st generation thought slavery was great. 2nd did too. 3rd lost the war. 4th reluctantly gave up slavery but thought segregation was great... etc.... etc....

These aren't people changing their minds. This is new generations coming to different conclusions to begin with. Then the old generation dies off. In the US. today, there will be old people who completely and absolutely hate gays and they will NEVER accept them. Things will change a bit when they die and thus can no longer vote.

Any progress we've made was from the old generation dying off and the new generation not following them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 20, 2012, 07:50:49 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 07:38:42 pm
Slavery? That's the example? Slavery which took a war to end here and many people still deny that war was about slavery while saying it was about "State's Rights" (to... chose whether or not to have... slavery...). All that stuff you said, abolitionists, etc, they couldn't convince enough of the country to take legal action to abolish slavery without a bloody war and the dissolution of the country that only ended with forcible military reintegration. Even after that segregation and discrimination continued for decades thereafter even with  Plessy v. Ferguson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson), which stood as the law of the land until Brown v. Board.
The US isn't the only country in the world.  It did not take a war to stop slavery in Britain or the British Empire as I clearly stated.  There was an anti-slavery movement that gradually built momentum until it was so popular that slavery as an institution could not survive.  I'd like you to provide an explanation for how something like that could happen without people changing their minds.

I'd say similarly in the US attitudes changed a lot during the Civil Rights era.  Not all the way, but enough that Civil Rights Acts could be passed and the like.  I don't think generational shift is enough to explain that.

Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 07:38:42 pm
Any progress we've made was from the old generation dying off and the new generation not following them.
Firstly, I feel like some changes have been too quick for this to be true.  Secondly, let's say you're right and it's the new generation who decide change.  Are they just gonna randomly come to a conclusion which cannot be affected in any way, or should we do our darndest to make sure they know about how bad racism is through ideas such as multiculturalism?  If we don't spread that word then the new generation won't be any better than the old one, will it?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 20, 2012, 08:02:35 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 07:38:42 pm
I hate them because their minds are impossible to change. Personal experience.
You the same person you were 10 years ago?
Is everyone you know the same person they were 10 years ago?



10 years ago, I was a racist homophobic who though sex was evil. What changed me into the exact opposite? Personal experience.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 20, 2012, 08:05:58 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 20, 2012, 07:50:49 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 07:38:42 pm
Slavery? That's the example? Slavery which took a war to end here and many people still deny that war was about slavery while saying it was about "State's Rights" (to... chose whether or not to have... slavery...). All that stuff you said, abolitionists, etc, they couldn't convince enough of the country to take legal action to abolish slavery without a bloody war and the dissolution of the country that only ended with forcible military reintegration. Even after that segregation and discrimination continued for decades thereafter even with  Plessy v. Ferguson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson), which stood as the law of the land until Brown v. Board.
The US isn't the only country in the world.  It did not take a war to stop slavery in Britain or the British Empire as I clearly stated.  There was an anti-slavery movement that gradually built momentum until it was so popular that slavery as an institution could not survive.  I'd like you to provide an explanation for how something like that could happen without people changing their minds.

I'd say similarly in the US attitudes changed a lot during the Civil Rights era.  Not all the way, but enough that Civil Rights Acts could be passed and the like.  I don't think generational shift is enough to explain that.

Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 07:38:42 pm
Any progress we've made was from the old generation dying off and the new generation not following them.
Firstly, I feel like some changes have been too quick for this to be true.  Secondly, let's say you're right and it's the new generation who decide change.  Are they just gonna randomly come to a conclusion which cannot be affected in any way, or should we do our darndest to make sure they know about how bad racism is through ideas such as multiculturalism?  If we don't spread that word then the new generation won't be any better than the old one, will it?

Quote
Firstly, I feel like some changes have been too quick for this to be true.  Secondly, let's say you're right and it's the new generation who decide change.  Are they just gonna randomly come to a conclusion which cannot be affected in any way, or should we do our darndest to make sure they know about how bad racism is through ideas such as multiculturalism?  If we don't spread that word then the new generation won't be any better than the old one, will it?

Multiculturalism OR colorblindness. You shove two kids together somewhere and they'll start playing. No need to say jack about the "differences." Look at that kids, blocks you can play with. Lego bricks! Have fun. Kids I've seen only grow up racist if they are taught to.

Quote
The US isn't the only country in the world.  It did not take a war to stop slavery in Britain or the British Empire as I clearly stated.  There was an anti-slavery movement that gradually built momentum until it was so popular that slavery as an institution could not survive.  I'd like you to provide an explanation for how something like that could happen without people changing their minds.

I'd say similarly in the US attitudes changed a lot during the Civil Rights era.  Not all the way, but enough that Civil Rights Acts could be passed and the like.  I don't think generational shift is enough to explain that.

Quote
Most people's minds don't change

O it happens. Even in the US example there were abolitionists. Maybe 40-50% of the country. And the other ... I dunno... half?
US isn't the only country on earth. Obvious, fine. I've said it happens, not enough and not quickly. So it happened in the UK, fine, that's balanced out by all the places it didn't happen and the places where slavery still exists.

That doesn't count 3rd world factory labor used by the US and UK http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=364&catid=9&subcatid=60, as well as the rest of the world. We're bringing slavery back cause it's cheaper.... We're doing it somewhere else.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 20, 2012, 08:18:05 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 08:05:58 pm
Multiculturalism OR colorblindness. You shove two kids together somewhere and they'll start playing. No need to say jack about the "differences." Look at that kids, blocks you can play with. Lego bricks! Have fun. Kids I've seen only grow up racist if they are taught to.
Why "OR"?  Why not "AND"?  Colourblindness works assuming they aren't simultaneously being taught racism by their parents.  Multiculturalism can help by combatting that too.

Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 08:05:58 pm
O it happens. Even in the US example there were abolitionists. Maybe 40-50% of the country. And the other ... I dunno... half?
US isn't the only country on earth. Obvious, fine. I've said it happens, not enough and not quickly. So it happened in the UK, fine, that's balanced out by all the places it didn't happen and the places where slavery still exists.
No, it isn't "balanced out".  You're claiming something is impossible.  I am showing that it is possible, and has happened.  If it's possible but not guarenteed, that just makes it something to strive for.  Something that we have to fight to do.  Your statement about it being as hard as turning lead into gold is false.  If lead turned to gold if you worked at it hard enough and for long enough it'd be worth doing.

Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 08:05:58 pm
That doesn't count 3rd world factory labor used by the US and UK http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=364&catid=9&subcatid=60, as well as the rest of the world.
Which is irrelevant.  People's minds were still very much changed over slavery (including for many people in the US, as you said).  They can change again for non-slavery but nevertheless terrible conditions (indeed, we've already pretty much eradicated conditions like that in our countries - it's not a huge leap to stop buying from companies who do that abroad, and indeed some people are already doing that).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 20, 2012, 08:32:44 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 20, 2012, 08:18:05 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 08:05:58 pm
Multiculturalism OR colorblindness. You shove two kids together somewhere and they'll start playing. No need to say jack about the "differences." Look at that kids, blocks you can play with. Lego bricks! Have fun. Kids I've seen only grow up racist if they are taught to.
Why "OR"?  Why not "AND"?  Colourblindness works assuming they aren't simultaneously being taught racism by their parents.  Multiculturalism can help by combatting that too.

Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 08:05:58 pm
O it happens. Even in the US example there were abolitionists. Maybe 40-50% of the country. And the other ... I dunno... half?
US isn't the only country on earth. Obvious, fine. I've said it happens, not enough and not quickly. So it happened in the UK, fine, that's balanced out by all the places it didn't happen and the places where slavery still exists.
No, it isn't "balanced out".  You're claiming something is impossible.  I am showing that it is possible, and has happened.  If it's possible but not guarenteed, that just makes it something to strive for.  Something that we have to fight to do.  Your statement about it being as hard as turning lead into gold is false.  If lead turned to gold if you worked at it hard enough and for long enough it'd be worth doing.

Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2012, 08:05:58 pm
That doesn't count 3rd world factory labor used by the US and UK http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=364&catid=9&subcatid=60, as well as the rest of the world.
Which is irrelevant.  People's minds were still very much changed over slavery (including for many people in the US, as you said).  They can change again for non-slavery but nevertheless terrible conditions (indeed, we've already pretty much eradicated conditions like that in our countries - it's not a huge leap to stop buying from companies who do that abroad, and indeed some people are already doing that).

Quote
Why "OR"?  Why not "AND"?  Colourblindness works assuming they aren't simultaneously being taught racism by their parents.  Multiculturalism can help by combatting that too.

Mutual exclusion. You can't inform of and ignore differences in the same breath. Honestly, I was taught incredibly racist things by my parents and my hating them and deciding to be nothing like them played no small part in my not being like them. If someone would've tried to teach me multiculturalism when I was 4 and my dad heard about it, he'd have pulled me out of that quickly and countered that.... Bad result.

You're talking about combating things. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. What I'm talking about above with my dad, would've been the opposite reaction....

Quote
No, it isn't "balanced out".  You're claiming something is impossible.  I am showing that it is possible, and has happened.  If it's possible but not guarenteed, that just makes it something to strive for.  Something that we have to fight to do.  Your statement about it being as hard as turning lead into gold is false.  If lead turned to gold if you worked at it hard enough and for long enough it'd be worth doing.

Nothing is impossible; it's impractical. You probably CAN change  lead into gold but its prohibitively expensive and requires a particle accelerator. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation) I'm sure if physicists and chemists worked hard enough they could manage converting some Pb into Ag and Au. Immensely impractical though.

Quote
Which is irrelevant.  People's minds were still very much changed over slavery (including for many people in the US, as you said).  They can change again for non-slavery but nevertheless terrible conditions (indeed, we've already pretty much eradicated conditions like that in our countries - it's not a huge leap to stop buying from companies who do that abroad, and indeed some people are already doing that).

Which is totally relevant, because you're saying we got rid of slavery and I'm just saying we just moved it half a world away. Not a huge step not buying from companies who do that? First of all it's hard to know which companies are doing that. Second, it's more expensive and everyone is broke. Huge leap.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on April 20, 2012, 08:35:23 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on April 20, 2012, 08:02:35 pm
10 years ago, I was a racist homophobic who though sex was evil. What changed me into the exact opposite? Personal experience.
I am interested in hearing the story about that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 20, 2012, 09:24:37 pm
Pretty boring, actually. Two biggest factors would be:


1) Internet. Just hearing a massive deluge of different opinions compared to my normal sheltered life.
2) An awesome history teacher in high school. He liked to talk about parallels to current events, so I got a bunch of new perspectives (and educated ones to boot, compared to the internet ones above).


Basically, the indoctrination from my childhood peeled away and I figured out what I really think. It's still peeling and I'm still figuring things out too (progressive rage threads have played no small part in that in the past year).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on April 20, 2012, 10:51:25 pm
Hey guys I don't want to make a tone argument but the last few pages were really terrible and dumb because the multiculturalism/colorblindness argument is stupid because everyone who is sane will recognize that cutting out all of the terms and language finesse from it, each side is left with "Don't be shitty to people based on things that aren't worth being shitty to them about."

Pursuit of truth in workable policy based on evidence and reason is super important and just because there are good ways and bad ways to handle things doesn't mean there's Only One Correct Truth.  It's the authoritarian ideal of there being One Correct Truth that causes a lot of policy problems in the first place.

Basically it's a cesspool argument where no one can win so I think it's best to move on from it okay.   Let's talk about something else.
~~~

Today was Day of Silence (http://www.dayofsilence.org/), did anyone partake in it?  While I didn't, I verbally castigated someone 'just asking questions' and 'showing concern' that it is a waste of time and "makes LGBT people look hostile".  It wasn't a fair discussion at all solely because the dude refused to actually read up or listen to anything about the thing he was arguing against.  Dealing with him was the mental equivalent of someone just punching their defenseless opponent in the throat for 15 minutes straight.

Basically what I'm saying is that I have more respect for someone who has bad opinions for fair reasons than someone who has fair opinions for no reason at all.  Because with the former they have indicated that they are capable of coming to better, more correct views.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 21, 2012, 12:29:06 am
Quote from: Capntastic on April 20, 2012, 10:51:25 pm
Today was Day of Silence (http://www.dayofsilence.org/),

Thank you for that, really. I really hope that works. I do. I am forever skeptical, but I'd really really like for it to work.... I'm rather silent on the whole thing; I don't know if I'll ever really come out. I avoid lots of people, especially being honest with them. I avoid straight guys especially. I've memories of and aversions to getting beat up if they think I'm hitting on them, which I never do as a rule. ("non-reciprocal "is a sucky kind of love anyhow...).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 21, 2012, 12:35:58 am
Ehn. If nothing else, you'll retire comfortably, eventually. At that point, you can just go "T'hell with it."

As for the day itself, didn't know about it -- don't really keep track of dates, most of the time. On the other hand, only thing I really talked to today was a dog, so...

... also not currently in school, for what that's worth.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ggamer on April 21, 2012, 03:30:56 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on April 20, 2012, 09:24:37 pm
Pretty boring, actually. Two biggest factors would be:


1) Internet. Just hearing a massive deluge of different opinions compared to my normal sheltered life.
2) An awesome history teacher in high school. He liked to talk about parallels to current events, so I got a bunch of new perspectives (and educated ones to boot, compared to the internet ones above).


Basically, the indoctrination from my childhood peeled away and I figured out what I really think. It's still peeling and I'm still figuring things out too (progressive rage threads have played no small part in that in the past year).

This is true. Same thing happened to me when I was introduced to the internet and, probably most importantly, the progressive rage thread. Taught me that not everything I hold in view of society is right, and that there are some people that...

Well, they can fucking scare you with their worldviews.

Anyway, I came to this thread (back when Vector first started it) as an all around conservative. Now, i'm only economically conservative, and my religious views have mellowed out as well, in that I can certainly have a broader viewpoint than before.

bottom line, although I hold nothing but anger for some people in this thread, they probably changed me for the better.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Fenrir on April 21, 2012, 03:55:45 pm
Quote from: ggamer on April 21, 2012, 03:30:56 pm
bottom line, although I hold nothing but anger for some people in this thread, they probably changed me for the better.
Aw, not again. Are you serious? I already gave you my apologies.

Set someone on fire once and they never forgive you for it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 21, 2012, 06:01:38 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/report-wal-mart-hushed-bribe-network-mexico-205007298--finance.html

"But according to the Times, top Wal-Mart executives kept quiet about the campaign and were more focused on damage control than on exposing the corruption...."

Deregulate; keep the government out of it; let the free market decide; corporations can govern themselves.... I don't care anymore.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Pnx on April 21, 2012, 06:12:00 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 21, 2012, 06:01:38 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/report-wal-mart-hushed-bribe-network-mexico-205007298--finance.html

"But according to the Times, top Wal-Mart executives kept quiet about the campaign and were more focused on damage control than on exposing the corruption...."

Deregulate; keep the government out of it; let the free market decide; corporations can govern themselves.... I don't care anymore.
The thing about Mexico is that it's one of those countries where bribery is heavily engrained into the culture. Sometimes bribery is actually necessarily if you even want to just stay open for business.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 21, 2012, 06:57:39 pm
Eh, I dunno. So the people make ze shit wages and it's cool to bribe the shit out of the politicians. "Socially Acceptable" seems to mean that it's such a widespread problem that we just got used to it. [shrugs].
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 21, 2012, 07:38:38 pm
Also the smaaalll problem that walmart's, y'know, a US company engaging in illegal acts, in this situation. Regardless as to if it's socially acceptable in Mexico, it's kinda' breaking the law, from what I understand, for ol' wallie world to be indulging it it. As in, US law. That's sorta' the (/their) problem.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 21, 2012, 07:43:15 pm
There was a pending Supreme Court case Truean posted some time ago addressing whether or not foreigners could bring American corporations to court for human rights violations and such in their countries. Haven't heard anything else about it, though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Pnx on April 21, 2012, 09:24:25 pm
Don't worry guys, I'm sure they'll be able to make this problem go away by giving people money.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on April 22, 2012, 07:36:39 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 21, 2012, 07:43:15 pm
There was a pending Supreme Court case Truean posted some time ago addressing whether or not foreigners could bring American corporations to court for human rights violations and such in their countries. Haven't heard anything else about it, though.
If it was this one (http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/04/opinion-analysis-anti-torture-law-given-narrow-scope/) then;

a) American citizens can't sue organisations under the Torture Victim Protection Act because that act only covers individual action.
b) It's a little bit more complicated than that. And a parallel case over rights to sue under the Alien Tort Statute is being reargued next term.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: lordcooper on April 22, 2012, 01:54:29 pm
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/04/19/australian-wikileaks-lawyer-on-inhibited-person-travel-list/

Nasty.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 22, 2012, 02:37:33 pm
Quote from: palsch on April 22, 2012, 07:36:39 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 21, 2012, 07:43:15 pm
There was a pending Supreme Court case Truean posted some time ago addressing whether or not foreigners could bring American corporations to court for human rights violations and such in their countries. Haven't heard anything else about it, though.
If it was this one (http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/04/opinion-analysis-anti-torture-law-given-narrow-scope/) then;

a) American citizens can't sue organisations under the Torture Victim Protection Act because that act only covers individual action.
b) It's a little bit more complicated than that. And a parallel case over rights to sue under the Alien Tort Statute is being reargued next term.

Yeah, so basically the corporation can literally order torture by its employees, but until and unless you can determine the individual who tortured you, you can't sue shit. More of the "corporations are exempt from anything" mentality killing us. Unanimous too.... So go ahead and sue the unnamed, masked individual.... Garnish the assets of "John Doe...." :)
___________________________________________________

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/1-2-graduates-jobless-underemployed-140300522.html
 I'm sick of living in a world of unnecessary poverty in the name of illusory progress (http://www.hulu.com/watch/341143/the-simpsons-them-robot#s-p1-so-i0), with a government that knows less than I do and has a worse track record of creating jobs than I personally do. It can't continue indefinitely. I need people with actual incomes in order to pay my legal fees in order to have some pretense of justice in this country.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on April 22, 2012, 02:50:46 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 22, 2012, 02:37:33 pm
Yeah, so basically the corporation can literally order torture by its employees, but until and unless you can determine the individual who tortured you, you can't sue shit. More of the "corporations are exempt from anything" mentality killing us. Unanimous too.... So go ahead and sue the unnamed, masked individual.... Garnish the assets of "John Doe...." :)
Reading the history, these torturers were known and named in the original case. Then dismissed because they couldn't be served.

And it would be a fairly easy fix for congress. The issue is that the law refers very explicitly to individuals. Replacing that with 'entities' or similar would be enough to allow this. I believe there was a deliberate expansion in a separate law that allows state sponsors of terrorism to be sued under the TVPA (part of the 1996 anti-terrorism push after the WTC bombing). Adding another for corporations and other organisations would be child's play.

And the odds of that happening...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 22, 2012, 03:02:54 pm
Quote from: palsch on April 22, 2012, 02:50:46 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 22, 2012, 02:37:33 pm
Yeah, so basically the corporation can literally order torture by its employees, but until and unless you can determine the individual who tortured you, you can't sue shit. More of the "corporations are exempt from anything" mentality killing us. Unanimous too.... So go ahead and sue the unnamed, masked individual.... Garnish the assets of "John Doe...." :)
Reading the history, these torturers were known and named in the original case. Then dismissed because they couldn't be served.

And it would be a fairly easy fix for congress. The issue is that the law refers very explicitly to individuals. Replacing that with 'entities' or similar would be enough to allow this. I believe there was a deliberate expansion in a separate law that allows state sponsors of terrorism to be sued under the TVPA (part of the 1996 anti-terrorism push after the WTC bombing). Adding another for corporations and other organisations would be child's play.

And the odds of that happening...

Quote
Then dismissed because they couldn't be served.
You know as well as I do, that this is fatal to a case all the same. So named or not (and even if they were in this case, how often does that happen?).... "Hello, my name is bill, and I'll be torturing the shit out you today, and probably tomorrow depending upon if you live or not. Have a lovely day and enjoy the water boarding, sleep deprivation and whatever else I feel like doing to you....."

Quote
And it would be a fairly easy fix for congress.
Congress could make the law apply to corporations. You've stated that correctly and noted how unlikely that is. Moreover, as a practical matter, you've got to prove a connection via agency principles between the SoB torturing you and the company. It's a crazy thing really. [sigh] Business as usual may now sometimes include torture overseas.... :(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ggamer on April 22, 2012, 09:20:31 pm
Quote from: Fenrir on April 21, 2012, 03:55:45 pm
Quote from: ggamer on April 21, 2012, 03:30:56 pm
bottom line, although I hold nothing but anger for some people in this thread, they probably changed me for the better.
Aw, not again. Are you serious? I already gave you my apologies.

Set someone on fire once and they never forgive you for it.

no, not you. Sorry for the misconception. It's mainly a guy I had a really frustrating argument with and one guy who scared the fuck out of me over PM.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 22, 2012, 09:46:53 pm
Is it me? ^ww^
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 22, 2012, 09:54:04 pm
Is it my psychopathic alternate personalty, WoodBlobFish?

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 23, 2012, 10:10:37 am
Technically it was vectors progressive thread...

I am the boogeyman.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 23, 2012, 10:32:12 am
Well, I am the Walrus.


Coo coo cachoo
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 23, 2012, 11:16:58 am
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/busted-wal-mart-caught-massive-bribery-scandal-goes-150100011.html?l=1

So the bribes involved internal accounting fraud.... This, is a problem.... Moreover, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act makes it illegal to bribe officials in countries in which American companies do business. It is not a defense to say "that's the way business is done in Mexico." This company willingly incorporated in the U.S. and subjected itself willingly to U.S. law. Even if it is Wal-Mart's defense, then it must come out directly and say so, however, that still wouldn't do it....

A corporation, no matter how large, cannot thumb its nose at law. It is a fundamental question who has more power: the government(s) or the corporation(s). Answer carefully....
_______________________________________________________________________________________

So does anyone know what's up in Holland currently? I dunno. I heard something about them having a large budget dispute currently. Same thing with the French. Are we looking at European Political Stability Shakeups in the northern countries? I heard something about them possibly losing their AAA bond rating. That sucks if true.
________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04/22/american-nuns-reject-vaticans-orders-say-they-are-not-going-to-stop-caring-for-the-least-among-us/

You know what's sad? Even under cannon law (the law of the catholic church) they really haven't done anything wrong.
What were these freaking nuns chastised for? Well, it was “focusing its work too much on poverty and economic injustice, while keeping ‘silent’ on abortion and same-sex marriage.”

This is a nun talking:
After the report was published, Campbell said it was “painfully obvious” the Vatican leadership was “not used to having educated women form thoughtful opinions and engage in dialogue.”

These are, by definition, the church's most loyal female supporters and they're getting chastised not for speaking out, but for silence and working with the poor.... ??? In other words, they aren't being the Vatican's cheer leaders.... This is a massive tactical blunder. "The nuns have been silent on issues of same-sex marriage and on birth control and that is where they have been at odds with the church."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 23, 2012, 11:44:30 am
Not sure if much to say besides "go nuns go." The church's response isn't very surprising, unfortunately :-\

Also wondering how/if th'walmart thing's going to effect prices in th'things. Lot of people in my area basically rely on the damn place to be able to get by.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on April 23, 2012, 12:02:48 pm
I found the nuns' reasonableness slightly surprising, and the Vatican's response completely unsurprising.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 23, 2012, 12:09:59 pm
Quote from: EveryZig on April 23, 2012, 12:02:48 pm
I found the nuns' reasonableness slightly surprising, and the Vatican's response completely unsurprising.

Ideology goes straight out the window when you're dealing with real life problems head on.I suspect the Vatican doesn't have to deal with young unwed mothers and people who can't afford health care and thus won't get help for either of these problems. The nuns, on the other hand, I suspect they do deal directly with these problems....

Quote from: Frumple on April 23, 2012, 11:44:30 am
Not sure if much to say besides "go nuns go." The church's response isn't very surprising, unfortunately :-\

Also wondering how/if th'walmart thing's going to effect prices in th'things. Lot of people in my area basically rely on the damn place to be able to get by.

That would depend upon how DoJ handles it. It's possible they could face a large fine and if we have an attorney cavalier enough in an AG or SG position that wants to bring them down a peg, they could. Too many variables at present to deal with. It is potentially wide ranging, especially that "accounting fraud," shit. How they would chose to spread that loss internally is a good question and would depend on too many t hings to answer.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 24, 2012, 09:00:07 am
Welcome to the corporatocracy.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jailed-for--280--the-return-of-debtors--prisons.html

Woman got charged $280 as a medical bill and when contacting the company they said it was in error and she didn't have to pay it. She is serving time in jail as a result.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/florida-man-charged-felony-allegedly-stealing-1-cup-002830215--abc-news-topstories.html

Man asks for a courtesy cup for water, fills it with soda at the fountain instead and is arrested for felony theft.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: cameron on April 24, 2012, 02:31:36 pm
The second one doesn't seem particularly  corporatocracy-y, it says they charged him with petty theft, trespassing and disorderly intoxication all of which are fairly reasonable with the story given and that it was only when they found he had previous theft convictions was it upgraded. If anything it would be an issue with the general legal system surrounding that sort of upgrading of charge
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Twi on April 24, 2012, 02:34:17 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on April 24, 2012, 09:00:07 am

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jailed-for--280--the-return-of-debtors--prisons.html
... This is terrible, but I can't actually tell who's getting her jailed. Mostly because I can't see anyone profiting from it. Not the people who gave her the incorrect bill and apparently figured it out already, certainly- they could have just not corrected themselves earlier. So, am I reading it wrong or what?

Quote
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/florida-man-charged-felony-allegedly-stealing-1-cup-002830215--abc-news-topstories.html

Man asks for a courtesy cup for water, fills it with soda at the fountain instead and is arrested for felony theft.

'Petty theft is usually a misdemeanor, but because Abaire has previous convictions for theft, the charge was upgraded to a felony.'
I don't really see how this relates to corporations being badness, though one might say it's bad in and of itself. Basically what cameron said.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 24, 2012, 02:47:37 pm
 25 Years to life imprisonment for a man who stole golf clubs upheld by SCOTUS (http://www.threestrikes.org/sfchronicle_0.html)

That's right 25 to life for stealing 3 golf clubs, just because he had two previous offenses. "Tough on crime," is a bullshit political slogan.

People don't seem to get this sentencing thing in the slightest, so here's how it works. The popular conception is that rehabilitation doesn't work. Whether or not this is true, vengeance also doesn't work. People have been committing horrible crimes since the dawn of human civilization and they've been getting punished since then too. Some of these have been completely horrible up to and including torture and execution, both in public many times. "Tough sentences" haven't worked, ever to "deter" crime and they never will. Throughout the thousands of years of human history we've been heavily punishing people for everything from murder to theft and yet they still do it. What on earth makes people think that if we throw more on now crime will suddenly go down.... The answer is arrogance and the delusion that they are in control of everything. They aren't and they can't deal with that simple fact.  So, to feel safe and powerful, they slap on extra sanctions rather than bother trying to figure out how to fix the problems they'd prefer not to....

Distract the masses from the real issues and give them blood, gallons of the stuff....

Quote from: Twi on April 24, 2012, 02:34:17 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on April 24, 2012, 09:00:07 am

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jailed-for--280--the-return-of-debtors--prisons.html
... This is terrible, but I can't actually tell who's getting her jailed. Mostly because I can't see anyone profiting from it. Not the people who gave her the incorrect bill and apparently figured it out already, certainly- they could have just not corrected themselves earlier. So, am I reading it wrong or what?

One way it happens:
The attorneys for the debt collection firms have her arrested. See, what happens is, the person gets sued, loses, sometimes by default (not showing up for whatever reason) and then it comes time to collect on that judgment. For that you garnish, but where do you garnish, bank accounts, wages? other? Well how do you figure that out? Answer: Debtor's exam, you haul them into court and they are forced to tell you where they have things you can take. If they don't show up or are evasive, then they get a warrant out for their arrest, meaning if they so much as get pulled over, the officer will arrest them and toss them in jail. That's one way at least. There may be others but I've never used them.

Quote from: Nadaka on April 24, 2012, 09:00:07 am
Quote from: Twi on April 24, 2012, 02:34:17 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/florida-man-charged-felony-allegedly-stealing-1-cup-002830215--abc-news-topstories.html

Man asks for a courtesy cup for water, fills it with soda at the fountain instead and is arrested for felony theft.

'Petty theft is usually a misdemeanor, but because Abaire has previous convictions for theft, the charge was upgraded to a felony.'
I don't really see how this relates to corporations being badness, though one might say it's bad in and of itself. Basically what cameron said.

(See above :) )


I have no idea what the hell happened to those tags.... Ordinarily I'm pretty good about those too. :P Fixed. One of the quote boxes was missing a "/"
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 24, 2012, 03:02:13 pm
Most people I know who support crazy laws like that aren't looking for rehabilitation OR vengeance.

They are looking to make crime less likely to happen to them through the simple method of removing from society those most likely to commit crimes. The criminal and how he's treated doesn't really enter into the logic of the situation at all.

They aren't dicks, so they don't want to outright kill them, but they might be willing to, say, ship them off to Australia or some nonsense like that, so long as they aren't /here/, bothering /us/, you know?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaenneth on April 24, 2012, 03:13:03 pm
AFAIK the only real debtors prisons in the US is for Child Support payments.

In the case above, and most like it, it's jail for failing to appear, when a judge says he wants to see you at a given date and time, and you ignore it, he can issue a warrant for your arrest to make you show up. Calling that debtors prison is like calling jury duty slavery; you have an obligation to participate like it or not, you can't ignore your legal obligations.

However, in the particular case above, there does seem to have been an error, so she could probably sue over it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 24, 2012, 03:19:09 pm
"You ignore it" is certainly an... interesting... way to phrase how this usually occurs. There use to be a legal requirement that they actually told you, but it no longer exists in most places. Now, they simply need to have "tried" to tell you or "potentially" told you.

Though I do find the whole "You cannot afford to pay this bill, so we will need you to both miss out on a days income, as well as pay what may be significant transportation costs, in order to prove it."

And even if you DO, it basically gets you back to the same situation you were before.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 24, 2012, 04:21:43 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 24, 2012, 03:19:09 pm
"You ignore it" is certainly an... interesting... way to phrase how this usually occurs. There use to be a legal requirement that they actually told you, but it no longer exists in most places. Now, they simply need to have "tried" to tell you or "potentially" told you.

Though I do find the whole "You cannot afford to pay this bill, so we will need you to both miss out on a days income, as well as pay what may be significant transportation costs, in order to prove it."

And even if you DO, it basically gets you back to the same situation you were before.

This is called service of process and it's a major pain under Rule 3. Here's what happened. It used to be, believe it or not, fairly easy to find people. Now, people actually freaking hide or just are somehow hard to find. They don't even use landlines anymore, they use a cell phone so they aren't even in the book....

It's often hard to know where to send something certified mail to someone, or they'll get the cert mail and just refuse to accept/sign for it. Then you send it regular mail. Process servers are possible but expensive and they earn it. Some asshole tried to slug me in the face right in front of a Cleveland Police Officer for serving him papers. So given that people, in practicality, have tried to game the system, this means it is now ruined for everyone.

Now, that's not to say there aren't unscrupulous plaintiffs out there abusing the system. There are, believe me, Ive seen them. Then there's the practicality of fighting it once someone has a default judgment against you you didn't know about.... People don't know to hire me, or don't want to hire a lawyer, to file a 60(B) motion, to challenge service and jurisdiction and sometimes they can't afford to pay me or just flat out don't fucking want to pay for a lawyer. This is how stuff goes wrong. I won't work for free (and neither will anyone else, nor should they have to).

Basically, if we don't pay for Justice, (one way or another) then we won't have it.

Creditor/Debtor rights and relations are a hard thing. Unfortunately the creditors in recent years have literally rewritten the bankruptcy code as BAPCPA in 2005. It was untouched prior to this since 1978 and was doing just fine. Even forgetting about bankruptcy, there's suit, judgment and garnishment under state law. I can see both sides of it. On the one hand, the creditor is owed their money. On the other, it isn't like you're going to squeeze blood from a stone. Though I am inclined to say that Rich people just never want to admit they lost shit or that it isn't worth what they thought it was. What do you do?

I personally hate the idea of civil imprisonment and use it as little as humanly possible if I'm suing will actually work with me and aren't just playing games. Debtor's prisons are kinda nuts as an Idea and there's a reason we got rid of them. At some point, you've gotta realize the person is not going to be able to pay the debt and the value of that debt to the creditor as an asset is not panning out. After that, you can either keep on beating that dead horse, or you can move on and try to salvage something. Pick wisely.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Realmfighter on April 24, 2012, 05:20:28 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 24, 2012, 03:02:13 pm
Most people I know who support crazy laws like that aren't looking for rehabilitation OR vengeance.

They are looking to make crime less likely to happen to them through the simple method of removing from society those most likely to commit crimes. The criminal and how he's treated doesn't really enter into the logic of the situation at all.

They aren't dicks, so they don't want to outright kill them, but they might be willing to, say, ship them off to Australia or some nonsense like that, so long as they aren't /here/, bothering /us/, you know?

But this doesn't even make logical sense. Either you have to extend all sentences to life and build a shit ton more prisons for all the people who never leave or understand that People leave prison eventually. And unless you're trying to rehabilitate them all that'll happen is that they'll commit another crime.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 24, 2012, 07:14:00 pm
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tide-turns-on-border-crossing.html

South Park Called it with their episode, "Last of the Meheecans."  (http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s15e09-the-last-of-the-meheecans)

 Shit is now so bad in the United States that Mexican Immigrants are actually headed back.... (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/399565/youre-going-the-wrong-way#tab=related)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: SomeStupidGuy on April 24, 2012, 10:52:00 pm
I find that either really depressing or really amusing, not entirely sure which.
I suppose at a certain point the vague, just barely out of reach promise of something better just isn't any better than your original home, your family and all that jazz.
What I'm taking from this is that immigration need fixing and not in the form of a wall, like serious restructuring and that's fairly unlikely to be done soon.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on April 25, 2012, 12:28:28 pm
Well, other than maybe Australia and NZ, I am struggling to think of a country with an effective and fair immigration system. Here in the UK being an island hasnt helped us at all, what with the volume of air and sea traffic, and that pesky tunnel to France.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 25, 2012, 01:17:43 pm
Quote from: Realmfighter on April 24, 2012, 05:20:28 pm
But this doesn't even make logical sense. Either you have to extend all sentences to life and build a shit ton more prisons for all the people who never leave or understand that People leave prison eventually. And unless you're trying to rehabilitate them all that'll happen is that they'll commit another crime.
And after they commit another crime, they get to go back in prison. Essentially, maximizing the time they spend away from society minimizes the number of crimes they commit! Its not like we can just kill them. But yes - thats exactly the reason people with that mentality constantly push for longer, harsher sentencing laws. They just want the person away from them as long as possible - if not forever, then as close to it as possible.

Quote from: MonkeyHead on April 25, 2012, 12:28:28 pm
Well, other than maybe Australia and NZ, I am struggling to think of a country with an effective and fair immigration system. Here in the UK being an island hasnt helped us at all, what with the volume of air and sea traffic, and that pesky tunnel to France.
NZ, at least, has some illegal immigrants. But they are really really harsh about dealing with it. I think its a 7 year prison sentence for knowingly aiding an illegal immigrant, PLUS a huge fine, plus (for businesses who hire an illegal) getting you business rights completely revoked, and obviously deportation for the person in question.

And people still slip in.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 25, 2012, 01:33:17 pm
http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=7288

Slooooow step forward, but progress. Doesn't help if you're self employed but.... Quite frankly it's massively huge that this ever happened at all for transgender people. 5 years ago there would've been absolutely 0% chance of this occurring and I would've literally given it a negative chance (it would not only never have a chance of coming out in favor of the transperson, but also would've smacked them down severely for no reason). Now, holy shit. There's actual precedent. It may be of limited scope and application but it's there and tis a first....

http://news.yahoo.com/marines-discharge-sergeant-facebook-posts-181223651.html

What part of "Commander in Chief," did he not recognize as a "superior officer?" There were USMC kicked out for criticizing Bush, and no one raised an eyebrow. This happens, suddenly its news? This is NOT news: "Service members have had their speech limited since the Civil War, especially if their comments are believed to disrupt good order and discipline." It's always been like this. You put on the uniform, you shut your mouth until you permanently take it off about your commanders including politicians.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 25, 2012, 04:32:56 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 25, 2012, 01:17:43 pm
And people still slip in.
And they still aren't the cause of all social problems.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 26, 2012, 04:42:28 am
http://news.yahoo.com/hurt-arizona-immigration-law-hispanics-organize-070343097.html

So Justice Kagan recused herself, which is something another Supreme Court Justice didn't have the decency to do when he was involved in a case with the vice president, so because of that the Arizona law will now be upheld at least in part. Historically, traditionally, this was a simple thing: federal issue, separation of powers, the states were to keep out of it. The law would've been barking up the wrong tree, plain and simple. So basically no matter how SCOTUS phrases it, they will be carving out an exception against basically all precedent.

"Roberts tried to cut off the argument that the Arizona law would lead to ethnic and racial profiling of Hispanics by interrupting the government attorney's opening statement and asserting that profiling was not at issue in the case."
.... WTF is this? You won't even listen to arguments about racial profiling, because it's "not an issue...?" What's it like in make believe land? Alabama who has already passed a similar law has shown that Toyota executives and their visiting Asian investors have been harassed by this policy because essentially they aren't white. "It isn't an issue?" Really? This case has nothing to do with that whatsoever? This case has everything to do with that, because it's basically a "if you're brown have your papers on you at any and all times in case you're so much as pulled over," law.

16% of the US is Hispanic. I guess once states enact similar laws, they can all start carrying their birth certificates or other papers....

No, this needs to be a federal, uniform policy under traditional federal question and international relations principles. If the INS isn't doing its job or cant because the problem outpaces its funding, then deal with that, not a patchwork of laws. This will make Criminal Defense a nightmare and the court doesn't care.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 26, 2012, 05:27:30 am
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/alabama-rethinks-its-harsh-immigration-law-11232011.html

LMAO! Alabama put harsh anti-immigrant laws in place, now they're suffering financially as a direct result.

Quote
“I was really embarrassed and overwhelmed,” says State Senator Gerald Dial. “Mercedes has done more to change the image of Alabama than just about anything else. We don’t want to upset those people.” Dial, a conservative Republican who voted for the law in June along with every other GOP state legislator but one, started having second thoughts soon after the statute went into effect in late September. Fearful of being deported, immigrants fled the state by the thousands, resulting in labor shortages.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 26, 2012, 05:37:44 am
Here the goverment has enacted a law that prevents illegal immigrants from accessing healthcare.

I think it's a load of right-wing populist BS, for the record. I very much doubt those immigrants represent any significant ammount of healthcare expenses, and technically they're still paying for it via indirect taxes. Hell, for that matter, public healthcare at the moment is even cheap when compared with other western nations. It's problem at the healthcare at the moment is that the fuckers in the govt are looking to balance their budget by slashing it's financing, instead of, say, the church's funding, the monarchy's, or a couple of foreign military missions (fun fact: by suppressing the cash they give to the church ALONE they'd get the money to fund two thirds of the supposed "healthcare deficit")
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Blargityblarg on April 26, 2012, 08:26:54 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on April 25, 2012, 12:28:28 pm
Well, other than maybe Australia and NZ, I am struggling to think of a country with an effective and fair immigration system. Here in the UK being an island hasnt helped us at all, what with the volume of air and sea traffic, and that pesky tunnel to France.

There are quite a few things wrong with the Australian immigration system; mostly they seem to spring from not having any idea where to put asylum seekers: there's always a news article about detention centres in the paper, or about deals with Indonesia or PNG to house them in exchange for whatever. I'm not sure how much of it is just media bloat of a small problem, though- 'boat people' is basically the Australian version of 'God, Guns & Gays', except both parties are competing in the same direction.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 26, 2012, 09:47:45 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 25, 2012, 04:32:56 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 25, 2012, 01:17:43 pm
And people still slip in.
And they still aren't the cause of all social problems.

...yes...? Or was this more of an addendum/followup than a response?

In which case, yes, they certainly aren't.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 26, 2012, 10:53:11 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 26, 2012, 09:47:45 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 25, 2012, 04:32:56 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 25, 2012, 01:17:43 pm
And people still slip in.
And they still aren't the cause of all social problems.

...yes...? Or was this more of an addendum/followup than a response?

In which case, yes, they certainly aren't.

Meh, there are legitimate problems with the whole "illegal immigrants being here," thing. However, it balances out once you realize that they pick all the food out of the fields, which let's face it, nobody here wants to do/can do.  And to prove it, the Mexicans challenged the gringos to "take their jobs!" (http://voices.yahoo.com/illegal-farmers-issue-challenge-americans-take-6280060.html) which is to say actually work in the fields in the hot sun. Some cocky white people tried; they were treated for heat exhaustion.  Without illegal immigrants not only performing practically free for what they do labor, the food will literally rot in the fields because we have no way to pick it.  (http://wonkette.com/448250/crops-rotting-in-georgia-since-illegal-alien-farm-workers-fled-state) Look at the tone of those articles. The first one is basically trying to remain dismissive of a valid point while being forced to admit its validity. The second, meh. By the way, I did labor similar to this once, picking in a greenhouse when I was 14, which actually made it hotter. Got less than minimum wage for it too cause you know "agricultural" means rural workers get screwed.

So when you wonder why some of the food is costing so much, some of it is gas prices, but some of it is also defacto labor shortages with illegal immigrants fleeing crackdowns.

Yes, there are problems, large ones, legitimate ones. However, we like to think that we're technologically advanced, what with our gizmos and gadgets. There's no app for picking crops and there's no machine, or if there is then it's prohibitively expensive. So we want the incredibly low cost labor, but we don't want to do anything to make it reasonable...?

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on April 26, 2012, 11:55:06 am
I still find it strange to treat people differently on the basis of where they were born. It just seems just as arbitrary as treating them differently based on skin color.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: sluissa on April 26, 2012, 04:16:33 pm
Quote from: EveryZig on April 26, 2012, 11:55:06 am
I still find it strange to treat people differently on the basis of where they were born. It just seems just as arbitrary as treating them differently based on skin color.

^ This = biggest argument for immigration reform in the direction of more openness.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 26, 2012, 04:21:28 pm
Whilst I'd love open borders everywhere, it'd cause a hell of a lot of economic problems. See: the USA's Gilded Age unemployment, current era globalization, etc.


The world economy's all sorts of messed up, giving people benefits for living in a certain area. Fix that, then you can fix immigration/emmigration.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 26, 2012, 04:25:20 pm
That's, uh, a helluva' task. You're basically saying you have to fix the world (as in, the actual physical world and its resource distribution) before you can fix border crossing issues.

Which... hell, maybe. In the mean time, we can probably at least improve things, at the least.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on April 26, 2012, 04:29:40 pm
People often forget the effect on the areas people move away from - especially if your most intelligent, hard working, younger, innovative and dynamic individuals are the ones being attracted to a "better" life elsewhere. Pretty sure that sets up some kind of negative feedback loop...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 26, 2012, 04:38:12 pm
Quote from: Frumple on April 26, 2012, 04:25:20 pm
In the mean time, we can probably at least improve things, at the least.
Certainly.


It's just not a cut and dry issue, not by a long shot.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on April 26, 2012, 06:04:02 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on April 26, 2012, 04:38:12 pm
It's just not a cut and dry issue, not by a long shot.
Few issues are, in my experience.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 26, 2012, 06:06:05 pm
Some are.

Gay marriage for everyone!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on April 26, 2012, 06:06:51 pm
Especially the filthy heterosexuals.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 26, 2012, 06:08:56 pm
If they don't like their new marriage, they're just being close minded.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: sluissa on April 26, 2012, 08:02:48 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on April 26, 2012, 04:21:28 pm
Whilst I'd love open borders everywhere, it'd cause a hell of a lot of economic problems. See: the USA's Gilded Age unemployment, current era globalization, etc.


The world economy's all sorts of messed up, giving people benefits for living in a certain area. Fix that, then you can fix immigration/emmigration.

I don't claim to know enough to be sure about anything, but the way I see it, is that a lot of the problems in the world are caused by people being stuck some place under unfortunate circumstances. Give people the ability to go where they want, and suddenly those governments out there who do bad things lose their base.

One way of looking at it is democracy where you cast your vote by choosing where you reside. Another, perhaps, is a free market approach to the situation. While I don't always like what these two systems provide for us as is, it certainly couldn't be worse than what we have now, where people are stuck in bad situations simply because they're too poor, or the borders are closed, or the barriers to entry of the more fortunate countries are extremely high.

Unlikely to happen anyway, and I'd be happy to hear better ideas. Like I said, I can't predict what ripples and waves this might cause, and it certainly would end up causing problems. At heart, I just don't like the idea that some people deserve better chances at a good life than others simply because of the circumstances of their birth. Also sorta pissed at the whole "not allowed to go to Cuba" thing, but that's neither here nor there.

Frumple was right, however, nothing will ever get done if everyone is waiting on everyone else to first fix their parts.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 26, 2012, 08:19:34 pm
Quote from: sluissa on April 26, 2012, 08:02:48 pm
Also sorta pissed at the whole "not allowed to go to Cuba" thing, but that's neither here nor there.

This reminded me about some talk Obama had early in his presidency where he promised to ease our relations with Cuba, and from some wiki-browsing I found that during his presidency economic and travel restrictions have been lessened, but I've got no clue what the specifics are.

I'm a little too lazy to find stuff about every bill, but this BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7997063.stm) covers him allowing Cuban Americans to visit Cuba more easily.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Twi on April 26, 2012, 09:13:52 pm
http://www.contactingthecongress.org/ (http://www.contactingthecongress.org/)

Huzzah! Now I don't have the excuse of "I'm lazy' as a reason not to contact my congressman! >_>
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 26, 2012, 09:57:34 pm
 I am the ghost of Christmas Future, I bring tidings of things yet to come with student loans.  (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/student-loan-debt-slaves-perpetuity-true-story-bankruptcy-hell)

 Only 55% of people aged 18-30 have a job in the United States. 1 in 2 students in the class of 2012 will be unemployed or underemployed.  (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/1-2-graduates-jobless-underemployed-140300522.html)

+

"Only 39 percent are paying down balances. An estimated 5.4 million borrowers have at least one student loan account past due." ~Federal Reserve Bank of New York....

=

You do the math....

 This is probably your only real chance and who knows if that'll pass. (http://hansenclarke.house.gov/sites/hansenclarke.house.gov/files/documents/10-10%20Plan%20FAQs.pdf)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 26, 2012, 10:10:51 pm
Quote
Meh, there are legitimate problems with the whole "illegal immigrants being here," thing. However, it balances out once you realize that they pick all the food out of the fields, which let's face it, nobody here wants to do/can do.
The quote was about New Zealand, though, and it doesn't really balance out there. They have more than enough legal workers to handle all their picking twice over. And they are a small country with something on the order of 30% of their land area dedicated to nature preserves. They are big fans of sustainability, in a lot of different ways, and that means keeping outsiders out - whether it be pests, pets, plants or people.

Not to say their policy or implementation is perfect, or even very good, but there are a lot of people who want to live there, and unlike, say, the US, they can't fit them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 26, 2012, 10:52:44 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 26, 2012, 10:10:51 pm
Quote
Meh, there are legitimate problems with the whole "illegal immigrants being here," thing. However, it balances out once you realize that they pick all the food out of the fields, which let's face it, nobody here wants to do/can do.
The quote was about New Zealand, though, and it doesn't really balance out there. They have more than enough legal workers to handle all their picking twice over. And they are a small country with something on the order of 30% of their land area dedicated to nature preserves. They are big fans of sustainability, in a lot of different ways, and that means keeping outsiders out - whether it be pests, pets, plants or people.

Not to say their policy or implementation is perfect, or even very good, but there are a lot of people who want to live there, and unlike, say, the US, they can't fit them.

I'm afraid I honestly don't understand you.

If you're quoting me, then I said:
Quote from: Truean on April 26, 2012, 10:53:11 am
Meh, there are legitimate problems with the whole "illegal immigrants being here," thing. However, it balances out once you realize that they pick all the food out of the fields, which let's face it, nobody here wants to do/can do.

Can you please help me understand how this was about NZ?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on April 27, 2012, 12:04:00 am
Because the conversation was about New Zealand.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 27, 2012, 12:41:23 am
Just going to point out the CISPA thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=107052.0), especially relevant now that the bill has passed in the House.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on April 27, 2012, 02:42:02 am
Quote from: Truean on April 26, 2012, 10:52:44 pm
Can you please help me understand how this was about NZ?

He means the quote in your post (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg3228647#msg3228647). That is, the dialogue you responded to.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ggamer on April 27, 2012, 02:50:38 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 26, 2012, 04:42:28 am
http://news.yahoo.com/hurt-arizona-immigration-law-hispanics-organize-070343097.html
-snipsnip-

That entire law makes no sense. They say it's not racial profiling, but they're not going to pull over a pale man with an orange beard and be all like "Sir, Can I see your green card? You look like an illegal Irish immigrant".

Basically, it's legislation that allows police to arrest hispanics and it makes me sad. Sad because It makes the south, and by extension me, look reaaaally bad.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 27, 2012, 03:02:04 pm
Quote
Can you please help me understand how this was about NZ?
As the others stated, the conversation was about NZ. Which made your post a bit of a... non-sequiter, I guess. I was trying to stay on topic by relating your response to the situation being discussed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 27, 2012, 03:04:29 pm
Quote from: ggamer on April 27, 2012, 02:50:38 pm
Sad because It makes the south, and by extension me, look reaaaally bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy)

You only "look bad" to people whose opinions you probably shouldn't care about anyway. So don't get too bent out of shape about that part (though do of course get bent out of shape about the racial profiling).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 27, 2012, 03:06:13 pm
There's strong social value in judging by association, don't trast it completely. It provides incentive for people to improve the things with which they are associated, and is a strong social force for the better.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on April 27, 2012, 07:00:45 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 27, 2012, 03:02:04 pm
Quote
Can you please help me understand how this was about NZ?
As the others stated, the conversation was about NZ. Which made your post a bit of a... non-sequiter, I guess. I was trying to stay on topic by relating your response to the situation being discussed.

That's what I get for not making time to read the previous posts and starting a "new" one. Sorry.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on April 27, 2012, 08:37:55 pm
When is the last time (not counting pre-Nixon stuff) that the Republicans as a party have had something good to ask to politics. That isn't a rhetorical question. It seems absurd to think that every single action a major party has done has been neutral to bad, but I can't think of any examples that say otherwise.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 27, 2012, 08:41:39 pm
Didn't Reagen's policies fix stagflation?

Also not a rhetorical question since I've never got a straight answer as to the cause of stagflation, nor the solution of it, other than "Reagen fixed it."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 27, 2012, 10:20:55 pm
Quote
Explaining the 1970s stagflation
Further information: Nixon Shock
Following Richard Nixon's imposition of wage and price controls on August 15, 1971, an initial wave of cost-push shocks in commodities was blamed for causing spiraling prices. Perhaps the most notorious factor cited at that time was the failure of the Peruvian anchovy fishery in 1972, a major source of livestock feed.[16] The second major shock was the 1973 oil crisis, when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) constrained the worldwide supply of oil.[17] Both events, combined with the overall energy shortage that characterized the 1970s, resulted in actual or relative scarcity of raw materials. The price controls resulted in shortages at the point of purchase, causing, for example, queues of consumers at fueling stations and increased production costs for industry.
Theoretical responses
Under this set of theories, the solution to stagflation is to restore the supply of materials. In the case of a physical scarcity, stagflation is mitigated either by finding a replacement for the missing resources or by developing ways to increase economic productivity and energy efficiency so that more output is produced with less input. For example, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the scarcity of oil was relieved by increases in both energy efficiency and global oil production. This factor, along with adjustments in monetary policies, helped end stagflation.

Quote
Carter [...] took office during a period of international stagflation, which persisted throughout his term.

Quote
But the most important element in the war against inflation was the Federal Reserve Board, which clamped down hard on the money supply beginning in 1979. By refusing to supply all the money an inflation-ravaged economy wanted, the Fed caused interest rates to rise. As a result, consumer spending and business borrowing slowed abruptly. The economy soon fell into a deep recession.

Yeah, that's how you combat runaway inflation, by crashing the money supply. Note that this started before Reagan.

The other fix was more drilling by OPEC nations, nothing to do with America.

EDITL Note the hypocrisy of the pro-Reaganites blaming Jimmy Carter for the 1982-1983 recession, but giving Reagan credit for the resultant drop in inflation. Both things were due to the fed. reserve actions of 1979.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on April 29, 2012, 02:47:44 am
Slightly nihilistic discussion on Human Rights - possibly accurate, if uncomfortable. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17866473)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 29, 2012, 03:07:05 am
Hmm... My main objection is a conflation of what ought be with what is. It seems obvious to me that the concept of "rights" is an assertion of the former, so pointing out that we live in a world that doesn't agree with that definition doesn't seem to undermine the claim that it should be that way, barring an appeal to the naturalistic. Human rights can clearly be violated, as the existence of murder attests. Whether those violations can be effectively punished, I think, is a different question than whether the violations exist.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on April 29, 2012, 11:47:54 am
Quote from: Bauglir on April 29, 2012, 03:07:05 am
Hmm... My main objection is a conflation of what ought be with what is. It seems obvious to me that the concept of "rights" is an assertion of the former, so pointing out that we live in a world that doesn't agree with that definition doesn't seem to undermine the claim that it should be that way, barring an appeal to the naturalistic. Human rights can clearly be violated, as the existence of murder attests. Whether those violations can be effectively punished, I think, is a different question than whether the violations exist.
Basically this. It can be a valid point to ask who decides them, but the fact that rights are unenforced does not make them less valid as a philosophical ideal.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 29, 2012, 01:18:20 pm
Quote from: Reelya on April 27, 2012, 10:20:55 pm

EDITL Note the hypocrisy of the pro-Reaganites blaming Jimmy Carter for the 1982-1983 recession, but giving Reagan credit for the resultant drop in inflation. Both things were due to the fed. reserve actions of 1979.

I'm reminded of this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2589#comic
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Fenrir on April 29, 2012, 01:34:35 pm
People seem to have no idea what rights are; they talk about them like they were physical things like toasters and unicorns, and then they wonder whether they exist. Rights are human indignation writ on paper. To declare something a right is to state our strong desire for it to be respected, and it is to affirm our resolve to kick the asses of anyone who disagrees.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Darvi on April 29, 2012, 01:35:52 pm
I always defined a right as being the opposite of a left.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Shinotsa on April 29, 2012, 01:39:27 pm
Quote from: Darvi on April 29, 2012, 01:35:52 pm
I always defined a right as being the opposite of a left.

No, no, and no. It is the state of being correct, opposite to wrong.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 29, 2012, 01:47:57 pm
Quote from: Fenrir on April 29, 2012, 01:34:35 pm
People seem to have no idea what rights are; they talk about them like they were physical things like toasters and unicorns, and then they wonder whether they exist. Rights are human indignation writ on paper. To declare something a right is to state our strong desire for it to be respected, and it is to affirm our resolve to kick the asses of anyone who disagrees.
That'd largely be because we've (especially ethical and political theorists, natch) got a pretty impressive mileage over the years by presenting them as existent things. Yes, it's a convenient fiction, but it's a really damn convenient one that simplifies a whole hell of a lot of political and ethical systems -- ones which are pretty tremendously beneficial compared to the alternatives.

You can usually come to the same conclusions without the assumption of existent rights, but it takes a hell of a lot more time and effort -- and good luck getting that through to people outside of academia, who don't really have the time and energy to wrestle through it.

It's kinda' like telling existential skepticism to shove off. Yes, we have no way of justifying that we actually exist in any physical sense, but we get a lot more done when we tell that fact to go screw itself and agree on some axiomatic truths. Rights are a sort of equivalent to physical existence, basically, just for ethical systems.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 29, 2012, 02:05:14 pm
Rights are a specific type of indignation, though; namely, "don't tread on me."

Rights are always things you expect others to do/not do:
Don't run me over with a car. Don't stab me. Don't harass me. Don't deny me a job for silly reasons.
Give me voting rights. Give me road access. Give me speech freedom.

By giving "ownership" of them to individuals (rather than to the people actually obligated to do anything) we can easily take the obligation away for arbitrary reasons of convenience. That's why we call them existent "things." (also a holdover from enlightenment when they were trying to break everything down into objective truths)


Rights can be eloquently summarized by stating the golden rule of human interaction: Don't be a dick to other people.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 01, 2012, 08:25:58 am
We have one of those "Defense of Marriage" amendments on the ballot here in NC next week. Support has been pretty split, but discussion has been mostly civil.

Mostly. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/113710881)

We have a sign similar to that in our yard. I'd like to see this piece of garbage try to fire a shotgun into my yard. If so, I hope he enjoys the taste of his own teeth.  >:(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: sluissa on May 01, 2012, 10:35:21 am
If I had to guess, it looks as if he took the sign from where it was placed and brought it somewhere else to shoot it. Where it was when he shot it doesn't look like a place a political sign would normally be placed. If he actually took it from someone else's property, perhaps theft or trespass?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 01, 2012, 10:54:36 am
Quote from: RedKing on May 01, 2012, 08:25:58 am
We have one of those "Defense of Marriage" amendments on the ballot here in NC next week. Support has been pretty split, but discussion has been mostly civil.

Mostly. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/113710881)

We have a sign similar to that in our yard. I'd like to see this piece of garbage try to fire a shotgun into my yard. If so, I hope he enjoys the taste of his own teeth.  >:(

.... I object to numerous things, most certainly including this man's stupidity.

First and foremost, he via his bullet, and later himself when he walks on the property to steal the sign, is trespassing to land and chattels (property). At least they would be here in Ohio civilly. It probably isn't "assault" because he's not shooting at someone and causing "immediate" ... apprehension of harmful or offensive physical contact to a person. It is however, immensely stupid and could get him sued for a wide variety of things depending upon lots of surrounding circumstances. Having someone fire a god damn shotgun in the general direction of you/your yard will pass the smell test of most judges as something you can sue over, generally.

No one here cares about the specifics and they vary, but basically a trespass to land is a physical invasion or intrusion onto property without privilege. It can be done by bodily stepping onto someone else's land or by some other physical thing directly, indirectly or not at all under someone's control. (Flooding your neighbor's yard with lots of rainwater runoff can qualify).

Here, we have a bullet directly under the purpose and intention of the jerk. Said jerk, then in the words of  Ace of Base "saw the sign." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNPjeIamsck&ob=av2n) Unfortunately it did not open up his eyes. Very much not in the words of Ace of Base, he then god damn shot it. This is traditionally trespass to land via the physical intrusion of a bullet.

Then of course he's causing damage to the sign, or the yard, or wherever the shot lands. So that's the trespass to chattels.

If this isn't the first such bullshit thing he's done, then he might also have IIED (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) tied on there too. It isn't a stretch at all to say someone firing a damn shotgun onto your yard/political signs/direction of your house is "extreme and outrageous conduct outside the bounds of civilized society." Damages might be difficult to prove, both inherently for IIED and specifically in this case, but I think a jury would totally buy some emotional damage from some asshole shooting at your house. Typically one has to see a therapist or something for this kind of thing to amount to money damages, but meh.

Then of course, there are possible criminal penalties, which in NC I know positively nothing about, but generally speaking reckless or intentional discharge of a firearm at someone's residence is frowned upon and the law takes a dim view of it. Plus, shit, he's on tape and he made the tape himself so.... The right to own a gun doesn't mean the right to shoot it at your neighbors/their stuff. Plus, I think he took the sign down/physically took it at the end... off of his neighbor's yard.... That sign doesn't belong to him....

This is why I avoid political things in real life. I don't care and just things to get done with an operationally workable procedure and hopefully to get paid for following said procedure. :P :)

So to review, don't shoot your neighbor's property, or steal it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on May 01, 2012, 11:24:02 am
Quote from: RedKing on May 01, 2012, 08:25:58 am
We have one of those "Defense of Marriage" amendments on the ballot here in NC next week. Support has been pretty split, but discussion has been mostly civil.
You forgot to mention the part where they are holding the vote for it on the primary day, in hopes that less democrats will come.

And also the fact that gay marriage isn't actually legal in NC to begin with; they just want to make it more illegal.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 01, 2012, 11:30:44 am
Kannapolis PD has said they're investigating, and at bare minimum he could be facing charges for unlawful discharge of a firearm within city limits.

Looked like a light-gauge gun, probably a .410 with pellet shot based on the size of the holes in the paper. So while it was intended as a snarky asshole prank cause "screw them queers, dude", here's hoping it comes back to bite the dude in the ass hard. Although I'm sure if he does, he'll become a poster-boy for FOX News and the like, screaming how he's being made an example of by "the extremist gay activist lobby".

Best comment I've seen re: this was "Obviously, he thought the sign was wearing a hoodie and thus, up to no good."

Quote from: EveryZig on May 01, 2012, 11:24:02 am
Quote from: RedKing on May 01, 2012, 08:25:58 am
We have one of those "Defense of Marriage" amendments on the ballot here in NC next week. Support has been pretty split, but discussion has been mostly civil.
And also the fact that gay marriage isn't actually legal in NC to begin with; they just want to make it more illegal.
I know. We have to make it doubleplus ungood. Not just for gays but for any kind of couple other than a legally married heterosexual one. That's what kills me. The one silver lining in all this is that if it does pass, there's going to be a lot of surprised rednecks with live-in girlfriends/boyfriends and a whole new mess of legal problems.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 01, 2012, 11:53:05 am
Quote from: RedKing on May 01, 2012, 11:30:44 am
Kannapolis PD has said they're investigating, and at bare minimum he could be facing charges for unlawful discharge of a firearm within city limits.

Looked like a light-gauge gun, probably a .410 with pellet shot based on the size of the holes in the paper. So while it was intended as a snarky asshole prank cause "screw them queers, dude", here's hoping it comes back to bite the dude in the ass hard. Although I'm sure if he does, he'll become a poster-boy for FOX News and the like, screaming how he's being made an example of by "the extremist gay activist lobby".

Best comment I've seen re: this was "Obviously, he thought the sign was wearing a hoodie and thus, up to no good."

Quote from: EveryZig on May 01, 2012, 11:24:02 am
Quote from: RedKing on May 01, 2012, 08:25:58 am
We have one of those "Defense of Marriage" amendments on the ballot here in NC next week. Support has been pretty split, but discussion has been mostly civil.
And also the fact that gay marriage isn't actually legal in NC to begin with; they just want to make it more illegal.
I know. We have to make it doubleplus ungood. Not just for gays but for any kind of couple other than a legally married heterosexual one. That's what kills me. The one silver lining in all this is that if it does pass, there's going to be a lot of surprised rednecks with live-in girlfriends/boyfriends and a whole new mess of legal problems.

Basically they're amending the State Constitution. Gay marriage is illegal in NC and most other states, but that's not enough it seems. Now it has to be unconstitutional. Not that any judge in NC was ever going to make gay marriage legal, but now if gay marriage is against the constitution, then the judge literally couldn't. Granted, judges are biased things, but making something unconstitutional isn't necessary.

It's unfortunate that judges often ignore the law and are corrupt as all hell by large entities at the expense of the individual. Just had a credit card case where the Credit Card Company screwed up the paperwork massively. We aren't saying defendant doesn't owe something, we're saying prove the amount of damages. Judge lets CC company win on summary judgment without a trial, knowing we can't afford to appeal her. Worse, at the rotary club meeting, judge gives speech about how "young people shouldn't get off on technicalities." O really? I guess only credit card companies should get off on those? Yeah, they can put whatever they want on the court papers...

So while judges often ignore the law, it's rarely in favor of individuals or unpopular political causes. In NC, gay marriage is not a popular political cause. The risk of a judge doing anything about it that'd be good for gays is slim to nil. Thus, the additional hurdle of making it unconstitutional is totally unnecessary, because even if you had one sensible judge, they'd be up on appeal with one who wasn't....

So yeah, they have to make it literally unconstitutional, because "illegal" isn't enough. Super Illegal.... Great.

As for the live in girlfriends/boyfriends. Unless you have a palimony statute, then it honestly won't effect them too terribly much. Unless they've got like a wife and a girlfriend or who knows what else. Domestic violence victims and others will feel it, though no one seems to care.

I love being constitutionally considered a second or third class class citizen.... Hopefully future people will look back on this with shame, if nothing else happens. This is basically the anti integration/pro racist shit that happened in the jim crow/civil rights movement era. People don't like a certain thing and the courts mandate it, so they fight back to preserve their prejudice. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.... What is the equal and opposite reaction to civil rights?

Depending upon which polling company you believe support for the amendment is either up or down. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scottie-thomaston/north-carolina-amendment-1-poll_b_1449287.html)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on May 01, 2012, 12:24:06 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 01, 2012, 11:53:05 am
As for the live in girlfriends/boyfriends. Unless you have a palimony statute, then it honestly won't effect them too terribly much. Unless they've got like a wife and a girlfriend or who knows what else. Domestic violence victims and others will feel it, though no one seems to care.
It also does do unmarried couples the same bull that is already done to gay couples. No hospital visitation, legal issues if they have kids, and so on.

Quote from: Truean on May 01, 2012, 11:53:05 am
Hopefully future people will look back on this with shame, if nothing else happens.
Does it count if I am already doing that?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 01, 2012, 01:14:52 pm
My take on this whole thing is that it's a pre-emptive measure. A firewall, if you will, so that if the Federal government ever legally recognizes same-sex marriage, opponents will be able to hide behind a "states' rights" argument to defy the Federal government in states where they've pulled this off.

As far as its' chances....I dunno. It'll be close either way. We're a Southern state with a lot of rural ground, but at the same time we have a long history of being one of the most progressive, educated states in the South. And for all our rural territory, the population is still about 75% urban. But then again, "urban" includes a lot of little towns where the local preacher-man is extolling to his flock to get out there and vote for the amendment to protect their kids from TEH GAY. So in the end....I just dunno.

Before 2010, I'd have said with some confidence that we wouldn't stoop to that level of derpitude here, but then we elected a Republican (Tea Party-dominated, no less) legislature to the state house for the first time in decades. And they've proceeded to wreck our shit bigtime. This amendment is just one more notch in their well-worn and somewhat skeevy legislative bedpost.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 01, 2012, 01:32:47 pm
Quote from: EveryZig on May 01, 2012, 12:24:06 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 01, 2012, 11:53:05 am
As for the live in girlfriends/boyfriends. Unless you have a palimony statute, then it honestly won't effect them too terribly much. Unless they've got like a wife and a girlfriend or who knows what else. Domestic violence victims and others will feel it, though no one seems to care.
It also does do unmarried couples the same bull that is already done to gay couples. No hospital visitation, legal issues if they have kids, and so on.

Quote from: Truean on May 01, 2012, 11:53:05 am
Hopefully future people will look back on this with shame, if nothing else happens.
Does it count if I am already doing that?

Yes.

Also regardless of this amendment, unmarried couples already have visitation problems, so .... The issue is complicated. People don't understand it. Enforcement is the issue. Technically, right now unmarried couples "Don't" have hospital visitations. Now, do people in hospitals fudge around that, yes. They let them come in all the same. Except of course if you're gay... well then.... Suddenly that gets enforced where as enforcement for straight non married couples.... :) Now will this amendment do anything to effect enforcement? I dunno.

That said people are monumentally stupid. You have no idea how often I've heard from stupid parents, "I don't need a will, I got that Gerber Grow up Plan for my kids." .... [look of disbelief]. That.... is just a life insurance plan for IF YOUR KID dies. It will pay you to bury your kid. It will do NOTHING if YOU die, ONLY if KID dies.... People refuse to get this and other things. Carlan was right. "Think of how dumb the average person is; half of 'em are dumber than that." :) People don't understand much about family law. They will vote though....

Quote from: RedKing on May 01, 2012, 01:14:52 pm
My take on this whole thing is that it's a pre-emptive measure. A firewall, if you will, so that if the Federal government ever legally recognizes same-sex marriage, opponents will be able to hide behind a "states' rights" argument to defy the Federal government in states where they've pulled this off.

As far as its' chances....I dunno. It'll be close either way. We're a Southern state with a lot of rural ground, but at the same time we have a long history of being one of the most progressive, educated states in the South. And for all our rural territory, the population is still about 75% urban. But then again, "urban" includes a lot of little towns where the local preacher-man is extolling to his flock to get out there and vote for the amendment to protect their kids from TEH GAY. So in the end....I just dunno.

Before 2010, I'd have said with some confidence that we wouldn't stoop to that level of derpitude here, but then we elected a Republican (Tea Party-dominated, no less) legislature to the state house for the first time in decades. And they've proceeded to wreck our shit bigtime. This amendment is just one more notch in their well-worn and somewhat skeevy legislative bedpost.

Not a bad way to look at it. Though, it also is about state level preemption. If it's "unconstitutional," by the state constitution, then no state judge can do jack with a case trying to declare it illegal. So it's double preventative.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 01, 2012, 01:53:11 pm
Like I said, doubleplus ungood. Probably right, though. We do have a Superior Court Judge (one Howard Manning Jr.) who has a track record of telling the legislature to go fuck itself when he's determned they're shirking their civil responsibilities.

Like when he overruled a Republican bill to tack a program fee onto a state program for preschool care for families below the poverty line. Or found in favor of a group of families sueing the state board of education, because he determined that the Board wasn't meeting their constitutional responsibility to adequately fund school districts in poor counties.

But then his "activism" (although really all he's done is saying "You set out goals and programs in Document A. You then thought you could just forget about and not actually have to fund it. Guess what? You still have to fund it, or else go back and actually take the step to legislate the program away, and then reap your rewards at the polls.") has been confined narrowly to education, particularly education of low-income children. I don't see that extending to gay marriage, especially when it's already illegal on the books.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 01, 2012, 03:05:09 pm
Quote from: RedKing on May 01, 2012, 01:53:11 pm
Like I said, doubleplus ungood. Probably right, though. We do have a Superior Court Judge (one Howard Manning Jr.) who has a track record of telling the legislature to go fuck itself when he's determned they're shirking their civil responsibilities.

Like when he overruled a Republican bill to tack a program fee onto a state program for preschool care for families below the poverty line. Or found in favor of a group of families sueing the state board of education, because he determined that the Board wasn't meeting their constitutional responsibility to adequately fund school districts in poor counties.

But then his "activism" (although really all he's done is saying "You set out goals and programs in Document A. You then thought you could just forget about and not actually have to fund it. Guess what? You still have to fund it, or else go back and actually take the step to legislate the program away, and then reap your rewards at the polls.") has been confined narrowly to education, particularly education of low-income children. I don't see that extending to gay marriage, especially when it's already illegal on the books.

Yeah, people don't get that politicians write things and then don't do them, or write things they can't do and try to. There are certain things you can't do and screw you if you wanna do them. There are certain things you must do and screw you if you don't wanna do them.

It's called reality and no one wants to face it, ever. They think the universe is a consumer transaction that operates or not based upon their pleasure, literally. As if their approval meant shit at all. You may be in a democracy, but there are preexisting rules to follow in the exercise of that concept of government. Of, course the politicians will tell the public that unicorns shitting puppies and vomiting rainbows of wonderfulness will result if they get elected and people are dumb enough to believe them. "I want X." People in hell want ice water.... It isn't impossible for them to get ice water, but you have to find a way to get it there in reality. It isn't simple and you might not like it. In fact we should come up with a theoretical plan in a thread about transporting icewater to a person in hell.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 01, 2012, 03:10:30 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 01, 2012, 03:05:09 pm
Of, course the politicians will tell the public that unicorns shitting puppies and vomiting rainbows of wonderfulness will result if they get elected
I...I think that would make me less likely to vote for someone. That sounds rather messy.  :o


Quote
In fact we should come up with a theoretical plan in a thread about transporting icewater to a person in hell.
If ever there were a user community that could accomplish that task, it would be this one. Forget colonizing Hell, the next challenge is turning it into a posh resort for the Damned.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Fenrir on May 01, 2012, 03:26:17 pm
Quote from: RedKing on May 01, 2012, 03:10:30 pm
Quote
In fact we should come up with a theoretical plan in a thread about transporting icewater to a person in hell.
If ever there were a user community that could accomplish that task, it would be this one. Forget colonizing Hell, the next challenge is turning it into a posh resort for the Damned.
If I took the time to study the matter, there might be a way to do that. I think it might involve transubstantiation and AI.

1. Build AI.
2. Transubstantiate AI into a real person.
3. Ordain AI.
4. Order AI to commit suicide and, once in Hell, transubstantiate synthetic body fluids into icewater.

It is a bit rough and makes some assumptions, but it is a start.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 01, 2012, 03:56:27 pm
Wait, what exactly does that new law do?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 01, 2012, 03:57:54 pm
What new law?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Jervill on May 01, 2012, 04:00:50 pm
I need to stop lurking.

The proposed North Carolina constitutional amendment would make both gay marriage and civil unions illegal; most voters are unaware of the latter part of the law.  Someone else could perhaps explain it better.

As an aside, does the North Carolina Governor have any power whatsoever?  I know that both constitutional amendments and legislative redistricting are completely out of the governor's control; so what is the point of the position?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 01, 2012, 04:02:31 pm
Of course they are. Hey gets to approve and or dissapprove of laws.

Constitutional amendments are not laws. Or at least not legislative-style laws people mean when they talk about laws.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 01, 2012, 04:11:28 pm
Quote from: Jervill on May 01, 2012, 04:00:50 pm
I need to stop lurking.

The proposed North Carolina constitutional amendment would make both gay marriage and civil unions illegal; most voters are unaware of the latter part of the law.  Someone else could perhaps explain it better.

As an aside, does the North Carolina Governor have any power whatsoever?  I know that both constitutional amendments and legislative redistricting are completely out of the governor's control; so what is the point of the position?
Governor does have a veto, which she exercised a lot this last session. However the GOP has enough dominance in the General Assembly that they can actually override most of her vetos (62% control of the Senate and 59% of the House..all they need are a relative handful of conservative Democrats -- of which there are plenty -- to do it)

And as GG pointed out, this is a constitutional amendment set as a ballot referendum. Now, I believe it did take a bill to put it on the ballot, and IIRC Gov. Perdue vetoed it, and the GA gleefully overrode the veto.

Should be noted that many of these new Republican legislators ran as Tea party fiscal conservatives and solemnly promised that they were going to Raleigh to cut spending and get our fiscal house in order, not legislate on social issues. And then they promptly slashed social service funding and began legislating on social issues.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Jervill on May 01, 2012, 04:16:59 pm
Sorry about the misunderstandings, here in Minnesota the Republicans did the exact same things you just described.  Including saying they would have a "laser focus" on jobs; and they abruptly put the "Defense of Marriage" act language on the 2012 ballot.  Luckily here, it will be on the general election ballot instead of the primaries.

Of course, here the ballot referendum bypasses the Governor (currently held by Mark Dayton, who ceremonially "vetoed" the bill) and goes straight to the voters.

I'm just lucky the Democrats control all statewide offices; they aren't perfect, but they can at least stall some of the most extreme laws.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 01, 2012, 04:53:15 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/why-couldnt-marissa-alexander-stand-her-ground-florida-162546331.html

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the double standard in Florida's "Stand your ground" law.

Apparently, if you are a black woman whose husband is abusing you, you can't so much as fire a warning shot into the ceiling. 

If, however, you are a white (don't care that he's half Hispanic)  fairly well off male, then you can do whatever....

:D And this is some bullshit.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on May 01, 2012, 04:58:29 pm
Why is that? o_o Doesn't make sense at all D:

(..at least logically... to the unenlightened...)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on May 01, 2012, 04:59:32 pm
Because Florida is a god-dammed dumbass.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Jervill on May 01, 2012, 05:03:33 pm
I really wish I could be surprised at this development...

But, I kind of figured this would happen.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 01, 2012, 05:26:47 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on May 01, 2012, 04:59:32 pm
Because Florida is a god-dammed dumbass.

Not really much else to say, here. Bloody state has some serious g'damn problems and no one major really trying to fix anything. The social failures are only half the story, really, if that. They're prefaced and supported by fairly horrific economic issues, as well :-\

We're just not doing very well down here, really. I really do want out, but that's still a few years away, realistically. Bleh.

And yeah, Florida pretty much did the same thing re:homosexual marriage, including the let's-shaft-the-unmarried bit, a few years back. From what I remember, though, it was a little different down here in that homosexual marriage was already unconstitutional -- at least twice over -- and all that really happened was civil unions and cohabitants just got screwed a bit. And by a bit, iirc, I mean something along the lines of the amendment giving businesses grounds to strip parts of insurance support from them, or something like that. S'been long enough I don't quite remember the details, but there was a pretty heavy economic issue (that was, of course, completely drowned out by the anti-homosexual aspect) involved that just kinda' slipped on through and fucked over (or at least gave the room for it) a fairly large number of heterosexual couples.

It was almost hilarious, really, in a really depressing way.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on May 01, 2012, 06:27:10 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 01, 2012, 04:53:15 pm
Apparently, if you are a black woman whose husband is abusing you, you can't so much as fire a warning shot into the ceiling. 

If, however, you are a white (don't care that he's half Hispanic)  fairly well off male, then you can do whatever....
Well you see, she fired a warning shot. Obviously its only real self defense if you shoot to kill at the first and every other opportunity.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on May 02, 2012, 04:03:25 pm
So some people think men are hard done by... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17907534)

Honestly, whilst there may be a TINY kernel of truth in this, I cant help but think that this trivializes the concept of equality.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on May 02, 2012, 04:21:29 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on May 02, 2012, 04:03:25 pm
So some people think men are hard done by... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17907534)

Honestly, whilst there may be a TINY kernel of truth in this, I cant help but think that this trivializes the concept of equality.

Quote
Custody law is perhaps the best-known area of men's rights activism, with images of divorced fathers scaling buildings in Batman suits familiar in the UK.

Wait what?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on May 02, 2012, 04:31:55 pm
Yeah that line... The hell is goin' on in England?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ggamer on May 02, 2012, 04:44:06 pm
It's that kind of thing that makes me want to officially rescind Florida's permission to be in the bible belt. They can't be in the south anymore.

They can get their own region.

The region can be called the Jackass swamp.

Heh. I like that.

Jackass swamp- population: Florida.

Anyway, it doesn't matter, I'll probably start hating my home state of georgia because of stupidity soon. Then the whole country. Baaaaahh.

I don't want to live in this country anymore!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 02, 2012, 06:02:53 pm
Quote from: Descan on May 02, 2012, 04:31:55 pm
Yeah that line... The hell is goin' on in England?
A completely peaceful protest campaign?

Although I'd say "familiar" is kindof an overstatement, it's happened a couple of times, it's not like you see men in Batman suits climbing buildings wherever you look.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 02, 2012, 06:24:43 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/student-loan-debt-tell-yahoo-news-story-091854990.html

God don't read the comments.... The conservative yahoo.com commenters are nuts.

People do not understand student loan debt. The simple answer would be to actually pay people with a college degree something so they could pay it back. That doesn't appear to be happening, so you're punishing the students.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on May 02, 2012, 06:32:17 pm
Yeah, the idea itself didn't make me double-take, and I resent your implication that it did, though completely understand it since what I said wasn't clear in that regard.

What DID make me double-take was the "familiar" part of the line. Which you cleared up.

*ragepoke*
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 02, 2012, 06:35:17 pm
Quote from: ggamer on May 02, 2012, 04:44:06 pm
It's that kind of thing that makes me want to officially rescind Florida's permission to be in the bible belt. They can't be in the south anymore.

They can get their own region.

The region can be called the Jackass swamp.
I've expressed dislike of your views on regionalism in the US and still hold that opinion, but it's worth mentioning that aside from north Florida it actually is considered to be a different cultural region in most outlooks on the subject. The high number of Cuban-Americans living in that area is not a small factor in this division.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 02, 2012, 08:23:12 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rejects-case-against-former-bush-lawyer-152801831.html

So immunity for the lawyer who said it was legally cool to torture people in the United States of America.... It was "legally unclear" that enemy combatants got the same rights as other criminals and prisoners of war...? So if I call it something different then that changes it despite it being exactly the same.... If I screw up the slightest bit, they will jump all over me. This John Yoo guy does this and just....

He literally ordered people tortured.... No consequences....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on May 02, 2012, 08:34:31 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 02, 2012, 08:23:12 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rejects-case-against-former-bush-lawyer-152801831.html

So immunity for the lawyer who said it was legally cool to torture people in the United States of America.... It was "legally unclear" that enemy combatants got the same rights as other criminals and prisoners of war...? So if I call it something different then that changes it despite it being exactly the same.... If I screw up the slightest bit, they will jump all over me. This John Yoo guy does this and just....

He literally ordered people tortured.... No consequences....
I need to get the hell out of this country.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on May 02, 2012, 09:15:32 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 02, 2012, 08:23:12 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rejects-case-against-former-bush-lawyer-152801831.html

So immunity for the lawyer who said it was legally cool to torture people in the United States of America.... It was "legally unclear" that enemy combatants got the same rights as other criminals and prisoners of war...? So if I call it something different then that changes it despite it being exactly the same.... If I screw up the slightest bit, they will jump all over me. This John Yoo guy does this and just....

He literally ordered people tortured.... No consequences....

Oh my. Scary D:
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on May 02, 2012, 09:18:32 pm
Why does it always seem like the more important something is, the less conseqences for the people involved?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 02, 2012, 09:19:38 pm
Quote from: JoshuaFH on May 02, 2012, 09:18:32 pm
Why does it always seem like the more important something is, the less conseqences for the people involved?
Essentially, "screw the rules; I make them."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 02, 2012, 09:19:45 pm
Because they believe its important to send a message.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 02, 2012, 10:10:11 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t69MZkuKpWU&feature=youtu.be

"accidently" left in a holding cell for 5 days, no food, no water. For a marijuana bust.

Fuck these motherfuckers.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on May 02, 2012, 10:23:29 pm
Wife Of Key Legislator Behind North Carolina’s Anti-Gay Amendment Claims It Would Protect ‘Caucasian’ Race: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/02/475141/brunstetter-caucasian/
Quote
NANCE: So you did or did not say anything about Caucasians?

BRUNSTETTER: If I did it wasn’t anything race related.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on May 02, 2012, 10:28:32 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 02, 2012, 10:10:11 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t69MZkuKpWU&feature=youtu.be

"accidently" left in a holding cell for 5 days, no food, no water. For a marijuana bust.

Fuck these motherfuckers.

It was just incompetence and not malice, because this is the sort of things lawyers have wet dreams about.  The important thing is they 'apologized' in three vague sentences about the mistake, in a public forum, and made no effort to direct this message towards the intended person.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 02, 2012, 10:43:59 pm
Quote from: EveryZig on May 02, 2012, 10:23:29 pm
Wife Of Key Legislator Behind North Carolina’s Anti-Gay Amendment Claims It Would Protect ‘Caucasian’ Race: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/02/475141/brunstetter-caucasian/
Quote
NANCE: So you did or did not say anything about Caucasians?

BRUNSTETTER: If I did it wasn’t anything race related.
Ugh. Sorry, but I'm a bit disgusted that something a politician's wife said is seen as newsworthy. Watching the video, it seems to me that she was talking about something entirely irrelevant to the amendment to a random unidentified lady, this dude's drilling her in the hot sun for specifics, and people are taking a hell of a lot out of context.

The amendment is dumb and I would not be entirely surprised if this lady's a racist, but this is plain not newsworthy for any purpose other than attacking a politician's family to indirectly discredit them. And that's not good mojo.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on May 02, 2012, 10:57:45 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on May 02, 2012, 10:43:59 pm
Ugh. Sorry, but I'm a bit disgusted that something a politician's wife said is seen as newsworthy. Watching the video, it seems to me that she was talking about something entirely irrelevant to the amendment to a random unidentified lady, this dude's drilling her in the hot sun for specifics, and people are taking a hell of a lot out of context.

The amendment is dumb and I would not be entirely surprised if this lady's a racist, but this is plain not newsworthy for any purpose other than attacking a politician's family to indirectly discredit them. And that's not good mojo.
Yeah, I guess you are right. I would say that she appeared to be actively talking to people to promote the amendment at the time, but on further thought it is still not good practice to depict something political by interviewing some idiot or nut who supports it without actually having a position of authority over the matter.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 03, 2012, 12:38:47 am
Quote from: Scelly9 on May 02, 2012, 08:34:31 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 02, 2012, 08:23:12 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rejects-case-against-former-bush-lawyer-152801831.html

So immunity for the lawyer who said it was legally cool to torture people in the United States of America.... It was "legally unclear" that enemy combatants got the same rights as other criminals and prisoners of war...? So if I call it something different then that changes it despite it being exactly the same.... If I screw up the slightest bit, they will jump all over me. This John Yoo guy does this and just....

He literally ordered people tortured.... No consequences....
I need to get the hell out of this country.

To what country, though? Every other place is letting people be tortured on order of the US.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 03, 2012, 12:52:19 am
This depressed me a little, I thought this was the place to share it. Pastor says to give 4-year-old boys who act camp "a good punch". If they have a 'limp wrist' then break that wrist to send the message to 'man up'.

http://duanegraham.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/squash-em-like-a-cockroach/

Quote
During a sermon extolling the virtues of North Carolina’s Amendment 1, a proposed constitutional alteration that would superfluously ban same-sex marriage (it’s already illegal in the state), Pastor Harris said the following (please, watch the video clip and read the transcript):
Quote
So your little son starts to act a little girlish when he is four years old and instead of squashing that like a cockroach and saying, “Man up, son, get that dress off you and get outside and dig a ditch, because that is what boys do,” you get out the camera and you start taking pictures of Johnny acting like a female, and then you upload it to YouTube and everybody laughs about it and the next thing you know, this dude, this kid, is acting out childhood fantasies that should have been squashed!

Can I make it any clearer? Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist! Man up! Give him a good punch, okay? “You’re not gonna act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male.”

And when your daughter starts acting too “Butch,”  you reign her in! And you say, “Oh, no! Oh, no, sweetheart. You can play sports. Play ‘em!  Play ‘em to the glory of God. But sometimes you are going to act like a girl and walk like a girl and talk like a girl and smell like a girl, and that means you are going to be beautiful, you are going to be attractive, you are going to dress yourself up!

You say, “Can I take charge like that as a parent?” Yeah, you can. You are authorized. I just gave you a special dispensation this morning to do that. (Laughter)

Ummm, no, you cannot authorize child-abuse. This pastor is preaching illegal activities.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 03, 2012, 12:58:03 am
I doubt he meant a full fledged punch to the face. Probably a smack to the shoulder or something like that.

What makes me angry is the enforced gender roles. Fuck those.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 03, 2012, 01:05:25 am
He can hide behind "i didn't mean it seriously", but that doesn't stop someone else acting on these words, who takes it fully seriously (e.g. a redneck who is concerned their son may be gay). Since he's basically said it's a good idea to beat teh gay out of little kids. A steady supply of "good punch"es anywhere on the body, and "crack that wrist" from your male role-model to a 4-year-old boy, just for being themselves, sounds like a good recipe for a seriously disturbed child.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 03, 2012, 01:11:12 am
TBH, if someone beat their kid to a pulp with their fists and blamed him, I'd be on his side. It's not "I didn't mean it seriously," but rather "I didn't say anything that extreme."

Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely against hitting kids (I'm anti-spanking and such, after all), but doing lasting physical harm is not what that guy is advocating. He's advocating lasting mental harm.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Megaman on May 03, 2012, 01:12:43 am
You can teach obedience through pain, but not a lifestyle through pain.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Blargityblarg on May 03, 2012, 02:08:00 am
I wish I could teach that guy something through pain
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on May 03, 2012, 02:08:29 am
Quote from: Blargityblarg on May 03, 2012, 02:08:00 am
I wish I could teach that guy something through pain

Yeah let's show him who has the REAL moral highground
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Blargityblarg on May 03, 2012, 02:09:52 am
Implied 'but violence is wrong, children!' there.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on May 03, 2012, 02:12:08 am
Quote from: scriver on May 03, 2012, 12:38:47 am
Quote from: Scelly9 on May 02, 2012, 08:34:31 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 02, 2012, 08:23:12 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rejects-case-against-former-bush-lawyer-152801831.html

So immunity for the lawyer who said it was legally cool to torture people in the United States of America.... It was "legally unclear" that enemy combatants got the same rights as other criminals and prisoners of war...? So if I call it something different then that changes it despite it being exactly the same.... If I screw up the slightest bit, they will jump all over me. This John Yoo guy does this and just....

He literally ordered people tortured.... No consequences....
I need to get the hell out of this country.

To what country, though? Every other place is letting people be tortured on order of the US.
....Dammit.

We should make an airship and form a micronation in the sky! It shall be called, Zepplin 12! Join me Comrades!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on May 03, 2012, 02:14:26 am
Quote from: Blargityblarg on May 03, 2012, 02:09:52 am
Implied 'but violence is wrong, children!' there.

And plenty of hardcore religious people also feel that only the graces of their belief prevent them from doing harm to people.  I can accept that maybe you don't truly want to harm the dude physically, but language means things and is powerful.  Respect it!

Edit:  Not that I am making a case for pacifism, just that people try to be cognizant of their own word choices.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Blargityblarg on May 03, 2012, 02:17:52 am
But language can't teach me anything through pain!

Yeah, I'll stop being silly now
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on May 03, 2012, 02:21:03 am
You obviously haven't tried reading anything by Arthur C Clarke then!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on May 03, 2012, 02:29:51 am
Or Atlas Shrugged.

... Or My Immortal. >_>;
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Capntastic on May 03, 2012, 02:34:50 am
Quote from: Descan on May 03, 2012, 02:29:51 am
Or Atlas Shrugged.

... Or My Immortal. >_>;

Those don't teach you anything.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on May 03, 2012, 02:40:30 am
The first teaches you that Libertarians are insane.

The second teaches you that the universe is full of mental anguish.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on May 03, 2012, 08:13:09 am
Quote from: Descan on May 03, 2012, 02:40:30 am
The first teaches you that Libertarians are insane.

The second teaches you that the universe is full of mental anguish.

Also that Snape likes to masticate to teenage girls gurlz.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on May 03, 2012, 08:33:25 am
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 03, 2012, 08:44:18 am
Quote from: dhokarena56 on May 03, 2012, 08:13:09 am
Quote from: Descan on May 03, 2012, 02:40:30 am
The first teaches you that Libertarians are insane.

The second teaches you that the universe is full of mental anguish.

Also that Snape likes to masticate to teenage girls gurlz.

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on May 03, 2012, 08:33:25 am
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

dhokarena56 is staying in character for "My Immortal". Masticate is the correct term in that context for "spanking the monkey".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 04, 2012, 11:41:39 am
So, remember that NC anti-gay-marriage amendment? There's a hilarious sad new wrinkle in that one of the bill's sponsors' wife made some comments that it was written to "help preserve the Caucasian race". Because you know, only white people catch TEH GAY, and then the various unlcean mud peoples will outreproduce us.

Best part: When she was later approached for clarification, she denied ever saying it, then sorta admitted saying it, then finally blamed heatstroke for not being able to explain it. (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/north-carolina-marriage-amendment-protects-caucasian-race.php)

*facepalm on behalf of my entire state*
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on May 04, 2012, 11:45:34 am
Personally, I love it when bigots out themselves :D
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Virex on May 04, 2012, 02:36:18 pm
Quote from: Capntastic on May 03, 2012, 02:08:29 am
Quote from: Blargityblarg on May 03, 2012, 02:08:00 am
I wish I could teach that guy something through pain

Yeah let's show him who has the REAL moral highground
You don't need to hold the moral high ground if no one can object to you ;)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Euld on May 04, 2012, 03:59:37 pm
I, for one, approve of our baby punching overlords. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gjm7W-hDLc&feature=youtube_gdata_player)

I'm being sarcastic and in no way approve of this guy ._.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on May 07, 2012, 06:06:09 pm
So how does voting in a primary work? I have a voter card, and want to vote tomorrow (mostly because of the NC amendment thing), but I have never actually voted before. Do you just show up at the listed location during business hours?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: sluissa on May 07, 2012, 10:52:37 pm
Pretty much. Make sure your listed location is the actual location for you though. Around here for whatever reason they have a bad habit of moving our voting places around. One year it's one place, next year it's another, year after that it's back to the original place. after that, right next door to the original place, just to make it confusing.

Some places may or may not want a picture ID. I forget who and where and if that's allowed, might be a good idea to take one just in case. I know I have to show mine around here, even though I tend to run into people who know me at the places anyway.

Just be warned, depending on state rules and what you're registered as, you may or may not get to vote on much. I'm registered independent. (Well, I checked the box independent on my original sheet, now my card says non-partisan) As such, I barely ever get to vote on anything in primaries.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 08, 2012, 02:06:12 am
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-taking-credit-auto-industry-success-031025566.html

Good he did: he didn't do? 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40397.html

The "horrible socialist" didn't kill the business....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on May 08, 2012, 05:31:19 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 08, 2012, 02:06:12 am
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40397.html

The "horrible socialist" didn't kill the business....
Ugh, the stupid. He says that $41000 is too expensive, then in the same breath criticizes them for selling it for less.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 08, 2012, 06:04:16 pm
Ha try and argue against the $12 billion per year in subsidies for oil and the right-wingers VERY quickly change their tune to "it helps keep prices down".

And note that Rush is not arguing against a subsidy here, but against a "tax credit", which is it, Rush, taxes are good or bad?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 08, 2012, 07:09:25 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/student-loan-vote-fails_n_1499917.html?fb_action_ids=689185889453%2C689160170993&fb_action_types=news.reads&fb_source=other_multiline

.... So apparently it's ok if interest on student loans literally double. And the republicans are demanding to pay for the $6Billion dollar cost (small in government terms) by killing a preventative health screening program....

If any of the legislators actually cared about this country, they'd vote on each issue one issue at a time.  Student loan rates should double, yes or no....

The idea of combining bills to bargain and compromise is a myth, especially today. Rather, it's just a point of contention. Of all things to worry about "paying for," this thing is not the one. It's an immensely important issue. You can't let student loan rates freaking double in this economy and lack of a job market. Nevermind the political risks for elected officials, whom I sure will just blame the other side. It really effects people....

The best part, if mortgage rates were about to literally double in the middle of this foreclosure crisis, they'd get shit done no matter what. Seems students and people with loans who tried to better themselves don't matter.... [sigh].

[rant[
You know what Congress is anymore? A blame game system and nothin' else. Congress is your "friend" who gives you a jacket. It seems like they're doing something nice for you until you figure out congress just wore that jacket while stealing a bunch of shit from someone and you look kinda like congress. Congress knows the police are looking for somebody matching a description with that memorable jacket, which you are now wearing....  They're not doing what they're supposed to be doing, they're setting somebody else up while doing what they're not supposed to be doing.[/rant]
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 08, 2012, 09:23:27 pm
Sorry for double post but really in this case:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/08/politics/north-carolina-marriage/index.html
The North Carolina Constitutional Amendment defining marriage between a man and woman passed. [sigh].

I keep hearing about "progress" in the attitudes towards gays/same sex marriage.... :( When people vote though....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on May 08, 2012, 09:25:28 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 08, 2012, 09:23:27 pm
I keep hearing about "progress" in the attitudes towards gays/same sex marriage.... [sigh].
Only on the internet does that seem to be true.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 08, 2012, 09:27:11 pm
Truean, there IS progress.

If there weren't, they wouldn't feel the need to pass an amendment. This is very much an act of people are are terribly scared they are going to lose.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 08, 2012, 09:30:45 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 08, 2012, 09:27:11 pm
Truean, there IS progress.

If there weren't, they wouldn't feel the need to pass an amendment. This is very much an act of people are are terribly scared they are going to lose.

No one knows how much I'd like to believe that, but when you amend the constitution of a state you need at least a majority and in many cases a super majority of the voting population....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on May 08, 2012, 09:32:29 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 08, 2012, 09:30:45 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 08, 2012, 09:27:11 pm
Truean, there IS progress.

If there weren't, they wouldn't feel the need to pass an amendment. This is very much an act of people are are terribly scared they are going to lose.

No one knows how much I'd like to believe that, but when you amend the constitution of a state you need at least a majority and in many cases a super majority of the voting population....
The voting population at the moment is too old, hopefully as more people grown up, everything should get better.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 08, 2012, 09:34:16 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 08, 2012, 09:23:27 pm
Sorry for double post but really in this case:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/08/politics/north-carolina-marriage/index.html
The North Carolina Constitutional Amendment defining marriage between a man and woman passed. [sigh].

I keep hearing about "progress" in the attitudes towards gays/same sex marriage.... :( When people vote though....
I apologize on behalf of my state. Seriously. I will never be ashamed of being a North Carolinian, but I'm incredibly disappointed with about 61% of its population right now.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 08, 2012, 09:37:39 pm
re: progress.


This stuff is reactionary. Whenever change is happening, those who don't like it aren't going to take it sitting down. Like GlyphGryph said, they're doing this because they feel threatened, and all this should be seen as the gears creaking as they move.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 08, 2012, 09:41:32 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on May 08, 2012, 09:37:39 pm
re: progress.


This stuff is reactionary. Whenever change is happening, those who don't like it aren't going to take it sitting down. Like GlyphGryph said, they're doing this because they feel threatened, and all this should be seen as the gears creaking as they move.

61% of the voting population though.... You gotta admit that's a valid concern. Ohio had about the same percent in 2004 when this happened here. It may eventually change, but I'm thinking in about 10... maybe 20 years.... That's a long time. Transsexual rights are even further behind gay rights too....

I dunno. My personal experiences. I really hope they aren't the norm. People say they are for gay rights so they don't get some funny looks (and I wonder how many people only give those funny looks because they are "supposed" to) but when they're alone.... I've had straight guys between the ages of let's say 22-32 ish not be cool with a gay guy hanging around their girlfriend. Sometimes they push it into a "your gay friend or your boyfriend" choice for her. Guess which one she picks....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 08, 2012, 09:49:32 pm
But the thing is? Look just at the last ten years. Sure theres a bunch of states that have said this is double-plus ungood, but thats functionally meaningless. Meanwhile, you have other states that actually HAVE allowed full marriage rights. Where you couldn't get married before.

Thats progress.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Jervill on May 08, 2012, 09:51:58 pm
Also, remember, that's 61% of primary voters; turnout was somewhere in the 30% range.  Perhaps if it was during the general, it may have been closer.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 08, 2012, 09:53:57 pm
And its more popular among the younger voters who have a significantly harder time trying to vote. (I didn't vote last election because I had no residency, for example)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on May 08, 2012, 10:34:04 pm
Gotta love those constitutional marriage bans. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Those who cannot learn from history....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: sluissa on May 08, 2012, 10:47:29 pm
Also remember just because on the ballot people are against it, doesn't mean it's an all out "everyone hates gays" thing. Plenty of people might be perfectly fine with gay people, but just because they aren't gay themselves, the measure doesn't directly affect them and they don't end up caring, being informed, or otherwise finding their own reason to go out and vote against stupid stuff like this.

It matters to me, but I can't believe with certainty that ever would have been the case if I didn't have so many friends that it does affect.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Twi on May 09, 2012, 06:23:31 am
Quote from: sluissa on May 08, 2012, 10:47:29 pm
Also remember just because on the ballot people are against it, doesn't mean it's an all out "everyone hates gays" thing. Plenty of people might be perfectly fine with gay people, but just because they aren't gay themselves, the measure doesn't directly affect them and they don't end up caring, being informed, or otherwise finding their own reason to go out and vote against stupid stuff like this.

It matters to me, but I can't believe with certainty that ever would have been the case if I didn't have so many friends that it does affect.

This. People have a history of being apathetic, and if the anti-gay people become threatening enough it doesn't matter how many people believe in rights if they're afraid to vote that way.

But I have no idea about the latter :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on May 09, 2012, 11:16:47 am
Quote from: RedKing on May 08, 2012, 09:34:16 pm
I apologize on behalf of my state.
Same here.
On the marginally less terrible side, the votes percentage supporting the amendment is quite likely inflated compered to the proportion of the actual population that supported it, because the amendment was voted on during the primaries, which last I heard had less priority for democratic voters (though that may have changed with the various drop-outs from the presidential race).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Jervill on May 09, 2012, 12:24:37 pm
So, apparently Richard Mourdock supports repealing the 17th Amendment, the one that allows direct elections of senators.

Campaign event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdTEtqiNqFc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdTEtqiNqFc)

The stupid, it hurts.  PLEASE MAKE IT STOP :'(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on May 09, 2012, 12:39:30 pm
The only comment so far is a conspiracy theory...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Twi on May 09, 2012, 02:46:47 pm
Quote from: Jervill on May 09, 2012, 12:24:37 pm
So, apparently Richard Mourdock supports repealing the 17th Amendment, the one that allows direct elections of senators.

Campaign event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdTEtqiNqFc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdTEtqiNqFc)

The stupid, it hurts.  PLEASE MAKE IT STOP :'(
Sooooo... why exactly might he want that to happen?
 ???
Doesn't seem like he'd get a TON out of it. Unless he figures that smaller groups of people are easier to influence. (Which is probably true.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on May 09, 2012, 02:48:53 pm
This is a pretty big deal, right? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18014102)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 09, 2012, 02:50:56 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on May 09, 2012, 02:48:53 pm
This is a pretty big deal, right? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18014102)

[Jawdrop]
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on May 09, 2012, 02:52:09 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 09, 2012, 02:50:56 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on May 09, 2012, 02:48:53 pm
This is a pretty big deal, right? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18014102)

[Jawdrop]
Look at the poll at the bottom, too. A full half of the country supports gay marriage, assuming the poll is accurate. Who says there's no progress?  ;D
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 09, 2012, 02:55:33 pm
Quote from: Sirus on May 09, 2012, 02:52:09 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 09, 2012, 02:50:56 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on May 09, 2012, 02:48:53 pm
This is a pretty big deal, right? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18014102)

[Jawdrop]
Look at the poll at the bottom, too. A full half of the country supports gay marriage, assuming the poll is accurate. Who says there's no progress?  ;D

.... It's a BBC link. British Broadcasting Company. I somehow doubt Americans who oppose gay marriage and vote that way show up in that. Honestly. I somehow picture that demographic watching Fox News.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on May 09, 2012, 03:00:42 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 09, 2012, 02:55:33 pm
Quote from: Sirus on May 09, 2012, 02:52:09 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 09, 2012, 02:50:56 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on May 09, 2012, 02:48:53 pm
This is a pretty big deal, right? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18014102)

[Jawdrop]
Look at the poll at the bottom, too. A full half of the country supports gay marriage, assuming the poll is accurate. Who says there's no progress?  ;D

.... It's a BBC link. British Broadcasting Company. I somehow doubt Americans who oppose gay marriage and vote that way show up in that. Honestly. I somehow picture that demographic watching Fox News.
Quote
A Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx) on Tuesday suggested that 50% of Americans were in favour of legalising gay marriage - a slightly lower proportion than last year - while 48% said they would oppose such a move.
Nope, looks like an American-run poll asking Americans. The BBC is just reporting it.

Edit: Fixed some linkage fail  :-[
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 09, 2012, 03:03:34 pm
Quote
Obama not being a spineless loser on something.

I....I.....holy shit.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 09, 2012, 03:08:33 pm
Quote from: Sirus on May 09, 2012, 03:00:42 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 09, 2012, 02:55:33 pm
Quote from: Sirus on May 09, 2012, 02:52:09 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 09, 2012, 02:50:56 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on May 09, 2012, 02:48:53 pm
This is a pretty big deal, right? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18014102)

[Jawdrop]
Look at the poll at the bottom, too. A full half of the country supports gay marriage, assuming the poll is accurate. Who says there's no progress?  ;D

.... It's a BBC link. British Broadcasting Company. I somehow doubt Americans who oppose gay marriage and vote that way show up in that. Honestly. I somehow picture that demographic watching Fox News.
Quote
[urlhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx]A Gallup poll[/url] on Tuesday suggested that 50% of Americans were in favour of legalising gay marriage - a slightly lower proportion than last year - while 48% said they would oppose such a move.
Nope, looks like an American-run poll asking Americans. The BBC is just reporting it.

You have to admit; it isn't entirely unreasonable to question the accuracy of that or any poll saying Americans are supporting gay marriage though. My longstanding position is that people say one thing and do another, especially when the thing they say is "I support gay marriage." I find it a lot like how everybody says they're for racial equality, including the racists out there. There are very few racists alive today who are dumb enough to stand up in court and actually say they hate black people, for no other reason than they know if they do, they lose the case and pay money for it.

Hell, I've had the displeasure of representing racist landlords in court. They get up on that stand and they're better at lookin' like they're boy scouts than some criminals I've defended.

[shrugs] Please notice the pile of salt on the table. Everyone should feel free to take what I said and a grain of that salt to go with it, because it's entirely possible I'll never think people are fully accepting of gays. :)

Now if you want American news coverage of this I submit Yahoo.com: http://gma.yahoo.com/obama-announces-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html And I recommend you don't look at the comments saying this has sealed his fate to lose the reelection. "By Rick Klein | ABC OTUS News – 1 hour 37 minutes ago"
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on May 09, 2012, 03:14:20 pm
*shrug*

Pass that metaphorical pile of salt this way. It's generally safe to assume that any Yahoo! comments section is full of trolls trolling each other.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 09, 2012, 03:19:02 pm
Quote from: Sirus on May 09, 2012, 03:14:20 pm
*shrug*

Pass that metaphorical pile of salt this way. It's generally safe to assume that any Yahoo! comments section is full of trolls trolling each other.

Arguably valid point. Let's see if this becomes the distraction they need to let the student loan interest rate double....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Pnx on May 09, 2012, 03:40:22 pm
It's a political move. He knows he's lost a lot of support from his core liberal demographic, so he's trying to regain support by supporting gay marriage.

I'm not sure this was actually a sound move for him from a purely strategical perspective.

Of course, I'm actually very happy the president is supporting gay marriage, it was about damn time.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on May 09, 2012, 03:57:02 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on May 09, 2012, 02:48:53 pm
This is a pretty big deal, right? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18014102)

Big enough for me: he finally came out and said it.

Worth my donation to his campaign at least (just made one after seeing that).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on May 09, 2012, 04:03:03 pm
Nate Silver on the poll numbers. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/support-for-gay-marriage-outweighs-opposition-in-polls/) Also, graph;
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5151/7166516408_07da400dae.jpg)
Somewhat related, Shep Smith saying Republicans are on the wrong side of history on Fox News. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn-WG7nwsZk)

I have a window open to register as an overseas voter again this year. This is the push that might make me track down my social security number.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 09, 2012, 04:04:07 pm
ROFL...based on the font size on FOX News, you'd think he just declared war.

(http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/0/0/050912_OBAMAGAYMARRIAGE_20120509_153559.jpg)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Jervill on May 09, 2012, 04:06:19 pm
Well, many social conservatives still think they're fighting a "culture war".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 09, 2012, 04:12:23 pm
It's going to be the mother of all ironies if the GOP tries to turn the November election into a culture war referendum, and it winds up being the culture wars that gets Obama re-elected, when the economy alone could have gotten Romney a shot at the White House.

Because seriously...how many points do the GOP stand to shave off Obama's numbers with this? 1%? 2%? I mean, not a lot of anti-gay supporters over in Big Blue.

And how many points can you potentially add from disenchanted Dems suddenly having a cause to get fired up about?

I'm suddenly getting this delicious whiff of a strategic blunder by the Republican Party.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 09, 2012, 04:17:16 pm
Oh, and thanks to George Takei, here's the headline that was on FOXNation (FOX News' forum section) before it got yanked:
(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/536803_448826101813515_205344452828349_100677587_292335992_n.jpg)


Guess I was more right than I knew.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on May 09, 2012, 04:26:53 pm
Quote from: RedKing on May 09, 2012, 04:12:23 pm
It's going to be the mother of all ironies if the GOP tries to turn the November election into a culture war referendum, and it winds up being the culture wars that gets Obama re-elected, when the economy alone could have gotten Romney a shot at the White House.

Because seriously...how many points do the GOP stand to shave off Obama's numbers with this? 1%? 2%? I mean, not a lot of anti-gay supporters over in Big Blue.

And how many points can you potentially add from disenchanted Dems suddenly having a cause to get fired up about?

I'm suddenly getting this delicious whiff of a strategic blunder by the Republican Party.
Relevant numbers;
(http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/9qu3xuq5nk6ix3xjo99xcg.gif)
The one point it could hurt him on are black evangelicals. Losing the increased black turnout that was seen in 2008 could be a problem, especially if this doesn't serve to fire up the main body of the party enough. Unfortunately I can't find any breakdowns by race of those Gallup numbers. I'm also not sure what the exact breakdown of parties was like (usually about 30/30/40 R/D/I, but with marginally more Dems and Dem leaners right now).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 09, 2012, 04:51:27 pm
...That actually seems like quite a lot of democrat voters he could stand to lose on the issue.  It seems more like a vote loser than a vote winner, to be honest (most of the votes he could've potentially won were probably staying a million miles away from the Republicans anyway).  Also due to the insane backlash you can get from churches and conservative groups for doing this (here we've had the Catholics read out an anti-gay marriage service in all of their churches and schools, for instance, which is definitely not good for the government) to be honest I can see why Obama would want to back away from this issue.

I guess it does put Romney in a bad position, though.  He has to come out against gay marriage to avoid driving off his base, even if it contradicts his views on gay rights when he ran for governor.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 09, 2012, 04:56:00 pm
That's not necessarily true. Now that Obama has supported same-sex marriage; Romney can say pretty much anything on the issue and not lose votes. What are they going to do, vote for Obama in protest?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 09, 2012, 04:58:50 pm
Stay home. That's almost always the worst thing. Gotta turn out the base. Gotta turn out the moderates too.

Adopt a moderate stance, like civil unions, you attract a bunch of people who are opposed to outright gay marriage cause it's icky but don't really hate the gays. But then the hardliners stay home, because they don't really want to vote for Romney anyway.

Adopt a hardline stance, and the moderates might stay home, or they might even vote for Obama.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 09, 2012, 05:00:42 pm
I meant saying liberal things. Saying ultra-conservative things would be a bad move, yes. Saying liberal things about same-sex marriage won't keep the hardliners away. They're too focused on getting rid of Obama to let one issue disbar Romney.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 09, 2012, 05:08:40 pm
Them staying home is a real possibility, though.  They might think it'd be better to have 4 more years bashing Obama (with hopefully the economy still struggling) than to put in someone who they don't really like anyway to make a fool of himself.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 09, 2012, 05:11:10 pm
I dunno....some of them are already on the verge of fence-sitting after losing their Great White Hope in Santorum.

FWIW, Romney's stance today was that he's opposed to gay marriage *and* opposed to civil unions which are "functionally equivalent to marriage". In other words, he's in favor civil unions as long as they don't have all the same rights. Second-class status only.

When pushed on that, he's said that domestic partner benefits and hospital visitation rights are OK, but additional benefits aren't. He didn't provide an example of an "additional benefit" that wouldn't be acceptable.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 09, 2012, 05:16:54 pm
Heh, the usual conservative radio I constantly overhear at work was going on and on about this. "Obama flip flops!"


This is the sort of flip flop I like. Let's hope he sticks to it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 09, 2012, 05:25:30 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on May 09, 2012, 05:16:54 pm
Heh, the usual conservative radio I constantly overhear at work was going on and on about this. "Obama flip flops!"


This is the sort of flip flop I like. Let's hope he sticks to it.

This is the problem:

a.) Any change in position for any reason is now a "flip flop," which denotes no consistency and is an insult.
b.) Because of "a" no politician can ever change their minds about anything no matter how wrong they are without risking this being thrown at them.
c.) Obama was always Pro Gay for years and how could anyone not know that? Refusing to defend DOMA. Getting rid of Don't ask; don't tell. Etc.

Just another distraction from actual problems, which let's face it, no one really knows how to solve. If they knew, then they'd solve them already....

Shit, nobody really knows how to get the US a few million jobs that actually pay something.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 09, 2012, 05:35:11 pm
Only this goes further.  It seems to imply that merely stating your position on something you haven't stated your position on before is a flipflop.  Apart from anything else that's really questionable terminology.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 09, 2012, 05:53:37 pm
This one actually pulled a quote from 2004 where he (supposedly) said marriage is "between a man and a woman."

Dunno the accuracy of that, due to it being a radio talk show.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Flying Dice on May 09, 2012, 05:59:11 pm
In either case, it is incredibly disturbing that we've reached a point where re-evaluating your opinion when new information comes up (or even just changing your bloody mind) is considered to be a sign of weakness.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 09, 2012, 06:01:02 pm
Uh, we reached that point years ago.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Flying Dice on May 09, 2012, 06:05:16 pm
Well, yeah. I was speaking in general terms; I've been terrified of political thinking from the moment I was capable of understanding "election", or near enough.  :P


Would probably have been better for me to say, "I'm terrified that the world can be this backward and so many people don't seem to care."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 09, 2012, 06:08:28 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on May 09, 2012, 05:53:37 pm
This one actually pulled a quote from 2004 where he (supposedly) said marriage is "between a man and a woman."

Dunno the accuracy of that, due to it being a radio talk show.
2004? Wow, like no one has ever changed their mind in eight years.

Hell, back in 2004 I thought homosexuality should be illegal. How's that for a flip-flop?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 09, 2012, 06:19:36 pm
In 2004 I think I was on the fence, as that was roughly when I woke up to the world that wasn't within 10 feet of my immediate position.



And yeah, politicians changing their stance on something they said ages ago is an obvious sign of weakness, or worse, lying! Their first position is their only position and any change is just pandering to voters (right, Ron Paul?).

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 09, 2012, 09:43:47 pm
Gay friend posts status where he's happy about Obama supporting gay marriage.

His stepsister posts some generic "god hates gay marriage, you'll have to answer for this in the next life" stuff and cites a Bible verse.

I post that 1 Timothy 2: 12 says a woman shouldn't teach a man and ask her why she's trying to teach a man and not being quiet.

Her response: "He's not much of a man."

/raeg
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 09, 2012, 09:45:59 pm
I don't know whether I should laugh or be depressed by that exchange.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on May 09, 2012, 09:56:48 pm
I did both.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 09, 2012, 10:37:17 pm
Well, one of my friends actually came at her from a sympathetic "what would jesus do" viewpoint and she's actually reconsidering her views. Beats my smartass jabs by a mile.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on May 09, 2012, 10:56:05 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on May 09, 2012, 10:37:17 pm
Well, one of my friends actually came at her from a sympathetic "what would jesus do" viewpoint and she's actually reconsidering her views.
Wow. That hardly ever works.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 10, 2012, 01:44:25 am
That's like the only way to convince someone of anything, scelly. Not antagonising them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on May 10, 2012, 01:46:06 am
Quote from: scriver on May 10, 2012, 01:44:25 am
That's like the only way to convince someone of anything, scelly. Not antagonising them.
Yeah, its just in my experience it hardly ever works to do that on gay-bashers and a lot of the time it backfires. Mostly, I just ignore em.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Euld on May 10, 2012, 03:13:19 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on May 09, 2012, 09:43:47 pm
Gay friend posts status where he's happy about Obama supporting gay marriage.

His stepsister posts some generic "god hates gay marriage, you'll have to answer for this in the next life" stuff and cites a Bible verse.

I post that 1 Timothy 2: 12 says a woman shouldn't teach a man and ask her why she's trying to teach a man and not being quiet.

Her response: "He's not much of a man."

/raeg
Respond with "still more man than you'll ever be."  DO EEET!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 10, 2012, 09:24:47 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on May 09, 2012, 09:43:47 pm
His stepsister posts some generic "god hates gay marriage, you'll have to answer for this in the next life" stuff and cites a Bible verse.
So she believes in reincarnation? Weird Christian.

Apparently there's a legal complaint (http://www.scribd.com/doc/75686497/Thigpen-v-Cooper-Complaint) being filed in Greensboro, NC by the county register of deeds and three clergy members, to the effect that the clergy view any state imposition on who they can and can't marry as a violation of religious freedom. My former pastor (I was raised Lutheran-Missouri Synod) is one of the three clergy. I'm doubly impressed because the complaint specifies that while he won't perform a same-sex marriage (because the denomination, which is the archconservative wing of the Lutherans, forbids it), he feels that it's STILL a violation of religious freedom and that other denominations should have the right to solemnize same-sex marriages if they so choose.

He didn't have to do this. He could have easily hidden behind the denomination's rules and made no comment. That's the kind of the thing that I needed to see after yesterday, to reaffirm the notion that Christianity has value, even if its implementation often leaves something to be desired.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 10, 2012, 11:29:03 am
Quote from: Scelly9 on May 10, 2012, 01:46:06 am
Yeah, its just in my experience it hardly ever works to do that on gay-bashers and a lot of the time it backfires. Mostly, I just ignore em.
Well yeah.  If they've thought about it at all then their interpretation of Jesus would indeed warn gays that them marrying is a sin.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 10, 2012, 12:45:33 pm
Quote from: RedKing on May 10, 2012, 09:24:47 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on May 09, 2012, 09:43:47 pm
His stepsister posts some generic "god hates gay marriage, you'll have to answer for this in the next life" stuff and cites a Bible verse.
So she believes in reincarnation? Weird Christian.

Apparently there's a legal complaint (http://www.scribd.com/doc/75686497/Thigpen-v-Cooper-Complaint) being filed in Greensboro, NC by the county register of deeds and three clergy members, to the effect that the clergy view any state imposition on who they can and can't marry as a violation of religious freedom. My former pastor (I was raised Lutheran-Missouri Synod) is one of the three clergy. I'm doubly impressed because the complaint specifies that while he won't perform a same-sex marriage (because the denomination, which is the archconservative wing of the Lutherans, forbids it), he feels that it's STILL a violation of religious freedom and that other denominations should have the right to solemnize same-sex marriages if they so choose.

He didn't have to do this. He could have easily hidden behind the denomination's rules and made no comment. That's the kind of the thing that I needed to see after yesterday, to reaffirm the notion that Christianity has value, even if its implementation often leaves something to be desired.

??? He's basically saying the state has no sovereignty over family law, which it always has in this country since the beginning. As for his "if they so chose" argument, it's a puff piece because he knows that choice is effectively bound by the church. Thus it will never happen.... Kinda funny though.

As for the stepsister and the "next live" stuff, could also be an afterlife. She knows what "God" says huh? Has she been hearing other voices as well? :P Remember the rule, "You talk to God, you're religious; God talks to you, you're crazy."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 10, 2012, 01:23:33 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 10, 2012, 12:45:33 pm
??? He's basically saying the state has no sovereignty over family law, which it always has in this country since the beginning. As for his "if they so chose" argument, it's a puff piece because he knows that choice is effectively bound by the church. Thus it will never happen.... Kinda funny though.
No, I read it as "Look, as a Missouri-Lutheran Synod pastor, I can't marry you. But I think that if the UCCs or Episcopals or Unitarians or whoever are willing to marry you, they should be allowed to do so." It does bring up an interesting counterpoint to the arguments that (for instance), the Feds were violating religious freedom by forcing Catholic-funded institutions to provide insurance coverage for birth control, against their own religious doctrine.

If the UU's (as an example) have decreed that they recognize and celebrate same-sex marriage, how is it not violating religious freedom for a state to force them to NOT perform said marriages? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 10, 2012, 01:38:13 pm
Quote from: RedKing on May 10, 2012, 01:23:33 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 10, 2012, 12:45:33 pm
??? He's basically saying the state has no sovereignty over family law, which it always has in this country since the beginning. As for his "if they so chose" argument, it's a puff piece because he knows that choice is effectively bound by the church. Thus it will never happen.... Kinda funny though.
No, I read it as "Look, as a Missouri-Lutheran Synod pastor, I can't marry you. But I think that if the UCCs or Episcopals or Unitarians or whoever are willing to marry you, they should be allowed to do so." It does bring up an interesting counterpoint to the arguments that (for instance), the Feds were violating religious freedom by forcing Catholic-funded institutions to provide insurance coverage for birth control, against their own religious doctrine.
Which never actually happened, heh. Weren't... weren't you the one that cleared that up over in the America Election thread a while back? Though I guess you mean the noisy argument in the media that was misrepresenting things...

Quote
If the UU's (as an example) have decreed that they recognize and celebrate same-sex marriage, how is it not violating religious freedom for a state to force them to NOT perform said marriages? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Yeah, that's a point that doesn't exactly get represented in the larger dialogue, and a pretty good one. Kinda' cuts to the point that the advocates against same sex marriage aren't doing it for religious freedom, they're (at best) doing it for their religion's "freedom." It's nice to see some folks getting some attention fighting for religious freedom writ large.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on May 10, 2012, 01:49:29 pm
I'm atheist, but I the UCC is a pretty cool church in my book. They've been performing ceremonies in my area for gay couples for years, even if the event isn't legally binding.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 10, 2012, 02:05:27 pm
Quote from: Frumple on May 10, 2012, 01:38:13 pm
Quote
If the UU's (as an example) have decreed that they recognize and celebrate same-sex marriage, how is it not violating religious freedom for a state to force them to NOT perform said marriages? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Yeah, that's a point that doesn't exactly get represented in the larger dialogue, and a pretty good one. Kinda' cuts to the point that the advocates against same sex marriage aren't doing it for religious freedom, they're (at best) doing it for their religion's "freedom." It's nice to see some folks getting some attention fighting for religious freedom writ large.
Well, and let's make clear that what they (the anti-SSM advocates) are fighting for is their religion's freedom to discriminate. Which has typically not been recognized as a valid right by most courts (although Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission certainly could be interpreted as allowing exemptions for religious institutions from things like equal opportunity labor laws).

It's a thorny issue: One the one hand, religions shouldn't be able to exempt themselves from civil protections and be legally able to create second-class citizenry. On the other hand, government should not be able to dictate to religions what parts of their doctrine they are allowed to practice.

In a perfect world, it would be left up to the market of ideas, and people would vote with their feet -- if the majority of individuals favored gay marriage, in theory they'd leave close-minded denominations and choose SSM-friendly ones. But it's nowhere near that simple. Most people can't "shop around" for a new church the way you can for a new car.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 10, 2012, 02:54:01 pm
Quote from: RedKing on May 10, 2012, 02:05:27 pm
Quote from: Frumple on May 10, 2012, 01:38:13 pm
Quote
If the UU's (as an example) have decreed that they recognize and celebrate same-sex marriage, how is it not violating religious freedom for a state to force them to NOT perform said marriages? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Yeah, that's a point that doesn't exactly get represented in the larger dialogue, and a pretty good one. Kinda' cuts to the point that the advocates against same sex marriage aren't doing it for religious freedom, they're (at best) doing it for their religion's "freedom." It's nice to see some folks getting some attention fighting for religious freedom writ large.
Well, and let's make clear that what they (the anti-SSM advocates) are fighting for is their religion's freedom to discriminate. Which has typically not been recognized as a valid right by most courts (although Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission certainly could be interpreted as allowing exemptions for religious institutions from things like equal opportunity labor laws).

It's a thorny issue: One the one hand, religions shouldn't be able to exempt themselves from civil protections and be legally able to create second-class citizenry. On the other hand, government should not be able to dictate to religions what parts of their doctrine they are allowed to practice.

In a perfect world, it would be left up to the market of ideas, and people would vote with their feet -- if the majority of individuals favored gay marriage, in theory they'd leave close-minded denominations and choose SSM-friendly ones. But it's nowhere near that simple. Most people can't "shop around" for a new church the way you can for a new car.

Most cases of national importance are complicated and have two sides. The "Vote with your feet" principle is nuts, honestly. I have to freaking uproot and move to another area just for something to make sense? Assuming I can even get a JOB in that new area, which is what really determines a lot of where people live, not choice, would it be at comparable pay/expense ratio of what I currently have? Better? Worse? Moreover, what if I like one aspect of the place I'd be moving to (new state) but there are other areas that I just don't/can't live with? Finally, I know we like to think everyone is fungible (replaceable) because we write people off for no good reason, but what about area friends and family? Institutions I've used for years, etc.

The idea that everyone and everything is perfectly replaceable, mobile, and interchangeable ignores the entire human experience. Rights, certain universal ones, are things a person should be able to invoke, and no one else should be able to violate, no matter where they are or why.

One of the main reasons kindness and basic consideration die in the modern day is that they're free; you can't charge for them. They also cost relatively nothing to give, and people still won't. 
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 02:58:13 pm
So you're arguing all churches should be forced to marry/not marry any two people, or what?

You don't exactly have to uproot to vote with your feet by getting married at the town clerks office.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 10, 2012, 03:04:52 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 02:58:13 pm
So you're arguing all churches should be forced to marry/not marry any two people, or what?

You don't exactly have to uproot to vote with your feet by getting married at the town clerks office.

You do if every town clerk's office in the state won't marry you but other states will....

Speaking of town clerks that's exactly who that argument was aimed at procedurally and precisely.

There's actually no contradiction in what I said about rights set down.

The church would have a property right. They can, but don't have to marry me. One of the key rights of property is to exclude others from it.

I have a civil right whereby the government can't discriminate and that only applies to government action...

Or so I'd argue, it SHOULD be but unfortunately isn't currently....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on May 10, 2012, 03:24:22 pm
Quote from: RedKing on May 10, 2012, 09:24:47 am
[snip]the complaint specifies that while he won't perform a same-sex marriage (because the denomination, which is the archconservative wing of the Lutherans, forbids it), he feels that it's STILL a violation of religious freedom and that other denominations should have the right to solemnize same-sex marriages if they so choose.[snip]

IF it was truly non-interventionist and left solely to religions, then I would gladly Atheist-Minister-up and marry whoever.  I am sure many would. 

However,  I am fairly certain it still would not be equal rights in many states' laws that way, due to, basically, bullshit or new-law runaround.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 10, 2012, 05:24:07 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/thousands-british-police-join-anti-austerity-protest-141105856.html

Nobody cares about anything until it effects them....

Austerity, is apparently necessary, but certainly not for rich and/or powerful people. Nope. Not them. Always us.... "Everybody" is just whining, until you're part of everybody.

It's really kinda like the air force's unofficial motto, "Flying along dumb and happy until we hit the side of the mountain."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 05:26:40 pm
Truean, I think the marriage posts you made may have gotten a good deal off topic, since you started off by criticizing someone was trying to advocate making gay marriage legal (despite being unwilling to perform it themselves). Your more recent examples are very nearly completely irrelevant to the conversation. :/
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 10, 2012, 05:42:41 pm
Since when have we really cared about going off the rails in this thread, provided we're talking about relevant stuff? :P


Anywho I'm on Redking's side for a "vote with your feet" thing being the "ideal" solution, except that it's plain not practical. If the people around you bug you, you should be able to move to others who are more like minded rather than force everyone else to conform to your own personal standards. The practical concerns come into play with the stuff Truean mentioned (jobs, families, etc), along with having to force at least free immigration/emmigration.

I don't believe in utopias, so I don't believe in a single set of rules that can be applied to every group of people. There are going to be people who simply do not fit in with their surroundings, so they should be able to choose their surroundings for themselves, not force their surroundings to fit them. We can talk about inalienable rights that should be applied everywhere, but it's not cut and dry what rights actually are inalienable, especially for 100% cultural constructs like marriage (nevermind the very concept of inalienable rights skirts dangerously close to objective morality).

Long story short, "voting with your feet" is a complex issue, no easy answer for what's best. It's one of those "perfect world" things.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 10, 2012, 05:46:39 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 05:26:40 pm
Truean, I think the marriage posts you made may have gotten a good deal off topic, since you started off by criticizing someone was trying to advocate making gay marriage legal (despite being unwilling to perform it themselves). Your more recent examples are very nearly completely irrelevant to the conversation. :/

? [takes out detailed map of rails, illustrates]

My last post was on a different topic altogether.... Namely austerity, particularly in the UK.

As for criticizing the pastor Redking was talking about and the other points related to that; those were dead on point. The whole vein of the conversation was about rights as concern marriage performance (of ritual), definition, and authority over these. The pastor Redking was talking about was arguing that the State was interfering with a Church's right to determine who it married by imposing any type of marriage. Redking thought that was indirectly in favor of gay marriage because more or less it would mean those churches who do want to marry gay people would be allowed to do so. I on the other hand, see it as a pastor trying for an ill advised power grab for churches. I don't believe this pastor is advocating for any sorta of gay friendly anything, indirectly or otherwise. I think he's going for power....

Quote from: RedKing on May 10, 2012, 01:23:33 pm
Apparently there's a legal complaint being filed in Greensboro, NC by the county register of deeds and three clergy members, to the effect that the clergy view any state imposition on who they can and can't marry as a violation of religious freedom.

He's talking about a "right" of churches. As in he is saying the government has no business telling the church anything at all concerning marriage, because that would violate a church's right of "religious freedom." If he won this suit, it would give him a great deal of power concerning marriage, gay or otherwise, and take said power away from the state.

Rails:
Simply the conversation was about gay marriage: a.) an NC amendment against it, 2.) general people's reactions to it, 3.) certain specific people's reactions to it (including Obama and PoH's example of that mean girl on Facebook), 4.) one specific pastor's lawsuit concerning gay marriage, and 5.) proposed solutions including the "vote with your feet," thing Redking brought up as his ideal solution. All to do with gay marriage and the rights surrounding it: definition, administration, prohibition, and remedy in the event of prohibition. Straight rails with detailed stops and stations along the tracks?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on May 10, 2012, 06:29:33 pm
I'm not actually sure about that. Is there any existing category of marriage which a church is legally obligated to perform? If not, the only thing being argued here is that the state cannot forbid any particular kind of marriage from being performed by a given church.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 10, 2012, 06:41:44 pm
I was under the impression that religions can perform whatever the hell ceremonies they want. The whole gay marriage deal has to do with legal contracts, nothing else.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on May 10, 2012, 06:50:46 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on May 10, 2012, 06:41:44 pm
I was under the impression that religions can perform whatever the hell ceremonies they want. The whole gay marriage deal has to do with legal contracts, nothing else.
This. Seems like many Christian sects prohibit divorce, which is why divorce is a legal option for anyone who wants one (here in the States, at least). If churches don't want to hold ceremonies for gay couples, I don't see a need to force them to do so, so long as a legal option is available.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 10, 2012, 07:03:13 pm
Indeed. Which is why the whole "sanctity of marriage" thing is bullshit. Unless you think legal documents are "sacred."

Were laws being imposed to force pastors to marry people they don't want to marry, then I'd be on their side 100%. That ain't the case.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 10, 2012, 07:07:51 pm
Because this thread only exists for me to transcribe my facebook to:
Spoiler: seemed relevant (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on May 10, 2012, 07:09:39 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on May 10, 2012, 07:03:13 pm
Were laws being imposed to force pastors to marry people they don't want to marry, then I'd be on their side 100%. That ain't the case.
Once again, this. :P

Besides, I'm sure there are plenty of churches (that Unity sect that seems to be making the rounds, or possibly the Quakers) and non-denominational houses of worship that would be glad to host gay wedding services. Money is money, after all.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaenneth on May 10, 2012, 07:34:00 pm
Quote from: Sirus on May 10, 2012, 07:09:39 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on May 10, 2012, 07:03:13 pm
Were laws being imposed to force pastors to marry people they don't want to marry, then I'd be on their side 100%. That ain't the case.
Once again, this. :P

Besides, I'm sure there are plenty of churches (that Unity sect that seems to be making the rounds, or possibly the Quakers) and non-denominational houses of worship that would be glad to host gay wedding services. Money is money, after all.

Reguarding marrying people...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvuXu1_iF0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvuXu1_iF0)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 10, 2012, 07:37:06 pm
Yes to all of the above. The issue is instead of principles of equality determining what the law is, only certain churches are determining what the law is to the exclusion of others.... Certain churches seem to have a long history of overreaching for power and even a modern record, including the  girl scouts. (http://news.yahoo.com/girl-scouts-under-scrutiny-catholic-bishops-181843252.html) It's just like some people simply won't be happy until their definitions and rules are made universal. [sigh].

I have three choices. 1.) Marry a guy, 2.) live with a guy and be married in everything but name with no benefits of being married, or 3.) die alone. That's pretty much it.

Nobody's asking to force churches to marry people. Hell, I'd elope or do it with a judge.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Euld on May 11, 2012, 12:16:09 am
Quote from: Truean on May 10, 2012, 07:37:06 pm
or do it with a judge.
I somehow read this out of context and giggled :3
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 11, 2012, 12:35:05 am
That's gross, judges are too old. Unless they're like the judge in the TV show "Dark Justice". Are they're really judges like that, Truean?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 11, 2012, 12:36:38 am
And that was how the Progressive Expression Thread became the Truean Is Forced To Talk About The Attractiveness Of Judges thread.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 11, 2012, 07:17:50 am
Judge Wapner: Hot or Not?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Korbac on May 11, 2012, 07:29:15 am
If Judy is a viable example (which I'm sure she's not), then no way.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 11, 2012, 07:39:12 am
Quote
The whole gay marriage deal has to do with legal contracts, nothing else.

Honestly, I eagerly await the day where marriage is meaningless because we've decided to actually go with equality as an end goal and offer the same benefits to unmarried people. No longer will you have to give someone half ownership on all your stuff to allow them to visit you in the hospital! No longer will you have to deal with the social expections of marriage to live with someone in the same house and be treated as family - and not as potential parents, perhaps, but siblings. No longer will your ability to pool insurance or vouch for immigrants be constrained to those with whom one is romantically involved.

And so on, and so forth.

It will be very nice. (Though I doubt it will ever happen. I may be married, for the benefits, but that doesn't stop me from seeing the legal status of the institution as inherently terrible and unequal)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 11, 2012, 09:47:40 am
 What's really hilarious is that same sex marriage may once have been a Christian Rite. (http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html) Back when that Jesus guy was running around, the western world was ruled by Rome, and they didn't have such a problem with the gays. Gays could serve in the legions and pay taxes just as well as anyone else, so they didn't care. Better yet, the gays adopted, which meant it was less expensive for the empire to take care of orphans until they joined the legion. Christians then were taking pagan rituals and incorporating them into their religion. "Yule log," anyone? That verse from "Deck the Halls,... don thee now our gay apparel, sing the ancient yuletide carol...." Yeah. Then somewhere along the line, people started to care about being gay in a bad way and that's why we're here.

It's kinda funny, if God were made president for life (all eternity) as some of the religious right wants, then he'd demand we heal the sick and tax the rich to pay for it (easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter heaven). He'd promptly be impeached as a socialist.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 11, 2012, 12:36:38 am
And that was how the Progressive Expression Thread became the Truean Is Forced To Talk About The Attractiveness Of Judges thread.

Most that I've seen, non applicable.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on May 11, 2012, 10:07:59 am
Apologies for a change of topic (which I kind of started anyway), but I saw this today  and wondered how in blue hell it had not been seen and stopped sooner. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18030105) Way to be your own worst enemy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 11, 2012, 10:09:29 am
That sort fo topic change is exactly what this thread is for, no need to apologize.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 11, 2012, 10:10:27 am
That fiasco is ridiculous enough to be moderately amusing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 11, 2012, 10:21:15 am
That's incredibly irresponsible to say the least and it explains a few things, sadly. What's amazing is that this goes so very far contra to DOD sit op that I can't believe it made it as a course material set as long as it did. Did I read that right? It considered nukes for Muslim holy cities? Is this guy trying to start World War Three? If anything, we need trustworthy allies among this population, if only for the Farsi speakers, and for all kinds of reasons.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 11, 2012, 10:36:01 am
I'm not entirely surprised. The number of Christian Dominionists in command-level officers is one of the Pentagon's ugly little secrets, though it's typically been concentrated in the Air Force. But it wouldn't be the first time you've had a senior ground officer make comments of that sort. Obviously, teaching those views as Army doctrine is a whole 'nother level of fucked-up, but at least someone with the authority to do something about took notice and did something about it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 11, 2012, 10:40:23 am
Quote from: Truean on May 11, 2012, 09:47:40 am
It's kinda funny, if God were made president for life (all eternity) as some of the religious right wants, then he'd demand we heal the sick and tax the rich to pay for it (easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter heaven). He'd promptly be impeached as a socialist.
I think you should be wary of assuming your interpretation of God is the only valid one.

Quote from: MonkeyHead on May 11, 2012, 10:07:59 am
Apologies for a change of topic (which I kind of started anyway), but I saw this today  and wondered how in blue hell it had not been seen and stopped sooner. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18030105) Way to be your own worst enemy.
Yikes.  That's... extremely serious.  It could certainly colour their views on whether "collateral damage" in attacks is acceptable.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 11, 2012, 11:52:15 am
Some day someone's going to have to explain how that scenario even works, especially on a military level. If the entire Muslim population was hostile to America, our only strategic choices would be surrender or suicide. Roughly a third of the world's population is Muslim -- America has neither the force projection nor resource base to be able to do anything against that. It's just not physically possible.

Capitulation would be literally the only viable military solution available, and it's just not possible to game out a better resolution -- anything else, when put up against a genuinely united worldwide Mulsim population, would end with either destruction or occupation. The numbers are too disparate, and even if you could kill off a sufficient amount to cripple the theoretical Muslim military capability, the economic shocks from losing that much population would absolutely cripple the US -- and everywhere else, of course. Nuclear response would result in the exact same thing -- even if the US went absolutely isolationist, the repercussions from losing that much worldwide population in the sort of timeframe such an act entails would necessarily entail we'd lose most of our own population to economic shock (never mind any retaliation from non Muslim countries for the horrific war crime that would necessarily entail.).

More worrisome than just about any damn thing to me is that we've got military strategists -- even shit poor ones -- that are even considering such a thing as a possibility. It's a theoretical assumption that goes beyond even staggering stupidity into something I can't think of the words to properly describe.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 11, 2012, 12:01:38 pm
We've got Jesus on our side. That gives us an advantage, no matter how many of them there are.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Jervill on May 11, 2012, 12:07:42 pm
Jesus is not only a complete badass, he gives a +10 morale boost to all nearby soldiers.

EDIT: He's also a lich, so he's practically invincible.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 11, 2012, 12:19:38 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on May 11, 2012, 10:40:23 am
Quote from: Truean on May 11, 2012, 09:47:40 am
It's kinda funny, if God were made president for life (all eternity) as some of the religious right wants, then he'd demand we heal the sick and tax the rich to pay for it (easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter heaven). He'd promptly be impeached as a socialist.
I think you should be wary of assuming your interpretation of God is the only valid one.

I'm not religious anymore; haven't been for years. Tongue in cheek joke.... Point well made for people who do assume that though (not me).
The punchline was about how so many people say "the bible says," while ignoring so much else of what it says..... The far right in the US wouldn't actually like biblical law. Thus it's kind of ironic that people say "the bible says" or "god says" X, while picking and choosing, and of course presupposing their interpretation is right.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on May 11, 2012, 12:41:49 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 11, 2012, 12:19:38 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on May 11, 2012, 10:40:23 am
Quote from: Truean on May 11, 2012, 09:47:40 am
It's kinda funny, if God were made president for life (all eternity) as some of the religious right wants, then he'd demand we heal the sick and tax the rich to pay for it (easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter heaven). He'd promptly be impeached as a socialist.
I think you should be wary of assuming your interpretation of God is the only valid one.

I'm not religious anymore; haven't been for years. Tongue in cheek joke.... Point well made for people who do assume that though (not me).
The punchline was about how so many people say "the bible says," while ignoring so much else of what it says..... The far right in the US wouldn't actually like biblical law. Thus it's kind of ironic that people say "the bible says" or "god says" X, while picking and choosing, and of course presupposing their interpretation is right.
Well then, we should make our voice heard, broadcast our interpretation of the Bible to the ends of the earth, that'll really confuse them earthlings!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 11, 2012, 12:43:24 pm
Biblical law would be excellent for the livestock industry however, what with all the various sacrificial prescriptions.

"Aw man....I had another unclean thought. Lucky thing I have Goats-R-Us on speed dial. Wait, that sounds kind of......dammit, now I need two goats."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on May 11, 2012, 12:52:34 pm
And then goats were driven to extinction.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Jervill on May 11, 2012, 01:58:49 pm
I'm curious, is there something that shows the LGBT population in North Carolina and other states?  I ask because I wonder if that has any effect on just how well gay marriage bans do.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 11, 2012, 02:08:23 pm
Don't be silly, Urist. Being domesticated and having a high demand for your body is practically the best way to guarantee species survival! After all, there's a whole ton of money to be made off making more of you.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaenneth on May 11, 2012, 03:30:41 pm
I'm pretty sure Jesus was actually gay; all the signs point to it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 11, 2012, 04:45:18 pm
Back in ancient times, there wasn't even a difference between homo/hetero-sex.

There.
Was.
Just.
Sex.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 11, 2012, 05:09:19 pm
Particularly in Rome.

Particularly if Caligula or Nero is Emperor.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 11, 2012, 05:57:54 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 11, 2012, 05:09:19 pm
Caligula

AH hahahaha.

Romans. Other words need not be said.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Jervill on May 11, 2012, 10:22:38 pm
Maybe I would respect Republicans more if they would quit acting like cartoon villains.
Here's a clip of Scott Walker (R-WI) explaining his plan of taking out unions and turning Wisconsin into a "red state":
http://www.twincities.com/ci_20601426/video-walker-explains-divide-conquer-strategy (http://www.twincities.com/ci_20601426/video-walker-explains-divide-conquer-strategy)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on May 11, 2012, 10:25:35 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on May 11, 2012, 10:07:59 am
Apologies for a change of topic (which I kind of started anyway), but I saw this today  and wondered how in blue hell it had not been seen and stopped sooner. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18030105) Way to be your own worst enemy.
I read link to the Wired article that had some of the actual slides. I half-expected them to start talking about the communists muslims plotting use fluoridation to corrupt our precious bodily fluids.

For more U.S. military asshattery, there is another news story out about them as well:
You know those new F-22 fighter jets with the $400 milllion each cost and the dubious tactical necessity?
It turns out that you can't even fly one out of combat without receiving debilitating and possibly deadly oxygen deprivation.
Needless to say, when soldiers protested this, the air force sprung into action to fix the problem.
The problem, of course, being a few soldiers who won't unquestioningly do as told, and the solution being disciplinary procedures that could end their careers (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/air-force-stealth-pilot/).

Quote from: Truean on May 11, 2012, 12:19:38 pm
The far right in the US wouldn't actually like biblical law. Thus it's kind of ironic that people say "the bible says" or "god says" X, while picking and choosing, and of course presupposing their interpretation is right.
"It's the Lord's holy word,
As my second wife said to my third." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bja2ttzGOFM)

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 12, 2012, 02:19:44 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on May 11, 2012, 10:40:23 am
Quote from: Truean on May 11, 2012, 09:47:40 am
It's kinda funny, if God were made president for life (all eternity) as some of the religious right wants, then he'd demand we heal the sick and tax the rich to pay for it (easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter heaven). He'd promptly be impeached as a socialist.
I think you should be wary of assuming your interpretation of God is the only valid one.

Quote from: MonkeyHead on May 11, 2012, 10:07:59 am
Apologies for a change of topic (which I kind of started anyway), but I saw this today  and wondered how in blue hell it had not been seen and stopped sooner. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18030105) Way to be your own worst enemy.
Yikes.  That's... extremely serious.  It could certainly colour their views on whether "collateral damage" in attacks is acceptable.

It's also hypocritical in how the Pentagon is trying to distance themselves from the course material. Would the extend this same presumption of innocence to a Muslim group in which just one Imam is teach radicalism? Or would they hold the whole group accountable?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on May 12, 2012, 02:24:48 am
Ok, in a city near me some people are holding an event to stop sexist language. Its good, but some of their presenters are going to be talking about Rush Limbaugh and as a result they are calling their event "Sluts talk back" Is it just me, or does this seem counter-productive on the issue of sexist language? I mean, I know what their doing with the name, calling attention to Rush's antics, but it seems as if the name may hurt their cause more than help it by making them seem as if they don't care if they are called sluts. Does anyone else see this or am I over-analyzing it?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on May 12, 2012, 02:40:59 am
There is a movement (I suppose that word works) to make the word "Slut" and the acts one could call "slutty" less reviled in society. So maybe there is a link there.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on May 12, 2012, 02:42:36 am
But what I don't get is that one of the main things they are speaking out against is Rush's name calling of that woman.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on May 12, 2012, 02:42:42 am
Quote from: Scelly9 on May 12, 2012, 02:24:48 am
Ok, in a city near me some people are holding an event to stop sexist language. Its good, but some of their presenters are going to be talking about Rush Limbaugh and as a result they are calling their event "Sluts talk back" Is it just me, or does this seem counter-productive on the issue of sexist language? I mean, I know what their doing with the name, calling attention to Rush's antics, but it seems as if the name may hurt their cause more than help it by making them seem as if they don't care if they are called sluts. Does anyone else see this or am I over-analyzing it?
I heard of a similar event a few years back called the "Slut Walk", to protest sexist language used by someone in authority (a cop, iirc). The idea was to demonstrate that women can and do have sex (and enjoy it!) just like men can, and should be able to do so without negative connotations.
Remember that in a lot of places, men who have lots of sex = studs, manly men, playas; whereas women who have lots of sex = sluts, whores, tramps.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on May 12, 2012, 02:44:59 am
Quote from: Scelly9 on May 12, 2012, 02:42:36 am
But what I don't get is that one of the main things they are speaking out against is Rush's name calling of that woman.
Rush's name-calling of that women with harmful intent.

That's the point, I think. They want it that calling someone a slut isn't a bad thing. But when people call someone a slut and mean to denigrate them in doing so, that harms that ideal, and that's what they're protesting.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on May 12, 2012, 02:46:14 am
Quote from: Descan on May 12, 2012, 02:44:59 am
Quote from: Scelly9 on May 12, 2012, 02:42:36 am
But what I don't get is that one of the main things they are speaking out against is Rush's name calling of that woman.
Rush's name-calling of that women with harmful intent.

That's the point, I think. They want it that calling someone a slut isn't a bad thing. But when people call someone a slut and mean to denigrate them in doing so, that harms that ideal, and that's what they're protesting.
Once again, someone else explains what I'm trying to say far more concisely :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on May 12, 2012, 02:47:21 am
Quote from: Descan on May 12, 2012, 02:44:59 am
Quote from: Scelly9 on May 12, 2012, 02:42:36 am
But what I don't get is that one of the main things they are speaking out against is Rush's name calling of that woman.
Rush's name-calling of that women with harmful intent.

That's the point, I think. They want it that calling someone a slut isn't a bad thing. But when people call someone a slut and mean to denigrate them in doing so, that harms that ideal, and that's what they're protesting.
Ah, that makes much more sense now. It would be a bit strange of them to do exactly what their protesting against.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 12, 2012, 12:07:49 pm
Yeah, it's called reclaiming slurs, and for the life of me I cannot find a good detailed explanation of it. What's been written here is good though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Flying Dice on May 12, 2012, 02:41:03 pm
Basically, removing the harm from a word by adopting it as your own. Though that may not be a very good summary of the idea.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: lorb on May 12, 2012, 03:51:09 pm
The other Wiki has an article on it that explains it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: alway on May 12, 2012, 05:07:09 pm
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/12/11668279-new-tennessee-law-aims-to-curb-teaching-gateway-sexual-activity?lite
Another abstinence-only bill in Tennessee.
Quote
On Thursday, State Rep. Jon Lundberg told NBC station WCYB-TV that a focus on abstinence is needed because Tennessee has the seventh-highest teen birth rate in the nation and the 11th-highest HIV infection rate in the nation.
I guess they aren't content with 7th and 11th; they want to be number 1! Or, at least, that's what I assume they want, considering study after study shows abstinence only "education" is entirely ineffective, if not counterproductive.

"Hey, you kids who are of the age that rebelling against authority is cool! Don't ever do this thing! It is extremely gratifying in the short term! But don't ever do it!"
I mean seriously, did these people not have to read Tom Sawyer in school or something? Whitewashing this fence is really fun! But you kids can't do it; only us adults!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 12, 2012, 05:16:28 pm
I've been saying for eons, if we keep trying to hide stuff away, it'll only increase people's curiosity for it. Kids especially.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: alway on May 12, 2012, 06:27:12 pm
Ugh. On the topic of that military course: There's apparently more of them. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/12/11675222-al-jazeera-second-anti-islam-military-curriculum-surfaces?lite
Quote
The slides leave the impression that Hamas extremists have infiltrated the U.S. government, media and education via U.S. Islamic groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Al-Jazeera said.
The documents indicated the two courses were prepared by the consulting firm Strategic Engagement Group, Inc., Al-Jazeera said. The website for Strategic Engagement does include statements similar to those in the materials cited by Al-Jazeera, msnbc.com found.
The firm's website states its president, E.J. Kimball, was formerly a foreign policy counsel to Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., and created the bipartisan Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus.
Myrick earlier wrote to Pentagon chief Leon Panetta voicing her concern that "the political nature of these (class) reviews might inadvertently weaken" military training, Al-Jazeera noted.
Stephen Coughlin, VP of strategic communication initiatives, is described as "the leading expert in the United States on Islamic Doctrine" and a U.S. Army Reserve major with military intelligence expertise.
Quote
The slides indicate the course was approved by two retired three- star generals and former CIA Director James Woolsey, Al-Jazeera added.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 12, 2012, 06:30:42 pm
Quote from: alway on May 12, 2012, 05:07:09 pm
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/12/11668279-new-tennessee-law-aims-to-curb-teaching-gateway-sexual-activity?lite
Another abstinence-only bill in Tennessee.
Quote
On Thursday, State Rep. Jon Lundberg told NBC station WCYB-TV that a focus on abstinence is needed because Tennessee has the seventh-highest teen birth rate in the nation and the 11th-highest HIV infection rate in the nation.
I guess they aren't content with 7th and 11th; they want to be number 1! Or, at least, that's what I assume they want, considering study after study shows abstinence only "education" is entirely ineffective, if not counterproductive.

"Hey, you kids who are of the age that rebelling against authority is cool! Don't ever do this thing! It is extremely gratifying in the short term! But don't ever do it!"
I mean seriously, did these people not have to read Tom Sawyer in school or something? Whitewashing this fence is really fun! But you kids can't do it; only us adults!
That's not the (most) crazy part. The crazy part is that this extends into teaching teenagers to avoid 'sexual gateway activities".

I'm surprised they don't just try to outlaw premarital sex altogether, at this point.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 12, 2012, 06:33:43 pm
Remember, the whole statutory thing, re: couples right on the arbitrary age line. They kinda' have outlawed it in some (otherwise completely harmless) situations.

But yeah, that's pretty damn crazy. I always sorta' wonder who these people actually are, but then I remember I live in a community largely comprised of them and kinda' know exactly who they are, so... bleh.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 12, 2012, 06:35:07 pm
Quote
Remember, the whole statutory thing, re: couples right on the arbitrary age line. They kinda' have outlawed it in some situations.
To what extent is this prevalent nowadays? I thought that the existence of an  age of consent  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent) would prevent most "statutory rape" incidents.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 12, 2012, 06:38:58 pm
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on May 12, 2012, 06:35:07 pm
Quote
Remember, the whole statutory thing, re: couples right on the arbitrary age line. They kinda' have outlawed it in some situations.
To what extent is this prevalent nowadays? I thought that the existence of an  age of consent  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent) would prevent most "statutory rape" incidents.
I'm not sure what your logic is on that. The age of consent is why statutory rape is a thing in the first place. In the US it ranges from 16-18 depending on the state, and that can obviously cause some problems.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 12, 2012, 06:43:57 pm
So, then, would a 16 y/o be liable to get accused of statutory if he had sex with a 15 y/o girl, for instance?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 12, 2012, 06:45:26 pm
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on May 12, 2012, 06:35:07 pm
Quote
Remember, the whole statutory thing, re: couples right on the arbitrary age line. They kinda' have outlawed it in some situations.
To what extent is this prevalent nowadays? I thought that the existence of an  age of consent  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent) would prevent most "statutory rape" incidents.
Prevalence wise, I still hear of it popping up locally relatively commonly; you'll have a couple where they're a year or two apart in age, but one of them's below the age of consent line. Someone outside the relationship objects (usually the parents of one of the involved), the cops get called in, someone gets on the sexual offender's list for the rest of their life for trying to have a relationship with a peer.

Quote from: ChairmanPoo on May 12, 2012, 06:43:57 pm
So, then, would a 16 y/o be liable to get accused of statutory if he had sex with a 15 y/o girl, for instance?
If 16 is the age of consent, yes, providing someone was willing to call it in and the cops didn't tell 'em to screw off. Which happens. E: Though do note they don't actually have to have sex! That's one of the "fun" parts of it. They just have to be unable to prove they didn't (at least in the area I'm in... maybe other parts of the states are a bit more sane with this). Good luck with that~
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 12, 2012, 06:50:50 pm
Quote from: Frumple on May 12, 2012, 06:45:26 pm
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on May 12, 2012, 06:43:57 pm
So, then, would a 16 y/o be liable to get accused of statutory if he had sex with a 15 y/o girl, for instance?
If 16 is the age of consent, yes, providing someone was willing to call it in and the cops didn't tell 'em to screw off. Which happens.
Note that this can vary based upon location. Some districts have what are called "Romeo & Juliet laws", which nullify the age of consent for individuals close to one another in age.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 12, 2012, 06:52:17 pm
Yeah, there's that. It's not a total universal clusterfuck situation, just... localized clusterfuck situation. It's pretty bloody ridiculous when it happens, though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 13, 2012, 04:47:46 pm
I have no clue what to think of my dad's political opinions. One minute he's calling Santorum a racist homophobe, and then the next second he's saying Romney was planned to win all along and Gingrich and Santorum were only there to draw attention away from Ron Paul.

Edit: JFK was assassinated because of his libertarian principles.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 13, 2012, 05:07:19 pm
I'm sorry penguin, but your father is a Paulite.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 13, 2012, 05:09:11 pm
Yes. That he is.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 14, 2012, 09:20:26 pm
(Eh, seeing as we're slinking onto the second page...).

http://news.yahoo.com/protesters-ex-student-convicted-rutgers-webcam-case-does-173702307.html

He had the option of no jail time and turned it down. Buyer's remorse with the turning down the plea.... Drove room mate to suicide.... [sigh].

Nobody listens to the lawyer when they're like "take the plea agreement."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 14, 2012, 09:21:40 pm
Even so, this is a particularly egregious case of not listening to one's lawyer.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 14, 2012, 09:22:36 pm
Pfft. What do you need those for? :) Law follows common sense!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 14, 2012, 09:24:06 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on May 14, 2012, 09:22:36 pm
Pfft. What do you need those for? :) Law follows common sense!

You have no idea how hard I laughed at that.... I couldn't breathe! The cat was startled.... Thank you! :P
(Not laughing at you, honestly. I'm just so glad somebody gets it. Too many say this straight).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 14, 2012, 09:36:44 pm
See, he thought he could lose and get no jail time, or win and get no jail time. Seems like a pretty easy choice to me. Everyone likes winning.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 14, 2012, 09:39:52 pm
Except he had no reason to think that he'd win. They practically told him beforehand that he was going to lose.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 14, 2012, 09:51:13 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 14, 2012, 09:39:52 pm
Except he had no reason to think that he'd win. They practically told him beforehand that he was going to lose.

Finally! Proof! It isn't just me they ignore on this. It's everyone. Who wants to bet they blame their defense lawyer for "screwing up the case?" :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Euld on May 15, 2012, 12:55:48 am
We were already discussing Colorado's civil unions bill? (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/14/us/colorado-civil-unions/)  Honestly I wasn't all that concerned with the other gay marriage and civil union things going on around the country, but now I'm getting worried.  I'm not even fully out of the closet yet and people are going ballistic D:

edit: or let me put this a different way.  I wasn't worried when it was just one state denying gay's right to marry, now I'm worried because there are a lot more states hopping onto the bandwagon.  I'm also sad that my home state technically doesn't have gay marriage until June, and there's petitions going around to stop it :(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on May 15, 2012, 03:28:12 pm
I'm not sure if this is progressive, but hey:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dggHZwEQMg&feature=g-u-u

So what I'm getting out of it is that George Lucas wants to build a studio, but keeps getting muscled out of where he wants to build it by rich people wanting to preserve the property value. George Lucas then starts sponsoring a movement to build low-income housing nearby to lower the property value.

I think that's pretty awesome.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 15, 2012, 03:54:28 pm
So George Lucas is an epic-level troll?

After the prequel movies, I think this comes as a surprise to no one.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 15, 2012, 05:06:33 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/virginia-republicans-deny-judgeship-gay-prosecutor-195654974.html

....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 15, 2012, 05:09:09 pm
The way I hear it Lucas has done pretty nasty stuff in the past with real estate. Tbh this sounds like one more dick move from him
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on May 15, 2012, 05:09:29 pm
Quote
Republican Delegate Robert Marshall (who is running for U.S. Senate) also accused him of pushing an "aggressive activist homosexual agenda." According to The Washington Post's Laura Vozzella, Marshall claims that Thorne-Begland "holds himself out as being married,” which makes his “life a contradiction to the requirement of submission to the constitution.”
The fuck is wrong with these people.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on May 15, 2012, 05:49:03 pm
Last I checked, the US Constitution doesn't have a requirement that you BE married to ACT married...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on May 15, 2012, 06:29:35 pm
Because of all the franticness earlier this year...

The 2013 NDAA is currently being debated. (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/05/once-more-with-feeling-the-fy2013-ndaa-and-domestic-detention/) Remember this is an annual appropriations bill with the interesting bits (detention policy and cyber warfare to name two) tacked on as afterthoughts.

Because of the massive publicity over the detention policy sections last year this year there are a number of new proposals. One in particular (the Smith-Amash amendment) would explicitly ban military detention on US soil. The Republicans are already attacking this from two sides; one group (in the previous link) argue it's not needed because the 2012 NDAA didn't authorise such detentions (true but irrelevant; previous and current law is entirely vague on the matter and the US has claimed such powers in the past), the other is claiming that banning such detention on US soil would encourage terrorists to come to the US (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/05/a-bad-argument-against-rep-smiths-amendment-to-the-ndaa/). Which is laughable.

If people are interested in getting something good out of that debate a few months back, start lobbying now. This debate and these proposals are happening because of the attention paid to the 2012 NDAA, but right now the only people paying attention to things are Republicans invested in the process and those charged with writing the bills.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 15, 2012, 06:33:22 pm
Wait, if military detention were prohibited on U.S. soil, what would happen to Fort Leavenworth?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on May 15, 2012, 06:54:22 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 15, 2012, 06:33:22 pm
Wait, if military detention were prohibited on U.S. soil, what would happen to Fort Leavenworth?
Sorry, worded that badly.

The detention in question here is holding people indefinitely without charge. The military could still arrest and prosecute people under the military code of justice and still hold traditional prisoners of war or "enemy combatants" captured overseas. It just removes the hypothetical case where an individual (following the AUMF, a member of Al Qaeda or someone strongly associated with that group) captured in the US could be transferred to military detention to be held indefinitely (NB, they would be allowed habeas access but it would likely be a military commission or similar, although constitutional challenges to holding them would be likely and probably work).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 15, 2012, 07:15:02 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on May 15, 2012, 05:09:29 pm
Quote
Republican Delegate Robert Marshall (who is running for U.S. Senate) also accused him of pushing an "aggressive activist homosexual agenda." According to The Washington Post's Laura Vozzella, Marshall claims that Thorne-Begland "holds himself out as being married,” which makes his “life a contradiction to the requirement of submission to the constitution.”
The fuck is wrong with these people.

Lovely to know you can "work hard and get ahead...." And I mean they're pretty straightforwardly telling him it's cause he's gay that he can't do the job....

It's all just more distraction to keep your focus off the fact that student loans interest rates are going to literally double from 3.4% to 6.8% in 15 days....

Edit: Speaking of things we're distracted from, turns out Iceland overthrew its government, is drafting a new constitution and is trying to throw the bankers that killed the country in jail. The article says this is not being shown in Western News. I'm curious if anyone else has heard of this or if it's just an onion style article?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 15, 2012, 08:46:35 pm
The only thing I can find on an Icelandic Revolution is some New World Order related crazy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on May 15, 2012, 08:47:14 pm
How do they know that being straight won't bias them against same-sex marriage cases?

Herpderpderp.

Quote from: Truean on May 15, 2012, 07:15:02 pm
It's all just more distraction to keep your focus off the fact that student loans interest rates are going to literally double from 3.4% to 6.8% in 15 days....
They're eating us! (http://www.esquire.com/features/young-people-in-the-recession-0412)

Quote from: Truean on May 15, 2012, 07:15:02 pm
Edit: Speaking of things we're distracted from, turns out Iceland overthrew its government, is drafting a new constitution and is trying to throw the bankers that killed the country in jail. The article says this is not being shown in Western News. I'm curious if anyone else has heard of this or if it's just an onion style article?
I found this. (http://october2011.org/blogs/margaret-flowers/icelands-going-revolution) But it looks like it's from almost a year ago. Also, it's less about throwing out bankers than refusing to pay ridiculous fees to foreign entities because of the misdeeds that a few private companies did. More on the constitution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Iceland
http://mashable.com/2011/07/29/iceland-crowdsourced-constitution/
http://singularityhub.com/2011/08/03/25-ordinary-citizens-write-icelands-new-constitution-with-help-from-social-media/
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/10/iceland-from-crisis-to-constitution.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/09/iceland-crowdsourcing-constitution-facebook
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/iceland-crowdsources-its-next-constitution/2011/06/10/AGiBplOH_blog.html
http://www.dailypaul.com/215344/why-iceland-should-be-in-the-news-but-is-not (WARNING: Daily Paul)

Sounds like it happened to me. That's fucking awesome.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on May 16, 2012, 12:12:00 am
Quote from: Truean on May 15, 2012, 07:15:02 pm
The article says this is not being shown in Western News.

That's pretty fucking scary.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on May 16, 2012, 12:17:33 am
Quote from: Criptfeind on May 16, 2012, 12:12:00 am
Quote from: Truean on May 15, 2012, 07:15:02 pm
The article says this is not being shown in Western News.

That's pretty fucking scary.
Government is sweating. Not that surprising.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on May 16, 2012, 12:19:04 am
I haven't read anything about the bankers being thrown out: can we get a link on that?

And I'd say that the Washington Post and the Guardian are fairly western news sources, at least for the new government part.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 16, 2012, 12:31:06 am
Quote from: Truean on May 15, 2012, 07:15:02 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on May 15, 2012, 05:09:29 pm
Quote
Republican Delegate Robert Marshall (who is running for U.S. Senate) also accused him of pushing an "aggressive activist homosexual agenda." According to The Washington Post's Laura Vozzella, Marshall claims that Thorne-Begland "holds himself out as being married,” which makes his “life a contradiction to the requirement of submission to the constitution.”
The fuck is wrong with these people.

Lovely to know you can "work hard and get ahead...." And I mean they're pretty straightforwardly telling him it's cause he's gay that he can't do the job....

It's all just more distraction to keep your focus off the fact that student loans interest rates are going to literally double from 3.4% to 6.8% in 15 days....

Edit: Speaking of things we're distracted from, turns out Iceland overthrew its government, is drafting a new constitution and is trying to throw the bankers that killed the country in jail. The article says this is not being shown in Western News. I'm curious if anyone else has heard of this or if it's just an onion style article?
It's old news, happened a couple of years ago. Where  I live it's increasingly regarded as "what should be done", instead of bending over to the demands of banks and the German goverment
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 16, 2012, 12:36:55 am
Pd: it's not mainstream news, anymore than the rampant protests are (protests which, funnily enough, do make it to the news abroad). But there's enough anger about the current state of affairs for this stuff to spread. Plus, a journalist did a long report on it a few weeks ago (this particular guy is becoming the bane of bankers, politicians, and bishops)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 16, 2012, 02:10:57 am
It's mainstream news over here. But then again, we're both in the North, so I guess it doesn't count as much.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 16, 2012, 10:00:29 am
I read news articles about it when it happened.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 16, 2012, 10:57:46 am
I dunno. I don't remember too terribly much about it being in the news: perhaps a blurb here and there. Even so compare:

Greece: I hear about their problems constantly, how they'll default on debts and austerity, etc.

Iceland: I sorta remember a blurb about them but holy crap they overthrew an entire government and don't wanna pay jack on debts....

Difference...?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 16, 2012, 11:17:34 am
Greece: Eurozone member, 2010 GDP: $301 billion
Iceland: Not a Eurozone member, 2010 GDP: $12 billion

Rather a large difference, actually.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 16, 2012, 11:26:27 am
Quote from: RedKing on May 16, 2012, 11:17:34 am
Greece: Eurozone member, 2010 GDP: $301 billion
Iceland: Not a Eurozone member, 2010 GDP: $12 billion

Rather a large difference, actually.

See, that makes some sense. you're looking at a size difference of x.... less than 30.... x27? 28? Whatever. And, a political affiliation. Fine. Legit and I get it.

However, I hear about Zimbabwe's legendary inflation, and every other crazy thing from all these other countries. Heck I know one of the former soviet blocks (I think Kazakhstan) is selling off $500 Million in state assets to pay state debts. A European country overthrows its government and seeks to jail bankers for causing collapse.... Not huge news? Some blurbs and done?

Maybe not cover it as much as Greece, but really, I expected some more. Do we know how the progress of their new constitution is going, even to the extent of whether or not they could/would actually put bankers in jail? I dunno, sounds newsworthy in the here and now moreso than some of the political circus at home.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 16, 2012, 11:32:32 am
Meh...Iceland is the descendant of a colony of Vikings, the oldest democracy in Europe, and the first to have an openly homosexual (female, no less) head of government. And they gave us Bjork. I think they don't get much coverage because people just assume "They just do things WEIRD in Iceland".  :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 16, 2012, 01:07:13 pm
Greece is newsworthy because it could drag the entire Euro down with it, and because it's so at odds with Germany over repayment and stuff.

Iceland... well, the only interest other countries have in it is whether it's gonna repay all the money its banks lost.  It's not really big news that they'd start attacking the bankers in order to avoid repaying that money.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on May 16, 2012, 01:08:31 pm
I do know that my council tax bill is much higher than it should be as my local council held its funds in an Iclandic bank which went belly up, losing them much monies. This happended to many other local councils that did the same thing, and its probably gonna stay that way over Icelands refusal to settle up its debts.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 16, 2012, 01:10:11 pm
It's not as simple as a "refusal to settle it's debts".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on May 16, 2012, 01:14:15 pm
Well, whatever more detailed explanation can be used to explain it, the end result is the same - someone still gets shafted for more money than they should. In this case, me.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 16, 2012, 01:23:16 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on May 16, 2012, 01:14:15 pm
Well, whatever more detailed explanation can be used to explain it, the end result is the same - someone still gets shafted for more money than they should. In this case, me.

Yup, globalization sucks. There's no accountability across national boundaries. People thought it was a great idea to move money this way, large sums of it.

Didn't something similar happen with the English getting screwed when some large bank in France collapsed a while ago? Like, maybe it was 6 or 7 years ago perhaps?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on May 16, 2012, 01:45:35 pm
Didn't the Great Depression get it's ball rolling because Austrian banks went belly up?*

*Could be completely wrong.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 16, 2012, 01:48:42 pm
Yup, you got shafted, but not by the Icelandic government or population. You got shafted by bankers, and you're lucky that the bankers that shafted you will at least go on trial, while those that shafted most of the rest of the world are now making huge bonuses again.

It's not mainstream news here either, but is quite well known in activists/political buff circles. I've heard that story or putting bankers on trial as well, but AFAIK, they've not done it yet. The ex-prime minister is also on trial (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/05/us-iceland-trial-idUSTRE8240T720120305) for deregulating the banks and creating this huge mess.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on May 16, 2012, 02:42:42 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 16, 2012, 01:23:16 pm
Didn't something similar happen with the English getting screwed when some large bank in France collapsed a while ago? Like, maybe it was 6 or 7 years ago perhaps?
That was Iceland and back in 2008. The affair is known as the Icesave dispute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icesave_dispute) and is sort of ongoing. There is more on the internal crisis here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932012_Icelandic_financial_crisis).

A lot of British councils, public bodies and charities had money in Icelandic banks, heavily built on the market that entirely vanished in the credit crisis. When the sector completely collapsed, the Icelandic government took over the banks but didn't guarantee any of the overseas investments. The British government could only afford to guarantee individual investments, leaving billions of pounds in corporate and public money to disappear overnight. Almost £1 billion was invested by 125 local authorities (http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/icelandicbanks31122008rev), a good chunk of which vanished. This threatened local tax (council tax) freezes have had to be abandoned, spiking living costs higher even as public services were under threat.

When the UK found out that Iceland was treating internal accounts differently to foreign ones, arguably in violation of the law, a freeze was put in place on assets of the collapsed bank (Landsbanki) in the UK. Because the law used for such assets freezes was the 2001 Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, this was billed as the UK using anti-terror legislation against Iceland, causing a lot of pushback and outrage from the Icelandic government and public.

This caused some serious problems establishing a repayment plan, which the UK and Netherlands (the other nation with massive funds in Iceland) saw as a prerequisite to releasing IMF funds. Two proposals went to referendums and were both rejected.

The government effectively collapsed shortly after the banks, with the head of the coalition stepping down quickly and calling for early elections. Those returned a leftist government under Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3hanna_Sigur%C3%B0ard%C3%B3ttir) (IIRC, the first head of government in a same-sex marriage). I don't believe there has been a governmental collapse since then and the signs are pretty good. They have made steps towards joining the EU, which has actually been good for them securing external funds. And this story yesterday (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18072195) suggests that repayments to British councils has passed the halfway point.
Quote from: Sheb on May 16, 2012, 01:48:42 pm
It's not mainstream news here either, but is quite well known in activists/political buff circles. I've heard that story or putting bankers on trial as well, but AFAIK, they've not done it yet. The ex-prime minister is also on trial (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/05/us-iceland-trial-idUSTRE8240T720120305) for deregulating the banks and creating this huge mess.
That ended last month. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/23/iceland-geir-haarde-found-guilty)
Quote
Geir Haarde, the former prime minister of Iceland and the only politician in the world to face prosecution for his role in the 2008 financial crisis, has been found guilty of failing to hold emergency cabinet meetings in the runup to the crisis. But he was cleared of three more serious charges, which could have jailed him for two years.
There is also this Telegraph interview (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/iceland/9233418/Former-prime-minister-Geir-Haarde-of-Iceland-says-he-did-not-cause-financial-chaos.html) with lots of details of the crisis and aftermath.

There are a dearth of English language Icelandic sources, but this guy looks solid (http://uti.is/) if people want to dig in more.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 16, 2012, 03:23:53 pm
Your article doesn't say where the money is coming from. The bank? The UK government? The Icelandic government?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on May 16, 2012, 03:41:32 pm
Quote from: Sheb on May 16, 2012, 03:23:53 pm
Your article doesn't say where the money is coming from. The bank? The UK government? The Icelandic government?
If you mean in this story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18072195), that's money from the nationalised banks to UK groups who had invested with the banks that collapsed. These were debts the government took over from the banks when their assets and liabilities were nationalised, but IIRC they are all handled through the remaining structures of the nationalised bodies.

EDIT: Ah, not entirely accurate. I'm trying to find a clearer explanation of the actual structure. It doesn't look this this payoff was actually public money but instead recovered from the old banks assets. The nationalisation part was to do with immediate measures.

The UK government covered private investments which the Icelandic government were also liable for, but so far repayment of those debts isn't looking especially promising.

I think this post might be helpful. (http://uti.is/2012/03/glitnir-pays-out-its-priority-claims/)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 16, 2012, 04:12:12 pm
Why must Bush wait till he is out of office to say something respectable?

http://news.yahoo.com/bush-touts-arab-spring-says-us-cant-fear-161018046.html
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 16, 2012, 05:52:28 pm
Bush is a very strange person.

I hear about things like this involving him all the time. (http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jan/20/opinion/oe-davis20) It makes me wonder about what being in politics did to him, because it certainly doesn't match up to how he acts when not in politics.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 16, 2012, 10:29:09 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 16, 2012, 05:52:28 pm
Bush is a very strange person.

I hear about things like this involving him all the time. (http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jan/20/opinion/oe-davis20) It makes me wonder about what being in politics did to him, because it certainly doesn't match up to how he acts when not in politics.

I'm calling bullshit on that "nice Bush" story since Lanny Davis states 'I hope it suggests a return to the "compassionate conservatism" I remember and that he practiced in his two terms as governor of Texas.'

Yeah total bullshit. His time as Texas governor was WORSE than his time as president, read this guardian article from 2000, pre-election win.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/nov/01/uselections2000.usa2

Here's some snippets:

Quote
Viewed from here, Texas is a harsh state of extreme inequality, which has become more unequal under Mr Bush's leadership. In a time of booming economy and record budget surpluses, the governor's corporate allies have made a killing at the lucrative intersection of state government and business. Meanwhile 45% of the population in the lower Rio Grande Valley live below the poverty line and pray that they never need medical help they cannot afford. It is an unforgiving place, unrecognisable from the progressive and tolerant state evoked in Mr Bush's stump speeches.

The governor's powers are strictly circumscribed by the state constitution, but with less than a week potentially separating Mr Bush from the White House, his priorities and policies as Texas governor give clear indications about how he might lead America.
[...]
When her son, Robert, fell ill with bronchitis she hesitated before taking him to see a doctor because she had no health insurance. When his condition became serious, she panicked and rushed him across the Rio Grande, to the Mexican border town of Reynosa. "The doctor there said if I had been just a few hours later, he would have been dead."

Lydia Camarillo's plight is not unusual. There are 1.4m uninsured children in Texas, a higher proportion than anywhere else in the country, be cause Texas, under Mr Bush's governorship, makes it harder than any other state to get affordable healthcare. Lydia and her husband, Belarmino, have no steady jobs. She bakes cakes and sells them from home, and the family migrates northwards in the summer to work as agricultural labourers.
[...]
This was an issue to which the governor gave unusually detailed attention. His administration blocked the adoption of a national child health insurance programme (Chip), which offers affordable care to families just above the absolute poverty level. Although the scheme is funded entirely by the federal government, Mr Bush argued that 20% of the applicants "will come in seeking Chip but will be enrolled in Medicaid instead", and that would have to be paid out of his state budget. In plain English, he was afraid poor Texan families would find out what free medical care they were entitled to. His administration fought an attempt to put it on the state legislative agenda in 1997. Instead, he spent much of the state's $6.4bn on tax-cuts, including a $1bn cut in property taxes. Under increasing duress last year, he suggested a more limited scheme which would have excluded 200,000 children, before giving in to political pressure.
[...]
In his standard presidential campaign appearances, Mr Bush now claims credit for the Chip scheme, which has evolved into an essential element of his bipartisan "compassionate conservative" image.

It is spin of Orwellian boldness. It is still tougher in Texas than in almost any other state to gain access to Medicaid. And in a region where the per capita income is $7,700, less than half the Texas average, the Bush administration in 1997 actually attempted in 1997 to lower the minimum wage of $3.25 an hour.
[...]
On the other end of the winner-loser scale are JR and Lupe Cordova. The couple live in Houston, which last year overtook Los Angeles as the most polluted city in the nation. As a focal point of the petro-chemical industry, it has always been a dirty town, but from where the Cordovas stand, it has got a loss worse.

Perched on the Houston Ship Channel, their neighbourhood, which goes by the ironic name of Woodland Acres, has been suffocated by the seemingly unregulated industrial sprawl around them. A steel firm called North Shore Supply Company built a galvanising plant across the road from them, despite zoning regulations defining the street as residential. Despite the family's complaints, those regulations have never been enforced, and the plant continues to add to the burden of chemicals and black dust in the air. By their own accounting, Houston industries pump nearly a million tonnes of pollutants into the air each year in "accidental" chemical releases. The condition of the air alone is estimated to cause nearly 1,000 deaths in Houston a year.

The Cordovas' son Stephen, 10, has chronic bronchitis and, like his father, a near-permanent rash which turns the skin on his arm red and tough. At elementary school, he would vomit after every meal. Their daughter Jessica, 15, had such severe asthma that she was unable to go outside for more than 20 minutes at a time. "My daughter tells her version of our life together. It's all seen from inside looking through the window at us outside," Mrs Cordova said.

Mr Cordova developed severe sinus and respiratory problems and had to leave his job as a docker on the channel, but he still wanted to stay in the blighted neighbourhood he had grown up in. But, the Cordovas were forced out of Woodland Acres anyway.

After Mrs Cordova, a schoolteacher, became prominent in a campaign by local mothers to force national environmental standards on the local industries, the couple began receiving death threats. In November 1999, someone blew the windows out of their car with a shotgun. That was too much, and the family moved to a suburb in north Houston earlier this year. They have yet to find jobs there and they are unable to sell their house in Woodland Acres. North Shore Supply offered $14,000, and Mr Cordova angrily turned them down.

And it just goes on and on.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on May 19, 2012, 06:25:12 am
Anyone still care about the NDAA stuff?

Because the best possible amendment so far (banning military detention for those captured on US soil) was rejected on a party line vote. In it's place is a weak ass amendment designed to do exactly the same thing as last year but looking like it cares about civil liberties instead of just looking tough on terrorists. If anything this amendment, supposedly addressing liberty concerns, creates two new legal problems (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/05/the-fy2013-ndaa-and-domestic-detention-now-with-more-misdirection/); ambiguity around the status of illegal immigrant's habeas rights and an apparent 30 day period of detention where prisoners may be denied access to court and council.

At the same time it seems a new mandatory military detention provision (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/05/house-votes-to-bar-civilian-trial-of-persons-within-scope-of-military-commission-jurisdiction/) has been passed. This was in the 2012 NDAA but removed after Obama's veto threat. I'd recommend reading the statement made alongside the amendment in that post just to get the blood boiling.

And yeah, the House passed the bill (including that amendment) last night. So it's probably a Senate fight and Obama veto threat to look forwards to.


In other NDAA news, a federal judge has suspended one of the detention provisions of the 2012 NDAA (the one every was worked up over) in an absurd looking case; Hedges v. Obama.

The case hinged on two points; did the people bringing it have standing to challenge the law (eg, reasonable belief that it could be used against them) and that the NDAA has power beyond the AUMF which it explicitly affirms.

On the second point, the judge ignored both the law's statement that it doesn't change such powers and didn't even address the caselaw on this point, simply stating that she had to view every statute as having individual and unique power. Which is a little odd, but OK. She had one of the cheekiest lines of reasoning that made me forgive this entirely; if the NDAA provision in question has no power beyond that of the AUMF the provision being enjoined won't make any difference and so it doesn't matter. That is, if your defence of a law's negative effects are that the law has no effects does it really matter if your defence fails?

On the first point, the government acted really weird. Despite stating in their briefs and in all law and policy that the people suing have no chance of being detained under the AUMF/NDAA, the lawyer refused to explicitly state this in court, essentially saying they didn't answer hypothetical questions. The government offered no additional defences. So it's hard to tell if they really cared.

All in all, weird case. I kinda agree with the judge that if the provision is bunk (which it is) it doesn't matter if it's struck down or not. But I wouldn't be surprised if this feeds back into the current NDAA 2013 debate.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 19, 2012, 06:31:55 am
Quote
Where to begin?  Well, how about the situation where the person in question is captured by an ally who will not turn him over to us unless we plan to use civilian prosecution? 
That's not something I expected to hear in the modern world :s
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 19, 2012, 09:35:28 am
Well, you're still allied with some European power that care about that kind of stuff. Lots of country have laws that prevent extradition if the suspect would risk torture and/or not get a fair trial.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 19, 2012, 09:36:21 am
I guess that's another argument for severing our extradition agreement with the US as soon as possible.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: alway on May 19, 2012, 11:17:06 am
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/19/11765588-cops-occupy-protesters-at-chicago-nato-sumnmit-held-over-molotov-cocktail-plot?lite
Quote
Three protesters at the NATO summit in Chicago have been charged with terrorism conspiracy stemming from allegations that they planned to make Molotov cocktails, police said.
Chicago police Lt. Kenneth Stoppa told The Associated Press early Saturday that the three were being held on charges of conspiracy to commit terrorism, possession of an explosive or incendiary device and providing material support.

...

But the group of protesters said what police thought was suspicious was actually a home beer-brewing operation.
“We were handcuffed to a bench and our legs were shackled together. We were not told what was happening,” one of those detained but later released, Darrin Ammussek, told the station.
“I believe very strongly in non-violence, and if I had seen anything that even resembled any plans or anything like that, we wouldn’t have been there," he added.
He claimed that during 18 hours in custody, police never told him why he was arrested, read him his rights or allowed him to make a phone call, The Associated Pres reported. He said he remained handcuffed to a bench, even after asking to use a restroom.
"There were guards walking by making statements into the door along the lines of 'hippie,' 'communist," 'pinko,'" a tired-looking Annussek told reporters just after his release.

“They came in with guns drawn and broke into a unit that was not housing protestors in order to get into another unit in the building that was housing protestors,” Kris Hermes, of the National Lawyers Guild, told NBCChicago.com.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on May 19, 2012, 11:20:57 am

Quote
'communist,"
Why are we not over this?

Anyway, cops can be asshats sometimes. I remember when I was dwn at occupy in St. Louis everything was great with the mayor, until the baseball season ended and the press went away. Then he basically said "fuck you, you had your fun. Now go home" Sigh.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on May 19, 2012, 11:45:11 am
In one of the related articles:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/18/11757222-nurses-yes-nurses-lead-charge-for-wall-street-sin-tax?lite

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Go nurses go!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 19, 2012, 04:03:57 pm
I just read  that (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/how-fbi-entrapment-is-inventing-terrorists-and-letting-bad-guys-off-the-hook-20120515) about the FBI policy of entrapment. It's scary as hell.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Euld on May 19, 2012, 06:44:44 pm
Congressmen try to sneak in a amendment to this year's NDAA (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/congressmen-seek-to-lift-propaganda-ban) to give them the right to bombard Americans with propaganda, WWII style.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on May 19, 2012, 07:00:15 pm
Hooray for nurses!

Fuck you, Congress!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on May 20, 2012, 11:59:29 am
The NAACP endorse same sex marriage. (http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/05/breaking-naacp-supports-marriage-equality-says-pos.html)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 20, 2012, 12:09:32 pm
Great, but:
Quote from: HRC President Joe Solmonese
"We could not be more pleased with the NAACP's history-making vote today -- which is yet another example of the traction marriage equality continues to gain in every community. It's time the shameful myth that the African-American community is somehow out of lockstep with the rest of the country on marriage equality is retired -- once and for all. The facts and clear momentum toward marriage speak for themselves."
Since when is that a myth? I thought it was an established demographic trend that black Americans were less likely to support marriage equality.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Twi on May 20, 2012, 01:23:51 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 20, 2012, 12:09:32 pm
Great, but:
Quote from: HRC President Joe Solmonese
"We could not be more pleased with the NAACP's history-making vote today -- which is yet another example of the traction marriage equality continues to gain in every community. It's time the shameful myth that the African-American community is somehow out of lockstep with the rest of the country on marriage equality is retired -- once and for all. The facts and clear momentum toward marriage speak for themselves."
Since when is that a myth? I thought it was an established demographic trend that black Americans were less likely to support marriage equality.

You could theoretically say that African-Americans are simply interested in their own rights before caring about marriage equality, I guess?

I think you're right, though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 20, 2012, 01:25:22 pm
No, the reasoning as I remember it is that black Americans are more frequently very religious than other Americans, and as such have ingrained negative views of homosexuality into their subcultural norms.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Glowcat on May 20, 2012, 01:51:32 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 20, 2012, 01:25:22 pm
No, the reasoning as I remember it is that black Americans are more frequently very religious than other Americans, and as such have ingrained negative views of homosexuality into their subcultural norms.

While it's true that those who identify as black in America tend to be more religious, they aren't too far out of synch with the rest of the country. http://as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4819/marriagedivides.pdf (http://as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4819/marriagedivides.pdf) covers the result of an exaggerated exit-poll for Prop 8 which did a lot to entrench the perception of the African-American community being far more conservative on this issue. Still, there is a grain of truth to "the myth", even if it isn't as bad as sometimes made out to be.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 20, 2012, 03:25:52 pm
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/19/mississippi-2/

"Mississippi Conservative Calls For Putting Gay People To Death On Facebook Page."

I wonder if he's ever actually read any of the rest of Leviticus, cause I'm sure it prescribes most people should die for a few "abominations" mixed threads, shellfish, let's not forget the prohibition against wealth. Something about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.... That's from a different contributor to the bible though.... I think his name was Jesus.... No need to take him into account but that Leviticus.... Clearly, he's the guy to quote. :P

Cherry Picking per usual. He took the offensive quotes down off facebook right after his just deserts, the firestorm against him, started. Then he pretended to stand by his interpretation of religion....

Then, also per usual, he forsakes the constitution for the bible.... He's not legally allowed to do that, what with separation of church and state and all.... You'd think it would matter given that he's calling for the execution of American Citizens, but na.... His opinion is protected.... Any other civilization in the developed world wouldn't stand for that....

This man is a state legislator....
___________________________________
Edit: I'm quite thrilled the NAACP has decided to stand up for marriage equality. I don't know how far this will go towards changing the minds of many individual members. Hope it will work out.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Glowcat on May 20, 2012, 03:37:05 pm
Are we on Mississippi today? Because I recently ran across something Progressive Rage-y Expression-y:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/bubba-carpenter-mississippi-abortion_n_1518533.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/bubba-carpenter-mississippi-abortion_n_1518533.html)

Quote from: Rep. Bubba Carpenter
You have the other side. They're like, 'Well, the poor pitiful women that can't afford to go out of state are just going to start doing them at home with a coat hanger.' That's what we've heard over and over and over," Carpenter told an Alcorn County GOP meeting in a video flagged by Rachel Maddow's blog. "But hey, you have to have moral values. You have to start somewhere, and that’s what we've decided to do.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on May 20, 2012, 03:53:12 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 20, 2012, 03:25:52 pm
He's not legally allowed to do that, what with separation of church and state and all....
This world would be so much better if that was actually enforced or even acknowledged.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 20, 2012, 04:35:56 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on May 20, 2012, 03:53:12 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 20, 2012, 03:25:52 pm
He's not legally allowed to do that, what with separation of church and state and all....
This world would be so much better if that was actually enforced or even acknowledged.
That's not fair, it's plenty acknowledged. Not as much as it should be, but most of the things that the Religious Right bitch about are because of the enforcement of the Separation of Church and State. School sponsored prayer, anyone?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 20, 2012, 04:42:59 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 20, 2012, 04:35:56 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on May 20, 2012, 03:53:12 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 20, 2012, 03:25:52 pm
He's not legally allowed to do that, what with separation of church and state and all....
This world would be so much better if that was actually enforced or even acknowledged.
That's not fair, it's plenty acknowledged. Not as much as it should be, but most of the things that the Religious Right bitch about are because of the enforcement of the Separation of Church and State. School sponsored prayer, anyone?

Point partially taken but eh....

So we get school sponsored "moments of silence" where in many places you get looked at, like you purposefully vomited in the school cafeteria jumbo and they only caught you after it was served to everyone, if you don't pray.

That's like melting down those little plastic army men to get green tea. It may be green but damn it, that's not tea....

:P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on May 20, 2012, 05:03:11 pm
Melted army men is more of a blackish color.

Honestly, even if it wasn't gay specifically, people who say "these people should be killed" need to be seriously looked at.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 20, 2012, 05:46:28 pm
Quote from: greatorder on May 20, 2012, 04:56:28 pm
truean, that has got to be the weirdest comparison I have ever heard.

That's kinda the point. It doesn't make sense.

Quote from: Luke_Prowler on May 20, 2012, 05:03:11 pm
Melted army men is more of a blackish color.

Honestly, even if it wasn't gay specifically, people who say "these people should be killed" need to be seriously looked at.

So it's even worse, Neither green, nor tea.... :P

Yeah, I'd really hope lawmakers who advocate largescale killings as the right thing are sorta looked at funny....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: sluissa on May 20, 2012, 11:20:54 pm
I actually never really got the vibe of "Moment of Silence" = prayer thing, and I live in the deep south. Around here it really just started after 9/11 as a moment of remembrance. Eventually it evolved into actually to continue standing after the pledge of allegiance (another conversation to be had....) and during that time the teachers would walk around the room checking for dress code violations. Even going so far as to having students raise their arms to the ceiling to A)Check that boys' pants weren't too low and that they would stay up without help and B)Check that girls wouldn't show their midriff easily.

Can't really imagine prayer happening during that process. Although I believe now it's actually separate from the moment of silence. Also, never, ever got the feeling that I should have been praying instead. >90% of the students I observed while I sat there doing nothing, also sat there doing nothing, looking bored while the teachers all either just did paperwork or sat there doing nothing as well, looking bored.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 20, 2012, 11:25:58 pm
Similarly I've never equated moments of silence to prayer. The few times I did it in school was after some sort of tragedy, and I always interpreted it more as a gesture of respect to the victims than anything religious.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 21, 2012, 02:16:06 am
I think this whole "Advocation death for gay" thing is overblown. I mean, sure he's a bastard, but he just cited the "relevant" part of the Leviticus. Not his fault if you practically can't cite any part of the Old Testament without advocating the death of someone.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 21, 2012, 02:25:12 am
Maybe that's something you should realize when you're citing Leviticus.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 21, 2012, 05:23:12 pm
Another psycho pastor in North Carolina advocating death for the homosexual menace? You've got it! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d2n7vSPwhSU)

Allow me to be the first to say that not everyone in North Carolina is batshit crazy. I know that's hard to believe in light of recent events, but I swear it's just the One True Christians (TM) making the rest of us look bad.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 21, 2012, 06:12:58 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 21, 2012, 05:23:12 pm
Another psycho pastor in North Carolina advocating death for the homosexual menace? You've got it! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d2n7vSPwhSU)

Allow me to be the first to say that not everyone in North Carolina is batshit crazy. I know that's hard to believe in light of recent events, but I swear it's just the One True Christians (TM) making the rest of us look bad.

....

So he's literally  advocating "final solutions," concentration camps with electrified fences, and having "all the gays die out in a few years 'cause they can't reproduce...." This ignores where all the present gays came from given that reproduction has always been impossible in this circumstance, but then ignoring logic seems par for this course....

"You'd say, 'Did you mean to say that?' You better believe I did."

....

I do so love how hate speech is protected, and in this case not only not considered hate speech, but vehemently, angrily, and with shocked offense declared to be "not hate speech." I'm sorry. If someone's church teaches this, then it's just more bigotry hiding behind a religion. Look at the revulsion he expresses in that clip towards the idea of being gay.... He can literally stand up there and advocate concentration camps and attempted genocide or mass murder or whatever and just....

I don't even know. Maybe I've seen too many men like him and that's part of the reason I'm always uncomfortable/afraid around straight men. [shrugs] I am scared to death of people like that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 21, 2012, 06:19:41 pm
Some comments on other sites are speculating that the pastor in this case is not, in fact, a straight man at all. It's true that there's a trend of repressed homosexuals violently projecting onto non-repressed homosexuals, so that's hardly impossible.

Anyway, Truean, you shouldn't be so afraid. People like this are definitely psycho, but by this point you have little to actually fear from straight men in America, even most of the ones who still hate people who aren't straight. The only people you should be worrying about are those who are a general threat for other reasons, i.e., psychopaths.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 21, 2012, 06:28:43 pm
That still depends pretty heavily on the area MSH. Still hear about the occasional assault or murder in my area, and the former, well. They're not often psychopaths, per se. Just goddamn bigots in an area that looks the other way when shit like that happens thrown in with a little bit of groupthink (and probably beer). What's a little group beating when the target is a second class citizen ::)

It's not as bad in some areas, though, and relatively "safe" in yet others, but there's definitely still strongly justified reasons for a homosexual to fear in a lot of places in the states.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 21, 2012, 06:33:10 pm
I don't know. That sounds like psychopathic behavior to me, and I'd think that psychopaths would be able to operate a lot easier in a rural area where there's a kind of person that the local government doesn't particularly care about.

By the way, if you value not being paranoid, don't read up on the m.o. of your standard psychopath. It's crazy and makes you suspect everyone around you of psychopathy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 21, 2012, 06:35:32 pm
Dehumanization can cause that sort of behavior without psychopathy/sociopathy/whatever. Plus there's the whole monkey sphere thing, where normal people don't empathize with others outside a small group.

So yeah, that sort of behavior can be trained by cultural influences, especially so if the person/group being attacked is someone they don't know personally.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 21, 2012, 06:40:55 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 21, 2012, 06:12:58 pm
So he's literally  advocating "final solutions," concentration camps with electrified fences, and having "all the gays die out in a few years 'cause they can't reproduce...." This ignores where all the present gays came from given that reproduction has always been impossible in this circumstance, but then ignoring logic seems par for this course....

"You'd say, 'Did you mean to say that?' You better believe I did."

As we all know, gay men develop a butterus that allows them to get pregnant, and lesbians get a... man, I can't think of a good pun for this one.

Quote from: kaijyuu on May 21, 2012, 06:35:32 pm
Dehumanization can cause that sort of behavior without psychopathy/sociopathy/whatever. Plus there's the whole monkey sphere thing, where normal people don't empathize with others outside a small group.

So yeah, that sort of behavior can be trained by cultural influences, especially so if the person/group being attacked is someone they don't know personally.

Yeah, they're sociopathic attitudes, just maybe not because of sociopathy specifically. The question is how to deal with crap like this, because it definitely has the ability to hurt people. I feel like free speech protections of hate speech and stuff are usually based on how words are harmless (and therefore the penalties on slander/libel), and stuff like this can definitely hurt people.

Hm... say you out some gay kid at your school and they kill themselves. There's no spying or webcams or anything, this kid just trusted you and you broke their trust. Can you get in legal trouble for this?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 21, 2012, 06:46:08 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on May 21, 2012, 06:40:55 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 21, 2012, 06:12:58 pm
So he's literally  advocating "final solutions," concentration camps with electrified fences, and having "all the gays die out in a few years 'cause they can't reproduce...." This ignores where all the present gays came from given that reproduction has always been impossible in this circumstance, but then ignoring logic seems par for this course....

"You'd say, 'Did you mean to say that?' You better believe I did."

As we all know, gay men develop a butterus that allows them to get pregnant, and lesbians get a... man
I was reading it like that, and wasn't getting it (or rather, I was thinking "well, yes, that would work, but doesn't seem a very lesbian thing to do")
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Euld on May 21, 2012, 07:02:33 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on May 21, 2012, 06:40:55 pm
Hm... say you out some gay kid at your school and they kill themselves. There's no spying or webcams or anything, this kid just trusted you and you broke their trust. Can you get in legal trouble for this?
It may depend on the area, but in some places "outing" someone is definitely a no-no.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 21, 2012, 07:06:53 pm
The root problem would be the stigma against being gay, not the outing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 22, 2012, 01:08:03 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 21, 2012, 05:23:12 pm
Another psycho pastor in North Carolina advocating death for the homosexual menace? You've got it! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d2n7vSPwhSU)

Allow me to be the first to say that not everyone in North Carolina is batshit crazy. I know that's hard to believe in light of recent events, but I swear it's just the One True Christians (TM) making the rest of us look bad.
I just now heard about this.
I'm getting really tired of apologizing on behalf of my state. I'm also tempted to send Pastor Goebbels a dozen deep-fried twinkies, to hasten along his death by arteriosclerosis and diabetes. Killing with kindness and all that jazz. Cause this shit aint going away until most of the old farts that feel that way are rotting in the cold, cold ground.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 22, 2012, 01:41:10 pm
Just found out about this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Diaries). State-funded feminist queer pornography? Only in Sweden. I really need to get my hand on it.


(P.S. The link is to the wiki page, so totally SFW).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Vector on May 22, 2012, 01:54:58 pm
Y'all got a broken URL there, friendo.

1. X-Men is going to feature a gay marriage! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/flash-steinbeiser/x-men-gay-wedding_b_1536037.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009#s=more227707)

2. Orson Scott Card is being a bit of a douchebag! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/orson-scott-card-gay-marriage-amendment-one_n_1478936.html)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 22, 2012, 01:57:20 pm
Quote from: Vector on May 22, 2012, 01:54:58 pm
1. X-Men is going to feature a gay marriage! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/flash-steinbeiser/x-men-gay-wedding_b_1536037.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009#s=more227707)

Ah, yes. Archie has always been a trendsetter in the world of comics.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 22, 2012, 02:11:26 pm
Quote from: Vector on May 22, 2012, 01:54:58 pm
Y'all got a broken URL there, friendo.

1. X-Men is going to feature a gay marriage! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/flash-steinbeiser/x-men-gay-wedding_b_1536037.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009#s=more227707)

2. Orson Scott Card is being a bit of a douchebag! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/orson-scott-card-gay-marriage-amendment-one_n_1478936.html)
I wish I could say #2 surprises me, but it doesn't. Having grown up in Greensboro (and being a sci-fi/fantasy geek), I've met Card on more than on occasion. Nice enough guy, but definitely a Mormon. With all the religious conservatism that entails. Also tends to ignore people with a contrary opinion to his.

Quote from: Sheb on May 22, 2012, 01:41:10 pm
State-funded feminist queer pornography? Only in Sweden. I really need to get my hand on it.
I think you meant "hands on it", unless it refers to...oh. Nevermind.  :P



I also hadn't heard about (several months ago) Michele Bachmann's Iowa coordinator having made the Evel Knievel-like rocket-powered-over-the-Grand-Canyon leap of logic that allowing gay marriage would lead to people marrying the Eiffel Tower (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8LNiKVdfng).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Karlito on May 22, 2012, 02:27:52 pm
Quote from: RedKing on May 22, 2012, 02:11:26 pm
I also hadn't heard about (several months ago) Michele Bachmann's Iowa coordinator having made the Evel Knievel-like rocket-powered-over-the-Grand-Canyon leap of logic that allowing gay marriage would lead to people marrying the Eiffel Tower (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8LNiKVdfng).

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=yXlaS_jYBFQ) was in the related videos, and I really don't want to investigate further, but someone needs to tell her that the Golden Gate Bridge is totally a lady.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: SomeStupidGuy on May 22, 2012, 02:32:19 pm
Quote from: Vector on May 22, 2012, 01:54:58 pm
Y'all got a broken URL there, friendo.

1. X-Men is going to feature a gay marriage! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/flash-steinbeiser/x-men-gay-wedding_b_1536037.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009#s=more227707)

2. Orson Scott Card is being a bit of a douchebag! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/orson-scott-card-gay-marriage-amendment-one_n_1478936.html)
Good of X-Men's writers to do that, with any luck in a few years it won't even be that huge of a thing.

Also, Orson Scott Card has been a douchebag for while now. I mean at one point he literally rewrote Hamlet (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/sep/08/outcry-hamlet-novel-gay-paedophile) so that pretty much every single bad thing happens because the King is a gay pedophile (Who also molested & made Horatio gay).
Good writer (when he's not shoehorning his horrid beliefs in) but kind of an awful person.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 22, 2012, 03:04:28 pm
Quote from: Vector on May 22, 2012, 01:54:58 pm
1. X-Men is going to feature a gay marriage! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/flash-steinbeiser/x-men-gay-wedding_b_1536037.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009#s=more227707)
They made Renee Montoya gay too? Huh.


Anywho Archie beat them to the punch, which is one of many reasons Archie is an awesome comic book.

Quote
2. Orson Scott Card is being a bit of a douchebag! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/orson-scott-card-gay-marriage-amendment-one_n_1478936.html)
Ah, Orson Scott Card. Him and I come from very, very similar backgrounds and I find myself predicting his books halfway through. We have diametrically opposed political views, however. I guess when he looked into the abyss, he blinked.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 22, 2012, 03:05:12 pm
Quote from: Vector on May 22, 2012, 01:54:58 pm
1. X-Men is going to feature a gay marriage! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/flash-steinbeiser/x-men-gay-wedding_b_1536037.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009#s=more227707)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Sorry, I just couldn't hold it in. The discussion can now continue.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 22, 2012, 03:24:25 pm
So, apparently it's legal for Tennessee to steal your money. (http://www.newschannel5.com/story/18241221/man-loses-22000-in-new-policing-for-profit-case?clienttype=printable)

In fact, it's state policy to steal all money from out-of-staters passing through the state, if possible. That is just... dear god. I can't even fathom how fucked up this is.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 22, 2012, 03:27:57 pm
But there's the vague possibility that its drug money!

And we confiscate stuff on circumstantial evidence and baseless suspicion all the time.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 22, 2012, 03:36:19 pm
Quote from: scriver on May 22, 2012, 03:05:12 pm
Quote from: Vector on May 22, 2012, 01:54:58 pm
1. X-Men is going to feature a gay marriage! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/flash-steinbeiser/x-men-gay-wedding_b_1536037.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009#s=more227707)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Sorry, I just couldn't hold it in. The discussion can now continue.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 22, 2012, 06:33:39 pm
Quote from: Vector on May 22, 2012, 01:54:58 pm
Y'all got a broken URL there, friendo.

1. X-Men is going to feature a gay marriage! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/flash-steinbeiser/x-men-gay-wedding_b_1536037.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009#s=more227707)

2. Orson Scott Card is being a bit of a douchebag! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/orson-scott-card-gay-marriage-amendment-one_n_1478936.html)

Yay on 1 and not so much on 2. :D. Overall I have to say I'm happy they are making gays more prevalent in pop culture rather than the old standby of  "hide your gays."  (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HideYourLesbians)

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 22, 2012, 03:24:25 pm
So, apparently it's legal for Tennessee to steal your money. (http://www.newschannel5.com/story/18241221/man-loses-22000-in-new-policing-for-profit-case?clienttype=printable)

In fact, it's state policy to steal all money from out-of-staters passing through the state, if possible. That is just... dear god. I can't even fathom how fucked up this is.

....

Yeah.... Confiscation law sucks. The Ex Parte' thing surprised me a little too. Always wondered how you distinguish what the money is or was used for...?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on May 22, 2012, 11:40:44 pm
North Dakota citizens will vote on June 12 on an incredibly dangerous ballot initiative. If passed, it would allow people to claim that their personal religious beliefs give them the right to break non-discrimination, health, safety, and child protection laws. (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/North_Dakota_Religious_Freedom_Amendment,_Measure_3_%28June_2012%29)
I wish the law allowed me to punch whoever suggested this.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 22, 2012, 11:58:10 pm
Quote
Government may not burden a person's or religious organization's religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.

Oh my. Countdown until there's a double standard for Islam...

Actually, I guess that's what that "compelling governmental interest" line is for. As much as conservatives hate the necessary and proper clause, you'd think they'd hate lines like that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on May 23, 2012, 12:00:21 am
Quote from: Scelly9 on May 22, 2012, 11:40:44 pm
North Dakota citizens will vote on June 12 on an incredibly dangerous ballot initiative. If passed, it would allow people to claim that their personal religious beliefs give them the right to break non-discrimination, health, safety, and child protection laws. (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/North_Dakota_Religious_Freedom_Amendment,_Measure_3_%28June_2012%29)
I wish the law allowed me to punch whoever suggested this.
Look on the bright side! If the law passes, you can! :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 23, 2012, 06:33:48 am
Hey, at least hopefully it'll show the states why such laws are bad ideas. Anyone up for a betting poll on how long it takes for North Dakota to realise it was a stupid idea?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 23, 2012, 09:04:53 am
Well, it really depends on how it's enforced, since I don't think a "compelling interest" is well defined.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 23, 2012, 09:12:45 am
How do law enforcers determine what beliefs are both religious and sincerely held, anyway? I'm not entirely sure how you'd identify either, unless you discriminate based on organization size in the case of the former and just take people's word for it in the latter case (which would be hilarious, in a sense.). "Why yes, your honor, it is my sincerely held belief that employees should not receive benefits, safe working conditions, or a living wage."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 23, 2012, 09:17:19 am
Think of the old school mormons who will be allowed to express their deeply held religious convictions regarding the pimping of 11 year old girls.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 23, 2012, 09:48:15 am
So basically, the church can overrule the state...? No literally, that's what this is. It's a broad based attempt at a theocratic takeover. Simply, all the state can really do is pass laws and with this, all religious people have to do is have a "sincerely held religious belief" and none of those laws apply anymore. Same with regulations and pretty much everything. They're almost becoming citizens of their religion where the state is subservient by the plain text of this law, because it becomes clear who trumps who.... 

That doesn't even get into the practical impossibilities of implementing this law. Starting with the big one, if someone starts a satanic cult can they perform human sacrifices? If someone believes religiously in "honor killings" (indian or islamic) can they do those. Or, if I'm a hard core christian can I literally put Leviticus into effect?

Hey, it's in the bible man, so you know that's legit....  ;) You wore mixed fabrics, ate shellfish and pork, have a tatoo, and like 10 other things that book of the bible prohibits so clearly you get stoned to death and it's on your own head....

This law is completely impractical and just.... Nuts really.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 23, 2012, 10:05:32 am
"Honour violence" is a religious thing, Truean, it's cultural. It's just as prevalent among Middle East Christians as it is among Muslims, and not just "fundamentalists" either.

On satanists though, it would be funny if those "satanist" "religions" that basically just comes down to getting a mandate to be douchebags to people use this law as an excuse to constantly be, well, douchebags to people.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 23, 2012, 10:13:47 am
Quote from: scriver on May 23, 2012, 10:05:32 am
"Honour violence" is a religious thing, Truean, it's cultural. It's just as prevalent among Middle East Christians as it is among Muslims, and not just "fundamentalists" either.

On satanists though, it would be funny if those "satanist" "religions" that basically just comes down to getting a mandate to be douchebags to people use this law as an excuse to constantly be, well, douchebags to people.

Agreed partially, but you know that makes the point more clearly. Moreover, you know or really should know that if someone is accused of a crime and tries to use this as a defense then it will suddenly become religious or they'll turn up some old passage from somewhere to try and fit it into the religious category.....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Glowcat on May 23, 2012, 10:15:03 am
Quote from: Truean on May 23, 2012, 09:48:15 am
That doesn't even get into the practical impossibilities of implementing this law. Starting with the big one, if someone starts a satanic cult can they perform human sacrifices? If someone believes religiously in "honor killings" (indian or islamic) can they do those. Or, if I'm a hard core christian can I literally put Leviticus into effect?

Pretty sure with humanity's track record there will be plenty of exceptions. Those being the desires of minority religious groups. Heck, this law itself is giving special rights that won't be granted to the non-religious anyway, so they might as well go the full distance in discrimination and enshrinement of privilege.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 23, 2012, 10:15:14 am
http://news.yahoo.com/anti-racists-attack-white-heritage-group-family-restaurant-003220721--abc-news-topstories.html

White supremacist meeting attacked by members of H.A.R.M. anti-racist organizations.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on May 23, 2012, 10:21:20 am
Never thought I'd feel bad for the White Supremacists, just minding their own business.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 23, 2012, 10:26:16 am
Quote from: JoshuaFH on May 23, 2012, 10:21:20 am
Never thought I'd feel bad for the White Supremacists, just minding their own business.

I still don't. White supremacists who were actively participating in a white supremacist meeting to actively further their white supremacist goals.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 23, 2012, 10:33:23 am
They named their organization H.A.R.M?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 23, 2012, 11:27:25 am
Quote from: Nadaka on May 23, 2012, 10:26:16 am
Quote from: JoshuaFH on May 23, 2012, 10:21:20 am
Never thought I'd feel bad for the White Supremacists, just minding their own business.

I still don't. White supremacists who were actively participating in a white supremacist meeting to actively further their white supremacist goals.

Good for you! You are a fascist.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 23, 2012, 11:31:30 am
Really? How does that make me a fascist?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 23, 2012, 11:33:56 am
Steel batons and hammers.

I'm going to put on my thinking hat (tin foil make), and say it's another one of them gummiment conspiracies.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 23, 2012, 11:38:01 am
Seriously. How does not having sympathy for NAZI's make me a fascist?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 23, 2012, 11:42:32 am
Tactics were derpy, but it was gratifying to read the bit about two of the white supremacists being arrested on outstanding warrants (one for kiddie porn, one for firearms violation). So there's that.

But in general, vigilanteism against non-violent douchebags is bad, m'kay?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 23, 2012, 11:54:09 am
There are two ways of looking at it.

1.) Hating people for any speech/beliefs is a form of fascism.

2.) "But they're really Nazis...." 

You know, maybe it's that half the first person shooters (or more) are about killing Nazis, zombies, cultists or nazi alien zombies, but I see the appeal of #2. Or maybe it's just the WBC and KKK's recent activity. Who knows. I can also see the appeal of #1, but am confused about it. Then I remember violence is bad but also the first person shooters and it's all a mess.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 23, 2012, 12:02:02 pm
Hate isn't fascism. And neither is being unsympathetic.

Fascism is authoritarian nationalist corporatism.

I really really want to know why I, of all people, am a fascist.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 23, 2012, 12:04:25 pm
I think it's the tacit approval of violence against people whose beliefs you don't like. I get where you're coming from, believe me. But I get where scriver's coming from too.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 23, 2012, 12:07:28 pm
Quote from: RedKing on May 23, 2012, 12:04:25 pm
I think it's the tacit approval of violence against people whose beliefs you don't like. I get where you're coming from, believe me. But I get where scriver's coming from too.

When did I approve of violence against people I don't like? I just don't feel bad about it.

And even if I did approve of violence against NAZI's, that wouldn't make me fascist.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 23, 2012, 12:09:22 pm
Approving of violence against people you dont like might not be too civic (depending on the circumstances) but neither makes someone a fascist (or even authoritarian) by default
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 23, 2012, 12:10:48 pm
There are two definitions of "fascism" as it is commonly used. One is referring to the "real" or "classic" fascism of for example Mussolini. The other one refers two people who rules or wants to rule or support rule through violence and fear of violence. By supporting the violence on people you dislike, you are being the second kind. It doesn't matter who the victims are.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 23, 2012, 12:12:38 pm
That's... not fascism, by any definition I've heard. That's arguably tyranny - you could say they are being tyrannical or something. But fascist? Not to my knowledge.

Maybe you all use the word differently up where you are, though?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 23, 2012, 12:53:54 pm
I actually heard the latter definition (Primarily rule by fear) used a few times by professors, though ones that had a fair bit more european influence than a lot of states-side folks. I'd wager the lack of major presence of that definition in America is due largely because allowing it to spread around means that people start (accurately) labeling large swaths of the American political and media dialogue as fascist in nature.

Which... I've had a WWII vet (one of my professors) tell me there is some damn disconcerting parallels between the US now and the fascist nations during and before WWII kicked into full gear.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 23, 2012, 12:59:24 pm
Oh, there are. We've got plenty of pretty blatant fascists.

But the other one already has a word, tyranny. And that gets thrown a lot already. We gain nothing from calling them the same thing (even if fascists often end up as tyrants anyway, whether petty or grand).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 23, 2012, 01:09:08 pm
A Demagogue would be a person who gains power through appeals to fear and popular prejudice. I believe the correct term for that as a political stance is demagogy. Tyranny is rule by force and threat of force, the aspect of fear in tyranny is tangential.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: palsch on May 23, 2012, 01:36:23 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on May 22, 2012, 11:40:44 pm
North Dakota citizens will vote on June 12 on an incredibly dangerous ballot initiative. If passed, it would allow people to claim that their personal religious beliefs give them the right to break non-discrimination, health, safety, and child protection laws. (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/North_Dakota_Religious_Freedom_Amendment,_Measure_3_%28June_2012%29)
I wish the law allowed me to punch whoever suggested this.
I don't have a problem with this.

All this does is extend strict scrutiny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) (or something very much like them; realistically it restores the Sherbert Test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbert_Test#The_Sherbert_Test)) protections to religious liberty. Prior to 1997 any religious freedom case was decided under that level of review. In 1990 this was reduced by the courts (Employment Division v. Smith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith)), removing the requirement of a compelling state interest.  To quote the majority;
Quote
What it produces in those other fields [of race and free speech] -- equality of treatment, and an unrestricted flow of contending speech -- are constitutional norms; what it would produce here -- a private right to ignore generally applicable laws -- is a constitutional anomaly.
The takeaway from this was that states may exempt people from laws for religious reasons, but didn't have to, even if there was no compelling interest. Instead the standards required only that a law not single out a religious group. So a blanket ban on a particular activity would be uniformly applied to all religions no matter their beliefs on that matter.

In response the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act) was passed with strong support on the left and right, the ACLU, various religious and conservative groups, unanimous consent from the House and 97 Senators. This simply restored the Sherbert Test.

However, in 1997 the court held that the RFRA was unconstitutional (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Boerne_v._Flores) in it's application to state law, broadly because Congress may not dictate to the court how to interpret the constitution. The act was amended to only apply to federal law and upheld in 2006. That is to say, on the federal level the Sherbert test applies.

Individual states have been implementing their own versions of the RFRA since then, essentially bringing state law in line with federal law.

It's worth noting two main points about these laws;

1) It primarily defends minority religions. During the three years that the RFRA applied to the states, 18% of claims were made by Jews, Muslims, and Native Americans, at the time making up around 3% of the religious population of the US.

2) Even strict scrutiny isn't that strict in religious freedom cases. This review suggests (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=897360) some 59% of laws restricting religious freedom and challenged under such standards are upheld by the courts. I'd recommend reading the relevant part of that paper (page 66 onwards). In particular they note that laws challenged under statutes like the RFRA are upheld a full 71% of the time. They then split the cases between discrimination cases and free exercise exemption cases. Discrimination cases are never upheld; 15 of 15 laws were struck down. Free exercise exemption cases were upheld 74% of the time. So even under the strongest standards only 3/4's of challenges are upheld. And this number has decreased significantly since the 80's, when a far wider range of exemption cases could be brought forwards.

The argument made to explain this goes back to the quoted passage above. The courts can not truly apply strict scrutiny in the broadest fashion without creating gross inequalities - themselves likely constitutional problems - or entirely invalidating otherwise perfectly valid laws. I very much doubt that this is going to change into the future without an absolutely huge sea change in enforceable constitutional interpretation.

Overall I don't see this making much of a difference. Some more religious exemption cases can be brought forwards, but then there are some interesting border cases that probably deserve a solid hearing. Under modern judicial standards it's very unlikely that religious exemptions are going to get much broader. It only brings state law in line with federal law (not to mention other states) without realistically creating any new rights.

The intent behind the law might well be a pile of steaming bullshit, but I don't much care about that or who the sponsors are. The effect looks fairly minimal and, well, fair enough.


Fakedit: Really need to do less reading and writing to post in this thread... I swear this was on topic when I started.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 23, 2012, 01:48:35 pm
http://www.openfile.ca/toronto/story/what-we-couldnt-say-about-byron-sonne-trial-part-i

At least he's finally free. But they ruined his life, for what amounts to no reason at all. And it's not often you see a police officer openly admit "Yes we totally made this shit up, but its okay because damn that guy just aint normal"
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 27, 2012, 08:35:38 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-almost-half-vets-seek-disability-160656481.html

Just in time for Memorial Day: yahoo.com commenters being assholes by calling disabled veterans "tax leeches." Nope, turns out all those wars weren't worth it and have an enormous cost we still haven't fully realized. Frankly anyone who ever read a history book knows wars are expensive (and many other undesirable things). So all that "support our troops" was just crap as proven by us not providing the funding when the check cometh due.... Where did people think the term "war chest" came from? Nobody else on my street has a flag out.... I hope they enjoy their day off.... I can't even comprehend this completely irrational hatred of any type of government spending when it reaches into vet affairs. Shit, even Ayn Rand said the military was a legitimate government function and she's pretty much the Queen Libertarian.... I sorta hope this is just evidence of Yahoo.com being overwhelmingly trollololols rather than what people really feel.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on May 27, 2012, 10:35:28 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/26/montreal-casseroles-student-protests

Really? COME ON MONTREAL.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 27, 2012, 10:53:43 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 27, 2012, 08:35:38 pm
Just in time for Memorial Day: yahoo.com commenters being assholes by calling disabled veterans "tax leeches."
I could only find one guy doing that. Mind you, he posted under 5 different names, but it was pretty clearly the same guy. Most of the comments seemed to be overwhelmingly supporting of the vets and pissed at the gov. over it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 28, 2012, 10:52:38 am
why hello there china

oh, what?

you've been watching our human rights violations (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2012-05/26/content_15392452.htm)?

wait, no, we're supposed to be the good guys

this is almost as embarrassing as the time South Africa legalized gay marriage before us
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 28, 2012, 11:05:02 am
Quote from: Truean on May 27, 2012, 08:35:38 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-almost-half-vets-seek-disability-160656481.html

Just in time for Memorial Day: yahoo.com commenters being assholes by calling disabled veterans "tax leeches." Nope, turns out all those wars weren't worth it and have an enormous cost we still haven't fully realized. Frankly anyone who ever read a history book knows wars are expensive (and many other undesirable things). So all that "support our troops" was just crap as proven by us not providing the funding when the check cometh due.... Where did people think the term "war chest" came from? Nobody else on my street has a flag out.... I hope they enjoy their day off.... I can't even comprehend this completely irrational hatred of any type of government spending when it reaches into vet affairs. Shit, even Ayn Rand said the military was a legitimate government function and she's pretty much the Queen Libertarian.... I sorta hope this is just evidence of Yahoo.com being overwhelmingly trollololols rather than what people really feel.
wait, let me get this straight: the same people who advocated military adventures in the first place are now loath to support the people who paid the butcher's bill for them?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on May 28, 2012, 11:14:24 am
For me most of the Yahoo commenters are condemning war, not complaining about the tax vets themselves.
Some are even lamenting about how badly war vets are treated in the US.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 12:42:14 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on May 28, 2012, 10:52:38 am
why hello there china

oh, what?

you've been watching our human rights violations (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2012-05/26/content_15392452.htm)?

wait, no, we're supposed to be the good guys

this is almost as embarrassing as the time South Africa legalized gay marriage before us

I only read the first first part before I got annoyed when it was complaining about crime and "rampant gun ownership". I don't know if the rest of the article has merit or not. But that isn't a good way to start an article.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Twi on May 28, 2012, 01:20:29 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 12:42:14 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on May 28, 2012, 10:52:38 am
why hello there china

oh, what?

you've been watching our human rights violations (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2012-05/26/content_15392452.htm)?

wait, no, we're supposed to be the good guys

this is almost as embarrassing as the time South Africa legalized gay marriage before us

I only read the first first part before I got annoyed when it was complaining about crime and "rampant gun ownership". I don't know if the rest of the article has merit or not. But that isn't a good way to start an article.

The rest of it seems to be more sensible: stuff about the Occupy movement, internet censorship, prison population, the influence of money in American politics, that thing that lets people be declared enemies or whatever and be held indefinitely. In no particular order.
But yeah. Starting with the most questionable 'problem' on the list? Bad idea.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Dutchling on May 28, 2012, 01:37:36 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 10:52:38 am

I only read the first first part before I got annoyed when it was complaining about crime and "rampant gun ownership". I don't know if the rest of the article has merit or not. But that isn't a good way to start an article.
You mean even in China you can't just own a gun legally if you want? I can imagine that being quite embarassing to read as an American.

edit:fixed the author in the quote
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 01:41:44 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on May 28, 2012, 01:37:36 pm

Quote from: penguinofhonor on May 28, 2012, 10:52:38 am

I only read the first first part before I got annoyed when it was complaining about crime and "rampant gun ownership". I don't know if the rest of the article has merit or not. But that isn't a good way to start an article.
You mean even in China you can't just own a gun legally if you want? I can imagine that being quite embarassing to read as an American.

No. It is insulting. When you talk about rights and then complain about people being allowed to own something.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 28, 2012, 01:54:21 pm
It's definitely a difference in viewpoint, and a difference in their philosophy of what a government is supposed to do for its citizens.

Quote
The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens' lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership.

They see gun violence as a problem that the government could easily control, and they think that if the government is allowing and encouraging a problem to hurt and kill its citizens, that's a human rights violation. I might disagree with calling it that specifically, but I see their point.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 28, 2012, 01:55:40 pm
Nadaka, there seems to be a cultural problem here. Around most of the world, the right to own gun is seen more or less like the right to kick puppies. Yes, it's technically a "right", but the less people actually use that right, the better, and we'd be much better of if no-one did. Gun ownership as a right is really an american thing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 02:12:59 pm
Quote from: Sheb on May 28, 2012, 01:55:40 pm
Nadaka, there seems to be a cultural problem here. Around most of the world, the right to own gun is seen more or less like the right to kick puppies. Yes, it's technically a "right", but the less people actually use that right, the better, and we'd be much better of if no-one did. Gun ownership as a right is really an american thing.

As long as you hold the concept of ownership of material as valid, the right to own a gun is universal.

I believe that the more people who exercise the right to own a weapon, the better. It provides perspective on the fragility of life. It provides an equalizer in the face of a physically superior threat. It provides the opportunity to hunt. Legal gun ownership does not increase crime. I really don't see any way in which a disarmed populace is in any way "better". Easier to oppress and victimize? yes. But that is a far cry from being "better".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on May 28, 2012, 02:18:42 pm
The concept of ownership of material? May I ask what that is?
I honestly don't know here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 28, 2012, 02:22:36 pm
Nadaka, wide availability of guns turn crime into much more dangerous crime. Or so it's seen in most of the world. (Because I don't want this to spiral into a gun control argument we had tons of them). From anyone's point of view, but the americans, having a lot of gun is a bad thing, because it's the police's job to protect you, they're supposed to have a monopoly on violence, and having everyone being able to kill someone by the press of a button isn't good. You may not agree with this view, but it's widely held outside the US.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 02:30:01 pm
Quote from: Skyrunner on May 28, 2012, 02:18:42 pm
The concept of ownership of material? May I ask what that is?
I honestly don't know here.

Can a person own a thing?
What kind of thing can a person own?

Ownership of material is a subset of the concept of ownership property. It includes material goods. Physical objects that can be moved, transported and transferred VS land that can be occupied and used in place. Some concepts of ownership include one or the other, but most include both.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 28, 2012, 02:32:20 pm
Do you think it's okay to own, let's say heroin because it's just owning a thing?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Flying Dice on May 28, 2012, 02:37:22 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 02:12:59 pm
Quote from: Sheb on May 28, 2012, 01:55:40 pm
Nadaka, there seems to be a cultural problem here. Around most of the world, the right to own gun is seen more or less like the right to kick puppies. Yes, it's technically a "right", but the less people actually use that right, the better, and we'd be much better of if no-one did. Gun ownership as a right is really an american thing.

As long as you hold the concept of ownership of material as valid, the right to own a gun is universal.

I believe that the more people who exercise the right to own a weapon, the better. It provides perspective on the fragility of life. It provides an equalizer in the face of a physically superior threat. It provides the opportunity to hunt. Legal gun ownership does not increase crime. I really don't see any way in which a disarmed populace is in any way "better". Easier to oppress and victimize? yes. But that is a far cry from being "better".
I beg to differ. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) In particular, note the difference between the US and other first-world countries (i.e. nations with strict gun control).

For those who don't want to bother reading the link, these are the average numbers of homicides per 100,000 people in a few nations, as of the most recent data:
US: 5.0
UK: 1.17
China: 1.12
France: 1.09
Switzerland: 0.66
Japan: 0.40

Apart from the US and Switzerland, every one of those nations has relatively strict gun control, typically either making private ownership illegal or only allowing firearms used for sport and hunting. Switzerland has a relatively high rate of gun ownership because of the structure of their military, which is primarily militia-based, in which citizens are expected to undergo military training and store their weapons at home. Currently, only special rapid deployment forces and the military police store ammunition at home. When discharged, militiamen have the option of having their weapon converted to a semiautomatic and keeping it. In short, very little like the situation in the US, in which people with little or no training have access to firearms.

But nope, obviously no correlation between ease of gun ownership and homicide rate, no sir.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 02:38:17 pm
Quote from: Sheb on May 28, 2012, 02:22:36 pm
Nadaka, wide availability of guns turn crime into much more dangerous crime. Or so it's seen in most of the world. (Because I don't want this to spiral into a gun control argument we had tons of them). From anyone's point of view, but the americans, having a lot of gun is a bad thing, because it's the police's job to protect you, they're supposed to have a monopoly on violence, and having everyone being able to kill someone by the press of a button isn't good. You may not agree with this view, but it's widely held outside the US.

In the US, the police have no obligation or expectation to protect you. Their only purpose is to respond after the fact.

Everyone can already kill someone with the throw of a punch or a simple push. People are fragile, and violence of any kind always carries the risk of death. Some people are naturally a much greater physical threat than others, but everyone is equal at the point of a gun. Everyone owning a gun means that the only crime that criminals will be willing to do are the crimes they are willing to risk their life for.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 02:47:39 pm
Quote from: Flying Dice on May 28, 2012, 02:37:22 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 02:12:59 pm
Quote from: Sheb on May 28, 2012, 01:55:40 pm
Nadaka, there seems to be a cultural problem here. Around most of the world, the right to own gun is seen more or less like the right to kick puppies. Yes, it's technically a "right", but the less people actually use that right, the better, and we'd be much better of if no-one did. Gun ownership as a right is really an american thing.

As long as you hold the concept of ownership of material as valid, the right to own a gun is universal.

I believe that the more people who exercise the right to own a weapon, the better. It provides perspective on the fragility of life. It provides an equalizer in the face of a physically superior threat. It provides the opportunity to hunt. Legal gun ownership does not increase crime. I really don't see any way in which a disarmed populace is in any way "better". Easier to oppress and victimize? yes. But that is a far cry from being "better".
I beg to differ. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) In particular, note the difference between the US and other first-world countries (i.e. nations with strict gun control).

For those who don't want to bother reading the link, these are the average numbers of homicides per 100,000 people in a few nations, as of the most recent data:
US: 5.0
UK: 1.17
China: 1.12
France: 1.09
Switzerland: 0.66
Japan: 0.40

Apart from the US and Switzerland, every one of those nations has relatively strict gun control, typically either making private ownership illegal or only allowing firearms used for sport and hunting. Switzerland has a relatively high rate of gun ownership because of the structure of their military, which is primarily militia-based, in which citizens are expected to undergo military training and store their weapons at home. Currently, only special rapid deployment forces and the military police store ammunition at home. When discharged, militiamen have the option of having their weapon converted to a semiautomatic and keeping it. In short, very little like the situation in the US, in which people with little or no training have access to firearms.

But nope, obviously no correlation between ease of gun ownership and homicide rate, no sir.

You are right... There is obviously no correlation between gun laws and crime. You didn't include Canada, India, Mexico, etc. And you didn't isolate all the other cultural and historic differences. Culture is far too complex, it is impossible to isolate a specific aspect in the way you imply.

It also ignores the fact that communities in the US where guns are most restricted are often the most violent. That communities that have had those restrictions lifted have become less violent. In these cases the differences in cultures are minimized, but it is still impossible to separate these policy changes from other cultural and economic changes.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 28, 2012, 02:48:44 pm
Well, I obviously disagree with you, and I think this particular argument is total bullshit. I won't respond on this forum, because I don't want it to be derailed into gun control. I'll respond by PM if you want.

Now, another thing to remember is that this report was made mostly for the domestic Chinese audience (Because who's going to listen to China about human right? They're even more hypocritical than the US). From this point of view, putting gun crime first make perfect sense, since as RedKing told us, many (if not most) Chinese are convinced the US is some kind of wild west were everybody has family member that were gunned down. It's obvious the Chinese government will insist on that (since it's a thing were they have the edge over the US) rather than issue that seems more important to american eyes.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 28, 2012, 02:53:50 pm
There is no "right to own". One does not have a right to own whatever one wants. That's a very childish and egoistic viewpoint. As you do not have a right to harm others, you do not have a right to own things that harms others unless you have a good reason got it.


Quote from: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 02:38:17 pm
Everyone owning a gun means that the only crime that criminals will be willing to do are the crimes they are willing to risk their life for.

This doesn't happen at all. If anything it just makes sure criminals bring guns for smaller crimes.


Quote from: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 02:12:59 pm
Easier to oppress and victimize? yes.

Yeah, that's why USA is the least totalitarian state in the West and who's people are the least oppressed. Ohwait. It's the other way around.


Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 03:04:52 pm
Quote from: scriver on May 28, 2012, 02:53:50 pm
There is no "right to own". One does not have a right to own whatever one wants. That's a very childish and egoistic viewpoint. As you do not have a right to harm others, you do not have a right to own things that harms others unless you have a good reason got it.

Owning a gun does not harm others, therefore your argument is based on a false statement and your logic is completely invalid.

Quote
Quote from: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 02:38:17 pm
Everyone owning a gun means that the only crime that criminals will be willing to do are the crimes they are willing to risk their life for.

This doesn't happen at all. If anything it just makes sure criminals bring guns for smaller crimes.
Tthe US has experience with reducing or eliminating gun prohibitions at the local level that seems to contradict this.
Quote
Quote from: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 02:12:59 pm
Easier to oppress and victimize? yes.

Yeah, that's why USA is the least totalitarian state in the West and who's people are the least oppressed. Ohwait. It's the other way around.
We are far from perfect and I hate the oppression and loss of liberty we have endured. But in no way will taking away the right to own a gun change that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 28, 2012, 03:13:11 pm
Okay people, can we please all agree that the gun debate is futile and not worth pursuing (Even if we all know that the other side is WRONG and stupid for holding their stupid baseless opinions)?

We know nobody is going to change this mind because we had this debate before, and I don't want this topic to derail into a 15-page sterile debate.

At least start another thread.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 03:18:17 pm
Quite frankly, if they wanted to make the argument that they do not believe that the right to own a gun isn't worth the cost, I wouldn't argue.

However, they are saying that it is not a right. And it is incredibly hypocritical to claim to be progressive and refuse to acknowledge a right.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Flying Dice on May 28, 2012, 03:21:04 pm
-snipped WoT-

Quote from: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 03:18:17 pm
Quite frankly, if they wanted to make the argument that they do not believe that the right to own a gun isn't worth the cost, I wouldn't argue.

However, they are saying that it is not a right. And it is incredibly hypocritical to claim to be progressive and refuse to acknowledge a right.

When did I say it isn't a right? I said that it is a bad idea, that it increase the homicide rate, and you answered with unsupported statements.

In any case, I'll discontinue this as well.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 28, 2012, 03:38:29 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 03:04:52 pm
Owning a gun does not harm others, therefore your argument is based on a false statement and your logic is completely invalid.

There is no reason to own a gun except for hurting other people. And don't say "hunting" or "sport" because no gun control country disallowed hunting weaponry and there is no need to own your own gun to practice sport shooting - the range/shooting club can own the guns.

Quote
Quote

Quote from: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 02:38:17 pm
Everyone owning a gun means that the only crime that criminals will be willing to do are the crimes they are willing to risk their life for.

This doesn't happen at all. If anything it just makes sure criminals bring guns for smaller crimes.
Tthe US has experience with reducing or eliminating gun prohibitions at the local level that seems to contradict this.

Every other country has experience with criminals not bringing guns to lesser crimes (even though they are available on the black market) because the risk of them getting shit or having to shoot to defend themselves is smaller.


Quote
Quote from: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 02:12:59 pm
Easier to oppress and victimize? yes.

Yeah, that's why USA is the least totalitarian state in the West and who's people are the least oppressed. Ohwait. It's the other way around.
We are far from perfect and I hate the oppression and loss of liberty we have endured. But in no way will taking away the right to own a gun change that.
[/quote]

Yet by your logic gun ownership should have protected you from it. Otherwise one would have to draw the conclusion that gun ownership does not protect you from oppression.

Quote from: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 03:18:17 pm
Quite frankly, if they wanted to make the argument that they do not believe that the right to own a gun isn't worth the cost, I wouldn't argue.

However, they are saying that it is not a right. And it is incredibly hypocritical to claim to be progressive and refuse to acknowledge a right.

I'll admit it is a right in the USA, but it is by no means any kind of universal right just because of that. But hey, I'll agree to it if you admit it is a right for state governments to kill their own citizens to keep them supressed. Or that it is a right to take dumps on others' doorsteps. Those are just as much "right" as the "right" to own guns. And they are just as progressive.

But hey, I think the real problem here is that we've run into your idea of "objective morality" again and your inability to understand that just because you think something is right or wrong it doesn't make it a universal standard.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 28, 2012, 03:39:46 pm
Also, the Chinese government isn't claiming they're progressive. The whole point of this report is to say "Okay, the US is blaming us, but look at them. They're hypocritical human right abuser that don't even try to protect their own population!"

I wonder if the USSR used to do similar report.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 28, 2012, 03:45:49 pm
This argument seems to be developing a bit so I think it's cool for now. I mean, it's just been like 20 posts. I'm keeping my eye on it, though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 28, 2012, 03:49:33 pm
Quote from: Sheb on May 28, 2012, 03:39:46 pm
I wonder if the USSR used to do similar report.
Yes, they did. They used to zero on racial segregation, IIRC
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 28, 2012, 03:54:30 pm
Yeah, I remember reading something about youg Komsomol going to some American exhibit in Moscow being trained to ask questions about segregation.

I guess it's fair game: attack your enemy on points you have the moral high ground, no matter what's your general record is. Similar to how "War Crime" after WWII were defined as anything bad the Allies didn't do.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Twi on May 28, 2012, 04:09:06 pm
So, guns?

Welp. This is a tough one.
My personal opinion is that gun control should be relative to needs to use it. Basically, if criminals can acquire guns easily on the black market, it's reasonable to allow law-abiding citizens to take steps to legally arm themselves. If illegal guns are rare, however, legal guns should be too.  From what I've heard, the US does have the former situation.


Rights-wise:

People have the right to ownership, but they also have the right to life. A gun can very conceivably take someone's life, whether accidentally or intentionally, whether in self-defense or outright murder. Theoretically, life would outweigh possession, but then again, we all know about American gun culture. And also, see above.

OTher stuff:

Yeah, people always love to take the moral high ground if they can at all. Usually, they're not technically lying. They're only leaving things out.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Durin Stronginthearm on May 28, 2012, 04:47:08 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 03:18:17 pm
And it is incredibly hypocritical to claim to be progressive and refuse to acknowledge a right.

Until relatively recently, husbands had a right to sex with their wives throughout most (possibly all) of the West. Yet I doubt you would argue that there's anything progressive about marital rape.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 28, 2012, 04:51:03 pm
So, the "right to own things," is probably more commonly called "property rights." There's some legitimacy there, but this notion is far from absolute and should be subject to reasonable regulation. I can't just own a nuclear power plant, despite my distaste for the public electric utility.... There are risks, in this exaggerated example, to other people and their property--and other--rights. Rather, I could own a nuclear power plant, if I could afford it, and I complied with regulations on that ownership/operation.

Nuclear powerplant, gun, car, dog, the common thread is that while I can own them all, I must take steps to avoid imposing on others, no matter what that imposition is. The responsibility scales with the potential imposition on others. I have to have my dog licensed and all the shots up to date. Insurance on a car.... Registration and a working safety on my gun, etc.... See the sliding scale implied with the different types of objects owned? Hey, even the NRA is allegedly is all about "responsible gun ownership." Do I think every idiot out there should have the power of life and death over everyone else with a point and click interface? Not really, no. There've got to be some limits on it. I think we can actually all agree that there should be some limits, unless people favor giving convicted armed robbers guns or equally silly things, but the question is where those limits should be.

Property and ownership rights. Yes. Limits on those. Yes. Otherwise my neighbor might think a surface to air missile would look great next to the hedge.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on May 28, 2012, 05:05:28 pm
It would look great next to the hedge.  And the statue made from loaded bazookas.  And the perfectly-safe sonic brain exploding device mounted on a water-fountain.

People have rights to art ya know.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on May 28, 2012, 05:09:22 pm
Quote from: Durin Stronginthearm on May 28, 2012, 04:47:08 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on May 28, 2012, 03:18:17 pm
And it is incredibly hypocritical to claim to be progressive and refuse to acknowledge a right.

Until relatively recently, husbands had a right to sex with their wives throughout most (possibly all) of the West. Yet I doubt you would argue that there's anything progressive about marital rape.
Not only is that incredibly tactless, but last I check husbands still have a right to have sex with their wives. Having a right does not mean having a blank check for destruction
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 28, 2012, 05:20:15 pm
No they don't. They have the priviledge, as long as the other part is willing. Just as with any other relationship between consenting adults.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on May 28, 2012, 06:06:21 pm
That's not he point I'm trying to make. Right or a privilege, it's not comparable with whether guns should be illegal
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 28, 2012, 06:16:48 pm
*shrug* regulation of guns is not comparable to a full blown gun ban, either.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on May 28, 2012, 06:29:33 pm
Since people were using examples of other countries that do have gun bans, I guess that was the impression I got :-\

I'm FOR regulation, I just don't think strict regulation is needed
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 28, 2012, 06:43:45 pm
Yeah, having a right doesn't mean there aren't situations where it can be revoked. You have the right to free speech but not harassment, for example,

As for guns, that depends if you actually consider having them to be a "right" or not. Legal rights, subject to which country you happen to live in, aren't things necessary to acknowledge to be "progressive." Inalienable rights are often ambiguous for the ones we haven't nearly universally decided upon, and I don't think having guns is considered one.




My biggest problem with gun banning/regulation is I don't like blaming enablers. The person wielding the weapon is to blame; the weapon just makes it easier. Plus, if they're going to plan and carry out the murder of someone, having a gun or a sharp pointy object isn't going to make a very big difference in the victim's chance of survival. On the other hand, I don't see much point in keeping guns either, so it's a privilege I don't care about revoking.

Thus, I land on the side of gun regulation for the same reason as any other safety regulation: there's no reason not to that I'm sympathetic to, and it can save lives.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on May 28, 2012, 06:54:53 pm
Guns are enablers in crimes of passion, though the regulations of keep the ammo and gun seperate (I think some laws have them in safes, and dismantled where possible) nullify that part, I think. :>
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 28, 2012, 07:01:45 pm
It's a lot easier to enforce restrictions on gun ownership than things like that though (cameras in people's houses to ensure that their gun is always unloaded?).  Not to mention that it won't be in your safe all the time and it's probably possible to open one while impassioned.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 28, 2012, 07:40:13 pm
Quote from: Luke_Prowler on May 28, 2012, 06:29:33 pm
Since people were using examples of other countries that do have gun bans, I guess that was the impression I got :-\

I'm FOR regulation, I just don't think strict regulation is needed

Nobody is talking about blanket gun bans. I doubt there is any country in the world where such exist.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 28, 2012, 08:25:37 pm
Quote from: Descan on May 28, 2012, 06:54:53 pm
Guns are enablers in crimes of passion, though the regulations of keep the ammo and gun seperate (I think some laws have them in safes, and dismantled where possible) nullify that part, I think. :>

Guns are amplifiers, not enablers of crimes of passion. Grabbing a butcher knife front the kitchen can be just as bad,  arguably worse. (http://i01.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/241495579/Butcher_knife.jpg)

As an incredibly over exaggerated example:
In the US, getting rid of guns would still leave the right to bear arms.... That would leave swords?  People have been killing people since long before the ancient Greeks (http://www.trueswords.com/images/prod/c/best_300_sword3_540.jpg),  and it's been refined to a hell of an art. (http://www.trueswords.com/images/prod/c/handmade_last_samurai_sword_540.jpg)

 Then of course you add to that our greater ability to work steel these days, (http://www.trueswords.com/images/prod/c/tactical_scimitar_ninja_sword_540.jpg)  with our ever more imaginative desire to show off phallic objects (swords have always been seen as such) and shit goes bad quick. (http://www.trueswords.com/images/prod/c/berserker_ninja_warrior_sword_full_tang_540.jpg) And though it's an exaggeration the question itself isn't nuts: "If they ban guns, can we use swords?"

Back to some sort of point:
In the end, the fact of the matter is, human beings have been killing and maiming each other since the dawn of time. We haven't been able to stop murders at any point in our history and just getting rid of guns (a relatively new development in the entirety of human history) isn't gonna stop that. Honestly.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 28, 2012, 08:42:18 pm
Guns are more lethal than swords or knives, though. Slash and stab wounds are easier to treat than gun wounds despite being more dramatic, due to our fleshy nature. The idea of a sword having higher damage potential than a gun is entirely fictional.

Sure murders would still happen, but victims would have a higher chance of survival. Also, things like shooting sprees would be a thing of the past, as mass murders are a bit harder to do with a broadsword.



(note that all of this is ignoring the practicality of outright banning guns in the first place)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on May 28, 2012, 08:43:34 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on May 28, 2012, 08:42:18 pm
Also, things like shooting sprees would be a thing of the past, as mass murders are a bit harder to do with a broadsword.
Don't forget, gunpowder is REALLY easy to make and a pipebomb doesn't really require technical prowess.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 28, 2012, 08:46:38 pm
Consider the difficulty of going wacko in a school with a semi automatic vs a few pipe bombs. The gun is almost certainly going to have a higher body/maiming count.


Of course, there are bigger bombs, but high power explosives ala the Oklahoma bombings require a lot of time, effort, and prowess. Plus, people who use those tend to have very different motives than those who tend to go nuts with a gun.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 28, 2012, 09:11:12 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on May 28, 2012, 08:42:18 pm
Guns are more lethal than swords or knives, though. Slash and stab wounds are easier to treat than gun wounds despite being more dramatic, due to our fleshy nature. The idea of a sword having higher damage potential than a gun is entirely fictional.

Sure murders would still happen, but victims would have a higher chance of survival. Also, things like shooting sprees would be a thing of the past, as mass murders are a bit harder to do with a broadsword.



(note that all of this is ignoring the practicality of outright banning guns in the first place)

I get it man. That's kinda why:
Quote
As an incredibly over exaggerated example:

Still though. The point was that if people really wanna hurt or kill each other, then there really isn't a lot you can do to stop 'em once they're determined, or just straight up lose it. Banning guns, even if you could, wouldn't stop the underlying issue: violence.

Though I will respectfully disagree with you on one point. If someone is gonna just gonna kill me and there's nothing to be done about it, then I hope they shoot me dead in one shot as opposed to repeatedly stabbing me or letting me bleed out. It's easier to be kill with a gun; it isn't always easier to be killed by a gun. Course, I hope no one kills me, ever....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 28, 2012, 09:24:03 pm
Quote
Guns are more lethal than swords or knives, though. Slash and stab wounds are easier to treat than gun wounds despite being more dramatic, due to our fleshy nature. The idea of a sword having higher damage potential than a gun is entirely fictional.
Swords do more damage than guns (at least 9mm pistols) assuming full commitment, but damage is of little importance next to speed, range, and guaranteed 100% commitment with each strike (bullets don't if a person hesitates about whether or not they really want to kill this guy halfway to the target).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 29, 2012, 12:09:12 am
Plus you have to run after your victims and you get tired. No fun.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 29, 2012, 02:44:35 am
Of course, a lot of dead by guns aren't planned homicide, but burglaries, mugging or other things that went wrong.

Of course, the problem with the US is that there is some many fucking guns around that even a total ban would take years to affect the black market.


Also, totally unrelated, but this (http://www.desmogblog.com/bayer-glaxosmithkline-verizon-and-cuna-drop-heartland-institute-continuing-corporate-defections) made me happy. They've still got like 85% of their funding, and I doubt the Koch brothers will quit, but it's still cool.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Dutchling on May 29, 2012, 03:17:18 am
Quote from: scriver on May 28, 2012, 07:40:13 pm
Quote from: Luke_Prowler on May 28, 2012, 06:29:33 pm
Since people were using examples of other countries that do have gun bans, I guess that was the impression I got :-\

I'm FOR regulation, I just don't think strict regulation is needed

Nobody is talking about blanket gun bans. I doubt there is any country in the world where such exist.

That sort of depends on where you would use the gun for. Owning guns for self defence is illegal in the Netherlands, as you need a legit reason to own one and shooting other people is not one of them unless you get paid for it by the government. Shooting for sports is a legit reason though, so I guess you could go to a shooting range once every year and then stash all your guns at home to feel more secure.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 29, 2012, 06:09:02 am
Hence not a blanket gun ban. Just restrictions.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Phmcw on May 29, 2012, 06:26:38 am
Mostly, I think the problem is that, in some state, it's legal to shoot to defend a property, and guns are seen as a legitimate self defense tool, while in more peaceful European countries, they are seen as a very last resort or a sign that police don't do its job.

A regulation is only useful if it's enforceable, and the first step is getting most people to admit that giving everyone guns is not a good solution to the ambient violence.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 29, 2012, 06:37:48 am
The main argument for gun ownership (beyond the amendment that long ago stopped being relevant) is that guns are an equalizer. It doesn't matter if you're a body builder or a wrinkly old lady in a wheelchair, a fight breaking out for whatever reason will be more or less even if both sides have guns (and in favor of a potential victim if they have one and the aggressor doesn't). Whereas, in a gun-less society, whoever's more physically capable will probably have control of the situation, and when you throw the practicality of a gun ban into play, only criminals will have guns.


To convince people that guns aren't a good solution to ambient violence, you have to convince them that violently fighting back isn't a good idea. A bit difficult here; people often have pride in keeping control of their situation and their property. The stereotypical redneck sitting on the front porch stroking a shotgun is an exaggeration, but that mentality is still partially ingrained into our culture.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 29, 2012, 08:43:40 am
Well, the reality in Beglium at least is that most criminals don't use guns. It's simply not worth it most of the time, as it's an aggravating circumstance if you're caught and you don't need it.

And guns may act as equalizer, but they also make it much more likely someone will get hurt real bad. If neither the old lady nor the bodybuilder have weapons, the bodybuilder will win in 100% of the case, and the old lady will loose some jewelry and maybe get some bruise.

If both have guns, the old lady may have a 50% chance of winning, but when she loose, she's much more likely to end badly hurt, or killed.

Also, we Non-American usually consider than when a thief get shot, it's still a sad thing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 08:45:34 am
If they didn't want to get shot they shouldn't have been stealing. I'm not going to say it isn't sad, but they brought it on themselves.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Phmcw on May 29, 2012, 08:50:26 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 08:45:34 am
If they didn't want to get shot they shouldn't have been stealing. I'm not going to say it isn't sad, but they brought it on themselves.
That's the antithesis of justice.

"If you didn't want to get shot, you should not have been speeding" is equally relevant. I mean you could kill someone by speeding.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 29, 2012, 09:04:24 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 08:45:34 am
If they didn't want to get shot they shouldn't have been stealing. I'm not going to say it isn't sad, but they brought it on themselves.

Victim blaming is always fun, isn't it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on May 29, 2012, 10:13:00 am
Thieves here tend to carry machetes, which is hardly effective against cops with pistols. So you can guess how often thieves are shot and killed when they attempt to charge at the cop with a machete.

I'd say this no-gun law is pretty successful, thieves are much more harmless over here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on May 29, 2012, 10:16:44 am
Quote from: scriver on May 29, 2012, 09:04:24 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 08:45:34 am
If they didn't want to get shot they shouldn't have been stealing. I'm not going to say it isn't sad, but they brought it on themselves.

Victim blaming is always fun, isn't it.

Now this seems like an exaggeration of the term. Tell me, at what point does someone become responsible for their own actions?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 29, 2012, 10:20:43 am
Quote from: Phmcw on May 29, 2012, 08:50:26 am
That's the antithesis of justice.

"If you didn't want to get shot, you should not have been speeding" is equally relevant. I mean you could kill someone by speeding.
In this case, it's more "If you don't want to collide with another car, you shouldn't have been speeding through that intersection" or "if you didn't want to get mauled by a bear, you shouldn't have spent all that time poking it with a stick in an attempt to aggravate it".
It's got jack-shit to do with 'justice' - if you put yourself in a situation where a person has to kill you in order to prevent you from doing something illegal and depriving them of life or property, you shouldn't be putting yourself in that situation.

If you're doing something morally wrong, generally stupid, and incredibly dickish (especially if you are harming someone else in the process), people are not going to have much sympathy when there are negative consequences - in effect, they'll see it as you having it coming. I'm perfectly okay with that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 29, 2012, 10:28:58 am
So if it was standard policy to shoot drivers speeding near school (something which is reckless, dickish and putting people in danger) you'd be okay with that? They knew it was coming after all.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 29, 2012, 10:38:59 am
GG: If someone meets all three of these traits, I don't have a problem with people having zero sympathy for them.
Sheb: So you're saying that if a person, arguably, meets a single one of these traits, it's okay to shoot them?

No, Sheb. No. That doesn't even make sense.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Dutchling on May 29, 2012, 10:41:14 am
You do seem to imply that it is okay to shoot someone who isn't threatening you or somebody else's life.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 29, 2012, 10:42:10 am
Robbers only steal to be dicks, right?  It's impossible that they could be driven to it by poverty or desparation.  Just shoot 'em all.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 29, 2012, 10:49:47 am
Conversely, let's assume that all criminals are just hard-luck cases driven to it by socio-economic disparities and grant a mass pardon.  ::)


I think the truth probably lies somewhere in between.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 29, 2012, 10:54:56 am
I am not saying anything remotely like that.  I am saying that GG's criteria fail to provide a reason why robbers deserve no sympathy when shot (or a reason why we should be allowed to shoot them).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 29, 2012, 10:56:43 am
Yeah, this conversation isn't going to go anywhere good. If you guys want to continue fighting the good fight against imaginary people making imaginary arguments, by all means, continue. But you don't really need me for it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 29, 2012, 11:18:49 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 29, 2012, 10:20:43 am
In this case, it's more "If you don't want to collide with another car, you shouldn't have been speeding through that intersection" or "if you didn't want to get mauled by a bear, you shouldn't have spent all that time poking it with a stick in an attempt to aggravate it".
It's got jack-shit to do with 'justice' - if you put yourself in a situation where a person has to kill you in order to prevent you from doing something illegal and depriving them of life or property, you shouldn't be putting yourself in that situation.

If you're doing something morally wrong, generally stupid, and incredibly dickish (especially if you are harming someone else in the process), people are not going to have much sympathy when there are negative consequences - in effect, they'll see it as you having it coming. I'm perfectly okay with that.

You do not have to kill someone because they're in your house stealing from you. There is one situation that you have to kill them, and that's when they're going to kill you. There are negative consequences, and then there's shooting an unarmed teenager because he was rummaging through your stuff. I know that's the most extreme example, but (at least where I live) unarmed punks perform a huge percentage of break-ins.

I feel like this is just apmlified by all the paranoia our society has about crime. I was watching a Michael Moore documentary (forgive me), and this Canadian lady was talking about how she never locked her doors at night. One night, some kids were in her house so she came downstairs and they all ran out. They had stolen some cigarettes or something. At no point here was killing anyone necessary.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 29, 2012, 11:26:51 am
Quote
There is one situation that you have to kill them, and that's when they're going to kill you.
You really want to stand by that statement?

(Again, not responding to the strawmen arguments. Seriously, I say I what I mean, I don't need you fuckers putting your own words in my mouth. I know you have your issues, but seriously not my problem)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 29, 2012, 11:34:55 am
You can't just shout "strawman" at everything and then ignore it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 29, 2012, 11:38:22 am
When people argue against things that I never said, yes - yes I can. When they argue against things explicitly in opposition to things I said, I can to that to!

It's obvious that people here have their fucking agendas, but I'm not a launching pad for irrelevant spiels.

For example, if I were following the same patterns y'all have been using, I could, from your last post, deduce:
"So, you're saying it's okay to rape people, then? After all, he's not trying to kill you, so it's not an issue and we certainly shouldn't try to stop him."

But I won't, because that's fucking bullshit and I know it. When y'all manage to have the same consideration, I'll bother responding.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 29, 2012, 11:43:15 am
Quote from: JoshuaFH on May 29, 2012, 10:16:44 am
Quote from: scriver on May 29, 2012, 09:04:24 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 08:45:34 am
If they didn't want to get shot they shouldn't have been stealing. I'm not going to say it isn't sad, but they brought it on themselves.

Victim blaming is always fun, isn't it.

Now this seems like an exaggeration of the term. Tell me, at what point does someone become responsible for their own actions?

People are always responsible for their own actions. Getting shot is not the thiefs action, it is the shooter who is shooting him. Hence the thief is the victim of the shooting, and blaming him for getting shot is blaming the victim.


Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 29, 2012, 10:20:43 am
If you're doing something morally wrong, generally stupid, and incredibly dickish (especially if you are harming someone else in the process), people are not going to have much sympathy when there are negative consequences - in effect, they'll see it as you having it coming. I'm perfectly okay with that.

And here we what seems to be the number one cause of America's troubles; no solidarity and too little empathy tor your fellow man.


Quote from: RedKing on May 29, 2012, 10:49:47 am
Conversely, let's assume that all criminals are just hard-luck cases driven to it by socio-economic disparities and grant a mass pardon.  ::)

Don't strawman, RedKing. This is completely beyond the scope of the discussion and even if it were only your strawman would be arguing for a "mass pardon" just because "physical" criminal behavior has a general cause.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 29, 2012, 11:46:10 am
Quote from: scriver on May 29, 2012, 11:43:15 am
Don't strawman, RedKing. This is completely beyond the scope of the discussion and even if it were only your strawman would be arguing for a "mass pardon" just because "physical" criminal behavior has a general cause.
This was a sarcastic hyperbole response to an equally sarcastic hyperbolic statement. Not really strawmanning (though also not particularly helpful as a rhetorical tool, on either end)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 29, 2012, 11:56:14 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 29, 2012, 11:46:10 am
Quote from: scriver on May 29, 2012, 11:43:15 am
Don't strawman, RedKing. This is completely beyond the scope of the discussion and even if it were only your strawman would be arguing for a "mass pardon" just because "physical" criminal behavior has a general cause.
This was a sarcastic hyperbole response to an equally sarcastic hyperbolic statement. Not really strawmanning (though also not particularly helpful as a rhetorical tool, on either end)
^^^^^
This.

One thing that may be lost here (especially to our non-American friends) is a deep-seated American notion of "a man's house is his castle". Or put another way, there's a long tradition of allowing the homeowner to select the level of response when dealing with unlawful trespass. I mean, it's not unusual to see signs that say "Trespassers Will Be Shot On Sight".

Thus, the analogy to poking a bear with a stick.
Most people understand that provoking a large, potentially violent animal can result in serious injury and/or death.
Most Americans *should* understand that unlawfully trespassing on another's property is opening yourself up to a potentially lethal response by the property owner, especially if done in the commission of a crime.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 29, 2012, 12:47:22 pm
Quote from: RedKing on May 29, 2012, 11:56:14 am
One thing that may be lost here (especially to our non-American friends) is a deep-seated American notion of "a man's house is his castle". Or put another way, there's a long tradition of allowing the homeowner to select the level of response when dealing with unlawful trespass. I mean, it's not unusual to see signs that say "Trespassers Will Be Shot On Sight".
It's not a uniquely American concept.  Heck, the original phrase is "An Englishman's home is his castle".  I understand it.  I just think it is bad because it results in people dying unnecessarily.  Maybe you feel that some of them "deserve it" (at least that's what I got out of your response) but extrajudicial killings are never going to be fair.


Quote from: RedKing on May 29, 2012, 11:56:14 am
Thus, the analogy to poking a bear with a stick.
Most people understand that provoking a large, potentially violent animal can result in serious injury and/or death.
Most Americans *should* understand that unlawfully trespassing on another's property is opening yourself up to a potentially lethal response by the property owner, especially if done in the commission of a crime.
A bear is an animal.  It cannot be expected to understand that attacking someone who provokes it slightly is wrong.  Therefore it is our responsibility to not provoke it.  Wheras a person can be expected to know that shooting someone is wrong.  That's the problem with this particular analogy (IE the reason why I would blame someone for poking a bear while not blaming a trespasser for being shot), but I guess there is something else to be addressed here.

The fact that they "should know the risks" doesn't make them more deserving of being killed.  My argument is nothing to do with whether they know the risks or not (I guess it could be a problem when you factor in drunken behaviour and/or young/ mentally disabled people though).  It's to do with the fact that some trespassers are not necessarily bad people, and that a courtroom could better decide an appropriate punishment than a startled homeowner with a gun.  Heck, even if their motivations were selfish then maybe an appropriate sentence could have them reformed in a way that a bullet through the head would not.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 29, 2012, 01:14:47 pm
Some tacit support to MSH's position:
Whereas I don't think that vigilante justice should replace the rule of law, and think there should be regulations upon gun ownership, I nonetheless defend the right of citizens to defend their home from invaders in whatever way they can. We're not exactly talking about harmless doves: thieves can and do result to violence if given the chance, so a homeowner can hardly be expected to put a criminal's well-being before his own.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 29, 2012, 01:17:47 pm
@Leafsnail:
In a perfect world, yes.
However, in an imperfect world where brutal home invasions are not unheard of and police action is primarily investigative and punitive *after* the crime instead of protective or intervening...I'm okay with deferring to the homeowner's discretion. Don't break into someone else's house, and you greatly decrease your chances of getting shot.

Obviously, cases like Trayvon Martin are a different instance...there was no trespass involved and hence no right for Zimmerman to engage with ANY level of force.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 29, 2012, 01:55:30 pm
I was addressing the more specific "Is it a bad thing when people get shot, even if they were trespassing" argument (so I'm ignoring other considerations for now).  There are a lot of other things I would bring up in the broader "Should we allow people to shoot trespassers" argument, but I don't think we want to have that.

I really don't get how the Trayvon Martin case would've been any better if it had started with Trayvon trespassing on Zimmerman's lawn, but whatever.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 29, 2012, 02:57:40 pm
Ahh okay, I see what you're saying if you're talking in the narrow focus then. I don't think it should be considered a "good" thing when anybody gets shot, but "not good" != "bad".

If someone winds up killing themselves by doing something stupid (let's say, trying to light a gas grill by bending over and using the lit cigarette in their mouth), that's not a "good" thing (unless you're incredibly cynical and look at it as Darwinian gene pool cleansing) but it's not something that most people are going to spend any amount of time mourning, other than the deceased's next of kin.

I think for a number of us, we'd classify trespassing/burglary/etc. as something stupid that *can* (not *should*) get you killed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 29, 2012, 03:32:04 pm
1. Simply trespassing is not enough to justify violent "self defence". In fact, if you attack someone just for being in your house or on your land, you are the aggressor and the trespasser have a right to defend themselves against you. They have to threaten or attack you first.

2. Self defence does not give you the right to do whatever you want to your attacker. Reasonable force and all that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 05:43:24 pm
Quote from: scriver on May 29, 2012, 11:43:15 am
Quote from: JoshuaFH on May 29, 2012, 10:16:44 am
Quote from: scriver on May 29, 2012, 09:04:24 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 08:45:34 am
If they didn't want to get shot they shouldn't have been stealing. I'm not going to say it isn't sad, but they brought it on themselves.

Victim blaming is always fun, isn't it.

Now this seems like an exaggeration of the term. Tell me, at what point does someone become responsible for their own actions?

People are always responsible for their own actions. Getting shot is not the thiefs action, it is the shooter who is shooting him. Hence the thief is the victim of the shooting, and blaming him for getting shot is blaming the victim.
Being a victim first requires you to be innocent of the situation. A thief is not innocent of the situation. They have entered your residence and are trying to deprive you of property. They may or may not harm or kill you themselves if given the chance. If someone is in your house unlawfully, they may not be a thief in the first place. They may very well be out to harm or kill you as a primary objective. You have no way of knowing any of this, aside from the fact that they've broken into your home.

Responding with lethal force in this situation is completely justified.
Quote
And here we what seems to be the number one cause of America's troubles; no solidarity and too little empathy tor your fellow man.
There is no number one cause for America's troubles. The world is not that simple.

I don't want thieves to die, but the thief is the one instigating the situation. They are the ones at fault, and if they suffer for it, up to and including dying, then that's the price they paid for thievery.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 29, 2012, 05:46:14 pm
It keeps coming up for some reason:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=85981.msg2980743#msg2980743

Forgetting all that; both sides have merit:
a.) Death isn't good....
b.) You almost assume the risk of force being used against you if you use force.... Someone fought back? What did anyone expect...?

Try to use less than deadly force, or better... no force, when possible, clearly. When this isn't possible, people should expect to have to explain why they took another human life, or even harmed one... quite frankly. That said, there are excuses to harm or even kill another person in certain situations I hope none of you ever experience. And quite frankly, I'm biased here, because it's hard to represent the corpses of criminal defendants, but even if someone is a damn thief, theft isn't punishable by death.... Prison yes; death no. I will, however, admit: it's hard to tell a thief from a violent criminal at times....

The problem with the Zimmerman thing in Florida is that honest people used to ... resort ... to practicality: RESORT, as in last resort.... Now it's the first thing we all reach for. Used to be the right thing to do was to lament being forced to chose the lesser of the evils. Now its standard practice. This was the reason self defense law, especially deadly force law, had a "duty to retreat," to make sure people weren't just shooting to kill for the hell of it. IF you ran and the attacker pursued, there was less doubt, though the system was clearly imperfect. This "stand your ground" law, gives a free pass to kill. It may be practical, but just isn't good enough to say it's a bother to so much as explain after the fact why a human life was lost....  It's just not good enough, damn it....

Edit: Somewhat ninja'd by MSH
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 29, 2012, 05:55:03 pm
Quote from: scriver on May 29, 2012, 03:32:04 pm
1. Simply trespassing is not enough to justify violent "self defence". In fact, if you attack someone just for being in your house or on your land, you are the aggressor and the trespasser have a right to defend themselves against you. They have to threaten or attack you first.

2. Self defence does not give you the right to do whatever you want to your attacker. Reasonable force and all that.
Yeah, this.



Self defense requires some sort of aggression against you, not your property. And your property isn't worth the thief's life. Not by a long shot. Sorry.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 29, 2012, 06:36:43 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 29, 2012, 05:46:14 pm
It keeps coming up for some reason:
Conjecture: Because we have a fairly noticeable not!American forum population and the American attitude re: the subject doesn't fly quite so easily in other parts of the world. But! The subject is so damn violently charged on the political scene in the states we get prickly about it.

I could probably get into something about how increasingly fucked up the justice system and concepts involved therein are over here,* but it probably wouldn't move the discussion to anywhere better so eh.

Spoiler: * (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 29, 2012, 06:42:22 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 05:43:24 pm
Being a victim first requires you to be innocent of the situation. A thief is not innocent of the situation.

No. For someone who just used the "the world is not that simple" card it's strange that you fail to realise that "one" situation can have several victims. The shooter is a victim of thievery, the thief is a victim of getting shot.


Quote
They have entered your residence and are trying to deprive you of property. They may or may not harm or kill you themselves if given the chance. If someone is in your house unlawfully, they may not be a thief in the first place. They may very well be out to harm or kill you as a primary objective. You have no way of knowing any of this, aside from the fact that they've broken into your home.

Responding with lethal force in this situation is completely justified.

If they attack you, you can defend yourself. If they don't, you can't attack them. If you do not know they are out to arm you then of course you do not have a reason to harm them to begin with. If you do, that's not self defence, because you are the aggressor and the instigator. Somebody just being in your home unallowed is not enough to shoot anyone, let alone murder them, which I hope you realise is what "lethal force" implies. You can't justify the murder of another man with "oh he could've have possibly been meaning to harm me, really!" That's a completely horrible way of thinking, and the exact kind of stupidity that led to the "Stand Your Ground" kind of laws.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 06:49:54 pm
It's not a "card", it's telling you that the (false) perception that Americans have no empathy wouldn't be the cause of all our problems even if it were true!

There can be multiple victims in a situation, but there are prerequisites to being a victim, and by the time you are breaking into people's homes to make off with their valuables you've lost those prerequisites.

Quote from: scriver on May 29, 2012, 06:42:22 pm
If they attack you, you can defend yourself. If they don't, you can't attack them. If you do not know they are out to arm you then of course you do not have a reason to harm them to begin with. If you do, that's not self defence, because you are the aggressor and the instigator. Somebody just being in your home unallowed is not enough to shoot anyone, let alone murder them, which I hope you realise is what "lethal force" implies. You can't justify the murder of another man with "oh he could've have possibly been meaning to harm me, really!" That's a completely horrible way of thinking, and the exact kind of stupidity that led to the "Stand Your Ground" kind of laws.
The intruder is instigating. They instigated when they intruded, hence the name. Lethal force does not imply murder. Lethal force implies killing. Murder is a legally defined crime, killing is an act which is sometimes in line with that crime and other times is not.

As for "Stand Your Ground" laws, I am and always have been completely and totally alright with being able to stand your ground in your fucking home! I'm not just going to run away and let some asshole make off with my livelihood because he decided I'd make a good target! Being robbed can ruin your entire life, and I sure as hell don't care if the person trying to make that happen loses theirs in the attempt.

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law is the one that was stupid, because it increased the range from your home to anywhere.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 29, 2012, 07:00:15 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 06:49:54 pm
It's not a "card", it's telling you that the (false) perception that Americans have no empathy wouldn't be the cause of all our problems even if it were true!

There can be multiple victims in a situation, but there are prerequisites to being a victim, and by the time you are breaking into people's homes to make off with their valuables you've lost those prerequisites.

Being a victim has only one requisite - that somebody does something bad to you. You can't "lose" that. Doing something wrong does not make wrongs done to you right. I don't understand how you can't get that.
 

Quote
The intruder is instigating. They instigated when they intruded, hence the name. Lethal force does not imply murder. Lethal force implies killing. Murder is a legally defined crime, killing is an act which is sometimes in line with that crime and other times is not.

No, the intruder has broken into your home. If you start a fight with him, you are the instigator and attacker, and he has a right to defend himself from you. Being a robber does not deprive him of any rights, it makes him guilty of a crime. Nothing more.

And don't get all semantics on me. Killing another person is murder. That's were the legal term came from. You can call it "killing" or "made passed away" or whatever else expression makes you feel better about it, but it doesn't change what it is. You're taking another man's life, for no other reason than him being in your home, without even knowing if he is a threat or not.


Quote
Being robbed can ruin your entire life

That's funny, I heard that so will getting murdered. But I guess your life doesn't matter if you've picked a lock or broken a window.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 07:47:43 pm
Quote from: scriver on May 29, 2012, 07:00:15 pm
Being a victim has only one requisite - that somebody does something bad to you. You can't "lose" that. Doing something wrong does not make wrongs done to you right. I don't understand how you can't get that.
We lock people up in tiny concrete rooms with other people who may or may not be violent, giving them all nothing but the basic supplies to stay alive, for years and years and years. If you did that to someone who wasn't a criminal people would find you abhorrent. Indeed, we find it so abhorrent to do that to an innocent person that if it does happen the level of money they're usually compensated with upon release could be lived off of for many years.

But we don't think it's bad to do that to people who are actually criminals.
Quote
And don't get all semantics on me. Killing another person is murder. That's were the legal term came from. You can call it "killing" or "made passed away" or whatever else expression makes you feel better about it, but it doesn't change what it is. You're taking another man's life, for no other reason than him being in your home, without even knowing if he is a threat or not.
I'd love to see Truean's comments on that. Murder is not just killing. Soldiers kill people, and while I'm not sure about how you feel towards them I certainly don't see them as murderers. Cops kill people, and while I hate the hell out of cops in general there are situations in which they aren't murdering by killing people, such as in the recent incident with the Florida "Zombie". Anesthesiologists kill people, but those are accidents because anesthesiology is extremely dangerous to patients. And normal people who have the will to defend their livelihoods and sometimes even their lives are sometimes thrust by misfortune into a situation where they end up killing someone, and that isn't murder either.

Sometimes, people on that list do kill others in such a way that it is murder, but that isn't all of the time.
Quote
That's funny, I heard that so will getting murdered. But I guess your life doesn't matter if you've picked a lock or broken a window.
They made that choice themselves. Sometimes your choices end up costing you more than you intended.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 29, 2012, 08:07:01 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 07:47:43 pm
But we don't think it's bad to do that to people who are actually criminals.
Reminding people that America is a place where rape is considered an acceptable punishment for fraud really doesn't make us look any better :-\

Which, hell, might not have been what you were trying for. It's a fair shake to remind folks outside of the states that we're amoral bastards in general when it comes to certain issues, I guess. Anything to help push toward some degree of change for th'fact that our prison system is one of the worst human rights violations/injustices in the first world.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 08:16:39 pm
Quote from: Frumple on May 29, 2012, 08:07:01 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 07:47:43 pm
But we don't think it's bad to do that to people who are actually criminals.
Reminding people that America is a place where rape is considered an acceptable punishment for fraud really doesn't make us look any better :-\

Which, hell, might not have been what you were trying for. It's a fair shake to remind folks outside of the states that we're amoral bastards in general when it comes to certain issues, I guess. Anything to help push toward some degree of change for th'fact that our prison system is one of the worst human rights violations/injustices in the first world.
No, that wasn't what I was trying for. I was trying for prison in general. I can safely say that I don't support prison rape.

I don't even know how you got that out of my statement, honestly.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 29, 2012, 08:26:49 pm
Quote
We lock people up in tiny concrete rooms with other people who may or may not be violent, giving them all nothing but the basic supplies to stay alive, for years and years and years.
Quote
But we don't think it's bad to do that to people who are actually criminals.

It's a pretty explicit statement. You can't really say we support that and then say you're against prison rape -- the situation leads to the act, to a large degree.

Even without that. Assault, beatings, etc. -- your statement explicitly states that it's not bad that a non-violent offender be confined with individuals that will in all likelyhood attack them, quite possibly repeatedly.

Now, you could say you're for incarceration, but not for excessively unsupervised incarceration where things like that are allowed to happen -- that would be fine, and I'm a lot less troubled by that position (though I still have issues with it, they're more axiomatic issues than actual functional ones). But, that's not the American prison system, and it's not what our society is largely not bothered by.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 08:31:45 pm
Quote from: Frumple on May 29, 2012, 08:26:49 pm
Even without that. Assault, beatings, etc. -- your statement explicitly states that it's not bad that a non-violent offender be confined with individuals that will in all likelyhood attack them, quite possibly repeatedly.
My statement does not explicitly state that at all. The threat poised by other prisoners is not something I want, it's just how things are, and that it isn't enough to make prison unacceptable to society.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 29, 2012, 08:41:23 pm
Which... is kinda' what I said? I didn't explicitly say you were for it to begin with -- I said that, to wit,
Quote
Reminding people that America is a place where rape is considered an acceptable punishment for fraud really doesn't make us look any better :-\

And, as said, I didn't say you want it. You just said you don't want it. You said it's not a bad thing -- that, specifically, it's an acceptable thing (regardless of how immoral it is) -- that it happens to criminals. I'm agreeing with you that that is exactly how the American population in aggregate believes -- and that it doesn't exactly shine us in the best of lights.

Which... yeah. Some international condemnation of the hellhole we've made our prison system might help some. Higher awareness of exactly how badly we're fucking things up might help us fix things up a bit, too. M'all for that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 08:44:41 pm
Quote from: Frumple on May 29, 2012, 08:41:23 pm
Which... is kinda' what I said? I didn't explicitly say you were for it to begin with -- I said that, to wit,
Quote
Reminding people that America is a place where rape is considered an acceptable punishment for fraud really doesn't make us look any better :-\

And, as said, I didn't say you want it. You just said you don't want it. You said it's not a bad thing -- that, specifically, it's an acceptable thing (regardless of how immoral it is) -- that it happens to criminals. I'm agreeing with you that that is exactly how the American population in aggregate believes -- and that it doesn't exactly shine us in the best of lights.
I don't know how to make this any more clear to you:

I didn't say that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Fenrir on May 29, 2012, 08:46:32 pm
I think the point is made if you omit the part about violence and rape and note that we accept putting people in cages for years. Please understand that I do not mean to endorse the point or otherwise take a stance on the matter.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 29, 2012, 08:52:45 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 08:44:41 pm
I didn't say that.
Then I'm not sure how else to interpret this:
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 07:47:43 pm
We lock people up in tiny concrete rooms with other people who may or may not be violent, giving them all nothing but the basic supplies to stay alive, for years and years and years. If you did that to someone who wasn't a criminal people would find you abhorrent. Indeed, we find it so abhorrent to do that to an innocent person that if it does happen the level of money they're usually compensated with upon release could be lived off of for many years.

But we don't think it's bad to do that to people who are actually criminals.

Unless, again, you're for a system which doesn't allow the acts implicit with that set up to occur -- which isn't our system. I'm with you so far as that goes -- like I said, that position does not bother me nearly as much.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 29, 2012, 09:14:14 pm
And backing up just a second here.....

Quote from: scriver on May 29, 2012, 07:00:15 pm
True: All human life is equally valuable, but not all killings are equally blameworthy. Your passion has clouded your eyes. All killings are homicides; not all homicides are murder. Observe:

A.) While driving home, John hits a 7 year old with his car. John immediately stops and calls 911. The child is taken to the hospital but dies 3 days later of her wounds. John was talking on his cell phone while holding a soda pop and trying to tune in his radio: a literally fatal distraction. John is convicted of negligent homicide, serves 3 years in prison with good behavior, has his license suspended, and is sued by the child's family for wrongful death. The judgment is large and though John's insurance covers it, he is effectively unable to drive for several years if ever, due to the rate increases.

B.) Dave comes home, finds his wife in bed with another man and shoots them both in a "heat of passion." He is tried and convicted of voluntary manslaughter, because of the "heat of passion" mitigating circumstance. He serves 10 years in prison.

C.) Tommy wants Joe's car. Tommy doesn't have any money, so instead he gives Joe two bullets in the head, unceremoniously removes his corpse from the car, and drives off in it. The police eventually catch Tommy, who is convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

There are degrees of evil.... Society has less to fear from John than from Tommy. Tommy is far more blameworthy, because he did it, he meant to do it, and if he could, he'd do it again. While John may have killed a child, he sincerely didn't mean to, but he had a duty to drive his car safely. He breached that duty and some kid died for it. He didn't pay attention and negligently killing somebody isn't as bad as planning to and actually doing it on purpose.

Quote from: Frumple on May 29, 2012, 08:52:45 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 08:44:41 pm
I didn't say that.
Then I'm not sure how else to interpret this:
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 07:47:43 pm
We lock people up in tiny concrete rooms with other people who may or may not be violent, giving them all nothing but the basic supplies to stay alive, for years and years and years. If you did that to someone who wasn't a criminal people would find you abhorrent. Indeed, we find it so abhorrent to do that to an innocent person that if it does happen the level of money they're usually compensated with upon release could be lived off of for many years.

But we don't think it's bad to do that to people who are actually criminals.

Unless, again, you're for a system which doesn't allow the acts implicit with that set up to occur -- which isn't our system. I'm with you so far as that goes -- like I said, that position does not bother me nearly as much.

The prison system is unsafe, underfunded, overcrowded, and over sentenced for non violent criminals, especially drug offenders. It has definite problems, which need to be fixed. That said, fixing those problems is the issue. Society has a right to protect itself from dangerous individuals and separation/incarceration is the only means of doing so. The problem is with the method of incarceration, namely the, quite frankly, piss poor way in which we do it. Incarceration per se, in and of itself, isn't the problem. It's the fact that the realities of it, as it is currently done, need serious fixing....

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 07:47:43 pm
Quote
That's funny, I heard that so will getting murdered. But I guess your life doesn't matter if you've picked a lock or broken a window.
They made that choice themselves. Sometimes your choices end up costing you more than you intended.

I think it's more, the person who killed in self defense had no other option. Nobody deserves to die, but if it comes down to two people and one of them is going to die, then the person who didn't create that situation shouldn't be the one to die. Rather, they've the right to defend themselves. Though quite frankly, theft is a risky proposition and honestly getting yourself hurt by the person you're trying to steal from, is something every theft should anticipate the possibility of....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: EveryZig on May 29, 2012, 09:20:22 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 07:47:43 pm
Quote
That's funny, I heard that so will getting murdered. But I guess your life doesn't matter if you've picked a lock or broken a window.
They made that choice themselves. Sometimes your choices end up costing you more than you intended.
As stated here, this argument would seem be applicable to any punishment for any crime.
A more extreme example of 'they knew the risks and did the crime anyway' would be how a number of historical law systems punished petty theft (such as pickpocketing)  by severing the thief's right hand. Is this a reasonable and appropriate punishment?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 09:23:49 pm
Quote from: Frumple on May 29, 2012, 08:52:45 pm
Unless, again, you're for a system which doesn't allow the acts implicit with that set up to occur -- which isn't our system.
I'm pretty sure that there is no system in which that happens. You can't fully isolate the prisoners, they'll go insane if you do that, but if you let them congregate violence will happen because they're more likely to be violent people.
Quote from: Frumple on May 29, 2012, 08:52:45 pm
I'm with you so far as that goes -- like I said, that position does not bother me nearly as much.
Stop agreeing with me on something I don't believe in! Prison violence is an inevitability, not something I see as an acceptable part of prison! Gah!
Quote from: EveryZig on May 29, 2012, 09:20:22 pm
As stated here, this argument would seem be applicable to any punishment for any crime.
A more extreme example of 'they knew the risks and did the crime anyway' would be how a number of historical law systems punished petty theft (such as pickpocketing)  by severing the thief's right hand. Is this a reasonable and appropriate punishment?
That would require catching the thief, at which point all sorts of standards of humaneness come into play. I'm alright with shooting a thief in a hot-blooded situation, i.e., as the crime is taking place. Torturing, mutilating, or killing them in a cold-blooded situation, i.e., after they have been apprehended, is not acceptable.

Also, they still do that to thieves in Saudi Arabia. No point being made there, just a related fact.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 29, 2012, 09:29:26 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 09:23:49 pm
Quote from: Frumple on May 29, 2012, 08:52:45 pm
Unless, again, you're for a system which doesn't allow the acts implicit with that set up to occur -- which isn't our system.
I'm pretty sure that there is no system in which that happens. You can't fully isolate the prisoners, they'll go insane if you do that, but if you let them congregate violence will happen because they're more likely to be violent people.
Quote from: Frumple on May 29, 2012, 08:52:45 pm
I'm with you so far as that goes -- like I said, that position does not bother me nearly as much.
Stop agreeing with me on something I don't believe in! Prison violence is an inevitability, not something I see as an acceptable part of prison! Gah!

Well now, is it honestly so absolute? If it's an isolation v. congregation thing, then why not have the prisoners congregate in several small room groups with rotating meal times rather than plop them all in one large cafeteria? This would cut down on violence, make gang activity harder to carry out, and make the guards' jobs easier. It's a hell of a lot better to full lockdown 10 prisoners in one smaller dining room than 2000 in a cafeteria.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on May 29, 2012, 09:31:22 pm
Would cost more, for one. O_o
Or rather, be more of a pain to do.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 29, 2012, 09:35:38 pm
Quote from: Skyrunner on May 29, 2012, 09:31:22 pm
Would cost more, for one. O_o
Or rather, be more of a pain to do.

Well, this is true, but I propose worth it. As it stands, prison is graduate school for criminals. A thief goes in, and by the time he leaves in 3 years, he's a member of a gang to survive, has learned several criminal behaviors, has no sense of giving a shit about other people, might have developed or worsened a drug problem, and is hardly "rehabilitated." If anything, he's now more pissed off, more willing and able to do things, and probably more likely to be violent.

Is preventing or lessening that worth it? I'd say probably.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on May 29, 2012, 09:37:52 pm
I totally agree that it's worth it, but I suspect it's not feasible at all.
Some jails just want costs at a minimum and don't care about long term effects.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 09:39:05 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 29, 2012, 09:29:26 pm
Well now, is it honestly so absolute? If it's an isolation v. congregation thing, then why not have the prisoners congregate in several small room groups with rotating meal times rather than plop them all in one large cafeteria? This would cut down on violence, make gang activity harder to carry out, and make the guards' jobs easier. It's a hell of a lot better to full lockdown 10 prisoners in one smaller dining room than 2000 in a cafeteria.
Awesome, let's do it.

Oh, wait, the prisons are private businesses now, nevermind.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on May 29, 2012, 09:40:55 pm
Quote from: Skyrunner on May 29, 2012, 09:37:52 pm
I totally agree that it's worth it, but I suspect it's not feasible at all.
Some jails just want costs at a minimum and don't care about long term effects.

Rather they simply aren't going to do it.... Feasible or not....

Nobody wants to pay for Justice so we don't have it....

As for not caring about long term effects, they've been saying that for years. Welcome to the long term of 30-40 years ago... that nobody cared about. It'll just get worse.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 09:39:05 pm
Quote from: Truean on May 29, 2012, 09:29:26 pm
Well now, is it honestly so absolute? If it's an isolation v. congregation thing, then why not have the prisoners congregate in several small room groups with rotating meal times rather than plop them all in one large cafeteria? This would cut down on violence, make gang activity harder to carry out, and make the guards' jobs easier. It's a hell of a lot better to full lockdown 10 prisoners in one smaller dining room than 2000 in a cafeteria.
Awesome, let's do it.

Oh, wait, the prisons are private businesses now, nevermind.

Speaking of problems to fix....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on May 29, 2012, 09:48:25 pm
So many things wrong and mired into various systems and frameworks, making them unchangable.
For example... cotton subsidiaries. The government originally gave those to use it for army uniforms. Now, it doesn't need as much, but they lobby and it stays put. Another money leak D:

Note- this may not be still true, as I read it in a book a couple years ago.

Or... S.Korea's octopus-like supercompanies. Lots of stuff D:
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Fenrir on May 29, 2012, 09:49:27 pm
How do European and Asian countries tend to run their prisons? Do other nations have a system that works? or, at least, works better?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 10:02:41 pm
Let's just say that you don't want to go to prison in China.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 29, 2012, 10:23:17 pm
From what I understand a number of the European countries seem to be doing better in a lot of ways. Not sure about the Asian countries, but their situation (beyond the penal system) in general seems a bit worse (with exceptions, of course) off, so I imagine they're probably not doing as well as the European ones. Which probably means a lot of them are still doing better than the states, but I haven't heard enough to say either way.

It's hard to make good comparisons, though, as a fair amount of that has as much to do with sentencing as the actual prison conditions. Sweden doesn't have a full percent of their population behind bars, ferex, whereas the states hit one in a hundred a few years back.

There's a lot we could do better, but two of our biggest problems (drug law and the privatized prisons -- as true notes, can probably tack on insufficient support for the non-privatized ones in there somewhere, too) have some serious backing trying to keep 'em entrenched.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Dutchling on May 30, 2012, 02:31:32 am
The European prison system is good enough to make WTF about how horrible it is in the USA.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 10:02:41 pm
Let's just say that you don't want to go to prison in China.
Getting raped in the Land of Freedom and Democracy® makes the rape okay I guess?

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 30, 2012, 04:34:20 am
Quote from: scriver on May 29, 2012, 07:00:15 pm


Quote
The intruder is instigating. They instigated when they intruded, hence the name. Lethal force does not imply murder. Lethal force implies killing. Murder is a legally defined crime, killing is an act which is sometimes in line with that crime and other times is not.

No, the intruder has broken into your home. If you start a fight with him, you are the instigator and attacker, and he has a right to defend himself from you. Being a robber does not deprive him of any rights, it makes him guilty of a crime. Nothing more.



He instigated a situation in which you're potentially in danger, and justified to respond with force. You can be sure I wont sit calmly while the intruder goes about his things, and hope he's just about getting some small cash for pizza, or something, instead of beating me up or killing me, and raping my family. What you are arguing for is simply ridiculous, that we should wait until this obviously hostile stranger has begun overt violence against us to defend ourselves against him.

This is not to say that any violent action is fair game (executing them while they are down is out of the question, let alone torturing them), but I think allowing the homeowner first strike without warning is common sense. It'd be regarded as self defense in most western nations, too.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 30, 2012, 05:35:09 am
Thinking a home invader is going to rape/murder is about as ludicrous as thinking a mugger wants anything other than your wallet. The vast majority of injuries from these sort of things occur when the person getting robbed fights back. Comply and there won't be a knife in your stomach.


For a home invasion, the safest route for all involved (if you notice them first) is to sneak to a phone and call the police. Then grab a baseball bat or that nifty display sword on your wall and inform them of who you just telephoned. There are numerous ways you can gain the upper hand without violently attacking them when their back is turned. All you need to do is scare them into running away, and then no one gets hurt, which is way worse than your TV or computer getting smashed.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 30, 2012, 05:44:14 am
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on May 30, 2012, 04:34:20 am
It'd be regarded as self defense in most western nations, too.

Well, not in Belgium nor in France (for the case where I'm sure). And I seriously doubt anywhere in the EU for that matter. Shooting someone without warning isn't self-defense.

You don't have to wait for him to attack you to defend yourself, but only to be threatening (searching your drawers for jewelry isn't threatening.) And then, you shouldn't try to kill him (Well, if he has a gun drawn I guess you're excused, but criminals mostly don't use guns around here).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 30, 2012, 06:39:37 am
Quote
Thinking a home invader is going to rape/murder is about as ludicrous as thinking a mugger wants anything other than your wallet
You're very mistaken. It's becoming very usual for burglars to deliver massive beatdowns to homeowners who have the bad luck of being at home. Here's a link to a high profile case (http://translate.google.es/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Felpais.com%2Felpais%2F2007%2F12%2F20%2Factualidad%2F1198136933_850215.html)
And here is another (http://translate.google.es/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.belt.es%2Fnoticiasmdb%2FHOME2_noticias.asp%3Fid%3D1212)
Quote
The vast majority of injuries from these sort of things occur when the person getting robbed fights back. Comply and there won't be a knife in your stomach.
I know from first-hand experience that this is simply untrue, and know I'm not the only one to have had this kind of experience in the area. Real thieves and muggers aren't Robin Hood types. They're maladjusted sociopaths who are not above engaging into violence if the slightest thing fails to go their way, or if they just had a bad day.

Quote
Well, not in Belgium nor in France (for the case where I'm sure). And I seriously doubt anywhere in the EU for that matter. Shooting someone without warning isn't self-defense.
Remember Tyler Juett? He got killed while trying to rob a house in the UK. And sure enough, they tried to charge the homeowner: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6449940/Man-appears-in-court-charged-with-killing-burglar.html

But... in the end, common sense prevailed, and he was let go.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/19/burglary-murder-charge-dropped


AFAIK, for the most part these kind of incidents tend to be regarded as justified, in general, barring aggravating circumstances (eg: coup de graces and/or chasing fleeing invaders). Which is reasonable. I think that people have a right to be able to defend themselves, their families, at their homes. This is not to say that vigilantism should run rampant, but that if a guy breaks into someone's home and gets killed, then it's certainly not murder, it's justified homicide at worst.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 30, 2012, 07:19:14 am
Both of your exemple are from Spain, so they may not be totally relevant.

I think you're missing a key disctinction we do. We totally understand someone shooting a robber to defend himself if that robber is attacking him. That doesn't mean you should shoot first, without warning.

Your british exemple is also irrelevant. The prosecution dropped the case because it appeared their witness had been lying. Moreover, the robber had weapons, and were attacking him. It's not like a killed a defenceless thief in cold blood and was acquitted in trial.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 30, 2012, 07:33:07 am
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on May 30, 2012, 06:39:37 am
Quote
Thinking a home invader is going to rape/murder is about as ludicrous as thinking a mugger wants anything other than your wallet
You're very mistaken. It's becoming very usual for burglars to deliver massive beatdowns to homeowners who have the bad luck of being at home. Here's a link to a high profile case (http://translate.google.es/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Felpais.com%2Felpais%2F2007%2F12%2F20%2Factualidad%2F1198136933_850215.html)
And here is another (http://translate.google.es/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.belt.es%2Fnoticiasmdb%2FHOME2_noticias.asp%3Fid%3D1212)
Key word: High profile. Big red flag right there that it's an outlier. Gimme some actual statistics, including things that aren't published in the newspapers, and I'll change my stance on the risks.

Quote
Quote
The vast majority of injuries from these sort of things occur when the person getting robbed fights back. Comply and there won't be a knife in your stomach.
I know from first-hand experience that this is simply untrue, and know I'm not the only one to have had this kind of experience in the area. Real thieves and muggers aren't Robin Hood types. They're maladjusted sociopaths who are not above engaging into violence if the slightest thing fails to go their way, or if they just had a bad day.
The difference between a sociopath and a sadist is a sociopath won't stab you unless they have reason to. Conceivable that you're their punching bag for the day to let out some frustrations, but how does that change how you should act? The best way to protect yourself in a mugging is to make sure things DO go their way. Once they're out of sight, you're safe, if a bit lower on cash.



Anyway my point is attacking them is a stupid thing to do, and not just because your TV is worth infinitely less than their life and limb. Always, always, always, ALWAYS for your own safety as well as theirs, get them out without a fight. If this means cowering in a corner, so be it. Even if we screw moral concerns, you have no goddamn good reason to attack the robber unless they are actively threatening you or someone else, simply because your stuff isn't worth the risk. If you DO have means to intimidate them out, use them of course, but be prepared to run and not actually fight. Period.



Curious: Do you condone the use of booby traps, like razor wire? Note that security alarms will result in less property damage due to not having to get the blood out of your carpet.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 30, 2012, 07:42:50 am
Kaijyuu, I'm not entirely sure if understand the full impact of home invasions on some people. It's a lot more akin to rape than it is to simple theft (in kind, not in degree, before you imply that I'm saying that).

It is an intense, terrifying violation of sacrosanct space by a hostile enemy, and if your safety is paramount, yes - you should let them do whatever they want. Fighting back is more likely to get you hurt.

But many people value preserving that sanctity over a risk to their own lives.

Would you advocate potential victims avoid resistance because it might get them hurt?

Or do you believe there's some sort of cutoff other than (immediate threat to life and limb) that makes aggressive resistance acceptable?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 30, 2012, 08:24:47 am
Quote from: Sheb on May 30, 2012, 07:19:14 am
Both of your exemple are from Spain, so they may not be totally relevant.
Right, because Spain is totally not Europe. Africa ends at the Pyrenees, I forgot  ::)
Quote
I think you're missing a key disctinction we do. We totally understand someone shooting a robber to defend himself if that robber is attacking him. That doesn't mean you should shoot first, without warning.
So you're going to... issue a challenge, so that he has a chance of killing YOU instead?
Don't be ridiculous. You assault the tresspasser with whatever you have as soon as you see him. It makes no difference that we're talking about a gun than about a knife. If anything, with the latter it would be even more justified to attack without warning.

Quote
Your british exemple is also irrelevant. The prosecution dropped the case because it appeared their witness had been lying. Moreover, the robber had weapons, and were attacking him. It's not like a killed a defenceless thief in cold blood and was acquitted in trial.
You obviously haven't followed that case, but it wasn't like you describe it. The case was dropped because it was common sense. The man stepped into the kitchen, and stabbed the intruder. The fact that one of the witnesses was lying is irrelevant to this part, as he was lying about the homeowner pursuing him in the street, which WOULD have been going outside the boundaries of home defense. As for the dead thug, he was found AFTERWARDS to have been armed. This is again, another point FOR attacking first without warning. You don't want to give the other guy a chance to pull his piece. Just assume he IS armed and attack him.

Quote
Key word: High profile. Big red flag right there that it's an outlier. Gimme some actual statistics, including things that aren't published in the newspapers, and I'll change my stance on the risks.
Do your own research. This stuff has been going around here A LOT for the last ten years. You want official stats? Go google them, I have better things to do.
Quote
The difference between a sociopath and a sadist is a sociopath won't stab you unless they have reason to. Conceivable that you're their punching bag for the day to let out some frustrations, but how does that change how you should act? The best way to protect yourself in a mugging is to make sure things DO go their way. Once they're out of sight, you're safe, if a bit lower on cash.
Or badly bruised. Or dead. Your best chance is to run away so that they don't get a chance at you at all. Again, most muggers aren't reasonable, logical people.
Quote
Anyway my point is attacking them is a stupid thing to do, and not just because your TV is worth infinitely less than their life and limb.
But not infinitedly more than my life and limb. Even putting my personal goods as secondary after the physical safety of a home invader is stretching it a lot.

Quote
Always, always, always, ALWAYS for your own safety as well as theirs, get them out without a fight. If this means cowering in a corner, so be it. Even if we screw moral concerns, you have no goddamn good reason to attack the robber unless they are actively threatening you or someone else, simply because your stuff isn't worth the risk. If you DO have means to intimidate them out, use them of course, but be prepared to run and not actually fight. Period.
PRECISEDLY because I care about my own safety, I'd empty my gun in their general direction as soon as I saw them. In case they decide to get violent, which, again, is not unusual. It's even reasonable, from their point of view: hey, let's beat up a bit the guy covering in the corner. Who knows, maybe he has a safe somewhere, or we can get his credit card's account number out of him. Again this is not a hypothetical scenario. It does happen. Acting like a fucking sheep going to the slaughter doesn't dissuade them out of treating you like one.

Quote
Curious: Do you condone the use of booby traps, like razor wire? Note that security alarms will result in less property damage due to not having to get the blood out of your carpet.
Have I commented anything about booby traps, or razor wire? Why do you put stuff I haven't said into my mouth?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 30, 2012, 08:39:14 am
I think we're also ignoring the fact that you're asking someone to make reasoned judgement calls about the relative threat value of an intruder and the measured response to use....while somebody is breaking into their fucking house. Most people are going to be scared shitless in that scenario, myself included. I'm not a terribly large, strong or agile person. In a scuffle 1-on-1, I'm going to lose. Which means I'm going to use any advantage I have. I don't have firearms, but if the dude has his back turned and doesn't hear me, he's getting a baseball bat across the back. I'm not waiting to check for a gun or a knife. Not with two small children to defend.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 30, 2012, 08:45:03 am
Indeed, and agreed. It's reasonable to take any advantage you can in those kind of situations. I don't think anyone can be expected to risk major bodily harm because there's risk the home invader would get hurt otherwise. If the situation can be resolved without anyone getting killed or hurt, so much for the better, but I'm not about assuming an inch of risk for myself or my kin if I can avoid it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 30, 2012, 09:39:03 am
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on May 30, 2012, 08:24:47 am
Right, because Spain is totally not Europe. Africa ends at the Pyrenees, I forgot  ::)

Well, the discussion was revolving around the States mostly. But yeah, nevermind, we can just broaden the debate I guess.

Quote
So you're going to... issue a challenge, so that he has a chance of killing YOU instead?
Don't be ridiculous. You assault the tresspasser with whatever you have as soon as you see him. It makes no difference that we're talking about a gun than about a knife. If anything, with the latter it would be even more justified to attack without warning.

Well, actually yes I do. Because I've got a gun pointed at him and if he do anything funny, I can still shoot him. Just killing someone because there is the possibility that they'll do me bodily harm is... Totally overreacting.


Quote
You obviously haven't followed that case, but it wasn't like you describe it.

You don't drop a case because it's "common sense", you drop it because you realize you cannot possibly win the trial. I read that article you quoted, and what they're saying is basically "We though he was in the wrong, but he turned out he just defended himself, instead of murdering someone in cold blood for no good reasons and then chasing an unarmed 14-years old in the streets to attack him".

Quote
Or badly bruised. Or dead. Your best chance is to run away so that they don't get a chance at you at all. Again, most muggers aren't reasonable, logical people.

Most of them are also reasonable enough to realize it's much easier to get away from mugging that from murder.

Quote
Have I commented anything about booby traps, or razor wire? Why do you put stuff I haven't said into my mouth?

He doesn't put sutff in your mouth, he ask you if you would condone it. You can just answer no, no need to become aggressive.


Now, to RedKing, it is true that in the heat of action, I can totally understanding attacking the mugger first. Maybe I'd do it, for all my grandstanding here about "Thou shall not kill". After all, those are situations were you cannot expect people to act rationally. Which mean it's even more important to regulate handgun use. If you must, give him a good whack on the head, but you're much less likely to kill him (Or her).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 30, 2012, 09:44:35 am
Quote
Well, the discussion was revolving around the States mostly. But yeah, nevermind, we can just broaden the debate I guess.
It was you that first brought up Europe. http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg3329950#msg3329950

And it had gone beyond "Tehehe stupid American gun laws" a while ago, too.

Quote
Most of them are also reasonable enough to realize it's much easier to get away from mugging that from murder.
If they are caught. Quite often they aren't. The people who mugged me certainly weren't. It's not easy to solve a crime in which the accused have no link to the victim.


Quote
Well, actually yes I do. Because I've got a gun pointed at him and if he do anything funny, I can still shoot him. Just killing someone because there is the possibility that they'll do me bodily harm is... Totally overreacting.
You're demanding a completely reasonable behavior from both the victim and the aggressors, which is unrealistic in itself. As well as overrating your ability to control the trespasser, even with a gun. Thing is, you're taking a quite big risk. Which you shouldn't have to, really.
Quote
You don't drop a case because it's "common sense", you drop it because you realize you cannot possibly win the trial.
Precisedly. Because it's common sense that, once you remove the charge of hunting around someone in the street, what you are left with is simple self-defense. Just as if he had shot the kid, instead of stabbing him.

Quote
He doesn't put sutff in your mouth, he ask you if you would condone it. You can just answer no, no need to become aggressive.
That's backtracking. He already assumes an answer with the second statement.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 30, 2012, 12:13:25 pm
Huzzay for quote exchange!

Quote from: ChairmanPoo on May 30, 2012, 09:44:35 am
It was you that first brought up Europe. http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg3329950#msg3329950

Well, you brought the West, I said in Europe not (And the West without Europe and the US ain't much). Anyway, not really important.


Quote
Most of them are also reasonable enough to realize it's much easier to get away from mugging that from murder.
If they are caught. Quite often they aren't. The people who mugged me certainly weren't. It's not easy to solve a crime in which the accused have no link to the victim.

Well, the police just doesn't have the manpower and will to perform a full investigation on a simple mugging or burglary. If they found your corpse in your living room, there will be a whole new level of ressources used to track and get the bastard: Scientific police etc etc. Not only do you risk much more, but the risk of being caught are much greater.

Quote
Thing is, you're taking a quite big risk. Which you shouldn't have to, really.

I really don't think it's a big risk. I guess a lot of our opposition come from the fact that you think the risk is huge, even from simply having someone in your house, while I don't think so, which mean you find shooting first justified and we don't. (And don't tell me you have the right to shoot for any level of risk: If someone is coming toward me driving way to fast, I'm at risk, but that doesn't mean I have a right to kill him).


Quote
That's backtracking. He already assumes an answer with the second statement.

Anyway. You still didn't answer. Do you? Because the same logic that make you think it's okay to shoot someone because he's rummaging through your living room would also mean it's okay to have some kind of trap that do the killing for ye.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 30, 2012, 12:40:25 pm
Another possible cultural divide here: in Europe, a burglar is unlikely to be armed with a firearm. In the United States, this is not the case. The introduction of a firearm into the equation greatly increases the incentive for the legal resident to strike first.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 30, 2012, 12:44:19 pm
Well it's perfectly logical to arm yourself with a firearm and try to kill the residents of the house you're robbing if people in your area would (legally) kill you on sight.

EDIT: In retrospect that seems too black and white.  It's not that simple and it doesn't have a simple solution, but I'd say a culture of heightened violence would be at least partly to blame for thieves being more violent.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on May 30, 2012, 12:58:42 pm
Quote from: RedKing on May 30, 2012, 12:40:25 pm
Another possible cultural divide here: in Europe, a burglar is unlikely to be armed with a firearm. In the United States, this is not the case. The introduction of a firearm into the equation greatly increases the incentive for the legal resident to strike first.

There was a case in 2009 here in the UK where a home owner came home to find his family being held at knifepoint (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/14/jail-brothers-burglar-cricket-bat). Through the use of disproportionate force he caused brain damage to the burgular, chasing him when there was no need. No-one will dispute his right to defend his family I hope, but clearly the amount of "force" used was disproportionate and he was punished as a result. AFAIK the decisions made by courts in this country in cases such as these are based on the idea that the use of force should be in proportion to the threat faced (so killing could be justified if there was a direct threat to life, which as RedKing points out is going to be far more prevalent a case in countries with more availiable weaponary, but brain damaging a person who is running away is over the top), with the courts holding the value of life above that of the value of property (see: Tony Martin case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3087003.stm)) - this to me seems 100% reasonable as it protects the life of the intended victim of the crime, but once you deicde that they as a living human have a right to life, so must all other living humans. In the eyes of the law people do not forefit thier inherant human rights by making choices that take them outside the law - if you feel that is right or wrong is another matter.

Quote from: Leafsnail on May 30, 2012, 12:44:19 pm
Well it's perfectly logical to arm yourself with a firearm and try to kill the residents of the house you're robbing if people in your area would (legally) kill you on sight.

EDIT: In retrospect that seems too black and white.  It's not that simple and it doesn't have a simple solution, but I'd say a culture of heightened violence would be at least partly to blame for thieves being more violent.

Ah, but which group armed themselves first, and wihch responded as a result? Is the culture of violence down to criminals or the victims? Or even some other factor? Again, it not going to be as simple as that, but you cant really carry a gun into a property with the intent to use it to cause harm and then complain that you got shot without looking pretty stupid.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 30, 2012, 01:05:53 pm
Yeah I considered that after making the post, and I suppose it's perfectly possible.  I'm just not entirely sure why the US would start off producing more violent criminals than other places.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 30, 2012, 01:06:44 pm
Drug war, mostly.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on May 30, 2012, 01:08:36 pm
I wouldnt put it down to more violent people, but instead the relative ease of obtaining firearms - especially by those involved in things like the "drug war" who are probably more likley to use force in this manner.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on May 30, 2012, 01:09:56 pm
Dropping in real quick to say that as someone who has had their house burglarized, if it happens again and I catch it I'm gonna hit the guy with whatever hefty item I can find. GlyphGryph said it best: my home, where everything and everyone I care about it, was violated, in the middle of the night, by some punks who waltzed in and stole everything valuable they could get. What if they had something more sinister in mind? Now I'm so freaking paranoid that I stay up late and check every door and window to make sure they're locked before going to bed.

So yeah. Probably wouldn't shoot the bastard, but a baseball bat to the back is no more than he deserves.
*drops back to lurk mode*
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on May 30, 2012, 01:10:31 pm
I don't know about in the past, but it's lately (Last 30 years, maybe 40?And I think in Prohibition too, but that's less relevant) been about the Drug War and, as Truean said, petty thieves and stoners getting huge sentences in prison and coming out as hardened criminals and gang members.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 30, 2012, 01:19:25 pm
@MonkeyHead:
Wow....I...that's just difficult for me to process. If I came home and found somebody holding my wife and kids at knifepoint, brain damage would be the LEAST of his worries by the time I was through. I'm going to attack him, I'm going to chase him, and I'm most likely going to kill him if I have the opportunity, or at the very least beat him so thoroughly that he will never do that again to anybody.

Maybe it's partly my personality, maybe it's the deeply-embedded American value of "righteous violence" (which I would argue is one of the reasons we have a more violent society)....but in my mind, when you threaten my loved ones (far moreso than my property) with bodily injury, death, rape, etc. you have just forfeited your right to exist as far as I'm concerned. I'm a generally mellow, conflict-averse kind of guy, but that's one area where I have a berserk button. My wife is the same way. Hell, my wife is terrified of firearms, but if somebody came in and pointed a gun at our kids, she'd be likely to rip their throat out barehanded. The maternal/paternal instinct can be a very powerful thing.

To elaborate on the culture of "righteous violence", there's a long-standing meme in American culture that the bad guys deserve to die by virtue of being "bad". This is why the white-hat cowboy lawman doesn't have to arrest the black-hat cowboy. He has to *try*, but in the end the black-hat typically tries to pull his gun on him after faking surrender, and then gets cut down in a hail of lead. Nobody sheds a tear for the black-hat. And most Westerns ended that way because it appeals to an American sense of justice that is more about who's left standing than courtrooms. Americans have never quite fully been satisfied with courts of law as the final arbiter of justice. We much prefer the self-empowered form of 'frontier justice', wherein the hero is judge, jury and executioner. And the villains are unmistakably, umambiguously deserving of their fate.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 30, 2012, 01:22:40 pm
Which is not to say villains aren't capable of redemption. Or that someone who does something bad will always be bad or is bad in all ways. But simply the being the bad guy is more than enough for people to want to see you eliminated.

On the other hand, this sort of thing DOESN'T really adhere to someone running away. If you're off the property and running away, very few people would consider it okay to shoot you. The "righteous violence" only extends to the point where you are actively 'wrong-doing' - it's also why the hero doesn't kill the villain until he draws his weapon.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 30, 2012, 01:28:47 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/avoid-words-prevent-homeland-security-spying-social-networks-211947512.html

To avoid being monitored, avoid using certain words because they will know.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Fenrir on May 30, 2012, 01:34:32 pm
Quote from: RedKing on May 30, 2012, 01:19:25 pm
...he will never do that again to anybody.
I think this stands as a good reason to attack a fleeing intruder. Yes, the threat to the homeowner is abated, but this person has demonstrated that he is willing to harm someone to get what he wants, so, if you let the target leave, his next victim may not be so fortunate as yourself. Of course, shooting him might not be the right option in every circumstance.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 30, 2012, 01:40:59 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 30, 2012, 01:22:40 pm
Which is not to say villains aren't capable of redemption. Or that someone who does something bad will always be bad or is bad in all ways. But simply the being the bad guy is more than enough for people to want to see you eliminated.

On the other hand, this sort of thing DOESN'T really adhere to someone running away. If you're off the property and running away, very few people would consider it okay to shoot you. The "righteous violence" only extends to the point where you are actively 'wrong-doing' - it's also why the hero doesn't kill the villain until he draws his weapon.
Although the "villains can redeem themselves" thing is honestly a pretty modern wrinkle, thanks to deconstructive works of film/literature/etc. Incidentally, this is why American popular reaction to things like diplomacy and foreign policy can be so painfully myopic and naive. We want countries to wear hats, and we want those hats to be unambiguous. Britain? White hat (at least in the 20th century). North Korea? Black hat. Japan? White hat now, black hat in WWII.

But yes, as that extends to real-world actions, most people would say that once they're a block or so away from your property, you're probably no longer morally justified in chasing them down. UNLESS they've already committed the crime, and it was heinous. Somebody just raped/killed your wife/daughter/son? I think the property line boundary is out the window. Look at how many revenge films there have been in American cinema (and how popular they are). Charles Bronson made a career playing antiheroes who were committing extrajudicial murder, and people LOVED it. The fact that the legal system is actively trying to prevent him from this is part of the trope. I mean, I realize at some point it just becomes ludicrous (think pulp novels and Sin City), but there's a very strong undercurrent of righteous violence in American culture. Not only is the good guy allowed to kill, it's kind of a given that he's breaking the rules by doing so and that this is inherently okay.

Not all that surprising that this gets reflected in real life.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 30, 2012, 01:42:22 pm
Quote from: Fenrir on May 30, 2012, 01:34:32 pm
Quote from: RedKing on May 30, 2012, 01:19:25 pm
...he will never do that again to anybody.
I think this stands as a good reason to attack a fleeing intruder. Yes, the threat to the homeowner is abated, but this person has demonstrated that he is willing to harm someone to get what he wants, so, if you let the target leave, his next victim may not be so fortunate as yourself. Of course, shooting him might not be the right option in every circumstance.

A fleeing intruder isn't a threat. Fleeing indicates he was only there to burgle and had no intention of harming people. It is the ones who do not flee when they realize that someone is home that are a problem.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 30, 2012, 01:45:31 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on May 30, 2012, 01:42:22 pm
Quote from: Fenrir on May 30, 2012, 01:34:32 pm
Quote from: RedKing on May 30, 2012, 01:19:25 pm
...he will never do that again to anybody.
I think this stands as a good reason to attack a fleeing intruder. Yes, the threat to the homeowner is abated, but this person has demonstrated that he is willing to harm someone to get what he wants, so, if you let the target leave, his next victim may not be so fortunate as yourself. Of course, shooting him might not be the right option in every circumstance.

A fleeing intruder isn't a threat. Fleeing indicates he was only there to burgle and had no intention of harming people. It is the ones who do not flee when they realize that someone is home that are a problem.
Can't agree at all. They may have been quite intent on causing harm but weren't expecting armed resistance. Most bullies are cowards at heart. Now, they may no longer be a threat to *you* once they're fleeing, but they could still constitute a community threat. And they could come back with friends and/or armed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 30, 2012, 02:25:52 pm
Quote from: Fenrir on May 30, 2012, 01:34:32 pm
I think this stands as a good reason to attack a fleeing intruder. Yes, the threat to the homeowner is abated, but this person has demonstrated that he is willing to harm someone to get what he wants, so, if you let the target leave, his next victim may not be so fortunate as yourself. Of course, shooting him might not be the right option in every circumstance.
Judge, jury, executioner.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Fenrir on May 30, 2012, 02:48:54 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on May 30, 2012, 01:42:22 pm
A fleeing intruder isn't a threat. Fleeing indicates he was only there to burgle and had no intention of harming people. It is the ones who do not flee when they realize that someone is home that are a problem.
I cut out most of the context for brevity, but I was quoting RedKing’s post about the intruder with the knife and the hostages. I agree with you if we are talking about unarmed burglars that flee at the sight of you, so perhaps I should have noted that in what I said.

Quote from: Leafsnail on May 30, 2012, 02:25:52 pm
Quote from: Fenrir on May 30, 2012, 01:34:32 pm
I think this stands as a good reason to attack a fleeing intruder. Yes, the threat to the homeowner is abated, but this person has demonstrated that he is willing to harm someone to get what he wants, so, if you let the target leave, his next victim may not be so fortunate as yourself. Of course, shooting him might not be the right option in every circumstance.
Judge, jury, executioner.
Yes, yes, and possibly.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on May 30, 2012, 03:01:24 pm
I wonder if this isn't helped at least a bit by the rather major flaws in the American justice system. If I know that my daughter's rapist is likely or at least might get off in court, doesn't justice need to be served one way or the other?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on May 30, 2012, 03:15:41 pm
So you feel that if you were the victim of a crime you have the right to dispense justice? Do all victims? (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iranian-victim-spares-her-acid-attacker-an-eye-for-an-eye-2329638.html)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 30, 2012, 03:32:24 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on May 30, 2012, 03:15:41 pm
So you feel that if you were the victim of a crime you have the right to dispense justice? Do all victims? (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iranian-victim-spares-her-acid-attacker-an-eye-for-an-eye-2329638.html)
I think we would agree that that is an extraordinary case AND that many of us would not be so forgiving in her shoes.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Fenrir on May 30, 2012, 03:35:19 pm
If that was directed at all at me, I would point out that pouring acid into the eyes of someone who has already been apprehended by law enforcement and eliminating a threat before it escapes into society are not analogous.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on May 30, 2012, 04:03:48 pm
I geuss the point I was trying to make was that I believe that being the victim of a crime does not entitle anyone to merit out justice as they see fit. It probably wasnt a good example TBH.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 30, 2012, 04:52:21 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on May 30, 2012, 02:31:32 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 10:02:41 pm
Let's just say that you don't want to go to prison in China.
Getting raped in the Land of Freedom and Democracy® makes the rape okay I guess?
What the hell is up with you people and accusing me of supporting prison rape!?

I wasn't even talking about the US in that post! The only nation mentioned was China, where they harvest the organs of death row inmates, of which there are unknown thousands!

Quote from: Sheb on May 30, 2012, 09:39:03 am
Well, actually yes I do. Because I've got a gun pointed at him and if he do anything funny, I can still shoot him. Just killing someone because there is the possibility that they'll do me bodily harm is... Totally overreacting.
As any gun instructor will tell you, if you are pointing a gun at someone, you had better be intending to shoot them. Using a firearm as a compliance tool doesn't work in real life.
Quote from: kaijyuu on May 30, 2012, 05:35:09 am
Thinking a home invader is going to rape/murder is about as ludicrous as thinking a mugger wants anything other than your wallet. The vast majority of injuries from these sort of things occur when the person getting robbed fights back. Comply and there won't be a knife in your stomach.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Compliance is what allows these things to happen. If more people fought back against criminals crime would be less likely.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 30, 2012, 05:00:08 pm
There's no real need to strawman Fenrir or RedKing when they're advocating vigilante slayings (Fenrir for people who did violent things, RedKing apparently even for people who weren't but maybe could've been violent).  Maybe it's legal in some places but I sure as hell hope that shooting fleeing people remains murder where I am.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 30, 2012, 05:09:12 pm
Yeah, the thing I don't understand about the strawman is that seriously, don't people realize it only makes the target of your criticism look better?

I feel like if I spent too long listening to some of you arguing against slavery I'd end up grudgingly supporting the practice by the end of the conversation.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 30, 2012, 06:50:14 pm
Let's not get our panties in a bunch, all. The thread is for fun, harmless debate. We're not here to prove each other wrong, or come to some universal truth, but refine our opinions. You've got a better chance of actually changing something in the world by writing your opinions on the sidewalk in chalk than by posting here.

Quote
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Compliance is what allows these things to happen. If more people fought back against criminals crime would be less likely.
Tough on crime, eh? I disagree, for two reasons.

1) Safety. Your wallet isn't worth a knife in the gut.
2) Eliminating their reason to commit a crime is more effective in stopping the practice on a large scale.


Pretty much all theft is motivated by desperation (though the degree if sympathy you have for their desperation, like say a drug addict's desperation to get their fix, might vary). Taking people's stuff has a huge deterrent attached, from both the risk involved, and the fact most people aren't heartless sociopaths. So, giving them reasonable recourse to get what they need will mean theft is a bigger hassle than getting it the "normal" way.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 30, 2012, 07:52:08 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on May 30, 2012, 06:50:14 pm
1) Safety. Your wallet isn't worth a knife in the gut.
It's not about the worth of the money, it's the principle of your actions. Muggers aren't of the mindset to be deterred by "Take whatever you want, don't kill me!". That's just confirming your own weakness and exploitablity to them. It's true, they want your money, not your life. They certainly don't want to risk their own necks either. What acts as a deterrent to someone of that mindset is leading them to believe that targeting you, or continuing to target you, will not only have a lesser chance of actually obtaining your money but a higher chance of sustaining harm themselves in the process. Poisonous butterflies are bright yellow and orange to tell birds that they'll face harm if they consume them, walking around with a pistol on your belt tells muggers that they'll face harm if they try to mug you. But that's just posturing. If you choose not to be a victim, if someone does decide to push, you have to push back.
Quote
2) Eliminating their reason to commit a crime is more effective in stopping the practice on a large scale.
Agreed, but we aren't talking about the large scale.
Quote
Pretty much all theft is motivated by desperation.
Some theft is motivated by desperation. Other thefts are motivated by greed, and some are motivated by the influence of criminal culture.
Quote
Taking people's stuff has a huge deterrent attached, from both the risk involved, and the fact most people aren't heartless sociopaths.
Sidenote: Sociopathy is no longer a term used by the psychological community. What was previously called Sociopathy has been reorganized into Antisocial Personality Disorder. Also, in this discussion, psychopath would be a more accurate phrase for what we are referencing.

Psychologically, thieves justify their actions along two broad pathways. Psychopaths are naturally unconcerned with others and see their actions as self-justified. From their view, if someone else has something the psychopath desires, they are morally wrong for keeping it from the psychopath and the psychopath is morally right for claiming what they want. These individuals are particularly dangerous, even if they are not committing crimes.

The psychologically "healthy", on the other hand, justify their actions through depersonalization and rationalization. They do everything in their power to see their victims as not being people like they themselves are, and rationalize through the possible need they have for another's possessions.

Quote
So, giving them reasonable recourse to get what they need will mean theft is a bigger hassle than getting it the "normal" way.
This is true on a societal level, but not on a personal one. The former will decrease crime because it gives the desperate thieves an out, the latter will increase it because it tells them all that people won't stand up to them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on May 30, 2012, 11:46:04 pm
I think the problem is that when desperation is a large enough factor, deterrents are no longer relevant.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 31, 2012, 12:44:57 am
But for a great many thieves (I'd argue most), "desperation" isn't quite the state they've reached when they start committing crimes. In fact, for most of the criminals I've known, simple expedience seems to be the governing rule - if they can improve their situation without getting caught or facing repercussions, even if it harms someone else, they'll do it. Sure, they'll usually be caps on how much harm they are willing to do and how much risk they are willing to take as things get closer and closer to desperation, but I think the quite wealthy white collar criminals indicate pretty clearly that desperation isn't the overriding factor, here.

To be honest, none of the people I've known to be legitimately desperate (the homeless, the destitute, the durggies) have turned to crime beyond shoplifting or snatching unattended objects (to my knowledge), while a few of the better off ones have engaged in quite a bit of it (that I know of). That is... probably not something I should go into detail about, though.

Perhaps the non-desperate criminals are simply more likely to brag about it. (See: people who post their loot on facebook)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: lemon10 on May 31, 2012, 12:48:58 am
Deterrents are always relevant.
Odds are no matter how hungry you are you aren't going to try to break into a secure military facility (one that if you are caught that they will kill you) to get food.

Now, if that is the only place to get food, and you are starving to death then you might, but even then you weigh the deterrents (even if you choose to ignore them).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 31, 2012, 07:00:01 am
Well, detterence got limits. That's why the death penalty doesn't really work as a way to bring crime rate down.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 31, 2012, 07:11:27 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 30, 2012, 05:09:12 pm
Yeah, the thing I don't understand about the strawman is that seriously, don't people realize it only makes the target of your criticism look better?
It's more like I feel in this case what's being supported is worse than the strawman.  At least in the case of blinding an acid attacker it's "an eye for an eye" - while horrible, one could argue the punishment fits the crime.  This is not the case when it comes to killing someone who is running away from a failed robbery.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 08:13:34 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 31, 2012, 12:44:57 am
(See: people who post their loot on facebook)
You would be shocked how often this occurs. ATF loves it when some idiot "thug life 4 evar" type posts pictures of himself posing with his TEC-9. Makes the takedown and conviction so much easier. Especially good when he includes and tags all his bros in the picture.


Quote from: kaijyuu on May 30, 2012, 06:50:14 pm
1) Safety. Your wallet isn't worth a knife in the gut.
This is the principle behind ALL coercive behavior. Your lunch money isn't worth getting beat up over. Speaking out against the regime isn't worth being being "disappeared" by the secret police. Committing a robbery isn't worth going to prison.
 
And yet, these coercions can and do fail to dissuade. Some kids eventually stand up to the bully. Some dissidents eventually speak out. Some people commit robberies. And some mugging/robbery victims do fight back.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Blargityblarg on May 31, 2012, 08:30:17 am
Quote from: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 08:13:34 am
And yet, these coercions can and do fail to dissuade. Some kids eventually stand up to the bully. Some dissidents eventually speak out. Some people commit robberies. And some mugging/robbery victims do fight back.

And some let the system fight back for them, instead of needlessly complicating things and making it that much more likely for someone to be injured or killed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 31, 2012, 08:38:41 am
Will fighting back in any way shape or form fix the problem? You punch some guy's teeth out and he gets taken away by the police. Success that you kept your wallet and one thug goes to jail. Thousands others still exist, thousands more will be created by circumstance, thousands more who do it for kicks/utter stupidity aren't dissuaded.
That's of course best case scenario. Worst is you lose your wallet, die, and get martyred for a cause society at large agrees with anyway: stealing is bad.


Fighting back against individuals who try to steal from you is not some grand respectable cause. Not unless you're a Viking or have some similar whacked out concept of personal honor. Fighting back is stupid. You won't make a statement, you risk your life over a few dollars, and you do pretty much squat to solve the real problem. Still worth it?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 31, 2012, 08:55:51 am
It'd be crazy to fight against overwhelming odds. But should the guy trip or something and the odds tilt in my favor? I'd kick the living shit out of the bastard. Improves odds of running away afterwards.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 31, 2012, 08:57:10 am
And if he tries to run away you shoot him!  I get it now.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 31, 2012, 08:59:02 am
 I specifically said in prior posts in this thread that I was against that. Thus I don't know if you're being obtuse or delliberatedly misleading.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 31, 2012, 09:00:54 am
Didn't intend for it to be directed at you so much as the thread at large, since we have had other people advocating shooting fleeing intruders.  Sorry.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 31, 2012, 09:02:54 am
K, sorry. This thread is getting rather hot :/

(Plus I admit I have emotional factors in this matter. Getting beaten up badly enough to spend the rest of the night in the ER AFTER you handed your 1800€ watch without resistance to your muggers tends to eschew your view of things)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 09:20:58 am
Yeah, I don't see any more point to this argument. GlyphGryph, ChairmanPoo and me are on one side of the divide, kaijyuu and leafsnail are on the other, and I don't think anyone is going to be convinced to cross that bridge. I don't see it as a "we're right, you're wrong" problem so much as a "this is what we feel is morally justified, that is what you feel is morally justified".

I will say this though: my wife surprised me a couple of years ago when we were discussing the kids and instead of taking the "We should teach them that fighting doesn't solve anything" position, she said to me, "I wish I had gotten in more fights as a kid rather than let people make me a victim." We've agreed that while we don't want the kids to turn to fighting as the *first* solution, we also don't want them to be afraid to go to the mat if they're in the right. Especially when it comes to defending each other. If my daughter sees a kid bullying her kid brother, I want her to have the self-confidence to go up and tell him to piss off (in more kid-appropriate language), and to be willing to intervene if necessary. When they're in high school together, if he sees some oversexed jock groping his sister, I want him to walk right up and knock the guy into next Tuesday. Violence doesn't solve everything, or even most things. But it's wrong to say it doesn't solve anything.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 31, 2012, 09:41:19 am
...You want her to beat up another kid but not to use the word "piss" at them. Man, are your priorities ever so fucked up.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 31, 2012, 09:44:35 am
Man, that was uncalled for, RedKing only said he want's his kids to have the confidence to defend each other from attacks. Saying "You want her to beat up another kid" is a total straw man here.

It's clear to me from my own childhood, you don't defend yourself, you WILL be the victim of bullies. Teachers, parents or other authority figures are/were totally useless in avoiding getting beat up.

I'd rather get in a fight than watch my sisters get beat up or molested, you can think less of me if you like.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Blargityblarg on May 31, 2012, 10:02:17 am
Quote from: Reelya on May 31, 2012, 09:44:35 am
Man, that was uncalled for, RedKing only said he want's his kids to have the confidence to defend each other from attacks. Saying "You want her to beat up another kid" is a total straw man here.

It's clear to me from my own childhood, you don't defend yourself, you WILL be the victim of bullies. Teachers, parents or other authority figures are/were totally useless in avoiding getting beat up.

I'd rather get in a fight than watch my sisters get beat up or molested, you can think less of me if you like.
I'd like to point out here that no, it's not an inevitable case of 'defend yourself or be bullied'. I didn't have much to do with bullies at all throughout my childhood, which shows that this is at least not universal..

I think it's more cultural; the (mostly) American proactive defence guys live in a society where you can rely more on someone who's broken into your home to put more at stake in their being in your home, whereas those of us in (most of) Europe and Australia are more likely to have any potential burglars run away. It seems there's a system of aggression of burglars matching aggression of burglees, though it's a chicken and egg problem as to which influences which.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 10:09:48 am
Quote from: scriver on May 31, 2012, 09:41:19 am
...You want her to beat up another kid but not to use the word "piss" at them. Man, are your priorities ever so fucked up.
If said "kid" is bullying her younger brother, then yes, I want her to sock him in the eye, kick him in the balls, whatever it takes to deter him. She's a tiny thing, so in all likelihood it'll be verbal defense rather than physical. But I want her to have the confidence and the familial bond to be there for him. My wife has a younger sister and an older brother, and she deeply regrets that when her siblings were picked on, she didn't come to their defense. And when she was picked on, they didn't come to her defense.

We've stigmatized fighting in school such that upper-tier kids are mortified to get in a fight, while the bottom-feeders (yeah, I know, not exactly a progressive term but that's how I'd classify the ones that don't want to be there, make no attempt to learn and just disrupt things for everyone else) revel in it. I want my kids to know that even though the school might, we're not going to punish them *IF* they have just cause for their actions.

I'm struck by the absurdity of introducing a "just war" doctrine in schoolchildren, but it is what it is.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 31, 2012, 10:12:21 am
Quote from: Blargityblarg on May 31, 2012, 10:02:17 am
Quote from: Reelya on May 31, 2012, 09:44:35 am
Man, that was uncalled for, RedKing only said he want's his kids to have the confidence to defend each other from attacks. Saying "You want her to beat up another kid" is a total straw man here.

It's clear to me from my own childhood, you don't defend yourself, you WILL be the victim of bullies. Teachers, parents or other authority figures are/were totally useless in avoiding getting beat up.

I'd rather get in a fight than watch my sisters get beat up or molested, you can think less of me if you like.
I'd like to point out here that no, it's not an inevitable case of 'defend yourself or be bullied'. I didn't have much to do with bullies at all throughout my childhood, which shows that this is at least not universal..
That's a tautology, because, if you're not being bullied, you have no reason to defend yourself, hence no reason to fight. It doesn't change the fact that there are times some people have to legitimately defend themselves.

The fact that you have little direct experience of bullies makes your opinion on the matter sort of pointless. Not trying to be rude, but unless you've been in a situation you can't really moralize on correct behavior for people confronted by that situation every day.

"Just Ignore Them" was what I tried, and violence against myself only escalated. Anyone I ever had a fight with, left me alone afterwards.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 31, 2012, 10:17:20 am
Again, since no one has responded, Blarg, Leafsnail:
Do you think it is okay to fight back if someone is trying to rape you? With lethal force?

I'll be honest, so far the entirety of at least Leafsnail's argument is that people should value others life over their own, or at least that people should completely re-order their value system. Essentially - that he knows what other people should see as important, and what they actually see as important matters jack shit to the equation. So fine - but I'm interested in seeing how far your dedication to this strict "my life is most important thing, attackers life is second most important thing" ideal holds.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 31, 2012, 10:25:29 am
It's not a straw man, it's what "defend her brother" and "willing to intervene" means. It's literally what RedKing said. Hence the ridiculousness of him minding her language in that situation where she is about to lay the beatdown on some other kid. Or does getting into a fight suddenly not mean beating somebody up when it's someone in your monkeysphere that does it?

And this isn't even about what I would or would not do - morals doesn't work that way. I would probably get scared and attack an intruder as well, and definitely back my brother up in a fight, but that doesn't make it right. Morality is not defined by what I (or anyone else) could or would do in a situation. Just that I would do something doesn't make it moral, morality does not center around my actions. I have the maturity to realise this, and I am disappointed that people who I respect and are older to me does not.

3 replies were posted while I wrote this.

Preedit: Having been bullied does not give your opinion any weight whatsoever either, Reelya. Your experience alone, and especially your recollection of it, is purely anecdotal. Not trying to be rude, but having a very emotionally upsetting experience doesn't exactly make you able to look at related issues with an unbiased mind either.

Another post: @Glyph - Nobody in this post has ever said you shouldn't defend yourself if you're attacked. The difference is that RedKing, MSH and the others thinks it's okay to attack before signs of aggression and threat is even known or shown. That's what the discussion have been about.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 31, 2012, 10:29:08 am
It's 100% straw man when you deleted ALL context and changed it to "beat some kid up". You can't backpedal and add context NOW for a statement you made BEFORE. This was your entire summation of RedKings argument which i labelled as a straw-man:

Quote from: scriver on May 31, 2012, 09:41:19 am
...You want her to beat up another kid but not to use the word "piss" at them. Man, are your priorities ever so fucked up.

"defend her brother" = "beat some kid up" ?? In what universe?

"Beat [...] up" implied she's instigated aggression against someone who was not involved in any aggression to start with, something one-sided. Rather than a fight, in which both parties are fighting. Getting beat up implies being unable to defend oneself.

"Intervene" here means to scare the kid who's beating up the younger brother. Is scaring someone off the same as beating them up? RedKing did say that she should verbally tell him off first.

"Some kid" implies it's against a random person who was minding their own business.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 31, 2012, 10:29:52 am
Scriver, I'm totally standing with RedKing here. It's not about turning his daughter into a fighting machine, it's about giving her enough self-confidence that she'll be ready to use violence as a last resort. And I don't think he'd mind if his daughter was to use the f-word against his son's bullies.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on May 31, 2012, 10:33:50 am
RedKings argument is one where the use of force is proportional to the threat faced, and as a result IMHO more than appropriate.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on May 31, 2012, 10:42:14 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 31, 2012, 10:17:20 am
I'll be honest, so far the entirety of at least Leafsnail's argument is that people should value others life over their own, or at least that people should completely re-order their value system.
Seems to be that they should value others' lives over their own property, actually, and that making a jump from "My property is in danger" to "I, and/or my loved ones, am/are in danger" is unjustified.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 10:43:53 am
Quote from: Reelya on May 31, 2012, 10:12:21 am
"Just Ignore Them" was what I tried, and violence against myself only escalated. Anyone I ever had a fight with, left me alone afterwards.
Ditto. I got left alone for years after an incident in 6th grade where I went completely over-the-top, psycho, HULK SMASH on a group of people.

One good win is all you need to earn some breathing room in the snakepit that is the schoolyard hierarchy. For one thing, it becomes this weird prestige deterrent. If you're a puny nerd, and you actually beat somebody in a fight, not only do you gain respect, but the person who lost becomes the new omega for his pack ("you lost to THAT guy? hahaha you suck"). Once you've demonstrated the potential to beat somebody, it's no longer worth the risk for most bullies, because the prestige gain for beating you up would still be rather minimal, but the loss if they lose would be substantial. As long as you don't force a confrontation by directly challenging them, you can get by without much incident. BUT...if you've never shown any fight at all in you (and have no allies), you're an easy target. Bread and butter for prestige gain via daily harassment.

Buddy of mine had the best win: guy challenged him to a fight in the parking lot, thinking it was an easy win. During the fight, his wallet fell out of his pocket, and because he assumed my buddy was no threat, he bent over to pick it up. Buddy grabbed him around the waist and backpedalled hard, driving the guy's head into the tailgate of a pickup truck. Fight over, TKO. Harassment of him dropped off vastly for the remainder of high school. (and the other guy became the new "bitch" of that particular clique of prep-jocks).

I dunno...maybe this is why America is the way it is. We learn early on that you have to fight to be left alone.

Quote from: scriver on May 31, 2012, 10:25:29 am
Another post: @Glyph - Nobody in this post has ever said you shouldn't defend yourself if you're attacked. The difference is that RedKing, MSH and the others thinks it's okay to attack before signs of aggression and threat is even known or shown. That's what the discussion have been about.
scriver, you're a bro and all but dude...I don't think we've ever said that. Ever. "holding family at knifepoint" was one of the scenarios discussed earlier. Even if no actual bodily harm has occurred, I think I'd qualify "at knifepoint" as aggression and threat. The possible grey area would be "has broken into your house, but not actually confronted you". I think our position is that breaking and entering, as a voluntary choice to intrude illegally on another's property, *does* constitute a threat in and of itself. People don't break and enter to leave you gifts or get interior decorating tips. They do it to harm your person and/or steal your property. Both of which constitute aggression in my book.

What we were catching hell over was the idea that we wouldn't necessarily break off the response once the attacker was fleeing. Nobody here was suggesting anything like a Trayvon Martin-type scenario where you go chasing after somebody because they "look suspicious".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 31, 2012, 10:51:48 am
@Reelya - Yes, "beat up" = "defend" in the context of a fight. The one who wins a fight beats the ogre up, the one who loosed gets beaten up. If somebody attacked me, defending myself from from them would means I would try to beat them up. RedKing said he wanted her to tell the bully off, or "intervene" if she had to. That means fight him off, like he said later, "sock him in the eye" or "kick him in the balls". I was not wrong to read "intervene" as I did.

Quote from: Sheb on May 31, 2012, 10:29:52 am
Scriver, I'm totally standing with RedKing here. It's not about turning his daughter into a fighting machine, it's about giving her enough self-confidence that she'll be ready to use violence as a last resort. And I don't think he'd mind if his daughter was to use the f-word against his son's bullies.

I do not protest her defending herself or the brother if the situation required it. I was remarking on how ridiculous it was that he cared about her language when she was about to get physical. Which he said, literally, that she "go up and tell him to piss off (in more kid-appropriate language)". Which is to me a clear case if really, really messed up priorities.

@RedKing - I'll respond to you once I've been to the bathroom, made coffee and powered up my computer, because I can't keep up with you on my phone.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 11:01:05 am
That's America for you. We don't care if kids if see somebody get their head blown off, as long as nobody drops an F-bomb when it happens.  :-\

I figure she'd get in less trouble for the fighting than for "bad language". *shrug*
That was certainly my experience. I didn't get busted for pinning someone to the roof of the bus by their throat when I spazzed out, but I'd gotten sent to the principal's office a couple of weeks earlier for grumbling under my breath to tell someone to go to hell.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ToonyMan on May 31, 2012, 11:05:30 am
At the same time you can criticize video game ratings for not caring for violence as much as they should?  It's a silly discussion.

Anyway I pleasantly await the day parents will stop telling their kids to attack people...or the dire situation where they must be in a relationship with someone (of the opposite gender for my family, seriously my step-Dad actually said he'd beat me up if I brought home a guy).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 31, 2012, 11:29:53 am
Quote from: scriver on May 31, 2012, 10:25:29 am
Another post: @Glyph - Nobody in this post has ever said you shouldn't defend yourself if you're attacked. The difference is that RedKing, MSH and the others thinks it's okay to attack before signs of aggression and threat is even known or shown. That's what the discussion have been about.
If you're getting robbed, you're getting attacked. The harm is material and not physical, sure - just like some attacks are psychological and not physical. But this was mostly in response to the comments about acquiescing to muggers, which I admit has strayed a bit from the burglary thing, and mugging is definitely attacking.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 31, 2012, 11:34:51 am
Quote from: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 10:09:48 am
We've stigmatized fighting in school such that upper-tier kids are mortified to get in a fight, while the bottom-feeders (yeah, I know, not exactly a progressive term but that's how I'd classify the ones that don't want to be there, make no attempt to learn and just disrupt things for everyone else) revel in it.
This is among the least progressive things I have ever read.  Stupid bottom-feeders, ruining it for your "upper-tier" kids.  Black hats.  White hats.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 31, 2012, 10:17:20 am
Again, since no one has responded, Blarg, Leafsnail:
Do you think it is okay to fight back if someone is trying to rape you? With lethal force?

I'll be honest, so far the entirety of at least Leafsnail's argument is that people should value others life over their own, or at least that people should completely re-order their value system. Essentially - that he knows what other people should see as important, and what they actually see as important matters jack shit to the equation. So fine - but I'm interested in seeing how far your dedication to this strict "my life is most important thing, attackers life is second most important thing" ideal holds.
Sorry, I thought you were against strawmen.  I guess you're instead against other people using strawmen?  What the fuck.

I have said nothing on situations where you are in danger of serious physical harm (danger of serious harm would be the one situation where I would regard lethal force as acceptable).  I have been attacking the notion that RedKing and to a lesser extent Fenrir have put forward that it's acceptable to shoot a fleeing trespasser (note: fleeing trespassers are not raping you) and before that saying that trespassers being killed is a regrettable thing.  If someone is running away then shooting them does nothing to defend you.  If anything it puts you in more danger since if you miss they now have no option but to attack you in order to make you stop shooting them.

Quote from: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 10:43:53 am
I dunno...maybe this is why America is the way it is. We learn early on that you have to fight to be left alone.
I liked your white hats/ black hats idea more.  It seems to encompass a lot of the problems very nicely.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 31, 2012, 11:39:36 am
After a quick look back through the thread I could find nothing from you saying such, RedKing, but here is MSH and ChairmanPoo saying it's morally right to attack and/or kill an intruder before you know if they're a threat or not:
Spoiler: Discussion as it went put together into one quote pyramid (click to show/hide)
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on May 30, 2012, 08:24:47 am
Quote
Always, always, always, ALWAYS for your own safety as well as theirs, get them out without a fight. If this means cowering in a corner, so be it. Even if we screw moral concerns, you have no goddamn good reason to attack the robber unless they are actively threatening you or someone else, simply because your stuff isn't worth the risk. If you DO have means to intimidate them out, use them of course, but be prepared to run and not actually fight. Period.
PRECISEDLY because I care about my own safety, I'd empty my gun in their general direction as soon as I saw them. In case they decide to get violent, which, again, is not unusual. It's even reasonable, from their point of view: hey, let's beat up a bit the guy covering in the corner. Who knows, maybe he has a safe somewhere, or we can get his credit card's account number out of him. Again this is not a hypothetical scenario. It does happen. Acting like a fucking sheep going to the slaughter doesn't dissuade them out of treating you like one.

And here's me and kaijyuu neatly lining up our positions and the premise (I guess this also pretty much answers your question, Glyph):
Quote from: kaijyuu on May 29, 2012, 05:55:03 pm
Quote from: scriver on May 29, 2012, 03:32:04 pm
1. Simply trespassing is not enough to justify violent "self defence". In fact, if you attack someone just for being in your house or on your land, you are the aggressor and the trespasser have a right to defend themselves against you. They have to threaten or attack you first.

2. Self defence does not give you the right to do whatever you want to your attacker. Reasonable force and all that.
Yeah, this.



Self defense requires some sort of aggression against you, not your property. And your property isn't worth the thief's life. Not by a long shot. Sorry.

When you stated "if somebody puts a knife on my family's neck I will attack" scenario you were basically making up that we were opposed to it in any way, since our points was basically that you can't resort to violence unless you are attacked or threatened first, and your scenario pretty obviously falls under "attacked or threatened first".

And once again, while you might say breaking and entering "constitutes a threat", yeah, it still isn't enough to attack or kill the intruder, the same way somebody pushing you in a bar is aggressive and threatening but doesn't give you right to send them to the hospital or the morgue. It isn't right to attack and assault an intruder before you know he won't run away when confronted. At the very, very most it could be okay to wrestle and try to detain the intruder causing as little harm to him as humanly possible. Getting a baseball bat, knife, or a gun to use on him does not apply.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 11:47:46 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on May 31, 2012, 11:34:51 am
Quote from: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 10:09:48 am
We've stigmatized fighting in school such that upper-tier kids are mortified to get in a fight, while the bottom-feeders (yeah, I know, not exactly a progressive term but that's how I'd classify the ones that don't want to be there, make no attempt to learn and just disrupt things for everyone else) revel in it.
This is among the least progressive things I have ever read.  Stupid bottom-feeders, ruining it for your "upper-tier" kids.  Black hats.  White hats.
And I acknowledged as much when I wrote it. Doesn't change the fact that that's how I see it, both in my experience as a student and as an adult. The nice thing about college is that people who don't want to be there don't have to be, and professors can essentially say "shut up or gtfo" to disruptive students.

Quote from: scriver on May 31, 2012, 11:39:36 am
And once again, while you might say breaking and entering "constitutes a threat", yeah, it still isn't enough to attack or kill the intruder, the same way somebody pushing you in a bar is aggressive and threatening but doesn't give you right to send them to the hospital or the morgue. It isn't right to attack and assault an intruder before you know he won't run away when confronted. At the very, very most it could be okay to wrestle and try to detain the intruder causing as little harm to him as humanly possible. Getting a baseball bat, knife, or a gun to use on him does not apply.
I don't see an equivalence to the bar scenario. A bar is public space. Both people have an equal right to be there. A home is not public space. The homeowner has a legal and moral right to be there. A burglar has neither.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 31, 2012, 12:17:57 pm
Quote
. It isn't right to attack and assault an intruder before you know he won't run away when confronted. At the very, very most it could be okay to wrestle and try to detain the intruder causing as little harm to him as humanly possible. Getting a baseball bat, knife, or a gun to use on him does not apply.
It does apply. As RK said, my home is not a public space. I can't assume that the intruder is not violent. I can't assume that the intruder is not armed. I' have no military or police training. As such I don't have any honed reflexes to shoot faster than the other guy if he turns and does have a gun, let alone the skill and physical ability to wrestle him to the ground "with as little harm as possible". In the situation described above, pretty much the only advantage I would have is surprise. And sad to say, and as much as I disagree with the "stereotypical US opinions" in many matters, I have to say that I do agree with the stance on home defense. (I don't think you should be able to hunt down fleeing intruders, or kill someone who is down, but I'm not about to warn a potentially armed intruder of my presence, because he might flee, but he might turn around and shoot me)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on May 31, 2012, 12:35:19 pm
No. It simply isn't morally justifiable to attack someone before you know they pose a threat to you - as said before, this makes you a threat to them and gives them the right to defend themselves from you. Even if it happens in your home. Nobody said that the doing the morally right thing is easy, it never is, but it's still the right thing. This is q scenario where putting yourself in possible danger (by waiting for him to attack) is the right thing, because otherwise you will be attacking a person without reason. It won't be self defence, because there is nothing to defend against yet except your own ghosts.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on May 31, 2012, 12:41:05 pm
And the difference is that to some people "Dude broke into my house and is rifling through my stuff" suggests that he's a reasonable threat.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 01:04:07 pm
Quote from: scriver on May 31, 2012, 12:35:19 pm
This is q scenario where putting yourself in possible danger (by waiting for him to attack) is the right thing, because otherwise you will be attacking a person without reason.

And that's where we're just never going to agree. The reason is "intruder is in my house, illegally". That, in and of itself, constitutes sufficient justification as far as I'm concerned, and in many parts of the United States it's sufficient legal justification as well.

And lest you think that violent home invasions are a rare instance, I checked the local news and we've had at least three in my county just since the start of this year. And this is generally considered a very safe area to live in. If I extended my search to places like Durham and Fayetteville we'd easily be in double-digit occurrences for the year.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 31, 2012, 03:45:39 pm
As one might suspect, I agree with pretty much everything that RedKing has said over the past few pages.

Also, if you added Fayetteville you'd probably get into the triple-digits. That place has got to be one of the most dangerous in NC.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 04:02:09 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 31, 2012, 03:45:39 pm
As one might suspect, I agree with pretty much everything that RedKing has said over the past few pages.

Also, if you added Fayetteville you'd probably get into the triple-digits. That place has got to be one of the most dangerous in NC.
Per capita, Robeson County is the most crime-ridden (down around Lumberton). Of the main cities though, IIRC Charlotte is actually worse than Fayette-nam. We just hear more about Fayetteville due to proximity.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Blargityblarg on May 31, 2012, 09:16:05 pm
I think, again, that we're discussing two different issues here; dealing with an American (generalising here, please forgive me) burglar, and dealing with a European (again, generalising) burglar. In one case, you can be relatively safe in assuming that your mere presence is enough to scare one off, and in the other, you have to pull out the artillery and, instead, shuffle them off.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 01, 2012, 12:57:51 am
You know what, when I look at America, it's so fucked up (not really the guns, but political corruption, climate change denial, religious extremism...) that if it were a fortress, I'd just flood it with magma and start over.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on June 01, 2012, 05:58:31 am
So, moving on. It's a bit too much of a hassle to dig up an article from my phone, but they said on the news last night that Argentina have gone through with legal stuff that makes it possible for any person to choose which gender they want to to under legal-wise, without questions or therapy or anything like that. It's seems like a pretty cool thing from the reportage (but it was also kind of short I guess so I don't know if there are any other catches that wasn't mentioned). Also always neat when "backwards" countries one-up the Western European states like this.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 01, 2012, 07:11:24 am
I wonder why they still bother with keeping track of gender actually. How is it relevant?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 01, 2012, 07:53:35 am
You'd want to keep track of biological sex for medical reasons.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 01, 2012, 07:56:04 am
Keeping it with the census data would be useful for quite a few things, I imagine. Any sort of gender related statistics need to know totals/ratios/etc.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 01, 2012, 08:08:10 am
Yeah, but if you're going to track whatever sex the person decide they are, that has no medical interest.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on June 01, 2012, 08:17:42 am
There might be conditions with statistical association to such data. It's not inherently a bad idea.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 01, 2012, 08:50:55 am
RedKing, you really need to go to your state capital and whack 'em on the head good.  (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/31/493086/north-carolina-bill-would-require-coastal-communities-to-ignore-global-warming-science/?mobile=nc)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 01, 2012, 09:12:34 am
Quote from: Sheb on June 01, 2012, 08:50:55 am
RedKing, you really need to go to your state capital and whack 'em on the head good.  (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/31/493086/north-carolina-bill-would-require-coastal-communities-to-ignore-global-warming-science/?mobile=nc)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7073/7161744040_b070c9cf62.jpg)



I'm not sure which is worse though....our crazy-ass, inbred legislature or the knee-jerk responses attached to that article along the lines of "Haha, stupid crazy-ass, inbred Southerners".  :'(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 01, 2012, 09:17:10 am
Well, the majority of your co-Carolinian (is that even the right way to call them?) did vote for those inbred, crazy-ass politician.

But then you should know better than read internet comment, even if those on thinkprogress a relatively calm.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Jervill on June 01, 2012, 09:27:12 am
College's bank deals saddles students with big fees. (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/05/30/education/deals-with-banks-stack-fees-on-college-students/)

As if students like myself didn't have enough to worry about; and yes, my university has a deal with TCF bank as well.  I declined because I currently bank with a credit union instead; but not everybody has that option.

As for that proposed law in North Carolina...*facepalm.*  Oh well, guess the coastal communities will just have to fall into the sea then.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 01, 2012, 09:39:38 am
Quote from: Sheb on June 01, 2012, 09:17:10 am
Well, the majority of your co-Carolinian (is that even the right way to call them?) did vote for those inbred, crazy-ass politician.

But then you should know better than read internet comment, even if those on thinkprogress a relatively calm.
Well, no...a plurality voted for a number of Tea Party-backed Republicans who insisted all day long that they were interested in one thing: fiscal conservatism. They said they weren't going to Raleigh to thump Bibles or legislate morality or fight the culture war.

They waited maybe a month before throwing that promise out the window and doing shit like requiring a pregnant woman to watch an ultrasound of her fetus before getting an abortion, constitutionally banning any kind of same-sex union ever, and now the latest craze (and I use that term literally) is attempting to thwart any kind of sustainability planning on the basis that it's all a UN conspiracy and "liberal" panic.

My hope is that enough North Carolinians will be disgusted at the bait-and-switch that the GOP will lose control of the state house come November. But if they don't...and we're likely to wind up with a Republican governor....*shudder* Might seriously be time to look at relocation.

@Jervill: Oh, no, no. See a lot of the properties on the Outer Banks are owned by rich people. When the sea begins to swallow up Ocracoke or Hatteras, you can damn well bet they'll be pushing the government to dump millions of tons of sand on the islands to keep them around, at taxpayer expense, so their beach house will be safe. Now the actual communities (i.e. the poor people living in the swamps), they're fucked. As usual.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Delta Foxtrot on June 01, 2012, 09:45:03 am
Quote from: Jervill on June 01, 2012, 09:27:12 am
College's bank deals saddles students with big fees. (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/05/30/education/deals-with-banks-stack-fees-on-college-students/)

As if students like myself didn't have enough to worry about; and yes, my university has a deal with TCF bank as well.  I declined because I currently bank with a credit union instead; but not everybody has that option.

As for that proposed law in North Carolina...*facepalm.*  Oh well, guess the coastal communities will just have to fall into the sea then.

I'm sure there will be some GOP related privately owned new housing in preparation for the flood of new residents in inland NC.

And boy am I glad I'm not a student in the US currently. Seems like you just get fertilizers piled on top of you as the months go by.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 01, 2012, 11:28:27 am
Quote from: Delta Foxtrot on June 01, 2012, 09:45:03 am
Quote from: Jervill on June 01, 2012, 09:27:12 am
College's bank deals saddles students with big fees. (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/05/30/education/deals-with-banks-stack-fees-on-college-students/)

As if students like myself didn't have enough to worry about; and yes, my university has a deal with TCF bank as well.  I declined because I currently bank with a credit union instead; but not everybody has that option.

As for that proposed law in North Carolina...*facepalm.*  Oh well, guess the coastal communities will just have to fall into the sea then.

I'm sure there will be some GOP related privately owned new housing in preparation for the flood of new residents in inland NC.

And boy am I glad I'm not a student in the US currently. Seems like you just get fertilizers piled on top of you as the months go by.

Yup, and the student loan rate just doubled today, June 1st because the Congress did absolutely nothing about it. From 3.4% to 6.8%.... This was in the news a few weeks ago, but frankly, then it just dropped off the radar.... I think it was because Congress had no intention of doing anything about it/the gridlock was too much. Students are basically screwed in the U.S, as it seems, are people who recently graduated. Then of course there's the people the schools blatantly lied to http://finance.yahoo.com/news/this-bright-eyed-young-man-was-utterly-demolished-by-student-loans.html . This is somehow allowed, accepted, and encouraged with some interest rates of 17%.... Nevermind that that student loan debt collectors have legal powers that would make the mob jealous.

Quite frankly, if this would've happened to mortgage rates, people would be up and arms. But, you know, since it's "just" student loan debt, fuck those kids.... :(

Quite frankly, between prisons, roads, schools, and everything else, I'm getting rather sick of this "privatization" thing. It's about time for a wave of renationalization, at least of the prisons, and probably for more things.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 01, 2012, 04:50:29 pm
Quote from: Sheb on June 01, 2012, 08:50:55 am
RedKing, you really need to go to your state capital and whack 'em on the head good.  (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/31/493086/north-carolina-bill-would-require-coastal-communities-to-ignore-global-warming-science/?mobile=nc)
I'm getting an absolutely hilarious mental image of the future, where NC has followed that law and all the surrounding states have built a two or so meter wall along the border. Folks sitting on top of the wall fishing where there used to be a state, now an oversized bay.

Anyone voting yes on that thing should be legally required to live in an NC costal town for the remainder of their lives :-\

Quote from: Truean on June 01, 2012, 11:28:27 am
Quite frankly, between prisons, roads, schools, and everything else, I'm getting rather sick of this "privatization" thing. It's about time for a wave of renationalization, at least of the prisons, and probably for more things.
Here bloody here.

'course, it won't happen because people would rather the roads and schools break down and our incarceration rate go even higher instead of pay more taxes, never mind it'd probably save them money to jack the rate a bit and provide better infrastructure and so on. Bleh.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 01, 2012, 05:24:18 pm
Quote from: Frumple on June 01, 2012, 04:50:29 pm
I'm getting an absolutely hilarious mental image of the future, where NC has followed that law and all the surrounding states have built a two or so meter wall along the border. Folks sitting on top of the wall fishing where there used to be a state, now an oversized bay.
Actually, even if all the ice on Earth melted, more than half of NC would still be above water. And my city would be beachfront property.  8)
Quote
Anyone voting yes on that thing should be legally required to live in an NC costal town for the remainder of their lives :-\
That is not even remotely a punishment. It would take a few decades of ice melt at the least to actually make that a punishment.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 01, 2012, 05:33:01 pm
meh. I bought a house with an elevation of 29 feet. I almost want the AGW deniers to be right.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Fenrir on June 01, 2012, 05:38:34 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 01, 2012, 05:33:01 pm
I almost want the AGW deniers to be right.
I think everyone does.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 01, 2012, 05:45:56 pm
Honestly, I think we just need a megaproject or 17 to employ all these people and coastal whatever would do the trick. Shit you could make them into tidal power generators and that'd be essentially another TVA work project. Sure the total price tag on those nationwide megaprojects would be about... I'd estimate $3 Trillion, but we spent that on 2 wars we got nothing out of. At least this way we'd have something to show for it, and if we actually had financial advisers for people, then we could move towards that "free market" no one understands but everyone is raving about. It sorta requires "perfect information," but we're a country where people spend $40/week on pizza and wonder why they're fat and broke....

Deficit? At this point, doing nothing won't reduce it. Trying something to stimulate things might actually. Let's conserve our energy in this hole rather than dig....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 01, 2012, 07:15:55 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 01, 2012, 05:24:18 pm
Quote from: Frumple on June 01, 2012, 04:50:29 pm
I'm getting an absolutely hilarious mental image of the future, where NC has followed that law and all the surrounding states have built a two or so meter wall along the border. Folks sitting on top of the wall fishing where there used to be a state, now an oversized bay.
Actually, even if all the ice on Earth melted, more than half of NC would still be above water. And my city would be beachfront property.  8)
Does this hold true if other locations on Earth actually build proper coastal barriers, concentrating the amount of water that winds up in NC?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 02, 2012, 04:51:59 am
Well, the total area of land that'll go under is negligible compared to the area of ocean, so yes.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 05, 2012, 11:08:01 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/scott-walker-fights-retain-governorship-wisconsin-recall-010044710.html

So the following just happened here:

a.) "Citizens United" lead to massive money influencing elections.
b.) People have proven themselves so stupid as to cut all public unions including police, fire and notoriously low teacher's salaries....
c.) Democrazy fails yet again.

People want X.... And? A 3 year old wants candy, you don't just give it to them.... Cutting police funding in a recession where people are desperate is insane....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 05, 2012, 11:22:56 pm
Should be interesting to see what the fallout is. Wonder what sort of stat tracking is going on, hum.

Wisconsin's apparently to go on the list, though. Kinda' wondering how large my "states-to-avoid" list is going to get :-\
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: sluissa on June 05, 2012, 11:23:20 pm
I think it should be quite obvious by now, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in, that a 50-something percent majority of the vote does NOT mean everyone loves you and you were saying the right things/making the right decisions. It just means slightly more than half the people prefer the perceived you over the perceived opponent. Plenty of those people voting for walker could have been against the public employee crap Walker pulled, yet for one reason or another just didn't want to vote for the other side.

I know it's a broken record at this point, but how did things get so god damned polarized. Where is the middle ground? Why aren't people able to do something moderate. I can ALMOST understand it in some situations where it's a definite one side or the other case. (The few that there are.) But Walker could have easily backed down on the Union thing, he could have easily reconsidered his budget cuts into something less drastic and I bet a lot of people would have been "Okay, that'll work for us." Rather, he chooses the path that says. "Hey, you people complaining?  Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Yeah... you're all idiots. I got voted back in, so it proves it."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 05, 2012, 11:39:13 pm
Quote from: Truean on June 05, 2012, 11:08:01 pm
Cutting police funding in a recession where people are desperate is insane....
I disagree. The police have too much funding as is in this nation. SWAT teams for every small town in America is a horrible idea that wouldn't be possible if the police were forced to make due with less.

Cutting fire services and teachers is bad, though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 06, 2012, 12:02:58 am
Definitely a disappointing result. Oh well, I guess I don't have to go through the effort of shortening my list of reasons to never go to Wisconsin.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: sluissa on June 06, 2012, 12:51:45 am
Police do often get too much funding, but I wouldn't generally say it's the SWAT teams that are the biggest drain. Around here each  officer got a radiation detector and a hazmat suit. Also got absolutely no training to go along with them. SWAT teams are a relatively small, precision tool to be used for some very important and not uncommon situations. It's also a situation where officers are actually getting extra training. Money could be saved on expensive toys, but I'd just as soon put all that same money back into training and internal oversight programs to keep departments accountable.

Firefighter and Teacher funding, I'll also say it's generally bad to cut those as well, but I'm certainly biased there.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on June 06, 2012, 01:20:01 am
Hey, sorry to derail the current discussion, but I think this is kinda huge.

The (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/01/doma-unconstitutional-ruling_n_1560780.html) 'Defense (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/doma-unconstitutional-ruling-appeals-court-boston_n_1559031.html) of Marriage (http://nextgenjournal.com/2012/06/doma-unconstitutional-and-discriminatory/) Act' (DOMA) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/unanimous-appeals-court-ruling-doma-unconstitutional/2012/05/31/gJQAnufp4U_blog.html) was just (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act) unanimously declared unconstitutional by the 1st circuit court of appeals. (http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/)

(Sources and relevant scattered throughout.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on June 06, 2012, 01:23:05 am
Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on June 06, 2012, 01:20:01 am
Hey, sorry to derail the current discussion, but I think this is kinda huge.

The (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/01/doma-unconstitutional-ruling_n_1560780.html) 'Defense (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/doma-unconstitutional-ruling-appeals-court-boston_n_1559031.html) of Marriage (http://nextgenjournal.com/2012/06/doma-unconstitutional-and-discriminatory/) Act' (DOMA) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/unanimous-appeals-court-ruling-doma-unconstitutional/2012/05/31/gJQAnufp4U_blog.html) was just (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act) unanimously declared unconstitutional by the 1st circuit court of appeals. (http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/)

(Sources and relevant scattered throughout.)
Two words:
HELL. YES.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on June 06, 2012, 01:24:16 am
Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on June 06, 2012, 01:20:01 am
Hey, sorry to derail the current discussion, but I think this is kinda huge.

The (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/01/doma-unconstitutional-ruling_n_1560780.html) 'Defense (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/doma-unconstitutional-ruling-appeals-court-boston_n_1559031.html) of Marriage (http://nextgenjournal.com/2012/06/doma-unconstitutional-and-discriminatory/) Act' (DOMA) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/unanimous-appeals-court-ruling-doma-unconstitutional/2012/05/31/gJQAnufp4U_blog.html) was just (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act) unanimously declared unconstitutional by the 1st circuit court of appeals. (http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/)

(Sources and relevant scattered throughout.)
I just have one word:

HUZZAH!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2012, 01:30:59 am
Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on June 06, 2012, 01:20:01 am
Hey, sorry to derail the current discussion, but I think this is kinda huge.

The (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/01/doma-unconstitutional-ruling_n_1560780.html) 'Defense (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/doma-unconstitutional-ruling-appeals-court-boston_n_1559031.html) of Marriage (http://nextgenjournal.com/2012/06/doma-unconstitutional-and-discriminatory/) Act' (DOMA) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/unanimous-appeals-court-ruling-doma-unconstitutional/2012/05/31/gJQAnufp4U_blog.html) was just (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act) unanimously declared unconstitutional by the 1st circuit court of appeals. (http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/)

(Sources and relevant scattered throughout.)
*record scratch*

I....I did not see that coming.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Pnx on June 06, 2012, 02:02:18 am
That is big news, of course it could be rendered completely moot by the SCOTUS pretty soon. I honestly have no clue how they're going to rule on this.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2012, 02:04:37 am
It violates the Equal Protection Clause. That's not even arguable. It's kind of a shock that DOMA lasted this long. I predict either an 8-1 or 9-0 ruling from SCOTUS, depending upon how arch-conservative Thomas is feeling that day.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 06, 2012, 03:35:13 am
So, hang on, let me get this...

So, in the USA, you have a President who by your standards is Liberal. He has to deal with a pair of legislative houses that are on the whole pretty Conservative. As a result his hands are pretty tied, and bills like DOMA get passed. Add into this an apparent majority of states with Conservantive govenors. Standing along side this are the Supreme Cout Judges, who apparently have thier heads screwed on most of the time and filter out the worst Conservative bullshit.

How in the hell does anything actually get done in terms of running the country?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2012, 03:44:54 am
Actually DOMA was passed back in 1996, under Clinton's presidency. Obama decided to tell the Justice Dpt. not to defend it in court, which probably helped in the 1st circuit.

Now, nothing much get done, except when everybody agree on something, which is usually on corporate-backed bills with bipartisan support (see SOPA)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on June 06, 2012, 03:45:19 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on June 06, 2012, 03:35:13 am
How in the hell does anything actually get done in terms of running the country?
Mostly? It doesn't.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Jervill on June 06, 2012, 08:43:18 am
Good news about DOMA, and there is a silver lining to the recall elections in Wisconsin.  The Democrats did retake the Wisconsin state senate, so that's a consolation prize.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 06, 2012, 09:43:24 am
Quote from: Scelly9 on June 06, 2012, 03:45:19 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on June 06, 2012, 03:35:13 am
How in the hell does anything actually get done in terms of running the country?
Mostly? It doesn't.

^^
This. Unless as Sheb said, there's a ton of money behind it. The country seems to be for sale and selling out....
___________________________________________________________________________________________________


http://gma.yahoo.com/water-polo-coach-claims-fired-being-gay-185237998--abc-news-wellness.html

And, he probably was fired for being gay.... Let's see how the lawsuit comes out.... This is yet another instance of the mass slander suffered by gay people who are often called pedophiles. For some reason, many people can't get it through their head that they are NOT the same thing.

The U.S. subject to corporate purchase; civil rights subject to the voting habits of dullards...?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on June 06, 2012, 10:46:05 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on June 06, 2012, 03:35:13 am
So, in the USA, you have a President who by your standards is Liberal.
Only recently, it seems. Otherwise he's seemed to be more moderate than I'd like, but I suppose he's had to be.

Quote from: MonkeyHead on June 06, 2012, 03:35:13 am
How in the hell does anything actually get done in terms of running the country?
Exactly. (http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20061007.gif)

Quote from: Truean on June 06, 2012, 09:43:24 am
And, he probably was fired for being gay.... Let's see how the lawsuit comes out.... (http://gma.yahoo.com/water-polo-coach-claims-fired-being-gay-185237998--abc-news-wellness.html)
Although California isn't quite the same as Ohio, what do you think his legal chances are?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 06, 2012, 11:03:57 am
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Jervill on June 06, 2012, 11:08:03 am
Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on June 06, 2012, 10:46:05 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on June 06, 2012, 03:35:13 am
So, in the USA, you have a President who by your standards is Liberal.
Only recently, it seems. Otherwise he's seemed to be more moderate than I'd like, but I suppose he's had to be.

If you want to know the actual American Left, look to the Congressional Progressive Caucus.  Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota-5) and Raul Grijalva (D-Arizona-7) are the co-chairs of the caucus.  In the Senate, Bernie Sanders (Independent Socialist-Vermont) is the furthest left.

And some good news from yesterday, as Public Policy Polling released a poll showing the marriage amendment in Minnesota losing support.  There was a Survey USA poll last month that showed about the same results, but I wanted to wait until another pollster could back it up.  Currently 44% support making it illegal for gays to marry, while 49% oppose it.  I checked the sample, and it's not overly Dem friendly. (The sample says they voted for Obama by 9, he won the state by 10 in 2008.) 

I trust both PPP and Survey USA; they've been extremely accurate the past couple of cycles in Minnesota, so I see no reason to doubt these polls.

Public Policy Polling's press release (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/06/minnesotans-opposition-to-marriage-amendment-growing.html#more)

Survey USA poll (mid May) (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c282066c-596c-49eb-b973-904e66a2998d)

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Miggy on June 07, 2012, 09:28:38 am
(http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/576675_10150868308857773_1508353439_n.jpg)

This is the danish parliament's vote for whether or not same-sex couples should be able to be married in the church.

Denmark is one of the few countries left in the western world that has an official government-sponsored religion (in the same boat as Iceland and England). This might seem backwards when compared to secular countries and their constitutions, but seeing as Denmark is more or less completely atheist, this leads to some amusing results.

Homosexual couples getting recognised as couples by the government has been going on for a long time in Denmark (I think we were one of the first countries to introduce it as an option), but there's always been the problem of the churches not officially recognising homosexual weddings. However, seeing as the church is sponsored and run by the danish government, the parliament has now voted that the church has to wed homosexual couples, whether they want to or not. When some anti-gay priests tried to defend themselves saying there are no rituals or vows in the church literature to be used for homosexual weddings, the government was clear: "Then just make some".

And so it has been voted in the danish parliament that the danish church must wed homosexuals on par with heterosexuals.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Twi on June 07, 2012, 09:52:05 am
So basically, Denmark has managed to not separate church and state without the church getting silly amounts of power?

(In feudal Europe, church runs government. In soviet modern Denmark, government runs church!)

Also, huzzah.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 07, 2012, 10:10:57 am
Meanwhile in North Carolina....state Senate voted to move forward with a proposal to allow hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") in central North Carolina. Because jobs, jobs, JOBS! Fuck the water supply! If you have a job, you can always buy bottled water! And energy independence and shit! "You don't want to be beholden to some Ayatollah with a name you can't pronounce" (this is an honest-to-God quote from one of the frackers).

And how deep and vast are these quantites of natural gas, you ask? About five years' worth. (http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2012/may/22/estimates-lowered-ncs-natural-gas-supply-ar-2299629/) Of what the state currently uses. So in other words, drop in the motherfuckin' bucket. Glad I don't live in the three counties most likely to get drilled, but I wouldn't put it past some wildcatters to just start drilling every goddamn place looking for something. After all, it's not like there's any safety regulations involved...>_<

I've got my bags half-packed. If I can find a good job somewhere else, I'm fucking taking it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on June 07, 2012, 10:17:48 am
Hehe, same situation the Swedish Church found itself in back when we legalised it some years ago.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 07, 2012, 10:59:47 am
Oh good, exploding, toxic water and localized earthquakes for everyone in the state. That's just....peachy.

Well, perhaps having all these horrible things happen will finally drill (pun intended) it into the heads of rural North Carolinians that fracking is a bad thing and that you can't just exploit your way out of a global energy crisis.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 07, 2012, 11:22:16 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 07, 2012, 10:59:47 am
Oh good, exploding, toxic water and localized earthquakes for everyone in the state. That's just....peachy.

Well, perhaps having all these horrible things happen will finally drill (pun intended) it into the heads of rural North Carolinians that fracking is a bad thing and that you can't just exploit your way out of a global energy crisis.
Nah, they'll just blame the stomach cancer on rock music. And thanks to their Mirror Universe counterparts in Iran, we know that the earthquakes are caused by boobs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boobquake).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on June 07, 2012, 11:31:51 am
Well, at least you'll be able to post awesome videos of you burning your own tap water and post them here for us to enjoy.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 07, 2012, 11:36:34 am
I don't think you understand. Fracking puts methane gas in the water. When I say that it can explode, I do mean that it can explode.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 07, 2012, 11:36:50 am
So some far right Greek politician punched one of his political opponents on a talk show (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0607/breaking17.html).

I'm not sure if there's any actual discussion to be had here, but everyone take a moment to shake your head in disappointment. There are people who elected this guy. Apparently this party has been accused of being neo-Nazis and committing violence against immigrants. Greece is so screwed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 07, 2012, 11:49:06 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 07, 2012, 11:36:34 am
I don't think you understand. Fracking puts methane gas in the water. When I say that it can explode, I do mean that it can explode.

Not really. Methanized (invented word) water can barely burn. My fathers parents farm in Michigan had it. Its less flamable than hard alcohol. Its like carbonated rotten egg flavored soda that produces a pale blue flame.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 07, 2012, 12:00:25 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 07, 2012, 11:49:06 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 07, 2012, 11:36:34 am
I don't think you understand. Fracking puts methane gas in the water. When I say that it can explode, I do mean that it can explode.

Not really. Methanized (invented word) water can barely burn. My fathers parents farm in Michigan had it. Its less flamable than hard alcohol. Its like carbonated rotten egg flavored soda that produces a pale blue flame.

I'd just as soon keep flames of any kind or color out of my water, thank you.

That does raise an interesting question though: what do you use to fight fires if the damn water is flammable?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Twi on June 07, 2012, 12:04:55 pm
Quote from: Truean on June 07, 2012, 12:00:25 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 07, 2012, 11:49:06 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 07, 2012, 11:36:34 am
I don't think you understand. Fracking puts methane gas in the water. When I say that it can explode, I do mean that it can explode.

Not really. Methanized (invented word) water can barely burn. My fathers parents farm in Michigan had it. Its less flamable than hard alcohol. Its like carbonated rotten egg flavored soda that produces a pale blue flame.

I'd just as soon keep flames of any kind or color out of my water, thank you.

That does raise an interesting question though: what do you use to fight fires if the damn water is flammable?
Carbon dioxide and/or foam.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 07, 2012, 12:36:40 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 07, 2012, 11:49:06 am
Not really. Methanized (invented word) water can barely burn. My fathers parents farm in Michigan had it. Its less flamable than hard alcohol. Its like carbonated rotten egg flavored soda that produces a pale blue flame.

I believe the explosions are generally due to buildups of methane pockets in the pipes, sewers, or buildings the water travels though, leeching from the water as it goes, until it builds up enough that explosions become possible.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on June 07, 2012, 12:45:59 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on June 07, 2012, 11:36:50 am
So some far right Greek politician punched one of his political opponents on a talk show (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0607/breaking17.html).

I'm not sure if there's any actual discussion to be had here, but everyone take a moment to shake your head in disappointment. There are people who elected this guy. Apparently this party has been accused of being neo-Nazis and committing violence against immigrants. Greece is so screwed.

Oh. My. God.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 07, 2012, 12:50:39 pm
Not that surprised. The Greek military (especially Special Forces) tends to think of Communists as "good target practice" rather than a valid political party. Ironically, their rivals over in Turkey are of the same mind.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 07, 2012, 12:51:57 pm
So hang on... a country in economic meltdown, isolated from its neighbours and in huge amounts of debt to them, with right wing politicians being elected into positions of power. Haven't we had that before somewhere, and didn't it end really badly?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 07, 2012, 12:55:58 pm
Difference being that precisely no one is terrified of the mighty Hellenic legions. Well...maybe Macedonia.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 07, 2012, 01:00:05 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on June 07, 2012, 11:36:50 am
So some far right Greek politician punched one of his political opponents on a talk show (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0607/breaking17.html).

I'm not sure if there's any actual discussion to be had here, but everyone take a moment to shake your head in disappointment. There are people who elected this guy. Apparently this party has been accused of being neo-Nazis and committing violence against immigrants. Greece is so screwed.
Eep. According to that article, it seems they were throwing petty insults for a while until the guy exploded and started throwing punches instead. I'm shaking my head in disappointment all around, since they seem incapable of real debate (and it being a talk show doesn't really excuse that). That dude's just the worst of 'em.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on June 07, 2012, 01:18:36 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on June 07, 2012, 12:51:57 pm
So hang on... a country in economic meltdown, isolated from its neighbours and in huge amounts of debt to them, with right wing politicians being elected into positions of power. Haven't we had that before somewhere, and didn't it end really badly?

As if we didn't have enough parallels to pre war period already...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 07, 2012, 01:40:28 pm
Quote from: scriver on June 07, 2012, 01:18:36 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on June 07, 2012, 12:51:57 pm
So hang on... a country in economic meltdown, isolated from its neighbours and in huge amounts of debt to them, with right wing politicians being elected into positions of power. Haven't we had that before somewhere, and didn't it end really badly?

As if we didn't have enough parallels to pre war period already...
They even have an ominous sounding name and ex-military membership. The Golden Dawn. Damn. Even Hitler didn't name things that ominously.

Wish I had a political party that sounded that interesting.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on June 07, 2012, 02:32:22 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on June 07, 2012, 12:51:57 pm
So hang on... a country in economic meltdown, isolated from its neighbours and in huge amounts of debt to them, with right wing politicians being elected into positions of power. Haven't we had that before somewhere, and didn't it end really badly?
Godwin's Law. You lose.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 07, 2012, 02:45:07 pm
Quote from: Sirus on June 07, 2012, 02:32:22 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on June 07, 2012, 12:51:57 pm
So hang on... a country in economic meltdown, isolated from its neighbours and in huge amounts of debt to them, with right wing politicians being elected into positions of power. Haven't we had that before somewhere, and didn't it end really badly?
Godwin's Law. You lose.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/regarding_mussolini.png)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 07, 2012, 03:42:32 pm
One key difference between Greece and Germany is that Germany is/was  an economic powerhouse and is/was technologically very strong.  Greece... isn't really either of those things.  Them attempting to start WW3 would cause more laughter than worry.

Quote from: Miggy on June 07, 2012, 09:28:38 am
And so it has been voted in the danish parliament that the danish church must wed homosexuals on par with heterosexuals.
Excellent.  I guess we're a long way off but at least there should be marriage equality in the UK soon.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 07, 2012, 03:54:39 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 07, 2012, 01:00:05 pm
Eep. According to that article, it seems they were throwing petty insults for a while until the guy exploded and started throwing punches instead. I'm shaking my head in disappointment all around, since they seem incapable of real debate (and it being a talk show doesn't really excuse that). That dude's just the worst of 'em.

I'm not surprised anymore when politicians are incapable of real debate.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 07, 2012, 03:59:43 pm
I am surprised when politicians resort to violence though unless they are far-right extremists (or maybe from Thailand).  Like this guy.  It just goes naturally with the philosophy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 07, 2012, 04:03:36 pm
I've heard something about some neonazis in Europe getting violent recently, on a related note. Let's see if I can find that again...

Oh yeah, here's some soccer stuff (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18192375) and here's some protesting (http://www.rt.com/news/hamburg-clashes-leftists-neo-nazis-853/). It doesn't seem uncommon.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Twi on June 07, 2012, 04:25:08 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on June 07, 2012, 03:59:43 pm
I am surprised when politicians resort to violence though unless they are far-right extremists (or maybe from Thailand).  Like this guy.  It just goes naturally with the philosophy.

I wouldn't be surprised if he did crazy things like that when he, y'know, wasn't on a talk show.

As it is, I am still surprised.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 07, 2012, 04:27:14 pm
Neonazi's are getting violent? When did they stop being violent long enough to get violent again?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 07, 2012, 06:17:40 pm
Yeah.  Neonazis have been violent pretty much since their inception.  There are videos of Nick Griffin getting into fights while attempting to get new voters - it seems like they just can't stop themselves.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 07, 2012, 06:26:53 pm
When people say that Neo-Nazis are getting violent it usually indicates that they are planning a hostile takeover of the government.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on June 07, 2012, 06:32:24 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 07, 2012, 06:26:53 pm
When people say that Neo-Nazis are getting violent it usually indicates that they are planning a hostile takeover of the government.
Aren't they always? :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 07, 2012, 06:44:59 pm
Quote from: Sirus on June 07, 2012, 06:32:24 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 07, 2012, 06:26:53 pm
When people say that Neo-Nazis are getting violent it usually indicates that they are planning a hostile takeover of the government.
Aren't they always? :P
As I understand it they usually stick to racially motivated violence rather than revolutionary fervor.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on June 07, 2012, 07:09:24 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 07, 2012, 06:44:59 pm
Quote from: Sirus on June 07, 2012, 06:32:24 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 07, 2012, 06:26:53 pm
When people say that Neo-Nazis are getting violent it usually indicates that they are planning a hostile takeover of the government.
Aren't they always? :P
As I understand it they usually stick to racially motivated violence rather than revolutionary fervor.
There's always a few nutjobs plotting governmental overthrow, and some of those are usually of a Neo-Nazi bent. But you're right, I was mostly being factitious.
(I really hope that was the right word at the end).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 07, 2012, 07:13:06 pm
Facetious = making a joke.
Factitious = being fake.
Factious = Relating to a faction or group.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on June 07, 2012, 07:22:38 pm
I was trying to use the word "facetious" but I failed D:
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 08, 2012, 10:39:01 pm
God damn it! 1984 was not a fucking instruction manual!

http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/12/06/09/0012247/intel-to-launch-tv-service-with-facial-recognition-by-end-of-the-year
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 08, 2012, 11:38:27 pm
Jeez. Why is it that every third technology I hear about makes me wonder if I'll spend my days after 2020 or so consuming only "classic" media that wasn't designed to be compatible only with surveillance equipment. Of course, I do know that if that happens it'll only be because said surveillance wasn't feasible any earlier, but still.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on June 10, 2012, 03:21:25 am
Quote from: Bauglir on June 08, 2012, 11:38:27 pm
Jeez. Why is it that every third technology I hear about makes me wonder if I'll spend my days after 2020 or so consuming only "classic" media that wasn't designed to be compatible only with surveillance equipment. Of course, I do know that if that happens it'll only be because said surveillance wasn't feasible any earlier, but still.
I'll be taking apart everything and disabling all the cameras.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 10, 2012, 07:33:37 am
Quote from: Nadaka on June 08, 2012, 10:39:01 pm
God damn it! 1984 was not a fucking instruction manual!

http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/12/06/09/0012247/intel-to-launch-tv-service-with-facial-recognition-by-end-of-the-year

The fact that some jerk thought this was a good idea.... This is the problem with a company centric philosophy. Sure, it's great FOR THE COMPANY and it sucks for every one of the customers. Why the flying shit do they think people want a camera in their house looking at them all the time? What is the benefit TO THE CUSTOMER? Have they even so much as considered something to simple as an off switch.

Can the police use this to track you? (I'm dead serious). How does this interact with the fourth amendment?

Wow, you know what'd be even simpler, mind numbingly simpler for targeting adds to customers you want: paying them to take a survey of adds. No, really. $10 or $20 a month off your satellite or cable bill to fill out basic ad demographics. Also pick what adds you'd most want to watch v. what adds you most DON'T wanna watch. IF they can customize the ads you are shown on TV, then this is by far an easier, simpler, cheaper and lower tech way of doing it. Hell, Hulu does this already in a way when they "let you chose your ad experience." Do you know how much more money companies can charge for advertising space they KNOW their customers actually WANT to watch? Tons.

Technology is not brilliant, only certain applications of it are.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 10, 2012, 09:37:50 am
I wonder what ads will get targeted at the adhesive side of a piece of duct tape.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 10, 2012, 09:51:49 am
"So, I see you like duct tape... Have you considered trying new imporved super duct tape?"
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 10, 2012, 10:13:54 am
Quote from: Bauglir on June 10, 2012, 09:37:50 am
I wonder what ads will get targeted at the adhesive side of a piece of duct tape.

Citizen, your camera appears to be blocked and nonfunctional.  Your media stream will be disabled until such a time as your camera is unblocked or repaired. Please not that attempts to bypass this system are considered theft, and you will prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Thank you.

*kshhhh - click*
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 10, 2012, 10:51:13 am
Put a poster in front of it?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 10, 2012, 01:52:10 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on June 10, 2012, 09:51:49 am
"So, I see you like duct tape... Have you considered trying new imporved super duct tape?"

Well clearly, adds for more duct tape and of course duct tape removal. You'll also get UPS packaging tape, scotch tape, VHS to DVD to blueray to computer file conversion services, and of course Pepsi.

That's actually wishful thinking as you'll undoubtedly get the worst, most undesirable, most embarrassing adds possible until you take the tape off the camera.

Quite frankly I see this as a good thing for all you computery people out there with computery skills, because you can sell/distribute on a site with adspace of your own a program that makes the camera think it seems the stereotypical 2.5 kid and 2 parent family. The real question will be what will it market to half a kid.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on June 10, 2012, 01:58:48 pm
Quote
The real question will be what will it market to half a kid.
Dating websites, obviously.
"Find your other half!"

I'll get my coat.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 10, 2012, 02:15:39 pm
What would be fun would be putting pics of politicians and other famous people in front of the cam' and see what ads come up. Now, why would people buy that thing anyway?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 10, 2012, 03:54:16 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/creflo-dollar-denies-punching-choking-daughter-154645000.html

This hits way to close to home for me. There are a crap ton of people defending this man.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 10, 2012, 04:40:23 pm
I'll just point out that public opinion means squat in high profile cases like this. You and I have less evidence than any court does. "Sensationalism" is actually a pretty good word for it.


Let the courts decide guilt.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 10, 2012, 04:48:27 pm
When I say "people are defending him", I mean people saying he has the god given right to beat and strangle his children for whatever reason he sees fit.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 10, 2012, 04:50:13 pm
Oh, okay. Yeah domestic abuse is no good.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 10, 2012, 05:57:27 pm
http://www.cleveland.com/consumeraffairs/index.ssf/2012/04/kasich_signs_hb_275_-_ohios_co.html

..... Damn it.

Let me explain this simply. Fly by night businesses are bastards and hard to catch. When one goes down, two more pop up, so you need extremely tough laws to beat the shit out of them, and then beat the shit out of them some more and just for good measure, beat the hell out of them a lil more. We're talking the people who never finish work they started, or take advantage of old people, or screw  up so bad you have to sue them, or all of the above. And now, who is the state governor protecting: them.

Ohio now has some of the weakest consumer protection laws in the country. Damn it. What is wrong with these politicians? Why did they think the laws were written so strictly? Could it have been that there was a reason over 40 years of law were put in place?

Consumer protection law goes after con men and rip off artists, people who screw grandma and grandpa out of their life savings over junk, people who tell you they fix your car only to make it worse and more expensive for another mechanic to fix later.

Then of course, there's the fact that these people are professionals who have knowledge you don't that you rely upon. I shouldn't HAVE to try to figure out if the guy replacing my roof is out to screw me. I can't see up there easily, he can hide the shitty work he did under the shingles and actively conceal the problem until a rainstorm comes by when the whole damn thing leaks like hell.

No, screw it. If granny gets swindled by some slick salesman because she's old and frail and ends up with nothing, or if some con man contractor charges you for the privilege of ruining your roof rather than repairing it, you should be hosed.

Clearly, these are the "businesses" we should be changing decades of well established laws to protect, right? I guess corporations are people too, and as for the actual living people they screw over, well... .screw 'em. Granny should've known better than to hire someone without climbing up on her roof herself to check it in person.... And the trebble (triple) punishment damages and paying for the lawyer to go after these frauds.... Meh. Let 'em slide; not like we have to fund anything.... Because we all know the "Free market" with 0 regulation will fix all the billions of dollars in consumer fraud out there....

[massive sigh]

So basically it got incredibly hard to sue somebody in Ohio for ripping you off, cause the governor and legislature just put a poison pill into the law....

______________________________________________________________

Jail the poor http://www.ohio.com/news/local/summit-county-to-crack-down-on-beggars-1.313226 ....
____________________________________________________________________________________________
http://ndagainst3.com/

Honestly, I thought Ohio was progressively slow. Look at what North Dakota votes on tomorrow. I can't believe this is really happening in 2012.

North Dakota needs sanity! Tomorrow, June 12th, voters are voting on Measure 3:

■ Men could be allowed to marry girls, as young as 12, in the name of religion.
■ An employer could fire an unmarried pregnant woman simply because of the employer’s religious beliefs.
■ A man could claim domestic violence laws don’t apply to him because his religion teaches that a husband has the right to discipline his family, including his wife and children as he sees fit.
■ A parent who believes in faith healing could to deny critical medical treatment to a seriously ill child.
■ Simply put, people could break our laws in the name of religious freedom, including laws on non-discrimination, domestic violence and child abuse.

Lovely.... Tell me again how religion is repressed in the US? Better yet, don't....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 11, 2012, 02:10:37 pm
Have we talked about Florida Gov Rick Scott purging latino from the voter registries?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/28/491120/how-florida-governor-rick-scott-could-steal-the-election-for-mitt-romney/
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 11, 2012, 02:21:03 pm
Quote from: Truean on June 10, 2012, 05:57:27 pm
■ A man could claim domestic violence laws don’t apply to him because his religion teaches that a husband has the right to discipline his family, including his wife and children as he sees fit.
■ A parent who believes in faith healing could to deny critical medical treatment to a seriously ill child.
Note that is already the case in Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming. See the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1973, which formerly required states to enact religious exemptions to child abuse and medical treatment laws in order to receive a portion of their federal funding. The act was amended in 1996 to no longer require this, but most of the states retain their exemptions, which to my knowledge are still valid as a defense in a court of law.

Thank fucking god (pun intended) that NC isn't on that list, somehow.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on June 11, 2012, 02:23:07 pm
*spittake*
CALIFORNIA?! Aw man, my state usually seems so much better than that! D:
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 11, 2012, 02:53:10 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 11, 2012, 02:54:25 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 11, 2012, 02:21:03 pm
Quote from: Truean on June 10, 2012, 05:57:27 pm
■ A man could claim domestic violence laws don’t apply to him because his religion teaches that a husband has the right to discipline his family, including his wife and children as he sees fit.
■ A parent who believes in faith healing could to deny critical medical treatment to a seriously ill child.
Note that is already the case in Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming. See the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1973, which formerly required states to enact religious exemptions to child abuse and medical treatment laws in order to receive a portion of their federal funding. The act was amended in 1996 to no longer require this, but most of the states retain their exemptions, which to my knowledge are still valid as a defense in a court of law.

Thank fucking god (pun intended) that NC isn't on that list, somehow.
Yeah, well....child abuse enforcement and prosecution in NC essentially followed that line of thinking for a LONG time. The gist of it was "Oh, he broke the kid's nose? Well....we can't be a-tellin' a man how to run his house, but we can't have that either. Give him a couple of weeks' probation to show we mean business. Oh, and get that kid a Kleenex, he's bleeding all over the place and making a mess."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on June 11, 2012, 03:13:10 pm
Ah hell. Truean, I almost missed that because you edited it in, but that is absolutely horrible. I can't believe it hasn't been brought up in the news over here... Maybe they're waiting to see if it passes. But yeah... I don't understand what goes through their mind. You think it goes for Muslims too? I want to see how they react the first time somebody claims innocence because of sharia.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 11, 2012, 03:24:50 pm
Quote from: scriver on June 11, 2012, 03:13:10 pm
You think it goes for Muslims too? I want to see how they react the first time somebody claims innocence because of sharia.
"Your honor, the spirit of this law is clearly intended only to protect the expression of nonviolent religious freedom under religions that fit within American cultural history, not violent cults."

Not saying that would work out in court, but that's my prediction for an anti-sharia argument if this law were to pass. Not to say that actually applying sharia is a good thing either, but in theory this law would legitimize it. Kind of a surprising hole in the law they have there, but there's no way they say that the law only applies to Christians without it being immediately struck down by the courts as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, as much as I'm sure they'd love to.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 11, 2012, 03:27:51 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 11, 2012, 02:21:03 pm
Quote from: Truean on June 10, 2012, 05:57:27 pm
■ A man could claim domestic violence laws don’t apply to him because his religion teaches that a husband has the right to discipline his family, including his wife and children as he sees fit.
■ A parent who believes in faith healing could to deny critical medical treatment to a seriously ill child.
Note that is already the case in ... Ohio, ....

It used to but lately they've taken a much harder stance on this. Somebody will report your ass to child protective services or call the cops and stuff will go down. Gives a whole new meaning to "battered wives' syndrome" though doesn't it?

Quote from: scriver on June 11, 2012, 03:13:10 pm
Ah hell. Truean, I almost missed that because you edited it in, but that is absolutely horrible. I can't believe it hasn't been brought up in the news over here... Maybe they're waiting to see if it passes. But yeah... I don't understand what goes through their mind. You think it goes for Muslims too? I want to see how they react the first time somebody claims innocence because of sharia.

O didn't you hear? "Religious freedom" in the US is pretty much just thought to be the right to spread Christianity.... All other religions aren't actually called lesser religions most of the time, but the implication is there.... It's lovely huh? The anti defamation league (the Jews) are against this stuff for that very reason. Oklahoma actually passed some law or other banning Sharia Law, because people know basically nothing about law. Jews make contracts under Jewish Law between themselves all the time, have for years. They have an arbitrator who is a rabbi. 

It's a brave frightened new world....

If it is upheld, then quite frankly I think there should be protestors quoting Leviticus and threatening to kill anyone who wears mixed threads, eats pork/shellfish, or works on Sunday.  Also adulterers should also be stoned by that book's teachings, so you know, good bye politicians....

You know who I like? The Jews. It's against their religion to eat pork and shellfish, but do you see them trying to make laws forbidding that? Nope.
_________

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/the-reward-for-donating-a-kidney-no-insurance/
No good deed goes unpunished....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on June 12, 2012, 11:18:59 am
So, when is the voting through? I'm anxious to hear the results.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 12, 2012, 12:12:35 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/top-conservative-says-read-lips-don-t-sign-101721355.html

An endangered species, almost completely extinct. A republican that realizes that cutting taxes does not reduce the deficit.

Edit:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/gun-toting-olympians-leave-london-early-banned-social-172959543--oly.html

Olympic athletes being censored and forced to leave the London games early for posting a picture on facebook. There is something deeply wrong with the IOC and Australia. Its a picture, free expression, or does that mean nothing anymore?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 12, 2012, 02:44:26 pm
@swimmers thing
Quote
While what the boys did was not illegal, posting the photos on social networks encourages public debate, and that debate can be seen to have a negative impact on the image of the sport and their own image.
Okay, what the fuck. I'm one of those crazy anti gun hippies, and I'm totally on their side. Since when is "encouraging public debate" a bad thing?!

Quote
Alcohol and topless bars are legal, too. Should athletes post photos of themselves doing shots at a strip club?
Fuck yes they should. First off, it'd be hilarious. Secondly, I'm not one for censoring sexual things.


Excuse my profanity, but that's just mind blowingly stupid.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 12, 2012, 02:49:04 pm
The Olympics have never believed in free expression.

This is the organization that drives people from there homes and forces companies out of business because they might conceivably be competition. The company that send out hired policemen to insure that noone is displaying "innappropriate" signage or creating a condition where the Olympics might get any sort of negative publicity. It wrecks homes, lives and families for nothing but pursuit of the almighty dollar.

It is, quite simply, run by people who are both thoroughly evil and value their image above all else.

This is pretty much exactly in keeping with standard Olympic practice.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 12, 2012, 02:57:18 pm
It's an image thing. A country's Olympic team is the face of their nation during the Olympics, and more than a few Australians might not be thrilled with the image of Australia being "a couple of young guys thuggin' it".

Pro athletes get censured pretty frequently now for making asinine tweets and FB postings, if it's deemed detrimental to the "team image" (i.e. brand). Wouldn't expect different for an Olympic team.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: da_nang on June 12, 2012, 02:57:46 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 12, 2012, 12:12:35 pm
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/gun-toting-olympians-leave-london-early-banned-social-172959543--oly.html

Olympic athletes being censored and forced to leave the London games early for posting a picture on facebook. There is something deeply wrong with the IOC and Australia. Its a picture, free expression, or does that mean nothing anymore?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Why, WHY, do people have such overreactions over images?! (Or words for that matter.) Can't a person regardless of social status post images of his private life without some backward nutjobs going on a moral crusade against him? Or are these people so deeply locked inside their closets that they can't see past the archaic role expectations. If they don't like the images, don't look at them!

This is why we can't have nice things. This is why say a teacher who dresses himself outside the norms isn't allowed to teach or happens to have a little fun with his friends on a Saturday night, posts images of that event and then gets fired because some a-hole screamed "bloody murder". Or tweets something outside his "role expectation".

THIS IS THE 21ST CENTURY. THIS CRAP SHOULDN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN. WE'RE BETTER THAN THIS, FOR FUCK'S SAKE.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 12, 2012, 03:02:04 pm
Quote from: RedKing on June 12, 2012, 02:57:18 pm
It's an image thing. A country's Olympic team is the face of their nation during the Olympics, and more than a few Australians might not be thrilled with the image of Australia being "a couple of young guys thuggin' it".

Pro athletes get censured pretty frequently now for making asinine tweets and FB postings, if it's deemed detrimental to the "team image" (i.e. brand). Wouldn't expect different for an Olympic team.

Still pretty bullshit. But then, I'm a weird guy, and very nearly of the opinion that professional athletics should be illegal by this point, so what do I know.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 12, 2012, 03:21:32 pm
Still, they posed with guns. I'm a gun-control-hippie-commie-crypto-muslim-american-hater as well, and frankly, I don't see anything wrong with this. I mean, are shotguns illegal in Australia? That pic was taken in California for god's sake! I'm just going WTF.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 12, 2012, 03:22:41 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 12, 2012, 02:44:26 pm
Okay, what the fuck. I'm one of those crazy anti gun hippies, and I'm totally on their side. Since when is "encouraging public debate" a bad thing?!
If you're meant to be representing your country and the debate is about exactly how much of an ass you made of yourself.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 12, 2012, 03:25:51 pm
How is posing with shotgun "making an ass of yourself"? I mean, the whole Australian Olympic Comittee are making asses of themselves right now.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 12, 2012, 03:26:35 pm
Quote from: Sheb on June 12, 2012, 03:21:32 pm
Still, they posed with guns. I'm a gun-control-hippie-commie-crypto-muslim-american-hater as well, and frankly, I don't see anything wrong with this.
Nikov is gone Sheb, you can stop talking about your Socialist-Euro-Trash-Marxist-Anti-Freedom-Terrorist-Sympathizing political views.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 12, 2012, 03:29:53 pm
Quote from: Sheb on June 12, 2012, 03:21:32 pm
Still, they posed with guns. I'm a gun-control-hippie-commie-crypto-muslim-american-hater as well, and frankly, I don't see anything wrong with this. I mean, are shotguns illegal in Australia? That pic was taken in California for god's sake! I'm just going WTF.
It's less the guns and more the pose. If they had posted a picture of them actually firing on the range, it probably wouldn't have been an issue. Smirking and looking like an Internet badass with a pair of handguns...issue. The guy with the shotguns isn't that big of a deal, IMHO (although the crossed shotguns things does look kinda ridiculous, like a modern-day Conan or something).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 12, 2012, 03:30:48 pm
Yeah so what? I mean, those are guys whose job is to run around in speedos and swim. We don't care if they look stupid on a picture, we don't expect them to.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 12, 2012, 03:34:26 pm
Who's "we"?  I guess if you don't care about sports you wouldn't care, but if you do and feel them to be your representatives you could feel it's kindof tasteless.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 12, 2012, 03:35:04 pm
No, Sheb. You don't understand.

Sports are important. They are serious business. Way too important for people to look bad. Because these athletes aren't people in a competition, they are religious icons representing our entire culture, heritage, and history. Plus the foreign diplomats will laugh at us when they are over for tea.

Now please, avoid attracting negative attention so we can get back to bulldozing the homes of the poor to build a new swimming pool.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 12, 2012, 03:44:26 pm
There's also the unspoken "Hurr durr look we iz Americans nao! Yeeeeah boooyyyyzzz, got mah boomsticks!"
I'd be happier if they had a caption pointing to them labeled "Not Actual Americans".

I'm not saying they *should* be punished, just that I can understand why they would be. And honestly...they got off light. They're still allowed to compete at the Olympics, they're just sending them home once their event is done, so they don't do anything else stupid like pose doing lewd things to a Palace Guard.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 12, 2012, 03:45:30 pm
I motion that posing for stupid pictures becomes an inalienable human right.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 12, 2012, 03:50:08 pm
Of course they can still do the Olympics. Replacing world-class athletes isn't the easiest thing to accomplish.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on June 13, 2012, 11:23:53 am
Quote from: Truean on June 11, 2012, 03:27:51 pm
You know who I like? The Jews. It's against their religion to eat pork and shellfish, but do you see them trying to make laws forbidding that? Nope.

You think? Look up the ultra-orthodox quarters in New York or Israel.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 13, 2012, 11:25:41 am
Quote from: scriver on June 13, 2012, 11:23:53 am
Quote from: Truean on June 11, 2012, 03:27:51 pm
You know who I like? The Jews. It's against their religion to eat pork and shellfish, but do you see them trying to make laws forbidding that? Nope.

You think? Look up the ultra-orthodox quarters in New York or Israel.

That's like pointing to the hardcore evangelicals though.... Most of the Jews I know don't really care what other people do. Being in law, who are we kidding, I know a lot of them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 13, 2012, 11:33:35 am
The issue with the Ultra-Orthodox, is that being Ultra-Orthodox, they have dozens of children and are slowly overtaking the non-insane Jewish population.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on June 13, 2012, 11:37:26 am
Huh. From what I remember from when I used to know about religion the Jews worked on the chosen people principle, in that you can't become a Jew, you have to be born as one. So if everyone else is already damned to hell, there is no reason to try to save them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 13, 2012, 11:40:32 am
Quote from: Criptfeind on June 13, 2012, 11:37:26 am
Huh. From what I remember from when I used to know about religion the Jews worked on the chosen people principle, in that you can't become a Jew, you have to be born as one. So if everyone else is already damned to hell, there is no reason to try to save them.

Basically yes. Though many of them don't believe in hell or whatever.

With one recruitment exception. You have to ask the rabbi four times after being denied three to show you're serious about becoming a Jew and nobody can put you up to it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 13, 2012, 11:41:36 am
The Jews don't believe that all the Gentiles are damned to Hell. I'm pretty sure most of the Jewish sects don't even believe in a Hell. They just see themselves as God's Chosen People.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on June 13, 2012, 11:50:34 am
Quote from: Truean on June 13, 2012, 11:25:41 am
Quote from: scriver on June 13, 2012, 11:23:53 am
Quote from: Truean on June 11, 2012, 03:27:51 pm
You know who I like? The Jews. It's against their religion to eat pork and shellfish, but do you see them trying to make laws forbidding that? Nope.

You think? Look up the ultra-orthodox quarters in New York or Israel.

That's like pointing to the hardcore evangelicals though.... Most of the Jews I know don't really care what other people do. Being in law, who are we kidding, I know a lot of them.

I don't know any Christians that want to make religion into law either. That's a mark of the religious extremist. You just seem to have a lot of them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on June 13, 2012, 11:59:33 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 13, 2012, 11:41:36 am
The Jews don't believe that all the Gentiles are damned to Hell. I'm pretty sure most of the Jewish sects don't even believe in a Hell. They just see themselves as God's Chosen People.

Ah. Thanks. Sorry. But I think the general idea still stands right? Can't save or help the others, so no point.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaenneth on June 13, 2012, 01:10:46 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 13, 2012, 11:41:36 am
The Jews don't believe that all the Gentiles are damned to Hell. I'm pretty sure most of the Jewish sects don't even believe in a Hell. They just see themselves as God's Chosen People.

... But chosen for what exactly?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 13, 2012, 01:13:21 pm
Quote from: kaenneth on June 13, 2012, 01:10:46 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 13, 2012, 11:41:36 am
The Jews don't believe that all the Gentiles are damned to Hell. I'm pretty sure most of the Jewish sects don't even believe in a Hell. They just see themselves as God's Chosen People.

... But chosen for what exactly?
Given the history of the Jews, I'd have to say "suffering". But really, I think it's mostly just a left over of an old school "we're the favorite" attitude from back in the day, which is to say several thousand years ago.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 13, 2012, 01:25:00 pm
From what I remember, they see themselves as the Chosen to keep the light burning in a dark world. At least, that's the idealized theological notion. In that, they share a lot with the Christian monastics who preserved literacy and culture in the Dark Ages. All the various laws and practices and tendency towards self-segregation is supposed to keep them focused on this purpose and to keep them from being steadily absorbed into the world of darkness. If the Jews stop being Jews, the light goes out of the world.

Of course, I dated a Reformed Jewish girl for a while. When I asked "how reformed?", she answered "We're having pork chops for dinner."  xD
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 13, 2012, 01:26:46 pm
One of my Jewish friends ate my microwaveable bacon. Just when I think my food is safe...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 13, 2012, 01:32:46 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 13, 2012, 01:26:46 pm
One of my Jewish friends ate my microwaveable bacon. Just when I think my food is safe...
Man, he really jewed you.


(don't hurt me)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 13, 2012, 01:34:07 pm
Darn Jews. Always taking your stuff when you ain't lookin'!


Amirite? Amirite?



(are racist jokes bad if they're making fun of racists?)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 13, 2012, 01:38:30 pm
Especially the Mexican Jew lizards (http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2003/11/07).



(yeah we should probably stop now)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 13, 2012, 01:47:37 pm
A bar walks into a bar and...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 13, 2012, 01:55:07 pm
EDIT: I just re-read this and it makes no sense. The hell, past MSH?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Jervill on June 16, 2012, 03:27:31 pm
Remember the proposed North Dakota constitutional measure to allow people to claim innocence if something "violated their religion"?
It failed, 64% to 36%.  Also, there apparently was another ass backwards proposal to eliminate property taxes (I guess funding schools and fire departments isn't important to some people.), and it failed 77% to 23%.

Link to results; Measure 2 is the one proposing to eliminate property taxes, and measure 3 is the religion one. (http://results.sos.nd.gov/resultsSW.aspx?text=BQ&type=SW&map=CTY)

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 16, 2012, 04:11:04 pm
I guess both of those lose a lot of votes right off the bat and would probably struggle to find appeal even among strongly Republican voters.  The religion one seems pretty unconstitutional and would allow MUSLIMS to be exempt from some laws (both anathema to hard right voters) while even the most hardcore libertarian would likely see that removing property taxes would cause a horrifying deficit or taxes on everything else to sharply rise.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 16, 2012, 04:31:16 pm
I don't think you understand the Libertarians. Some of them want there to be no taxes at all.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 16, 2012, 04:32:37 pm
Right yeah, I forgot somehow.  Replace them with "anyone with the slightest shred of sense".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on June 16, 2012, 05:01:10 pm
Well, glad it didn't pass.

Continuing on the note of good news; the Swedish translator (specialising in Manga) who was tried for possession of child pornography (meaning the pictures of said manga) was deemed innocent by the Swedish High Court yesterday. I've been meaning to bring this case up here but wanted to make up my mind about it first - can't say I really have though, I'm still very conflicted about it. On one level, I feel it is child pornography and should be treated as such, but then again, it's a comic. It's not like any real kid was hurt during it's making.. But I don't know. I can't decide for or against it.

Regardless, I feel it was a good thing that a translator of a comic wasn't found guilty, even if he "enable the use of it for others" or whatever. Sentencing him just feels wrong on a whole different level, even if I think what he was translating is wrong in itself... I don't know. I've got some severe cognitive dissonance over it all, to say the least. Damn real world being all complicated and gray.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 16, 2012, 05:07:44 pm
Quote from: Jervill on June 16, 2012, 03:27:31 pm
Remember the proposed North Dakota constitutional measure to allow people to claim innocence if something "violated their religion"?
It failed, 64% to 36%.  Also, there apparently was another ass backwards proposal to eliminate property taxes (I guess funding schools and fire departments isn't important to some people.), and it failed 77% to 23%.

Link to results; Measure 2 is the one proposing to eliminate property taxes, and measure 3 is the religion one. (http://results.sos.nd.gov/resultsSW.aspx?text=BQ&type=SW&map=CTY)

Thank freaking god.... No property taxes and religious takeover would've been bad....

Yeah, I have an uber libertarian Ayn Rand obsessed brother. The guy scares me.

I understand the inherent appeal of just being able to do whatever you want, but the problem is, other people will want to do batshit crazy things. One of the main non economic libertarian things I've never gotten is opposition to the civil rights movement as "government interference." Basically, if you're a racist shithead then some of them say you should be able to exclude black people from your store, because it's your property etc etc etc. This just.... ignores reality so badly along with the fact that this is more or less exiling an entire race of people from society and demanding that they drink at the "coloreds only" which either doesn't work half the time if you're luck or if you're unlucky does work but dispenses water you wouldn't wash your dog with....

That doesn't even get into the lack of any meaningful way to fund any government without taxes, even the things Ms. Rand deemed necessary (Military, Police, and Courts).

The idea of people butting the hell out of your life completely sounds good in theory until you actually apply it.

I just... feel like a lot of people are on this, "I don't wanna ever pay for anything" kick lately, and to the best of my knowledge, that's not what being an adult is....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 16, 2012, 05:14:57 pm
Quote from: scriver on June 16, 2012, 05:01:10 pm
Continuing on the note of good news; the Swedish translator (specialising in Manga) who was tried for possession of child pornography (meaning the pictures of said manga) was deemed innocent by the Swedish High Court yesterday. I've been meaning to bring this case up here but wanted to make up my mind about it first - can't say I really have though, I'm still very conflicted about it. On one level, I feel it is child pornography and should be treated as such, but then again, it's a comic. It's not like any real kid was hurt during it's making.. But I don't know. I can't decide for or against it.

My current opinion on this topic is that pedophilia is bad when it hurts children. It doesn't really matter how gross I think some loli hentai is, that doesn't make it illegal. It's not hurting anyone if no real children were involved with its creation.

Fictional works can be pretty damn gross and depict things that would be horribly illegal in real life. That's just how fiction is. It can be regulated and have warnings required to make sure nobody sees it if they don't want to. In a vacuum, though, it's a victimless crime.

It could be argued that it encourages pedophiles to act on their desires. I'm pretty sure we have real frequencies of child molestation in countries before and after the legalization of drawn child porn, though, and I think the current numbers show the opposite effect.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on June 16, 2012, 05:25:07 pm
I agree (and what you said is basically what I wanted to express with "it's a comic" above), but there's also a difference between fiction which contains or deals with pedophilia (like, say, Lolita does) and pornographic fiction, which's point is, well, the pedophilic porn.

As I said, I'm conflicted.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 16, 2012, 05:27:44 pm
There's this pledge thing (http://www.theanticorruptionpledge.org/?r) against money/corruption in elections and government. Internet petitions might not do much, but it has a neat map showing the pledges in each state.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 16, 2012, 05:29:29 pm
No victim, no crime, imo. I'm fine with pedophilia so long as it stays 100% in the realm of fantasy. Soon as a real child comes into play, then there's a problem.

Same with anything else that would be illegal if acted out in real life.



EDIT: Note that I don't think it at all unreasonable to consider that stuff "nasty," "gross," "sick and wrong," etc. You don't have to like it, not at all. I just don't think it should be illegal.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 16, 2012, 06:18:40 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on June 16, 2012, 05:27:44 pm
There's this pledge thing (http://www.theanticorruptionpledge.org/?r) against money/corruption in elections and government. Internet petitions might not do much, but it has a neat map showing the pledges in each state.
I really like this actually.  4 specific but important demands.  I'm not sure how big the people running it are but these 4 points seem like a great basis for a reform movement (kindof reminds me of Charterism, actually, which had 5 key points... while they didn't succeed all of their points except yearly parliaments were eventually put into place).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on June 17, 2012, 12:52:56 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 16, 2012, 05:29:29 pm
No victim, no crime, imo. I'm fine with pedophilia so long as it stays 100% in the realm of fantasy. Soon as a real child comes into play, then there's a problem.

Same with anything else that would be illegal if acted out in real life.



EDIT: Note that I don't think it at all unreasonable to consider that stuff "nasty," "gross," "sick and wrong," etc. You don't have to like it, not at all. I just don't think it should be illegal.
I'm pretty much the same way. There are some truly bizarre fetishes out there, but as long as all parties involved give informed consent, I don't really care.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 18, 2012, 12:46:08 am
Considering the US ability to stop being rational as soon as the lobbying become strong enough, this is scary. (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/06/2012612122453952362.html) *Insert obligatory quote about military-industrial complex and Ike.*
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 18, 2012, 12:55:39 am
I find it incredibly ironic that the guy's system is called "Freedom on the Move." Seriously, that has to be intentional.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 18, 2012, 01:43:12 am
You got to give that to you american: you like freedom. In your own version of 1984, you'd have Freedomspeak, a ministry of Freedom and Freedomscreen.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 18, 2012, 01:46:15 am
Heh, yeah. Everything's justified under the banner of "freedom." Freedom fries!


But in this case, "Freedom on the Move" could just as easily be seen as talking about the illegal immigrants, not the mobile what's-it. The people seeking freedom are moving, and you've got to crush them. It's a damn good satirical name, so much so I'm seriously thinking it was intentional.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 18, 2012, 02:25:01 am
Gotta share this, because it seriously make me sick. Yesterday, some populist party organized a demonstration against "Islamist Fascism" (we had some huge media noise in Belgium over some group called "Sharia4Belgium" making a press conference). Now, as is often the case, left wing organization organized a counter-protest.

The police made a wall around the right-wing militant (Their group is actually called "Nation"), and started pursuing the left-winger. Some of them tried to escape through an underground station. Well, see for yourself. (http://www.rtl.be/videos/Video/399594.aspx)

I'm fucking disgusted at my country right now. Gosh, I just stepped outside of the classroom where I'm studying to cry outside.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Montague on June 18, 2012, 02:28:13 am
Why would a left-wing organization support a group calling for Sharia law?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 18, 2012, 02:31:30 am
Supporting their right to exist and freedom to say what they want, not supporting their ideas.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 18, 2012, 02:32:21 am
They're not supporting Sharia4Belgium, their slogan was actually something like "From Sharia4Belgium to Nation, let's fight against all Fascisms!". Bashing "Islamist Fascism" is the polite way of being an islamophobe around here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on June 18, 2012, 02:43:09 am
"Polite" meaning you only threaten the local Muslims instead of outright assaulting them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 18, 2012, 02:47:28 am
Yup. Like the English Defense League, that attacked Islamic Fascism with slogan like "Mohammed is a pedo(phile". Totally not against normal muslim, just against Islamic Fascism.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on June 18, 2012, 02:55:12 am
We get the same thing here in the States. People pretending to be politically correct will go on about "creeping Sharia" and other such nonsense.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 18, 2012, 08:09:31 am
Quote from: Sheb on June 18, 2012, 02:47:28 am
Yup. Like the English Defense League, that attacked Islamic Fascism with slogan like "Mohammed is a pedo(phile". Totally not against normal muslim, just against Islamic Fascism.

Mohamed was a pedophile, that is what you get called when you sleep with a 9 year old girl.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 18, 2012, 08:27:58 am
Just because delusional far-right individuals are bigoted against Muslims does not automatically mean that radical Islamists are not a problem.

As for Mohamed, trying to keep the relevance of people who lived centuries ago alive is a problem endemic to the supposed moral high ground of more than just Islam. This isn't a problem with non-religious historical figures because people don't act like they were paragons of moral fortitude blessed by a timeless transcendent power, where as the opposite is not true. To give another example, Jesus endorsed slavery.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 18, 2012, 08:36:49 am
I think we may be missing the point of the original post.

The leftists weren't supporting Sharia, and whether or not Mohammed was a pedophile is completely tangential to the police siding with the bigoted scum.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 18, 2012, 09:38:55 am
MSH: We never said radical islmaism wasn't a problem, just that those people use the fight against radical islam as a polite way to hide their racism against ordinary muslim. And don't tell me I'm strawmanning them, those guys from Nation are known to do nazi salute and shout "Heil Hitler!" during demosntration. They're reacist, and that's it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 18, 2012, 09:51:22 am
The police shouldn't be "siding" with anyone. This would be just as horrific if the tables were flipped.

Is there a writeup on what instigated the scuffle? I find it doubtful that two peaceful protests would get cops raining down on them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 18, 2012, 10:11:17 am
Have you watched the video I posted? The protesters were trying to go through a subway station, the police waited for the subway to arrive, told the driver to keep the door locked and charged the protesters.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 18, 2012, 10:38:45 am
Isn't it interesting how "religious freedom" doesn't apply to "other people?" Pretty much no matter what religion you like, there's somebody in yours somewhere that's saying that. Except maybe Buddhists, long as you don't mess up their Buddha Idols or obstruct their path to nirvana, they're pretty ok with whatever. Buddhists: they'll usually set themselves on fire before firing at you....

I honestly really like most Buddhists I've met.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Phmcw on June 18, 2012, 10:39:42 am
Yeah there is an investigation pending, we won't let that one slip out. If they didn't had any special circumstance going on for them, and I don't think they did, we must have the head of the guy ordering the charge.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on June 18, 2012, 11:00:28 am
Your avatar seems fitting for that last sentence.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on June 18, 2012, 12:58:16 pm
Quote from: Sheb on June 18, 2012, 10:11:17 am
Have you watched the video I posted? The protesters were trying to go through a subway station, the police waited for the subway to arrive, told the driver to keep the door locked and charged the protesters.
It's hard to understand what's going on if you can't understand the language :(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 18, 2012, 02:03:04 pm
Well, I actually didn't listen to to sound yet, because I didn't have headphones, but I think the video is clear enough without sound.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 18, 2012, 02:10:24 pm
It's bad, but I'm surprised by how surprised you are by this Sheb. This stuff isn't unheard of in protesting by a long shot.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 18, 2012, 02:15:03 pm
Well, Belgium is pretty civilized.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sirus on June 18, 2012, 02:15:16 pm
It's because he's made several posts in this and other threads about how awesome Belgium is in every way, and now he sees that Belgium is no better or worse than other places. It's a shock.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on June 18, 2012, 02:25:18 pm
No, it's a shock because Belgium's standard is better than that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Phmcw on June 18, 2012, 03:11:12 pm
Yup, they gave a guy a concussion, they'd better come off with proofs that the violence was warranted or I swear some peoples are going to find themselves without a job. But that's pretty much what  the mayor of Brussels said.

Edit : I've been a bit too quick he has just asked for an inquiry, as as the minister of interior affairs.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Euld on June 18, 2012, 05:42:13 pm
The bill to end indefinite detention FAILED in the House recently. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/indefinite-detention-bill-fails_n_1525659.html)  Apparently, some of the members of the House are insane and can't read the Constitution ._.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 18, 2012, 05:44:29 pm
Quote from: Euld on June 18, 2012, 05:42:13 pm
Apparently, some of the members of the House are insane and can't read the Constitution ._.
Well duh.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 18, 2012, 05:48:25 pm
It wasn't even a close vote. These people have no connection with reality or the rest of America.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 18, 2012, 05:54:43 pm
I hope to god we can at least get some good campaign finance reform from the Supreme Court, since congress wouldn't dare piss off their sponsors. I'd love to see how quickly congress would change if they were actually elected based on how their views lined up with their constituents.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on June 19, 2012, 04:34:39 am
Best part about that article? The comments.

(http://puu.sh/C1ZH)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 19, 2012, 04:41:39 am
See? The entire institution is the problem, not just one party! Almost a whole eight percent of the no votes were from democrats.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 19, 2012, 09:25:15 am
The whole notion of indefinite detention just scares the shit out of me.

The idea that you couldn't even ask for something like bail just totally blows my mind to be perfectly honest with you and I cant really fathom it. I mean basically what they're doing is even worse than "getting rid of due process." What they're really doing is even more fundamental than that: In essence, they are not only shifting the burden of proof from the state to the defendant, but making that burden impossible to meet.

Simply, innocent until proven guilty becomes, "guilty until proven innocent."

....

That's supposed to be basically the opposite of what we're about....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 19, 2012, 09:49:16 am
Quote from: Truean on June 19, 2012, 09:25:15 am
Simply, innocent until proven guilty becomes, "guilty until proven innocent."

Since you're not even getting a trial, this is giving it WAY to much credit. That means you could, conceivably, prove yourself innocent. That doesn't apply here.
It's not guilty until proven innocent, it's guilty. Full stop. Just... guilty. If they decide you're guilty, you are, period.

It's bloody terrifying.

It's a sad situation when "guilty until proven innocent" would actually be a step up.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 20, 2012, 12:24:31 am
So the HRC did a neat study with LGBT youth (http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf) (PDF, you have been warned) that has some interesting info. But man did their graphic designer have fun with it. It's almost all wasted space.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 20, 2012, 10:34:54 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on June 20, 2012, 12:24:31 am
So the HRC did a neat study with LGBT youth (http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf) (PDF, you have been warned) that has some interesting info. But man did their graphic designer have fun with it. It's almost all wasted space.

And, that's just the ones who would actually take the survey.... Great isn't it? :) [sigh]

_____________________________________________________________________
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 20, 2012, 10:39:51 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on June 20, 2012, 12:24:31 am
So the HRC did a neat study with LGBT youth (http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf) (PDF, you have been warned) that has some interesting info. But man did their graphic designer have fun with it. It's almost all wasted space.
I'm pretty sure at least one of those pages was designed to short out optical nerves (the one with cyan text on yellow)...ZE GOGGLES ZEY DO NOTHING
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Darvi on June 20, 2012, 10:45:59 am
Paint 'em orange, that oughta help :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 20, 2012, 10:46:06 am
I can't even get it to a state in which the large letters read correctly while keeping the small letters legible.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 20, 2012, 10:53:07 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 20, 2012, 10:46:06 am
I can't even get it to a state in which the large letters read correctly while keeping the small letters legible.

Yeah, I understand getting messages out creatively but damn. Also I'm the (secretly) gayest thing you've ever see, and I think it's overdone.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Detonate on June 20, 2012, 11:46:29 am
Turkey, who is trying to get in the EU, recently charged a Kurdish man was charged with terror (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18462421). Because he had half a lemon and was at a PKK rally. PKK is a banned party. It also doesn't help that "expression of Kurdish identity still seems to be perceived as many as, by definition, a threat to the unity of the Turkish state. (http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-country/Turkey/TUR-CBC-IV-2011-005-ENG.pdf) Two weeks before, a Turkish pianist named Fazil Say was accused of insulting Islam. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/world/europe/turkey-charges-pianist-fazil-say-over-twitter-posts.html?_r=2) Turkey doesn't have a state religion, but AKP, the ruling party, is slightly Islamist.

e: Turkey is trying to get into the EU. At this rate, I don't think it'll get in for a long time.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 20, 2012, 11:52:14 am
Quote
http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/671285_Courts-weigh-adult-children-s-responsibility-in-parents--care-costs.html

This is... seriously a thing? Holy motherfucking god, how can this be a thing? How can this possibly ever be a thing?

This is absolutely horrid. Ugh.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 20, 2012, 11:53:54 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on June 20, 2012, 11:52:14 am
Quote
http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/671285_Courts-weigh-adult-children-s-responsibility-in-parents--care-costs.html

This is... seriously a thing? Holy motherfucking god, how can this be a thing? How can this possibly ever be a thing?

This is absolutely horrid. Ugh.

:(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 20, 2012, 12:14:42 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on June 20, 2012, 11:52:14 am
Quote
http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/671285_Courts-weigh-adult-children-s-responsibility-in-parents--care-costs.html

This is... seriously a thing? Holy motherfucking god, how can this be a thing? How can this possibly ever be a thing?

This is absolutely horrid. Ugh.
There are so many ways this will go wrong.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 20, 2012, 12:21:14 pm
You don't have any say in the costs or where they come from. You don't have any say in the amounts charged, or the decisions made. There is literally no limit to the amount they can charge you, is there? And you don't have any control over the matter at all?

Suddenly, slavery! They get to slowly (or quickly) kill your parents with incompetence and you're on the hook for the costs.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 20, 2012, 12:26:56 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 20, 2012, 12:14:42 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on June 20, 2012, 11:52:14 am
Quote
http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/671285_Courts-weigh-adult-children-s-responsibility-in-parents--care-costs.html

This is... seriously a thing? Holy motherfucking god, how can this be a thing? How can this possibly ever be a thing?

This is absolutely horrid. Ugh.
There are so many ways this will go wrong.
:(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Darvi on June 20, 2012, 12:42:37 pm
I think the US government is planning to impose a tax on ellipses and this kind of stuff is only happening because they want to milk Truean for all his worth. *tinfoil hat*
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 20, 2012, 01:10:17 pm
Hmm...here's an interesting scenario: what if the parent surrendered custody before the child reached majority age?

I can see two potential unintended consequences if this were to become the norm:

1. People having buttloads of kids (and if giving up custody doesn't break the "filial responsibility chain", then pawning them off on someone else to raise), so they have a social safety net.

2. A lot of hunting/hiking/fishing trips with Dad/Mom when they get old and start to have medical problems, which result in a tragic "accident".  :-\
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 20, 2012, 01:17:05 pm
The article mentioned they cant go after kids that were abandoned for 10 or more of their first 18 years.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 20, 2012, 01:21:32 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 20, 2012, 01:17:05 pm
The article mentioned they cant go after kids that were abandoned for 10 or more of their first 18 years.
Seems kind of arbitrary. So if Mom gives you up at age 9, you're still on the hook for her nursing home costs 40 years later? Fuck that shit.



EDIT: Also, that seems to be merely the Pennsylvania implementation of the statute. I looked up North Carolina's and there's NOTHING about an abandonment exemption.

Quote
If any person being of full age, and having sufficient income after reasonably providing for his or her own immediate family shall, without reasonable cause, neglect to maintain and support his or her parent or parents, if such parent or parents be sick or not able to work and have not sufficient means or ability to maintain or support themselves, such person shall be deemed guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor; upon conviction of a second or subsequent offense such person shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

If there be more than one person bound under the provisions of the next preceding paragraph to support the same parent or parents, they shall share equitably in the discharge of such duty. (1955, c. 1099; 1969, c. 1045, s. 3; 1993, c. 539, s. 227; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

The NC version appears to at least address splitting the burden, but it's those terms like "sufficient" and "reasonable" that are the crux of the problem. The nursing home might find me feeding my kids pop tarts for breakfast each day and having $50 a month leftover after expenses to be sufficient and reasonable. I would not.

This is actually for some concern to me. My father surrendered full custody to my mother when I was 3. My mother surrendered full custody to her parents when I was 6. FUCK BOTH OF THEM. My father isn't an issue--he's got more money than I do. My mother, however, is an abject failure with numerous health issues. She's currently living rent-free in the house I grew up in, which I technically own and have no legal right to remove her or sell the property until she dies. Like hell I'm paying one dime for her.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 20, 2012, 01:32:31 pm
I just wouldn't pay. What are they going to do, send me to debtor's prison?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 20, 2012, 01:35:17 pm
Would much prefer the cost be spread out over the entire society but apparently people think that would be stealing or communism, while forcibly deducting a much larger quantity of money from one's bank account at an unexpected point in time and spending it on the welfare of somebody who needs it is... um... capitalistic justice! Yeah that's it.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 20, 2012, 01:32:31 pm
I just wouldn't pay. What are they going to do, send me to debtor's prison?
Um, yes. (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jailed-for--280--the-return-of-debtors--prisons.html)

Shitty source but it's the best I could do on such short notice.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 20, 2012, 01:37:50 pm
I somehow doubt the taxes are stealing crowd would find this any more acceptable.

Corporations, of course, are only opposed to taxes that harm them, but thats not exactly anti-tax so much as pro-themselves.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 20, 2012, 01:46:46 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on June 20, 2012, 01:35:17 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 20, 2012, 01:32:31 pm
I just wouldn't pay. What are they going to do, send me to debtor's prison?
Um, yes. (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jailed-for--280--the-return-of-debtors--prisons.html)

Shitty source but it's the best I could do on such short notice.
Firstly, that didn't take place in my state.

Secondly, that happened for private commercial debts, not my parents demanding that I give them money.

Thirdly, two nights in holding does not equal debtor's prison. Sensationalist article is sensationalist.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 20, 2012, 01:49:41 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 20, 2012, 01:46:46 pm
Secondly, that happened for private commercial debts, not my parents demanding that I give them money.

Actually, this is a private commercial debt. This isn't your parents demanding you give them money - your parents having nothing to do with it. This is a judgement saying that their private commercial debt is, in fact, your private commercial debt. That's why it is bad.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 20, 2012, 01:51:28 pm
And contempt of court can result in indefinite imprisonment if they put it before a properly bribed judge.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on June 20, 2012, 02:08:30 pm
I keep saying, find out what you need to do to become a lawyer in Ontario, and DO IT. >:I Or Quebec, even.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: lorb on June 21, 2012, 07:57:03 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on June 20, 2012, 12:24:31 am
So the HRC did a neat study with LGBT youth (http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf) (PDF, you have been warned) that has some interesting info. But man did their graphic designer have fun with it. It's almost all wasted space.
Quote from: Detonate on June 20, 2012, 11:46:29 am
e: Turkey is trying to get into the EU. At this rate, I don't think it'll get in for a long time.

Combining those i give you a report about LGBT people in turkey (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR44/001/2011/en/aff47406-89e4-43b4-93ed-ebb6fa107637/eur440012011en.pdf) that is way more readable. And here you have one quote out of it:

Quote from: Aliye Kavaf, Minister of State responsible for Women and the Family, 2010
“I believe homosexuality is a biological disorder, an illness and should be treated”
Take notice _who_ is saying that.

and another one:

Quote
“In any case you are gay, you are open to rape”
LGBT rights activists in Eskişehir recount statement by a police officer following the reporting of an alleged rape of a gay man –
one of a number against gay men and transgender women in the city
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Euld on June 21, 2012, 11:07:21 am
Wait... so they're saying gay men in the military are "open to rape" by... other men in their military?  They don't see the utter insanity of saying it's wrong for men to sleep with men, but somehow it's ok for men to rape other men?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 21, 2012, 11:11:53 am
I recall hearing something before about a cultural attitude in Turkey that there are only certain situations in which something "counts" as gay or not.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 21, 2012, 12:26:09 pm
Apparently it's not gay if you're the top.  ???
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 21, 2012, 01:59:47 pm
 
State Prosecutors in Illinois refusing to defend the State's anti gay laws. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/illinois-gay-marriage-sta_0_n_1615170.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay+Voices&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009)

Not 10 years ago in 2003, sodomy was a felony in some states.... That is, when I was in high school and college, my having sex, at all, was a crime punishable by prison.

Allow me to explain: those prosecutors can be fired for this, for cause. Moreover, this is the worst economy to be looking for a legal based job ever.... One of the main reasons I dismiss most people who claim to be for gay rights as lip service is that their actions are entirely and absolutely at odds with their words. These attorneys are risking their entire careers by refusing to defend this mockery, this mob rule, masquerading as law and demanding silence rather than justice. If appointed or elected, the public backlash on them could be severe.

How can people claim to want immortality when they have only a shifting string of adjectives fading in and out from in front of their names and meaning nothing? There's nothing to preserve for a second, much less for all time.... Simply most people won't even inconvenience themselves in any minor way for this or any other reason, much less risk their careers.....

Of course, it does send quite a message when this ... simply and nothing but this ... risks your entire career. Doesn't it?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Darvi on June 21, 2012, 02:24:37 pm
I think hell froze over and some souls must've escaped in a leak or something.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 21, 2012, 02:25:19 pm
I'm going to have to play Devil's advocate on this...the legal system doesn't require an attorney to believe in what they're arguing. You're a defense attorney, you know this better than most. If you're assigned a case as a public defender, you can't just walk in and say, "You know what? My client is totally guilty and an asshole and I'm not going to defend him."

Like it or not, lawyers are paid to argue the interests of their clients, even if they utterly disagree with those interests. In this case, the interests of the state of Illinois is to defend its laws until such time as they have been invalidated by a court of law.

By the same token, if a US District Attorney refused to prosecute a case of anti-LGBT discrimination because they didn't "believe" such people should have those protections....it's the same principle.

I applaud that the personal morality of these two, but I also recognize that this sets bad precedent. I think they'd be better served taking the case and just making a very lacksadaisical defense of the measure.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on June 21, 2012, 02:27:08 pm
Quote from: RedKing on June 21, 2012, 02:25:19 pm
I applaud that the persona morality of these two, but I also recognize that this sets bad precedent. I think they'd be better served taking the case and just making a very lacksadaisical defense of the measure.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe willfully lackadaisical defense is still ground for getting disbarred.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 21, 2012, 02:30:34 pm
Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on June 21, 2012, 02:27:08 pm
Quote from: RedKing on June 21, 2012, 02:25:19 pm
I applaud that the persona morality of these two, but I also recognize that this sets bad precedent. I think they'd be better served taking the case and just making a very lacksadaisical defense of the measure.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe willfully lackadaisical defense is still ground for getting disbarred.
They'd have to prove that it was willful. Which....they probably can now, after those public comments. I submit to change my comment to "they would have been better served".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 21, 2012, 02:41:00 pm
I disagree. The state can find other prosecutors for this if they need them, but expecting a blanket discard of your sense of ethics in exchange for money is something I find unacceptable.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 21, 2012, 02:52:34 pm
Quote from: RedKing on June 21, 2012, 02:30:34 pm
Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on June 21, 2012, 02:27:08 pm
Quote from: RedKing on June 21, 2012, 02:25:19 pm
I applaud that the persona morality of these two, but I also recognize that this sets bad precedent. I think they'd be better served taking the case and just making a very lacksadaisical defense of the measure.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe willfully lackadaisical defense is still ground for getting disbarred.
They'd have to prove that it was willful. Which....they probably can now, after those public comments. I submit to change my comment to "they would have been better served".

Quote from: RedKing on June 21, 2012, 02:25:19 pm
I'm going to have to play Devil's advocate on this...the legal system doesn't require an attorney to believe in what they're arguing. You're a defense attorney, you know this better than most. If you're assigned a case as a public defender, you can't just walk in and say, "You know what? My client is totally guilty and an asshole and I'm not going to defend him."

Like it or not, lawyers are paid to argue the interests of their clients, even if they utterly disagree with those interests. In this case, the interests of the state of Illinois is to defend its laws until such time as they have been invalidated by a court of law.

By the same token, if a US District Attorney refused to prosecute a case of anti-LGBT discrimination because they didn't "believe" such people should have those protections....it's the same principle.

I applaud that the persona morality of these two, but I also recognize that this sets bad precedent. I think they'd be better served taking the case and just making a very lacksadaisical defense of the measure.

The fatal flaw in your logic, Redking, is that precedent has not already been set. It has.

 Prosecutorial discretion (http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Prosecutorial-Discretion.topicArticleId-10065,articleId-10015.html)  has a bad history in many cases. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_discretion)

Concerning its application to GLBT individuals as criminal defendants or victims, prosecutorial discretion was as overplayed as it was misapplied. Granted, there are some instances, such as plea bargaining, and dropping charges where it's good, but they didn't cut you slack if you were gay, quite the opposite. Prosecutorial discretion was championed by social conservatives for quite some time as a means of lowering "harsh" hate crime laws before many of them were made mandatory. Now that it's being used against them, "When the shoe's on the other foot...." Suddenly, it's "an abuse of power."

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 21, 2012, 02:54:59 pm
Oh of course they're going to be hypocritical about it. What I'm saying is that being equally hypocritical (saying it was an abuse of power then, but is a principled stand now) isn't somehow more defensible.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 21, 2012, 03:27:22 pm
The attitude that "well of course you got assaulted/raped/whatever; you're gay. What'd you expect?" was the norm here for decades. And if you were a lesbian, then I guess the guy was just trying to "cure you."

Holy shit dude, two words:  "Twinkie Defense."  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense) The son of a bitch killed the mayor and a city councilman, but it's not that bad, said the prosecution and the jury, because one of 'em was gay and the guy was eating too many twinkles or whatever. Harvey Milk.

Seriously, he assassinated the damn mayor and a city councilman ("supervisor") and people felt bad for him, because he drank a lot of soda and other junk food.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 21, 2012, 03:35:52 pm
Correct me if I'm using the wrong terminology and getting things mixed up.


What these guys are doing is "Prosecutorial discretion." This is a bad thing, no? You've given examples of where it's abused, so that's damn good reason to not allow it at all. You can't change the rules because it conveniences you. If it's bad in previous cases, it's bad here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 21, 2012, 04:50:13 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 21, 2012, 04:59:21 pm
No matter how much time and money plea bargains save the system, they are an inherently corrupting influence that serves to put innocent people behind bars and let the guilty get off with minimal consequences.

The fact that we even consider using them is a testament to the failure that is our justice system.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 21, 2012, 06:00:22 pm
State prosecutors are inherently different to attorneys though, aren't they?  Prosecutors aren't meant to keep pressing a case they think has collapsed or which they don't think is defensible.  It's partially up to them to decide if the case is worth fighting for the state or if it has become a completely lost cause.  Essentially, while everyone has a right to be defended in court so attorneys should have to take a case even if it looks hopeless, a prosecutor shouldn't pointlessly get into fights they can't win.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 21, 2012, 06:01:16 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on June 21, 2012, 04:59:21 pm
No matter how much time and money plea bargains save the system, they are an inherently corrupting influence that serves to put innocent people behind bars and let the guilty get off with minimal consequences.

The fact that we even consider using them is a testament to the failure that is our justice system.
We wouldn't even need them if not for the war on drugs. If all the crime related to that were crippled the justice administration would be able to handle the number of cases that are given to them, or at least do a better job of it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Euld on June 22, 2012, 11:26:56 pm
Got another email from that Christian group... (http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/06/21/citizenlink-report-the-town-bully/) and well... honestly I don't think they're entirely in the wrong this time.  Long story short, the local LGBT group of a small town submitted a proposal for some pro-gay additions to a K-4th grade school in town.  Some of these additions didn't seem so shocking, like adding in children's books that discuss kids with same sex parents.  But on the other hand, the suggestions went as far as requiring math problems to include word problems that mentioned same sex parents.  Naturally, the school board rejected the proposal and didn't do much else.  Then the LGBT group started an ad campaign to gather national attention and try to... humiliate the town into accepting the proposal?  No idea.  Naturally, this Christian group is quick to say "gayzz r bein boolies!!1!".  But I hate to say it, I think I agree with the Christian group a bit more than I want to.

I remember when the gay jokes started in school.  I didn't even know about the word gay until the 5th grade when suddenly everyone started using it and every boy was very quick to declare ANYTHING NEGATIVE WHATSOEVER as gay, even pencils.  I honestly believe that if gays are to have any sort of peace and quiet in this country, it won't happen unless the discussion of homosexuality starts at about that time.  Heck, they started freaken' sex ed and puberty education in the fifth grade at my school.  They don't have to go into detail on the subject.  Just mention that some students may realize they are attracted to different people than they expected and that's ok.

edit: er so in other words, the LGBT group needs to calm down, pick their battles, try to ease things up a bit.  And this Christian website (why did I ever sign up for these guys...) needs to stop snickering so obviously.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 22, 2012, 11:43:14 pm
So... what about the inclusive word problems doesn't help in starting recognition and discussion of gays? I mean, one of the easiest ways for kids to identify something as weird is if they've never seen it before, and if all the media in their schools is straight then that's a pretty obvious marker of what's supposed to be normal.

Really, I don't consider it any different than the children's books.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 22, 2012, 11:46:22 pm
People need to stop conflating "teaching" the young with "indoctrinating" them. I'm cool with them occasionally mentioning same sex parents/etc (including in math problems or whatever), but it's not something that should be considered part of the curriculum.

If there's something that needs to be focused on concerning societal ills in public schools, it's bullying and harassment problems. That includes bullying/harassment for sexual orientation, of course. That's when sexual orientation needs to be brought up by teachers; no, it is NOT okay to tease someone for that. That's perfectly normal, young ones.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 22, 2012, 11:47:35 pm
Has anyone else noticed how Christian and/or Family Values sites are always designed in this simplistic, one color theme?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 22, 2012, 11:48:18 pm
Uh... wow.

It turns out the big banks actually WERE conspiring to steal from us all, all along. Like, literally working together, lying to the government, to clients, to regulatory committees. GE, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, UBS, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Wachovia, all of them were in on it, and they broke a lot of laws, perfecting criminal practices that used to keep the mafia in business.

This is just three small cogs in the machine, but this shit runs deep. Since it doesn't look like the mainstream media is going to touch this, might be worth spreading it a bit until they don't have a choice...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-scam-wall-street-learned-from-the-mafia-20120620?print=true
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Euld on June 23, 2012, 02:31:09 am
"Siffert tried to lay this outrageous load of balls on the jury using a faux-folksy analogy. "When your refrigerator breaks down, if you're not mechanically inclined, you're at the mercy of that repair person," he told the jury. "And if he repairs the refrigerator, makes it work well, charges you a fair price, you're likely to call on him again when the stove breaks." What he was essentially telling jurors was: This shit is complicated, so best just to leave it to the experts. Whether they're fixing a fridge or fixing a bond rate, they get to set the price, because we're all morons who are dependent on them to make our world work. Siffert, in his scuzzy way, was actually telling us an essential economic truth: You're at the mercy of that repair person."

Best quote so far that explains everything.  Man  :'(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Euld on June 23, 2012, 04:30:34 pm
A woman who lost both boobs to cancer is not allowed to swim topless. (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/cover-up/Content?oid=13970858)  Doesn't matter that she's as flat-chested as a child (no offense meant) and doesn't even have nipples.  Doesn't matter that wearing a top would give her pain because of her scars.  Even weirder, she would be allowed to swim if she just told everyone she was actually a man.  Not kidding.  The sight of a topless, breastless woman is apparently too much for her city to handle.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on June 23, 2012, 05:40:47 pm
I have to ask: why would it matter that she swam topless even if she had boobs? Why can men swim topless while women can't?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on June 23, 2012, 05:43:05 pm
Because the further away from your heart a nipple is, the deadlier it is.

Isn't that obvious?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 23, 2012, 05:43:19 pm
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on June 23, 2012, 05:40:47 pm
I have to ask: why would it matter that she swam topless even if she had boobs? Why can men swim topless while women can't?
Prudish moralists protecting Family Values.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 23, 2012, 05:56:30 pm
Eeyup. Fuck "Family Values."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 23, 2012, 06:49:02 pm
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/nsa-spied/)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 23, 2012, 06:59:32 pm
what
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 23, 2012, 07:56:29 pm
See, it's like "if we don't get caught we didn't do anything wrong," except the people using the immature excuse are high-ranking government officials with the power to spy on and detain people.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 23, 2012, 08:39:52 pm
If I'm decoding the doublespeak right: "It would violate your privacy if we said we spied on you."

Translation: "Aside from the obvious that we don't wanna get caught etc, it would expose you as a public curiousity if we told people we spied on you....The actual fact that we spied on you is a thing that should remain private for your sake...."

I.... It just.... ???
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 23, 2012, 08:54:57 pm
Oh, it's not even that... the guys requesting the information weren't even asking for a who, just a how many. They were saying it'd violate people's privacy to state the approximate number of people they've been spying on.

This literally makes zero sense.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 23, 2012, 08:55:58 pm
Quote from: Frumple on June 23, 2012, 08:54:57 pm
Oh, it's not even that... the guys requesting the information weren't even asking for a who, just a how many. They were saying it'd violate people's privacy to state the approximate number of people they've been spying on.

This literally makes zero sense.
Besides the obvious agenda of the NSA wanting to keep peephole rights :|
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Korbac on June 23, 2012, 08:58:03 pm
Quote from: Frumple on June 23, 2012, 08:54:57 pm
Oh, it's not even that... the guys requesting the information weren't even asking for a who, just a how many. They were saying it'd violate people's privacy to state the approximate number of people they've been spying on.

This literally makes zero sense.

In fact it makes a negative amount of sense. So much good sense has been undone by these actions. :(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 23, 2012, 09:08:15 pm
Quote from: Korbac on June 23, 2012, 08:58:03 pm
Quote from: Frumple on June 23, 2012, 08:54:57 pm
Oh, it's not even that... the guys requesting the information weren't even asking for a who, just a how many. They were saying it'd violate people's privacy to state the approximate number of people they've been spying on.

This literally makes zero sense.

In fact it makes a negative amount of sense. So much good sense has been undone by these actions. :(

Well hang on now, maybe they're going for the circular universe theory of making sense.

It's drafted by the subcommittee on things that are so stupid they're smart. You know how sometimes when you get the super high score on a video game, the thing just fliped back over to zero? Or how you can drive a car so much that the odometer spins around to zero again?

Well sometimes these guys say something so dumb, it's brilliant. Don't think this is one of those times but yeah.  Maybe they were TRYING for that?

So now that you know about this obscure branch of government, write your congressmen, solicit your senator, get involved, or throw a trash can through a plateglass window*.

*Truean definately does not endorse the throwing of trashcans or other objects through plate glass windows, especially the ones near or that are part of my her office. :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on June 23, 2012, 09:16:26 pm
Ah, data underflow.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 23, 2012, 10:43:17 pm
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on June 23, 2012, 09:16:26 pm
Ah, data underflow.

Ladies and gentlemen, The NSA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8rQNdBmPek&feature=fvwrel

So, I'm really not surprised this came from them:
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 23, 2012, 06:49:02 pm
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/nsa-spied/)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 23, 2012, 10:51:19 pm
That uploader. Sigh, that uploader.

Quote
My favourite scene from Good Will Hunting and pertinent to the principles of liberty in its condemnation of killing people abroad who have done no harm to you personally. Taken to it's logical conclusion this belief should lead anybody who holds it to a pure libertarian position; though most won't, of course.

I've got to ask my dad if he's seen this movie.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 24, 2012, 03:46:00 am
So, the States don't need any reasons to spy on you as long as one of the parties is believed to be outside of the US? Dafuq! Well, I'm outside of the US, so this thread must be under government surveillance. Let's say hello to that lucky intern at the NSA that got to monitor us rather than monitoring 4chan.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 24, 2012, 03:51:25 am
Yeah, it's a lot easier to fit in here without arousing suspicion.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on June 24, 2012, 03:59:37 am
Quote from: Truean on June 23, 2012, 08:39:52 pm
If I'm decoding the doublespeak right: "It would violate your privacy if we said we spied on you."

Translation: "Aside from the obvious that we don't wanna get caught etc, it would expose you as a public curiousity if we told people we spied on you....The actual fact that we spied on you is a thing that should remain private for your sake...."

I.... It just.... ???

See, Big Brother does care about you!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 24, 2012, 08:15:53 am
Quote from: scriver on June 24, 2012, 03:59:37 am
See, Big Brother does care about you!

BIG BROTHER ALWAYS CARES
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 24, 2012, 08:17:03 am
Am I the only one who think that if the US was a Dwarf Fortress, I'd just flood it with magma and start over? It's just so much of a mess that I wouldn't know where to start to fix it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on June 24, 2012, 08:22:47 am
I'd let it devolve into a tantrum spiral first.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 24, 2012, 10:39:48 am
Quote from: Sheb on June 24, 2012, 08:17:03 am
Am I the only one who think that if the US was a Dwarf Fortress, I'd just flood it with magma and start over? It's just so much of a mess that I wouldn't know where to start to fix it.
No, no... it'd be pretty easy to start towards fixin'. Just death chamber the nobles and the brokers, then assign people that actually have appropriate skills into management positions instead of  whoever has the higher liar skill. There'd still be problems, but much more manageable ones.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 24, 2012, 10:40:16 am
Quote from: Frumple on June 24, 2012, 10:39:48 am
Quote from: Sheb on June 24, 2012, 08:17:03 am
Am I the only one who think that if the US was a Dwarf Fortress, I'd just flood it with magma and start over? It's just so much of a mess that I wouldn't know where to start to fix it.
No, no... it'd be pretty easy to start towards fixin'. Just death chamber the nobles and the brokers, then assign people that actually have appropriate skills into management positions instead of  whoever has the higher liar skill. There'd still be problems, but much more manageable ones.
Basically, do a Norway.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on June 24, 2012, 03:07:10 pm
Don't you mean Iceland?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 24, 2012, 03:09:27 pm
Pull out the guillotines; it's mass murder time.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 25, 2012, 10:37:22 am
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-upholds-key-part-arizona-immigration-law-141927514.html

The title is bullshit but yes. The overwhelming majority of the law got struck down, because separation of powers, and you can see the spin doctors are already trying to swing it as a conservative victory.

You lost 95% of your law, even a broken clock is right twice a day, but this counts as a win...? Sure, why not....

So now basically police can ask about your immigration status, but even SCOTUS recognizes that this will lead to more lawsuits as police may perform said askings illegally. The question will be, what must you do to prove your citizenship or status? Do you have to carry your god damn papers with you at all times or something? You know damn good and well that if you're even a bit too tan the police are going to start sniffing around, and if you're actually Hispanic, well....:( This kinda sucks a bit but meh, what're you gonna do about it [sigh].
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

http://news.yahoo.com/wikileaks-founder-wants-guarantee-wont-sent-us-032238148.html

The truth will set you free, unless of course it's a truth the government doesn't want told, in which case screw you. See, the government is entitled to privacy enforced by the court, you and I just aren't. Why, because they stamp everything "classified," especially things that really shouldn't be classified. They need a conveyor belt and a mechanical stamp to just do it easier. This guy didn't reveal troop movements or anything. He just told it like it was and nobody got hurt or killed. Isn't everybody calling for government transparency and accountability these days and complaining how their money is being wasted (especially the right wing)? Well he gave us exactly what we asked for.... Read the comments though, there are people calling for his death by firing squad for treason. He isn't even an American citizen, so how can he be guilty of treason to a country he owes no loyalty to?

The truth will set you free? Is that why they tell you, "you have the right to remain silent?"
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 25, 2012, 12:14:43 pm
Quote from: Truean on June 25, 2012, 10:37:22 am
The truth will set you free? Is that why they tell you, "you have the right to remain silent?"
Speaking of dealing with the police. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfdEbe7e9GE)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: scriver on June 25, 2012, 12:23:36 pm
...Dude. I'm completely with the police on that one. If a policeman aren't allowed to check up on you when your carrying of a gun makes people scared, then something is wrong with your laws.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 25, 2012, 12:24:12 pm
It's also the most patient police officer I've ever seen.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 25, 2012, 12:25:22 pm
Yeah, I mean, I almost got arrested for openly carrying a halberd once, and in retrospect I totally understand it. I really was scaring people (the fact that I had Bloody Mary stains on my shirt didn't help. :p
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Descan on June 25, 2012, 12:26:12 pm
As much as I dislike myself for saying this, he's still not allowed to do it. It's not up to the police officer to decide what law should or should not be followed. That's up to the courts and the legislation.

/me feels dirty for having said this. :<
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 25, 2012, 12:27:00 pm
Quote from: scriver on June 25, 2012, 12:23:36 pm
...Dude. I'm completely with the police on that one. If a policeman aren't allowed to check up on you when your carrying of a gun makes people scared, then something is wrong with your laws.
Perhaps you missed it, but what the guy in that video was doing is completely legal in the United States and what the cop was doing was an illegal stop and seizure. Regardless of whether or not you agree with US gun law, that's the situation in the eyes of the law.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 25, 2012, 12:28:08 pm
Yeah, that's right, cops should follow the law. But then, I'm not in the least surprised, and this really does seem minor.

Also, is it legal to open carry in Maine? I really have no idea.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: lorb on June 25, 2012, 01:27:59 pm
Quote from: Truean on June 25, 2012, 10:37:22 am
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-upholds-key-part-arizona-immigration-law-141927514.html

The title is bullshit but yes. The overwhelming majority of the law got struck down, because separation of powers, and you can see the spin doctors are already trying to swing it as a conservative victory.

You lost 95% of your law, even a broken clock is right twice a day, but this counts as a win...? Sure, why not....

If you count by provisions they technically lost only 75% of their law ...  :P
But besides that. When is Scalia going to retire? Only in the US it is possible to be so openly political in the position of a judge. He sure had a minority opinion again ... i quote:
Quote from: Antonin Scalia
[...] to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 25, 2012, 01:33:04 pm
I'm firmly convinced that Scalia plans to die in office. He's 76 and overweight, but apparently still going strong. I've never seen a man his age be so unhealthy and unaffected by it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 25, 2012, 01:40:36 pm
Quote from: greatorder on June 25, 2012, 01:37:15 pm
Quote from: Truean on June 25, 2012, 10:37:22 am
Why, because they stamp everything "classified,"
so... should I stamp classified to my forehead, computer and all my mail? :P

Only if you're the government.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Reelya on June 25, 2012, 02:00:05 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 25, 2012, 12:14:43 pm
Quote from: Truean on June 25, 2012, 10:37:22 am
The truth will set you free? Is that why they tell you, "you have the right to remain silent?"
Speaking of dealing with the police. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfdEbe7e9GE)

Why do i get the feeling that if they didn't check up on him and he DID murder someone the same outrage would be directed at "why didn't the police look at this guy".

The reason is there's no magic wand to tell good guys from bad guys. I can't muster much outrage over a check like this of a lethal weapon for that reason, i've read too many accounts of bad guys getting a free pass.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 25, 2012, 02:07:54 pm
Quote from: Reelya on June 25, 2012, 02:00:05 pm
Why do i get the feeling that if they didn't check up on him and he DID murder someone the same outrage would be directed at "why didn't the police look at this guy".
Because there are people who believe a false sense of security justifies breaking laws and procedures on the part of law enforcement. Which was basically where we started.

i.e. because the outrage would be coming from the people who think stuff like this is alright.

Quote
The reason is there's no magic wand to tell good guys from bad guys. I can't muster much outrage over a check like this of a lethal weapon for that reason, i've read too many accounts of bad guys getting a free pass.
In what was does hassling citizens who are legally going about their business and not causing any trouble going to do anything to stop bad guys? How does following the law give bad guys a free pass?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Darvi on June 25, 2012, 02:10:38 pm
Because "not breaking the law"="not doing anything wrong, nothing to see here"?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 25, 2012, 02:18:35 pm
I hate to say this, but the police's job is to enforce the law, not anything else. If you law are stupid, that's your problem.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 25, 2012, 02:23:40 pm
Quote from: Darvi on June 25, 2012, 02:10:38 pm
Because "not breaking the law"="not doing anything wrong, nothing to see here"?
I'm not really sure who you're arguing against here or what you are trying to say.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Darvi on June 25, 2012, 02:25:52 pm
I was basically answering your last question with the same intended meaning as sheb's post but in a much more laconic manner.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 25, 2012, 02:33:08 pm
But... but no one even drew a strict parallel between lawbreaking and bad-doing.

I'm so confused.

So do you think police should be allowed to break the law as a general rule on the off chance that some person may end up being a problem at some point in the future and the law breaking might have some possible chance os somehow impacting the likelihood, or that they shouldn't?

Precuationary law breakage on part of police, okay or not okay?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Darvi on June 25, 2012, 02:36:47 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on June 25, 2012, 02:33:08 pm
But... but no one even drew a strict parallel between lawbreaking and bad-doing.
You did?

Quote from: GlyphGryph on June 25, 2012, 02:07:54 pm
How does following the law give bad guys a free pass?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: lorb on June 25, 2012, 02:39:19 pm
Quote from: Descan on June 25, 2012, 12:26:12 pm
As much as I dislike myself for saying this, he's still not allowed to do it. It's not up to the police officer to decide what law should or should not be followed. That's up to the courts and the legislation.
Quote from: Sheb on June 25, 2012, 02:18:35 pm
I hate to say this, but the police's job is to enforce the law, not anything else. If you law are stupid, that's your problem.

Uhm, there is a point where you are morally obliged to _NOT_ follow the law.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 25, 2012, 02:40:14 pm
Not for cops there isn't.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 25, 2012, 02:41:12 pm
Yup, but that's not the police's job. Sometime, the human behind the uniform has to wake up and say "Hey, I shouldn't be doing that". That's the point where he stop being a policeman.

Also, Darvi, GlyphGryph, you're actually arguing about how much you agree with each other. Stop it.  :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 25, 2012, 02:42:43 pm
No, keep going. Arguments like this make me chuckle.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Darvi on June 25, 2012, 02:44:10 pm
Can't be, people not agreeing with me is a fundamental law of nature.

Actually that's a stupid law let's just ignore it.


Also I'm interested in knowing which situations a cop would feel compelled enough to break the law that they'd even risk losing their job or whatever the sanction is.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 25, 2012, 02:46:31 pm
Well, I'm sure you had plenty of cops deserting in Libya or Syria.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: lorb on June 25, 2012, 02:48:19 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 25, 2012, 02:40:14 pm
Not for cops there isn't.
Quote from: Sheb on June 25, 2012, 02:41:12 pm
Yup, but that's not the police's job.

Why are cops exempt from the moral duties of humankind?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Darvi on June 25, 2012, 02:50:50 pm
Because they have to follow the law which by definition is unrelated to morality.

Which doesn't explain why it's so easy for them to ignore most of that too.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Truean on June 25, 2012, 02:51:40 pm
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/25/loophole-lets-cruse-ship-rapes-go-unreported/

:(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 25, 2012, 02:52:34 pm
As I said, it's not their job. That doesn't mean the human behind the cop shouldn't be as moral as anyone, but when he stop respecting the law, he stop being a cop.

It's like a soldier's job is to obey orders. Of course, as a human being, he shouldn't shoot into that kindergarten, but if that kind of orders are given, he should desert and stop being a soldier.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 25, 2012, 02:53:16 pm
When cops break the law, they do so vigilante style and see themselves as arbiters of justice. This is not their job or role, and cops who believe this are more often than not delusional maniacs who sometimes get people killed.

Cops are there to enforce and follow the law, not to enforce their personal brand of vengeance.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: lorb on June 25, 2012, 02:55:35 pm
Quote from: Darvi on June 25, 2012, 02:50:50 pm
Because they have to follow the law which by definition is unrelated to morality.

It is not? Law _should_ be just. If it became law that a specified minorty (eg blacks) are excluded from some parts of society/public life (eg public transport) it would be the right thing to break and not enforce this law. (even for a policeman) no?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 25, 2012, 02:57:17 pm
Doing so could easily cause more harm than good.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 25, 2012, 02:57:36 pm
That kind of law breaking is not what you should be worried about.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 25, 2012, 02:57:47 pm
Tangent
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Darvi on June 25, 2012, 02:58:44 pm
Yeah, but "doing the right thing" isn't part of the job description.
Quote from: MonkeyHead on June 25, 2012, 02:57:17 pm
Doing so could easily cause more harm than good.
This. Mostly because everybody has a different idea of what's the right thing.

Wait did I just advocate moral relativism? o_O
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: lorb on June 25, 2012, 03:04:53 pm
Ok. I'll try to be a little more detailed about what i actually am trying to argue here so we can see on what points we can agree or agree to disagree.

1.) "Law" is a set of rules made and enforced by the government and it's institutions.
2.) Other sets of rules exist. (be they rooted in religion, ethics, philosophy or whatever ...)
2a.) some of them apply to every human (and by that cops)
3.) They (law and the rules from point 2) can conflict.
4.) Sometimes the rules from number 2 should be given priority over law. In that case the right thing to do is to break/not follow the law.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 25, 2012, 03:06:04 pm
Very few people are disputing the conflict between morality and legality, but cops are firmly in a position where they can only avoid abuse by being on the side of legality.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 25, 2012, 03:43:15 pm
Quote from: lorb on June 25, 2012, 03:04:53 pm
Sometimes the rules from number 2 should be given priority over law. In that case the right thing to do is to break/not follow the law.
Here's where the problems with that lie:


The police are there to enforce rules other people made. Not rules they made. If an individual police officer decides to enforce a law they made up, or decides to forgo enforcing a law they disagree with, then big problems can arise.

Imagine a police officer who's racist. In their mind, the "right" thing to do is something along the lines of what the KKK advocates. So, when they come across a hate crime, they might ignore it with the excuse of "I'm doing the right thing, not what the law says" and under your logic they'd be entirely justified.


Now you could argue objective morality to counter that, but the fact of reality is everyone has their own system of morality. There is no authority to decide what is truly "right and wrong," so there would be no way to objectively determine whether a police officer breaking the law for moral reasons would be justified or not. If we're going by popular vote about morality, that's what the laws are ideally supposed to already represent. We already tried going by what God says, and I dearly hope you're not advocating yourself or any other individual person to be the absolute authority on morality, so...


A police officer should follow the law to the letter. If the law is corrupt, then it needs to be changed (and said officer has just as much power to change it as you do).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 25, 2012, 03:47:33 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 25, 2012, 12:27:00 pm
Quote from: scriver on June 25, 2012, 12:23:36 pm
...Dude. I'm completely with the police on that one. If a policeman aren't allowed to check up on you when your carrying of a gun makes people scared, then something is wrong with your laws.
Perhaps you missed it, but what the guy in that video was doing is completely legal in the United States and what the cop was doing was an illegal stop and seizure. Regardless of whether or not you agree with US gun law, that's the situation in the eyes of the law.
I guess, but... frankly it's not a huge deal.  I definitely can't go progressive rage over it because noone was seriously harmed, and I don't agree with the law not being followed in the first place.  The cop and the people who reported a guy with a gun seemed to be mistaken over a point of law (I really can't see any evidence that this is part of a vigilante campaign or anything) and he responded very politely and calmly to the guy being a raging douchebag about it.  The issue could probably be settled by informing the police (and general public) in the area of how the law actually is so they can go about changing it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: lorb on June 25, 2012, 04:24:52 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 25, 2012, 03:43:15 pm
Quote from: lorb on June 25, 2012, 03:04:53 pm
Sometimes the rules from number 2 should be given priority over law. In that case the right thing to do is to break/not follow the law.
Here's where the problems with that lie:

The police are there to enforce rules other people made. Not rules they made. If an individual police officer decides to enforce a law they made up, or decides to forgo enforcing a law they disagree with, then big problems can arise.

Imagine a police officer who's racist. In their mind, the "right" thing to do is something along the lines of what the KKK advocates. So, when they come across a hate crime, they might ignore it with the excuse of "I'm doing the right thing, not what the law says" and under your logic they'd be entirely justified.

Now you could argue objective morality to counter that, but the fact of reality is everyone has their own system of morality. There is no authority to decide what is truly "right and wrong," so there would be no way to objectively determine whether a police officer breaking the law for moral reasons would be justified or not. If we're going by popular vote about morality, that's what the laws are ideally supposed to already represent. We already tried going by what God says, and I dearly hope you're not advocating yourself or any other individual person to be the absolute authority on morality, so...

A police officer should follow the law to the letter. If the law is corrupt, then it needs to be changed (and said officer has just as much power to change it as you do).

I will not be able to argue against that and it is extraordinary hard to avoid the naturalistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy) but i will try to at least defend a somewhat weaker position of what i believe to be correct. civil disobedience is never wrong if the person breaking a law does so under the following circumstances:

this should ensure that the ultimate goal (or at least part of it) of the breaking of the law is to be a signal to those that make the law or are responsible for it (the majority) that something is amiss and should be changed

edit: i also believe that objective morality exists and that ethical truths can in fact be established/discovered by means of discourse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_ethics).

edit2: also pointing to my signature i kind of feel the need to install a package for english spellchecking. please bear with my english
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 25, 2012, 04:56:05 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on June 25, 2012, 03:47:33 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 25, 2012, 12:27:00 pm
Quote from: scriver on June 25, 2012, 12:23:36 pm
...Dude. I'm completely with the police on that one. If a policeman aren't allowed to check up on you when your carrying of a gun makes people scared, then something is wrong with your laws.
Perhaps you missed it, but what the guy in that video was doing is completely legal in the United States and what the cop was doing was an illegal stop and seizure. Regardless of whether or not you agree with US gun law, that's the situation in the eyes of the law.
I guess, but... frankly it's not a huge deal.  I definitely can't go progressive rage over it because noone was seriously harmed, and I don't agree with the law not being followed in the first place.  The cop and the people who reported a guy with a gun seemed to be mistaken over a point of law (I really can't see any evidence that this is part of a vigilante campaign or anything) and he responded very politely and calmly to the guy being a raging douchebag about it.  The issue could probably be settled by informing the police (and general public) in the area of how the law actually is so they can go about changing it.
The guy wasn't being a raging douchbag. The cop detained him illegally and seized his property illegally, the guy cited the law that makes that illegal and refused to identify himself under another legal precedent, and the cop rightfully gave him his gun and allowed him to go on his way.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 25, 2012, 05:08:29 pm
It may be right to violate the law, but never in one's capacity as a police officer. There are situations where that job takes a backseat to morality (which is what "then you stop being an officer" means), but I'd argue that if the situation is ambiguous (as it is here), acting in accordance with the law is the correct procedure. Using legal authority to enforce one's own definition of morality is a problem and not really an acceptable precedent, since precedent actually matters in law and slippery slopes are, as a consequence, not fallacious.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 25, 2012, 05:11:24 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 25, 2012, 04:56:05 pm
The guy wasn't being a raging douchbag. The cop detained him illegally and seized his property illegally, the guy cited the law that makes that illegal and refused to identify himself under another legal precedent, and the cop rightfully gave him his gun and allowed him to go on his way.
Don't you keep telling us not to talk to cops or try to act as your own attorney in these situations?  I don't see how shouting rulings (which as far as the cop is concerned could have just been made up by you) in their face would help in the vast majority of cases.  I guess the cop eventually got bored and decided he probably wasn't a threat here, but I seriously doubt that'd be the case most of the time.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 25, 2012, 05:17:48 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on June 25, 2012, 05:11:24 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 25, 2012, 04:56:05 pm
The guy wasn't being a raging douchbag. The cop detained him illegally and seized his property illegally, the guy cited the law that makes that illegal and refused to identify himself under another legal precedent, and the cop rightfully gave him his gun and allowed him to go on his way.
Don't you keep telling us not to talk to cops or try to act as your own attorney in these situations?  I don't see how shouting rulings (which as far as the cop is concerned could have just been made up by you) in their face would help in the vast majority of cases.  I guess the cop eventually got bored and decided he probably wasn't a threat here, but I seriously doubt that'd be the case most of the time.
I've told you not to talk to cops if you've been arrested or say anything that could be used against you. Furthermore, this guy was a law student. He stood his ground and used case law to back himself up. If you do have clear knowledge of case law then I wouldn't advise against using it to make it clear that you know the law and your rights. There is an implication there. The police don't like dealing with people who know what they're doing, legally, and will more likely than not leave alone someone they believe could end up not being stupid and winning in court if arrested on a bullshit charge, and then file suit against them for malicious prosecution.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 25, 2012, 06:11:49 pm
Quote from: lorb on June 25, 2012, 04:24:52 pm
this should ensure that the ultimate goal (or at least part of it) of the breaking of the law is to be a signal to those that make the law or are responsible for it (the majority) that something is amiss and should be changed
Alright, makes sense.

Personally I think there's more ways out of moral responsibility than martyrdom. I'm more sympathetic to the "just following orders" excuse than many. A hypothetical officer than enforces a law they don't agree with can defer responsibility to whoever enacted the law, in my opinion, as they're just a tool in someone else's hands. That excuse doesn't carry weight in the cases of them being overzealous in enforcing the law, nor if they helped it come to pass (voting for it, etc), though.


Quote
edit2: also pointing to my signature i kind of feel the need to install a package for english spellchecking. please bear with my english
No worries. I can understand you just fine :)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: lorb on June 25, 2012, 06:42:59 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 25, 2012, 06:11:49 pm
Quote from: lorb on June 25, 2012, 04:24:52 pm
this should ensure that the ultimate goal (or at least part of it) of the breaking of the law is to be a signal to those that make the law or are responsible for it (the majority) that something is amiss and should be changed
Alright, makes sense.

Personally I think there's more ways out of moral responsibility than martyrdom. I'm more sympathetic to the "just following orders" excuse than many. A hypothetical officer than enforces a law they don't agree with can defer responsibility to whoever enacted the law, in my opinion, as they're just a tool in someone else's hands. That excuse doesn't carry weight in the cases of them being overzealous in enforcing the law, nor if they helped it come to pass (voting for it, etc), though.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
I see potential for great danger in the part i highlighted. I do not think it's ok for our hypothetical officer to do nothing about a law he does not agree with. It need not be martyrdom but he ought to do something. At least in a democracy he has partial responsibility for every law in place and voting is only the very baseline absolute minimum of participation you/he should feel obliged to. But raising his voice in the democratic process ans breaking the law sure are different things and the latter should only be an option after the former failed. But in the case that legal actions are not sufficient to right grave wrongs officer joe has a moral duty to break the law. Obviously it is not clear what "grave wrongs" are and in an attempt to ensure that at least the case of breaking the law without a good cause is ruled out i put up the that list of requirements for civil disobedience in the earlier post.
Besides that it is very very hard to give rational proof or similar for normative statements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_%28philosophy%29) but i do think at least some basic (natural) rights apply to everyone simply by being human and any violation of those legitimates breaking of law. Those rights are (in my opinion) also absolute, universal and objective moral standards.

edit: wow. spellchecking is great. so many words i can freely use without worrying whether they are spelled wrong or right
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 25, 2012, 06:55:22 pm
Mandatory sentencing of minors to life imprisonment without parole banned by the United States Supreme Court. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-9646g2i8.pdf)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on June 25, 2012, 07:08:28 pm
Hurrah!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 26, 2012, 02:57:58 am
I decided the 2000 post milestone was enough of a reason to change the title of the thread. "Expression" was just starting to seem like a slightly subpar word choice. I'll try to keep this title for even longer.

Runner-up title: PoH's Great and Gutsy 'Gressive Gabfest
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: lorb on June 26, 2012, 03:38:06 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 25, 2012, 06:55:22 pm
Mandatory sentencing of minors to life imprisonment without parole banned by the United States Supreme Court. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-9646g2i8.pdf)

It's about time. That's even part of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (which of all UN member states only Somalia and the US have not ratified :()
Quote
Article 37
a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be
imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on June 26, 2012, 04:57:01 am
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120625/12333619468/eu-commissioner-reveals-he-will-simply-ignore-any-rejection-acta-european-parliament-next-week.html

Maximum RAGE. This traitor is Belgian.

That's it, I'm mailling the local socialist party this evening and I'll enlist in the Pirate party.

Let's Sopa that asshole.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on June 26, 2012, 04:58:46 am
Quote from: Phmcw on June 26, 2012, 04:57:01 am
That's it, I'm mailling the local socialist party this evening and I'll enlist in the Pirate party.

That's great :)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 26, 2012, 05:09:30 am
Well, I'm not surprised. It's standard European policy to have people vote again and again until they vote what the Governments and Commission want them to vote.

The ECT was voted down, so they re-wrote it and proposed it as the Lisbon treaty. It was voted down by the Irish, so they just had the Irish vote again. They had done that already with the Danes in 1992 for the Maastricht treaty (although they changed a couple stuff, so it's not such a flagrant disregard for democracy) and the Irish for the Nice treaty.

I'm not as familiar with the European Parliament, but I guess some examples of this kind of behavior must exist somewhere.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on June 26, 2012, 05:12:23 am
Fuck the Union.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 26, 2012, 05:32:35 am
The European parliament is nice, but right now we're in that weird situation were the EU is mostly controlled by the governments and their envoy (the commissioners), and is used as a scapegoat by the very same governments who pretends they're forced to impose the very same policies they've voted for at the European level.

The European Parliament is by and large a good thing, but the fact that in a lot of countries it's used as a way out for ageing politicians doesn't help. It also doesn't have nearly enough power.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on June 26, 2012, 10:46:10 am
Quote from: Phmcw on June 26, 2012, 04:57:01 am
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120625/12333619468/eu-commissioner-reveals-he-will-simply-ignore-any-rejection-acta-european-parliament-next-week.html

Maximum RAGE. This traitor is Belgian.

That's it, I'm mailling the local socialist party this evening and I'll enlist in the Pirate party.

Let's Sopa that asshole.

Looks like this dude needs to be removed from power asap.
Club him with forms and procedures!

Wonder if this will get a protest going...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Expression Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 26, 2012, 11:03:38 am
Quote from: lorb on June 26, 2012, 03:38:06 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 25, 2012, 06:55:22 pm
Mandatory sentencing of minors to life imprisonment without parole banned by the United States Supreme Court. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-9646g2i8.pdf)

It's about time. That's even part of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (which of all UN member states only Somalia and the US have not ratified :()
Quote
Article 37
a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be
imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;
Ratifying a UN convention means nothing. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and China all execute and permanently imprison minors.

Anyway, this doesn't ban life imprisonment of minors. It bans making that a mandatory sentence.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 26, 2012, 12:59:34 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/texas-teen-lesbian-shooting-151041847.html

Yay..... [sigh].

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 26, 2012, 02:06:39 pm
Quote from: Truean on June 26, 2012, 12:59:34 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/texas-teen-lesbian-shooting-151041847.html

Yay..... [sigh].
Gee, I wonder why they were shot :|
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 26, 2012, 02:12:04 pm
Actually, I do wonder why they were shot. The article honestly makes it sound like this was probably significantly more personal than just someone who had a problem with their sexual orientation. The fact that one of them lived might leave a good chance of catching them if he was an acquaintance as well.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 26, 2012, 05:48:45 pm
No link, 'cause I'm not really sure which news site to use and they screw up my iPad junker anyway, but heeey folks! Remember how we've talked about the potential downsides for allowing compensated organ donation in the past (possibly the last progressivism thread, I'unno)?

The states have passed a law saying that compensation for bone marrow donation is now legal. We've got precedence and we get to see if the dystopian possibility will become actuality.

Huzzah?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 26, 2012, 06:13:24 pm
That discussion must've been before my time. Trying to think of downsides... Coercion, maybe? The black market already exists for organs, so I don't see a rise in organ theft happening (it might even go down due to competition).

The worst I could see would be people selling their bodies out of desperation to feed their family or whatever. 1) that can be made illegal so it wouldn't be any worse than it is now (would have to be done through black market), and 2) that's indicative of other economic problems if people can get that desperate at all.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 26, 2012, 06:17:28 pm
To be fair, bone marrow regenerates and is naturally present in excessive levels. Regularly selling your extra marrow is no more dangerous than regularly donating blood and/or blood plasma. It's not like they're asking you to sell them anything irreplaceable.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 26, 2012, 06:20:11 pm
I honestly am swamped right now, but this just makes me wanna vomit. The idea that it is becoming more and more mentally acceptable to cut people up and sell pieces of them just further dehumanizes them. You're a commodity, literally. Fuck that.

http://abcnews.go.com/News/york-mom-fired-donating-kidney-boss/story?id=16195691

We already look at people as throw away. The "everything is for sale" attitude seems to include dignity, honor, decency, and several other lost, now meaningless words.

For relatively harmless things like blood, fine. Much more than that is pushing it in my book.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 26, 2012, 06:20:54 pm
And unlike blood, you can't just go in and sell it. You put yourself on a list and then wait. And you might never get the chance to do so, because there's a good chance no one will need it, so if you DO, I don't think there's an problem with letting you benefit from it just like everyone else in the chain.

It's not something you can sell out of desperation to make a quick buck.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 26, 2012, 06:31:24 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 26, 2012, 06:13:24 pm
The worst I could see would be people selling their bodies out of desperation to feed their family or whatever. 1) that can be made illegal so it wouldn't be any worse than it is now (would have to be done through black market), and 2) that's indicative of other economic problems if people can get that desperate at all.
Consider the words "liquidating assets" and how they might relate to this issue.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 26, 2012, 06:39:59 pm
Heh, we're not in enough of a corporate dystopia for "human resources" to be "liquidated" in that manner yet. Nor do I think debt collection agencies will have the power to demand such a thing anytime soon.

Voluntarily donating bone marrow for some side income every once in a while is a LONG ways away from the evil dystopias where human life is valued at the cost of their organs. I wouldn't even really mind if people were compensated for organ donation upon death; it might lead to some life insurance esque fraud, but that's the worst of it (and should be solved by not allowing people to get that desperate at all).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 26, 2012, 06:54:19 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 26, 2012, 06:39:59 pm
Heh, we're not in enough of a corporate dystopia for "human resources" to be "liquidated" in that manner yet. Nor do I think debt collection agencies will have the power to demand such a thing anytime soon.

Voluntarily donating bone marrow for some side income every once in a while is a LONG ways away from the evil dystopias where human life is valued at the cost of their organs.
We're not in that position yet because we ban the sale of organs.  I don't think people are ever likely to be killed for liquidation, but it also doesn't seem implausible that debt collection companies could demand non-essential organs considering they're allowed to take almost anything else from you.

Quote from: kaijyuu on June 26, 2012, 06:39:59 pm
(and should be solved by not allowing people to get that desperate at all).
So instead of taking this practical measure we should magically solve every other social problem at once.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 26, 2012, 06:59:50 pm
Then why don't debt collection companies demand non-essential organs now? The answer is that it is impractical as well as unethical. Even in ideal conditions human organs don't last long if not connected to a human, and there isn't much of a profitable market for them in the first place because of how scarce spare organs are. Furthermore, it wouldn't hold up in the vast majority of courts the world over.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 26, 2012, 07:11:46 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on June 26, 2012, 06:54:19 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 26, 2012, 06:39:59 pm
(and should be solved by not allowing people to get that desperate at all).
So instead of taking this practical measure we should magically solve every other social problem at once.
Yep!

No really we're a lot closer to solving desperation for essentials than most think. We could feed everyone in every first world country 30 times over. Healthcare is moving, if slowly, toward free. Solving homelessness might be a bit further off than those two, but still possible. We can reach a point where those things are given and not earned sooner rather than later.


There are other causes of desperation, of course, and those won't be solved anytime soon I realize. Let's say you're endebted to the mafia or something. So yes, I can still see there being "organ donation fraud" or somesuch by committing suicide to sell your organs and pay off debts. However, I don't see that being any bigger a problem than life insurance fraud, and DEFINITELY won't be coerced anytime soon.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 26, 2012, 07:26:03 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 26, 2012, 06:59:50 pm
Then why don't debt collection companies demand non-essential organs now? The answer is that it is impractical as well as unethical. Even in ideal conditions human organs don't last long if not connected to a human, and there isn't much of a profitable market for them in the first place because of how scarce spare organs are. Furthermore, it wouldn't hold up in the vast majority of courts the world over.
Because we ban the sale of organs, like I just said?  Scarcity of a product makes the market for that one far better so I'm not sure where you're coming from there, and in any case there are plenty of places (most places?) where demand for organs outstrips supply.  Even if it "wouldn't hold up in court" it's not hard to imagine ways a debt collector could coerce you into it by giving you horrible terms if you refuse.

I guess I should make it clear that I feel the case of bone marrow is quite different to other donations and this particular law could end up working well.  I was just challenging the idea that allowing people to sell any organ would have no potential problems.

Quote from: kaijyuu on June 26, 2012, 07:11:46 pm
No really we're a lot closer to solving desperation for essentials than most think. We could feed everyone in every first world country 30 times over. Healthcare is moving, if slowly, toward free. Solving homelessness might be a bit further off than those two, but still possible. We can reach a point where those things are given and not earned sooner rather than later.
Get back to me when this stuff actually happens (I'd suggest it's not nearly as easy as you're making it out to be, considering that even the countries with the best standards of living aren't remotely close to "solving desparation").  I will accept "In a magical utopia land this would be fine!" arguments once we're living in that magical utopia and not a moment before.

Quote from: kaijyuu on June 26, 2012, 07:11:46 pm
There are other causes of desperation, of course, and those won't be solved anytime soon I realize. Let's say you're endebted to the mafia or something. So yes, I can still see there being "organ donation fraud" or somesuch by committing suicide to sell your organs and pay off debts. However, I don't see that being any bigger a problem than life insurance fraud, and DEFINITELY won't be coerced anytime soon.
Huh?  There are a wide a variety of organ donations you can go through that don't require you to die.  Those are the problematic ones and the ones people would be paid for or coerced into.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 26, 2012, 07:36:01 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 26, 2012, 06:59:50 pm
Then why don't debt collection companies demand non-essential organs now? The answer is that it is impractical as well as unethical. illegal.

ftfy.

The student loan companies will garnish the social security payments of older people who went back to school for "retraining," if they fall behind. Doesn't matter if that leaves them with nothing. I've seen it. Student loan collectors have powers that would make the mob jealous, because that was just a "way to make college affordable."

You know the problem with all these good intentions, they make excellent paving material for a road to hell. (The road to hell is paved with good intentions). Same thing with student loans, employment contracts with non compete provisions, foreign aid, homeowner's associations, etc. They all start out as fairly innocent sounding well intentioned ideas. Before you know it, you've got a generation of debt slaves, who can't leave their employers to go work for the competition, paying for governments in other countries, being told by their neighbors that they can't paint their house any color but white. The minute you monetize something, is the minute everybody suddenly has all sorts of interest in it.

Hey, foreclosure.... That house is a luxury.... You can live without it. Where else you gonna live? Don't give a damn, and it isn't my problem. O look at that, you've got 2 kidneys.... Not for long.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on June 26, 2012, 07:41:50 pm
Quote from: Truean on June 26, 2012, 07:36:01 pm
(The road to hell is paved with good intentions)

Yes, Truean, you just said so the sentence before, thanks for having such high confidence in our ability to understand simple turn of phrase :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 26, 2012, 07:43:55 pm
Quote from: scriver on June 26, 2012, 07:41:50 pm
Quote from: Truean on June 26, 2012, 07:36:01 pm
(The road to hell is paved with good intentions)

Yes, Truean, you just said so the sentence before, thanks for having such high confidence in our ability to understand simple turn of phrase :P

Sorry about that. We all know my snark is a presence all its own. I seem to apologize for it regularly.

Honestly though, does everybody here understand the immense power of two seemingly innocent words: "Why not?"

Those damn things are destructive and immensely so. They shift the blame and the burden of thinking to the other person, and imply that the position not being allowed is legitimate until there is a reason stated as to why it is illegitimate. You've just shifted the burden of proof onto the other party and forced them to think while you may be expected to just sit back and listen. This gives the other side the burden of proof and may finally frustirate them into saying something that they might hang themselves with, while you look innocent because you were "just asking." It's monumentally huge.

Other examples include:
"Why should I have to pay for that?"

(Cause you're an adult and that's part of the deal already you cheap skate. If nobody paid for anything because everyone said that then NOTHING would be paid for and nothing would ever get done. Plus it benefits you, directly or indirectly.)

"Tell me why I can't?"

(Tell me why you can? Why is it my job to explain every single restriction? Why not justify yourself rather than forcing other people to stop you, Mr. I have no self control and will eat the entire bag of potato chips and then wonder why I'm gaining weight).

This is also the three year old who has discovered the trick of asking "why?" to everything until the parent explodes or gives up. This is Glen Beck saying Obama should explain why he hasn't presented his birth certificate. This is so many things. The list is infinite.... The unfortunate thing is that you have to balance this with legitimate curiousity or times when the burden SHOULD be shifted to the other side. Good luck developing a system to fairly define that, cause the legal system has been trying for years.

So when somebody says, "Why shouldn't we pay people for organs donated?" It just opens up a pandora's box that is so huge it just... wow.

Note: This is the exact opposite of the Null Hypothesis in science. Some hypothesis isn't true in science until you disprove the null hypothesis. You don't look for reasons it isn't. You look for reasons to prove that it is.... See also: "Proving a negative."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 26, 2012, 07:57:28 pm
Quote
Get back to me when this stuff actually happens (I'd suggest it's not nearly as easy as you're making it out to be, considering that even the countries with the best standards of living aren't remotely close to "solving desparation").  I will accept "In a magical utopia land this would be fine!" arguments once we're living in that magical utopia and not a moment before.
Hey, I'm not saying it's gonna happen anytime soon. But the roadblocks are 90% cultural, not practical. We have the capacity or quite nearly it (for the first world countries, anyway -- second and third world ones are still screwed). And if we're concerned about problems, why not fix the root of them? Breaking down those cultural barriers would solve the problems with this, and innumerable other things we face in society.



Quote
Road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I've never really understood that phrase. The two meanings I've heard are A) "Could'a would'a should'a," IE thought about doing something good but never got around to it. To which I'd reply they never really had the good intent in the first place. And B) Tried to do the right thing but it blew up in your face. To that I reply, are we really damning people for ignorance and honest mistakes? Negligence is the only thing I can possibly think of people being guilty of, there.


I guess you're arguing B? If you see pitfalls to be fallen into, please point them out. No one's arguing that debt collection agencies should be allowed to demand your organs, and frankly it's a slippery slope fallacy to argue that they will be able to in the future.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 26, 2012, 08:02:13 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 26, 2012, 07:57:28 pm
Quote
Get back to me when this stuff actually happens (I'd suggest it's not nearly as easy as you're making it out to be, considering that even the countries with the best standards of living aren't remotely close to "solving desparation").  I will accept "In a magical utopia land this would be fine!" arguments once we're living in that magical utopia and not a moment before.
Hey, I'm not saying it's gonna happen anytime soon. But the roadblocks are 90% cultural, not practical. We have the capacity or quite nearly it (for the first world countries, anyway -- second and third world ones are still screwed). And if we're concerned about problems, why not fix the root of them? Breaking down those cultural barriers would solve the problems with this, and innumerable other things we face in society.



Quote
Road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I've never really understood that phrase. The two meanings I've heard are A) "Could'a would'a should'a," IE thought about doing something good but never got around to it. To which I'd reply they never really had the good intent in the first place. And B) Tried to do the right thing but it blew up in your face. To that I reply, are we really damning people for ignorance and honest mistakes? Negligence is the only thing I can possibly think of people being guilty of, there.


I guess you're arguing B? If you see pitfalls to be fallen into, please point them out. No one's arguing that debt collection agencies should be allowed to demand your organs, and frankly it's a slippery slope fallacy to argue that they will be able to in the future.

I am arguing B kinda. More of, it started out innocent enough but then shit hit the fan because everyone thought "that'll never happen, shit doesn't hit fans. That's just being overly cautious." It's more akin to recklessness, which is more serious.

As for negligence? Dude, people get sued for that/punished for it all the time. If we'd only been a little bit careful, then (horrible thing) wouldn't have happened. Nobody says the person who caused the horrible car accident MEANT to do it. I'm pretty much positive that they didn't wanna total their car and possibly injure themselves painfully along with the other people involved by accidentally/negligently running the red light, but that happened.... The dude who negligently ran the red light is the one we go after.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 26, 2012, 08:11:05 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 26, 2012, 07:57:28 pm
Hey, I'm not saying it's gonna happen anytime soon. But the roadblocks are 90% cultural, not practical. We have the capacity or quite nearly it (for the first world countries, anyway -- second and third world ones are still screwed).  And if we're concerned about problems, why not fix the root of them? Breaking down those cultural barriers would solve the problems with this, and innumerable other things we face in society.
This is true but completely irrelevant.  We should try and solve the root of the problem.  That doesn't mean we should act like the problem is already solved and recklessly remove laws which we think we wouldn't need in a perfect world (but which are clearly necessary in the world we actually live in).  Again, if the world does become perfect then we can start making arguments along these lines, but until then we can focus on the world as it actually is.

Quote from: kaijyuu on June 26, 2012, 07:57:28 pm
The two meanings I've heard are A) "Could'a would'a should'a," IE thought about doing something good but never got around to it. To which I'd reply they never really had the good intent in the first place. And B) Tried to do the right thing but it blew up in your face. To that I reply, are we really damning people for ignorance and honest mistakes? Negligence is the only thing I can possibly think of people being guilty of, there.
You've missed the point of the expression quite dramatically with both A and B.  It's not about people being "guilty of" anything.  It's saying that someone can be a perfectly nice person who is acting in what they believe is completely the right way and still cause horrible, horrible damage.  We don't need to assign blame to people like that but we need to stop their laws from being put into place so they can't harm people (remember, if you've just had your kidney forcefully removed it won't matter to you much whether the person who passed the law did it with good or bad intentions).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 27, 2012, 12:07:12 am
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/arizona-implements-immigration-law-feds-push-back-154346200.html

Once again proving the law's futility, even the portion that somehow got upheld by SCOTUS.... Basically it works out like this:

Arizona Police Officer, "Hello Federal Government, I've found somebody who is possibly an illegal alien."
Federal Government, "Unless he or she committed a serious crime or is a repeat border crosser, we don't give a damn." [hangs up phone]

This phone calls is estimated to happen 50,000 times in the next year for one Arizona Community.... Somebody is going to have to pay for all those calls unless the police wise up and stop making them or something.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

So to review, several million dollars for trial, appeal, and US Supreme Court case for a law that was between 75 to 95% unconstitutional and does... not a whole lot of anything but costs millions if not billions over the long term to be enforced.... So they can now ask for your papers based upon .... I mean really it's gonna be skin color and you know it.... This brought to you by people who want to balance the budget while giving rich people a massive tax break.... Less money coming in = balanced budget? Let's give the nation a pay cut, "patriotically." We now live in a country where they can effectively ask you for your papers if you're not white.... At least Scalia is the type of crazy that's interesting.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 27, 2012, 12:10:24 am
They didn't uphold the worst of the law, and that's definitely something. We all know that it's far from impossible for them to have let it stand, and they didn't. It isn't perfect by any means, but I think it's a victory all the same.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on June 27, 2012, 04:55:03 am
Agree with Leafsnail about the "road to hell" saying and have a couple of examples from my view of its meaning. Often, it's good intentioned but with ignorance of the true effects of the actions you're doing.

#1 = prohibition: almost the definition of "well intentioned" action which blew up completely into "hellish" conditions, banning stuff has all sorts of unintended consequences: corruption, crime, gangs, murder, black market, unregulated products, disease epidemics.

#2 = welfare: it has been argued that specifics of welfare allocations has caused more families to break up since a single mother and the father leaving can get more welfare than if they "stick together", as well as fostering dependency issues.

#3 = public advocacy campaigns: often due to human psychology, the effects of a campaign may be totally opposite of the desired effect. I heard about a campaign which basically said "everyone's been stealing X, please don't steal X too" actually caused MORE people to steal 'X', since people seemed to rationalize that "if everyone is doing it, it won't matter if I do too.", they later changed the adverts to show a lone person stealing and some other people looking on disapprovingly, these new adverts had the desired effect. (it was actually a campaign to stop people stealing petrified wood fossils from a national park in Canada).

Interestingly the advert in #3, which backfired, was a lot like the Reagan Era's "just say no" campaign against drugs, which basically told kids "everyone else is doing drugs, but you can 'say no' ".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 27, 2012, 07:47:41 am
I believe another phrase that encapsulates the same idea as "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" is "the law of unintended consequences".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on June 27, 2012, 10:07:23 am
Quote from: Truean on June 27, 2012, 12:07:12 am
Federal Government, "Unless he or she committed a serious crime or is a repeat border crosser, we don't give a damn." [hangs up phone]

I see some "serious crimes" being magicked into existence... one way or another.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 27, 2012, 10:17:06 am
Quote from: Moghjubar on June 27, 2012, 10:07:23 am
Quote from: Truean on June 27, 2012, 12:07:12 am
Federal Government, "Unless he or she committed a serious crime or is a repeat border crosser, we don't give a damn." [hangs up phone]

I see some "serious crimes" being magicked into existence... one way or another.
The people who actually do things in the federal government care much less about illegal immigration than you might think. Outside of the Department of Homeland Security, it isn't a relevant issue.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on June 27, 2012, 11:59:54 am
The Texas Republican Party platform (http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/2012-Platform-Final.pdf?docID=3201) is officially against Critical Thinking.

Quote
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

I would question how anybody in their right mind could openly say they're against developing critical thinking skills, but I may just be looking at things from a view tainted by critical thinking.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 27, 2012, 12:06:35 pm
Oh man, challenging beliefs and undermining established authorities. Can't have that. Nope, all children must remain obedient slaves to their parents and what their parents believe.


It's almost as stupid as anti-vaccers.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 27, 2012, 12:11:27 pm
This one's older than radio, actually. Socrates was killed for "corrupting the youth of Athens." Think about that one for a bit....

They don't want you questioning, or exposing kids to anything other than what the parents want. The parent loves this idea, because then they are the final and total authority on everything, despite being simply, objectively wrong. There are people who want to believe that the earth is the center of the universe and that the whole thing is only about 6 thousand years old with dinosaurs walking around with people (See, creationist museums). Fossil evidence, carbon dating? Whatever man, 6 thousand years and no older..... And how dare you teach their kids anything else in school.

[sigh]
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 27, 2012, 12:13:29 pm
Makes for a great slogan though:

"The Texas Republican Party: Keeping Texas free of thinking since...uhhhh....ummm...."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on June 27, 2012, 12:15:21 pm
IDE/Theory: Bikini Bottom is located in the underwater Texas of the future.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 27, 2012, 04:15:01 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 27, 2012, 12:06:35 pm
Oh man, challenging beliefs and undermining established authorities. Can't have that. Nope, all children must remain obedient slaves to their parents and what their parents believe.


It's almost as stupid as anti-vaccers.

Almost?

If the anti-vaccers win and eliminate all vaccines, they will only be responsible for crippling and killing millions of innocent children.

If these guys win and eliminate all critical thought, it is the end of western civilization and all technological and social progress it has brought. It dooms the human race to extinction the next time a global critical event occurs.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 27, 2012, 04:28:07 pm
Well, let's keep things in perspective. They're only killing critical thought in Texas. Where it was already an endangered species.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 27, 2012, 05:21:39 pm
Quote from: RedKing on June 27, 2012, 04:28:07 pm
Well, let's keep things in perspective. They're only killing critical thought in Texas. Where it was already an endangered species cryptozoological myth.
Fixed for the even more uncharitable.

Being fair, there are some people stuck in that state due to jobs or whatever that's capable of critical thought, but...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on June 27, 2012, 05:23:24 pm
Aqizzar and Janet are mad at you.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Gunner-Chan on June 27, 2012, 05:29:13 pm
In my case I don't even identify as a Texan or an American. I'm getting my ass out of here as soon as I can learn german well and we get everything in order.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 27, 2012, 05:54:42 pm
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57462085-92/google-shows-apple-we-made-ours-in-the-u.s.a/

We.... Need. This. (Things being made in the U.S.).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 27, 2012, 06:03:32 pm
I'm no political scientist... is there such a thing as labor tariffs?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 27, 2012, 06:04:38 pm
What do you mean by labor tariff? You can't import labor, so I'd say no.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 27, 2012, 06:08:09 pm
Well the general idea of tariffs is to give an advantage to local products. Just wondering if tariffs could be applied to the labor used to produce the product; if it were made in the USA, it'd be cheaper, otherwise they'd face a tax.

/shrug
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 27, 2012, 06:21:08 pm
So, a standard tariff?

The problem with tariff is that other country tend to retaliate by imposing tariffs of their own, and what you ain on importe you loose on exports.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 27, 2012, 06:24:17 pm
And mutual protectionism can often end up bad for everyone.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on June 27, 2012, 06:46:01 pm
Quote from: Sheb on June 27, 2012, 06:04:38 pm
What do you mean by labor tariff? You can't import labor, so I'd say no.
My father's company disagrees, I mean it's the entire reason we're in this country.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on June 27, 2012, 06:52:48 pm
Quote from: Truean on June 27, 2012, 05:54:42 pm
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57462085-92/google-shows-apple-we-made-ours-in-the-u.s.a/

We.... Need. This. (Things being made in the U.S.).
Doesn't matter really. Even without outsourcing, a very large majority of these jobs would be gone very shortly anyway due to increasing automation.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on June 27, 2012, 06:56:23 pm
Someone has to design the machines to do that, and moreover someone has to build the machines that assemble products. (Or at least build the machine that builds the machines!)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 27, 2012, 07:12:43 pm
Which is how many lost jobs, still? Not every assembly line worker is going to be replaced by an engineer at a 1:1 ratio.


To solve the technology problem we need to cut into the profit gain made by automation. Probably shorter work weeks. Less individual hours = more workers.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on June 27, 2012, 07:21:33 pm
That's a stop-gap at best.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 27, 2012, 07:27:32 pm
The alternative is to accept that people will be jobless and outright give them necessities. Obviously, I'm all for that, but I don't see it happening right now.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on June 27, 2012, 07:30:02 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 27, 2012, 07:27:32 pm
The alternative is to accept that people will be jobless and outright give them necessities. Obviously, I'm all for that, but I don't see it happening right now.
Or we go full Imperium of Man and accomplish everything through sheer brute-force manual labor.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on June 27, 2012, 07:43:09 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 27, 2012, 07:12:43 pm
Which is how many lost jobs, still? Not every assembly line worker is going to be replaced by an engineer at a 1:1 ratio.

More than that, they are in entirely different sectors of the economy and, more importantly, different strata of the US's social hierarchy. Which means for those unskilled or demi-skilled laborers who used to be manufacturing products, the jobs are gone and can not come back.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 27, 2012, 10:59:21 pm
Quote from: Descan on June 27, 2012, 07:21:33 pm
That's a stop-gap at best.
You have to keep paying them the same amount. In absolute terms, not per-hour. This only works, obviously, if it happens all across the board or it starts with a big enough player that they can weather the opportunity costs long enough to cripple the opposition by attracting the majority of the competent labor pool, and neither option is going to happen. Unfortunately, you don't get to be rich by writing a lot of checks - so if you're already a major chunk of the supply side of the market, you're not the sort of business to make this sort of change.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 28, 2012, 12:36:41 pm
obamacare thread right here bros (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=112341.0)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 28, 2012, 02:25:01 pm
Oreo Cookies/General Mills endorses (in an understated way) gay rights, derpiness ensues. (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/how-could-you-boycott-a-cookie)  ::)


Of course, George Takei had a great rejoinder to this:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on June 28, 2012, 02:28:30 pm
I've told you, anybody who hates cookies cannot be a good person.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 28, 2012, 02:37:15 pm
My favorite response to that is "Facebook supports gay rights. Go boycott Facebook."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on June 28, 2012, 02:44:21 pm
Quote from: Darvi on June 28, 2012, 02:28:30 pm
I've told you, anybody who hates cookies cannot be a good person.
Is it ok to hate certain kinds of cookies? I can't stand oatmeal-raisin cookies :(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on June 28, 2012, 02:45:49 pm
Raisins are nasty. Blech.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on June 28, 2012, 02:54:51 pm
I think that's raisist.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 28, 2012, 02:56:30 pm
Quote from: Darvi on June 28, 2012, 02:45:49 pm
Raisins are nasty. Blech.
Bigot. I bet you'd love it if it was still a grape!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on June 28, 2012, 02:59:14 pm
He must be an ageist.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 28, 2012, 03:17:36 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I, uh... what?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 28, 2012, 03:21:42 pm
I recall something akin to One Million Moms against Ellen (and JCPenny).... This seems to have translated into about "Forty thousand women who managed to have a kid but not brains." Same difference.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 28, 2012, 03:33:47 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on June 28, 2012, 03:17:36 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I, uh... what?
Welcome to America. Don't look the crazies in the eye, they'll start preaching Jesus if you do.
Quote from: Truean on June 28, 2012, 03:21:42 pm
I recall something akin to One Million Moms against Ellen (and JCPenny).... This seems to have translated into about "Forty thousand women who managed to have a kid but not brains." Same difference.
It isn't exactly difficult to have children. It's so easy we had to develop several technologies with the express purpose of preventing children.

Damn you humanity. Damn you and your excessive fertility.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on June 28, 2012, 04:13:31 pm
Quote from: Darvi on June 28, 2012, 02:28:30 pm
I've told you, anybody who hates cookies cannot be a good person.

But you hate cake! And cake's Swedish relative-word "kaka" means cookie! Hence cake is a kind of cookie!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 28, 2012, 04:35:17 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 28, 2012, 03:33:47 pm
Welcome to America. Don't look the crazies in the eye, they'll start preaching Jesus if you do.
But... there are several quotes in the Bible that are at least arguably actually against homosexuality!  Why would you pick a completely irrelevant one?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 28, 2012, 04:39:23 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on June 28, 2012, 04:35:17 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 28, 2012, 03:33:47 pm
Welcome to America. Don't look the crazies in the eye, they'll start preaching Jesus if you do.
But... there are several quotes in the Bible that are at least arguably actually against homosexuality!  Why would you pick a completely irrelevant one?
I'm going to be straight with you here. Recent events have lead me to believe that the stress of slowly and permanently losing their iron-fisted grip on American society is causing the fundies to crack under the pressure and implode into utterly senseless attempts at denial and self-assurance.

EDIT: Actually, nevermind the examples, the crazy is kind of disturbing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 28, 2012, 04:50:24 pm
I watched it in time.  Why would you "show it again without the filter" and then censor it anyway??  Argh.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaenneth on June 28, 2012, 05:34:38 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on June 28, 2012, 04:35:17 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 28, 2012, 03:33:47 pm
Welcome to America. Don't look the crazies in the eye, they'll start preaching Jesus if you do.
But... there are several quotes in the Bible that are at least arguably actually against homosexuality!  Why would you pick a completely irrelevant one?

take "You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestable."

Remember at the time Women were basically property, almost like cattle.

So maybe what it really means is that when you 'lay' with men, you should treat them with respect, as a fellow man; and not just use them, like with a woman/sheep.

Also, how should Women read that command?, Are women banned from having sex with men, or at least not like they lay with women?, does that mean the bible specifically OKs lesbians?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 28, 2012, 05:42:48 pm
Quote from: kaenneth on June 28, 2012, 05:34:38 pm
Also, how should Women read that command?, Are women banned from having sex with men, or at least not like they lay with women?, does that mean the bible specifically OKs lesbians?
Strangely enough, go down the first column on this chart and look at the abnormally high number of "Male illegal, Female legal" nations. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory#LGBT-related_laws_by_country_or_territory)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 28, 2012, 11:37:21 pm
Quote from: kaenneth on June 28, 2012, 05:34:38 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on June 28, 2012, 04:35:17 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 28, 2012, 03:33:47 pm
Welcome to America. Don't look the crazies in the eye, they'll start preaching Jesus if you do.
But... there are several quotes in the Bible that are at least arguably actually against homosexuality!  Why would you pick a completely irrelevant one?

take "You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestable."

Remember at the time Women were basically property, almost like cattle.

So maybe what it really means is that when you 'lay' with men, you should treat them with respect, as a fellow man; and not just use them, like with a woman/sheep.

Also, how should Women read that command?, Are women banned from having sex with men, or at least not like they lay with women?, does that mean the bible specifically OKs lesbians?

Uh, far simpler explanation: Women were property in the bible. They pretty much didn't matter, and if you were a girl it was an extra special bad sin not to obey your father or husband. Really, the whole book is gender biased from Eve right on down.

As for why he tried to use that quote, cause it was said by Jesus, who you know, seems to be a big deal and people know him or something. I guess it just holds more weight. Fact is, he didn't say anything about it, but truth doesn't seem to stop the particularly crazy ones. The guy quoted here is actually talking about laying down his life for his friends, which has nothing to do with anything in this context, but then expecting a fundie to make sense just ... is a waste most of the time.

At the end of the day, this was somebody who was pissed off over any support of homosexuality. And, you know what's sad? A few years ago, that kinda thing would've worked. It would've massively worked. Opposing a company for supporting gay rights 10 or 20 years ago (and especially further back) would've been a totally legit strategy and very, very effective. These people are at a total loss as to what to do now that this old trick isn't an automatic win. It used to be all you had to say was "Gay? Ewww." That was the end of pretty much anything that had to do with gay rights getting any serious support until very recent times.  With several people today, it's still all they need to 86 something. The notion that gays fit somewhere, anywhere into a family and [fake gasp] a family with children... is unthinkable to many in the US today. That's part of the reason why all the anti gay groups are "family" or "traditional marriage" groups. My response if only I could say it, "You don't wanna talk to your kid about it? So your solution is for me to alter my entire life because you can't have a conversation with your brat? Yeah, well I don't wanna live in a world where I have to explain to anyone not to wear socks with sandals but here you are...." :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 29, 2012, 08:39:53 am
Another one is that people were homophobic in the past but that's no reason to be homophobic today.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 29, 2012, 10:12:02 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 28, 2012, 05:42:48 pm
Quote from: kaenneth on June 28, 2012, 05:34:38 pm
Also, how should Women read that command?, Are women banned from having sex with men, or at least not like they lay with women?, does that mean the bible specifically OKs lesbians?
Strangely enough, go down the first column on this chart and look at the abnormally high number of "Male illegal, Female legal" nations. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory#LGBT-related_laws_by_country_or_territory)
Well, duh. Even most straight men find lesbians HAWT.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EveryZig on June 29, 2012, 02:59:10 pm
Meanwhile, in Texas: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/texas_gops_2012_platform_accidentally_opposes_teaching_of_critical_thinking_skills.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on June 29, 2012, 03:03:23 pm
Quote from: EveryZig on June 29, 2012, 02:59:10 pm
Meanwhile, in Texas: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/texas_gops_2012_platform_accidentally_opposes_teaching_of_critical_thinking_skills.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
Yeah, we had that 3 pages back:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg3406529#msg3406529 (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg3406529#msg3406529)

Much chortling and eye-rolling was had.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on June 29, 2012, 03:07:18 pm
Quote from: EveryZig on June 29, 2012, 02:59:10 pm
Meanwhile, in Texas: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/texas_gops_2012_platform_accidentally_opposes_teaching_of_critical_thinking_skills.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
How the fuck is that an accident.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 29, 2012, 04:41:09 pm
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on June 29, 2012, 03:07:18 pm
Quote from: EveryZig on June 29, 2012, 02:59:10 pm
Meanwhile, in Texas: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/texas_gops_2012_platform_accidentally_opposes_teaching_of_critical_thinking_skills.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
How the fuck is that an accident.

The accidental part was how they didn't think of how any sane person would react before they got stuck with it until 2014....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on June 29, 2012, 05:28:45 pm
Quote
On Homosexuality:

    We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.
>_>;
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Levi on June 29, 2012, 05:31:45 pm
Why are Texans so obsessed about other peoples sex-lives?  They should be less nosy and worry about their own genitals!  :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 29, 2012, 05:43:33 pm
Because FAMILY VALUES and UR DIFFERENT SO I DUN LIKE U.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 29, 2012, 05:56:58 pm
Quote from: Euld on June 29, 2012, 05:28:45 pm
Quote
Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.
>_>;
So basically, for any reason.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 29, 2012, 06:37:08 pm
That particular line is rather stupid since it's not saying anything, really. Civil or criminal penalties would come from hate crimes/etc, not simply "opposing homosexuality." No one but the thought police is saying they have to like it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 29, 2012, 08:04:30 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 29, 2012, 06:37:08 pm
That particular line is rather stupid since it's not saying anything, really. Civil or criminal penalties would come from hate crimes/etc, not simply "opposing homosexuality." No one but the thought police is saying they have to like it.

That particular line is rather brilliant actually. Simply, it feeds the religious right's persecution complex and the anti gay propaganda that creates phrases like "homosexual agenda." See the "real" victims are people who are "persecuted" for their beliefs... like that homosexuals should be jailed or killed as abominations.... Good wholesome beliefs like that.... [sigh].

It's a very well written piece of propaganda. It accomplishes its evil purpose rather well.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on June 29, 2012, 09:42:04 pm
Noms for thought. http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/frames/2012/06/2012618756972819.html
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on June 29, 2012, 09:48:02 pm
Moreover, the line doesn't make much of specificity.

Quote
Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.

Don't have to be related. Mein gott, a secret agenda!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on June 29, 2012, 10:48:31 pm
Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on June 29, 2012, 09:48:02 pm
Moreover, the line doesn't make much of specificity.

Quote
Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.

Don't have to be related. Mein gott, a secret agenda!

Person 1: "That man murdered my family, burned down our village, raped our sheep, and danced on the flaming corpses before consuming their livers!"
Person 2: "That man hates gays."
Person 1: "Oh, carry on then, sorry to have bothered you."

....

Wait a minute....

The Taliban is opposed to homosexuality based on religious and traditional reasons.

THIS JUST IN: Republican leaders support the rights of the Taliban to impose lawlessness and do as they please unchecked!!!

*sigh* If only we had a liberal version of Fox news, this story could exist. And that would be hilarious.

Spoiler: more quotes from their pages of terrible policy (click to show/hide)
Ye gods, this is top-notch satire material here... Wait... this isn't satire?? FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Read through it if you want a taste of Republican's ideal REAL 'MURICA. http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012Platform_Final.pdf
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EveryZig on June 29, 2012, 11:39:32 pm
Quote from: alway on June 29, 2012, 10:48:31 pm
Ye gods, this is top-notch satire material here... Wait... this isn't satire?? FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Obviously their real agenda is to out-compete the Onion.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on June 29, 2012, 11:59:13 pm
Wow, reading through this, even my relatively high level of cynicism is surprised over and over again at how terrible some of these ideas are.
Quote
Israel – We believe that the United States and Israel share a special long-standing relationship based on
shared values, a mutual commitment to a republican form of government, and a strategic alliance that benefits
both nations. Our foreign policy with Israel should reflect the special nature of this relationship through
continued military and economic assistance and recognition that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should
remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.  We believe that the US Embassy should be located
in Jerusalem.  In our diplomatic dealings with Israel, we encourage the continuation of peace talks between
Israel and the Palestinians, but oppose pressuring Israel to make concessions it believes would jeopardize its
security, including the trading of land for the recognition of its right to exist.  We call on the U.S. to cease strong
arming Israel through prior agreements with the understanding of delivering equipment to them to defend
themselves in exchange for future diplomatic concessions, such as giving up land to the Palestinians on the
West Bank.  We support the continuation of non-recognition of terrorist nations and organizations.  Our policy
is based on God’s biblical promise to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel and we
further invite other nations and organizations to enjoy the benefits of that promise.
Holy hell. I don't think I've ever seen actual party officials so blatant about it. Their foreign policy is quite literally based on end-of-the-world prophesy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 30, 2012, 12:07:39 am
The GOP has supported Israel based off of Apocalypse Theology since the 70's, when the Religious Right took over the right-wing. It isn't new and they aren't shy about it. Some of them have even advocated that while permanant environmental damage is real, it isn't a problem because either "God will fix it because He promised Earth to us" or "God is going to destroy Earth soon anyway, we can do whatever with it".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on June 30, 2012, 06:10:23 am
Quote
Except for noncitizens, we further oppose any national ID program, including the Real ID Act and the use of Radio Frequency
Identification Chips (RFID) on humans.

Wait wait wait wait. What the hell is this?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 30, 2012, 06:14:20 am
Quote from: alway on June 29, 2012, 10:48:31 pm
Ahahaha, reading their pdf of the original, there is a section on pronz right under teh gayz.
Quote
We encourage the enforcement of laws regarding all forms of pornography, because
pornography is detrimental to the fabric of society.
"And now, we give a nod to the religious right, while simultaneously acknowledging that if we actually passed laws about it, we would be immediately kicked out by 95% of voters."
I had to look up this passage in the manifesto, and... yes, it really is that vague.  That's all they say about it - that they'll "encourage the enforcement of laws".  So it could be anything from:
-All porn is banned, death sentences for anyone caught viewing it
-All porn is now legally protected speech and everyone is legally required to watch some every night

Quite apart from all the policies, this is really awfully written.  Good find.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on June 30, 2012, 07:04:38 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on June 30, 2012, 06:14:20 am
Quite apart from all the policies, this is really awfully written.  Good find.
It's almost as if they don't want the burden of taking a stance on pornography itself.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on June 30, 2012, 07:52:41 am
You're all aware that if those guys take over the country you'll see concentration camp, right?
This is no laughing matter, you're very possibly reading the next "mein kampf".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 30, 2012, 08:17:18 am
Quote from: scriver on June 30, 2012, 06:10:23 am
Wait wait wait wait. What the hell is this?
Conservatives believe Obama is going to force chips into all their brains, and also that that sort of bullshit is only for bad guys like those who aren't citizens of the United States.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on June 30, 2012, 09:56:13 am
Is anyone else seeing constant anti-Obama ads on their Youtube videos? I didn't think they liked political ads. Anyway, it's the only ad I saw yesterday, about 30 times. It was by a group 'not directly representing any candidate', which means it was probably paid for by Mitt Romney's SuperPAC.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 30, 2012, 10:12:20 am
Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on June 30, 2012, 09:56:13 am
Is anyone else seeing constant anti-Obama ads on their Youtube videos? I didn't think they liked political ads. Anyway, it's the only ad I saw yesterday, about 30 times. It was by a group 'not directly representing any candidate', which means it was probably paid for by Mitt Romney's SuperPAC.
Ads = Money
Google = Wants your money
Paying political customer = GIVE ME TEH MONIES
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 30, 2012, 11:40:46 am
Quote from: scriver on June 30, 2012, 06:10:23 am
Quote
Except for noncitizens, we further oppose any national ID program, including the Real ID Act and the use of Radio Frequency
Identification Chips (RFID) on humans.

Wait wait wait wait. What the hell is this?
Some people in the US believe that the government is planning to put tracking microchips in everyone so they can spy on us. The GOP is here saying that they'd oppose that unless we're talking about immigrants. The Real ID Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act) seems like something that the Republicans would support, but apparently not these ones.
Quote from: Phmcw on June 30, 2012, 07:52:41 am
You're all aware that if those guys take over the country you'll see concentration camp, right?
This is no laughing matter, you're very possibly reading the next "mein kampf".
Hyperbole, much? The Republicans have had dominance over the country before, and for all of their bad polices I get the feeling they'd have some dissent if they started building concentration camps for whatever reason.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on June 30, 2012, 12:26:53 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 30, 2012, 11:40:46 am
Quote from: Phmcw on June 30, 2012, 07:52:41 am
You're all aware that if those guys take over the country you'll see concentration camp, right?
This is no laughing matter, you're very possibly reading the next "mein kampf".
Hyperbole, much? The Republicans have had dominance over the country before, and for all of their bad polices I get the feeling they'd have some dissent if they started building concentration camps for whatever reason.

Fortunately not all republicans are of the texan/tea-party type. Else it would not be so much of an hyperbole.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on June 30, 2012, 01:05:12 pm
Quote from: lorb on June 30, 2012, 12:26:53 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 30, 2012, 11:40:46 am
Quote from: Phmcw on June 30, 2012, 07:52:41 am
You're all aware that if those guys take over the country you'll see concentration camp, right?
This is no laughing matter, you're very possibly reading the next "mein kampf".
Hyperbole, much? The Republicans have had dominance over the country before, and for all of their bad polices I get the feeling they'd have some dissent if they started building concentration camps for whatever reason.

Fortunately not all republicans are of the texan/tea-party type. Else it would not be so much of an hyperbole.

Unless of course... they get clear and proper cause....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 30, 2012, 03:59:07 pm
http://www.hulu.com/watch/375781

I love Colbert Report, so much.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 30, 2012, 07:31:54 pm
Not a good day to be British. (http://www.channel4.com/news/black-boxes-to-monitor-all-internet-and-phone-data)

America, America...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 30, 2012, 07:34:17 pm
Quote from: Truean on June 30, 2012, 03:59:07 pm
http://www.hulu.com/watch/375781

I love Colbert Report, so much.
Where's my homomexual marijuana love glove sun tax!? I'd totally vote for that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 30, 2012, 07:55:32 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 30, 2012, 07:31:54 pm
Not a good day to be British. (http://www.channel4.com/news/black-boxes-to-monitor-all-internet-and-phone-data)

America, America...
I'll get more concerned when they start proposing things that are possible.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 30, 2012, 08:27:05 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on June 30, 2012, 07:55:32 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 30, 2012, 07:31:54 pm
Not a good day to be British. (http://www.channel4.com/news/black-boxes-to-monitor-all-internet-and-phone-data)

America, America...
I'll get more concerned when they start proposing things that are possible.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/major-isps-turn-into-copyright-police-by-july-says-riaa/

Hey, don't think just because you're winning the race to 1984 means we aren't right behind you nipping at your heels. In fact I also found a whole thread on it:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=111100.msg3354428#msg3354428
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 30, 2012, 09:11:39 pm
I don't mean "it won't get through parliament" so much as "what they are suggesting is completely impossible given their budget and the amount of internet traffic in the UK".  I guess they might have a rethink and come up with a proposal that is actually doable eventually.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 01, 2012, 04:37:29 am
Quote from: Truean on June 30, 2012, 03:59:07 pm
http://www.hulu.com/watch/375781

I love Colbert Report, so much.

Could you link me to whatever clip this was on his website? Hulu isn't watchable outside the states, unfortunately.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Karlito on July 01, 2012, 12:14:25 pm
Quote from: scriver on July 01, 2012, 04:37:29 am
Quote from: Truean on June 30, 2012, 03:59:07 pm
http://www.hulu.com/watch/375781

I love Colbert Report, so much.

Could you link me to whatever clip this was on his website? Hulu isn't watchable outside the states, unfortunately.
That's the entire June 28 episode.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 01, 2012, 12:19:19 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 01, 2012, 12:22:09 pm
Really, the Colbert Report is always better when there are liberal changes than when there are conservative ones. When conservative changes happen Steven just satirizes them. When liberal changes happen, well, you get things like that episode.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 01, 2012, 12:24:39 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 01, 2012, 12:22:09 pm
Really, the Colbert Report is always better when there are liberal changes than when there are conservative ones. When conservative changes happen Steven just satirizes them. When liberal changes happen, well, you get things like that episode.

Granted to a point, but you have to recognize the contribution Fox New's irresponsible misinformation reporting played in the greatness of this episode. It was from this that all those "Dewey Defeats Truman" jokes have been running around from.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 01, 2012, 12:27:19 pm
It wasn't just Fox, all the news stations reported it struck down.

Spoiler: Behold, the next Dewey Defeats Truman (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on July 01, 2012, 12:29:00 pm
They probably copied it from Fox in the first place.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 01, 2012, 01:09:46 pm
Quote from: Darvi on July 01, 2012, 12:29:00 pm
They probably copied it from Fox in the first place.
Nah, both Fox and CNN read the first page (talking about the commerce clause defence) and announced the mandate was struck down. Fox happened to have CSPAN on where they had the SCOTUS Blog liveblog streaming and noticed that said the mandate was upheld and then read page two. CNN didn't. They waited about five minutes before anyone thought to read the second page and realise their mistake.

I think everyone else just took the news from CSPAN/SCOTUS blog and so got it right.

Oh and;
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 01, 2012, 04:52:51 pm
...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 01, 2012, 04:59:10 pm
If a mime is going around saying stuff, then he isn't a very good mime :|
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 01, 2012, 05:11:42 pm
Quote from: Sirus on July 01, 2012, 04:59:10 pm
If a mime is going around saying stuff, then he isn't a very good mime :|

Autocorrect is a bitch. Although a talking mime is either the best or the worst mime ever. He could be so good that he can get away with talking as a mime. He could even have his own meme.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 02, 2012, 10:14:50 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/us/probation-fees-multiply-as-companies-profit.html?_r=1

I am more and more astonished to be from a country that allows this....

Richest country on earth; 5% of the population; 23% of the world's incarcerated....

(http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u233/Truean1/GreatestCountry.jpg)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on July 03, 2012, 03:19:10 am
Quote from: Truean on July 02, 2012, 10:14:50 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/us/probation-fees-multiply-as-companies-profit.html?_r=1

I am more and more ashamed to be from a country that allows this....

Richest country on earth; 5% of the population; 23% of the world's incarcerated....

There you go: more fuel to your anger (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/nyregion/at-bo-robinson-a-halfway-house-in-new-jersey-bedlam-reigns.html)
These things really shouldn't be put in the hands of private for-profit organizations.

Another thing that strikes me as quite crazy. Apparently conservatives are angry at Justice Roberts because, you know: how can he possibly dare to CHANGE HIS MIND AFTER HEARING THE CASE (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/us/politics/scorn-and-withering-scorn-for-chief-justice-roberts.html).
Quote
The dissatisfaction of conservatives grew as they studied the decision and found clues that the chief justice might initially have been in the majority to strike down the law, only to switch sides. A report from CBS News on Sunday that he had changed his mind added to the anger.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 03, 2012, 03:40:44 am
One term that justifies anything like that: "flip-flop." Every political party ever seems to make such complaints about flip-flopping. How dare people change their minds!*



*Righteous anger can still exist in the cases of, say, taking money under the table to change a vote, but that's a problem with the bribery/arbitrary outside influence rather than the process of changing an opinion.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 03, 2012, 06:23:30 am
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 06, 2012, 09:12:41 am
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/07/05/louisiana-republican-when-i-voted-for-state-funds-to-go-to-religious-schools-i-didnt-mean-muslim-ones/

....

 The answer is clear, there must be a school of the flying spaghetti monster in Louisiana.... (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuckdarwin/3947553770/lightbox/)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 06, 2012, 09:35:44 am
Quote from: Truean on July 06, 2012, 09:12:41 am
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/07/05/louisiana-republican-when-i-voted-for-state-funds-to-go-to-religious-schools-i-didnt-mean-muslim-ones/
Welcome to stupid.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on July 06, 2012, 09:56:14 am
...She wants the founders' religions taught? Well, should be no problem with Islam or Deism, then.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 06, 2012, 09:57:42 am
Deism is an awesome religion, so I'd be fine with that :P


Well, not really fine with it, but much happier than most others.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 06, 2012, 10:28:11 am
Quote from: Truean on July 06, 2012, 09:12:41 am
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/07/05/louisiana-republican-when-i-voted-for-state-funds-to-go-to- religious-schools-i-didnt-mean-muslim-ones/

Pathos.com? I don't trust your sources :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 06, 2012, 05:56:25 pm
Quote from: scriver on July 06, 2012, 10:28:11 am
Quote from: Truean on July 06, 2012, 09:12:41 am
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/07/05/louisiana-republican-when-i-voted-for-state-funds-to-go-to- religious-schools-i-didnt-mean-muslim-ones/

Pathos.com? I don't trust your sources :P

Tell me it isn't totally plausible though?

Also here's one http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2012/07/06/muslims-ruining-louisianas-plans-to-destroy-public-education

:P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 06, 2012, 06:28:10 pm
Hmm, I don't know, Pathos could sometimes be very diligent with his trolling :P

But on a serious note, though, that is incredibly.. bad. Just bad. Just incredibly, incredibly bad.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on July 06, 2012, 06:32:22 pm
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/14151849/virus-threatens-internet-blackoout/

Is it just me or does this look REALLY shady?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 06, 2012, 06:36:37 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on July 06, 2012, 06:32:22 pm
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/14151849/virus-threatens-internet-blackoout/

Is it just me or does this look REALLY shady?
Shady how?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on July 06, 2012, 06:39:07 pm
Quote from: Sirus on July 06, 2012, 06:36:37 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on July 06, 2012, 06:32:22 pm
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/14151849/virus-threatens-internet-blackoout/

Is it just me or does this look REALLY shady?
Shady how?
Quote
Facebook users would get a message that says, “Your computer or network might be infected,” along with a link that users can click for more information.
That. The "Your computer may be affected" line is a pretty good sign that its a virus behind the link.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 06, 2012, 06:40:54 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on July 06, 2012, 06:39:07 pm
Quote from: Sirus on July 06, 2012, 06:36:37 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on July 06, 2012, 06:32:22 pm
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/14151849/virus-threatens-internet-blackoout/

Is it just me or does this look REALLY shady?
Shady how?
Quote
Facebook users would get a message that says, “Your computer or network might be infected,” along with a link that users can click for more information.
That. The "Your computer may be affected" line is a pretty good sign that its a virus behind the link.
Could also be something that pops up for all users, just to be on the safe side. It could, for example, lead to a page that makes sure that users know what the proper URL looks like or something.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Karlito on July 06, 2012, 06:43:46 pm
Well, the sort of people who are infected with DNS changer are also probably the sort of people who click on links like that. How do you think they got the virus in the first place?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 06, 2012, 06:54:24 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on July 06, 2012, 06:32:22 pm
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/14151849/virus-threatens-internet-blackoout/

Is it just me or does this look REALLY shady?

 Shady... blackout.... Ha....  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0PIdWdw15U)

Speaking of Shady, I'm pretty sure Vector would figure out a way to go back in time and kill the men in this newspaper from the 50s if she could. http://www.buzzfeed.com/copyranter/should-a-woman-be-spanked
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 07, 2012, 12:54:50 pm
Swedish court rules rape is impossible if the target is a transgender woman. (http://www.thelocal.se/41822/20120704/)


My guess is their line of thinking is that the rapist would've stopped if someone hadn't intervened before he found out his target was still with man parts. That's a horribly flimsy reason to acquit for attempted rape though, since you know, it was still friggin' attempted.

Of course that's giving the benefit of the doubt, and assuming it isn't even worse and saying that men cannot be raped.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 07, 2012, 01:00:13 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 07, 2012, 12:54:50 pm
Swedish court rules rape is impossible if the target is a transgender woman. (http://www.thelocal.se/41822/20120704/)


My guess is their line of thinking is that the rapist would've stopped if someone hadn't intervened before he found out his target was still with man parts. That's a horribly flimsy reason to acquit for attempted rape though, since you know, it was still friggin' attempted.

Of course that's giving the benefit of the doubt, and assuming it isn't even worse and saying that men cannot be raped.

So he had every intention of having forcible sex with his victim, but .... Wow. Good to know I'm subhuman in other countries too.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 07, 2012, 01:04:25 pm
What, one needs a vagina to be raped now? Disgusting, Swedish court. I am ashamed of you.

Worse, it is very possible "rape" is defined as only being able to be done unto a woman in the law, I guess. I don't know for certain, I always just assumed it wasn't, you know, because that's the fucking logical way it should be. I might have to consult my (law-student) brother on that one.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 07, 2012, 01:44:51 pm
In a lot of places, yeah. That's how it is defined.

It's changing though, I think.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 07, 2012, 01:50:08 pm
See, I told you Sweden wasn't a perfect liberal paradise. But no, no one listens to MetalSlimeHunt, he's just crazy!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 07, 2012, 01:53:13 pm
ib4 "still better than murrica" comments.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 07, 2012, 02:09:25 pm
Just have unwanted sex between two or more people as the requirement for it to be rape? I dunno. I really have no idea at all.

In the meantime, I'm at least glad they charged him with some kind of lesser offense like assault, but still. It's a lovely different and lesser sentence because the victim was different.... Hurray? [Just sorta sitting here slouched at desk with eyes barely open and with a sad look on my face] It's sad that just because the person was GLBT it wasn't "rape" even though it looked like it? I don't know; I wasn't there. Feels sad though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 07, 2012, 02:13:52 pm
Sweden? Trans friendly? Yeah not really (http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2012/01/sweden-still-forcing-sterilization).

That article's a bit outdated, I believe they've decided to change the law, but only recently.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 07, 2012, 02:52:07 pm
Well, it is still better than America :P

I will however say that the court system is bad. Literally medieval. Or well, medieval left-overs.

Spoiler: Explanation: (click to show/hide)


Quote from: penguinofhonor on July 07, 2012, 02:13:52 pm
Sweden? Trans friendly? Yeah not really (http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2012/01/sweden-still-forcing-sterilization).

That article's a bit outdated, I believe they've decided to change the law, but only recently.

I don't remember exactly, but yeah, maybe. All of the parties in the Riksdag was for changing it except the neo-nazis and the Christian Democrats, but the latter part of the right-wing coalition government (the "Alliance", as they style themselves ::) ), and they let CD have their will against their own beliefs, so they apparently didn't care about destroying transexuals' lives *that* much.

However, and this is what I can't remember clearly, some time after this vote against changing the law, the Christian Democrats had a bit of a internal struggle between their more liberal and conservative factions, as the liberalers where in charge and the conservativers didn't think the party was conservative enough. The sitting liberaller leader won a quite decisive victory in the end though, and he then proceeded to give the other faction some quick ideological fuck-yous, and I believe changing the party line on this issue was one of them. The problem, of course and unfortunately, is that the issue might not be up for vote again in a long time, so it's hard to say when the law will be changed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 07, 2012, 03:04:15 pm
Oh hey here's a more recent article (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/sweden-moves-to-end-forced-sterilization-transgender-people). It pretty much backs up what you said, though. Nobody likes the law but it might take a while for them to get around to it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on July 08, 2012, 05:33:23 am
Wait, wait, we found the gay gene already? (http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-q7tNRUn6b8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA13&dq=Dr.+Dean+Hamer&ots=J5uFLv6MZF&sig=DG4VFfbOkO3Bzuji1xSV2OwgZSA#v=onepage&q=Dr.%20Dean%20Hamer&f=false)  Why was I not informed of this?! :(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Karlito on July 08, 2012, 08:18:45 am
It's not conclusive, by any means.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 08, 2012, 10:53:02 am
"Gay gene" is a red herring, ands stems from a black-and-white naive worldview where everything is either directly "genetic" or a social construct. in-utero hormonal environment is a much better candidate for differences between individuals, from the below link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_sexual_orientation

(note this accounts for only 15% of variation so it's not the only factor)

Quote
The fraternal birth order effect is the strongest known biodemographic predictor of sexual orientation. According to several studies, each older brother increases a man's odds of having a homosexual orientation by 28–48%.[...]The fraternal birth order effect has also been observed among male-to-female transsexuals: MtF transsexuals who are sexually interested in men have a greater number of older brothers than MtF transsexuals who are sexually interested in women.[...]Anthony Bogaert's work involving adoptees concludes that the effect is not due to being raised with older brothers, but is hypothesized to have something to do with changes induced in the mother's body when gestating a boy that affects subsequent sons.[...]The fraternal birth order effect appears to interact with handedness, as the incidence of homosexuality correlated with an increase in older brothers is seen only in right-handed males.[...]Bogaert (2006) replicated the fraternal birth order effect on male sexual orientation, in a sample including both biological siblings and adopted siblings.Only the older biological brothers influenced sexual orientation; there was no effect of adopted siblings. Bogaert concluded that his finding strongly suggest a prenatal origin to the fraternal birth-order effect.

See, not every biological effect needs to have a "gene" unlike what the science-illiterate mass media seems to think.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on July 08, 2012, 11:03:39 am
*insert picture of Psycho Mantis angrily doing a spit take*
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 08, 2012, 11:21:03 am
I don't get why people are so caught up with the "cause" of being gay.

If it's genetic, okay, whatever.
If it's social, okay, whatever.
If it's both, okay, whatever.

The cause is entirely irrelevant. Pray tell, if it IS a choice, how in the world would that possibly give any justification to homophobia? Choosing to belong to a group and having the ability to leave it does not justify hate against you.


I see no value in the knowledge of its cause other than idle curiosity.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on July 08, 2012, 11:43:01 am
I see plenty of value in the knowledge of the cause.  I am gay, so I'd like to know how or why I ended up gay.  Maybe most people don't understand this, but I value the knowledge of knowing where I came from.  I'm related to William Bradford from the Mayflower, my family may have moved to the Washington territories a long time ago to escape the law, and apparently my family owned a brothel in Olympia only a handful of generations back.  I'm also Irish, Scottish, and English, and I have ravenous cravings for potatoes.  And then I'm gay.  I simply want to know for knowledge's sake.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 08, 2012, 11:44:23 am
Well then that counts as "idle curiosity." Don't get me wrong, that's a plenty good reason to want to know something :)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 08, 2012, 11:48:50 am
Knowing the cause determines the nature of the final solution.

If genetic? only extermination will purge homosexuality. A moral exception to the anti-abortion stance will be created for cases where the fetus tests positive for inherent damnation.

If hormonal? Expect to see prenatal treatments to ensure heterosexuality in offspring.

If choice? you can just beat it out of them.

I think I need to move somewhere where saying this out loud in public wouldn't be met with nods of approval.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 08, 2012, 03:16:55 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 08, 2012, 11:48:50 am
Knowing the cause determines the nature of the final solution.

If genetic? only extermination will purge homosexuality. A moral exception to the anti-abortion stance will be created for cases where the fetus tests positive for inherent damnation.

If hormonal? Expect to see prenatal treatments to ensure heterosexuality in offspring.

If choice? you can just beat it out of them.

I think I need to move somewhere where saying this out loud in public wouldn't be met with nods of approval.

The simplest, and thus hardest for those who oppose gays, option is acceptance regardless of cause.

I wonder, in cultures that have accepted gays, where do gays fit in with their family and the families of other people as friends? Personally, I'm having a hell of a time with this one. Lots of things my friends end up doing are mostly for married couples.... I can't really get married and don't have a partner so.... Also kids and parenting and talking about it, yeah, that's a major thing for ... other people but not me.... Can occasionally get awkward, though more often "inapplicable." Talking about your spouses... yeah I ... know ... all about that.... Except I don't, at all. [loud crickets some bastard gave megaphones to...].

I bet when people see all those megaphones just laying outside on the lawn, they're gonna wonder what's going on until they see the little crickets using them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on July 08, 2012, 03:25:28 pm
Well, Belgium is quite gay-friendly (We got a gay as head of government, and no-one care), and we got several gays in my family's friends. They just either discuss their partners, or, if they don't have it, they do like heterosexual bachelors and just speak about something else.

I guess it's only awkward because you're not used to gay just fitting in as normal people, but those issue just seems to sort themselves.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 08, 2012, 03:28:52 pm
It all depends on the people you surround yourself with, I suppose. People can change too with enough/the right kind of exposure, though you might be too cynical to believe that :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 08, 2012, 11:56:17 pm
Yeah, I guess so, it's just that even my close girlfriends were kinda .... Like it wasn't that they were mean or anything, but they didn't know how to explain what gay or trans was to their little kids and stuff so.... It was kinda understood that while we could totally have fun hanging out, that was only after the kid went to bed or wasn't there. These are people who haven't told their kids about sex in general, at all, so try explaining homosexuality to them.... At least that was my take-away from it, kinda? Same deal with their parents, because especially the older ones were NOT cool with it.

Sheb's probably right and so is Kaijyuu, in that my mind would be blown by the notion of being completely accepted as just a "normal person," with people who know how I really am. I have one girlfriend whose mother is completely understanding and accepting of me, and quite frankly I wanted to cry when I figured out she wasn't joking or otherwise wasn't faking it to be nice, because I didn't know how to deal with the sincerity. That and quite frankly I've had parents try to forbid their adult daughters from hanging out with me on account of "teh gay," so that was the exact opposite of what I'm used to.

The notion that Sheb's government is headed by a gay person is also mind blowing for an American. I can't fathom a gay person being president in this country, and my mind just can't make it compute. I honestly think an ex con would have a better chance at being the President of the US than a gay guy, assuming the ex convict could run for office. 

[shrugs] I dunno what to make of that and how much of it is legitimately based on society being composed significantly enough of people who don't like gays in this country, v. illegitimately based upon my massive psychological hangups that would leave Freud clawing at the walls to escape. :)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 09, 2012, 12:05:53 am
I think Iceland is, or was, run by a lesbian.

Also, that whole "How would I explain it to my kids?" thing always kind of infuriated me. You know, because of the whole "Because you don't want to talk to your punk for 5 minutes, I can't marry the person I love?" Or whatever they're exclaiming that in response to.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 09, 2012, 12:17:00 am
Quote from: Descan on July 09, 2012, 12:05:53 am
I think Iceland is, or was, run by a lesbian.

Also, that whole "How would I explain it to my kids?" thing always kind of infuriated me. You know, because of the whole "Because you don't want to talk to your punk for 5 minutes, I can't marry the person I love?" Or whatever they're exclaiming that in response to.

O, I"m with you on this one, but it's not necessarily entirely 100% nuts on the other side. It gets blown wayyyyy the hell out of proportion but yeah. We need to figure out healthy ways to pass on life skills and common knowledge to kids in a safe environment, as opposed to what my parents did, which was tell me absolutely nothing about pretty much anything. I think the Unitarian Universalists are pretty good about giving their kids sex ed very very early, and they manage to end up fine. Note: I am not a UU.... It does seem that most of the other people I meet are so horridly screwed up themselves that they can't even adequately take care of their kids without screwing up and causing a therapist's vacation home, much less actually talk to their kids reasonably.

I dunno what the answer is.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on July 09, 2012, 12:32:16 am
Spoiler: Relevant (click to show/hide)
Social commentary on politicians and the media at the same time!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 09, 2012, 12:48:31 am
I've never gotten the "can't explain teh gays to children" thing. The big fallacy is that you'd also have to explain sex to them, which is just silly. I cannot even recall how long it took me to pull apart the ideas of "tell children gay people exist" and "tell children the exact manner in which gay sex is performed" in the minds of some people. I've met progressives who couldn't even make that distinction until I verbally beat it into them.

I'll hopefully never be a father, but this shit is not difficult even in theory.

How to explain homosexuality to children, by MetalSlimeHunt:

"You see, [son/daughter], [insert name of homosexual] is a person who loves other [men/women] like men and women love each other. There are lots of people like that. Now, returning to the Big Bang and stellar nucleosynthesis..."

It's like I have to do everything for these people. Jesus.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 09, 2012, 02:34:09 am
Quote from: Descan on July 09, 2012, 12:05:53 am
I think Iceland is, or was, run by a lesbian.

Also, that whole "How would I explain it to my kids?" thing always kind of infuriated me. You know, because of the whole "Because you don't want to talk to your punk for 5 minutes, I can't marry the person I love?" Or whatever they're exclaiming that in response to.

Yeah, it's ridiculous, it's not that they can't explain it, it's that they don't want to explain it. If you can explain a "mummy and a daddy" love each other and get married without cluing in your child to sex details, you can explain that two mummies or two daddies can love each other, actually, probably with less need to explain about sex, because you don't need to explain "where do babies come from?"
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on July 09, 2012, 02:38:55 am
I don't know how much you have to repress a child to be able to let him reach ten and never talk to him about sex.

And homosexuality is easy to explain : some men loves women, some men love men. There.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on July 09, 2012, 08:46:38 am
There's also the fallacy where they say that children will start imitating homosexual couples if they see too many homosexuals.  I'm pretty sure the straight little boys aren't going to start holding hands with other straight boys and suddenly turn gay :P  Pretty sure the only boys holding hands with boys are the gay ones.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 09, 2012, 08:53:00 am
Holding hands = gay now? :P


There are a million ridiculous excuses but they all have the same root: the idea that homosexuality is bad. If it's not bad, then even if someone can "turn gay," it's not a problem.

What needs to be done is to destroy the notion that homosexuality is in any way, shape, or form inferior to any other romantic relationship. Then all these stupid excuses crumble to dust.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 09, 2012, 09:05:32 am
Quote from: Phmcw on July 09, 2012, 02:38:55 am
I don't know how much you have to repress a child to be able to let him reach ten and never talk to him about sex.

And homosexuality is easy to explain : some men loves women, some men love men. There.

The answer would be: a whole lot of repression.

Quote from: Euld on July 09, 2012, 08:46:38 am
There's also the fallacy where they say that children will start imitating homosexual couples if they see too many homosexuals.  I'm pretty sure the straight little boys aren't going to start holding hands with other straight boys and suddenly turn gay :P  Pretty sure the only boys holding hands with boys are the gay ones.

Pretty much yeah, but between the attitudes of a.) "I don't wanna see it," and b.) then I would actually have to accept my kid might be gay and who are we kidding that ain't happening easily if at all," it doesn't look awesome.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 09, 2012, 10:04:21 am
I think there's a sea change coming in the United States with regard to homosexuality. It just feels like we've hit a tipping point where it's now mainstream enough that when anybody notable comes out, it's meh. (Just look at the Anderson Cooper non-event.)
And you have major corporations embracing gay marriage as a marketing gimmick (see General Mills, Google, et al). (Okay, maybe they actually are doing it out of a sense of humanitarianism, but I'm cynical enough to think they've done their homework and realized that it's a winning issue and a good long-term sell). The demographics are that homosexuality is just not a big deal to most people under 30 or so.

It's kinda funny with my kids. The other day my daughter just said, apropros of nothing, "Some days I just feel like a boy, even though when I look in the mirror I'm a girl."

And then you have my 2-year old son, who likes to have his hair tied up in a topknot, pushes dolls around in a stroller and gives his best friends at daycare a goodbye hug and kiss...including other boys. The teachers always have a nervous laugh and say things like, "Oh he's so...nurturing!"

Yeah, you totally think my kid is going to be gay. Frankly, could care less. Gender identity is completely unfixed at this age, and I'm glad he's not overly aggressive and physical. It's a nice balance for all those other times when he's pretending to be a dinosaur or what have you, and wreaking utter havoc.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 09, 2012, 10:38:30 am
I'm pretty sure it was meh with Anderson Cooper because everyone already knew.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Aequor on July 09, 2012, 10:53:41 am
Quote from: RedKing on July 09, 2012, 10:04:21 am
And then you have my 2-year old son, who likes to have his hair tied up in a topknot, pushes dolls around in a stroller and gives his best friends at daycare a goodbye hug and kiss...including other boys. The teachers always have a nervous laugh and say things like, "Oh he's so...nurturing!"
It's even funnier when you realise that kissing family and close friends (on the cheek) when meeting or leaving them is commonplace in many parts of the world. Always a fun thing to explain to friends; "Wait, you kiss your male cousins on the cheek? Eeeeeeeeeeewwww." or when I explained that yes, I had never met my cousin's fiancé, but that we did give each other a peck on the cheek (although since both people are trying to do it, it always ends up more of a cheek-nuzzle) when meeting for the first time, because he was considered family.

People just need to calm down about physical contact as a whole. Not all physical contact comes from sexual attraction. Two people holding hands =/= Proof they want to do each other like animals on the floor right now, oh god, someone get the local priest to save us from this debauchery that is obviously happening before our very eyes.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 09, 2012, 11:09:06 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on July 09, 2012, 10:38:30 am
I'm pretty sure it was meh with Anderson Cooper because everyone already knew.
My mum didn't.

Then again, she didn't catch on that Jim Parsons was gay, so there you go.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 09, 2012, 11:34:18 am
I didn't either, but then my gaydar is a pretty obsolete model.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 09, 2012, 12:14:57 pm
You're telling me you didn't think this guy was gay?

(http://www.nndb.com/people/482/000047341/cooper.jpg)

Also any time he's ever laughed ever.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 09, 2012, 12:26:17 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on July 09, 2012, 12:14:57 pm
You're telling me you didn't think this guy was gay?

(http://www.nndb.com/people/482/000047341/cooper.jpg)

Also any time he's ever laughed ever.

I have to admit I always thought he was, but couldn't quite be sure. "Is on national TV a lot" could explain a good deal of his stuff.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 09, 2012, 12:58:34 pm
I haven't seen very much of him, but I hadn't considered it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Levi on July 09, 2012, 01:13:15 pm
I can't generally tell.  Usually its not what I'm thinking about when I see someone though.  The only times I've been able to guess is when I'm being hit on, and sometimes not even then.   :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 09, 2012, 02:35:57 pm
Quote from: Descan on July 09, 2012, 11:09:06 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on July 09, 2012, 10:38:30 am
I'm pretty sure it was meh with Anderson Cooper because everyone already knew.
My mum didn't.
She knew. All the women of America knew. They've been in collective denial.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 09, 2012, 02:45:26 pm
She's Canadian. Well, by citizenship.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 09, 2012, 02:54:03 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on July 09, 2012, 12:14:57 pm
You're telling me you didn't think this guy was gay?

(http://www.nndb.com/people/482/000047341/cooper.jpg)

Also any time he's ever laughed ever.
I thought he was metrosexual!
DONT JUDGE ME
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 09, 2012, 03:22:32 pm
In this thread of all places I would have thought the idea that someone could "look like they were gay" or at least fall into an easy to classify crude stereotype would be something people were above or at least would steer clear of. Or maybe it is me who is missing the point... if so, I do apologise.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 09, 2012, 03:41:59 pm
I'd write of the idea of a gay appearance as stereotyping as well, but I can't because....well....it's there. I can see it. Lots of people can see it. Plenty of people believed that Anderson Cooper was gay before he admitted it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on July 09, 2012, 05:04:28 pm
For any given celebrity there sure are some/a lot of people who think she/he is gay. Also biased memory (conformation bias) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Biased_memory).
Edit: And see spotlight fallacy (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spotlight_fallacy) if you want an explanation for why there is a gay stereotype and people think it actually is true.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 09, 2012, 05:06:28 pm
I have nothing resembling a "gaydar" so... I dunno. I guess it would be silly and rude to guess based on intuition.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nilik on July 10, 2012, 12:39:15 am
Quote from: RedKing on July 09, 2012, 10:04:21 am
And then you have my 2-year old son, who likes to have his hair tied up in a topknot, pushes dolls around in a stroller and gives his best friends at daycare a goodbye hug and kiss...including other boys. The teachers always have a nervous laugh and say things like, "Oh he's so...nurturing!"

Yeah, you totally think my kid is going to be gay. Frankly, could care less. Gender identity is completely unfixed at this age, and I'm glad he's not overly aggressive and physical. It's a nice balance for all those other times when he's pretending to be a dinosaur or what have you, and wreaking utter havoc.

I don't know how to tell you this, but I think your son might be...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 10, 2012, 07:32:20 am
To be fair, in AC's case he was living as an openly gay man in his personal life and simply refused to ever say anything about it publicly. He was named as the second most powerful gay person in the US back in 2007 (http://www.out.com/out-exclusives/power-50/2007/04/03/power-50) by Out magazine.

It was less how he looked and acted and just how the fact that he was gay was an open secret already.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 10, 2012, 09:25:01 am
True. Lots of people already knew....

http://news.yahoo.com/pa-mayor-cuts-city-workers-pay-minimum-wage-113312907.html

So the mayor cuts the police, fire, and in fact all city worker's pay to minimum wage... in violation of a court order. Enjoy being in contempt of court Mr. Mayor. Really, people think it's a good idea to pay police minimum wage? Same with firefighters? Really?

"It's the only way until the city's finances get in order?"

Ok so what happens when your police, fire and every other city employee goes on strike, because they are literally making less than fast food workers in many cases?

Taxes? I know that's a bad word nowadays, but .... You could tax somebody if you're really that desperate...
Or, you know municipal bonds.... You can borrow the money at incredibly low interest rates that investors love because it's tax free. You then use that time to figure out what you need to do and find ways to generate revenue. Yes, that would probably mean some taxes, fees, fines, etc, but if the city really is going under, then....

Also, hire a financial planner. Really. I know people have this stupid idea about democracy, but then you're really only being ruled by the popular. The captain of the football team is not going to get you out of a $16.8 Million dollar deficit. I'd really think somebody who works with numbers and business would be the guy to call in that situation....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 10, 2012, 09:29:39 am
I was about to post that article...

Truean beat me to it.

By the way, this isn't a republican who signed the Norquist pledge, he is a democrat.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 10, 2012, 09:30:37 am
Quote from: Nadaka on July 10, 2012, 09:29:39 am
I was about to post that article...

Truean beat me to it.

By the way, this isn't a republican who signed the Norquist pledge, he is a democrat.

Unfortunately the evil behind that stupid pledge is that people are completely adverse to any taxes, even the bare minimum required to support the country they say they love. I've an idea. The government forcibly takes over all rights to sell patriotic themed goods and thus when people buy those little yellow "support our troops" ribbons, the money actually goes to the government and thus the troops. :)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on July 12, 2012, 07:15:59 pm
Some good news in the marriage amendment fight in Minnesota.  A group of former catholic priests got almost 100 of them to work for the people working against the amendment.  News article. (http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2012/07/former-priests-against-marriage-amendment-near-100-signatory-mark)

The churches who are against the marriage amendment are the Lutherans, the Methodists (bucking the international church's stance on the issue), and perhaps a few others.

I have to say, I am happy with my former church (Methodist) doing what's right and standing up to the bigots.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on July 13, 2012, 12:06:48 am
This... this makes me sad. (http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson615.html)  Read the text at the bottom.

I'm HIV negative and the last dude I "slept" with was straight.  But because my virginity could be called into question, the FDA could argue that I have no right to give blood.  ._.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2012, 12:12:07 am
You just have to be willing to lie.

Also, sleeping with a straight guy (though seriously, what?) does not ensure that you are HIV negative. There are more straight people with HIV than gay people with HIV.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lemon10 on July 13, 2012, 12:23:16 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2012, 12:12:07 am
You just have to be willing to lie.

Also, sleeping with a straight guy (though seriously, what?) does not ensure that you are HIV negative. There are more straight people with HIV than gay people with HIV.
Quote from: Center for Disease Control
CDC estimates that MSM (Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men) account for just 2% of the U.S. population, but accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in 2009. MSM accounted for 49% of people living with HIV infection in 2008 (the most recent year national prevalence data are available).
You are technically right, but (according to these statistics), gay men are so much more likley to have HIV that they are almost equal to the rest of the population combined, and are will probably reach 50% total soon. This is only in the US though, and I am not quite sure how different it is in the rest of the world (although I imagine its quite different in Africa).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2012, 12:32:12 am
If I recall correctly, in the US the major HIV transmission vector is blood-to-blood contamination through sharing needles and the like, but that in Africa it is as an STD.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 13, 2012, 12:42:27 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2012, 12:12:07 am
There are more straight people with HIV than gay people with HIV.
There are also more straight people than gay people.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2012, 12:45:33 am
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on July 13, 2012, 12:42:27 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2012, 12:12:07 am
There are more straight people with HIV than gay people with HIV.
There are also more straight people than gay people.
Not the point.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lemon10 on July 13, 2012, 01:01:06 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2012, 12:45:33 am
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on July 13, 2012, 12:42:27 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2012, 12:12:07 am
There are more straight people with HIV than gay people with HIV.
There are also more straight people than gay people.
Not the point.
The point is that your argument is terrible and fallacious.
Gays males are FAR more likely to have HIV then everyone else, that is a fact.
According to a 2008 study (US only, so obviously completely wrong outside of the US), a whopping 19% of men who had sex with men (which is significant I suppose in that not all gay men are sexually active, and those that have a active sex life are probably more likley to engage in high risk behaviors that could also spread STD's), had HIV. That's a huge percentage, and its only less then totals in absolute terms because there are 50 times as many non-gay males as there are gay males, and even then the total is about tied.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2012, 01:21:56 am
So, just so I've got this straight, my argument that Euld sleeping with a straight guy is not a safeguard against HIV is terrible and fallacious because gay men are more likely to have HIV than any other demographic. Yeah, no.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lemon10 on July 13, 2012, 01:38:26 am
You didn't say that gay men aren't more likely to have HIV, which if you had said would have been merely completely wrong.
You said that there were less total gay people with HIV then total straight people with HIV, which is completely irrelevant to everything, and trying to work it into a argument makes the argument bad.

Its like me going:
A) There are more smart straight men then smart gay men.
B) Therefore straight men are smarter.

While part A is true, using it to prove/argue pretty much anything is nonsensical.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2012, 01:54:06 am
Quote from: lemon10 on July 13, 2012, 01:38:26 am
You said that there were less total gay people with HIV then total straight people with HIV, which is completely irrelevant to everything, and trying to work it into a argument makes the argument bad.
It isn't an argument! It's pointing out that sleeping with a straight guy is still a HIV risk! Gah!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lemon10 on July 13, 2012, 01:59:48 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2012, 01:54:06 am
Quote from: lemon10 on July 13, 2012, 01:38:26 am
You said that there were less total gay people with HIV then total straight people with HIV, which is completely irrelevant to everything, and trying to work it into a argument makes the argument bad.
It isn't an argument! It's pointing out that sleeping with a straight guy is still a HIV risk! Gah!
Yeah, that's totally fine and correct, but it seemed like you saying "There are more straight people with HIV than gay people with HIV", was intended to be about more then just euld.
It is also my fault a bit because I was partially combining part of another thread (also talking about HIV and gay men) in my head accidentally, so I kind of thought that you were partially talking about something else.
Sorry for jumping on you and being completely incorrect about what you were trying to say.  :-[
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on July 13, 2012, 02:03:40 am
fake edit: got ninja'd by you guys sorting it all out yourselves  :o  Thanks for keeping it calm guys, I don't like starting ragey arguments.  I'll just post what I was going to say anyway:

Woah woah slow down guys, we're not having a ragey argument about this.  We're actually dealing with facts and statistics here, so there shouldn't be anything to argue or be confused by.

My sexual encounter was over a year ago, he and I were very drunk, so that's how that happened.  I had the blood test done last week, and it came back HIV negative.  I'm still in contact with said friend, and he's had no symptoms.  Quick note: I'm not willing to lie about pretty much anything anymore.  I had enough of lying about my sexuality, I'm not going to hide behind more lies.  I just can't do it.

So let me try to sort this out: there are more straight men than gay men.  There are also statistically more HIV positive straight men than HIV positive gay men.  But percentage-wise, gay men are more likely to be HIV positive in the US?

real edit: let me ask a different question.  So is the FDA justified in refusing non-virgin gay men from giving blood?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 13, 2012, 02:08:49 am
I'd say they aren't. All blood is tested no matter what.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2012, 02:10:48 am
More importantly, when the ban was first instituted there was no reliable method to test if blood was HIV-infected. Now we have a simple and reliable method. The rationale behind the ban's imposition is no longer vaild, and thus neither is the ban.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 13, 2012, 02:25:07 am
This may be out-of-date information, but I was under the impression that HIV has a latency period, during which time it is very difficult to detect. If that's true, someone giving blood shortly after contracting the disease could pass it on to someone else.

Now, this isn't a reason to ban gays. I'd say that as long as the parties involved aren't sleeping with a different stranger every night, anyone should be allowed to donate blood. The questionnaire should really be asking about the number of different partners in a certain time frame, say one year. If you're a total slut (man or woman), perhaps you should make sure you haven't caught anything before donating.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on July 13, 2012, 06:06:07 am
Quote from: Sirus on July 13, 2012, 02:25:07 am
This may be out-of-date information, but I was under the impression that HIV has a latency period, during which time it is very difficult to detect. If that's true, someone giving blood shortly after contracting the disease could pass it on to someone else.

That is the reason sexually active gay men aren't allowed to donate blood in the Netherlands either. Well, weren't allowed to. The parliament recently decided that it should become legal, mainly because in nations were queer blood is legal (Sweden, Italy, Spain) there are no increases of risks regarding blood donations.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 13, 2012, 06:10:01 am
...Men who have sex with men aren't allowed to give blood in Sweden either. There was a big thing about it just a week or two ago.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Aptus on July 13, 2012, 06:36:08 am
I am going to guess that the reason the ban is still active has less to do with HIV and more to do with "people" being afraid to catch teh geys.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 13, 2012, 07:43:15 am
If there's actual statistics to back it up, then yeah I don't really have a problem with preventing people with high risk from donating blood. Also they better not be cherry picking which high risk groups to disallow and which not to.

And if the statistics don't back it up, well, then the answer is obvious.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 13, 2012, 08:18:11 am
I'd prefer it if they just tested all blood anyway rather than do these kind of blanket bans. I mean, I really do hope they're already doing that, so I don't see what the point of the bans would be?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 13, 2012, 08:30:15 am
HIV's impossible to detect until it manifests, iirc.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 13, 2012, 09:01:18 am
Yeah, but then they should ask all blood givers if they have a lot of unprotected sex with strangers. As it stands now not only ravenous, car park sex maniacs are banned from giving blood, but also completely monogamous have-only-ever-had-sex-with-each-other people even though the only thing these two groups have in common is that they are both gay and have sex.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on July 13, 2012, 09:14:06 am
Quote from: scriver on July 13, 2012, 06:10:01 am
...Men who have sex with men aren't allowed to give blood in Sweden either. There was a big thing about it just a week or two ago.
Blame Google.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Levi on July 13, 2012, 10:52:04 am
I think in Canada(at least from what I remember from the last time I gave blood), they give you a questionnaire that includes questions like "are you a man who sleeps with men", "do you inject drugs", etc.  If you are in a risk group they just put the blood through extra testing.


In other interesting hiv/canada news, there is a new program in Vancouver where if you think you might have been exposed to HIV, you can get some drugs that will reduce your chances of contracting HIV by 80% if you take it within 72 hours of exposure.  I think its essentially the same thing they give to nurses when they accidentally prick themselves with a needle.

http://www.cfenet.ubc.ca/npep

Its actually pretty great news, as mistakes can always happen and this should help quite a few people.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2012, 12:27:40 pm
Hopefully that HIV vaccine that entered human trials not too long ago will come to fruition and render the blood donation issue moot.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 13, 2012, 12:33:36 pm
Not entirely moot; vaccines only work if you don't already have the disease.
Would really help though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2012, 12:38:00 pm
Right, but you could just inoculate anyone who requires a blood donation that could potentially be infected, or do nothing at all if their record shows that they are already inoculated, which they almost certainly would be if this works. I know I wouldn't turn down HIV immunity.

The only loophole would be unimmunized people who are so injured that they are going to quickly die without a blood transfusion, which is a significantly lessened risk than our current situation.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 13, 2012, 02:07:52 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 13, 2012, 08:30:15 am
HIV's impossible to detect until it manifests, iirc.
Quote from: Sirus on July 13, 2012, 02:25:07 am
This may be out-of-date information, but I was under the impression that HIV has a latency period, during which time it is very difficult to detect. If that's true, someone giving blood shortly after contracting the disease could pass it on to someone else.

My Wikipedia-fu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnosis_of_HIV/AIDS#Window_period) is telling me
Quote
Most people develop detectable antibodies approximately 30 days after infection, although some seroconvert later. The vast majority of people (97%) have detectable antibodies by three months after HIV infection; a six-month window is extremely rare with modern antibody testing.

So yeah, there is a bit of risk.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 13, 2012, 02:12:31 pm
Quote from: Levi on July 13, 2012, 10:52:04 am
I think in Canada(at least from what I remember from the last time I gave blood), they give you a questionnaire that includes questions like "are you a man who sleeps with men", "do you inject drugs", etc.  If you are in a risk group they just put the blood through extra testing.


In other interesting hiv/canada news, there is a new program in Vancouver where if you think you might have been exposed to HIV, you can get some drugs that will reduce your chances of contracting HIV by 80% if you take it within 72 hours of exposure.  I think its essentially the same thing they give to nurses when they accidentally prick themselves with a needle.

http://www.cfenet.ubc.ca/npep

Its actually pretty great news, as mistakes can always happen and this should help quite a few people.
It's worth noting that the odds of catching HIV from a single exposure are not too high to begin with.

That being said: post-exposure prophylaxis has been around for a while.  But yeah, it's interesting. It's also worth noting that people under ARV treatment are less infectious than they would be otherwise.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2012, 02:14:25 pm
I was under the impression that it was pretty much impossible to contract HIV from someone on antiretrovirals.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 13, 2012, 02:18:08 pm
You wanna take that risk? :P

I know that AIDS isn't the death sentence it used to be, but I'd still rather not get it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2012, 02:21:04 pm
You also don't develop AIDS as long as you stay on antiretrovirals.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Levi on July 13, 2012, 02:23:29 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2012, 02:14:25 pm
I was under the impression that it was pretty much impossible to contract HIV from someone on antiretrovirals.

Yeah, assuming the antiretrovirals are all working great (and the person is taking them on time) and the viral load is suppressed.  Still doesn't hurt to be extra safe. 
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 13, 2012, 02:27:37 pm
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on July 13, 2012, 02:12:31 pm
It's worth noting that the odds of catching HIV from a single exposure are not too high to begin with.

Even if you say, prick yourself on an "infected" needle?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2012, 02:29:11 pm
HIV actually dies fairly quickly when exposed to open air, so an infected needle may or may not actually end up being able to infect you.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on July 14, 2012, 12:13:54 pm
US government considering prosecuting journalists (http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/26947/stuxnet-leak-prompts-us-house-to-consider-prosecution-of-journalists/) who broke the story about the US launching a secret cyber attack on a foreign nation.  I should note the US considers a cyber attack on THEM to be a declaration of war.  So... yeah ._. some of our congressmen are utterly insane.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 14, 2012, 12:16:42 pm
Quote from: Euld on July 14, 2012, 12:13:54 pm
US government considering prosecuting journalists (http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/26947/stuxnet-leak-prompts-us-house-to-consider-prosecution-of-journalists/) who broke the story about the US launching a secret cyber attack on a foreign nation.  I should note the US considers a cyber attack on THEM to be a declaration of war.  So... yeah ._. some of our congressmen are utterly insane.
Nero syndrome :x
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: da_nang on July 14, 2012, 02:12:20 pm
Quote
Lamar Smith
Why am I not surprised...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 14, 2012, 02:51:00 pm
Quote from: Euld on July 14, 2012, 12:13:54 pm
US government considering prosecuting journalists (http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/26947/stuxnet-leak-prompts-us-house-to-consider-prosecution-of-journalists/) who broke the story about the US launching a secret cyber attack on a foreign nation.  I should note the US considers a cyber attack on THEM to be a declaration of war.  So... yeah ._. some of our congressmen are utterly insane.

Anyone who would vote for that is a traitor and should receive a fair trial and then be shot.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: da_nang on July 14, 2012, 03:29:01 pm
You guys need an Eugen Schauman or something.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 14, 2012, 03:56:01 pm
They have Jared Loughner instead
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 14, 2012, 08:16:09 pm
The bill of rights was just some hippie mumbo jumbo anyways.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: squeakyReaper on July 17, 2012, 11:45:23 am
Written by liberals, too.

I came up with a visual metaphor/simile yesterday; an accuracy check please. "American politics is like a jigsaw puzzle, where each voter brings a piece. It's possible to form a picture without all of the pieces, but you could end up with just an ass."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 17, 2012, 12:20:12 pm
Off hand, that sounds like it could describe any democracy.  :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 17, 2012, 12:26:20 pm
I remember a TV show from just after 9/11 where they went around reading out various quotes from the US constitution and asked random Americans where they thought they was from, everyone looked nervous and said "communism" etc.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 17, 2012, 12:34:18 pm
I'd like to point out that those kind of "interviews" are always chosen from a big batch to prove the editors point. They do a lot of them at a time and then cherry pick the few stupid ones.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 17, 2012, 04:29:37 pm
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor?page=1

I think I want to throw up from ever ordering something online.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/labor-ready-jobs-temp-workers-investigation
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 17, 2012, 05:37:45 pm
Man, and I thought working temp. when I was in college, in a place that made fish fingers was bad ... seems like heaven compared to those online warehouses.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 17, 2012, 05:44:07 pm
Made me feel stressed just reading the bloody things. Point about the price differential between local and not is kinda' hard hitting, though. Even with non-free shipping, a lot of things cost less ordered than bought (semi-)local, especially if you factor in the transportation cost of driving, say, a hour or two round-trip. S'more of an issue for rural folk like m'self, but...

S'a bit of a catch twenty-two when you can neither afford to (because it's probably damning you or those close to it) nor afford not to (because you either save every damn penny or you don't eat) support those kind of conditions.

More than anything, makes me worry about eventually ending up in the situation something like that's the only option... me, I literally couldn't work in those kind of conditions. Just don't have the back for it anymore, after early schooling fucked me up (thanks backpacks!).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on July 17, 2012, 06:36:13 pm
Quote from: Truean on July 17, 2012, 04:29:37 pm
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor?page=1

I think I want to throw up from ever ordering something online.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/labor-ready-jobs-temp-workers-investigation

These break my heart. Really, alot of the links you might find in the Progressive thread break my heart, seeing the sadder state of the world we live in is dismaying. I wish there were something I could do.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 17, 2012, 06:57:58 pm
We can do what gave us a half decent society to begin with. Violence, strikes, anger and shouting until this kind of bullshit is legislated away.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on July 19, 2012, 09:45:44 am
George Zimmerman is interviewed by Sean Hannity. (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-07-18/news/os-george-zimmerman-sean-hannity-20120718_1_trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-mark-o-mara)

Quote
"I feel like it was all God's plan," he told conservative talk show host Sean Hannity in Zimmerman's first interview since the shooting.

Of course it was God's plan for him to kill a teenager. Of course.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on July 19, 2012, 10:33:14 am
Please don't let this reflect negatively on christianity. A crazy man saying crazy things has no affect on my religion, so let's not go there.

/continues lurking/
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 19, 2012, 10:38:25 am
Quote from: ggamer on July 19, 2012, 10:33:14 am
Please don't let this reflect negatively on christianity. A crazy man saying crazy things has no affect on my religion, so let's not go there.

/continues lurking/

Then why bring it up?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 19, 2012, 01:32:50 pm
Quote from: Glowcat on July 19, 2012, 09:45:44 am
George Zimmerman is interviewed by Sean Hannity. (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-07-18/news/os-george-zimmerman-sean-hannity-20120718_1_trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-mark-o-mara)

Quote
"I feel like it was all God's plan," he told conservative talk show host Sean Hannity in Zimmerman's first interview since the shooting.

Of course it was God's plan for him to kill a teenager. Of course.

... It's my experience that several nutzo killers do things in the name of God. Not that this means they all do but eh. I fail to see what God has to do with this.
_________________________________________________________________

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/edie-windsor-doma_n_1675983.html?utm_campaign=071612&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-gay-voices&utm_content=FullStory

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 19, 2012, 01:49:35 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 19, 2012, 10:38:25 am
Quote from: ggamer on July 19, 2012, 10:33:14 am
Please don't let this reflect negatively on christianity. A crazy man saying crazy things has no affect on my religion, so let's not go there.

/continues lurking/

Then why bring it up?
He didn't bring it up. >_> Someone else did.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on July 19, 2012, 02:18:08 pm
Quote from: Descan on July 19, 2012, 01:49:35 pm
He didn't bring it up. >_> Someone else did.

I don't recall drawing a correlation between Zimmerman's Christianity and his killing Trayvon Martin.

EDIT: I'm not sure why Zimmerman is being called crazy either. Am I the only one who remembers this case of self-defense gone wrong? It wasn't too far back when it sparked national outrage and conservative kneejerk responses. I was sarcastically mocking his blithe usage of "God's Plan", probably an opportunistic ploy for even more support amongst Hannity's conservative audience.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 19, 2012, 02:34:25 pm
It could also be an attempt to strengthen an insanity plea or something.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on July 21, 2012, 11:53:19 am
After Michelle Bachmann (R-MN-6) was called out for claiming "Muslim Brotherhood" agents having infiltrated the government by members of her own damn party, she decided to double down on it and claim Keith Ellison (D-MN-5), one of congress's two muslims, is part of the evil conspiracy. ::)

Bachmann alleges Ellison has ties to Muslim Brotherhood (http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/163137126.html).

I would really, really like to see her lose the next election, but the people in that district are just as crazy as she is.  The district's location is the Twin Cities northern and western suburbs plus the city of Saint Cloud.

Map of Minnesota's 6th congressional district (http://www.gis.leg.mn/redist2010/Congressional/C2012/maps/06.pdf).
The problem is Wright, Sherburne, Benton, and Carver counties.  Those counties give Republicans large margins, and the only cities Democrats can win of any significant size are St. Cloud and Blaine, and not by a lot.  Overall, Obama received 43% of the vote here, McCain got 55%.

And for the curious, Minnesota's 5th district, one of the most Dem friendly white majority districts in the country:
Map of MN-5 (http://www.gis.leg.mn/redist2010/Congressional/C2012/maps/05.pdf).

The district is Minneapolis plus the city's first ring suburbs.  Obama got 73% in this district under these lines.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 21, 2012, 12:07:55 pm
Quote from: Jervill on July 21, 2012, 11:53:19 am
After Michelle Bachmann (R-MN-6) was called out for claiming "Muslim Brotherhood" agents having infiltrated the government by members of her own damn party, she decided to double down on it and claim Keith Ellison (D-MN-5), one of congress's two muslims, is part of the evil conspiracy. ::)

Bachmann alleges Ellison has ties to Muslim Brotherhood (http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/163137126.html).
Modern day McCarthyism, eh? Fun stuff. By which I mean disgusting stuff.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on July 21, 2012, 04:16:59 pm
Meanwhile, in Paulville....

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/the-pauls-new-crusade-internet-freedom

Wha....?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 21, 2012, 04:30:01 pm
o.O

I don't much like the Big Bad Gov'ment in my internets either, mr. Paul, but giving the control to Buy 'n Large instead is worse!

Also lawl at using "do-gooder" in a derogatory fashion.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on July 21, 2012, 06:25:05 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 21, 2012, 04:30:01 pm
Also lawl at using "do-gooder" in a derogatory fashion.
SOMEBODY's been reading too much fantasy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EveryZig on July 22, 2012, 01:06:21 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 21, 2012, 04:30:01 pm
Also lawl at using "do-gooder" in a derogatory fashion.
This just in: Paul also pledges to protect corporations from 'those meddling kids'.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 22, 2012, 01:44:07 pm
And their dog.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on July 23, 2012, 12:12:49 pm
A money 'black hole': rich hide at least $21 trillion in tax havens, study shows (http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/23/12903523-a-money-black-hole-rich-hide-at-least-21-trillion-in-tax-havens-study-shows?lite&__utma=14933801.132114552.1342440580.1343053195.1343063584.25&__utmb=14933801.1.10.1343063584&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1342440580.1.1.utmcsr=%28direct%29|utmccn=%28direct%29|utmcmd=%28none%29|utmcct=/&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc|cover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=152206649)

And on the paulites stuff:
Quote
shore up "private property rights on the Internet."
Uh huh. So he wants to push for more copyright & anti-piracy laws. Uh, yeah, fuck that guy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 23, 2012, 12:58:07 pm
Quote from: EveryZig on July 22, 2012, 01:06:21 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 21, 2012, 04:30:01 pm
Also lawl at using "do-gooder" in a derogatory fashion.
This just in: Paul also pledges to protect corporations from 'those meddling kids'.
Does this mean someone is going to pull off his Ron Paul mask, and it'll be the Ghost of Bigfoot underneath?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 23, 2012, 12:59:45 pm
Quote from: Glowcat on July 19, 2012, 02:18:08 pm
Quote from: Descan on July 19, 2012, 01:49:35 pm
He didn't bring it up. >_> Someone else did.

I don't recall drawing a correlation between Zimmerman's Christianity and his killing Trayvon Martin.

EDIT: I'm not sure why Zimmerman is being called crazy either. Am I the only one who remembers this case of self-defense gone wrong? It wasn't too far back when it sparked national outrage and conservative kneejerk responses. I was sarcastically mocking his blithe usage of "God's Plan", probably an opportunistic ploy for even more support amongst Hannity's conservative audience.

This is a case of self defense gone wrong. If Trayvon Martin was the one with a gun, he may have been able to stop his attacker.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 23, 2012, 03:13:03 pm
Jim Henson Company cuts ties with Chick-Fil-A (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/jim-henson-company-chick-fil-a-anti-gay_n_1694809.html) over the latter's opposition to same-sex marriage.

I think Jim would be proud. Makes me that much more glad to be a diehard Muppets fan.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Levi on July 23, 2012, 03:21:17 pm
Quote from: RedKing on July 23, 2012, 03:13:03 pm
Jim Henson Company cuts ties with Chick-Fil-A (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/jim-henson-company-chick-fil-a-anti-gay_n_1694809.html) over the latter's opposition to same-sex marriage.

I think Jim would be proud. Makes me that much more glad to be a diehard Muppets fan.

Oh, that reminds me.  A similar story involving the boy scouts.

http://boingboing.net/2012/07/23/eagle-scouts-stand-up-to-the-b.html
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 23, 2012, 03:44:00 pm
Quote from: Levi on July 23, 2012, 03:21:17 pm
Quote from: RedKing on July 23, 2012, 03:13:03 pm
Jim Henson Company cuts ties with Chick-Fil-A (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/jim-henson-company-chick-fil-a-anti-gay_n_1694809.html) over the latter's opposition to same-sex marriage.

I think Jim would be proud. Makes me that much more glad to be a diehard Muppets fan.

Oh, that reminds me.  A similar story involving the boy scouts.

http://boingboing.net/2012/07/23/eagle-scouts-stand-up-to-the-b.html
Wow. That's pretty awesome. I had all but one of the requirements for Eagle before burning out and then aging out at 18. So I don't have one to send back. But if I did, I would.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 03:47:49 pm
Quote from: RedKing on July 23, 2012, 03:13:03 pm
Jim Henson Company cuts ties with Chick-Fil-A (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/jim-henson-company-chick-fil-a-anti-gay_n_1694809.html) over the latter's opposition to same-sex marriage.
Quote
Lisa Henson, our CEO is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to GLAAD.
Protest donations are the best donations.
Quote from: Comments
It must be a rough day when even the Muppets are against you.
Indeed.
Quote from: Levi on July 23, 2012, 03:21:17 pm
Oh, that reminds me.  A similar story involving the boy scouts.

http://boingboing.net/2012/07/23/eagle-scouts-stand-up-to-the-b.html
As I understand it, the BSA is only even like this in the first place because the LDS church gained some sort of major influence over them in the 70's.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 23, 2012, 03:52:15 pm
I give it a week before some organization with "family" in it's name organizes a protest of all things muppet-related.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 23, 2012, 04:04:31 pm
Quote from: Sirus on July 23, 2012, 03:52:15 pm
I give it a week before some organization with "family" in it's name organizes a protest of all things muppet-related.
It'll be a boycott arms race. Some company will sever its ties with the Muppets, then people will boycott that company, etc. etc.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 23, 2012, 04:52:25 pm
Pretty soon we'll have two economies, the gay-friendly economy, and the gay-hating economy.

Or at least you guys will. I don't think any Canadian company would join the gay-hating side. Too friendly, as a rule. :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 04:55:48 pm
But Canada already has three economies: East, West, and Angry Quebecers. 
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 23, 2012, 04:59:05 pm
We could always use more! I'm sure the territories want their own. And if we take over the Turks and Cacaos, they could have one! And the maritimes could use one!

[Canadian Oprah] EVERYONE GETS A NEW ECONOMY! [/Canadian Oprah]
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 23, 2012, 05:58:37 pm
Quote
And on the paulites stuff:
Quote
shore up "private property rights on the Internet."
Uh huh. So he wants to push for more copyright & anti-piracy laws. Uh, yeah, fuck that guy.
[/quote
]

Well now that's not a wild assumption or anything
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 06:02:35 pm
Well....what else could it mean?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 23, 2012, 06:06:57 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 06:02:35 pm
Well....what else could it mean?

People's rights to do what they want on the internet without the government being a pain?

I doubt copyright comes into it. He pretty much always votes against SOPA-like bills when they come up (and makes a pretty big deal about it when he does)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 06:12:00 pm
But he said, and I quote: "protect private property rights on the Internet".

Private property rights are not free speech, and digital property on the internet can only be protected from widespread copying through copyright law. Hence the idea of copy rights.

I prefer copyleft, personally. If I ever release a work on the internet, I'm copylefting it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 23, 2012, 06:15:35 pm
The hell does "copyleft" even mean? And why does Firefox's spell-check see it as a real word while Gandalf isn't?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 23, 2012, 06:17:26 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 06:12:00 pm
But he said, and I quote: "protect private property rights on the Internet".

Private property rights are not free speech, and digital property on the internet can only be protected from widespread copying through copyright law. Hence the idea of copy rights.

I prefer copyleft, personally. If I ever release a work on the internet, I'm copylefting it.

I don't know. I'm not Ron Paul. I heavily doubt that he's spontaneously declaring that he wants to crack down on the internets on behalf of copyright-infringed corporations, since that would be a complete 180 from most of the things he's done so far.

By the way, I honestly think copyrighting/patenting is nonsense. You steal property by taking the item in question, depriving the owner of its use (eg. if I take your TV, you no longer have a TV and thus have lost the equivalent value), but if I "steal" a song the owner hasn't lost anything at all. 
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 06:20:52 pm
Quote from: Sirus on July 23, 2012, 06:15:35 pm
The hell does "copyleft" even mean? And why does Firefox's spell-check see it as a real word while Gandalf isn't?
It's quite simple, just read this giant Wikipedia article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft)

I imagine Firefox knows it is a word because of Mozilla's political affiliations.
Quote from: GreatJustice on July 23, 2012, 06:17:26 pm
I don't know. I'm not Ron Paul. I heavily doubt that he's spontaneously declaring that he wants to crack down on the internets on behalf of copyright-infringed corporations, since that would be a complete 180 from most of the things he's done so far.
No it isn't. Ron Paul has maintained a consistent position of total personal freedoms at the federal level and none at the state level and total economic freedom regardless. Economic freedom means that the government protect business interests, such as corporate speech and copyrights. 

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 23, 2012, 06:25:29 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on July 23, 2012, 06:17:26 pm
By the way, I honestly think copyrighting/patenting is nonsense. You steal property by taking the item in question, depriving the owner of its use (eg. if I take your TV, you no longer have a TV and thus have lost the equivalent value), but if I "steal" a song the owner hasn't lost anything at all.
You wouldn't steal a baby?

Stealing babies is crime.

Piracy.

Is.

Crime.

Criminal scum.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 06:26:41 pm
Technically this would be copying babies.

Would you copy a baby?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 23, 2012, 06:48:12 pm
Quote from: Descan on July 23, 2012, 04:52:25 pm
Pretty soon we'll have two economies, the gay-friendly economy, and the gay-hating economy.
Ed Brayton tends to update this post every year. (http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/12/24/how-to-avoid-advancing-the-gay-agenda/) It gets longer every time.
Quote
    “So, what a smart consumer should do is take a look at the Human Rights Campaign workplace scorecard for corporations and just go to the opposite places,” the AFTAH president suggests. “Go to the place with the lower ranking.”

I totally agree with him. Bigots should avoid all of the companies that score well in their treatment of gay people. And then they’ll have to become Amish because they won’t be able to drive a car, go to a bank, eat almost anything or buy any clothes. Here’s an old post I wrote about how to avoid advancing the gay agenda:

You can’t fly on American Airlines or US Airways, both of which scored a perfect 100. You might also want to avoid United, Southwest, Delta, Northwest, Continental and JetBlue; all scored above 80. Who can you fly? Well, you could try Nepal Airlines, the faith-based airline that sacrifices goats to appease God. On second thought, that won’t work either. Nepal Airlines has two planes, both of them made by Boeing; Boeing got a perfect 100 too. Go Greyhound!

In fact, you might want to start boycotting the military too. Most of the major defense contractors scored very well. Honeywell, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman all scored a perfect 100. Lockheed got an 85. Who would have guessed that our good ol’ red-blooded and (presumably) straight American fighting men are using weapons that advance the gay agenda? If they don’t ask, we won’t tell.

Shopping could be a problem too. You can’t shop at Abercrombie and Fitch, The Gap, JC Penney’s, Macy’s, or Nordstroms. Can’t wear Levis jeans or Nike shoes. And even that staple of middle American fashion, LL Bean, scored a 79. Ah well, there’s always K-Mart. And in a pinch, you can always wear a plain white sheet.
It goes on for quite a while from there.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on July 23, 2012, 06:51:59 pm
Quote from: alway on July 23, 2012, 12:12:49 pm
A money 'black hole': rich hide at least $21 trillion in tax havens, study shows (http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/23/12903523-a-money-black-hole-rich-hide-at-least-21-trillion-in-tax-havens-study-shows?lite&__utma=14933801.132114552.1342440580.1343053195.1343063584.25&__utmb=14933801.1.10.1343063584&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1342440580.1.1.utmcsr=%28direct%29|utmccn=%28direct%29|utmcmd=%28none%29|utmcct=/&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc|cover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=152206649)
So in addition to the link I added earlier...
Apple hiding billions in profits from taxes for years (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48289598/ns/business-us_business/?__utma=14933801.363601936.1342660082.1343010571.1343086771.14&__utmb=14933801.1.10.1343086771&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1342660082.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Ccover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=77110677#.UA3g0rRSQtQ)

Quote
Apple may pay some corporate income taxes on that profit to the country where it sells the iPad, but it minimizes these by using various accounting moves to shift profits to countries with low tax rates. For example the strategy known as "Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich," routes profits through Irish and Dutch subsidiaries and then to the Caribbean.
Quote
In Apple's case, those overseas accounts have grown to a staggering $74 billion — equal to the market value of Citigroup Inc.
The budget deficit: found it. At a 35% corporate tax rate, that's about 7 trillion dollars in total which would otherwise have been collected. Over $20 billion in taxes from Apple alone.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 23, 2012, 06:56:33 pm
Quote from: alway on July 23, 2012, 06:51:59 pm
Quote from: alway on July 23, 2012, 12:12:49 pm
A money 'black hole': rich hide at least $21 trillion in tax havens, study shows (http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/23/12903523-a-money-black-hole-rich-hide-at-least-21-trillion-in-tax-havens-study-shows?lite&__utma=14933801.132114552.1342440580.1343053195.1343063584.25&__utmb=14933801.1.10.1343063584&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1342440580.1.1.utmcsr=%28direct%29|utmccn=%28direct%29|utmcmd=%28none%29|utmcct=/&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc|cover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=152206649)
So in addition to the link I added earlier...
Apple hiding billions in profits from taxes for years (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48289598/ns/business-us_business/?__utma=14933801.363601936.1342660082.1343010571.1343086771.14&__utmb=14933801.1.10.1343086771&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1342660082.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Ccover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=77110677#.UA3g0rRSQtQ)

Quote
Apple may pay some corporate income taxes on that profit to the country where it sells the iPad, but it minimizes these by using various accounting moves to shift profits to countries with low tax rates. For example the strategy known as "Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich," routes profits through Irish and Dutch subsidiaries and then to the Caribbean.

The US government should deal with this in the traditional way, via drone strikes on the Caribbean.
Quote
No it isn't. Ron Paul has maintained a consistent position of total personal freedoms at the federal level and none at the state level and total economic freedom regardless. Economic freedom means that the government protect business interests, such as corporate speech and copyrights. 

Corporate speech falls under free speech, but that's something different entirely.

Copyright is not economic freedom, it's economic tyranny. Copyrights are economic freedom like terrorist attacks are stimulus packages.

Quote
You wouldn't steal a baby?

Stealing babies is crime.

Piracy.

Is.

Crime.

Criminal scum.

I dunno, I have to wonder if stealing babies is crimes sometimes.


Quote
Would you copy a baby?

You just made my signature, bro
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 23, 2012, 06:58:48 pm
A hypothetical situation that relies on my understanding of copyright law and those who are against it:

At some point in the future, a food company breeds a new variety of fish. This fish is fast-growing, easy to care for, and most importantly of all is tasty and nutritious. This effort takes years and quite a lot of money.

Shortly after the fish is announced and the fish farms are set up, a rival company manages to steal a few breeding pairs and breed his own fish, who breed more fish, etc. Those are given to other companies, who breed and pass them on, etc. Now pretty much everyone has a fish of their own and the original company made zero profit off of the time and money spent.

Now, fish aren't digital downloads or whatever, but is it really so bad for an artist to ask for appreciation and compensation for his/her/their work? Yes, a number of products have been successful despite being free, but I'm fairly certain that they are the exception, not the rule, and either the makers of those products have to pursue a career (thus lowering productivity) or they subsist on donations like Toady.

Like I implied at the beginning, copyright law is not my strongpoint.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 23, 2012, 07:10:26 pm
Yeah... the simplest way to put it is that there's a bit of a difference (Understatement. Understatement. Understatement.) between what'cher sayin', Siri, and copyright law as-is. People in general that are quite opposed to current copyright law are usually not quite so opposed to something that is even remotely frakking sane. Which the majority of current copyright law, isn't.

Fish is a pretty bad example, though, especially one like you described. Something like that would probably be justified in being stolen (or at least subsidized, then forced into public domain, or something to that effect) simply due to the generalized benefit it would have to humanity.

Seriously wish I had access to my older Opera notes file. Somewhere in there I had saved a post in one of the other (multitudinous) copyright threads that put together a list of all the other times B12 had the copyright runaround. It might help stave off another go at it :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on July 23, 2012, 07:16:13 pm
That was true with original copyright law. Back when it was created, it lasted for only a few years. The idea being "you will have time to make money before this goes into public domain. Unfortunately, corporations have twisted that idea into "we own this idea now and forever, and any who want to use it must pay us even if they thought it up themselves, and even if its creator died nearly a century ago." Which corporations pushed into the law.

As for Paul:
What else could 'private property rights on the internet' possible mean? It's a euphemism for copyright law. You don't own a car on the internet. You don't own land on the internet. Unless he's talking about swords in your MMO, which I highly doubt, he is talking specifically about copyright laws. Hell, just the sheer fact that he does not rail against the dangers of the overly strict copyright law shows he is for it; you can't simply ignore something of that magnitude in a document about internet "freedom" unless you are actively supporting it!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on July 23, 2012, 07:22:21 pm
Quote from: palsch on July 23, 2012, 06:48:12 pm
Quote from: Descan on July 23, 2012, 04:52:25 pm
Pretty soon we'll have two economies, the gay-friendly economy, and the gay-hating economy.
Ed Brayton tends to update this post every year. (http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/12/24/how-to-avoid-advancing-the-gay-agenda/) It gets longer every time.
Quote
    “So, what a smart consumer should do is take a look at the Human Rights Campaign workplace scorecard for corporations and just go to the opposite places,” the AFTAH president suggests. “Go to the place with the lower ranking.”

I totally agree with him. Bigots should avoid all of the companies that score well in their treatment of gay people. And then they’ll have to become Amish because they won’t be able to drive a car, go to a bank, eat almost anything or buy any clothes. Here’s an old post I wrote about how to avoid advancing the gay agenda:

You can’t fly on American Airlines or US Airways, both of which scored a perfect 100. You might also want to avoid United, Southwest, Delta, Northwest, Continental and JetBlue; all scored above 80. Who can you fly? Well, you could try Nepal Airlines, the faith-based airline that sacrifices goats to appease God. On second thought, that won’t work either. Nepal Airlines has two planes, both of them made by Boeing; Boeing got a perfect 100 too. Go Greyhound!

In fact, you might want to start boycotting the military too. Most of the major defense contractors scored very well. Honeywell, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman all scored a perfect 100. Lockheed got an 85. Who would have guessed that our good ol’ red-blooded and (presumably) straight American fighting men are using weapons that advance the gay agenda? If they don’t ask, we won’t tell.

Shopping could be a problem too. You can’t shop at Abercrombie and Fitch, The Gap, JC Penney’s, Macy’s, or Nordstroms. Can’t wear Levis jeans or Nike shoes. And even that staple of middle American fashion, LL Bean, scored a 79. Ah well, there’s always K-Mart. And in a pinch, you can always wear a plain white sheet.
It goes on for quite a while from there.

Why is it that people can go on and on about companies that support homosexuality, downplaying it so much, but when Chick-Fil-a founder says he doesn't support homosexuality, everyone goes omg truett cathy spends like gajillions of dollars trying to stop teh gays he is so evil omg.

I am also dumbfounded why people get so up in arms about Google supporting gay rights. It's a personal choice of the founder to devote his company's resources that way, I'm not boycotting google because of that.

Basically, it's a business owner's own... well, business if s/he wants to support or go against anything. I could really care less.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 23, 2012, 07:27:35 pm
A) It depends what the company's doing with their money. Many donate to various things for publicity reasons; that includes gay and anti-gay organizations.

B) The CEO (and founder, and whatever) represents their company. Of course they aren't their company, but what they do and say reflects on it. You can argue that's unfair and generalizing (which I'll agree with somewhat), but it's not a horrible argument to think that if a CEO supports or is against something, their company's actions will likely reflect that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on July 23, 2012, 07:34:12 pm
Additionally, remember that we are capitalists. The company isn't entitled to continued business at any point, and any reason people consider good enough to use the competition is good enough for the system. It's mostly unfair to the employees, really, who would be harmed by a failure of the business through no fault of their own.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 07:35:34 pm
Quote from: ggamer on July 23, 2012, 07:22:21 pm
Why is it that people can go on and on about companies that support homosexuality, downplaying it so much, but when Chick-Fil-a founder says he doesn't support homosexuality, everyone goes omg truett cathy spends like gajillions of dollars trying to stop teh gays he is so evil omg.
Because people are free to judge the actions of others. I have looked upon the standards of Chik-Fil-A, and I find them lacking. Lots of other people do as well. And so, in the course of supporting human rights, I and many others don't support Chik-Fil-A.
Quote
I am also dumbfounded why people get so up in arms about Google supporting gay rights. It's a personal choice of the founder to devote his company's resources that way, I'm not boycotting google because of that.
Good for you, then.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 23, 2012, 07:43:24 pm
I have never eaten at or even seen a Chik-Fil-A. I don't think they have any in my neck of the woods.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on July 23, 2012, 07:45:39 pm
Chik-Fil-A is a southeastern U.S. based company, and consider yourself lucky Sirus, their food is absolute garbage.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 07:47:09 pm
The only two story Chik-Fil-A in the world opened five minutes from my high school. I've never gone there and never will.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 23, 2012, 07:47:46 pm
All I'm saying is that any decision of mine to boycott them or not is null, because they wouldn't be getting my business anyway :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on July 23, 2012, 07:59:36 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 23, 2012, 07:27:35 pm
A) It depends what the company's doing with their money. Many donate to various things for publicity reasons; that includes gay and anti-gay organizations.

B) The CEO (and founder, and whatever) represents their company. Of course they aren't their company, but what they do and say reflects on it. You can argue that's unfair and generalizing (which I'll agree with somewhat), but it's not a horrible argument to think that if a CEO supports or is against something, their company's actions will likely reflect that.

What, do you think if a gay man walks into chick-fil-a he'll get shot? Or even refused service? No, the only thing he'll be losing is pride, for eating at a chain that thinks homosexuality is wrong.

Like I said, a company's views will usually not affect my patronage there.

Now that I think about it, to steer the subject around, why would you even make your stance known? It would probably be a better business move. Plus, If I owned a company I don't think I would make that thing known, I wouldn't want my personal stance on that to ruin my business.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 07:35:34 pm
Quote from: ggamer on July 23, 2012, 07:22:21 pm
Why is it that people can go on and on about companies that support homosexuality, downplaying it so much, but when Chick-Fil-a founder says he doesn't support homosexuality, everyone goes omg truett cathy spends like gajillions of dollars trying to stop teh gays he is so evil omg.
Because people are free to judge the actions of others. I have looked upon the standards of Chik-Fil-A, and I find them lacking. Lots of other people do as well. And so, in the course of supporting human rights, I and many others don't support Chik-Fil-A.
Quote
I am also dumbfounded why people get so up in arms about Google supporting gay rights. It's a personal choice of the founder to devote his company's resources that way, I'm not boycotting google because of that.
Good for you, then.

Suppor- huh? Since when is Truett Cathy being a poor businessman considered a violation of human rights?

When did homosexuality become a matter of human rights anyway? It's not like a gay man is in any danger, unless he goes to the deepest, most secluded parts of lower pittsburgh or the south. And even then those types of people are against blatant homosexuality, they aren't going to fucking quiz you the second they see you about how gay you are.

Basically, when people who like one type of music look down on somebody who likes another type, is it considered a human rights violation? If that person then looks down at the other person and says "Man, you are so fuckin' dumb for liking that kind of music.", Is the UN going to bust out sanctions? No, it's considered somebody being thick for being so offended by personal choice.

Quote from: Jervill on July 23, 2012, 07:45:39 pm
Chik-Fil-A is a southeastern U.S. based company, and consider yourself lucky Sirus, their food is absolute garbage.

Bro, have you ever eaten at a chick-fil-a? Best damn fast food in the south, not terrible at all. Great food for fast food, especially when you have to deal with taco bell.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 08:09:52 pm
Quote from: ggamer on July 23, 2012, 07:59:36 pm
Like I said, a company's views will usually not affect my patronage there.
So if a company was based in Saudi Arabia but had stores in the US and used their funds to lobby the King to, for example, hunt down and execute underground Christians, that wouldn't matter to you?
Quote
When did homosexuality become a matter of human rights anyway?
When homosexuals were denied equal rights to heterosexuals in the United States. Until 2003 sodomy laws were enforced in most US states. Until 1993 homosexuals couldn't serve in the military and until 2011 they couldn't serve openly, which is effectively the same restriction. Homosexuals still can't marry in most of the Union, nor are they protected from employment discrimination. Gay couples adopting children is in a more complicated legal state, but far from desirable nonetheless. Ex-gay camps using horrific and unscientific psychological practices to "fix" homosexuals are legal to send your children to.
Quote
And even then those types of people are against blatant homosexuality, they aren't going to fucking quiz you the second they see you about how gay you are.
How does that make a difference? What do you define as "blatent" homosexuality?
Quote
Bro, have you ever eaten at a chick-fil-a? Best damn fast food in the south, not terrible at all. Great food for fast food, especially when you have to deal with taco bell.
Yeah, you can really taste the suffering. But no, he's right, Chick-Fil-A is indeed some of the best fast food there is. It just so happens to also be evil.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 23, 2012, 08:11:45 pm
Mmm, evil. Tasty.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 23, 2012, 08:15:31 pm
MSH, you forgot how in many states, gay partnerships are also denied the same legal status are heterosexual marriage. Thus, a gay man's partner would not get visitation rights at a hospital while a straight man could visit his wife, for one example.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 08:20:04 pm
Quote from: Sirus on July 23, 2012, 08:15:31 pm
MSH, you forgot how in many states, gay partnerships are also denied the same legal status are heterosexual marriage. Thus, a gay man's partner would not get visitation rights at a hospital while a straight man could visit his wife, for one example.
All the states, actually, as enforced by the Defense of Marriage Act. Knew I missed something.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 23, 2012, 08:25:58 pm
Inheritance issues, too, as one of the recent posts in one of these threads mentioned.

It's actually kinda' kinda' like gg said -- if we were discriminating like this because of musical preference it'd be goddamn insane and th'UN'd or someone'd be on that like flies on shit. Unfortunately some folks that don't consider homosexuality to be so trivial got a hold of the lawbooks and social norms and did some bullshit they probably could have just not have and left well enough alone.

Now a good chunk of th'population's trying to fix that mistake. Getting better, in starts and stops! Not there yet. Still work to be done.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on July 23, 2012, 08:45:18 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 08:09:52 pm
Quote from: ggamer on July 23, 2012, 07:59:36 pm
Like I said, a company's views will usually not affect my patronage there.
So if a company was based in Saudi Arabia but had stores in the US and used their funds to lobby the King to, for example, hunt down and execute underground Christians, that wouldn't matter to you?

Like I said, it usually won't matter. I wouldn't patronize any store that supports things like that, I don't care what they're religion is, people don't deserve to be hunted down and executed. However, I will still go to a store that doesn't support a choice that they see as morally wrong. There is no word in that to indicated the systematic murder of any kind of person.
 
Quote
Quote
When did homosexuality become a matter of human rights anyway?
When homosexuals were denied equal rights to heterosexuals in the United States. Until 2003 sodomy laws were enforced in most US states. Until 1993 homosexuals couldn't serve in the military and until 2011 they couldn't serve openly, which is effectively the same restriction. Homosexuals still can't marry in most of the Union, nor are they protected from employment discrimination. Gay couples adopting children is in a more complicated legal state, but far from desirable nonetheless. Ex-gay camps using horrific and unscientific psychological practices to "fix" homosexuals are legal to send your children to.

Besides the last one, which isn't common where I live and is a horrible violation of human rights, I wouldn't chalk any of those up with such human rights violations as entire peoples getting murdered and sent to work camps for no good reason.
 
Quote
Quote
And even then those types of people are against blatant homosexuality, they aren't going to fucking quiz you the second they see you about how gay you are.
How does that make a difference? What do you define as "blatent" homosexuality?

Don't be coy. I mean Blatant homosexuality. Then again, those kinds of parts probably react to several other blatant activities, like blatantly liberal or blatantly not a fan of the braves.

You'd get a different reactions near where I live, most of it would just be a stern shake of the head and a topic change to avoid a shitstorm, though some would outright shut down the conversation. I don't know anybody that would react violently towards blatant behavior though, no matter how far it is from their ideals.

Quote
Quote
Bro, have you ever eaten at a chick-fil-a? Best damn fast food in the south, not terrible at all. Great food for fast food, especially when you have to deal with taco bell.
Yeah, you can really taste the suffering. But no, he's right, Chick-Fil-A is indeed some of the best fast food there is. It just so happens to also be evil.

I wouldn't say it is evil, the same as preferring coke to pepsi is evil.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 08:52:28 pm
Quote from: ggamer on July 23, 2012, 08:45:18 pm
However, I will still go to a store that doesn't support a choice that they see as morally wrong. There is no word in that to indicated the systematic murder of any kind of person.
Alright, so you'd be willing to patronize a store that lobbies for legislation to remove anti-discrimination laws in hiring and adoption for Christians, then?
Quote
Besides the last one, which isn't common where I live and is a horrible violation of human rights, I wouldn't chalk any of those up with such human rights violations as entire peoples getting murdered and sent to work camps for no good reason.
A. Don't be so sure it isn't common where you live. People don't talk about it much, probably because it's fucking crazy.

B. What in the world does the Holocaust have to do with this? You do know there are human rights besides freedom from genocide, right?
Quote
Don't be coy. I mean Blatant homosexuality.
No, I seriously don't know what you mean.
Quote
You'd get a different reactions near where I live, most of it would just be a stern shake of the head and a topic change to avoid a shitstorm, though some would outright shut down the conversation. I don't know anybody that would react violently towards blatant behavior though, no matter how far it is from their ideals.
Sounds like the people where you live have issues if they can't even talk about it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on July 23, 2012, 09:14:53 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 08:52:28 pm
Quote from: ggamer on July 23, 2012, 08:45:18 pm
However, I will still go to a store that doesn't support a choice that they see as morally wrong. There is no word in that to indicated the systematic murder of any kind of person.
Alright, so you'd be willing to patronize a store that lobbies for legislation to remove anti-discrimination laws in hiring and adoption for Christians, then?

ooooh, clever. No, discrimination laws are a no-go, again. I don't care who it is discriminating against, it's still wrong. Adoption is a little more odd, I think it would vary between societies. That kind of...

Oh god dammit you're going to get me to agree with you this way aren't you.

Anyway, there are already people who don't approve of adoption by christians, though it's the same niche filled by the people who abjectly hate Christianity. I guess that's a little more delicate, though now that I think about it I don't think any sort of choice should affect your ability to adopt. And again, while I don't think it is right for people to get support of homosexuality imprinted in children at a young age, many could say the same thing about Christianity, so fair's fair.

Quote
Quote
Besides the last one, which isn't common where I live and is a horrible violation of human rights, I wouldn't chalk any of those up with such human rights violations as entire peoples getting murdered and sent to work camps for no good reason.
A. Don't be so sure it isn't common where you live. People don't talk about it much, probably because it's fucking crazy.

I think it's less fucking crazy and more a lack of awareness.

Quote
B. What in the world does the Holocaust have to do with this? You do know there are human rights besides freedom from genocide, right?

I don't think That the Holocaust is the only time a group of people was murdered and oppressed, though it is the biggest example.

Quote
Quote
Don't be coy. I mean Blatant homosexuality.
No, I seriously don't know what you mean.

It's kind of hard to explain, but it'd be people being gay and being really obvious about it.

Quote
Quote
You'd get a different reactions near where I live, most of it would just be a stern shake of the head and a topic change to avoid a shitstorm, though some would outright shut down the conversation. I don't know anybody that would react violently towards blatant behavior though, no matter how far it is from their ideals.
Sounds like the people where you live have issues if they can't even talk about it.

It's less not being able to talk about it and more not wanting to talk about it. It may be surprising for you, but big-shot liberals getting really fucking offended and going off on a spiel at the first opportunity is surprisingly common around here.

Also, by shut down the conversation, I meant someone getting really... irked by the idea of someone with different ideals with them and kind of awkwardly trying to leave. Basically, it's people who are rather sheltered who act like that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 23, 2012, 09:21:12 pm
I don't see a problem with being really obvious about anything. It being homosexuality isn't any worse than anything else.


If someone's very obviously "communicating" that they're gay, then whupidedoo. If someone attacks them for it, then you can't say "you brought it on yourself." That's incredibly blatant victim blaming. Same reason you wouldn't excuse an attacker for beating someone up over being a fan of the wrong sports team. Same reason you wouldn't excuse a rapist for attacking someone wearing revealing clothing.




I believe your original point with that was about witch hunts. Yeah, we realize there aren't lynch mobs going down the streets interrogating people. But homosexuals having to hide at all is a bad thing. It can still cost them their job. It can still cost them friends. All of that is incredibly stupid.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 09:52:28 pm
Quote from: ggamer on July 23, 2012, 09:14:53 pm
ooooh, clever. No, discrimination laws are a no-go, again. I don't care who it is discriminating against, it's still wrong. Adoption is a little more odd, I think it would vary between societies. That kind of...
Well, as I mentioned before, there are lots of places in the Union where you can fire someone for being a homosexual, write that down as the reason you fired them, use it in court as a legitimate reason to have fired them, and win the case hands down. This is because of a lack of anti-discrimination in hiring laws concerning sexual orientation and gender identity in the states in question. These laws are opposed by family organizations, the very kind that Chik-Fil-A donates to, and being a large corporation they can donate quite a sum of money indeed.

So by your own standards you should be boycotting Chik-Fil-A.
Quote
Oh god dammit you're going to get me to agree with you this way aren't you.
That's the idea.
Quote
I think it's less fucking crazy and more a lack of awareness.
If you've sent your child off to a camp to have their gay removed, you've got to be at least a little crazy.
Quote
I don't think That the Holocaust is the only time a group of people was murdered and oppressed, though it is the biggest example.
You mentioned systematic executions and work camps. I want to know how that's relevant.
Quote
It's kind of hard to explain, but it'd be people being gay and being really obvious about it.
I'm not sure about you, but I lack gay-o-vison. Unless your local homosexuals have public orgies I'm not sure how you could tell through their behavior.
Quote
It's less not being able to talk about it and more not wanting to talk about it. It may be surprising for you, but big-shot liberals getting really fucking offended and going off on a spiel at the first opportunity is surprisingly common around here.
Given the political climate you've described, I doubt that there are very many big-shot liberals around to go off on spiels in the first place.
Quote
Also, by shut down the conversation, I meant someone getting really... irked by the idea of someone with different ideals with them and kind of awkwardly trying to leave. Basically, it's people who are rather sheltered who act like that.
Sheltered attitudes are not good for people. They get out into the world after having been sheltered for so long and they can't interact with other people properly. For example, like not even being able to stay around a conversation of something they disagree with.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mech#4 on July 23, 2012, 10:29:33 pm
Quote
Quote
It's kind of hard to explain, but it'd be people being gay and being really obvious about it.

I'm not sure about you, but I lack gay-o-vison. Unless your local homosexuals have public orgies I'm not sure how you could tell through their behavior.

I think ggamer might mean things like gay pride parades. They have them in Sydney where people dress up in really flamboyant clothes and/or crossdress to bring awareness to gay rights. People can be put off by such things, as it's very out of the ordinary.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 23, 2012, 10:39:19 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 06:26:41 pm
Would you copy a baby?

King Solomon threatened to cut a baby in half with a sword in front of its mom and he's remembered as a pillar of justice. So yeah, sure. Copying one doesn't seem so bad. 

Quote from: kaijyuu on July 23, 2012, 09:21:12 pm
I don't see a problem with being really obvious about anything. It being homosexuality isn't any worse than anything else.

If someone's very obviously "communicating" that they're gay, then whupidedoo. If someone attacks them for it, then you can't say "you brought it on yourself." That's incredibly blatant victim blaming. Same reason you wouldn't excuse an attacker for beating someone up over being a fan of the wrong sports team. Same reason you wouldn't excuse a rapist for attacking someone wearing revealing clothing.

I believe your original point with that was about witch hunts. Yeah, we realize there aren't lynch mobs going down the streets interrogating people. But homosexuals having to hide at all is a bad thing. It can still cost them their job. It can still cost them friends. All of that is incredibly stupid.

Yes.

It's called repression and it's made my life a living hell the likes of which I will never fully tell you about. It's cost me friends, family, and even work, probably in the tens of thousands of dollar range and I'm actively closeted or try to be. It's really a losing game being closeted gay, because sooner or later people wonder why you're 30 years old and have never been on a date with a girl and don't notice them at all.... That, and several other things.....

I could say the role of corporations is to provide product to consumers, profit to investors, and that donating company funds to any political idea is misappropriating company funds. Those investors bought stock of the company, they didn't buy into a political idea or candidate. If the individual wanted to make a political statement; they should. The company should sell product and make profit, that's it. The Supreme Court should've said this, but didn't. I could say that but really if you want a reason everybody is making a big deal out of it, it's because the corporation made a big deal out of it. The corporation publicly made a controversial stand on an issue dividing the nation. Lo and behold there is controversy, who could've guessed.... [no question mark]. Honestly what did they expect? "Gee let's have our corporation take a stand on a controversial issue; hey where and why did all this controversy come around...?" Guess.

As for gays in society in general. The US was the only NATO country besides Turkey not to allow gays in the military. It didn't hurt any of the other countries who allowed it. There's no rational reason for any of it and there really should be if you're going to have a massive effect on just about all parts of another person's life who has never harmed you at all....

Edit: you wanna know what'd be really messed up? If I played devil's advocate and argued for the other side: namely if I put arguments together to say the company should be able to do this.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on July 24, 2012, 01:33:44 am
McCain defends Huma Abedin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xASbyLHDd4&feature=share) against the accusation against her by Michelle Bachman.  +1 Appreciation to McCain, even if he believes I'm an abomination destined for the fires of hell.

On that note, I defend my right to be gay and to talk about it.  I can't stand how my friends can nonchalantly discuss their straight relationships, sometimes in pretty embarrassing detail, but I'm absolutely not allowed to mention that I'm attracted to men without wide-eyed stares from people or shocked surprise.  My sexuality is left-handed, deal with it.  After years of sexual repression and praying to God to "cure" my sexuality, I'm pretty sure I've caused myself emotional damage that will take years to unravel, if not counseling.

I'd like the right to marry.  I'd like the right to rent an apartment without being turned away for being gay.  What exactly are people worried about when they refuse gay renters?  I'm pretty sure I can guess what they're thinking, and I'm pretty sure the damage deposit would cover that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 24, 2012, 02:56:50 am
Quote from: Euld on July 24, 2012, 01:33:44 am
I'd like the right to marry.  I'd like the right to rent an apartment without being turned away for being gay.  What exactly are people worried about when they refuse gay renters?  I'm pretty sure I can guess what they're thinking, and I'm pretty sure the damage deposit would cover that.
A damage deposit can cover that they think they're enforcing the Will Of God?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on July 24, 2012, 03:13:55 am
Quote from: ggamer on July 23, 2012, 09:14:53 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 08:52:28 pm
Quote from: ggamer on July 23, 2012, 08:45:18 pm
However, I will still go to a store that doesn't support a choice that they see as morally wrong. There is no word in that to indicated the systematic murder of any kind of person.
Alright, so you'd be willing to patronize a store that lobbies for legislation to remove anti-discrimination laws in hiring and adoption for Christians, then?
ooooh, clever. No, discrimination laws are a no-go, again. I don't care who it is discriminating against, it's still wrong. Adoption is a little more odd, I think it would vary between societies. That kind of...

Oh god dammit you're going to get me to agree with you this way aren't you.

So, if you're unwilling to patronize a store that supports discrimination laws, note that Chick-fil-A's 'charity' arm, WinShape, gave $1,733,699 to various groups in 2009 according to their IRS 990 form (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/581/581595471/581595471_200912_990PF.pdf).

In order of donation value:

    Marriage & Family Legacy Fund: $994,199
    Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
    National Christian Foundation: $240,000
    Focus On The Family: $12,500
    Eagle Forum: $5,000
    Exodus International: $1,000
    Family Research Council: $1,000

The first is a branch of Marriage CoMission (http://www.marriagecomission.com/), a group that lobbies for 'stronger marriages'. Not really sure about that one, their website is incredibly vague. Never heard of the second or third, though I imagine that them being large national Christian organizations, they're not exactly supportive. More important here are the bottom four, though the donations are smaller.

Focus on the Family (http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/defending-your-values.aspx) is all about helping families overcome the incredible unjustices done to them by the public, such as forcing their children to be gay and learn about sex.

The sarcasm oozes from the sentence.

The Eagle Forum's checklist for a candidate to support. (http://www.eagleforum.org/questionnaire/EFCQ2012.pdf) They have some crazier stuff (somehow) on their website, but on that sheet, they have a demand for a candidate to support DADT, so there's your direct link to discriminatory laws. Supporting those who donate to candidates who would vote for them, anyway. As a further note, they apparently want 'Edison lightbulbs' to be legalized again. Huh.

Exodus International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_International) (Sometimes called Exodus Global Alliance) is one of those gay-re-education groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has a nice and disturbing 5-page PDF file about the Family Research Council (http://www.lgbtqnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Anti-Gay-Lobby.pdf). Suffice to say that they're pretty nuts about this stuff.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2012, 03:47:01 am
Chick-Fil-A is like Coors beer then.

Family-owned Coors beer had similar issues with their Coors Foundation which donated heavily to anti-gay groups, so to "fix' the image they implemented tolerant practices within their own company, and hired Mary Cheney as their "gay liason".

But, they kept funding the anti-gay groups but called it the "Castle Rock Foundation" or something instead.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 24, 2012, 04:31:41 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 09:52:28 pm
Quote
It's kind of hard to explain, but it'd be people being gay and being really obvious about it.
I'm not sure about you, but I lack gay-o-vison.

Really?

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 09, 2012, 03:41:59 pm
I'd write of the idea of a gay appearance as stereotyping as well, but I can't because....well....it's there. I can see it. Lots of people can see it. Plenty of people believed that Anderson Cooper was gay before he admitted it.


Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 09:52:28 pm
Quote
Also, by shut down the conversation, I meant someone getting really... irked by the idea of someone with different ideals with them and kind of awkwardly trying to leave. Basically, it's people who are rather sheltered who act like that.
Sheltered attitudes are not good for people. They get out into the world after having been sheltered for so long and they can't interact with other people properly. For example, like not even being able to stay around a conversation of something they disagree with.

I don't think it has anything to do with being "sheltered". Avoiding controversial topics is something people do everywhere because they don't want the conversation on their lunch break/family dinner to devolve into an argument all the time. It's basic social skills. The only difference is what topics have to be avoided.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 24, 2012, 05:04:08 am
Quote from: scriver on July 24, 2012, 04:31:41 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 09:52:28 pm
Quote
It's kind of hard to explain, but it'd be people being gay and being really obvious about it.
I'm not sure about you, but I lack gay-o-vison.

Really?

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 09, 2012, 03:41:59 pm
I'd write of the idea of a gay appearance as stereotyping as well, but I can't because....well....it's there. I can see it. Lots of people can see it. Plenty of people believed that Anderson Cooper was gay before he admitted it.
...I'm trying to remember what my thoughts were when I posted that, but I can't.

Well, in actuality I stand by my current position. Not sure why I'd say something like that, might have just been making a filler post or posting in the middle of the night when I think very strange things. It wouldn't be the first time I've looked upon a post made at 3:00 AM or some similar time and questioned myself later. That post in particular was apparently made in the day if I'm translating forum time to mine correctly, but its also during summer vacation, when I sometimes unintentionally go nocturnal for a while. So I might have been in weird mode for that one too, I don't remember.

EDIT: Though its 6:00 AM right now, so don't trust me on this either. Actually, you probably shouldn't trust me as a rule.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 24, 2012, 07:22:34 am
I think ggamer is trying to say it's ok to discriminate against gay people if they're obviously gay, because...?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on July 24, 2012, 07:25:20 am
I'm less inclined to befriend overly camp people because they tend to annoy the fuck out of me.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 24, 2012, 07:45:17 am
My .02 on this issue:
1. Chik-Fil-A is goddamn delicious. Morally unacceptable, but delicious. Thankfully, if I really need to get my chicken sandwich on I have Bojangles.
2. My beef (and most others') with Chik-Fil-A isn't that the CEO has certain attitudes. It's that he's donating corporate funds to organizations which are *actively* trying to disenfranchise members of society.
3. The boycott isn't intended to "coerce" behavior changes on the part of Chik-Fil-A. I doubt they can be coerced. Why? Because they're the only major chain fast food place I know of that's closed on Sundays. That's pretty remarkable, and I always respected that because it meant that they weren't just about making more money. I still respect that, even if I shun them for their ties to groups that I utterly oppose.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 24, 2012, 10:15:57 am
Quote from: Sirus on July 23, 2012, 06:58:48 pm
A hypothetical situation that relies on my understanding of copyright law and those who are against it:

At some point in the future, a food company breeds a new variety of fish. This fish is fast-growing, easy to care for, and most importantly of all is tasty and nutritious. This effort takes years and quite a lot of money.

Shortly after the fish is announced and the fish farms are set up, a rival company manages to steal a few breeding pairs and breed his own fish, who breed more fish, etc. Those are given to other companies, who breed and pass them on, etc. Now pretty much everyone has a fish of their own and the original company made zero profit off of the time and money spent.

Now, fish aren't digital downloads or whatever, but is it really so bad for an artist to ask for appreciation and compensation for his/her/their work? Yes, a number of products have been successful despite being free, but I'm fairly certain that they are the exception, not the rule, and either the makers of those products have to pursue a career (thus lowering productivity) or they subsist on donations like Toady.

Like I implied at the beginning, copyright law is not my strongpoint.

In that case, the other company in question stole the fish outright. Similarly, I wouldn't be in favour of breaking into stores and stealing hard copies of Diablo III, either.

A more apt analogy would be the one company developing the wonderfish, followed by the other company observing them and trying to figure out how to make them themselves (Which could take a while). For a while, the developers have a clear-cut advantage, but eventually other companies start to make the same fish.

Patents and copyright still don't make much sense. Yes, an innovating company loses its monopoly once another company figures out how to do what they do cheaper and/or with higher quality. That's how the market works. Such companies still have the massive advantage of starting off with the new product, and it will doubtless take time for others to get around to copying them and improving on things, meaning they still get rewarded for innovation.

Meanwhile, with patents and copyright, you create minefields that no one wants to navigate without a small army of lawyers since they might accidentally infringe on someone else's obscure work and get sued to all hell or they might put all their effort into inventing something only to get one-upped by a "submarine patent" and have to pay someone who did jack all for "permission" to use their "idea".
Quote

As for Paul:
What else could 'private property rights on the internet' possible mean? It's a euphemism for copyright law. You don't own a car on the internet. You don't own land on the internet. Unless he's talking about swords in your MMO, which I highly doubt, he is talking specifically about copyright laws.

Paypal, Bitcoin, buying stuff from Amazon (which, might I mention, moved states due to taxes), etc etc etc

It's worth mentioning that whenever Ron Paul talks about "protecting private property", he generally means that in the context of "against the government". I haven't seen many cases of him standing up for copyright on any occasion.
Quote

 Hell, just the sheer fact that he does not rail against the dangers of the overly strict copyright law shows he is for it; you can't simply ignore something of that magnitude in a document about internet "freedom" unless you are actively supporting it!

Now that isn't playing fair. Yeah, he doesn't regularly rail against copyright. He's busy railing against the Fed, foreign wars, the drug wars, taxes, gun laws, etc etc etc. Its worth noting that other progressive "ideal" types like Al Gore, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Obama himself (though I honestly see him more as a fascist), and so on basically never rail against copyright, but I don't see you accusing them of being lackeys for corporations on the issue of copyright.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EveryZig on July 24, 2012, 10:30:46 am
Quote from: GreatJustice on July 24, 2012, 10:15:57 am
Its worth noting that other progressive "ideal" types like Al Gore, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Obama himself (though I honestly see him more as a fascist), and so on basically never rail against copyright, but I don't see you accusing them of being lackeys for corporations on the issue of copyright.
This forum actually has done that (particularly in Obama's case) on numerous occasions. Remember the 'does anyone actually like the candidate they are planning on voting for' thread?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 24, 2012, 10:47:56 am
That's how the market works with copy right laws. Without them, one company will just bribe an employee of the other to share the product with them, and then start to sell the products themselves.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 24, 2012, 10:49:07 am
Quote from: scriver on July 24, 2012, 10:47:56 am
That's how the market works with copy right laws. Without them, one company will just bribe an employee of the other to share the product with them, and then start to sell the products themselves.
Also known as "China".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on July 24, 2012, 10:51:35 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 24, 2012, 07:22:34 am
I think ggamer is trying to say it's ok to discriminate against gay people if they're obviously gay, because...?

...No, that's not at all the point I was trying to make. What i'm trying to say is that the social climate is a little more different in Georgia, but not so much more different that we're lynching gays.

I'm not really sure what you got that from.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 24, 2012, 11:35:49 am
Quote from: scriver on July 24, 2012, 10:47:56 am
That's how the market works with copy right laws. Without them, one company will just bribe an employee of the other to share the product with them, and then start to sell the products themselves.

Which would be breaking the law in an entirely different way. "We can't get rid of this law because then people would break an entirely different law and that would cause problems" is not a valid argument.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 24, 2012, 11:59:12 am
Quote from: lordcooper on July 24, 2012, 07:25:20 am
I'm less inclined to befriend overly camp people because they tend to annoy the fuck out of me.
Really? I tend to find... unusual people like that to be far more interesting to talk to.


I guess it really depends on the person in question. Could be really annoying, might not be.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 24, 2012, 12:09:00 pm
Quote from: ggamer on July 24, 2012, 10:51:35 am
...No, that's not at all the point I was trying to make. What i'm trying to say is that the social climate is a little more different in Georgia, but not so much more different that we're lynching gays.

I'm not really sure what you got that from.
Why did you bring up "blatant homosexuality" in the first place then?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 24, 2012, 12:11:04 pm
He was saying there aren't witch hunts for it, is all. People are only harassed, abused, and discriminated about it if they leave the closet.

I guess that's better than witch hunts, at least...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 24, 2012, 12:23:08 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 24, 2012, 12:11:04 pm
He was saying there aren't witch hunts for it, is all. People are only harassed, abused, and discriminated about it if they leave the closet.

I guess that's better than witch hunts, at least...
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5002/5208221463_b3b43155ec.jpg)

"How do you know he is a gay?"
"He looks like one!"
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 24, 2012, 12:27:18 pm
It's a really lazy witch hunt.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on July 24, 2012, 12:54:28 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 24, 2012, 11:59:12 am
Quote from: lordcooper on July 24, 2012, 07:25:20 am
I'm less inclined to befriend overly camp people because they tend to annoy the fuck out of me.
Really? I tend to find... unusual people like that to be far more interesting to talk to.


I guess it really depends on the person in question. Could be really annoying, might not be.

Unusual is cool, intentionally turning yourself into a walking stereotype is much less so.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 24, 2012, 12:55:17 pm
Haha, agree with you there, so long as it's deliberately turning themselves into a stereotype.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on July 24, 2012, 01:05:55 pm
Speaking of which. (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/24/12927927-alleged-torture-of-woman-roils-nebraska-capital?lite&__utma=14933801.132114552.1342440580.1343150445.1343153086.34&__utmb=14933801.1.10.1343153086&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1342440580.1.1.utmcsr=%28direct%29|utmccn=%28direct%29|utmcmd=%28none%29|utmcct=/&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc|cover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=255491720)
Quote
Police in Lincoln, Neb., are investigating the case of a 33-year-old woman who told police three men wearing ski masks broke into her home early Sunday, bound her wrists and ankles with zip ties, beat her and carved anti-gay slurs into her arms and abdomen.

The men also allegedly spray painted a derogatory term for lesbians inside the home and poured gasoline around the house before lighting it with a match. The fire caused no noticeable damage to the house, a city fire inspector said.
Dunno; sounds like a lynching to me. Though Nebraska in this case.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 24, 2012, 01:11:46 pm
Lynching it is not. A lynching is a public murder. That's breaking and entering, assault, and arson.


If she was dragged out into the street, hung up on a lamp post while a crowd watched, that would be a lynching.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 24, 2012, 01:31:25 pm
Still attempted murder.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2012, 03:11:34 pm
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/07/23/1615213/us-regaining-manufacturing-might-with-robots-and-3d-printing

The future of robotic manufacture:

Quote
one of China’s largest manufacturers, Taiwan-based Foxconn Technology Group, announced last August that it plans to install one million robots within three years to do the work that its workers in China presently do. It found Chinese labor to be too expensive and demanding.


If Chinese labor is "too expensive" dropping the US minimum wage to "be competitive" isn't going to help.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Levi on July 24, 2012, 03:19:56 pm
I think the point was that the American robot slaves will do the work, and they don't need to be paid at all. 

This is actually pretty interesting, as with the prices of 3d printing and manufacturing coming down, I can see China losing a lot of its employers, which could potentially be catastrophic. 
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 24, 2012, 03:35:17 pm
Yeah, but the Chinese robot workers will work on even less maintenance than those lazy American robots with their greedy demands for "oil" and "gaskets" and "electricity".


I'm telling you, the robot unions are going to kill this country.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 24, 2012, 04:00:53 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 24, 2012, 04:11:58 pm
I rather love the idea of a knockoff Chinese Terminator. It will be called the XTerminator. (See ma? No copyright infringement!)
And it will utter catch phrases like "I'll return."

Or, it might just look like this:
(http://www.horror-movies.ca/AdvHTML_Upload/terminators-knockoff.jpg)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2012, 04:13:00 pm
Chinese managers save the "good stuff" for local engineering projects. Quite simply because they execute people for taking "short cuts" about things the party cares about.

They have the three longest bridges in the world, you can bet they spared no expense ensuring those were solid (bullet to the head for failure is a good incentive).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 24, 2012, 07:38:42 pm
Yet more Chick-fil-A fallout.

Boston mayor bans them from the city. (http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/boston-mayor-bans-chick-fil-a.html)

Then there is this (http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd/2012/07/24/a-bigot-and-a-liar/).
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
"They aren't boycotting us. Their toys aren't safe for children! We cut ties with them!"
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 24, 2012, 07:43:03 pm
People should go around with sticky notes that say "Lies and Treason!" and put them on those signs.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 24, 2012, 07:54:12 pm
The blatant lying is pretty bad, but I disagree with the Boston mayor's decision. Banning a restaurant chain seems like a violation of free speech to me.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 24, 2012, 08:05:14 pm
Companies aren't people. They don't have the right to free speech.


Though I wonder just how he got that past the city council and such, though. Bit more authority than I imagine a mayor actually has, at least alone.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 24, 2012, 10:53:14 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 24, 2012, 08:05:14 pm
Companies aren't people. They don't have the right to free speech.

Quote from: The United States Constitution, 1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law.

So yeah, they do have a right to free speech.

I also find it priceless that anyone would argue that certain huge corporations (and labour unions, but no one talks about them) shouldn't be allowed freedom of speech, but other huge corporations (Specifically, news corporations) are allowed to be gigantic propaganda factories on the basis on specifically making money from it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 24, 2012, 11:00:08 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on July 24, 2012, 10:53:14 pm
Quote from: The United States Constitution, 1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law.

So yeah, they do have a right to free speech.

I also find it priceless that anyone would argue that certain huge corporations (and labour unions, but no one talks about them) shouldn't be allowed freedom of speech, but other huge corporations (Specifically, news corporations) are allowed to be gigantic propaganda factories on the basis on specifically making money from it.
I don't really agree with the Mayor of Boston's decision, but Freedom of Speech only applies to people. That's why the First Amendment specifically mentions Freedom of the Press, and that is what news corporations fall under. A business that isn't press doesn't necessarily have a right to free speech except that the Supreme Court has ruled that they do.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 24, 2012, 11:04:46 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 24, 2012, 08:05:14 pm
Companies aren't people. They don't have the right to free speech.


Though I wonder just how he got that past the city council and such, though. Bit more authority than I imagine a mayor actually has, at least alone.

The republican appointed majority of the supreme court disagrees with you.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 24, 2012, 11:06:49 pm
Yeah well they can go to hell.


I know the justifications for it. Groups of people = people, essentially. But you don't hear that sort of justification for anything else.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 24, 2012, 11:10:09 pm
Except for Soylent Green.

What? You think they separate the people? Nah, it's one giant slurry!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 24, 2012, 11:19:00 pm
I realize that's a joke argument, but... the individuals that made up the soylent green have rights, but "Soylent Green" itself doesn't. They're different entities.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2012, 11:43:48 pm
Corporations are people when it comes to benefits, but not people on the days they may be liable for something (e.g. if they cause a death they don't get charged with manslaughter / murder, and lawyers last year argued to the Supreme Court that corporations weren't people when it came to whether or not a corporation is legally responsible for genocide it's funded or committed in it's name by employees).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on July 25, 2012, 08:15:49 am
Just posting this (http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-capitalism%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98sacrifice-zones%E2%80%99/) here before I leave for school.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 25, 2012, 08:33:47 am
Quote from: Euld on July 25, 2012, 08:15:49 am
Just posting this (http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-capitalism%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98sacrifice-zones%E2%80%99/) here before I leave for school.
Meh...we're just running out of other parts of the world to do that to, so it's no surprise that parts of the US with no political clout would eventually find themselves "imperialized". Areas like West Virginia have been raped repeatedly by the mining industry. Whole mountains blown up, waterways polluted, no attention paid to long-term infrastructure so the people stay uneducated and in poor health, etc.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 25, 2012, 10:01:45 am
Quote from: Reelya on July 24, 2012, 11:43:48 pm
Corporations are people when it comes to benefits, but not people on the days they may be liable for something (e.g. if they cause a death they don't get charged with manslaughter / murder, and lawyers last year argued to the Supreme Court that corporations weren't people when it came to whether or not a corporation is legally responsible for genocide it's funded or committed in it's name by employees).

Actually, if you look at it from that angle, then corporations have always been considered people. When laws are broken, etc then the corporation itself is generally accused, not the people owning it.
Quote
Just posting this here before I leave for school.

First of all, that guy is reminding me heavily of a certain character from a Eugen Richter book.
Second, he seems to have a way of saying, offhandedly, variations of "Oh, by the way, the government just kinda gave them the land by stealing it, carrying on" without really addressing it, like the government is a force of nature or something. Have to say his solutions and identified problems are distinctly unradical.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EveryZig on July 25, 2012, 10:09:32 am
Quote from: GreatJustice on July 25, 2012, 10:01:45 am
Actually, if you look at it from that angle, then corporations have always been considered people. When laws are broken, etc then the corporation itself is generally accused, not the people owning it.
Yet you never see one in jail.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 25, 2012, 11:09:27 am
What would a company possibly even use "free speech" for?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 25, 2012, 12:14:23 pm
Quote from: scriver on July 25, 2012, 11:09:27 am
What would a company possibly even use "free speech" for?
To remind you that only Juicy Fruit gum brings you that one-of-a-kind flavor! (i.e. marketing, i.e. "creative lying")
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 25, 2012, 12:21:10 pm
Also: lobbying.

Also also: campaign donations.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 25, 2012, 12:43:51 pm
Quote from: EveryZig on July 25, 2012, 10:09:32 am
Quote from: GreatJustice on July 25, 2012, 10:01:45 am
Actually, if you look at it from that angle, then corporations have always been considered people. When laws are broken, etc then the corporation itself is generally accused, not the people owning it.
Yet you never see one in jail.

.... Legally, corporations are people when they want to be (when it helps them) and not people when they don't want to be (when it doesn't help them). They quite literally switch back and forth depending on what the issue you're talking about is.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48315170 Yes.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 25, 2012, 02:59:29 pm
Quote from: EveryZig on July 25, 2012, 10:09:32 am
Quote from: GreatJustice on July 25, 2012, 10:01:45 am
Actually, if you look at it from that angle, then corporations have always been considered people. When laws are broken, etc then the corporation itself is generally accused, not the people owning it.
Yet you never see one in jail.

Would have to be a pretty big jail to fit a corporation inside.
Quote
What would a company possibly even use "free speech" for?

To promote a particular message? Again, especially these days (with blogs and so on), the difference between a government designated "media corporation" and a regular one is very small.

You also, again, ignore that the decision also covers

-Labour unions
-Non profit organizations
-Small businesses that happen to be registered as corporations
-etc etc etc
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 25, 2012, 03:09:46 pm
I don't see why they wouldn't be put under the same restrictions.

Taking the postulate "organizations aren't people, thus don't have rights associated with people" to its logical conclusion, does not mean they can't do anything at all, or be blamed for things. It just means the laws relating to them can be extremely arbitrary. So basically, what we have now, only Congress/etc could make whatever the hell law they wanted instead of stumbling around with this half personhood silliness. Laws would be argued as to their practicality* rather than constitutionality.



*Well obviously they wouldn't be practical, because practicality is the last thing on a representative's mind, long behind appeasing their constituents. But that's beside the point.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 25, 2012, 03:21:40 pm
Wait, wait, wait....we have a conversation going on here between EveryZig and GreatJustice.  ???

WTF, is this Socratic dialogue as brought to you by Zero Wing? 
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 25, 2012, 05:13:39 pm
Quote
To promote a particular message? Again, especially these days (with blogs and so on), the difference between a government designated "media corporation" and a regular one is very small.

And what message could they possibly need free speech for that 1, isn't lying about their products, or 2, has nothing to do with what their business is doing?


Quote
You also, again, ignore that the decision also covers

-Labour unions -Non profit organizations -Small businesses that happen to be registered as corporations -etc etc etc

I would really, really like you to point out where I "ignored that before".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 25, 2012, 05:22:15 pm
Quote from: scriver on July 25, 2012, 05:13:39 pm
Quote
To promote a particular message? Again, especially these days (with blogs and so on), the difference between a government designated "media corporation" and a regular one is very small.

And what message could they possibly need free speech for that 1, isn't lying about their products, or 2, has nothing to do with what their business is doing?
Lobbying, campaign donations, and other politics manipulation for the sake of market control. Well I guess that "has something to do with what their business is doing," but obviously not worth protecting.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 25, 2012, 05:56:01 pm
Quote
And what message could they possibly need free speech for that 1, isn't lying about their products, or 2, has nothing to do with what their business is doing?

Well in the case of Citizens United, a non-profit organization wanted to make a documentary with a negative portrayal of Hillary Clinton. However, according to previous election laws, they were not allowed to do so during election season. After the decision was made in their favour, they were free to put aforementioned film on cable TV.

Before the ruling, corporations/nonprofits/unions/etc were just as free to spend money influencing elections, they just had to do it through those trusty news corporations.
Quote
I would really, really like you to point out where I "ignored that before".

You have said, every single time in reference the ruling, that it effects "Corporations". Every attack on my argument is based on this only applying to corporations. Case in point:
Quote
Quote
And what message could they possibly need free speech for that 1, isn't lying about their products, or 2, has nothing to do with what their business is doing?

-Non profits do not make products
-Unions do not make products (unless you count higher union wages as a product which is some weird wording)
-Non profits are not businesses
-Unions are businesses, but that question basically answers itself so I highly doubt you were applying it in that sense

Even the ACLU was pretty much in favour of this one, just sayin'.
Quote
Taking the postulate "organizations aren't people, thus don't have rights associated with people" to its logical conclusion, does not mean they can't do anything at all, or be blamed for things. It just means the laws relating to them can be extremely arbitrary. So basically, what we have now, only Congress/etc could make whatever the hell law they wanted instead of stumbling around with this half personhood silliness. Laws would be argued as to their practicality* rather than constitutionality.



*Well obviously they wouldn't be practical, because practicality is the last thing on a representative's mind, long behind appeasing their constituents. But that's beside the point.

To say that organizations are people is rather silly, but the fact of the matter is that the First Amendment covers organizations just as much as individuals. Lets look at the 1st Amendment again, in whole:
Quote
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Notice how it says "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW... ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH". That's fairly unambiguous language.

Now answer me this: which is more practical, having the FEC decide who can have freedom of speech under what circumstances, or simply considering speech from all (domestic, obviously) sources to be covered under the 1st Amendment?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 25, 2012, 06:04:44 pm
Well there has to be a limit as to what that applies to. Otherwise dogs couldn't be locked up for barking; they're just practicing their freedom of speech. As far as I know, everyone draws that line at "people." (EDIT: Well, "citizens" would probably be more accurate now that I think about it. And of course organizations aren't citizens.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 25, 2012, 06:13:38 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 25, 2012, 06:04:44 pm
Well there has to be a limit as to what that applies to. Otherwise dogs couldn't be locked up for barking; they're just practicing their freedom of speech. As far as I know, everyone draws that line at "people." (EDIT: Well, "citizens" would probably be more accurate now that I think about it. And of course organizations aren't citizens.)

Dogs won't sue you if they are locked up for practicing their freedom of speech, nor will their lawyers go after you if you don't read them their Miranda Rights before sending them to the pound.
Quote
Wait, wait, wait....we have a conversation going on here between EveryZig and GreatJustice.  ???

WTF, is this Socratic dialogue as brought to you by Zero Wing? 

Well now there's a coincidence if I've ever seen one.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 25, 2012, 07:15:31 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on July 25, 2012, 06:13:38 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 25, 2012, 06:04:44 pm
Well there has to be a limit as to what that applies to. Otherwise dogs couldn't be locked up for barking; they're just practicing their freedom of speech. As far as I know, everyone draws that line at "people." (EDIT: Well, "citizens" would probably be more accurate now that I think about it. And of course organizations aren't citizens.)

Dogs won't sue you if they are locked up for practicing their freedom of speech, nor will their lawyers go after you if you don't read them their Miranda Rights before sending them to the pound.
... a corporation has no ears to be read the Miranda rights to. It has no eyes to read an indiction. It has no voice to speak to lawyers, nor hands to write orders to them. It has no physical presence. A corporation is an organizational trick we use to make it easier for us to deal with the actions of individuals in aggregate. It's not a thing. It doesn't actually exist, at all, outside of peoples' minds. A corporation is no more a person or a citizen than an imaginary country in a madman's head is a geopolitical entity. This is true of all organizations. They're not things. They're organizational tools, that help other individuals address and work with groups acting in congregate. To date, outside of Citizen's United, tools and cognitive shortcuts have not been allowed the legal protection of free speech, only the individuals that use those tools and shortcuts. That we have given a imaginary entity non-imaginary rights that actively infringe on the rights of non-imaginary entities is entirely mind boggling.

Corps neither speak nor write. They can't communicate in any method whatsoever. It makes no bloody sense to give free speech protections to something that cannot practice free speech. As we see with terribly clarity, doing so allows individuals to do some frankly terribly shit by hiding behind their imaginary shield.

We should have laws protecting how we deal with people who are working in aggregate toward a particular goal or goals, yes, of course, but calling that group an individual and treating it as an individual citizen is not how you do it by any sane measure.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 25, 2012, 07:39:02 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on July 25, 2012, 06:13:38 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 25, 2012, 06:04:44 pm
Well there has to be a limit as to what that applies to. Otherwise dogs couldn't be locked up for barking; they're just practicing their freedom of speech. As far as I know, everyone draws that line at "people." (EDIT: Well, "citizens" would probably be more accurate now that I think about it. And of course organizations aren't citizens.)

Dogs won't sue you if they are locked up for practicing their freedom of speech, nor will their lawyers go after you if you don't read them their Miranda Rights before sending them to the pound.
Are you arguing that one's ability to sue is what gives the claim legitimacy?

Guess I should hire my dog a lawyer next time angry neighbors complain.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on July 25, 2012, 09:58:37 pm
I know you guys are in balls-to-the-walls liberal mode right now, and my sanity would not be benefited by posting this, but god damn if it is not the most hilarious thing.

I just found this today, and thought it would be appropriate since we were having this discussion a short while ago. (http://m.redandblack.com/mobile/opinion/chick-fil-a-deserves-to-be-punished/article_2ffdc4f8-d539-11e1-a734-001a4bcf6878.html)

Feel free to ravenously and unopposedly dissect it, I'm going to sleep.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 25, 2012, 10:15:28 pm
Badly done "satire".  Satire can't just be "MAN I'M SUCH A STUPID MORON, HAHA LAUGH AT ME" for the entire piece like that.  It's like something you'd see in the playground.

That aside, the arguments he puts forward (in an unfunny way) are:
- Lots of people oppose gay marriage, therefore that makes the position okay
- If someone's doing something bad then it's okay as long as other people are doing worse things
- If you do some good that justifies doing a lot of bad
- Strawmanning
- Making a small difference means you're not making any difference at all
- Boycotting them could make people lose jobs.  Sure, but wherever else we take our business to would gain jobs so it's irrelevant
- We should boycott Koch stuff.  That's actually a legitimately good idea (although they seem to have accidentally said "sometimes donates to tea-party affiliated organizations" when they mean "astroturfed the entire tea-party movement").
- Liberals are unemployed lol
- Bizarre rambling
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 25, 2012, 10:56:42 pm
Quote from: Frumple on July 25, 2012, 07:15:31 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on July 25, 2012, 06:13:38 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 25, 2012, 06:04:44 pm
Well there has to be a limit as to what that applies to. Otherwise dogs couldn't be locked up for barking; they're just practicing their freedom of speech. As far as I know, everyone draws that line at "people." (EDIT: Well, "citizens" would probably be more accurate now that I think about it. And of course organizations aren't citizens.)

Dogs won't sue you if they are locked up for practicing their freedom of speech, nor will their lawyers go after you if you don't read them their Miranda Rights before sending them to the pound.
... a corporation has no ears to be read the Miranda rights to. It has no eyes to read an indiction. It has no voice to speak to lawyers, nor hands to write orders to them. It has no physical presence. A corporation is an organizational trick we use to make it easier for us to deal with the actions of individuals in aggregate. It's not a thing. It doesn't actually exist, at all, outside of peoples' minds. A corporation is no more a person or a citizen than an imaginary country in a madman's head is a geopolitical entity. This is true of all organizations. They're not things. They're organizational tools, that help other individuals address and work with groups acting in congregate. To date, outside of Citizen's United, tools and cognitive shortcuts have not been allowed the legal protection of free speech, only the individuals that use those tools and shortcuts. That we have given a imaginary entity non-imaginary rights that actively infringe on the rights of non-imaginary entities is entirely mind boggling.

Corps neither speak nor write. They can't communicate in any method whatsoever. It makes no bloody sense to give free speech protections to something that cannot practice free speech. As we see with terribly clarity, doing so allows individuals to do some frankly terribly shit by hiding behind their imaginary shield.

We should have laws protecting how we deal with people who are working in aggregate toward a particular goal or goals, yes, of course, but calling that group an individual and treating it as an individual citizen is not how you do it by any sane measure.

Ah, but the corporation DOES sue people. You wouldn't say "A variety of people in an organization that produces fast food known as McDonalds sued a variety of people in an organization that produces shoes called Nike", you would say "Mcdonalds sued Nike". You would NOT say "Rover bit Jane, so Rover hired a defense attorney and will be standing trial this Tuesday".

We keep coming back to this issue, and both the Constitution (from a literal reading) and the court case are against you on this one.
Quote
Are you arguing that one's ability to sue is what gives the claim legitimacy?

Guess I should hire my dog a lawyer next time angry neighbors complain.

Sentience helps, too. Would you sue a tea kettle for noise pollution, or a boombox, or a really obnoxious MP3 file? Would you file charges against a baseball bat for being an accomplice in breaking your nose? Would you sue a gun for murder (guns kill people, lol)?

Your dog would probably appreciate having a lawyer, though, as well as free speech. After all, if it had such benefits, it would pollute the environment, exploit its workers cats, single handedly takeover the government, and violate the civil rights of people in the third world. Or at least, that's what I've been told would happen.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on July 26, 2012, 01:25:02 am
Quote from: GreatJustice on July 25, 2012, 06:13:38 pm
Quote
Wait, wait, wait....we have a conversation going on here between EveryZig and GreatJustice.  ???

WTF, is this Socratic dialogue as brought to you by Zero Wing? 

Well now there's a coincidence if I've ever seen one.
All your politics are belong to us :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 26, 2012, 02:22:43 am
Quote from: GreatJustice on July 25, 2012, 10:56:42 pm
Ah, but the corporation DOES sue people. You wouldn't say "A variety of people in an organization that produces fast food known as McDonalds sued a variety of people in an organization that produces shoes called Nike", you would say "Mcdonalds sued Nike".
Strictly because the latter's shorter than the former and linguistic convention has accepted that speaking in the latter manner is acceptable. The former is actually accurate. The latter is, and only is, a way to avoid having to spell it out quite so explicitly. That doesn't magically make McDonalds or Nike things that exist outside a person's head. It is directly equivalent to me saying "epistemology" instead of "the study of knowledge." Specialized language and not a wit more.

Like I said, to a heavy degree that's basically the crux of it. We've stated that a collective -- which is only a thing in a cognitive sense, and doesn't actually exist beyond that -- is an individual, and somehow deserves some of the rights (but not all of the responsibilities!) of an individual. If a corp, or a union, or whatever, exhibited the same degree of independence that a human does to, say, its lungs, I might be able to get behind the concept of groups as individuals.

But, they don't. Corps are fully controlled by individuals, and explicitly demonstrate the leading and control of individuals. The only times this seems (and only seems) to blur is when we allow those controlling individuals to hide behind the collective mantle of whatever it is they're directing... and allowing that perception -- and exponentially worse, attempting to enshrine it into law -- is causing extremely blatant problems.

I'd put it bluntly. The courts screwed the pooch with this one, and a reading of the constitution that does what you're speaking of is one that seriously needs to be reexamined. Calling things that are blatantly not people, people, isn't something we should be doing. Establishing laws for the recognition and protection of collective action? Yes, we need that. Calling collective action anything but what it is? No. We don't need that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EveryZig on July 26, 2012, 08:43:44 am
Quote from: GreatJustice on July 25, 2012, 06:13:38 pm
Quote
Wait, wait, wait....we have a conversation going on here between EveryZig and GreatJustice.  ???

WTF, is this Socratic dialogue as brought to you by Zero Wing? 

Well now there's a coincidence if I've ever seen one.
The obvious answer is that is is no coincidence at all. Perhaps we are all sockpuppets of Necro.

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 25, 2012, 10:56:42 pm
Sentience helps, too. Would you sue a tea kettle for noise pollution, or a boombox, or a really obnoxious MP3 file? Would you file charges against a baseball bat for being an accomplice in breaking your nose? Would you sue a gun for murder (guns kill people, lol)?
But a corporation isn't sentient or sapient any more than an is does when there is someone piloting it. (And you say 'the airplane crashed', not 'the pilot of the airplane crashed', even in when the crash happens due to user error.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 26, 2012, 10:53:10 am
Or "the airplane got owned by a bird."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 26, 2012, 11:42:59 am
The whole Chik-Fil-A / Jim Henson thing is getting into Paul Christoforo territory (http://gizmodo.com/5928926/chick+fil+a-got-caught-pretending-to-be-a-fake-teenage-girl-on-facebook).  ???

Seriously, what the hell are they teaching people in public relations school these days?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 26, 2012, 11:45:24 am
Quote from: RedKing on July 26, 2012, 11:42:59 am
The whole Chik-Fil-A / Jim Henson thing is getting into Paul Christoforo territory (http://gizmodo.com/5928926/chick+fil+a-got-caught-pretending-to-be-a-fake-teenage-girl-on-facebook).  ???

Seriously, what the hell are they teaching people in public relations school these days?
I told you guys. I told you that the fundies were starting to crack under pressure. But no one ever listens to MetalSlimeHunt.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 26, 2012, 11:48:50 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 26, 2012, 11:45:24 am
Quote from: RedKing on July 26, 2012, 11:42:59 am
The whole Chik-Fil-A / Jim Henson thing is getting into Paul Christoforo territory (http://gizmodo.com/5928926/chick+fil+a-got-caught-pretending-to-be-a-fake-teenage-girl-on-facebook).  ???

Seriously, what the hell are they teaching people in public relations school these days?
I told you guys. I told you that the fundies were starting to crack under pressure. But no one ever listens to MetalSlimeHunt.
Why should we listen to you? You're Hitler!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 26, 2012, 12:19:08 pm
.... You know, that company could've just stuck to the usual bullshit about "traditional marriage" and probably would've been seen as ok.  Instead of this, more lies, more BS and more bigotry.

You know what I find terrible? These guys are hiding behind "free speech...." A.) It works both ways and when you say ANYTHING there is a chance of rejection from your listener. B.) O you have an opinion do you? I don't care. I don't need opinions from a fucking chicken sandwich. You know why I'd buy a chicken sandwich? Chicken.... C.) Going right along with point A, do you know how many gay people pay a terrible price for living in the open instead of the closet? Guess what, that's the fucking price you pay for stepping out of the closet, the god damn bigots come straight at you. This is another reason I actively hide that I'm trans. So it's cool for gay people to be cast out of society when they come out of the closet, but any backlash against Chic Fil and suddenly Oooooooo. So it's cool to speak out against gay people, but I guess turnabout isn't fair play when people come back on you about it?

Its absolutely amazing that my career would basically die overnight if people realized I was transgender and society does pretty much nothing about that, but if people get upset at Chic Fil A over its viewpoint, then THAT, that is somehow terrible....

I have to live a life that is a total and complete fucking lie, but this company can't simply shut up about its views on one topic that doesn't really even effect it as it rolls in money?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 26, 2012, 12:49:34 pm
FWIW, I think public opinion is pretty solidly not on the side of Chik-Fil-A. It's a vocal minority that's getting bent out of shape and defending them (even as they decry the Jim Henson Company for practicing *their* free speech via their choice of business associations).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on July 26, 2012, 01:15:31 pm
That seems reaaally suspicious. For a company thoroughly based on religious beliefs I think they would know enough to not randomly quote John 3:16.

For context:
Quote from: John 3:16
For god so loved the world he gave his only begotten son, and whoever believes in him shall never die, but have eternal life.

John 3:16 is one of the first things we learned in my church, and is... reaaaally generic. A search through my bible could probably give me a more applicable verse.

What i'm trying to say here is that this reeks of deceit. And not the normal kind of deceit, but some kind of double deceit to frame Chick-fil-a.

That or their PR people are reeeeaally dumb.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 26, 2012, 01:27:29 pm
Quote from: ggamer on July 26, 2012, 01:15:31 pm
That seems reaaally suspicious. For a company thoroughly based on religious beliefs I think they would know enough to not randomly quote John 3:16.
Quote from: John 3:16
For god so loved the world he gave his only begotten son, and whoever believes in him shall never die, but have eternal life.
John 3:16 is the go-to "fuck you I win lalalalalalala I'm so much better than you" verse. It gets quoted without appropriate context all the time for just that reason.
Quote
What i'm trying to say here is that this reeks of deceit. And not the normal kind of deceit, but some kind of double deceit to frame Chick-fil-a.
You're claiming conspiracy? Don't be silly. There are plenty enough airheaded Facebook users for this to seem like a legitimate strategy to make the playing field look level when it isn't. They just went about it stupidly, should have created their sockpuppet accounts months ago and not used stock photos.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 26, 2012, 01:35:46 pm
Quote from: ggamer on July 26, 2012, 01:15:31 pm
That seems reaaally suspicious. For a company thoroughly based on religious beliefs I think they would know enough to not randomly quote John 3:16.

For context:
Quote from: John 3:16
For god so loved the world he gave his only begotten son, and whoever believes in him shall never die, but have eternal life.

John 3:16 is one of the first things we learned in my church, and is... reaaaally generic. A search through my bible could probably give me a more applicable verse.

What i'm trying to say here is that this reeks of deceit. And not the normal kind of deceit, but some kind of double deceit to frame Chick-fil-a.

That or their PR people are reeeeaally dumb.
Occam's Razor. by which I mean, I don't see The Gay Cabal saying "Curses! The Chicken People still have some supporters in their claim that these toys were removed for non-gay reasons! Quickly, conjure forth a poorly-disguised sockpuppet account on Facebook to frame them! That will be simply fabulous!"  ???
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on July 26, 2012, 01:48:25 pm
I'm torn between thinking, "No, it's too stupid to be real, the company couldn't possibly have thought this would work" and thus that it is a frameup by somebody who, quite justifiably, is not a fan, and then remembering "It's too stupid to be real" is never true and is actually usually the opposite of the truth.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 26, 2012, 01:58:55 pm
In any case they should really drop their obvious lie about the safety hazard.  Literally noone believes it (other than pretty redheaded teenagers on white).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 26, 2012, 01:59:38 pm
Especially considering that the supposed "defect" of the toys sounded like a poorly phrased euphemism.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 26, 2012, 02:01:40 pm
"We had to remove the toys because they were teaching kids to put things in the wrong holes. Things that don't go there. If you catch my drift."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 26, 2012, 02:05:35 pm
Nonsense. Everyone knows Kermit the Frog is all about killing your kids. Two words: perfect disguise. Also, a frog going out with a pig? That screams of no moral values; inter species bestiality, murder, it all adds up. :P Nobody suspects a frog; the last thing you hear is "ribbit."

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s07e12-all-about-mormons One of my favorite shows about the Mormons, who we all know Trey and Matt have skewered. Some of the nicer people I've met have been Mormons until of course they figure out you're gay. I don't think the guy at Chic Fil A is a mormon, but it's a very widespread thing with many American Religions. Don't know or care why; I just try to avoid most of it. This of course leads straight to the "conspiracy theory" thing. Most gay people avoid several of the religions on account of them not liking us.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 26, 2012, 02:34:29 pm
Quote from: Truean on July 26, 2012, 02:05:35 pm
Most gay people avoid several of the religions on account of them not liking us.
I've observed the opposite. The number of gay Christians I've heard of is staggering and confusing, all things considered. I don't know how anyone who isn't a straight man could follow Christianity and not have their head explode from the cognitive dissonance, and this is coming from a straight man who used to be a Christian.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 26, 2012, 02:40:12 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 26, 2012, 02:34:29 pm
Quote from: Truean on July 26, 2012, 02:05:35 pm
Most gay people avoid several of the religions on account of them not liking us.
I've observed the opposite. The number of gay Christians I've heard of is staggering and confusing, all things considered. I don't know how anyone who isn't a straight man could follow Christianity and not have their head explode from the cognitive dissonance, and this is coming from a straight man who used to be a Christian.

O that's simple. You're kinda raised into it and told it's the be all end all religion. Your whole family is all about it, and all the people you really know go to your church. Go ahead, just leave.... It's not that simple. How many of those gay people are open about it and without consequence?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 26, 2012, 02:42:25 pm
Properly brainwashed individuals will fall into the depths of self loathing before waking up.

I spent several years of my childhood thinking myself evil.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on July 26, 2012, 03:13:49 pm
Quote from: Truean on July 26, 2012, 02:05:35 pm
Also, a frog going out with a pig? That screams of no moral values; inter species bestiality,

Obviously they are against inter-species porking with a side order of heavy frogging. Probably because thats all they think about all day.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 26, 2012, 03:24:16 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on July 26, 2012, 03:13:49 pm
Quote from: Truean on July 26, 2012, 02:05:35 pm
Also, a frog going out with a pig? That screams of no moral values; inter species bestiality,

Obviously they are against inter-species porking with a side order of heavy frogging. Probably because thats all they think about all day.

Puts me in mind of this (SFW):
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

EDIT: Going back to the whole argument about corporate "personhood"...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 26, 2012, 03:52:57 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 26, 2012, 02:34:29 pm
Quote from: Truean on July 26, 2012, 02:05:35 pm
Most gay people avoid several of the religions on account of them not liking us.
I've observed the opposite. The number of gay Christians I've heard of is staggering and confusing, all things considered. I don't know how anyone who isn't a straight man could follow Christianity and not have their head explode from the cognitive dissonance, and this is coming from a straight man who used to be a Christian.

That seems to presume you have to be a fundamentalist to be Christian.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on July 26, 2012, 04:07:05 pm
To be fair (and from personal experience, this is explicitly referencing those I know), most Christians don't actually think about their own religion very much.  Debating them about aspects of their own religion is either infuriating or hilarious, and sometimes both.

Also, a select few of these can justify any action they take with their own religion... even if its the exact opposite of what they already justified with it. 

None of these problems are limited to Christianity though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 26, 2012, 04:17:43 pm
Quote from: scriver on July 26, 2012, 03:52:57 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 26, 2012, 02:34:29 pm
Quote from: Truean on July 26, 2012, 02:05:35 pm
Most gay people avoid several of the religions on account of them not liking us.
I've observed the opposite. The number of gay Christians I've heard of is staggering and confusing, all things considered. I don't know how anyone who isn't a straight man could follow Christianity and not have their head explode from the cognitive dissonance, and this is coming from a straight man who used to be a Christian.
That seems to presume you have to be a fundamentalist to be Christian.
Leviticus makes it pretty clear that Yahweh considers homosexuality to be evil and should be punished by death. There isn't much if any room for interpretation under that. Now, that's crazy, but the Bible is fairly crazy from cover to cover, and the cognitive dissonance would have to get to you eventually if you've read it and believe it but follow modern morality anyway.

I'll give the fundamentalists that much, they're completely right when they say that most Christians these days are making up their own version of god to make themselves feel comfortable.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 26, 2012, 04:20:24 pm
Yeah, the old testament is one of the big things that killed my faith. Stoning someone for making a campfire on the sabbath is a bit much, people.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 26, 2012, 04:21:28 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 26, 2012, 04:17:43 pm
Quote from: scriver on July 26, 2012, 03:52:57 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 26, 2012, 02:34:29 pm
Quote from: Truean on July 26, 2012, 02:05:35 pm
Most gay people avoid several of the religions on account of them not liking us.
I've observed the opposite. The number of gay Christians I've heard of is staggering and confusing, all things considered. I don't know how anyone who isn't a straight man could follow Christianity and not have their head explode from the cognitive dissonance, and this is coming from a straight man who used to be a Christian.
That seems to presume you have to be a fundamentalist to be Christian.
Leviticus makes it pretty clear that Yahweh considers homosexuality to be evil and should be punished by death. There isn't much if any room for interpretation under that. Now, that's crazy, but the Bible is fairly crazy from cover to cover, and the cognitive dissonance would have to get to you eventually if you've read it and believe it but follow modern morality anyway.

I'll give the fundamentalists that much, they're completely right when they say that most Christians these days are making up their own version of god to make themselves feel comfortable.
It's just that the fundamentalists never see themselves as doing the exact same thing  ::)
Lots of stuff is forbidden in the Bible (unless God says it's okay, of course). A person would go crazy trying to follow it all at once.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 26, 2012, 05:08:46 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 26, 2012, 04:17:43 pm
Leviticus makes it pretty clear that Yahweh considers homosexuality to be evil and should be punished by death. There isn't much if any room for interpretation under that. Now, that's crazy, but the Bible is fairly crazy from cover to cover, and the cognitive dissonance would have to get to you eventually if you've read it and believe it but follow modern morality anyway.

I'll give the fundamentalists that much, they're completely right when they say that most Christians these days are making up their own version of god to make themselves feel comfortable.

Which, once again, seems to preclude that you have to be a fundamentalist to be able to call oneself Christian. There's absolutely no reason a Christian should have to believe or follow every word of the Bible.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 26, 2012, 05:28:53 pm
Quote from: Frumple on July 26, 2012, 02:22:43 am
Quote from: GreatJustice on July 25, 2012, 10:56:42 pm
Ah, but the corporation DOES sue people. You wouldn't say "A variety of people in an organization that produces fast food known as McDonalds sued a variety of people in an organization that produces shoes called Nike", you would say "Mcdonalds sued Nike".
Strictly because the latter's shorter than the former and linguistic convention has accepted that speaking in the latter manner is acceptable. The former is actually accurate. The latter is, and only is, a way to avoid having to spell it out quite so explicitly. That doesn't magically make McDonalds or Nike things that exist outside a person's head. It is directly equivalent to me saying "epistemology" instead of "the study of knowledge." Specialized language and not a wit more.

Like I said, to a heavy degree that's basically the crux of it. We've stated that a collective -- which is only a thing in a cognitive sense, and doesn't actually exist beyond that -- is an individual, and somehow deserves some of the rights (but not all of the responsibilities!) of an individual. If a corp, or a union, or whatever, exhibited the same degree of independence that a human does to, say, its lungs, I might be able to get behind the concept of groups as individuals.

But, they don't. Corps are fully controlled by individuals, and explicitly demonstrate the leading and control of individuals. The only times this seems (and only seems) to blur is when we allow those controlling individuals to hide behind the collective mantle of whatever it is they're directing... and allowing that perception -- and exponentially worse, attempting to enshrine it into law -- is causing extremely blatant problems.

I'd put it bluntly. The courts screwed the pooch with this one, and a reading of the constitution that does what you're speaking of is one that seriously needs to be reexamined. Calling things that are blatantly not people, people, isn't something we should be doing. Establishing laws for the recognition and protection of collective action? Yes, we need that. Calling collective action anything but what it is? No. We don't need that.

Yes, it is a strictly epistemological conclusion, but its still a true one, again, because the dog sure isn't complaining whereas the corporation (or the people representing it) is. The dog does not have representatives unless you count its owners, either.

Another point though: dogs don't "speak", they bark. There is no freedom of barking. If I went out late at night and barked, I wouldn't be sent to the pound but I would probably be fined for disturbing the peace (which is what dogs are doing by barking). Inversely, if a dog started campaigning for Rick Santorum, I seriously doubt it would be sent to the pound for doing so (or even if it was swearing and offending people). Therefore, it can be said that dogs, and therefore corporations, have freedom of speech.
Quote
The obvious answer is that is is no coincidence at all. Perhaps we are all sockpuppets of Necro.

Quiet, you're giving too much away!

Quote
But a corporation isn't sentient or sapient any more than an is does when there is someone piloting it.

A corporation is also an abstract concept that doesn't exist in the real world. However, the government also is an abstract concept that doesn't exist in the free world, but I don't think anyone would say the government doesn't have freedom of speech.
Quote
(And you say 'the airplane crashed', not 'the pilot of the airplane crashed', even in when the crash happens due to user error.)

Well yeah, even if the pilot of the airplane is responsible for crashing the airplane he isn't physically crashing. It's the plane plowing into the ground, the pilot just so happens to be inside. "The pilot of the airplane crashed" implies that he was racing across the sky like Superman and didn't watch where he was going.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 26, 2012, 05:44:05 pm
Quote from: scriver on July 26, 2012, 05:08:46 pm
There's absolutely no reason a Christian should have to believe or follow every word of the Bible.
Because it is their primary holy text? For most it is their only holy text?

You kind of have to adhere to a religion's demands to be part of it. I can dance around naked throwing buckets of strawberry syrup on people and call it Hinduism, but that doesn't make it so. 
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on July 26, 2012, 07:42:44 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 26, 2012, 05:44:05 pm
Quote from: scriver on July 26, 2012, 05:08:46 pm
There's absolutely no reason a Christian should have to believe or follow every word of the Bible.
Because it is their primary holy text? For most it is their only holy text?

You kind of have to adhere to a religion's demands to be part of it. I can dance around naked throwing buckets of strawberry syrup on people and call it Hinduism, but that doesn't make it so.

Wait, it isn't?  What have we been doing then?  Buddhism?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaenneth on July 26, 2012, 09:15:55 pm
Boss wants more detailed time accounting...

May no longer be able to spend half my day web browsing randomly.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 26, 2012, 09:26:00 pm
I'd say wrong rage thread, but I'll accept that as a violation of workplace ethics. Unions should push for web browsing rights!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 26, 2012, 09:27:11 pm
Has that recent study on how work web browsing increases productivity been posted here already?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 27, 2012, 03:22:34 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on July 26, 2012, 09:27:11 pm
Has that recent study on how work web browsing increases productivity been posted here already?

Not here, but there (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=113053.msg3439926#msg3439926) it has.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EveryZig on July 27, 2012, 09:12:25 am
Backing up a bit, where does it functionally make a difference between corporations having free speech or people in corporations having free speech. I think there was some difference, but I forget what it was.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on July 27, 2012, 09:48:12 am
Corporations have way more money to spend than people working for them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 27, 2012, 10:18:57 am
And that the result of the idea that corporations are people and have free speech is that money is speech, so corporations should be able to make unlimited anonymous campaign donation while human people can not.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 27, 2012, 10:34:05 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 26, 2012, 05:44:05 pm
Quote from: scriver on July 26, 2012, 05:08:46 pm
There's absolutely no reason a Christian should have to believe or follow every word of the Bible.
Because it is their primary holy text? For most it is their only holy text?

You kind of have to adhere to a religion's demands to be part of it. I can dance around naked throwing buckets of strawberry syrup on people and call it Hinduism, but that doesn't make it so.

Close, but no cigarre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holi). Anyway, what you are saying is basically that no religion can ever evolve in any way, and that only people living like they were Bronze Age shepherds can be Christian. Thusly, there has been no Christians for 2000 years. Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Gnosticism, all other Christian denominations that ever exist weren't Christian, because they didn't follow ancient Hebrew customs to the letter.

Yeah, I think I'd leave it up to the people who actually believe to define what Christianity is.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EveryZig on July 27, 2012, 10:49:59 am
Quote from: scriver on July 27, 2012, 10:34:05 am
Yeah, I think I'd leave it up to the people who actually believe to define what Christianity is.
Every group of Christians has at least one other group of Christians who say that they are not 'real' Christians. (Catholics vs Protestants, Mormons vs everyone else, etc)

On the note of money being free speech, what is the legal distinction (as opposed to the ethical distinction) between lobbying and bribery in the U.S.?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 27, 2012, 10:59:33 am
Quote from: scriver on July 27, 2012, 10:34:05 am
Close, but no cigarre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holi).
...Well, that's quite the coincidence.
Quote
Anyway, what you are saying is basically that no religion can ever evolve in any way, and that only people living like they were Bronze Age shepherds can be Christian. Thusly, there has been no Christians for 2000 years. Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Gnosticism, all other Christian denominations that ever exist weren't Christian, because they didn't follow ancient Hebrew customs to the letter.
Nonsense, they're all Christians. Any group primarily worshiping Christ would be Christians. They're just for the most part acting partly or totally contrary to the explicit written will of their all-knowing deity, which is their horrifically massive cognitive dissonance to deal with, not mine.
Quote
Yeah, I think I'd leave it up to the people who actually believe to define what Christianity is.
Why? The definitions believers invent for their religion are no more objectively valid to it than whatever definition I choose to impose.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 27, 2012, 11:01:32 am
Except you are essentially committing a "target No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 27, 2012, 11:06:00 am
Lobbying vs bribing.

IIRC, the only real difference is that lobbying compensations can only legally be used for financing elections. That is the only difference.

You also missed the distinction, individuals are allowed anonymous donations up to IIRC $5000, but larger donations require disclosure in order to disclose potential influence involved, this was part of election reform to make it obvious when someone is buying an election. Corporations are allowed unlimited anonymous campaign contributions. The "free speech" of corporations in this way is greater than the free speech of humans, and exceeds the limits placed to protect the democratic process.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 27, 2012, 11:13:22 am
Quote from: scriver on July 27, 2012, 11:01:32 am
Except you are essentially committing a "target No True Scotsman" fallacy.
How in the world am I committing a No True Scotsman fallacy?

Look, when it comes to literature and mythology, the only thing that is at all authoritative as "the right version" is seniority. You can say anything you want about what constitutes Christianity and have it be no more objectively true than anything else ever said about what constitutes Christianity. The only possible distinction is who has established opinion, and in this instance nothing is more established than what has been written down in the Bible for centuries. Christians are completely free to ignore everything in the actual Bible and base their beliefs about Christianity on cultural exposure to it, and certainly should since the Bible demands that you kill people for a very large number of reasons, but this results in none of them following the only possible metric of true and false in this field. That doesn't make them not Christians, it makes it so there is an inherent cognitive dissonance in living in the modern world and believing in the Bible. That there is no way to "win" in my thoughts on this does not invalidate them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 27, 2012, 11:48:13 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 27, 2012, 11:13:22 am
How in the world am I committing a No True Scotsman fallacy?

Not at all, after re-consideration.


Quote
Look, when it comes to literature and mythology, the only thing that is at all authoritative as "the right version" is seniority.

And this is where you and I differ. You seem to look at religion as some kind of theologic grammar-nazi equivalent. Just like language, religion is a living being that changes constantly as the people who practice it change, because it is simply made up out of the people using it, and not by how old books say it should be. Literally everybody practising Christianity are a better authority on it than the Bible is.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on July 27, 2012, 03:56:33 pm
While I love the religion discussion, may want to consider moving it to the thread for it.
Please.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 27, 2012, 05:55:27 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on July 27, 2012, 03:56:33 pm
While I love the religion discussion, may want to consider moving it to the thread for it.
Please.

As the arbiter of both threads, I support this.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 27, 2012, 06:08:54 pm
So I heard Occupy Wall Street in New Hampshire tried to incorporate. http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2012/07/25/occupy-wall-street-discovers-virtues-of-incorporation (http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2012/07/25/occupy-wall-street-discovers-virtues-of-incorporation)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on July 27, 2012, 06:14:12 pm
Quote
Also prohibited from future Occupy events are gun owners who openly carry.
The fucking fuckity fuck-fuck?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 27, 2012, 06:20:00 pm
Says who? Occupy doesn't exactly have leadership or rules.


And as for schisms, well that's to be expected of cultural movements. The hippies and black panthers didn't exactly see eye to eye on everything, either.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on July 27, 2012, 06:21:53 pm
Maybe they're just trying to get themselves treated as people?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 27, 2012, 06:24:10 pm
Of course, if they (that is, Occupy Wall Street Incorporated) succeed they won't have the freedom of speech to Occupy Wall Street.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 27, 2012, 06:45:50 pm
Libertarians tend to be pretty fundamentally opposed to the kind of economic reform Occupy is going for.  It's not surprising you'd want them out of your movement.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on July 27, 2012, 06:47:25 pm
I really need to take my email of these people's list sometime:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The title of this email was "Viewpoint Discrimination."  I don't even... *facepalm*
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 27, 2012, 07:10:50 pm
Am I freak for not seeing a conflict between being the radical liberal that I am and still being pro 2nd amendment?

I am having a really hard time with this, because I see so many people that I might normally agree with being complete dumb asses on various facebook/news/blog pages.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 27, 2012, 07:14:22 pm
I can see working liberal viewpoints on either side of gun rights arguments. I definitely think there are a lot more pro-gun liberals than you would expect from the media.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 27, 2012, 07:14:46 pm
No, you're not. Personally I hate the political generalizations like "liberal" and "conservative" since they lump together irrelevant stuff. You can be pro life, pro guns, and a socialist. Or whatever.


If you're a freak about anything, it'd be calling anyone who disagrees with you a dumbass (though apologies if they're actually being dumb :P ).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on July 27, 2012, 07:16:40 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 27, 2012, 07:10:50 pm
Am I freak for not seeing a conflict between being the radical liberal that I am and still being pro 2nd amendment?

I am having a really hard time with this, because I see so many people that I might normally agree with being complete dumb asses on various facebook/news/blog pages.
I run into the same thing a lot with my opinions due to the fact that I am extremely opinionated on an issue-by-issue basis (seriously I've been ranked everything from far right to far left depending on what questions the ranking program asks). After a while you just learn to take the fact that anybody, even those who would normally agree with you, can be strongly against you at times in stride.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 27, 2012, 07:23:33 pm
Gun rights, I feel, are a special issue when it comes to pro-social-liberty liberals. I think the perspectives of freedom to bear arms and the freedom to be safe from everyone else carrying arms can both coexist with an otherwise normal liberal mindset. The change in viewpoint here is more independent from the conservative/liberal spectrum than other issues.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on July 27, 2012, 07:34:52 pm
Also, the concept that there is a right to bear arms is uniquely American. A lot of the rest of the world just think you're crazy to allow people to buy assault rifles.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 27, 2012, 07:36:40 pm
Being pro gun-freedom is liberalism as in rightwing, capitalist, bourgeoise libertarianism.

Pro-gun control is leftwing liberalism and the progressive stance.

I am biased to one of those two groups.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 27, 2012, 07:56:21 pm
Quote from: scriver on July 27, 2012, 07:36:40 pm
Being pro gun-freedom is liberalism as in rightwing, capitalist, bourgeoise libertarianism.

Pro-gun control is leftwing liberalism and the progressive stance.

I am biased to one of those two groups.

I am a leftwing liberal progressive. I view disarmament as a means to create in inequity of power, disenfranchising the people in favor the ruling class by removing the final line of defense against tyranny.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 27, 2012, 07:57:56 pm
Our ruling class doesn't keep control with guns. Fighting apples with oranges, if that's your logic.


Yes I just mixed two entirely unrelated sayings. Mwahaha.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 27, 2012, 07:59:42 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on July 27, 2012, 07:23:33 pm
I think the perspectives of freedom to bear arms and the freedom to be safe from everyone else carrying arms can both coexist with an otherwise normal liberal mindset.
It's just that most liberals can work out which of those is more important
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on July 27, 2012, 08:01:22 pm
If you go all the way with the 'right to bear arms', then everyone has a right to all sorts of weapons. 

Landmines and rocketlaunchers for all! 
In fact, in order to ensure we have a militia that can protect us from random shooters, we need mandatory concealed carry rocket launcher permits for people.
/logicalextremebasedonwording
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 27, 2012, 08:03:39 pm
Honestly, I'm split on gun-control. On the one hand, I don't see why people need assault rifles in every day life. On the other hand, handguns and semi-auto or preferably manual rifles I can understand. On the OTHER hand, I'd rather there be at least some registration of gun owners. On the (fourth?) hand, I can not abide some of the rhetoric used in gun-control debates, so I avoid them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 27, 2012, 08:06:31 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 27, 2012, 07:57:56 pm
Our ruling class doesn't keep control with guns. Fighting apples with oranges, if that's your logic.


Yes I just mixed two entirely unrelated sayings. Mwahaha.

You are right, they don't keep control with guns, yet. Things have not gotten quite bad enough, democracy isn't dead yet.

Quote from: Moghjubar on July 27, 2012, 08:01:22 pm
If you go all the way with the 'right to bear arms', then everyone has a right to all sorts of weapons. 

Landmines and rocketlaunchers for all! 
In fact, in order to ensure we have a militia that can protect us from random shooters, we need mandatory concealed carry rocket launcher permits for people.
/logicalextremebasedonwording

I think the logical distinction in terms of self defense is that the typical firearm can be aimed, and against specific targets with minimal collateral damage under many circumstances. Explosives, and fully automatic weapons can not. So their restriction is allowable.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 27, 2012, 08:07:57 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 27, 2012, 08:06:31 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 27, 2012, 07:57:56 pm
Our ruling class doesn't keep control with guns. Fighting apples with oranges, if that's your logic.


Yes I just mixed two entirely unrelated sayings. Mwahaha.

You are right, they don't keep control with guns, yet. Things have not gotten quite bad enough, democracy isn't dead yet.
"Yet."

Have a violent revolution in mind, or just wanting to play it safe?


I should note that the US military is getting quite a bit of practice on dealing with violent civilian uprisings right now, so I wonder how effective we'll be against them in the future, second amendment or no.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 27, 2012, 08:12:53 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 27, 2012, 08:07:57 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 27, 2012, 08:06:31 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 27, 2012, 07:57:56 pm
Our ruling class doesn't keep control with guns. Fighting apples with oranges, if that's your logic.


Yes I just mixed two entirely unrelated sayings. Mwahaha.

You are right, they don't keep control with guns, yet. Things have not gotten quite bad enough, democracy isn't dead yet.
"Yet."

Have a violent revolution in mind, or just wanting to play it safe?

Playing it safe. Disarmament is common in exploitative class based societies such as fuedal Japan, pre-revolutionary france, pre-revolutionary US, and numerous other case.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on July 27, 2012, 08:26:14 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 27, 2012, 08:06:31 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on July 27, 2012, 08:01:22 pm
If you go all the way with the 'right to bear arms', then everyone has a right to all sorts of weapons. 

Landmines and rocketlaunchers for all! 
In fact, in order to ensure we have a militia that can protect us from random shooters, we need mandatory concealed carry rocket launcher permits for people.
/logicalextremebasedonwording

I think the logical distinction in terms of self defense is that the typical firearm can be aimed, and against specific targets with minimal collateral damage under many circumstances. Explosives, and fully automatic weapons can not. So their restriction is allowable.

Many circumstances indeed.  However, firefights by nature are typically chaotic, just look at friendly fire statistics.
As far as guns themselves, they are a tube which contains an explosive that propels a shaped piece of shrapnel in a single direction.  Said direction is based upon who is aiming the device... which could be the average person, or someone whos even stupider than that.

A landmine on the other hand could be rigged to do a shaped detonation and only specifically against whoever triggered it, with a very specific placement on your property that you want to defend.  With proper tech, you could even RFID chip people whom you don't want blown up.  Etc etc, arguments arguments, blah blah blah.

The trick is, there are laws regarding arms even though if the 2nd amendment could not be approached at all, there would be none.  We certainly don't want firearms in certain locations, and certainly make it illegal for prisoners to have them.  Its not so much of holding the 2nd amendment up on a pedestal because we DO have limitations that chip away at it (both its wording and its interpretation).  Limitations that sometimes people even agree on.

That said, there are places in this country where not having a gun (shotgun or rifle) can be detrimental to your health.  We use said things for hunting, or defense against feral beasts (though sadly, usually for herpdederp I kin shoot sumtin).  Would throwing dynamite into a lake be good for fishing?  Well.... people have done it, and it sorta does work, but its dangerous, stupid, and harmful.  For such things, we typically would want to do the necessary gear only and not overkill, and overkill is specifically the problem here:  things which are designed more for killing large amounts of people rather than use as tools and self defense.

Note: remember, SWAT teams need the AP bullets due to http://www.angelfire.com/super/killmurderhog/caligunmen.html (sorry about the source).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 27, 2012, 08:46:59 pm
In a civil war clearly the good guys will have the guns while the bad guys will be crushed by their superior weaponry.  It wouldn't lead to a general escalation of violence due to both sides being better armed or anything.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 27, 2012, 08:50:13 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 27, 2012, 08:46:59 pm
In a civil war clearly the good guys will have the guns while the bad guys will be crushed by their superior weaponry.  It wouldn't lead to a general escalation of violence due to both sides being better armed or anything.

And the alternative to everyone being armed is having only the wrong people armed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 27, 2012, 08:58:56 pm
Was it... was it this thread or some other that pointed out that the actual impact of the 2nd amendment in a theoretical second American civil war scenario would be pretty close to nonexistent?

Th'face of modern warfare's made most civilian weapons, especially in the hands of the more-or-less untrained, more or less meaningless. I mean, you could do a little bit with guerrilla stuff, but it really wouldn't mean jack in the face of an actual military force, especially one integrated with a modern military support structure (artillery, air, etc.). Calling the second amendment a method of resisting tyranny is... kinda' silly, nowadays. Original intent, maybe, but the combat effectiveness of the sort of militia the second amendment would involve arming is pretty piss poor these days.

If any uprising's going to occur and do more than jack-all in the face of actual physical oppression, it'll involve a military schism, not a civilian uprising. Arming the citizenry just doesn't really do much (besides jack up the death toll) anymore, especially with the stuff that's accessible by the general American population.

I guess it's a bit of a psychological comfort, though, even though the actual capability to resist is effectively nil? Illusion of the capability to resist might be an effective tool of control, honestly...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 27, 2012, 09:02:59 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 27, 2012, 08:50:13 pm
And the alternative to everyone being armed is having only the wrong people armed.
So you are literally agreeing with my sarcastic statement.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 27, 2012, 09:05:24 pm
Frumple: You do have something of a point, and it could well be why the conservatives have not endorsed disarmament. But I wouldn't discount an insurgency action.

Quote from: Leafsnail on July 27, 2012, 09:02:59 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 27, 2012, 08:50:13 pm
And the alternative to everyone being armed is having only the wrong people armed.
So you are literally agreeing with my sarcastic statement.

No.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 27, 2012, 09:06:39 pm
I guess it's kindof the flipside of my statement in that guns will magically gravitate towards the evil side if we do ban them then.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 27, 2012, 10:31:07 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 27, 2012, 07:14:46 pm
If you're a freak about anything, it'd be calling anyone who disagrees with you a dumbass (though apologies if they're actually being dumb :P ).

In this case, I am fairly certain that I am being accurate with the dumb ass argument.

The specific statement was "Why did he shoot all those people? Because he bought guns!"
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on July 27, 2012, 10:39:59 pm
Technically, it's a lot harder to shoot people with your bare hands.  :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 27, 2012, 10:43:45 pm
At least and get the hands back in anything resembling a workable condition. Assuming they could be reattached at all after being fired at someone.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on July 27, 2012, 11:10:09 pm
It could be worse you know.
 
Rocket From the Sockets!!!!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 27, 2012, 11:19:50 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on July 27, 2012, 11:10:09 pm
It could be worse you know.
 
Rocket From the Sockets!!!!

Must resist urge to make terrible joke...

Giggity.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 27, 2012, 11:30:26 pm
Hey, if robots can use mammaries as missiles, why not fall back to built in launch tubes? Even potential for implementation on both gender giant robots! Or... I guess all gendered? I'm suddenly morbidly curious if there's hermaphrodite giant robots. Not sure how the gender thing's moving along in the giant robot field, honestly, especially the super robot stuff.

With japan apparently attempting a functioning gundam (is that still going down?) that junk's even related to possible real world applications! Albeit ones that fit in th'progressive thread due to the horrific waste involved in actual giant robot construction, but hey!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 28, 2012, 08:20:07 am
Quote from: Frumple on July 27, 2012, 08:58:56 pm
Was it... was it this thread or some other that pointed out that the actual impact of the 2nd amendment in a theoretical second American civil war scenario would be pretty close to nonexistent?

Th'face of modern warfare's made most civilian weapons, especially in the hands of the more-or-less untrained, more or less meaningless. I mean, you could do a little bit with guerrilla stuff, but it really wouldn't mean jack in the face of an actual military force, especially one integrated with a modern military support structure (artillery, air, etc.). Calling the second amendment a method of resisting tyranny is... kinda' silly, nowadays. Original intent, maybe, but the combat effectiveness of the sort of militia the second amendment would involve arming is pretty piss poor these days.

If any uprising's going to occur and do more than jack-all in the face of actual physical oppression, it'll involve a military schism, not a civilian uprising. Arming the citizenry just doesn't really do much (besides jack up the death toll) anymore, especially with the stuff that's accessible by the general American population.

I guess it's a bit of a psychological comfort, though, even though the actual capability to resist is effectively nil? Illusion of the capability to resist might be an effective tool of control, honestly...

Funny, last time I heard there were groups in Iraq and Afghanistan that were having some measure of success fighting the US Armed Forces, with just small arms to boot. Keep in mind, they're fighting with vintage WW2-Cold War era weaponry, whereas the hypothetical American rebels would be fighting with modern equipment. Add the fact that the US government would be far more limited in fighting a rebellion since they would need to keep some measure of public approval to get recruitment, avoid defection, and not create more enemies. If they handled it like they handled Afghanistan, they'd have 80% disapproval and every dead rebel would create ten more in the short run.

Oh, it wouldn't be a "The armed Americans march to Washington and clear out the evil dictator/boundary-overstepping President in a grand battle" scenario obviously, this IS the 21st century. It would be a long, bloody guerrilla war. But then, it would be a long, bloody guerrilla war that the rebels would almost certainly win in the long run, whereas with an unarmed populace the government would undoubtedly have all the cards.

Anyway, gun ownership support from the left is a relatively new thing. Barring some weird states like Vermont, most American left wingers were strongly anti-gun in the 1990s and it was a major issue like healthcare reform. I'm pretty sure what happened is that the pro-gun types won that one so strongly that the mainstream left kinda gave up on the issue, since it hasn't swung back in the direction of gun control since the 90s.
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 27, 2012, 06:45:50 pm
Libertarians tend to be pretty fundamentally opposed to the kind of economic reform Occupy is going for.  It's not surprising you'd want them out of your movement.

In this case, they seem to be going to the protests and comprise (alongside the bridge building left wingers) over 50% of them, so I find it funny that a couple of the so-called "99%" are incorporating to keep the rest out of their club. If they want to be exclusively for lefties, and incorporate, than they sure as hell aren't the 99%.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 28, 2012, 09:05:16 am
Right wingers have a pretty strong history of claiming leftist concepts and labels as a form of deceptive propaganda (along with the usual history revisionism) when they're proven successful or has popular support, so no, it's not weird at all that they want to keep people or are at the opposite end of the political spectrum from using them. Just recently we had a similar issue over here, where the liberals kept using "the Swedish Model" to refer to their own politics and actions (protip: There is few things more socialist than "the Swedish Model", and the liberals have nothing to do with it), prompting the biggest union to trademark (or copyright) that phrase. Words have power, and politicians are not above using the to mislead and trick people.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EveryZig on July 29, 2012, 12:32:37 am
This is unrelated to the issue of gun control itself, but something I have noticed about conservatives is that they always seem to promote gun ownership as a defense against oppression while at the same time aiding oppression at just about every other turn (military spending, surveillance, torture, etc).

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 28, 2012, 08:20:07 am
Funny, last time I heard there were groups in Iraq and Afghanistan that were having some measure of success fighting the US Armed Forces, with just small arms to boot.
There is a very important difference between Afghanistan and the more probable tyrannical U.S. uprising scenario. That difference would be that in Afghanistan, the U.S. army was very clearly an occupying foreign power, and as such are considered invasive outsiders almost by default. In tyranny!U.S., however, the government forces would have precedent for being in power (if in a less evil form), the opportunity for a gradual and subtle buildup of control, and the advantage of being local rather than outsiders. With those advantages along with some biased news coverage and fear-mongering the government would have a much easier time finding supporters among the U.S. population than among Afghans.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 29, 2012, 08:30:37 am
http://news.yahoo.com/mississppi-church-refuses-marry-black-couple-205218322--abc-news-topstories.html

Just wow.... "Lets fire the pastor if he marries the black people...." Really?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 29, 2012, 08:40:28 am
Well it sounds like the majority of the residents are outraged over it. A vocal racist minority got their way, but at least some of the core corruption came to light and will hopefully get cleaned up.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 30, 2012, 09:42:31 am
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: miauw62 on July 30, 2012, 09:46:15 am
Quote from: Truean on July 30, 2012, 09:42:31 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 29, 2012, 08:40:28 am
Well it sounds like the majority of the residents are outraged over it. A vocal racist minority got their way, but at least some of the core corruption came to light and will hopefully get cleaned up.

Yeah, this is the problem with "religious freedom." Namely, it goes too far. It isn't that it's a vocal racist segment of the church, it's that we're dealing with an influential and powerful segment of the church (they made the pastor fear for his job didn't they?). Frankly, there pretty much should be SOME limits on it, like your "religious freedom" shouldn't enable you to not marry black people, because they're black.

There's also an estoppel argument in there. Estoppel is where you get stopped from acting and telling people that you'll do one thing, but then doing another. Here, the church had this black family attend services for several years, and had them basically as members (they were going to "officially" join the church right after the wedding). I somehow doubt that the church let this black couple know it had racist policies before they invested years of their life in this church (and made contributions to the collection basket).

Frankly it smacks of fraud against the black couple. The church won't marry them and doesn't want them there, but it sure took their money for years huh?
AFAIK, human rights include freedom of speech and the right to come togheter (whatever its called in english), so you dont really need religious freedom, these two rights can cover religious freedom.
Not sure tough.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 30, 2012, 09:54:28 am
The particular issue with "freedom of religion" is freedom from religion. It is not just a right to think, assemble for and speak your religious views. It is the right to be free from your or any other religion being made law and wielded against you.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: miauw62 on July 30, 2012, 09:57:17 am
That isnt really of any use, because the people who determine what is a religion usually are part of the religion that is made law.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on July 30, 2012, 10:56:53 am
Quote from: EveryZig on July 29, 2012, 12:32:37 am
This is unrelated to the issue of gun control itself, but something I have noticed about conservatives is that they always seem to promote gun ownership as a defense against oppression while at the same time aiding oppression at just about every other turn (military spending, surveillance, torture, etc).

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 28, 2012, 08:20:07 am
Funny, last time I heard there were groups in Iraq and Afghanistan that were having some measure of success fighting the US Armed Forces, with just small arms to boot.
There is a very important difference between Afghanistan and the more probable tyrannical U.S. uprising scenario. That difference would be that in Afghanistan, the U.S. army was very clearly an occupying foreign power, and as such are considered invasive outsiders almost by default. In tyranny!U.S., however, the government forces would have precedent for being in power (if in a less evil form), the opportunity for a gradual and subtle buildup of control, and the advantage of being local rather than outsiders. With those advantages along with some biased news coverage and fear-mongering the government would have a much easier time finding supporters among the U.S. population than among Afghans.

The main difference is the strategy. Take hostage, bomb the cities that resist too much, starve the ennemies,...
The US cannot use efficient anti insurancy techniques, but a real dictatorship could.

And, I kind of remember how the last uprising unfolded in America, during the secession war.... those rebels sure gained their freedom with their guns.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 30, 2012, 11:20:01 am
Quote from: miauw62 on July 30, 2012, 09:57:17 am
That isnt really of any use, because the people who determine what is a religion usually are part of the religion that is made law.

It would be if the notion of separation of church and state was properly enforced.

At some point in time, the churches have more power than the people, or even the churchgoers....

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 30, 2012, 11:22:36 am
Quote from: Phmcw on July 30, 2012, 10:56:53 am
Quote from: EveryZig on July 29, 2012, 12:32:37 am
This is unrelated to the issue of gun control itself, but something I have noticed about conservatives is that they always seem to promote gun ownership as a defense against oppression while at the same time aiding oppression at just about every other turn (military spending, surveillance, torture, etc).

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 28, 2012, 08:20:07 am
Funny, last time I heard there were groups in Iraq and Afghanistan that were having some measure of success fighting the US Armed Forces, with just small arms to boot.
There is a very important difference between Afghanistan and the more probable tyrannical U.S. uprising scenario. That difference would be that in Afghanistan, the U.S. army was very clearly an occupying foreign power, and as such are considered invasive outsiders almost by default. In tyranny!U.S., however, the government forces would have precedent for being in power (if in a less evil form), the opportunity for a gradual and subtle buildup of control, and the advantage of being local rather than outsiders. With those advantages along with some biased news coverage and fear-mongering the government would have a much easier time finding supporters among the U.S. population than among Afghans.

The main difference is the strategy. Take hostage, bomb the cities that resist too much, starve the ennemies,...
The US cannot use efficient anti insurancy techniques, but a real dictatorship could.

And, I kind of remember how the last uprising unfolded in America, during the secession war.... those rebels sure gained their freedom with their guns.

Actually the last armed uprising in the US was entirely successful. Servicemen returning home from war found their local government to have become oppressive and corrupt. They overthrew it by force of arms, called in the national guard and restored democracy. I'll have to google a bit to find a reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 30, 2012, 11:29:19 am
Quote from: Nadaka on July 30, 2012, 11:22:36 am
Quote from: Phmcw on July 30, 2012, 10:56:53 am
Quote from: EveryZig on July 29, 2012, 12:32:37 am
This is unrelated to the issue of gun control itself, but something I have noticed about conservatives is that they always seem to promote gun ownership as a defense against oppression while at the same time aiding oppression at just about every other turn (military spending, surveillance, torture, etc).

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 28, 2012, 08:20:07 am
Funny, last time I heard there were groups in Iraq and Afghanistan that were having some measure of success fighting the US Armed Forces, with just small arms to boot.
There is a very important difference between Afghanistan and the more probable tyrannical U.S. uprising scenario. That difference would be that in Afghanistan, the U.S. army was very clearly an occupying foreign power, and as such are considered invasive outsiders almost by default. In tyranny!U.S., however, the government forces would have precedent for being in power (if in a less evil form), the opportunity for a gradual and subtle buildup of control, and the advantage of being local rather than outsiders. With those advantages along with some biased news coverage and fear-mongering the government would have a much easier time finding supporters among the U.S. population than among Afghans.

The main difference is the strategy. Take hostage, bomb the cities that resist too much, starve the ennemies,...
The US cannot use efficient anti insurancy techniques, but a real dictatorship could.

And, I kind of remember how the last uprising unfolded in America, during the secession war.... those rebels sure gained their freedom with their guns.

Actually the last armed uprising in the US was entirely successful. Servicemen returning home from war found their local government to have become oppressive and corrupt. They overthrew it by force of arms, called in the national guard and restored democracy. I'll have to google a bit to find a reference.

I would really like to think that something along the lines of a political/issue/voting block could do much better, but unfortunately, the despair and apathy along with the divided nation don't favor that.

Honestly, was I the only one worried when they started saying "Red States and Blue States." This is an old one, divide and concur. [shrugs]
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on August 01, 2012, 07:10:02 pm
I saw an encouraging number of "Vote No" on the marriage amendment signs in Rochester, MN today.  Of course, signs can't vote and all that; but it was interesting to see practically entire blocks with those signs.  Rochester isn't some hot bed of liberalism either; it used to be one of the most solidly Republican parts of the state...but these were moderate Rs, big on compromise, social liberties, and not averse to tax increases.

As the GOP jumped off the precipice of insanity, the more moderate members of the party have been kicked out (former Gov. Arne Carlson is most notable), southeast Minnesota has become swing territory moving towards Ds.  Hell, I checked, the last time Olmsted County (Rochester's home county) voted Democratic before going for Obama in 2008 was 1964 during LBJ's landslide.

The marriage amendment may help the GOP in some of the more blue collar Democratic areas (Northwest, Northeast), but in areas such as Rochester (and the wealthy suburbs) it will hurt them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 01, 2012, 07:14:09 pm
High school student shot in the head while handcuffed in patrol car after being searched twice, cops claim it was suicide. (http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/crime/2012/08/01/dnt-ar-man-shot-in-patrol-car.wreg)

The fucking cops aren't even trying to make plausible covers for their murders anymore.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 01, 2012, 07:17:09 pm
what
the
FUCK
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on August 01, 2012, 07:18:25 pm
wat.

Where was this?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 01, 2012, 07:28:52 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 01, 2012, 07:14:09 pm
High school student shot in the head while handcuffed in patrol car after being searched twice, cops claim it was suicide. (http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/crime/2012/08/01/dnt-ar-man-shot-in-patrol-car.wreg)

The fucking cops aren't even trying to make plausible covers for their murders anymore.
Because they totally let arrested people have guns. WHAT IN THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on August 01, 2012, 07:34:38 pm
Oh, he was a black guy in Arkansas. I'm less surprised. Also more depressed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 01, 2012, 07:50:45 pm
Maybe he hid it in his hair and fired with his tongue.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 02, 2012, 12:49:35 pm
 TEENAGER KILLS 8 , WOUNDS 5 IN CHINA KNIFE ATTACK  (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_KNIFE_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-02-06-05-46)

You're racist if you don't think swords kill Asians too (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW4tbAFC6cM&feature=channel&list=UL)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 02, 2012, 01:56:32 pm
Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 02, 2012, 12:49:35 pm
TEENAGER KILLS 8 , WOUNDS 5 IN CHINA KNIFE ATTACK  (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_KNIFE_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-02-06-05-46)
I KNOW, LET'S ADD KILL COUNTERS AND BIG RED TEXT TO HELP ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO NOT GO STAB SHIT TO DEATH.

Urgh.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on August 04, 2012, 05:55:57 pm
Good news for Michiganders.

Apparently there will be an option on the November ballot to repeal the authoritarian Emergency Managers Law.

Detroit Free Press Story (http://www.freep.com/article/20120803/NEWS06/120803045/Michigan-Supreme-Court-emergency-manager-law-Public-Act-4-ballot)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on August 05, 2012, 11:20:52 am
I guess some guy on Fox News (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/08/01/subtle-dig-colleague-mike-huckabee-fncs-shep-smith-slams-chick-fil-app) actually had something negative to say about Chic Fil A.  But I guess this guy is already pretty well know for being very liberal.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 06, 2012, 03:44:32 pm
http://www.care2.com/causes/gay-kiss-gets-man-barred-from-partners-bedside.html

....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 06, 2012, 03:51:57 pm
MZ, meet me in New Jersey. It's facepunching time.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on August 06, 2012, 03:52:58 pm
Quote from: Euld on August 05, 2012, 11:20:52 am
I guess some guy on Fox News (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/08/01/subtle-dig-colleague-mike-huckabee-fncs-shep-smith-slams-chick-fil-app) actually had something negative to say about Chic Fil A.  But I guess this guy is already pretty well know for being very liberal.
Jesus Christ in a chicken sandwich, WHY did I start reading the comments section?? D:

And "very liberal" is a relative term here. He doesn't hate gays, and he thinks maybe torture is going too far. This apparently put him on the far left wing of things at FOX. It's not like he's calling for collectivization and free love communes.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on August 06, 2012, 04:15:35 pm
If I had to watch Fox, it's be Shep.

Then again, I don't have to! So I'm free! FREE!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 06, 2012, 04:29:01 pm
Quote from: RedKing on August 06, 2012, 03:52:58 pm
Quote from: Euld on August 05, 2012, 11:20:52 am
I guess some guy on Fox News (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/08/01/subtle-dig-colleague-mike-huckabee-fncs-shep-smith-slams-chick-fil-app) actually had something negative to say about Chic Fil A.  But I guess this guy is already pretty well know for being very liberal.
Jesus Christ in a chicken sandwich, WHY did I start reading the comments section?? D:

And "very liberal" is a relative term here. He doesn't hate gays, and he thinks maybe torture is going too far. This apparently put him on the far left wing of things at FOX. It's not like he's calling for collectivization and free love communes.

I love how some consider that an insult, "very liberal," but when someone says "very conservative" it's a compliment. Goes right to the "hates/doesn't believe in" this country, BS argument. Of course, do it to them and they cry bloody murder....

I just sorta don't get or wanna get why you can't be in the middle without having the right wing people call you left and the left wing people call you right. It's really become subjective to whatever you are in relationship to the person belittling you, anymore, a lot of the time.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on August 06, 2012, 04:41:04 pm
Everyone thinks they're a centrist.

Unless they don't.

Then they're a commie pinko fascist scum-sucking gay racist bastard!

Or something.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 06, 2012, 04:49:23 pm
Don't worry Truean, to us Europeans you're all conservatives :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 06, 2012, 04:50:43 pm
The European far-right does have plenty of supporters, you know.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 06, 2012, 04:52:51 pm
Quote from: Truean on August 06, 2012, 03:44:32 pm
http://www.care2.com/causes/gay-kiss-gets-man-barred-from-partners-bedside.html

....

So you know that original story about the gay couple being separated where one partner was dying? Since then I've only heard that it's a huge exception, stuff like that pretty much never happens. It was a fluke.

Obviously.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on August 06, 2012, 05:02:41 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 06, 2012, 04:50:43 pm
The European far-right does have plenty of supporters, you know.
Yes, but we call them liberals or idiots, depending on how far right you go.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 06, 2012, 05:29:41 pm
Is this a competition to see who's the most liberal? 'Cause I can totally do that. Fear the radical, free love, borderline anarchist, pacifist vegetarian hippie!

What do you have to be afraid of, you might ask? Hugs!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 06, 2012, 05:38:10 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 06, 2012, 04:50:43 pm
The European far-right does have plenty of supporters, you know.

Politics across countries can be kind of weird.

In the US, conservatives are socially quite a ways to the right and economically in favour of free markets, whereas liberals are mostly the opposite. In Canada, conservatives are modestly to the right on social issues at most (and even then, only in places like Alberta and the BC interior) and are somewhat to the right on fiscal issues, making them moderates by American standards (though our corporate tax is notably quite low), though Stephen Harper himself is basically a Statist like Putin. In most of Europe, the "far right" is moderate on fiscal issues but rabidly anti immigration to the point of near explicit racism (see: The Dutch Freedom Party, Marine Le Pen, etc) and possibly somewhat explicitly religious. It's a bit weird, really. In Eastern Europe the right wing is a bit closer to the American standard, and there's even fiscally far-right parties there like the Polish Kongres Nowej Prawicy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on August 07, 2012, 09:09:47 am
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19159286
http://marketday.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/07/13161514-standard-chartered-accused-of-working-with-iran-as-rogue-bank?lite
Seems a bank was circumventing sanctions to the order of a quarter of a trillion dollars.

Unrelated to that:
Hospital puts profit over patients (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48542945/ns/business-us_business/?__utma=14933801.1285212023.1343164210.1344342633.1344346710.34&__utmb=14933801.9.10.1344346710&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1343612108.14.2.utmcsr=nbcnews.com|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Ccover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=173112739#.UCEmYHilhTM)
2012 election cycle expected to cost $6 billion. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19052054) Or approximately 1/3 the budget of NASA.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 07, 2012, 11:56:53 am
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2012/08/china_s_wealthy_and_influential_sometimes_hire_body_doubles_to_serve_their_prison_sentences.single.html

Coming soon to the US if they can manage it....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on August 07, 2012, 12:06:02 pm
"Some imperial Chinese officials who admitted to the use of substitute criminals justified its effectiveness. After all, the real criminal was punished by paying out the market value of his crime, while the stand-in’s punishment intimidated other criminals, keeping the overall crime rate low. In other words, a “cap-and-trade” policy for crime."

Wow, now that is capitalism.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 07, 2012, 01:03:38 pm
When I was younger I used to believe the US bailing system let people pay instead of go to prison... :-[
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 07, 2012, 02:35:56 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on August 07, 2012, 12:06:02 pm
"Some imperial Chinese officials who admitted to the use of substitute criminals justified its effectiveness. After all, the real criminal was punished by paying out the market value of his crime, while the stand-in’s punishment intimidated other criminals, keeping the overall crime rate low. In other words, a “cap-and-trade” policy for crime."

"Because your life is worth $31 a day..."

Quote from: alway on August 07, 2012, 09:09:47 am
Hospital puts profit over patients (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48542945/ns/business-us_business/?__utma=14933801.1285212023.1343164210.1344342633.1344346710.34&__utmb=14933801.9.10.1344346710&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1343612108.14.2.utmcsr=nbcnews.com|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Ccover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=173112739#.UCEmYHilhTM)
I don't suppose they've ever heard about the Hippocratic oath...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 07, 2012, 02:47:26 pm
Quote from: scriver on August 07, 2012, 01:03:38 pm
When I was younger I used to believe the US bailing system let people pay instead of go to prison... :-[
A lot of people are under the impression that the bail system was essentially a bribe to the police to let you out before trial. The revelation that it is merely to keep you from fleeing and will be returned to you if you show up for trial is a surprisingly widespread one.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 07, 2012, 09:55:35 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 08, 2012, 03:07:44 am
I didn't know it worked that way either. What happens it you don't show up for trial, though?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 08, 2012, 03:30:49 am
Quote from: scriver on August 08, 2012, 03:07:44 am
I didn't know it worked that way either. What happens it you don't show up for trial, though?
Assuming it works similiar to the old Roman Law system, you loose your bail and the Police has to search you again.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on August 08, 2012, 04:20:54 am
So you get the money back?
The more you know..
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 08, 2012, 06:19:14 am
Yes. After you've been arrested, you remain in holding until a Magistrate has a hearing to officially charge you with whatever you were arrested for, set a trial date, and set bail. The general interpretation of the Constitution demands that this happens fairly quickly, as in under a week. If the police hold you longer without officially charging you and then charge you anyway it can be used as an argument in trial and upon appeal that your case was handled unconstitutionally and is therefore invalid. The longer they wait, the more likely this is to work. If the police hold you for an unconstitutional period they are probably not going to end up charging you and just want to make your life difficult.

You also have a right to a speedy trial, though this is usually waved by your defender at the Magistrate's hearing because it does more harm than good for you, as the defense needs time to build their case. Not waiving it is an option that you have a right to take, but it means that the whole thing will probably go down very quickly with neither the defense nor prosecution prepared at all to make their case. That can be a rather high-stakes gamble.

The Magistrate will then decide whether or not to set bail and what the cost of that bail will be. The Constitution demands that reasonable bail be set, though it has been interpreted by the judiciary that no bail may be set in cases where there is a reasonable belief that allowing the accused to walk free has a high chance of them hurting someone, hurting themselves, or fleeing. Usually bail is set, however, as not setting it when it should have been is another thing that can be used against the state in trial and upon appeal. The severity of the accusation usually determines the bail, small things like disturbing the peace will probably be in the hundreds, felony murder can be in the millions. Ultimately it is all up to the Magistrate, but once again, doing something like setting a 10 million dollar bail for graffiti will probably get the case thrown out of court.

Upon the setting of bail you are returned to police custody until such a time that the trial date comes or your bail is paid by your funds, or more likely a third-party. A bail bonds agent is a business entity that will post your bail for you, in exchange for a much lesser fee from you and a legal promise to attend trial. Accepting a bail bondsman's offer and then not turning up for trial is unwise.

If you are freed on bail, the state holds your bail until the date of trial and you are not allowed to leave the USA until the trial ends. If you show up, the money is returned to you. If you don't, the state takes the money and a warrant is issued for your arrest. Depending upon state law, also screwing over a bail bondsman with this allows them to send a private bounty hunter to apprehend you for the state. The bail bonds entity will then sue you for breech of contract in addition to the additional charges from the state. All in all, very bad for you.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 08, 2012, 11:21:11 am
Well, there was a vote for a levy in my town to provide the school district with $3,000,000 in state/federal funding, provided a majority of the people agreed to have an extra twelve cents tacked onto their taxes for five years.

It failed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on August 08, 2012, 11:45:12 am
Quote from: darkrider2 on August 08, 2012, 11:21:11 am
Well, there was a vote for a levy in my town to provide the school district with $3,000,000 in state/federal funding, provided a majority of the people agreed to have an extra twelve cents tacked onto their taxes for five years.

It failed.
It's times like these that it helps to remember that the USA was a country founded on the principle of "We don't want to pay taxes." Especially ones on tea that would actually make tea cheaper.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 11, 2012, 08:23:53 am
So they chose Romney's running mate.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/paul-ryan-063300661.html
He worked in his family's construction business after earning his degree in economics from Miami University in Ohio. His father died when he was only 16, which prompted soul-searching that led Ryan to discover the works of Rand, who is still a major influence on him.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza#ixzz23F3v7VVp
Ryan won his seat in 1998, at the age of twenty-eight. Like many young conservatives, he is embarrassed by the Bush years. At the time, as a junior member with little clout, Ryan was a reliable Republican vote for policies that were key in causing enormous federal budget deficits: sweeping tax cuts, a costly prescription-drug entitlement for Medicare, two wars, the multibillion-dollar bank-bailout legislation known as TARP. In all, five trillion dollars was added to the national debt. In 2006 and 2008, many of Ryan’s older Republican colleagues were thrown out of office as a result of lobbying scandals and overspending. Ryan told me recently that, as a fiscal conservative, he was “miserable during the last majority” and is determined “to do everything I can to make sure I don’t feel that misery again.”

 “The fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.” To me he was careful to point out that he rejects Rand’s atheism. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza#ixzz23F4zhvUT)

 Beckord drove along the perimeter of the abandoned plant, which stretched across more than two hundred acres. He pointed out a wide plain of asphalt, now sprouting weeds, that had once served as a parking lot for thousands of cars. Through 2007, Ryan regularly requested government money for special projects back home. Earmarks grew out of control during the Bush years, but most of what Ryan asked for, and got, was defensible: four hundred thousand dollars for a water-treatment plant; three hundred thousand for a technical college where G.M. workers could be retrained; seven hundred and thirty-five thousand for Janesville’s bus system; and $3.3 million for highway projects throughout Wisconsin. In 2008, however, Ryan vowed not to request earmarks anymore; he later helped push through an outright ban. I asked Beckord whether Ryan’s libertarianism ever clashed with the needs of his constituents. He hesitated, then said, finally, “I suppose there could have been a full-court press to just cobble together as much federal money as possible on our behalf to make it irresistible for G.M. to keep this plant open.” (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza#ixzz23F6IjjYl)

 When I pointed out to Ryan that government spending programs were at the heart of his home town’s recovery, he didn’t disagree. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza#ixzz23F838n6n)

The guy grew up with a family business and money. Only worked in gov. /politics. Funded his town recovery with federal earmark money while voting for every bush policy and adding $5 Trillion to the deficit. But now he's distancing himself from that, or trying to make it look that way. He loves Ayn Rand, but is very careful to say he doesn't like her atheism because that'd kill his chance with the religious right.

Translation, we know nothing about him that isn't a contradiction or just saying whatever he has to in order to get elected. [sigh]. This actually is Obama's fault, because Obama directly criticized him and by giving him the time of day catapulted him to the front of the opposition to Obama movement.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on August 11, 2012, 10:22:03 am
So he chose the social darwinist.  As for Ryan saying whatever he needs to get elected, well, perhaps Romney was looking for someone he could relate to. :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 11, 2012, 10:27:52 am
I don't know how much they'd really relate. Looking at voting records Ryan seems like a genuine far-right psycho while Romney had been plenty moderate up until it became clear he had a serious shot at getting the nomination.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 12, 2012, 02:11:07 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on August 12, 2012, 05:47:55 pm
Well, I just now stopped laughing at Romneys pick.

Anyway... its kind of a shame I have to ask this but... does Romney really stand a chance now?  The scum, it is piled so high!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 12, 2012, 06:53:28 pm
So the vice president nominee is an outright objectivist? Goddamn. The absolute LAST thing we need right no is leaders who reject noblesse oblige.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: sluissa on August 12, 2012, 07:03:16 pm
I think we're looking at this the wrong way... Vice Presidents aren't chosen on their merits. They probably actually choose the worst scum they can find that'll look decent in front of the senate, just to lower the chance they'll be assassinated by the other side. I mean... Nobody would have taken Cheney as president over Bush. I doubt most people would take Biden over Obama, and if Romney gets elected, who the hell would take Ryan over Romney?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 12, 2012, 07:48:26 pm
Quote from: sluissa on August 12, 2012, 07:03:16 pm
I think we're looking at this the wrong way... Vice Presidents aren't chosen on their merits. They probably actually choose the worst scum they can find that'll look decent in front of the senate, just to lower the chance they'll be assassinated by the other side. I mean... Nobody would have taken Cheney as president over Bush. I doubt most people would take Biden over Obama, and if Romney gets elected, who the hell would take Ryan over Romney?

So Ryan is the very obese girl the plain Jane Romney stands next to so she looks better by comparison?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on August 12, 2012, 09:05:36 pm
When you think about McCain and Palin too... yeah that does seem true after all!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 12, 2012, 10:28:47 pm
But Biden isn't bad, just sorta nondescript. I guess he does enhance Obama's charisma by comparison.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on August 13, 2012, 06:31:12 pm
Great, the the eight craziest candidates (http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/the-7-craziest-candidates-of-2012) of 2012 include the two Republican primary candidates in my district.  It's good that neither stands a chance against Tim Walz, the incumbent.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 13, 2012, 06:38:17 pm
#6 might be one I'd vote for. I have to respect leading a protest in a pink tutu.

Also I might look up the context of her quote. I can't tell if I disagree with her or not. (if she's promoting a productivist thing = disagree, or if she's just pointing out the double standard = agree)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on August 13, 2012, 06:42:24 pm
I like how the title says eight but the url says seven.

Quote
Koster voted "Yes" on all 20 of the Campaign for Liberty's questionnaire for candidates, including on questions about withdrawing from the U.N. and abolishing the I.R.S.
I think he just went "Whatever" and said yes to everything. Which is really just as worrying.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on August 14, 2012, 12:51:20 am
So, Gary Boisclair decided to air an ad about the baby-smashing 'criminal syndicate' called Planned Parenthood, and the stations he bought time for were powerless to stop him due to a federal law saying that stations can't alter or refuse to air an ad for a federal candidate within 45 days of the election. (Though most put up warnings.)

Viewer discretion advised. (http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/08/gary_boisclair_congressional_candidate_running_graphic_dead_fetus_ad_on_twin_cities_tv_video.php)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on August 14, 2012, 01:01:51 am
Why is he not on that list?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on August 14, 2012, 07:38:25 am
Is it just me, or do mangled foetuses look like baby mummy Pharaohs?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 14, 2012, 01:08:42 pm
http://www.news-journal.com/news/local/lawsuit-claims-black-sacker-ban-from-big-sandy-grocery-store/article_211e8217-acdf-5489-8915-8f6cc7900470.html

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting a little tired of "religious freedom" being abused and used as a blanket for pretty much everything including here: blatant racism. [sigh]
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on August 14, 2012, 01:19:17 pm
Quote from: Truean on August 14, 2012, 01:08:42 pm
http://www.news-journal.com/news/local/lawsuit-claims-black-sacker-ban-from-big-sandy-grocery-store/article_211e8217-acdf-5489-8915-8f6cc7900470.html

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting a little tired of "religious freedom" being abused and used as a blanket for pretty much everything including here: blatant racism. [sigh]
That sounds less like run-of-the-mill racism and more like Time Cube racism. "Vedism"? "congoid"? "negroidal"? Dude ate more than his daily recommended dose of paint chips as a kid, I'm thinking.

Also, that neck....wtf?
Spoiler: Negroidal contamination? (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on August 14, 2012, 01:58:26 pm
Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on August 14, 2012, 12:51:20 am
So, Gary Boisclair decided to air an ad about the baby-smashing 'criminal syndicate' called Planned Parenthood, and the stations he bought time for were powerless to stop him due to a federal law saying that stations can't alter or refuse to air an ad for a federal candidate within 45 days of the election. (Though most put up warnings.)

Viewer discretion advised. (http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/08/gary_boisclair_congressional_candidate_running_graphic_dead_fetus_ad_on_twin_cities_tv_video.php)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
"federal law prevents stations from rejecting or altering ads bought and paid for by registered federal candidates who are actively campaigning."

Does that law mean you could basically make an advert with hardcore pornography in it, and force them to play it at prime-time if you declared yourself a candidate?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 14, 2012, 02:02:14 pm
There's probably a "within reason" clause somewhere in there. The law sounds to me like it's supposed to prevent news outlets from "hiding" candidates by refusing to show any of their ads.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Realmfighter on August 14, 2012, 02:05:28 pm
He put aborted fetuses on TV.

I think a little sex isn't really going to reach that level of distasteful.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: sluissa on August 14, 2012, 02:12:13 pm
I'm guessing if you could get away with that, the FCC could possibly come down on you for putting it on the air. Normally it would be the station's responsibility to filter that stuff out, but if they're forced to, would the liability then move to whoever actually requested that it be aired?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 14, 2012, 02:13:33 pm
Am I the only one not really bothered by this? To me it's on the same level as showing something graphically violent, like I dunno... someone getting decapitated or disemboweled. It's just gross, not really offensive.


And I should point out, any time there's something responsible for a lot of deaths, people often pass around pictures of the dead to emphasize how bad it is. That's all he's doing. If you don't think them to be dead people, then apart from how gross it is, I really don't see how it could be that big a deal.



PS: I'd be for showing porn on TV regardless of the context. Shouldn't need to be a politician exploiting loopholes for that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 14, 2012, 04:55:42 pm
It's not that it shouldn't be on TV so much as "it shouldn't suddenly come out of nowhere in an advert".  People are sometimes decapitated or disemboweled on TV, and there can be shocking pictures of dead bodies, but they tend to warn you in advance, in a way this advert does not.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on August 15, 2012, 05:59:41 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on August 14, 2012, 04:55:42 pm
It's not that it shouldn't be on TV so much as "it shouldn't suddenly come out of nowhere in an advert".  People are sometimes decapitated or disemboweled on TV, and there can be shocking pictures of dead bodies, but they tend to warn you in advance, in a way this advert does not.
Agreed. It's the same reason why many adult sites have warning pages, graphic films have rating labels at the beginning, and lots of TV programs have that little "M" or whatever pop up in the corner. By informing you ahead of time it gives you the choice to decide whether or not you want to be exposed to something that may offend you (or spoil your appetite should you be eating dinner). So while I'm all for putting whatever we want on TV, I think that there should at least be some warning somewhere. If they want to stick a "Graphics Pictures Warning" page in the first half second of their ad then I'm fine with them playing it, but elsewise they shouldn't.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 15, 2012, 06:15:44 am
Fair 'nough.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 15, 2012, 08:29:25 am
Severly rotten stuff going down in the State of Sweden right now. A lot of.. Well, I wouldn't call it corruption exactly, but unbelievable lack of judgement to the point of bordering on corruption describes it pretty well - Anyway, a lot of it is being uncovered right now. I can't give you exact numbers because just looking at them renders me completely unable to think or write with irrational anger, but there have been millions of tax money wasted by government sub-organisations (whatever the English word might be) on parties, luxuries and frivolous bullshit (one example I is one person spending hundreds of thousands on taxis in fucking Stockholm - it's god damned impossible to spend that much on travel there! It's just not big enough!). One guy even defended his groups spending with (paraphrased) "But we didn't try to hide it, so it's all right", and another commented that "they didn't realise it would be such a public outcry about it", as if suddenly wasting hundreds of tax crowns on your own god damn pleasures wouldn't be completely fucking immoral if only people didn't find out about it. And as usual the fucking liberals are all up in that shit with some of it even happening in organisations under the direct influence of the leaders of the liberal parties.

I really fucking hate the government right now. So if you'll excuse me, I'll just be over here with the revolutionaries and anarchists and plan the violent, fiery overthrow of the damn disgrace of a government system until I calm down.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on August 15, 2012, 03:17:19 pm
Speaking of hating the government and civil unrest, on the American side of things, some disturbing news coming through the pipes:

Several U.S. agencies, from the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, and even weather-watching NOAA, have been requesting and stockpiling hundreds of thousands of hollow-point rounds (http://rt.com/usa/news/dhs-ammo-rounds-security-560/), and distributing them to strategic locations all over the country. If you aren't familiar, hollow-point rounds are designed for tearing large holes in unarmored bodies. Adding to this, they've apparently also been requisitioning surveillance drones, the equipment to construct armored checkpoints and perimeters domestically, additional body armor for law-enforcement officials, and running "drills" at government facilities (http://www.infowars.com/dhs-officers-armed-with-semiautomatics-set-up-unannounced-id-checkpoint/) such as the Florida Social Security office, where soldiers have been practicing garrisoning and defending them. Heck, even non-military organizations like the National Weather Service (http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=20550) are gearing up for conflict.

These requisitions have been going since last month, but have been ramping up recently, and it's only starting to become public today. I'm not one for the Tin-Foil Hat crowd (http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/headline_news/2012/08/15/4348.html), but if they really are requisitioning these "Training Supplies", it's pretty frightening news. It looks like the U.S. Government is preparing to put down and contain mass civil unrest.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on August 15, 2012, 03:29:27 pm
No offense, but those aren't exactly the most trustworthy sources.
That said, I'll keep an eye out for information through more legitimate channels. DHS has a pretty broad mandate, but I'm more curious about this notion that NOAA is stockpiling ammo. That should be traceable with the right legwork.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on August 15, 2012, 03:36:57 pm
Hollow points are standard issue for many police forces.

Less likely to over penetrate, more likely to stop the threat.

And the article mentions that it was a clerical error, and that the bullets were going to the Fisheries and Game department.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on August 15, 2012, 03:43:55 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on August 15, 2012, 03:36:57 pm
And the article mentions that it was a clerical error, and that the bullets were going to the Fisheries and Game department.
That's just what they want you to think! Of course there really is no need for this due to all of the mind-control chemicals being dumped into our air that would prevent a mass civilian uprising anyways. ;D
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 15, 2012, 03:44:46 pm
Oh, and the worst part, which I forgot to add earlier. This all happened during the years where the liberal government sold out several of the state owned corporations and/or monopolies to be able pay off the state debt. Maybe they should have checked where the real fucking waste of tax money is first. But hell, that would require of them to treat themselves less, so I guess that's just not an option.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on August 15, 2012, 03:59:28 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on August 15, 2012, 03:36:57 pm
Hollow points are standard issue for many police forces.

Less likely to over penetrate, more likely to stop the threat.

And the article mentions that it was a clerical error, and that the bullets were going to the Fisheries and Game department.
Yeah, but it does seem like overkill for certain agencies, y'know?

"YOU'RE FISHING WITHOUT A LICENSE!" *BLAM*
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Fenrir on August 15, 2012, 04:06:07 pm
Conservation involves shooting animals, as counter-intuitive as that may appear.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 15, 2012, 05:40:00 pm
Quote from: Fenrir on August 15, 2012, 04:06:07 pm
Conservation involves shooting animals, as counter-intuitive as that may appear.
But why hollowpoints then?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Fenrir on August 15, 2012, 05:48:14 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on August 15, 2012, 05:40:00 pm
Quote from: Fenrir on August 15, 2012, 04:06:07 pm
Conservation involves shooting animals, as counter-intuitive as that may appear.
But why hollowpoints then?
It hardly matters, as I have found nothing to suggest that any fish and game department actually does any hunting themselves, so I was probably mistaken.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on August 15, 2012, 05:51:44 pm
I really hope its a single Conspiracy Theorist who somehow sparked the discussion, which was then reprinted and changed. I just heard about it in stories I've seen today, but related stories began at the end of last month. Any idea where to begin a proper fact check on this? Same goes for the Florida "domestic checkpoint" training drill.

A police officer and friend of my father informed him about it, which is my original source. The rest comes from what I've dug up so far.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on August 15, 2012, 05:52:36 pm
Quote from: Solifuge on August 15, 2012, 03:17:19 pm
Speaking of hating the government and civil unrest, on the American side of things, some disturbing news coming through the pipes:

Several U.S. agencies, from the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, and even weather-watching NOAA, have been requesting and stockpiling hundreds of thousands of hollow-point rounds (http://rt.com/usa/news/dhs-ammo-rounds-security-560/), and distributing them to strategic locations all over the country. If you aren't familiar, hollow-point rounds are designed for tearing large holes in unarmored bodies. Adding to this, they've apparently also been requisitioning surveillance drones, the equipment to construct armored checkpoints and perimeters domestically, additional body armor for law-enforcement officials, and running "drills" at government facilities (http://www.infowars.com/dhs-officers-armed-with-semiautomatics-set-up-unannounced-id-checkpoint/) such as the Florida Social Security office, where soldiers have been practicing garrisoning and defending them. Heck, even non-military organizations like the National Weather Service (http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=20550) are gearing up for conflict.

These requisitions have been going since last month, but have been ramping up recently, and it's only starting to become public today. I'm not one for the Tin-Foil Hat crowd (http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/headline_news/2012/08/15/4348.html), but if they really are requisitioning these "Training Supplies", it's pretty frightening news. It looks like the U.S. Government is preparing to put down and contain mass civil unrest.

Your source from rt.com claims that it's sourced from Reuters, but i can't find any non rt.com citations, which is weird, all other ones link back to rt.com, doesn't mean it's false but i can't verify that that's real news.

Here's all the Reuters articles from 13 aug 2012, the supposed date of the article about 750 million DHS ammo rounds:
http://www.reuters.com/news/archive/topNews?date=08132012
The cited articles from rt.com does not appear here, i might be missing something, but IDK, nobody else is referencing the story except from rt.com and I can't find it on reuters.


Solifuge, you're using Alex Jones as a source (infowars.com). Trust me they exaggerate or fabricate everything, like recently on reuters there was a story about how major banks were told to prepare "disaster plans" so they'd have a plan save themselves in case they went insolvent, and this was started in 2010.

EXCLUSIVE-U.S. banks told to make plans for preventing collapse. Aug 10 (http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/10/idINL2E8J6D7920120810)

On infowars.com, this was mutated 1 day later, into a story where the big banks and government are conspiring to ochestrate a general collapse in Oct 2012 and then usher in martial law in anticipation of a foreign NWO takeover.
U.S Banks Told To Prepare For Total Collapse! Aug 11 (http://www.infowars.com/u-s-banks-told-to-prepare-for-total-collapse/)

Quote
Martial law is being prepared for a staged banking collapse in the late October.

I mean seriously, 1 day after the reuters article? but with a bunch of whacko stuff tacked on with no sources? COME ON INFOWARS!! The guy just steals Reuters press releases then mutates them with stuff from his own imagination. He's a fraud as I've mentioned before.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on August 15, 2012, 06:10:01 pm
I'd have preferred to find and link the root of the stories, but a cursory Googling yielded that site with the most related links and such in a concise place. I can't vouch for it beyond a springboard to launch some fact-checking legwork.

Can't properly browse now but I suppose an alternate non-NWO Police State reason would be that the DHS is trying to prove it has a reason to exist, and is thus funding supplies for domestic defense against an imagined insurgency?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on August 15, 2012, 06:18:26 pm
Yup, it's supposedly a reuters story for all the ammo stories, but it doesn't appear on the search page of reuters articles for the date it says it was published, I edited this info in.

So i'm calling it a fake. BTW the supposed author is on twitter, it would be possible to ask them about it.

Anyway looking around, it says Jason Reed is a photographer at Reuters, why would his name be on an article like this?

http://www.reuters.com/search?blob=homeland+security

Yeah, no story even vaguely like the rt.com one even if you search for the keywords.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on August 15, 2012, 06:28:54 pm
In the universe where I tweet and/or facebook, I just might. Still, I don't think the author of the derivative stories is the place to go.

I'll check on some alternate interpretations when I get back to the web proper.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on August 15, 2012, 06:31:17 pm
No, Jason Reed is the claimed author of the SOURCE ARTICLE. He works for Reuters. which is where they claim the story came from, which it clearly did not.

EDIT However, searching further back, around april 30, they claimed DHS was getting 450 million rounds of ammo (same or similar conspiracy sites), but looking for possibly relevant reuters articles after learning the name of the supplier:

http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/ATK/key-developments/article/2531368

Quote
Alliant Techsystems Inc (ATK) announced that it has received orders totaling more than $266 million for small caliber ammunition under an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with the U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island (ACC-RI). This order includes a mix of 5.56mm, 7.62mm and .50-caliber military ammunition to be produced at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in Independence, Mo. ATK has operated the Lake City plant since April 2000. The Army and ATK are nearing completion of a $276 million modernization project at the Lake City facility. This includes the capacity to increase production of the new 5.56mm Enhanced Performance Round. ATK has delivered approximately 250 million of these rounds since transitioning to production in 2010.

This says the same number of rounds and the same supplier as the later stories (the 750 million was supposedly bumped up from 450 million), but the deal was to modernize the entire stockpile of the US Army, no mention of the DHS
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on August 15, 2012, 06:47:51 pm
Infowars is such a bad source that if I saw a story on both there and the BBC, I would assume the BBC was lying or in err simply because Infowars is that bad. I'm pretty sure they have some as-yet undiscovered tachyon field surrounding their articles which warps reality away from any possible future in which it would be true.

Infowars may even be advanced alien technology whose purpose is to avert a NWO takeover by writing articles about a NWO takeover which then warp reality to rule out those possible futures.

The same holds true for its clone-site PrisonPlanet of course.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 15, 2012, 07:44:35 pm
Has the imminent rise of grain prices and the utter collapse of the meat market been discussed here?
Food prices are going to get pretty high by the time winter rolls around.

Now would be the time to stock up on corn flakes and flour.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on August 15, 2012, 08:30:39 pm
Something like 90%+ of the money you pay for most 1st world food items goes towards packaging & marketing; the price of the raw food could double, and most of us not living in abject slum-shack poverty would hardly see a change in food prices. Which is why changes in the raw food item prices overwhelmingly affect those in extreme poverty condition.

The most major thing it will contribute to is more government-toppling in 3rd world countries. The Arab Spring, if you recall, was originally about high prices for staple foods in Tunisia.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on August 15, 2012, 08:37:15 pm
Quote from: Reelya on August 15, 2012, 05:52:36 pm
Quote from: Solifuge on August 15, 2012, 03:17:19 pm
Alex Jones says Martial Law in the US. WTF?
Alex Jones is retarded.

Okay, I paraphrased a bit.

Anyway, I found the source of the information, at the least: FedBizOpps.gov (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=977a6992131ab7a9e1cec0a5a71bc73a&_cview=0)

The National Weather Service did indeed request 70,000 hollow-point rounds earlier this month, amending the amount several times, and finally rescinding the request and claiming it to be a clerical error, the rounds instead intended for the Marine Fisheries Service. The Department of Homeland Security has a similar order on file (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=af238e489ad305f989938ee81e9be70e&_cview=0), which has been increased from the original amount since it was originally posted in April, to include other materials and types of rounds, as well as a provision for the continued purchase of rounds every month.

So, that much is not fabricated. I personally find it strange that they are ordering hollow point rounds, rather than practice rounds, for what they claim is target practice. I understand hollow-points behave more like regular rounds, while not being as destructive, but it is still unusual. As is the Fisheries service stockpiling anti-personnel rounds.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 15, 2012, 08:40:53 pm
Quote
Marine Fisheries Service
0.o
Why the hell would they need hollowpoints? Unless they decided to do this:
Quote from: RedKing on August 15, 2012, 03:59:28 pm
"YOU'RE FISHING WITHOUT A LICENSE!" *BLAM*
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on August 15, 2012, 08:46:59 pm
Park rangers and such. If your job is wandering out in the middle of nowhere, being armed would be a necessity due to bears and other predators.

Similarly, I'm not sure about clip size and such, but it's probably in the range of 20 or so per clip; which would mean 70,000 is about 1 clip for each of only about 3500 employees if they only go out with the single clip loaded in the gun. More likely, they would go out int he field with several clips of ammo (as dispensing ammo in large quantities on occasion is probably much less of a logistical hassle than dispensing bullets 1 at a time), probably putting it well under the amount to equip 1000 employees.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Fenrir on August 15, 2012, 08:51:12 pm
When one’s job involves catching and investigating poachers, one knows that one will always discover one’s opponent armed. One.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 15, 2012, 08:52:19 pm
Would that not be covered under something other than the marine fisheries service?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Fenrir on August 15, 2012, 08:59:40 pm
You clearly are ignorant of the perils of fish-poaching or the fully-automatic, armor-piercing weaponry employed by its perpetrators, and I have no further patience for you.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on August 15, 2012, 09:00:30 pm
Nope; according to their wiki page, one of their primary duties is retrieval of protected species. Which would mean going onto someone's boat and/or inspecting their catch, followed by a possible confrontation if someone is found in violation of fishing regulations.

So my park ranger theory was wrong, though it seems they still need some pretty decent protection given their profession. They're basically sea-cops when it comes to poaching/overfishing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 15, 2012, 09:05:06 pm
Weird, one would not normally think fish police to be a very high risk job.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on August 15, 2012, 09:06:57 pm
Can't be too careful.  We never know when the fish will take their revenge.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Fenrir on August 15, 2012, 09:08:39 pm
I should, in future, be extra certain that I am really wrong before employing sarcastic, self-depricating humor.

Quote from: Scelly9 on August 15, 2012, 09:05:06 pm
Weird, one would not normally think fish police to be a very high risk job.
Carp. Your argument is invalid.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on August 15, 2012, 09:57:53 pm
Quote from: alway on August 15, 2012, 09:00:30 pm
Nope; according to their wiki page, one of their primary duties is retrieval of protected species.
From the mouths of their predators.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 15, 2012, 10:14:47 pm
Quote from: alway on August 15, 2012, 08:30:39 pm
Something like 90%+ of the money you pay for most 1st world food items goes towards packaging & marketing; the price of the raw food could double, and most of us not living in abject slum-shack poverty would hardly see a change in food prices. Which is why changes in the raw food item prices overwhelmingly affect those in extreme poverty condition.

The most major thing it will contribute to is more government-toppling in 3rd world countries. The Arab Spring, if you recall, was originally about high prices for staple foods in Tunisia.
What if something along the line of farmers losing 50%+ of their crop, and the main artery to the middle of the country got so low that you could no longer use it ship food?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on August 15, 2012, 10:33:49 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623

Looks like the UK is gearing up to fuck over Julian Assange.  Threatening to raid the embassy of a sovereign nation...classy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on August 15, 2012, 11:13:43 pm
Quote from: lordcooper on August 15, 2012, 10:33:49 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623

Looks like the UK is gearing up to fuck over Julian Assange.  Threatening to raid the embassy of a sovereign nation...classy.

That's just vile. First of all, you just don't go violating political asylum, let alone overstepping the sovereignty of another nation with threats and brute force. Second of all, ignoring that Assange upholds that the so-called "sexual assault" was actually done in mutual consent, and the charge is politically motivated... would a nation really risk an international incident just to arrest a potential sexual offender?

It's just a transparent way to mask that they want to dismantle Wikileaks, and can't find a legal way to do it. More power to you, Ecuador.

EDIT: Oh wow... I didn't realize that corporations had already been putting a financial stranglehold on Wikileaks (http://wikileaks.org/). This is worse than I thought.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on August 16, 2012, 12:10:43 am
Keep in mind though that Assange still has the upper hand. You may recall he released his 'insurance package,' with the decryption key set to be released if anything particularly nasty happens to him. The 'insurance package,' if you recall, was a big document dump without any redaction of names or highly damaging information. The sort of stuff that would get field agents and moles killed if it were leaked.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on August 16, 2012, 12:51:14 am
I didn't know that... puts my mind a bit at ease, though I really hope it doesn't come to that.

I just finished viewing a livestream via Bambuser (http://bambuser.com/tag/OLSX), provided by a number of dedicated 24-hour livestreamers outside the Embassy. They just got pizza donated to them from somewhere in Canada, and are eating while others hurry to the site, hoping to beat the morning police blockades and such.

There are times I've been finding myself pacing around the room like a caged animal, fretting over how to combat this kind of wrongness. I'm frustrated by feelings of powerlessness to make a concrete difference in problems like this. Still... independent journalism like this gives me hope for the future. You aren't likely to get coverage like this from any major media outlet.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on August 16, 2012, 01:35:01 am
What... WHAT. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/education/09forprofit.html)  Wow looks like the company that owns the school I go to has been committing fraud on a massive scale for nearly 10 years now.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 16, 2012, 01:42:22 am
Quote from: Solifuge on August 15, 2012, 11:13:43 pm
That's just vile. First of all, you just don't go violating political asylum, let alone overstepping the sovereignty of another nation with threats and brute force. Second of all, ignoring that Assange upholds that the so-called "sexual assault" was actually done in mutual consent, and the charge is politically motivated... would a nation really risk an international incident just to arrest a potential sexual offender?

It's just a transparent way to mask that they want to dismantle Wikileaks, and can't find a legal way to do it. More power to you, Ecuador.

EDIT: Oh wow... I didn't realize that corporations had already been putting a financial stranglehold on Wikileaks (http://wikileaks.org/). This is worse than I thought.

I'm sorry? It's morning and I'm really tired, so I'm going to ask you before I go on a rant - did you just say that because Assange says it was consensual, it couldn't have been rape? In Vector's heritage thread?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 16, 2012, 01:42:47 am
Quote from: Euld on August 16, 2012, 01:35:01 am
What... WHAT. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/education/09forprofit.html)  Wow looks like the company that owns the school I go to has been committing fraud on a massive scale for nearly 10 years now.

For-profit college are three words that make me shiver. Apart from the fact that all colleges make profits from their business, when the sole purpose becomes profit then I have a problem.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on August 16, 2012, 02:19:36 am
Quote from: scriver on August 16, 2012, 01:42:22 am
Quote from: Solifuge on August 15, 2012, 11:13:43 pm
That's just vile. First of all, you just don't go violating political asylum, let alone overstepping the sovereignty of another nation with threats and brute force. Second of all, ignoring that Assange upholds that the so-called "sexual assault" was actually done in mutual consent, and the charge is politically motivated... would a nation really risk an international incident just to arrest a potential sexual offender?

It's just a transparent way to mask that they want to dismantle Wikileaks, and can't find a legal way to do it. More power to you, Ecuador.

EDIT: Oh wow... I didn't realize that corporations had already been putting a financial stranglehold on Wikileaks (http://wikileaks.org/). This is worse than I thought.

I'm sorry? It's morning and I'm really tired, so I'm going to ask you before I go on a rant - did you just say that because Assange says it was consensual, it couldn't have been rape? In Vector's heritage thread?

No I'm not, Scriver, and I appreciate your forbearance on that rant.

Recall that anyone is innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial. Even people accused of sexual assault. Also realize that this is not an issue where Assange will be given any chance in a court of law... they intend to send him to the States rather than try him locally, likely for indefinite detainment thanks to Homeland Security.

Consider, for a moment, that GB is willing to violate asylum, diplomatic immunity, and Ecuador's sovereignty just to arrest him. This is not how suspected sexual offenders are treated... this is how the state treats those it wants to silence.

Anyway, GB just sent the police into the embassy. I do not know what is happening. The Bambuser stream was shut down by a DDOS attack, and the stream moved to http://www.livestream.com/occupylsx (http://www.livestream.com/occupylsx).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 16, 2012, 02:21:03 am
Quote from: Solifuge on August 16, 2012, 02:19:36 am
Anyway, GB just sent the police into the embassy. I do not know what is happening. The Bambuser stream was shut down by a DDOS attack, and the stream moved to http://www.livestream.com/occupylsx (http://www.livestream.com/occupylsx).
Christ... I was really hoping that they where bluffing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 16, 2012, 05:57:05 am
Quote from: Solifuge on August 16, 2012, 02:19:36 am
Recall that anyone is innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial.
And if he isn't extradited to Sweden he'll never get a trial.

Quote from: Solifuge on August 16, 2012, 02:19:36 am
Even people accused of sexual assault. Also realize that this is not an issue where Assange will be given any chance in a court of law... they intend to send him to the States rather than try him locally, likely for indefinite detainment thanks to Homeland Security.
Do "they"?  Any evidence for this?  Who is "they", anyway?

Quote from: Solifuge on August 16, 2012, 02:19:36 am
Consider, for a moment, that GB is willing to violate asylum, diplomatic immunity, and Ecuador's sovereignty just to arrest him. This is not how suspected sexual offenders are treated... this is how the state treats those it wants to silence.
It's actually more like how states treat suspected rapists with outstanding European arrest warrants who make a fool of them by skipping bail and fleeing to another country.  The threat to a foreign country is out of line (as far as I can tell it's still a threat) but Assange's flight to another country makes him definitely worth pursuing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on August 16, 2012, 09:38:30 am
Quote from: Solifuge on August 15, 2012, 08:37:15 pm
Quote from: Reelya on August 15, 2012, 05:52:36 pm
Quote from: Solifuge on August 15, 2012, 03:17:19 pm
Alex Jones says Martial Law in the US. WTF?
Alex Jones is retarded.

Okay, I paraphrased a bit.

Anyway, I found the source of the information, at the least: FedBizOpps.gov (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=977a6992131ab7a9e1cec0a5a71bc73a&_cview=0)

The National Weather Service did indeed request 70,000 hollow-point rounds earlier this month, amending the amount several times, and finally rescinding the request and claiming it to be a clerical error, the rounds instead intended for the Marine Fisheries Service. The Department of Homeland Security has a similar order on file (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=af238e489ad305f989938ee81e9be70e&_cview=0), which has been increased from the original amount since it was originally posted in April, to include other materials and types of rounds, as well as a provision for the continued purchase of rounds every month.

So, that much is not fabricated. I personally find it strange that they are ordering hollow point rounds, rather than practice rounds, for what they claim is target practice. I understand hollow-points behave more like regular rounds, while not being as destructive, but it is still unusual. As is the Fisheries service stockpiling anti-personnel rounds.

It says leaded training ammo for the DHS, nothing about hollow points. And minimum 1000 bullets per year, not 750 million. But i guess saying fisheries inspectors or whatever are getting armed wasn't exciting enough.

Note though the details i linked in a previous post of the US Armies deal perfectly matched the main details of the supposed DHS purchases - same month they ordered 450 million, with options for more, same company, hollow points, also from a reuters story, etc.

I think all three separate stories were conflated for the Homeland Security 750 million "story."

EDIT: sorry i hadn't seen the amendments, not used to that webpage.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on August 16, 2012, 09:58:26 am
Quote from: scriver on August 16, 2012, 01:42:22 am
Quote from: Solifuge on August 15, 2012, 11:13:43 pm
That's just vile. First of all, you just don't go violating political asylum, let alone overstepping the sovereignty of another nation with threats and brute force. Second of all, ignoring that Assange upholds that the so-called "sexual assault" was actually done in mutual consent, and the charge is politically motivated... would a nation really risk an international incident just to arrest a potential sexual offender?

It's just a transparent way to mask that they want to dismantle Wikileaks, and can't find a legal way to do it. More power to you, Ecuador.

EDIT: Oh wow... I didn't realize that corporations had already been putting a financial stranglehold on Wikileaks (http://wikileaks.org/). This is worse than I thought.

I'm sorry? It's morning and I'm really tired, so I'm going to ask you before I go on a rant - did you just say that because Assange says it was consensual, it couldn't have been rape? In Vector's heritage thread?

Sciver, you obviously haven't read about the details, even many feminists say the charges are rubbish. i'll just link some stuff about it

http://www.theweeklyobserver.com.au/wordpress/?p=696
^ This references 4 corners, which is the most highly regarded investigative journalism show in Australia. Luckily, it's on the ABC which transcripts almost ever show, forever:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm
^ THIS, is an excellent documentary, 45 minutes by a well-respected investigative journalism show, gives the FULL story.

---

Also this one is older but talks about all the bizarre twists of how the charges changed day by day almost as they tried to make something 'stick' to Assange. They even tried to retroactively make a law that any man can be called a rapist by the government for having more money than the woman, even if she consented. "male power" abuse by wowing the ladies with your bling would be rape if that passed.
http://sunnysinghonline.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/swedens-rape-law-infantilise-women.html
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on August 16, 2012, 10:11:23 am
http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/16/13301668-governments-mull-radical-solution-to-underwater-mortgages-seize-them?lite
^Local governments consider using eminent domain to help homeowners with underwater mortgages. 1. Government pays a 'fair value' to the bank to seize the property, as per eminent domain rules 2. Government sells property back to homeowner for an amount less than their mortgage was (as an underwater mortgage means they owed more than the house was worth, so reducing it to that 'fair value' is a decrease).

Also it seems Ecuador has approved Assange's asylum request. :D
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 16, 2012, 11:22:30 am
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 16, 2012, 12:07:02 pm
It think the final total of stuff the internet gave them while sitting was something like 5 taxis for julian, plus a couple rounds of pizza. I think some flowers showed up as well.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on August 16, 2012, 01:37:49 pm
Regarding Assange, there is some serious misinformation being passed around.

1) The allegations are certainly crimes under English law and explicitly include one count of rape. Both a magistrate's court and the English High Court reviewed this point and came to the same conclusions. There is a summary here (http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/) and the High Court's ruling can be found here (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html). Add to this the descriptions offered by Assange's own lawyers (http://studentactivism.net/2011/07/12/assange-lawyer-concedes/) and it looks like a very clear case of rape to me.

2) The British government did not threaten to storm the embassy nor has it done so. Rather they have maintained that they will arrest Assange once he leaves it and that they do not accept diplomatic asylum as a valid concept (consistent with European and British law; Ecuador is subject to a convention (http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3823c.html) of the Organisation of American States that recognises it but I do not believe anywhere outside that convention does).

Under UK and EU law, and the current state of the case against Assange, Britain has a clear mandate to extradite Assange to Sweden, with no clear human rights case to be made against this. The UK must seek to arrest and extradite him to their full ability. This means arresting him if he leaves the embassy, using diplomatic means to have him handed over by the embassy staff, or legal means to remove the embassy as an obstacle. This third path is the most controversial possible, but is possible (http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/08/15/julian-assange-can-the-uk-withdraw-diplomatic-status-from-the-ecuadorian-embassy/), either by temporarily breaking diplomatic ties (expelling their ambassador) or under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, which allowed for the revocation of diplomatic status where compatible with international law. This latter law was what the UK reminded Ecuador of in the letter they sent that was then taken as a threat of 'storming the embassy' by Ecuador's ambassador.

3) Assange's human rights are not at risk at any point. Very simply the UK and Sweden are both subject to the ECHR. This forbids extradition where someone may be subject to capital punishment, torture or inhumane treatment. Even if somehow he were to be extradited to the US, whichever nation he was in (or both if he were extradited from the UK to Sweden and still in their legal system, technically still partially under British care) would have to obtained guarantees that he would not be subject to such treatment before the extradition could proceed. The only path to anything approaching torture or the death penalty would come through extra-judicial and illegal means. I don't see how being in the care of the British or Swedish justice system is going to reduce such a threat.

On the other hand, I am not sure whether Ecuador have similar legal protections. They have a slightly spotty human rights record themselves, although to be fair (and slightly ironically) most of their recent significant rights violations have been with regard to freedom of speech (https://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-ecuador). I haven't seen anything to suggest they would have to refuse an extradition to the US, even if it could result in capital punishment but may simply not be aware of some law on the matter.

4) The only indication that Assange may ever be extradited to the US is a refusal by the Swedish government to rule this out entirely. This is not a surprising position.

Let's imagine I want to sleep on someone's couch. They say I can only do so if I absolutely promise I will not report them to the police. I'm probably not going to make that promise, or at least not make it and mean it. There is always the possibility that there is some crime serious enough that I will want to report them.

In this case Sweden (and the UK as the nation he was extradited from) would be subject to a genuine and legal request for extradition whether they had made such a promise or not. Were a case made against Assange, given due process in Swedish, British and European courts and found to be valid there is no legal way to block it. As such Sweden is not free to make such a promise. At the same time none of what I wrote above is false; a valid case would require guarantees of human rights and no capital punishment. As such Assange is deliberately conflating two issues; a guarantee he won't be extradited to the US (legally impossible) and the idea that extradition to the US from Sweden would result in human rights violations (also legally impossible).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on August 16, 2012, 08:41:32 pm
Anybody even vaguely considering voting for Romney should watch this first. (http://youtu.be/W_pgfWK3sxw)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on August 16, 2012, 08:47:59 pm
You should probably put that in a different thread.  I don't think many potential Romney voters read this thread. ;)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on August 16, 2012, 08:53:35 pm
Quote from: Jervill on August 16, 2012, 08:47:59 pm
You should probably put that in a different thread.  I don't think many potential Romney voters read this thread. ;)

But we don't really have a fascist regressive more relevant thread :-\
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on August 16, 2012, 08:58:55 pm
The American Election Megathread, perhaps? It'd be more relevant than whatever tangent they're on now.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on August 16, 2012, 09:01:36 pm
Quote from: Sirus on August 16, 2012, 08:58:55 pm
The American Election Megathread, perhaps? It'd be more relevant than whatever tangent they're on now.

Just gimme a few minutes to facepalm and I'll post it over there :)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on August 16, 2012, 09:28:04 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Ye gods, I'm glad you're a Jedi lawyer :I
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on August 17, 2012, 08:58:56 am
Some items of interest outside the US:

South African police kill 34 striking platinum miners, in the largest casualty event by police since apartheid ended. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/world/africa/south-africa-mine-violence/index.html)

Russian court convicts all-grrl punk band Pussy Riot of hooliganism for staging a guerilla anti-Putin protest in a Russian Orthodox church. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-08-17/pussy-riot-verdict/57109992/1)
(Incidentally, I'm wondering how apoplectic the FCC is getting over this one...should they fine newscasters for reporting this story on the 6pm news??)  :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 17, 2012, 12:14:32 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on August 17, 2012, 01:19:47 pm
HOHOHOHO! AHAHAHAHA! Your feeble mind tricks are no match for me, boy girl!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on August 17, 2012, 01:26:07 pm
Quote from: Sirus on August 17, 2012, 01:19:47 pm
HOHOHOHO! AHAHAHAHA! Your feeble mind tricks are no match for me, boy girl!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
My attitude to it is that although she is going around being a he IRL right now, she wants to be a she, so I see no reason why she can't be a she around here... and maybe even a Shee if she wants.

So yeah, I tend to mentally think of Truean as female.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on August 17, 2012, 01:32:31 pm
I like to think of Truean as a Truean.

Quote from: RedKing on August 17, 2012, 08:58:56 am
Some items of interest outside the US:

South African police kill 34 striking platinum miners, in the largest casualty event by police since apartheid ended. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/world/africa/south-africa-mine-violence/index.html)

Russian court convicts all-grrl punk band Pussy Riot of hooliganism for staging a guerilla anti-Putin protest in a Russian Orthodox church. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-08-17/pussy-riot-verdict/57109992/1)
(Incidentally, I'm wondering how apoplectic the FCC is getting over this one...should they fine newscasters for reporting this story on the 6pm news??)  :P

I totally am not a fan of the rising prevalence of police-state-type actions around the globe in the last weeks, months, and years. I'm really not.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on August 17, 2012, 01:38:42 pm
I think it's more due to the fact that more and more people are gaining access to easy recording equipment and the ability to distribute videos and images. It's a lot harder to cover up or explain away such actions if there's video evidence posted and viral within hours of it happening.

And I had to know what to call Truean because otherwise the Jabba quote wouldn't have worked :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on August 17, 2012, 01:40:26 pm
There's certainly a lot of truth to that. This greater degree of transparency and world-connectivity is something we need to fight for and preserve.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on August 17, 2012, 02:45:42 pm
Well, we at least have the latter. The former we tend to only have because of said recording equipment, along with people generally taking pickaxes to government opacity. (With Wikileaks and its like being the boldest examples.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on August 17, 2012, 06:50:30 pm
There's a lot of truth in what Sirus said. People like Cheney & Rumsfeld were involved in the Nixon and Reagan administrations, back when they could carpet bomb cambodia (Nixon) and wage wars or covert interventions in Latin America and pretty much control the flow of what news gets printed about the events.

With the Bush years I believe they tried "business as usual" of controlling information flow that worked up until the early 90's, but there's no more monopolistic mass media now, there's 1 billion channels on the internet. So, those Reagan/Bush people came back into power but hadn't adapted to 8 years of internet development.

A more successful strategy now would be to clog the critical channels with misinformation so that they become discredited (Alex Jones perhaps?)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on August 17, 2012, 07:13:02 pm
Which leads us to the only logical conclusion. ALEX JONES IS AN ILLUMINATI PLANT! :o
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 17, 2012, 08:06:06 pm
Female pronouns work here. Thanks. :) The fact that you guys try is wonderful in and of itself and I appreciate it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on August 17, 2012, 08:08:42 pm
Therefore, your feeble mind tricks will not work on me, girl! :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 17, 2012, 11:33:26 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/attorney-andrew-shirvell-ordered-pay-4-5-million-165621140--abc-news-topstories.html

Yup. "First amendment rights?" Are you kidding? You can't openly call someone a pedophile like that and purposefully try their life. It isn't ok that your "opinion" is that they rape children and seduce them to become gay when that's false....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 17, 2012, 11:39:05 pm
And he's going to pay $4.5 million over something he could've ended by apologising and retracting a few untrue statements?  Wow.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on August 18, 2012, 12:10:59 am
Quote from: Truean on August 17, 2012, 08:06:06 pm
Female pronouns work here. Thanks. :) The fact that you guys try is wonderful in and of itself and I appreciate it.
Yay thanks for clearing that up :)  I've been meaning to ask, but often forgetting or too shy to ask.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on August 18, 2012, 12:20:59 am
And he even represented himself.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on August 18, 2012, 02:01:50 am
Quote from: alway on August 17, 2012, 07:13:02 pm
Which leads us to the only logical conclusion. ALEX JONES IS AN ILLUMINATI PLANT! :o

google Alex Jones talking about the Koch Brothers or Israel. Suddenly he does a 180 degree turn and becomes Mr Skeptic.

He blasts anyone who criticizes either of these entities as crazy conspiracy nuts. (At least 29 of Alex Jones's advertisers are extremely wealthy Jewish interests, and my flatmate told me that the Koch Brothers are prominent Zionists).

Here's him on vid sucking Koch Bro dick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv9PiSsSnBE
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 18, 2012, 03:02:38 am
Quote from: Truean on August 17, 2012, 11:33:26 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/attorney-andrew-shirvell-ordered-pay-4-5-million-165621140--abc-news-topstories.html

Yup. "First amendment rights?" Are you kidding? You can't openly call someone a pedophile like that and purposefully try their life. It isn't ok that your "opinion" is that they rape children and seduce them to become gay when that's false....
Err, um, wow.

Not much more to say to that. Glad this douchebag got called out on his harassment to the sum of 4.5 million.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 18, 2012, 06:44:19 am
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on August 18, 2012, 10:08:34 pm
Quote from: Truean on August 18, 2012, 06:44:19 am
O the amount might be reduced a little on appeal through a process called  remittitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remittitur). Still the message is a nice one.

There's been a traditional problem in the US concerning slander/liable of gay people. It is slander per se when you call someone a pedophile and it isn't true, because that shit ruins people's lives. Unfortunately, even today, GLBT people are often called this. It's kinda the reason the boy scouts won't let gays in.... In the past, it was seen as entirely OK to say this about gay people and people would've thought you were weird if you objected to this.... This wasn't odd, this was called Tuesday. It's tragic.

It's also another reason for gay people and kids being disowned by their parents. The idea was, you'd kick the gay one out of the house to protect all the others. There are actually old time public safety videos blaming gays for this and warning kids about it specifically. The irony being that parents who kick out their gay kids often wonder why they failed. The failure isn't from having a gay kid, but rather from kicking said kid out. Tragically, the law STILL often ignores it when people toss their gay kids out on the street and many times people  in power simply refuse to prosecute AND (Abuse Neglect and Desertion) cases and it's kind of one hell of a coincidence that the reason seems to be due to the kid being gay.
Err, care to quote any sources? Because I haven't heard of such things before.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on August 18, 2012, 10:30:17 pm
Let me Google that for you. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Gay+kid+disowned)

Note that there are two types of results on that first page.

1. Question: Would you disown your gay child?
2. Article: Child disowned by parent.

Or was that question about whether or not calling someone a pedophile was slander? Perhaps looking for an example of someone going unprosecuted for kicking out a gay dependent? The first answer is painfully obvious. The second... well, I posted the link. You can read the articles for yourself. Even the few cases there that made the news don't have much prosecuting in them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on August 19, 2012, 05:46:49 pm
Missouri Republican: 'Legitimate rape' rarely causes pregnancy (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/19/13365269-missouri-republican-legitimate-rape-rarely-causes-pregnancy?lite)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 19, 2012, 06:06:42 pm
Quote from: alway on August 19, 2012, 05:46:49 pm
Missouri Republican: 'Legitimate rape' rarely causes pregnancy (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/19/13365269-missouri-republican-legitimate-rape-rarely-causes-pregnancy?lite)

This belongs in the "amazingly stupid things you've heard people say" thread.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on August 19, 2012, 06:07:33 pm
Quote from: alway on August 19, 2012, 05:46:49 pm
Missouri Republican: 'Legitimate rape' rarely causes pregnancy (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/19/13365269-missouri-republican-legitimate-rape-rarely-causes-pregnancy?lite)
Are you fucking kidding me.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 19, 2012, 06:09:02 pm
Quote from: alway on August 19, 2012, 05:46:49 pm
Missouri Republican: 'Legitimate rape' rarely causes pregnancy (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/19/13365269-missouri-republican-legitimate-rape-rarely-causes-pregnancy?lite)
Quote
“First of all, from what I understand from doctors..."
=
Nothing
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 19, 2012, 06:41:16 pm
Headline should read: Missouri Republican looses any chance of winning ever.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 19, 2012, 06:42:06 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on August 19, 2012, 07:09:25 pm
Quote from: alway on August 19, 2012, 05:46:49 pm
Missouri Republican: 'Legitimate rape' rarely causes pregnancy (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/19/13365269-missouri-republican-legitimate-rape-rarely-causes-pregnancy?lite)
I can't even get past "legitimate rape". WTF?!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on August 19, 2012, 07:12:23 pm
Well, that makes it a lot easier for Democrats to hold onto Missouri's Senate seat at least.  Goddamn, what an idiot.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 19, 2012, 07:12:49 pm
I think he mean "real rape" aka: if it's not forcible, it's not rape...  ::)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: freeformschooler on August 19, 2012, 07:13:12 pm
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/17/4734690/asheville-tea-party-sponsors-machine.html

This seems in bad taste with all the recent shootings. But whatever floats your boat, I guess.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on August 19, 2012, 07:15:02 pm
If it weren't supporting the Tea Party...I'd probably do it  :-\
Hey, I like guns. I support gun control, but I do like them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 19, 2012, 07:18:31 pm
I'd like to see him asked for the names of those "doctors".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: sluissa on August 19, 2012, 07:42:19 pm
Quote from: Sirus on August 19, 2012, 07:15:02 pm
If it weren't supporting the Tea Party...I'd probably do it  :-\
Hey, I like guns. I support gun control, but I do like them.

This...

Also, I've noticed a good number of shooting ranges require membership in the NRA, an organization I generally oppose. I mean... yeah, they've done some good things, and their gun safety efforts are commendable, but most of their recent efforts seem to have been to put anti-gun control people into office, which tend to be the same sort of people who do other things I dislike in office.

Luckily there are a few without such a requirement, it just seems as if the majority(in my area, at least) do require NRA membership and that bothers me.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 20, 2012, 08:57:20 am
Quote from: Sheb on August 19, 2012, 07:12:49 pm
I think he mean "real rape" aka: if it's not forcible, it's not rape...  ::)

I don't think he has any actual reasoning behind the "legitimate" like that... Rather, it seems to be a post hoc kind of thing - raped girls doesn't get pregnant, hence a woman who got pregnant from rape can't have been a "legitimate rape" - at least that's how I read it. Or maybe, it's akin to the other guy RedKing posted about in the American Election Thread:

Quote from: RedKing on August 20, 2012, 07:48:53 am
Ain't the first time a Republican has made comments to the effect of "if she got pregnant, she must have wanted it at some level"

Quote
"The facts show that people who are raped -- who are truly raped -- the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work and they don't get pregnant," said Aldridge, a 71-year-old periodontist. "Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever."

That would be a NC state rep back in 1995 who was rightfully pilloried for his comment. Headline for this new comment should be "Republican Lawmakers Continue To Fail Biology Forever".

They both kind of seems to be twists on the "if the woman gets wet/man gets hard or came, they liked it and it wasn't rape" myths, extended into including pregnancy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on August 20, 2012, 09:55:43 pm
Online viewing data deemed private & protected. (http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/your-online-viewing-habits-are-private-protected-says-court-954417?__utma=238145375.548114891.1344621142.1345515545.1345517623.45&__utmb=238145375.1.10.1345517623&__utmc=238145375&__utmx=-&__utmz=238145375.1344649092.4.2.utmcsr=bay12forums.com|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/smf/index.php&__utmv=238145375.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Ctechnology%20%26%20science=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.msnbc.msn.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Internal%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=59518446)
Quote
According to the class action suit against Hulu, the video content company violated the VPPA by sharing user viewing histories with third parties. Hulu argued that viewers didn’t count as “consumers” because they didn’t pay for content, and further, the company disclosed information as part of its “ordinary course of . . . business.”

The court disagreed.

“Congress [intended to protect] the confidentiality of private information about viewing preferences regardless of the business model or media format involved,” the court wrote in its finding.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on August 20, 2012, 10:01:06 pm
So...is this good? It sounds good, from a privacy standpoint. Of course, the comments section disagrees.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on August 20, 2012, 10:14:15 pm
Courts flooded with poorer Americans representing themselves (http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/20/13375779-courts-flooded-with-poorer-americans-representing-themselves?lite)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on August 21, 2012, 01:30:39 am
Huh. Isn't that what the public defender system is supposed to help out with? Or are those only for criminal cases? (I do not have much knowledge of the system.)

Not a good situation. Apparently people who represent themselves lose more often. Lots of poor people are representing themselves. The poor people start losing cases more. They might not be paying lawyer fees, but they will have to pay other court fees, plus damages and whatnot if they lose a civil case, etc. And thus they remain poor and unable to hire a lawyer.

Spoiler: I hope you like dark humor? (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on August 22, 2012, 07:40:25 pm
Whose face can I scream at about this one? (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/22/opinion/prewitt-rapist-visitation-rights/index.html)

Quote
    It would not be long before I would learn firsthand that in the vast majority of states -- 31 -- men who father through rape are able to assert the same custody and visitation rights to their children that other fathers enjoy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 22, 2012, 07:43:21 pm
Hrm, makes me wonder if they have to pay child support and such too.


Another hypothetical interesting scenario: Woman doesn't want to raise child but still wants to conceive it. Man (rapist) wants to raise child out of guilt/whatever. He's deemed competent to raise it. Should he be able to?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 23, 2012, 12:20:40 am
Muslims demand breakaway Islamic nation in Norway or another 9/11 threatened (http://www.examiner.com/article/muslims-demand-breakaway-islamic-nation-norway-or-another-9-11-threatened)

Quote
    "If norwegian soldiers can take planes to Afghanistan, then Osama and Mohammed can also take planes to Norway, inshaAllah.

    Now, the government must wake up and assume responsibility, before this war spreads to Norway. Before the counterpart reacts. Before moslems take the step necessary.

    Do not confuse the moslems’ silence with weakness. Do not profit from the moslems’ patience. Do not force us to do something that can be avoided. This is not a threat, only the words of truth. The words of justice.

    A warning that the consequences can be fatal. A warning about a 9/11 on norwegian ground, or larger attacks than the one carried out on 22 july. This is for your own good and in your own best interest.’

    We do not want to be a part of norwegian society. And we do not consider it necessary either to move away from Norway, because we were born and grew up here. And Allah’s earth belongs to everybody.

    But let Grønland become ours. Bar this city quarter and let us control it the way we wish to do it. This is the best for both parts.

    We do not wish to live together with dirty beasts like you."
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/005/498/1300044776986.jpg)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 23, 2012, 12:34:53 am
Not a progressive RAEG issue.

And I find it very hard to take seriously anyway.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on August 23, 2012, 12:48:52 am
They could have Spitsbergen, I suppose. As an independent state it's not going to survive very long.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EveryZig on August 23, 2012, 12:53:01 am
Crazy extremist group is crazy extremist group. It is unfortunate, but it is more a matter for law enforcement than for politics unless the person saying that represents (or is generally accepted by) a demographic rather than a terrorist group.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Capntastic on August 23, 2012, 02:37:55 am
Ah yes, Examiner.com, a site that lets almost anyone write for them (and asks you to do so at the end of every article!), and pays them per hit. 

You should really not just blind-link articles from them, especially when the site's own administration points out you'd have to be an idiot to take any of it seriously.

Quote
When questioned [about factual inaccuracies and plagiarism], Jim Pimental, executive editor of Examiner said,

    "They're blogs. They don't get edited. We don't give any direction to people on what to write in their blogs. And that's standard operating procedure."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on August 23, 2012, 04:59:55 am
Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on August 21, 2012, 01:30:39 am
Spoiler: I hope you like dark humor? (click to show/hide)
Pay a thousand *currency*, get out instantly.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mech#4 on August 23, 2012, 06:06:18 am
Get out of what? Jail, or the game? :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on August 23, 2012, 06:10:45 am
Yes.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 23, 2012, 06:15:26 am
Some of them would like to pretend they can get out of the game completely.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on August 23, 2012, 07:55:46 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on August 23, 2012, 06:15:26 am
Some of them would like to pretend they can get out of the game completely.
But no one can ever leave the game, because as soon as they think about The Game, they've lost.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: sluissa on August 23, 2012, 09:46:38 am
Bad RedKing, bad! No biscuit for you.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on August 24, 2012, 11:07:27 am
http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/9-11-coloring-book-features-terrorist-trading-cards-204300629.html

Note that Julian Assange is on the list of "terrorist trading cards".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 24, 2012, 11:14:18 am
Julian Assange is not a terrorist in any way.  If the charges against him are true he's a rapist and has some stuff related to espionage but he clearly hasn't been performing violence to draw attention to a political cause.

Although I do hope that "graphic coloring novels" and the unironic use of the term "faces of evil" catch on.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 24, 2012, 11:21:44 am
What.

Please tell me that's a joke.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on August 24, 2012, 11:31:02 am
I'm pretty sure that any 9/11 colouring book would be intended to be offensive.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: da_nang on August 24, 2012, 11:58:26 am
Speaking of terrorists, Breivik has been sentenced to 21 years imprisonment or "forvaring". It's 10 years minimum but the sentence can be extended indefinitely if he's deemed too dangerous to release. People on the Net (and off it, I suppose), naturally, have missed this little bit and are "criticizing" the court for giving such a "short" sentence. Some are advocating a capital punishment even. It irks me how blind and/or barbaric some people are sometimes.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 24, 2012, 12:02:20 pm
Quote from: da_nang on August 24, 2012, 11:58:26 am
Speaking of terrorists, Breivik has been sentenced to 21 years imprisonment or "forvaring". It's 10 years minimum but the sentence can be extended indefinitely if he's deemed too dangerous to release. People on the Net (and off it, I suppose), naturally, have missed this little bit and are "criticizing" the court for giving such a "short" sentence. Some are advocating a capital punishment even. It irks me how blind and/or barbaric some people are sometimes.

Agreed 100%. I doubt Breivik is ever getting out, and certainly not in less than 21 years.


Quote
"forvaring"

I love Norwegian.

For you not knowing Swedish, "förvaring" just means "storage" in our part of Europe's Conjoined Twin Penis(es).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on August 24, 2012, 12:26:25 pm
Quote from: scriver on August 24, 2012, 12:02:20 pm
Quote from: da_nang on August 24, 2012, 11:58:26 am
Speaking of terrorists, Breivik has been sentenced to 21 years imprisonment or "forvaring". It's 10 years minimum but the sentence can be extended indefinitely if he's deemed too dangerous to release. People on the Net (and off it, I suppose), naturally, have missed this little bit and are "criticizing" the court for giving such a "short" sentence. Some are advocating a capital punishment even. It irks me how blind and/or barbaric some people are sometimes.

Agreed 100%. I doubt Breivik is ever getting out, and certainly not in less than 21 years.


Quote
"forvaring"

I love Norwegian.

For you not knowing Swedish, "förvaring" just means "storage" in our part of Europe's Conjoined Twin Penis(es).
Odd, I always looked at Finland as a third penile landmass.

And yeah, definitely a lot of "missing the point" going on in US coverage of this.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 24, 2012, 01:52:03 pm
Finland is the balls, of course ;)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on August 24, 2012, 02:01:44 pm
Does that make the Karelian Isthmus the 'taint' of Scandinavia?
(I should probably stop this metaphor before Alexander Zhirinovsky threatens to nuke me.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 24, 2012, 02:02:57 pm
Denmark must be the proctologists finger.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 24, 2012, 02:03:29 pm
You guys really like to dick around.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on August 24, 2012, 02:07:14 pm
Quote from: RedKing on August 24, 2012, 02:01:44 pm
Does that make the Karelian Isthmus the 'taint' of Scandinavia?
(I should probably stop this metaphor before Alexander Zhirinovsky threatens to nuke me.)

I dunno, but Panama City is the taint of Florida.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vorthon on August 27, 2012, 07:34:06 am
Insomnia and nausea. I'd be raging, but, frankly, I'm too tired to give a shit at this point.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 27, 2012, 10:11:32 am
... wrong thread?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on August 27, 2012, 10:24:13 am
Maybe he's referring to the Arizona law thing?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vorthon on August 27, 2012, 12:48:42 pm
Wait. I thought this was the thread for stuff not big enough to rage about. See, sleep deprivation is getting to me. I feel really freaking stupid now.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on August 27, 2012, 03:53:03 pm
Happy: Bill Nye rips creationists a new one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU)

WTF: Georgia investigators uncover an anarchist militia within the US Army which was plotting to kill the President and overthrow the US government. (http://[url=http://news.yahoo.com/prosecutor-ga-murder-case-uncovers-terror-plot-173341769.html)

I'm pretty certain those guys could be facing death by firing squad now. They'll be lucky if it gets tossed to a civilian court.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 27, 2012, 03:58:19 pm
The second link isn't working for me redking.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 27, 2012, 04:06:41 pm
FTFY (http://news.yahoo.com/prosecutor-ga-murder-case-uncovers-terror-plot-173341769.html)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on August 27, 2012, 04:12:41 pm
Just finished reading that article. There are a lot of really bad comments below it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 27, 2012, 04:15:33 pm
Yeah that's pretty WTF. Wonder what would've happened if they had stayed undetected longer. Would we have the next Timothy McVeigh?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 27, 2012, 04:50:17 pm
Very scary.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 27, 2012, 04:52:33 pm
Remember me of an article in the Economist about how the GOP destroyed the (small-ish) units within the DHS that was researching right-wing terrorrism, because it's obviously an agenda to restrict 2nd amendment freedoms and smack the right...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 27, 2012, 05:54:08 pm
Quote from: RedKing on August 27, 2012, 03:53:03 pm
Happy: Bill Nye rips creationists a new one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU)

No idea where to stand on this one. Want to respect people's beliefs, but then a.) how do you explain all those dinosaurs, and b.) a lot of people's beliefs say I'm evil.... ???

I think the travesty of it all is, we don't teach kids in that grouping how to think and arrive at ideas: the process of it. O sure, we don't do too great of a job at that generally, but to just shut down the process deliberately is sad. There's a reason we have hypothesis thinking. There's a reason we should have paragraph and sentence structure (I'm talking the more advanced stuff). Without that organization we get stuff like "I can see Russia from my house," and "Taxing the rich won't matter." People don't automatically think about how to justify their actions before they do them. That's sort of a problem.

Then there's this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-slansky-/paul-ryan-said-something-_b_1832377.html
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 28, 2012, 04:54:14 am
Respecting people's belief? Why? You can respect people people without respecting their belief, and if they're wrong you actually do them a disservice by respecting their ideas.

As for Ryan, well, that's liberals making a big fuss out of nothing, like the conservatives did about Biden's comment about the chain. Rape can be a method of conception. A terrible, horrible one, but since it cause pregnancy, it's definitevely a method of conception.

If you share his premise that a foetus is living and that abortion is murder, it doesn't make sense to allow it in case of rapes. Why punish the baby? He didn't do a thing.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on August 28, 2012, 10:34:59 am
I don't like Paul Ryan overmuch, but he is technically correct that it is a (terrible, unthinkable, unwanted) method of conception. It was a pretty dumb way to put it, but my bar for him was never really high in the first place. If we're throwing stone about getting people off the presidential ticket:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that hosting private fundraisers for expats and foreign nationals is illegal.
Quote from: Supreme Court 9-0 decision in Bluman v. Federal Election Commission

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for —

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make —

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

2 U.S.C. § 441e(a).[fn2] The statute continues to define “foreign national” to include all foreign citizens except those who have been admitted as lawful permanent residents. Id. § 441e(b).


$75,000 for a seat at a fundraiser dinner for expats. (http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_romney-outstrips-obama-in-battle-for-the-election-billions_1721360)
Quote
Romney added a further $2 million to his coffers at a $75,000-a-head dinner for affluent US expatriates, held at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel on Thursday.

Also seen here. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9434604/US-election-2012-Mitt-Romney-racks-up-dollars-and-gaffes-on-Olympic-tour.html)

Headline: Mitt Romney aims to leapfrog Barack Obama with expat fundraising (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9427481/US-election-Mitt-Romney-aims-to-leapfrog-Barack-Obama-with-expat-fundraising.html)
Quote
The Republican candidate and former boss of Bain Capital, has tapped deep into his network of banking and private equity contacts to fill places at a £50,000-a-plate dinner at to be held at a secret location in London.

And so forth.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 28, 2012, 10:46:07 am
Those are US citizens living in Britain. What's the problem?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 28, 2012, 10:56:25 am
Yeah, they're not actually foreign nationals so I don't see any issue.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on August 28, 2012, 12:06:00 pm
Emphasis not on the expats so much as the foreign nationals, of course. I suppose that wasn't overly clear in my post, but the idea was that his trips to Britain and Israel both included fundraising dinners for expats (alright) and foreign nationals (less alright.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 28, 2012, 12:42:39 pm
Where does it say there is fundraising from foreign nationals in these articles?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 30, 2012, 12:10:16 pm
270 South African miners who took part in a protest over pay and conditions (the protest continues and the mine is closed as a result) are charged with the Murder of 34 of thier thier co-workers after police opened fire on thier protest... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19424484)

Apparently this is an application of something called "common purpose" doctrine, originally used during the days of apartheid. It holds the protesters responsible as a group for the deaths, not the police that were "forced" to use deadly force. Not a single police officer has been charged. The ANC used to be very much against this law when it was used by the white minorty to opress South African blacks, but now the independant National Prosecution Authority is using it in a manner that seems to support them the ANC is strangely quiet.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 30, 2012, 12:12:16 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 30, 2012, 12:10:16 pm
270 South African miners who took part in a protest over pay and conditions (the protest continues and the mine is closed as a result) are charged with the Murder of 34 of thier thier co-workers after police opened fire on thier protest... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19424484)

Apparently this is an application of something called "common purpose" doctrine, originally used during the days of apartheid. It holds the protesters responsible as a group for the deaths, not the police that were "forced" to use deadly force. Not a single police officer has been charged. The ANC used to be very much against this law when it was used by the white minorty to opress South African blacks, but now the independant National Prosecution Authority is using it in a manner that seems to support them the ANC is strangely quiet.

What. Just... what.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 30, 2012, 12:19:27 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 30, 2012, 12:10:16 pm
270 South African miners who took part in a protest over pay and conditions (the protest continues and the mine is closed as a result) are charged with the Murder of 34 of thier thier co-workers after police opened fire on thier protest... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19424484)

Apparently this is an application of something called "common purpose" doctrine, originally used during the days of apartheid. It holds the protesters responsible as a group for the deaths, not the police that were "forced" to use deadly force. Not a single police officer has been charged. The ANC used to be very much against this law when it was used by the white minorty to opress South African blacks, but now the independant National Prosecution Authority is using it in a manner that seems to support them the ANC is strangely quiet.

Faith in humanity: At all time low.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on August 30, 2012, 12:45:41 pm
Same logic as the drunk wifebeater who yells, "Baby, why you gotta make me hit you?".  ::)

It's kinda weird/depressing to see a black ANC government using leftover legal frameworks from apartheid to cover their own asses.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 30, 2012, 12:48:13 pm
South Africa is such a strange place. There's no middle ground there. Everything is either totally modernized or traditional and tribalistic, very wealthy or dirt poor, and the height of progressivism or a reactionary nightmare.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on August 30, 2012, 01:26:20 pm
It's hardly the only place in the world like that, but yes...it can be odd that way.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 30, 2012, 04:18:07 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on August 30, 2012, 12:19:27 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 30, 2012, 12:10:16 pm
270 South African miners who took part in a protest over pay and conditions (the protest continues and the mine is closed as a result) are charged with the Murder of 34 of thier thier co-workers after police opened fire on thier protest... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19424484)

Apparently this is an application of something called "common purpose" doctrine, originally used during the days of apartheid. It holds the protesters responsible as a group for the deaths, not the police that were "forced" to use deadly force. Not a single police officer has been charged. The ANC used to be very much against this law when it was used by the white minorty to opress South African blacks, but now the independant National Prosecution Authority is using it in a manner that seems to support them the ANC is strangely quiet.

Faith in humanity: At all time low.

Ditto. Jesus.

So it couldn't have possibly been the men holding the guns, pointing them at people, pulling the trigger, and killing them. Hell no. It was the group of people they were shooting into.

Shit, by that "logic," It's not the fault of the very smart terrorists who go downtown on separate days, one dressed in a business suit, one in a maintenance uniform, and another in plain old street clothes during a public sporting event/concert, to each individually set timebombs that will go off all at once in 7 days 11 hours 43 minutes and 27 seconds next to critical locations including the city's primary gas main feed after they've skipped the country long ago. Also, they release the criminally insane from the asylums in the city and the nearby suburbs as a distraction.... Na, it's the city's fault.... ???

I mean holy balls, what type of batshit crazy is that? Blame the victims much?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 30, 2012, 04:21:12 pm
It's actually the logical conclusion... assuming one believes laws (and associated punishments) are immutable. The police officer's "hands were forced."

You'd need a nasty totalitarian view to think that, though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 30, 2012, 04:24:43 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on August 30, 2012, 04:21:12 pm
It's actually the logical conclusion... assuming one believes laws (and associated punishments) are immutable. The police officer's "hands were forced."

You'd need a nasty totalitarian view to think that, though.

Yeah, but logic isn't always right and in fact it's frequently wrong.

Given: No person would ever willingly poison themselves.
Given: Cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs have several poisons.
Conclusion: No person would ever willingly do cigarettes, alcohol or drugs....

Logically correct, but completely untrue.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on August 30, 2012, 04:26:15 pm
Not quite. No smart person would ever do that.

And yes, I'm totally being an elititst by saying that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 30, 2012, 04:28:16 pm
Quote from: Truean on August 30, 2012, 04:24:43 pm
Yeah, but logic isn't always right and in fact it's frequently wrong.

Given: No person would ever willingly poison themselves.
Given: Cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs have several poisons.
Conclusion: No person would ever willingly do cigarettes, alcohol or drugs....

Logically correct, but completely untrue.
That's not a problem with logic itself, but the face your first given is anything but :P

I'm sipping on a Mountain Dew right now. Not exactly healthy, and caffeine was intended as a poison by the plants who made it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 30, 2012, 04:29:35 pm
Quote from: Darvi on August 30, 2012, 04:26:15 pm
Not quite. No smart person would ever do that.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
No.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 30, 2012, 04:31:11 pm
Alcohol is at least partly responsible for human civilization, so don't disregard it so quickly.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vorthon on August 30, 2012, 04:32:23 pm
I have a good way to summarize the recent discussion: Humanity is utterly and completely batshit.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 30, 2012, 04:34:33 pm
It's be boring otherwise.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on August 30, 2012, 04:46:03 pm
Quote from: Darvi on August 30, 2012, 04:26:15 pm
Not quite. No smart person perfectly rational agent would ever do that.
FTFY.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 30, 2012, 05:10:05 pm
Can't we just find a link to somebody saying something stupid so we can laugh and get out of fatalistic misanthropy mode?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on August 30, 2012, 05:31:27 pm
Quote from: Darvi on August 30, 2012, 04:26:15 pm
Not quite. No smart person would ever do that.

And yes, I'm totally being an elititst by saying that.

Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Aldous Huxley, Jim Morrison, John Lennon, Charles Dickens, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Bob Marley, Albert Hofmann, (probably) William Shakespeare, Lewis Carrol, Winston Churchill, Aleister Crowley, Salvador Dali, Ben Franklin, Jimi Hendrix, Thomas Jefferson, Jesus, Mohammed, Pablo Picasso and Edgar Allen Poe are among the legions who would like a word with you.

It actually turns out that many studies show those with higher IQs are more inclined towards drug use. (http://news.yahoo.com/science-sure-smart-people-love-drugs-211636314.html)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on August 30, 2012, 05:34:41 pm
I never said that I was right did I.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 30, 2012, 05:37:51 pm
Quote from: Darvi on August 30, 2012, 05:34:41 pm
I never said that I was right did I.
;D
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 30, 2012, 05:38:18 pm
Quote from: Darvi on August 30, 2012, 05:34:41 pm
I never said that I was right did I.

No, we just all foolishly made the assumption that people usually try to avoid being wrong.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 30, 2012, 05:40:03 pm
Psst: He's being facetious, not actually trying to get out of being wrong.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 30, 2012, 05:40:37 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on August 30, 2012, 05:40:03 pm
Psst: He's being facetious, not actually trying to get out of being wrong.

Oh.

Herp Derp to me.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 30, 2012, 06:12:23 pm
It seems likely there's a third factor (affluence) which affects both the metrics they're measuring.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 30, 2012, 10:48:16 pm
Anyway, the premises are totally false. There is plenty of situations where poisoning yourself is the rational thing to do.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on August 31, 2012, 01:04:12 pm
Catholic friar calls Jerry Sandusky that "poor guy", because "a lot of the cases, the youngster -- 14, 16, 18 -- is the seducer" (http://gma.yahoo.com/catholic-tv-star-rev-benedict-groeschel-defends-child-145215741--abc-news-topstories.html).

Man....FUCK the Catholic Church. I've always been something of an apologist for Catholicism (despite being a heathen), but I'm just tired of this shit. The whole damn structure needs an organizational enema.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 31, 2012, 01:06:03 pm
My sympathy for the Roman Catholic Church hit zero a long, long time ago. Now it's just driving the same point into the ground.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on August 31, 2012, 01:17:18 pm
I always tried to keep in mind all the positives the Church had done over the millenia. (Plus, I grew up Lutheran, which is like Catholic minus the Pope, and German instead of Latin).

But this has become such a plank in the Church's eye that they refuse to deal with, while criticizing all the specks in the eyes of others.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 31, 2012, 01:38:26 pm
The Pope has personally tried to cover incidents like this up, so yes, the institution is rotten to the very core.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on September 01, 2012, 02:10:28 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B39W91O-rUg
Good. god.

WTF is this shit?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on September 01, 2012, 02:27:27 am
Something that I would hope will land the party in court.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on September 01, 2012, 02:37:09 am
Quote from: dhokarena56 on September 01, 2012, 02:27:27 am
Something that I would hope will land the party in court.
It's a bit sad they didn't have the fucking foresight to keep their blatant fraud off the god damned teleprompter.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on September 01, 2012, 03:07:19 am
Well, the convention isn't mean to elect the candidate anymore, since Romney had a huge amount of delegate and you can't switch vote anymore. It's a PR event by the party to promote their candidate, Paulites effectively want to use obsolete rules to wreck that PR, seems normal the GOP leadership won't let them do it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on September 01, 2012, 03:10:50 am
Still, the refusal to even say his name was quite dickish.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: G-Flex on September 01, 2012, 03:22:18 am
Why? Do they have to mention the name of every failed nominee?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on September 01, 2012, 03:28:24 am
No, but it just seems, to me personally, that when a state votes 15 Ron Paul and 5 Mitt Romney you at least mention it. Or, in the case of one of the others, you don't cut off their mike.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 01, 2012, 07:54:27 am
The bigger problem is that they shoved in controversial rules via teleprompter and then ignored the minority reports. Oh, and then they ignored the attempts to get Paul officially in the running (which would have given him a 15 minute speech).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 01, 2012, 08:26:53 am
Quote from: Scelly9 on September 01, 2012, 02:10:28 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B39W91O-rUg
Good. god.

WTF is this shit?

Holy fucking shit. Just... what.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 01, 2012, 08:33:22 am
Are you really surprised? The GOP party line is openly supportive of authoritarian, anti-liberty ideals of a uniform and controlled American society. That they would enforce that in the one place where they do have total power is not very surprising.

I hope Ron Paul gathers the sane amongst the GOP and leads them on an exodus, because that's what needs to happen at this point.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 01, 2012, 08:38:52 am
I'm curious whether or not the news will cover this fiasco. I want them to... badly.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 01, 2012, 08:55:22 am
Quote from: greatorder on September 01, 2012, 08:43:02 am
I'm saying that as in 'what is this? I don't understand what this means!'

can someone please explain it?
The RNC did everything possible to hinder Ron Paul's delegates from reaching the convention, forcefully changed the rules against the wishes of the crowd to prevent Ron Paul from being allowed a speech, and generally did everything possible to make it a Romney circlejerk despite Paul's successes in the primaries. They also confiscated at least one Ron Paul sign and sent plants out in the crowd to block them with Romney signs.

The rule changes will also make it pretty much impossible for any candidate besides the one the party leaders favor to have a chance in the future.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 01, 2012, 09:01:45 am
"Chance in the future"... history of American political scuffles (especially the conservative bits of 'em :-\) not exactly being my strong point, was there a point in the last few decades where there was a chance? Seems like this may be a shift toward the more blatant, but still be kind of standard operating procedure.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 01, 2012, 09:16:01 am
Its one thing to disagree with the democrats on every goddamn issue possible just because you want to spite them forever.

Its a whole 'nother thing to treat your own party like shit because they don't pledge %100 percent unquestioning loyalty to you.

Even though my bar for that party is pretty low, I expected more than this, shame on you.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on September 01, 2012, 09:24:42 am
Quote from: Frumple on September 01, 2012, 09:01:45 am
"Chance in the future"... history of American political scuffles (especially the conservative bits of 'em :-\) not exactly being my strong point, was there a point in the last few decades where there was a chance? Seems like this may be a shift toward the more blatant, but still be kind of standard operating procedure.
In the 1800's, the nominee wasn't decided *until* the convention. The primary elections are a relatively new phenomenon in American politics. The 1912 RNC was a good example. Teddy Roosevelt won 9 of 12 primaries, Robert LaFollette won two, and Taft won only one (presumably because he was still trying to squeeze out of his hotel room door during the other 11). However, the remaining 36 states didn't have primaries. So delegates were chosen by the state party bosses. Most of those delegates were then contested. Taft ran the RNC, which controlled how to award contested delegates. Big surprise, over 90% of them were awarded to Taft, which put him over the top. Roosevelt had his delegates abstain from voting, in protest. They walked out, went over to another auditorium, and formed the Bull Moose Party (which actually beat the Republican party in the general election, but both got clobbered by Woodrow Wilson and the Democrats).

Even the 1976 RNC was a good example, when Reagan waged an inurgency against Ford. Failed to get him on the ticket, but it set the stage for him in 1980.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 01, 2012, 09:29:35 am
Obama beating Romney on black voters, 94% to 0%. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80015.html?hp=f2)

In actuality they only surveyed 1000 people, but goddamn.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on September 01, 2012, 09:40:52 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 01, 2012, 09:29:35 am
Obama beating Romney on black voters, 94% to 0%. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80015.html?hp=f2)

In actuality they only surveyed 1000 people, but goddamn.
With a margin of error of 3.1%. I like to think there's a possibility he actually got negative votes.

I can't imagine why. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJWSIqv8NOc)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on September 01, 2012, 09:45:27 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 01, 2012, 09:29:35 am
Obama beating Romney on black voters, 94% to 0%. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80015.html?hp=f2)

In actuality they only surveyed 1000 people, but goddamn.

It's probably because they're all racist.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 01, 2012, 09:46:14 am
Quote from: RedKing on September 01, 2012, 09:24:42 am
Even the 1976 RNC was a good example, when Reagan waged an inurgency against Ford. Failed to get him on the ticket, but it set the stage for him in 1980.
Sooo... only three decades and a little change? Six, seven primaries, something like that?

Good information, though, and I welcome a better informed viewpoint greatly, heh. Guess what I was thinking was that th'kind of behavior we saw is just sorta' the new face of the beast, or the face of the new beast, anyway. GOP's changed, etc., etc. Face of politics in general (in the states) seems to have turned for the worse in the last couple decades (steady-seeming decline since I was aware enough to notice, anyway), really. Hopefully it's just a temporary thing, and maybe it's still roughly following the historical pattern of things, but... suppose when you're in the recession, so to speak, it's hard to see anything but the recession.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on September 01, 2012, 09:59:53 am
Yeah, we hear a lot of talk about "how partisan it is now" or "how Congress is so polarized". It's like hearing "kids these days and that noise they call music". If you look at American political history, it's ALWAYS been contentious and divided. People forget that in 1856, we saw a Representative from South Carolina beat the living shit out of Senator Charles Sumner from Massachusetts over a slavery debate.

Or a bench-clearing brawl in Congress in 1858 that saw over 50 participants. Granted, that sort of thing would be shocking now, but the level of vitriol and lies and propaganda really isn't new. It's just more constantly in our face.

(Albeit, we're just a welterweight compared to the legislative brawls that break out in Taiwan or S. Korea)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on September 01, 2012, 10:03:35 am
My rage. It is palpable. I can feel it with my palps.

I sincerely hope that Ron Paul and his followers break away from that shameful organization. I'm not a fan of the man's politics, but holy shit those guys are so tyrannically evil.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 01, 2012, 10:06:52 am
We're either witnessing a resurgence or the last hurrah of the old brand of conservatism in the US with this. I'm really not sure which, but frankly, you can smell a bit of desperation with how negative things have gotten. I'm sorry, but the right is far more negative than the left in this one, though maybe that's just all the Rush Limbaugh I'm hearing. At least the left is attempting to attack Romney's record and Ryan's philosophy. The right, from what I'm hearing, is making just about every attack personal on Obama. They're questioning everything right down to his citizenship and not being born in this country ( though McCain absolutely wasn't born in the US, but rather Panama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#2008_presidential_campaign)).

What's really quite tragic is that I have heard NOTHING from either side that adequately addresses any problem we're facing in this country. I'm a details person, because I can't deal in bullshit. Obama wants to throw good money after bad in failed government programs and Romney wants to throw money at rich people in the hope they'll start hiring with it. Neither plan is gonna work, because throwing money isn't the solution, it's what you hit with the money you throw.

As for the RNC convention, I don't even know. I watched a part of it, and it's just another political cheer fest for the most part. Although that was slightly interrupted by the whole "not appearing fair to Ron Paul supporters" thing. I truly do not get the Republican response here from a purely tactical standpoint. Everybody knew Ron Paul wasn't gonna get the nomination, and that was never really what he was bringing to the table. Rather, his followers are pretty dedicated libertarian voters who can go either way. Ron Paul was going to provide the RNC with an invaluable service of wooing these voters to their candidate, except the RNC screwed it up by making them feel excluded over... nothing really. I don't get it. Making people vote for them with bullshit warm fuzzy feelings is what politicians are all about; why didn't the RNC do that with the Ron Paul people?

Quote from: RedKing on September 01, 2012, 09:59:53 am
Yeah, we hear a lot of talk about "how partisan it is now" or "how Congress is so polarized". It's like hearing "kids these days and that noise they call music". If you look at American political history, it's ALWAYS been contentious and divided. People forget that in 1856, we saw a Representative from South Carolina beat the living shit out of Senator Charles Sumner from Massachusetts over a slavery debate.

Or a bench-clearing brawl in Congress in 1858 that saw over 50 participants. Granted, that sort of thing would be shocking now, but the level of vitriol and lies and propaganda really isn't new. It's just more constantly in our face.

I'll go with the "constantly in our face," part. I'll of course say this has all been done before since before the fall of Rome as well. Problem: we used to have something called "polite conversation," where you'd keep this shit out of it for at least a little while. It is now all people talk about, in gutter phrases and tones. Business meetings, church, every damn thing seems to have people swawking about it. Used to be it was [insert sports team] or [local scandal, because there's always one going on] or even [school board] or how about [that neighbor people talk about behind their back because people are terrible] or something, but now it's seemingly always this and it's worse. I mean, at least before if you asked/told somebody to shut up about it, they would. Now they seem to respond with, "I'm just saying," as if I didn't know they were saying it and as if I weren't asking them to just not say it....

No?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 01, 2012, 10:23:42 am
Don't worry Ron Paul.  Market forces mean that private organisations can never engage in oppression.

Quote from: Truean on September 01, 2012, 10:06:52 am
They're questioning everything right down to his citizenship and not being born in this country ( though McCain absolutely wasn't born in the US, but rather Panama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#2008_presidential_campaign)).
I don't feel so inclined to attack McCain though - I think his refusal to join many of his supporters in personal attacks on Obama was admirable.  It does show some serious hypocrisy in the Republican camp, though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on September 01, 2012, 10:27:00 am
The way I see it, Obama's platform might keep giving me money for college, and Romney's would not not. I will most likely not be able to afford college if I don't have money to pay for it. I would not like to be in irreparable debt. The social issues are icing on the cake, in parts, but I'd rather they be some other metaphorical food because without Obamacare I probably couldn't afford health insurance to pay for a dentist. I like to think that I'm voting for him because I agree with him more, but I really don't. He's moderate-conservative, I'm LCS-brand Elite Liberal. I do like his stance on gay rights, but his track record on privacy is double-plus-ungood. I could probably live with Romney's social policies, though I wouldn't much like them. I could not live with not having enough money to live on. I suppose that's really where we've gotten with this student debt bullshit. I'm starting to think that us youngfolk are being played. Tuition going up? Well, the Democrats sure have a better stance on helping you pay for that! Oh, it's still going up? Imagine that! I suppose you'll have to pick our candidate, then. It's too bad we couldn't just fix the damn system. What? Healthcare is too damn expensive for college students with their ludicrous debts? My, we could extend their parents' health insurance policies to cover that. Ooh, and once we switch to that system and they have no healthcare of their own, we can position the Republicans as spooky bogeymen just waiting to pull the rug out from under them. Then they'll fucking have to vote for us.

Or do we? I'm getting pretty goddamn tired of this two party system. But where's the viable solution?

Agh.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 01, 2012, 10:45:06 am
The US founding fathers did not construct the US government in a way that anticipated the formation and power of political parties. First Past the Post winner take all elections combined with geographical district based assemblies almost guarantee a system dominated by two parties.

Adding range voting for single position offices and proportional representation for assemblies would go a long way towards breaking the duopoly on power in the US.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on September 01, 2012, 10:45:06 am
Quote from: Scelly9 on September 01, 2012, 02:10:28 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B39W91O-rUg
Good. god.

WTF is this shit?
Quote from: Truean on September 01, 2012, 10:06:52 am
Everybody knew Ron Paul wasn't gonna get the nomination, and that was never really what he was bringing to the table. Rather, his followers are pretty dedicated libertarian voters who can go either way. Ron Paul was going to provide the RNC with an invaluable service of wooing these voters to their candidate, except the RNC screwed it up by making them feel excluded over... nothing really. I don't get it. Making people vote for them with bullshit warm fuzzy feelings is what politicians are all about; why didn't the RNC do that with the Ron Paul people?

Regarding the Ron Paul thing... I continue to find it hard to agree with the media's assertion that he'd have had no chance. I believe he could have united Libertarians, many Democrats dissatisfied with Obama's reluctance to push for reform, the ever-growing Reagan Republicans who find it hard to find a candidate to support these days, and is the first Republican candidate I've seen who'd have appealed to the LGBT crowd with his stance on getting government out of the religious ceremony that is marriage. He kept a good division between his religious values and his political policy, respecting that they were different things, and didn't have to inform one another. He had some dramatic notions about governmental reform, but some post-primary grooming would certainly have tempered his more radical notions, as with most candidates. I'd have liked to see where he and his staff would go; strong opinions and an ability to compromise are cornerstones of a good politics... not another sycophant smiling, nodding, and voting safely along party lines. That way lies stagnation.

But yes, were this an unbiased representative system, I believe he could have easily swung those on the fence to the GOP's side, and had a good shot at defeating the incumbent. Instead, Paul was barred from several primary debates, when he got there he was laughed at and ignored by the hosts until the crowd yelling to let him speak was too large to gloss over, and after editing still had commercial breaks and such cut him off. These are all things that happened, but people don't like to talk about them, or what they may represent. As in the above link, there really does seem to have been a concerted effort to laugh him off the stage, silence him, and barring that to sew the notion that he was too fringe or too extreme to have a shot. And that succeeded.

He was a serious candidate, with some ideas to bring real and needed change to fiscal policy in the government. Instead, the media took a dismissive attitude toward him, and people came to echo the same conclusion. A flat tax, and other forms of real fiscal responsibility must be a scary thing for those in monetary power, for them to feel the need to summon their funds and exercise their influence over the media to blatantly and directly oppose it that way.

The end result is that when asked, many many people will say that they liked him, and a lot of his policies, but figured he wouldn't have had a chance. Divide people with messages of doubt and futility, and what they feel or support wont matter; you've defeated them already. Such is the price of having a mass media who require heavy funding to still exist, especially in an age where advertising dollars are evaporating. The wealthy will continue to have control of information, and thus undue influence over our government, until we find ways within the system of holding them accountable.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 01, 2012, 10:52:37 am
Quote from: Truean on September 01, 2012, 10:06:52 am

As for the RNC convention, I don't even know. I watched a part of it, and it's just another political cheer fest for the most part. Although that was slightly interrupted by the whole "not appearing fair to Ron Paul supporters" thing. I truly do not get the Republican response here from a purely tactical standpoint. Everybody knew Ron Paul wasn't gonna get the nomination, and that was never really what he was bringing to the table. Rather, his followers are pretty dedicated libertarian voters who can go either way. Ron Paul was going to provide the RNC with an invaluable service of wooing these voters to their candidate, except the RNC screwed it up by making them feel excluded over... nothing really. I don't get it. Making people vote for them with bullshit warm fuzzy feelings is what politicians are all about; why didn't the RNC do that with the Ron Paul people?

What they did KIND of makes sense in a certain way.

Had Paul not been impeded by the RNC, there would have (A) been a floor fight (derailing the coronation of Romney) and (B) He would have had a 15 minute speech (which could very well have been critical of Romney). However, they also alienated what potentially could have been a sizable GOP voting block, hurt themselves demographically (since most young Republican-leaners tend to be Paul supporters these days), and alienated several state parties that have been taken over by Paulites. Worse case scenario for Romney right now is Paul endorses Gary Johnson and then the Paul controlled state parties replace Romney on the ballot with someone else/have the electors not vote for him. Since a lot of the Paulite controlled areas are swing states (Nevada, Maine) they could actually cause Romney some significant damage.

Mind, I don't see Romney winning this election. He's actually managed to become far more unlikeable than 2010-2011 Barack Obama, and that's really saying something. The man is positively dripping with smugness, is completely out of touch with the average American (again, more than Obama, which is saying something), and is practically made of plastic. The only way Obama is going to lose is if he screws up somehow or a gigantic depression hits.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 01, 2012, 10:53:43 am
@Solifuge?

What makes you think Ron Paul wants government out of marriage? He voted for the "Defense Of Marriage Act".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

What makes you think Ron Paul kept his religious views and politics separate? He wrote the "We The People Act".
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr539
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 01, 2012, 10:58:04 am
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 01, 2012, 10:52:37 am
Had Paul not been impeded by the RNC, there would have (A) been a floor fight (derailing the coronation of Romney) and (B) He would have had a 15 minute speech (which could very well have been critical of Romney).
So? Unless I'm missing something, this is still supposed to be a democracy. Dissent is a good thing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on September 01, 2012, 11:52:29 am
Quote from: Nadaka on September 01, 2012, 10:53:43 am
@Solifuge?

What makes you think Ron Paul wants government out of marriage? He voted for the "Defense Of Marriage Act".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

I do not want to turn this into Ron Paul Will Fix The World Funtime, but I have to address this:
Spoiler: Ron Paul, on the Defense of Marriage Act (click to show/hide)

In a nutshell, he didn't and couldn't have voted for it, as he wasn't in Congress at the time. However, he's stated that he would have supported the act, because marriage is a religious ceremony, not a federal institution. What governments are concerned with is the financial unification of a household, not what ceremonies people go through before doing so... and despite his personal disagreement with gay marriage, he believes states should have the right to decide what constitutes civil union in the eyes of the state, not the federal government. Speaking of which...


Quote
What makes you think Ron Paul kept his religious views and politics separate? He wrote the "We The People Act".
...which promotes that anything that people do in their private lives, such as their sexual orientation, is not a matter for the federal government to discriminate or pass law on. As marriage licenses are a state institution, this would leave it up to individual states to decide what constitutes marriage, and people can move to states ideologically aligned with themselves, or campaign for local change where their voices have a chance to be heard. I don't like that there's no federal protection for gay marriage in states which have different law, but that's a matter to discuss afterward.


Quote from: GreatJustice on September 01, 2012, 10:52:37 am
Mind, I don't see Romney winning this election. He's actually managed to become far more unlikeable than 2010-2011 Barack Obama, and that's really saying something. The man is positively dripping with smugness, is completely out of touch with the average American (again, more than Obama, which is saying something), and is practically made of plastic. The only way Obama is going to lose is if he screws up somehow or a gigantic depression hits.
I do social research for a living, and interview a lot of people about many things. On the latest study I've been on, we've been interviewing people about economic conditions, and people invariably start talking politics when you broach the subject. I'mma bend the terms of my non-disclosure agreement, and say that the overwhelming majority of people I've interviewed, from a randomly selected sample, have been vehemently critical of Obama, and have jumped to the Romney platform. I hear almost nothing criticizing him... what I hear is "Obama Care is ruining our economy," and "Romney is our only chance to fix this dragging economy."

So yeah, I'm not hopeful that smugness, self-contradiction, or anything will be enough to sway the snowballing effect here. I'll wait for the debates for my final prediction, though... seeing them together will hopefully shift sentiment a bit.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 01, 2012, 11:59:50 am
If America was run like a business. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/fri-august-31-2012/rnc-2012---the-road-to-jeb-bush-2016---the-best-f--king-news-team-ever-audits-america)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 01, 2012, 12:00:27 pm
Quote from: Solifuge on September 01, 2012, 11:52:29 am
and despite his personal disagreement with X, he believes states should have the right to impose X on their citizens, not the federal government.
This pretty much sums up Ron Paul's entire platform.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 01, 2012, 12:20:13 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 01, 2012, 01:59:55 pm
Damn truean the entire time I was reading your post I was imagining the most patriotic and noble of musics playing right behind you, as you stood in front of the American flag dishing out raw truth.

I shed a tear of pure patriotism after reading that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on September 01, 2012, 02:18:34 pm
Quote from: Truean on September 01, 2012, 12:20:13 pm
And you honestly think somebody who wasn't a corrupt bastard, or at the very least employing a few, had a chance at being the President of the US given the type of corrupt environment we're dealing with? I'm sorry, but when I see Ron Paul, I just picture  Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Smith_Goes_to_Washington). Ron Paul, himself, absolutely intended to be a serious candidate, except the deck was stacked against him from the get go. He never had a chance because people were actively trying to rob him of one and he wouldn't sink to their level and smack the dogshit outta them when the camera wasn't on....

I admit, I'm a starry-eyed idealist, but only because I know what potential we humans have. I understand that deep down we all want to survive in the long term and do good, even if many are blinded to large-scale good, because we get overly concerned with ourselves, our wants, our hurts, and the wellfare of those we care about.

However, I'm also aware that if I was ever in power in, say, Westeros, I would very soon be rendered headless.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 01, 2012, 02:43:53 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 01, 2012, 10:58:04 am
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 01, 2012, 10:52:37 am
Had Paul not been impeded by the RNC, there would have (A) been a floor fight (derailing the coronation of Romney) and (B) He would have had a 15 minute speech (which could very well have been critical of Romney).
So? Unless I'm missing something, this is still supposed to be a democracy. Dissent is a good thing.

Hold on, hold on. I'm not saying I agree with Romney. Far from it. I'm just saying why the RNC and Romney would want to derail the Paulites before they got anywhere.

The RNC and Romney wanted the convention to be a coronation and a chance to show off Team Romney. They ideally wanted Romney and co to look good, the Republican party to look united, and to get lots of "Romney says X at convention!" news coverage.

Had the Paulites succeeded, that coverage could very well have turned into "Paul gets 15 minute speech, bashes nominee and splits party", "Paul supporters steal the show", or "Floor fight on convention floor throws Romney viability into doubt". Of course, now a lot of that coverage is "RNC beats down opposition within party, breaks own rules", but the media has up until now generally ignored Paul when it wasn't bashing him.

Really, the RNC should have probably given Paul a little speech, been very accommodating, and wooed his supporters by picking up some of the less polarizing policies (For example, his attacks on the Fed and ideas for competing currencies would have been relatively safe as the number of people who would consider it to be a major issue are quite overwhelmingly on Paul's side). At worst they would have mildly annoyed some of the country club Republicans in states they're unlikely to win, and at best they'd get the support of a very useful group without vote splitting.

Quote from: Truean on September 01, 2012, 12:20:13 pm
I'm not attacking McCain (this time). I'm attacking everybody who puts the screws to the black guy for possibly not having been born in the US (turns out he was born in the US), but the old white guy we KNOW FOR A FACT wasn't born in the US gets a complete pass. Ah, hypocrisy in US politics with a garnish of Racism, it's a staple of our diet..

IIRC birthers didn't really exist in significant numbers until well after Obama's election. I think the big "controversy" of the time was either "OBAMA'S A MUSLIM" or "OBAMA'S PRIEST IS NUTS". For all we know, McCain could have had his own birther equivalents had he won the election.

Quote from: Truean on September 01, 2012, 12:20:13 pm
Ron Paul, himself, absolutely intended to be a serious candidate, except the deck was stacked against him from the get go.

Don't get me started. A few weeks before the Iowa caucus, Ron Paul suddenly began to increase in the polls. However, unlike every other candidate, including clowns like Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann, the media completely ignored it and talked up Gingrich and Romney. About two weeks before the polls opened, he actually came first in several polls, whereupon the media engaged in a gigantic campaign of smear attacks. This lasted for a week and didn't so much as dent his polling, so instead the media picked up an obvious outlier poll and claimed that Santorum was the only alternative to Romney, whereupon Santorum actually began to get support and ended up winning. It was a disgrace of reporting.

Mind, as you said, Paul was partly to blame for being unwilling to ever attack Santorum or Romney, even when it was clear he had to do so to win the caucus. He was willing to attack Gingrich (though Paul and Gingrich have big issues going back to the 90s), and it worked pretty well.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 01, 2012, 04:12:59 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on September 02, 2012, 02:58:04 am
Truean you should be my lawyer in the future.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 02, 2012, 09:40:33 am
Quote from: justinlee999 on September 02, 2012, 02:58:04 am
Truean you should be my lawyer in the future.

Be all of our lawyers.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on September 02, 2012, 12:17:11 pm
Quote from: darkrider2 on September 02, 2012, 09:40:33 am
Quote from: justinlee999 on September 02, 2012, 02:58:04 am
Truean you should be my lawyer in the future.

Be all of our lawyers.
Be all of our everything.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 02, 2012, 12:18:16 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on September 02, 2012, 12:17:11 pm
Quote from: darkrider2 on September 02, 2012, 09:40:33 am
Quote from: justinlee999 on September 02, 2012, 02:58:04 am
Truean you should be my lawyer in the future.

Be all of our lawyers.
Be all of our everything.
"Everything" includes quite a lot of things!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vorthon on September 02, 2012, 06:28:16 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 02, 2012, 12:18:16 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on September 02, 2012, 12:17:11 pm
Quote from: darkrider2 on September 02, 2012, 09:40:33 am
Quote from: justinlee999 on September 02, 2012, 02:58:04 am
Truean you should be my lawyer in the future.

Be all of our lawyers.
Be all of our everything.
"Everything" includes quite a lot of things!
And includes being numerous mutually exclusive things at once.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 02, 2012, 07:06:14 pm
[blush] thank you all for that, but I think that'd be a bit much.

I'm just very sad that I had and lost a large account. Perhaps I shouldn't have said anything? Regardless, I appreciate the sentiment, but I mostly just want friends here. I really can't take cases online, but I appreciate it all the same.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 02, 2012, 07:09:27 pm
Quote from: Truean on September 02, 2012, 07:06:14 pm
Regardless, I appreciate the sentiment, but I mostly just want friends here.
That can be arranged.

/tackle hug
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 02, 2012, 07:15:51 pm
ron paul is not a libertarian championing for personal liberty. he is an anti-federalist seeking to empower the states in oppressing individuals.

What the we the people act does is prevent the us supreme court from defending the constitutional rights of citizens when a state chooses to infringe on them. But only in such a way that it champions the conservative agenda of enforcing religious mandates and abolishing abortion one state at a time.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Wrex on September 02, 2012, 07:47:46 pm
Protip: Work on using more details. Speaking in generalities makes you come off as slightly insane.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 02, 2012, 08:38:09 pm
Quote from: Wrex on September 02, 2012, 07:47:46 pm
Protip: Work on using more details. Speaking in generalities makes you come off as slightly insane.

On the contrary, I find anyone who would defend Ron Paul as anything other conservative christian theocrat who believes in pillage and burn economics and is willing to abuse or tear down the federal government to get it is slightly insane.

On DOMA: section 3 specifies that same sex marriage and civil unions are not recognized for any federal purpose, including military spousal benefits and social security survivors benefits and tax returns. Its not just about protecting anti-gay marriage states from being forced to recognize gay marriage and civil unions, it prohibits the us federal government from recognizing gay marriages and civil unions.

It explicitly uses the authority of the federal government, a violation of his anti-federalist position (but its ok because its used against the scary gays) to strip rights and entitlements from people, even when those rights and entitlements are being recognized and protected by states. It protects the "States rights" of states that are banning gay marriage and civil unions, but violating "states rights" for states allowing gay marriage and civil unions.

the WTPA explicitly enables states to enact laws that infringe on privacy, religious and gender issues without challenge or rebuke by the supreme court. If it was passed, it would mean that Utah could pass a law that only Mormons could hold office, or Michigan could make practicing Islam a crime punishable by death. The supreme court of the US is the last line of defense against the passage of unjust law. And the WTPA is designed to break that last line of defense against religious and gender/orientation oppression at the state level. It is basically Ron Paul trying to worm his way around the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine, but only for the specific ways that he wants states to be able to oppress people rights. This law really is that bad.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Wrex on September 02, 2012, 08:42:21 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on September 02, 2012, 08:38:09 pm
Quote from: Wrex on September 02, 2012, 07:47:46 pm
Protip: Work on using more details. Speaking in generalities makes you come off as slightly insane.

On the contrary, I find anyone who would defend Ron Paul as anything other conservative christian theocrat who believes in pillage and burn economics and is willing to abuse or tear down the federal government to get it is slightly insane.

On DOMA: section 3 specifies that same sex marriage and civil unions are not recognized for any federal purpose, including military spousal benefits and social security survivors benefits and tax returns. Its not just about protecting anti-gay marriage states from being forced to recognize gay marriage and civil unions, it prohibits the us federal government from recognizing gay marriages and civil unions.

It explicitly uses the authority of the federal government, a violation of his anti-federalist position (but its ok because its used against the scary gays) to strip rights and entitlements from people, even when those rights and entitlements are being recognized and protected by states. It protects the "States rights" of states that are banning gay marriage and civil unions, but violating "states rights" for states allowing gay marriage and civil unions.

the WTPA explicitly enables states to enact laws that infringe on privacy, religious and gender issues without challenge or rebuke by the supreme court. If it was passed, it would mean that Utah could pass a law that only Mormons could hold office, or Michigan could make practicing Islam a crime punishable by death. The supreme court of the US is the last line of defense against the passage of unjust law. And the WTPA is designed to break that last line of defense against religious and gender/orientation oppression at the state level. It is basically Ron Paul trying to worm his way around the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine, but only for the specific ways that he wants states to be able to oppress people rights. This law really is that bad.

I wasn't disagreeing with him. At all. It's just that sometimes it's hard to state an argument convincingly, which you, as a lawyer, have no problems with.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 02, 2012, 08:44:50 pm
Im not the lawyer
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Wrex on September 02, 2012, 08:51:25 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on September 02, 2012, 08:44:50 pm
Im not the lawyer


)_). I could have sworn truean made that last post. Whoops. Teach me not to look at the poster when replying. So, uh, redirect all comments to you, I guess?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 02, 2012, 08:57:33 pm
It's the avatar. It looks like Trueans cat.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 02, 2012, 09:10:19 pm
Quote from: Wrex on September 02, 2012, 08:51:25 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on September 02, 2012, 08:44:50 pm
Im not the lawyer


)_). I could have sworn truean made that last post. Whoops. Teach me not to look at the poster when replying. So, uh, redirect all comments to you, I guess?

I do tend to er on the side of brevity (which is not something that can generally be said for Truean), so the original  tip "Work on using more details." isn't really that far off.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Wrex on September 02, 2012, 09:14:28 pm
It's not that you are wrong, per se, it's that being brief can lead to distrust when the other guy is willing to blather on for half an hour about how "Abortion is murder". THe herd listens to the loudest, after all.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 02, 2012, 09:26:09 pm
Yes I'm wordy and I charge by the hour. :P Lol. Actually no. In real life I hardly say anything by comparison. Here I'm trying to talk though. Here I also throw in some stylistic elements as well. It's a crazy thing, words, somehow you can have two different people say the exact same thing to different people and not get the same message across.

It's about what you say, how you say it, who you say it to, and why you say it, rather than how long you take to say it.

Fine line between too much detail and not enough. When you're trying to stoke a thread from the second page of a message board though.... :)

Quote from: Descan on September 02, 2012, 08:57:33 pm
It's the avatar. It looks like Trueans cat.

Scarf, tentacles, tentacles, scarf. Close enough around here. :P [hug]
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 02, 2012, 09:29:46 pm
Yay, unsolicited hugs! Those are the best kind... After parcheesi and naked hugs.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EveryZig on September 02, 2012, 10:27:07 pm
Quote from: Descan on September 02, 2012, 08:57:33 pm
It's the avatar. It looks like Trueans cat.
I never noticed that before, but it is so obvious now...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on September 02, 2012, 10:34:41 pm
Quote from: Truean on September 01, 2012, 04:12:59 pm
Man, I dunno, maybe I'm just too much of a seasoned burnt out vet for this, but I've seen and fought a decent chunk of the world close by and far away. I can't comprehend how the notion of the libertarian ideal of just letting anybody do whatever they want for the most part is supposed to work. Forget that being called anarchy, look at a school playground. The rest of you halfway decent people don't stand a chance against the brutes, the bastards, the bullies without some rules to keep things going. I dunno, to me libertarianism and Paul's ideas just have their head firmly planted in the sand concerning counter corruption measures, which the market will not provide and will in fact discourage. Jaded? Yes. I WANT to believe it, but I don't. Ignoring corruption is like trying to carry on your day with a sociopath pointing a gun at you whenever no one else is looking and imagining it'll be ok.

I should probably clarify that I'm not a Libertarian, nor ascribe to the pseudo-anarchy and anachronistic "Constitutional Originalism" many propose. I was just glad to see that someone stepped into the political arena, and made the deep-rooted problems in our system their focus for a change. The system is sick, and no one wants to diagnose it, or talk about how to fix it... they'd rather blather on about whether or not contraception is murder, or argue how a family of two guys raising an adopted child is not deserving of the same social benefits as a man and a woman raising one... all the while fighting in the popularity contest that is Politics, which they're forced to participate in to preserve their source of income. Those "debates" are crap any sane person could cut with a few minutes of thought, but the more airtime we give "issues" such as these, the more legitimate they seem... and while those preaching them as a political platform are busy playing at their Popularity Contest, the sickness rages on.

Griping about what's wrong or corrupt in the system is all good and fine- vital in fact- but it does nothing if one doesn't have the gumption to address the underlying problems. Do I think Ron Paul was the man with all the answers? Nope, but at least he had the presence of mind to point out the problem for a change.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on September 02, 2012, 11:44:39 pm
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/01/13612739-romney-ryan-vow-not-to-cut-military-budget?lite
Romney and Ryan have promised they will not cut military spending. Yeaaahh. So they aren't raising taxes and they aren't cutting military spending.

I hope they plan on spending money on infrastructure, as there won't be enough bridges to sleep under when they finish cutting everything else in some insane plan to cut deficits.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on September 03, 2012, 03:00:42 am
Goldman Sachs steals billions, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-KWFluqSZs) is taken to court over it, and despite ridiculous amounts of proof, is let go.

Trillions of dollars were "bailed out" to banks worldwide (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3) right out of under the Fed's noses.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 03, 2012, 12:29:16 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on September 02, 2012, 07:15:51 pm
ron paul is not a libertarian championing for personal liberty. he is an anti-federalist seeking to empower the states in oppressing individuals.

What the we the people act does is prevent the us supreme court from defending the constitutional rights of citizens when a state chooses to infringe on them. But only in such a way that it champions the conservative agenda of enforcing religious mandates and abolishing abortion one state at a time.

Eh, well a lot of issues he's pro-personal liberty period (The military, surveillance, etc) and on others he believes either the government shouldn't be involved or that it should be a state matter (gay marriage, abortion).

Frankly, having issues like abortion handled at the state level makes a lot more sense. Also, states are by necessity a lot more responsive to the people living there, since (A) Each person's vote counts for a lot more (smaller population) and (B) Hundreds of millions of dollars aren't generally spent on lobbying as is the case in federal elections.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 03, 2012, 12:34:24 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 03, 2012, 12:29:16 pm
Frankly, having issues like abortion handled at the state level makes a lot more sense.
Elaborate.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 03, 2012, 01:21:28 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 03, 2012, 12:34:24 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 03, 2012, 12:29:16 pm
Frankly, having issues like abortion handled at the state level makes a lot more sense.
Elaborate.

Two schools of thought:

I.) States should handle it: a.) traditionally states have police powers and family law powers. This is that. b.) "States are more responsive to their individual voters." Theory.

II.) The federal government should handle it: a.) it's a civil rights issue. b.) States have a history of trampling individual rights (see, civil rights movement).


[shrugs] I'mma eat some pie.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 03, 2012, 01:37:07 pm
I'm not sure how anyone support abortion in the hands of the states by now anyway. It's been handled by the federal government already, and you can't unring a bell.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 03, 2012, 02:39:52 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 03, 2012, 01:37:07 pm
I'm not sure how anyone support abortion in the hands of the states by now anyway. It's been handled by the federal government already, and you can't unring a bell.
You can if you don't think the 14th amendment is a valid part of the constitution, like Ron Paul.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 03, 2012, 05:18:28 pm
Naomi Wolf on the unusual interest Sweden is taking in the Julian Assange case, and how it's vastly different to the normally lax treatment of rape charges there. (http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sweden-s-other-rape-suspects-by-naomi-wolf)

Excerpt:

Quote
When I reached the Stockholm branch of Terrafem, a support organization for rape survivors, a volunteer told me that in her many years of experience, Sweden’s police, prosecutors, and magistrates had never mobilized in pursuit of any alleged perpetrator in ways remotely similar to their pursuit of Assange. The far more common scenario – in fact, the only reliable scenario – was that even cases accompanied by a significant amount of evidence were seldom prosecuted.

This, she explained, was because most rapes in Uppsala, Stockholm, and other cities occur when young women meet young men online and go to an apartment, where, as in the allegations in the Assange case, what began as consensual sex turns nonconsensual. But she said that this is exactly the scenario that Swedish police typically refuse to prosecute. Just as everywhere else, Sweden’s male-dominated police, she explained, do not tend to see these victims as “innocent,” and thus do not bother building a case for arrest.

She is right: According to a report by Amnesty International, as of 2008, the number of reported rapes in Sweden had quadrupled in 20 years, but only 20% of cases were ever prosecuted. And, while the prosecution rate constituted a minimal improvement on previous years, when less than 15% of cases ended up in court, the conviction rate for reported rapes “is markedly lower today than it was in 1965.” As a result, “in practice, many perpetrators enjoy impunity."

Until 2006, women in Uppsala faced a remarkable hurdle in seeking justice: the city’s chief of police, Göran Lindberg, was himself a serial rapist, convicted in July 2010 of more than a dozen charges, including “serious sexual offenses.” One victim testified that she was told her rapist was the police chief, and that she would be framed if she told anyone about his assaults. Lindberg also served as the Police Academy’s spokesman against sexual violence. The Uppsala police force that is now investigating Assange either failed to or refused to investigate effectively the sadistic rapist with whom they worked every day.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 03, 2012, 05:29:41 pm
...goddamn.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on September 03, 2012, 05:33:11 pm
What the what the what.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 03, 2012, 06:24:37 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 03, 2012, 01:37:07 pm
I'm not sure how anyone support abortion in the hands of the states by now anyway. It's been handled by the federal government already, and you can't unring a bell.

Hardly an argument.

Also, it means that the states that are full of pro-lifers don't have to resort to banning abortion from pro-choice states federally. If you consider it to be that big of a deal then you can move to the next state over where it's legal/illegal. Plus, regardless of which side you're on, it falls distinctly under the category of "State Issue" for the same reason that there is no federal law banning murder. If abortion is considered to be murder then by definition it can't be a federal law, and if it isn't then the 10th amendment would come into effect (though the 10th applies to it both ways in this case).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 03, 2012, 06:28:58 pm
The pro-life movement is never going to succeed in federally banning abortion. The Supreme Court would overturn any such law even if it did pass.

The 10th is one of the most subjectively applied amendments in the Constitution.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vorthon on September 03, 2012, 06:48:49 pm
Ohgod pro-lifers. Motherfucking prolifers. The was a booth for some pro-life group at the labour-day fair where I live. Only thing that marred my day at the fair, to be honest.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 03, 2012, 08:13:51 pm
Some local pro-life group sometimes likes to set up shop at my college. I'm pretty sure I mentioned them once before, the ones who outright tell women that they don't get a say in their own pregnancies.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on September 04, 2012, 04:49:01 am
Quote
She is right: According to a report by Amnesty International, as of 2008, the number of reported rapes in Sweden had quadrupled in 20 years, but only 20% of cases were ever prosecuted. And, while the prosecution rate constituted a minimal improvement on previous years, when less than 15% of cases ended up in court, the conviction rate for reported rapes “is markedly lower today than it was in 1965.” As a result, “in practice, many perpetrators enjoy impunity."

This is pretty Progressive Ra-..Discussion worthy of itself. That is seriously screwed up.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on September 04, 2012, 07:42:38 am
I'm not entirely trusting of Naomi Wolf on this topic, although the facts in the article wouldn't surprise me if they were true. Wolf wrote a gross piece immediately after Assange's arrest that was basically entirely dismissive of the women and has been trying to justify that original position ever since. It's lead her to take hard lines against anonymity in rape cases (something there is debate over but in her case is explicitly to justify outing the two women in the Assange accusations) and write what is frankly bullshit (http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/checking-naomi-wolfs-8-big-problems-in-the-assange-case-and-coming-up-empty/) about the accusations and Swedish prosecution.

It could well be that her figures regarding Swedish rape prosecutions are right, and they certainly sound about right to me, but I simply would not use Wolf as a source for anything involving Assange.

As for the prosecution being political, yeah. But not in any conspiratorial manner.

The accusations against Assange came at the hight of his fame. If you are a country (or just a person within that country) trying to take rape seriously then you put a lot of effort into high-profile cases, simply because public perception is critical in shifting attitudes and without shifting attitudes (especially regarding reporting and guilt) you can't make improvements.

It's not surprising or suspicious that they have been perused with a lot more intensity than usual, especially given the way he left the country. Remember that he effectively skipped out on an active investigation when he was due in for questioning. David Allen Green has published his full account of the legal side (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange) focusing on the English law, but with a brief account of how Assange appeared to flee the prosecution at the start of the whole affair, leaving the country five days after his lawyer was contacted regarding the follow up interrogation. At this stage an arrest warrant was a fairly understandable step. That warrant was then appealed within Sweden by Assange's lawyer and upheld by the Court of Appeal of Svea. Only after this appeal found that the warrant was valid was a European Arrest Warrant issued, certified by the UK and executed when Assange surrendered himself to the police in London.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 04, 2012, 09:09:58 am
First of all, yes, rapes aren't taken as serious in Sweden as they should be, just like everywhere else in the world, because rape culture. There are some pretty shady things with that excerpt, though.


[/quote]According to a report by Amnesty International, as of 2008, the number of reported rapes in Sweden had quadrupled in 20 years, but only 20% of cases were ever prosecuted. And, while the prosecution rate constituted a minimal improvement on previous years, when less than 15% of cases ended up in court, the conviction rate for reported rapes “is markedly lower today than it was in 1965.” As a result, “in practice, many perpetrators enjoy impunity."[/quote]

First she talks about reported rapes. Then prosecuted cases. Then the amount of reported rapes leading to conviction. Of course the the conviction rate of reported rapes is lower than in 1965 - the amount of reports has risen a lot (she herself says it's quadrupled since 1988, just half the time from -65), while rapes remain almost just as hard to actually prove to the police and courts of a rape culture country.

It is strange, too, that she uses this to argue against a case where the reports are actually leading to prosecution. "You didn't to things the right way these other 80% of times, this one time can't be one of the 20% when you do do things right!", or that it should be suspicious because Assange didn't receive the normal response from police since he's famous. Well, what does she expect? Does she think that accusations of rape against, say, a famous pop star, or a French presidential candidate wouldn't receive more attention than a common Joe raping or getting raped? Celebrity cases always gets more attention and resources. Unfair, but nothing out of the ordinary.


Quote
Until 2006, women in Uppsala faced a remarkable hurdle in seeking justice: the city’s chief of police, Göran Lindberg, was himself a serial rapist, convicted in July 2010 of more than a dozen charges, including “serious sexual offenses.” One victim testified that she was told her rapist was the police chief, and that she would be framed if she told anyone about his assaults. Lindberg also served as the Police Academy’s spokesman against sexual violence. The Uppsala police force that is now investigating Assange either failed to or refused to investigate effectively the sadistic rapist with whom they worked every day.

Corrupted policemen and officials exist everywhere, as you very well know, and a lot of them use their power and status to threaten victims or shield themselves from suspicion. This one horrible story has very little to do with Assange's case. As for "failed or refused to investigate", what exactly does she think he was convicted for when it was discovered what crimes he had committed?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 04, 2012, 09:23:49 am
Hrm, "rape culture" or no, these things seem pretty difficult to prosecute anyway (at least for date rapes and such). As these things tend to happen in private, it's one person's word against the other. Difficult to establish proof with just that, unless I'm ignorant of something.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 04, 2012, 08:59:55 pm
Oh hey, compilation video of ... "stuff"... from these last years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q6DNm6rrYY&feature=share

Wowza.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 04, 2012, 10:58:07 pm
 :-\Well  here's a recent doco on the Assange case (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm) by a respectable journalistic outfit, Four Corners on abc tv australia. It's 46 minutes though, but very interesting if anyone wants a better overview than opinion pieces and tabloid newspaper articles.

Anyone who doesn't want to watch the video, they have a transcript here (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm#transcript) (ABC transcript all their news shows).

I'm going to go with what Four Corners are saying unless someone comes up with a better source with actual information.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on September 05, 2012, 08:17:44 am
Quote from: Reelya on September 04, 2012, 10:58:07 pm
:-\Well  here's a recent doco on the Assange case (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm) by a respectable journalistic outfit, Four Corners on abc tv australia. It's 46 minutes though, but very interesting if anyone wants a better overview than opinion pieces and tabloid newspaper articles.

Anyone who doesn't want to watch the video, they have a transcript here (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm#transcript) (ABC transcript all their news shows).

I'm going to go with what Four Corners are saying unless someone comes up with a better source with actual information.
Why is that more reliable than court findings and legal documents? I don't get it. In particular this bit;
Quote
PER E. SAMUELSON: In mid-September he got a message from his then-lawyer, but the prosecutor did not want him and... that he was... for an interview, and that he was free to leave Sweden, and under that assumption he left Sweden in the afternoon of the 27th of September in good faith that he had sought for and got approval from the prosecutor to leave the country.
This is a lie. It's a lie that Assange's lawyer seems to have told people.

During the UK trial it was revealed that his lawyer was contacted and told he was wanted for 'interrogation' on September 22nd. He then left the country on the 27th. His lawyer late claimed that he was unable to contact Assange during this period, but only after it was revealed through multiple sources that he had in fact been contacted by the prosecutor. Originally he lied both to the UK court and to the witnesses for the defence saying that he had never received that request.

Seriously, read pages 7-10 of the Magistrates report (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf). Assange's lawyer comes off as either an enormous liar or the greatest incompetent ever to handle such a high profile case. Notably he had this said about him by the judge;
Quote
Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Ny made no effort to interview his client. In fact this is untrue.  He says he realised the mistake the night before giving evidence. He did correct the statement in his evidence in chief (transcript p.83 and p.97). However, this was very low key and  not done in a way that I, at least, immediately grasped as significant.  It was only in cross-examination that the extent of the mistake became clear.  Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of paragraph 13 of his proof when he submitted it.  I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake.   It cannot have slipped his mind. For over a week he was attempting (he says without success) to contact a very important client about a very important matter.  The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court.  It did in fact mislead Ms Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem .  Had they been given the true facts then that would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way.
It seems the documentary was mislead by Mr Hurtig as well, despite it being made long after that decision was released. I'm not confident in the accuracy of any report on a trial that isn't at least passingly familiar with the court findings of that trail.

Assange did receive clearance to leave the country (or rather, they didn't take steps to stop him), but on the 15th of September before the decision to interrogate was reached. His lawyer received the request for interrogation on the 22nd, Assange left on the 27th. A warrant for his arrest was issued on the 20th of November. This is not the, "12 days after giving Assange clearance to leave the country," stated in the documentary. The only 12 day gap is between his being confirmed clear to leave the country and his leaving, and that clearance was effectively revoked in the middle of that period with the request for further questioning.


They also pass completely over the reality of the allegations, misrepresenting them again as 'consensual sex without a condom'. They further represent the women's worries as about STDs. This is another misrepresentation. The initial (Swedish) police report;
Quote
Vid 14 tiden samma dag inkom två kvinnor till stationen som ville prata och få lite råd om två tidigare händelser och de var lite osäkra på hur de nu skulle gå vidare. Inledelsevis så nämndes brottet våldtäkt och att båda kvinnorna skulle varit utsatta.
At 14:00 that day two women came to the station who wanted to talk and get some advice on two previous events and they were a little unsure of how they would now go ahead. Starting off the crime of rape was mentioned and that both women should have been victimized.
It was after this report that a rape investigation was started. As has been mentioned multiple times, charges come at a late stage (usually after the interrogation Assange inadvertently skipped out on) in the Swedish system. The documentary says, "they did not file any charges against Julian." It doesn't mention the investigation or nature of the allegations.


The completely misrepresent what a red notice is. Interpol notices (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol_notice#Notice_types) are coded regarding the action to be taken, not the severity of the crime or any other factor. Red notices are for people wanted for arrest. Ghaddafi was not subject to a red notice because he was never wanted for arrest and extradition by any other nation. I can't find it now, but I have seen a list of about six current red notices issued for wanted rapists and other sex offenders. It's standard practice. People seem to confuse it with the Operation Infra-Red annual focus on a selected number of serious offenders, which does focus on serious crimes.


This is just the first part and already the documentary has lost me entirely.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EveryZig on September 06, 2012, 04:54:09 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 03, 2012, 06:24:37 pm
Also, it means that the states that are full of pro-lifers don't have to resort to banning abortion from pro-choice states federally. If you consider it to be that big of a deal then you can move to the next state over where it's legal/illegal.
I don't think many people who have strong opinions about an issue like this would find laws they object to less objectionable because they are in other states. Morality (sane or otherwise) has no reason to care where something happens.
Also, I don't think it is as easy to just move as the "move if you don't like the state law" part implies. (True, you would not have to permanently move in the case of abortion, but I hear that argument used in other cases as well.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 06, 2012, 05:56:36 pm
Quote from: EveryZig on September 06, 2012, 04:54:09 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 03, 2012, 06:24:37 pm
Also, it means that the states that are full of pro-lifers don't have to resort to banning abortion from pro-choice states federally. If you consider it to be that big of a deal then you can move to the next state over where it's legal/illegal.
I don't think many people who have strong opinions about an issue like this would find laws they object to less objectionable because they are in other states. Morality (sane or otherwise) has no reason to care where something happens.
Also, I don't think it is as easy to just move as the "move if you don't like the state law" part implies. (True, you would not have to permanently move in the case of abortion, but I hear that argument used in other cases as well.)

The Louisiana pro-lifers would probably generally prefer the California sinners go straight to hell for abortion while their own state comes off clean, and the California pro-choicers would generally prefer the Lousiana hicks keep their restrictions on abortion. Moving if you don't like the state is a helluva lot easier than moving if you don't like the USA.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 03, 2012, 06:28:58 pm
The pro-life movement is never going to succeed in federally banning abortion. The Supreme Court would overturn any such law even if it did pass.

The 10th is one of the most subjectively applied amendments in the Constitution.

Counting your chickens before they hatch isn't a great idea.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Pro-life sentiment has been rising steadily for quite a while now, so I don't think the US federally banning abortion at some point in the near future is that unrealistic. The Supreme Court isn't likely to overturn a law like that for about the same reasons that it didn't overturn ACA assuming it passed without a veto.

Besides that, 10th is subjectively applied largely because of decisions like Ableman v Booth. Decisions mostly relating to personal matters, like medicinal marijuana, have had the 10th applied without incident (though none of the states involved have taken the step of allowing state police to arrest federal agents enforcing marijuana laws). Abortion falls rather clearly under the purview of things that would be covered by the 10th.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 06, 2012, 05:59:54 pm
It hasn't been steadily rising, it's been fighting with pro-choice attitudes for the past decade. One instance of it being higher does not an abortion ban make, and furthermore the Surpreme Court would not uphold such a ban because of precedent. The judicial precedent states and has for a long time stated that abortion is constitutional and can't be banned.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 06, 2012, 06:01:41 pm
That is why they are attempting to amend the constitution to ban or at least allow states to ban abortions.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 06, 2012, 06:04:22 pm
Well, it's a good thing that'll never work. They're going to need a little more than what they have to get an amendment.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EveryZig on September 06, 2012, 06:16:20 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 06, 2012, 05:56:36 pm
The Louisiana pro-lifers would probably generally prefer the California sinners go straight to hell for abortion while their own state comes off clean, and the California pro-choicers would generally prefer the Lousiana hicks keep their restrictions on abortion. Moving if you don't like the state is a helluva lot easier than moving if you don't like the USA.
IIRC, gay marriage is sort of defined on a state level, which has not kept it out of national politics at all. I don't see why the same would not occur with abortion.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on September 06, 2012, 06:54:06 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 06, 2012, 05:56:36 pm
Counting your chickens before they hatch isn't a great idea.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Pro-life sentiment has been rising steadily for quite a while now, so I don't think the US federally banning abortion at some point in the near future is that unrealistic. The Supreme Court isn't likely to overturn a law like that for about the same reasons that it didn't overturn ACA assuming it passed without a veto.
For starters, I think the Supreme Court overturning such a law is entirely possible, for exactly the reason it overturned the ACA.

Upholding the ACA was, in the end, largely a matter of judicial restraint. But such restraint doesn't just apply to laws passed by congress but also binding precedent created by previous courts. Overturning such precedent can often be more significant than just overturning a law in that it can effectively change whole swathes of case law and the validity of government action in an entire sector of life. Flipping Roe v. Wade on most proposed grounds would be a massive shift in the current precedent that would have ripple effects through other areas of law.

Now whether it would happen depends heavily on the Court and who gets appointed, but I don't think it's an easy case that a federal abortion ban would be upheld, and today I feel it would likely be struck down, even with a vaguely conservative court.

As to pro-life sentiment increasing, I feel that misses very important nuance.

The binary of pro-life and pro-choice entirely ignores peoples attitudes towards whether abortion should be legal and to what degree. I've met pro-choice people who have been for heavy restrictions that would be effective bans in much of the country (although admittedly they were not aware of the practical effects of those restrictions). Similarly I've lived with people who considered themselves pro-life but were for legal, safe abortion with only slightly stricter than minimal restrictions. In the end these labels have more to do with identity than actual opinion about the law.

There is a danger of complacency on the pro-choice side, especially given the argument slippage and a generation of doctors who haven't been exposed to the horrors of illegal abortions on a daily basis. But I honestly don't believe the real opinion is anywhere near as bad as that graph makes out.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 06, 2012, 06:57:52 pm
Quote from: EveryZig on September 06, 2012, 06:16:20 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 06, 2012, 05:56:36 pm
The Louisiana pro-lifers would probably generally prefer the California sinners go straight to hell for abortion while their own state comes off clean, and the California pro-choicers would generally prefer the Lousiana hicks keep their restrictions on abortion. Moving if you don't like the state is a helluva lot easier than moving if you don't like the USA.
IIRC, gay marriage is sort of defined on a state level, which has not kept it out of national politics at all. I don't see why the same would not occur with abortion.

Gay marriage has a bunch of legal issues attached to it (tax breaks, etc). Marriage, quite frankly, shouldn't even by defined by the government; if a person wants to "marry" their cat, then they can go right ahead and do so in my books.
Quote
It hasn't been steadily rising, it's been fighting with pro-choice attitudes for the past decade. One instance of it being higher does not an abortion ban make, and furthermore the Surpreme Court would not uphold such a ban because of precedent. The judicial precedent states and has for a long time stated that abortion is constitutional and can't be banned.

I'd say that its rather decisive considering it was about 35% to 65% in favour of pro-choice once and it is now 50% to 40% for pro-life now (not to mention the overall trend is pro-life, if you have problems reading the graph).

The decision could be overturned with a fifth pro-life Justice, and right now the SC has four who would probably overturn it if they could and one who would consider it (and would likely do so were there executive support, going by his history). Hardly an insurmountable obstacle.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 06, 2012, 07:11:47 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 06, 2012, 06:57:52 pm
I'd say that its rather decisive considering it was about 35% to 65% in favour of pro-choice once and it is now 50% to 40% for pro-life now (not to mention the overall trend is pro-life, if you have problems reading the graph).
Aren't we condescending? Of course I can read the graph. I can read that there was one year that is completely out of line with the others and suggests a statistical anomaly. The overall trend is not pro-life. There isn't strong movement in either direction. That graph does not possess a meaningful trend.
Quote
The decision could be overturned with a fifth pro-life Justice, and right now the SC has four who would probably overturn it if they could and one who would consider it (and would likely do so were there executive support, going by his history). Hardly an insurmountable obstacle.
I'd remind you that Scalia and Ginsberg are more likely than not to retire during Obama's second term and be replaced by our very much pro-choice president. The justices are all older people as well, so any one of them in particular suddenly having to retire or even dying isn't out of the question.

Furthermore, the actions of the Supreme Court are not predictable. People were calling each other crazy on this very liberal board for suggesting there was a chance that the ACA could be upheld entirely, and look what happened.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 06, 2012, 07:44:50 pm
Scalia will not retire while a democrat is in office, he might even turn to healthy living to try and not die. He is 100% politically motivated, he exists to serve the conservative agenda and will not leave until he can be sure that a like minded person will be able to take his place.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 06, 2012, 07:47:55 pm
I don't think healthy living can help a man Scalia's age. He's the fattest 78 year old I've ever seen.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 07, 2012, 06:25:39 am
If he didn't already do so Scalia will sell his soul to the devil to not die while a democrat is president.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 08, 2012, 06:03:34 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 06, 2012, 07:11:47 pm
Aren't we condescending? Of course I can read the graph. I can read that there was one year that is completely out of line with the others and suggests a statistical anomaly. The overall trend is not pro-life. There isn't strong movement in either direction. That graph does not possess a meaningful trend.

Well, at the pro-life (2000s) end of the line, the 50-41 is preceded by 51-42. Hardly an anomaly.

At the pro-choice end of the line (1990s), the 33-56 does stand out, yet it is followed by 48-45, 48-43, 48-42, all in favour of abortion. Even if you ignore the single data point of '96, there is STILL a pro-life trend.
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 06, 2012, 07:11:47 pm
I'd remind you that Scalia and Ginsberg are more likely than not to retire during Obama's second term and be replaced by our very much pro-choice president. The justices are all older people as well, so any one of them in particular suddenly having to retire or even dying isn't out of the question.

Furthermore, the actions of the Supreme Court are not predictable. People were calling each other crazy on this very liberal board for suggesting there was a chance that the ACA could be upheld entirely, and look what happened.

Assuming Obama gets into office for a second term, assuming Scalia and Ginsberg don't hold on until after Obama even if he does get a second term (especially Scalia), assuming Obama doesn't appoint a wishy-washy pro-executive justice like Roberts (who, might I remind you, was appointed by Bush). A lot of assumptions there if it comes down to the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on September 12, 2012, 05:16:03 pm
New polls on Minnesota's gay bashing "Marriage" amendment, unfortunate results:
Survey USA (http://kstp.com/news/stories/s2760384.shtml): Support 50%, Oppose 43%
Public Policy Polling (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/09/minnesota-miscellany.html): Support 48%, Oppose 47%

The only silver lining I can see is that the cross-tabs in the SUSA poll is that it shows the ballot measure winning in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area, which I find extremely unlikely considering the general center-left nature of the metro as a whole, even including the suburbs.
As for the reporting, KSTP is owned by a prominent Republican donor (Hubbard broadcasting), but Survey USA is generally a trustworthy institution.

EDIT: On the plus side, people do support civil unions by a large margin (72/25).  But separate is not equal, and all that.
EDIT 2 Electric Boogaloo:  Also, blank votes count as "no" votes, which I have said before, but I'll repeat.  The last amendment we had in 2008 had approximately 5% of blank votes (http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/RsltsConstAmendment.asp).  It won with 55% of the vote and was about increasing the sales tax to help fund environmental and artistic causes in the state, if anyone wants to know.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2012, 01:03:15 pm
More murders by cops?

More murders by cops. (http://www.pixiq.com/article/texas-police-kill-unarmed-man-before-confiscating-witness-camera)

I really find it difficult to put into words how much I hate the police.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 13, 2012, 08:56:17 pm
Kansas is debating removing Obama from ballot, pending more information on birth location:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/sep/13/state-panel-wants-more-information-ruling-obamas-b/
...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 13, 2012, 08:57:52 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on September 13, 2012, 08:56:17 pm
Kansas is debating removing Obama from ballot, pending more information on birth location:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/sep/13/state-panel-wants-more-information-ruling-obamas-b/
...
I don't think the panelists are in Kansas anymore...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Edit
Quote
In 2010, after Kobach made his comments about Obama’s birth certificate in answering questions at a campaign event, an aide attempted to clarify Kobach’s stance and said he didn’t subscribe to “birther” theories. On Thursday, asked by reporters whether he personally doubts Obama’s citizenship, Kobach said he wants to wait on making a statement until “we have the full factual record in front of us.”
Riiiiiight.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 14, 2012, 06:24:53 am
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx
Quote from: Gallup
Whether any of these controversies is related to the shift in Americans' identification as pro-choice or pro-life is not clear. However, it is notable that while Americans' labeling of their position has changed, their fundamental views on the issue have not. If the advantage for the "pro-life" position persists in future Gallup updates on abortion, these would seem to be important factors to look at to help explain the shift in labeling.

A shift in people self-assigned labels, but no shift in how people view the legal status of abortions:

- Less people call abortion "morally wrong" than 10 years ago (2012 vs 2002)
- The exact same number call it "morally acceptable"  (2012 vs 2002)
- 20% in 2012 say abortion should be 100% illegal, in 2002 it was 22%
- 25% in both 2002 and 2012, said abortion should be legal in "any" situation
- 51% in 2002 and 52% in 2012, said abortion should be legal in "certain" situations

So, even with the "upswing" in the last set of polls related to which of the 2 "labels" people use, there has been no concurrent shift in the underlying policy values of those same respondents. If anything, going by the practical aspects, respect for legal abortions is higher if anything.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on September 14, 2012, 08:16:43 am
Quote from: Moghjubar on September 13, 2012, 08:56:17 pm
Kansas is debating removing Obama from ballot, pending more information on birth location:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/sep/13/state-panel-wants-more-information-ruling-obamas-b/
...
If this were to actually pass, I'd say the government should withhold all Federal funding until Kansas can prove it's a US state. I mean, REALLY prove it. After all, isn't it a little too convenient that the people that were supposedly present at its admission to the Union are all dead now? What are they covering up?? And it's a well-known fact that Kansas was previously part of France.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Karlito on September 14, 2012, 08:20:27 am
Quote from: RedKing on September 14, 2012, 08:16:43 am
And it's a well-known fact that Kansas was previously part of France.

And Mexico.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 14, 2012, 09:00:37 am
Quote from: RedKing on September 14, 2012, 08:16:43 am
If this were to actually pass, I'd say the government should withhold all Federal funding until Kansas can prove it's a US state. I mean, REALLY prove it. After all, isn't it a little too convenient that the people that were supposedly present at its admission to the Union are all dead now? What are they covering up?? And it's a well-known fact that Kansas was previously part of France.
There is more evidence for Obama being a natural born US citizen than virtually anyone else in the entire world (maybe excepting a few people born on video under the Statue of Liberty).  Unless all these accusers can produce at least 2 newspapers carrying adverts about their births and their longform birth certificates I don't see why we should listen to them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on September 14, 2012, 10:25:30 am
So, are we allowed to call people that STILL debate Obama's nationality racists yet or not? I mean, the man has shown above and beyond any criteria that his nationality passes any check. It is wrong for me to accuse people who are still bringing it up to be dwelling on his name or skin colour?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Shinotsa on September 14, 2012, 10:29:57 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on September 14, 2012, 10:25:30 am
So, are we allowed to call people that STILL debate Obama's nationality racists yet or not? I mean, the man has shown above and beyond any criteria that his nationality passes any check. It is wrong for me to accuse people who are still bringing it up to be dwelling on his name or skin colour?

I think they've forgotten the whole racist aspect by now, it seems to have evolved into so much more. Sure, racists may be put off by people of different ethnicity, but this isn't that. This isn't them feeling that their country is in less moral hands, this isn't true concern anymore. There is nothing but a seething hate worked into a froth over the period of four years. I don't call these people anything, I am just grateful that we're in a country where angry mobs form rather rarely.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 14, 2012, 11:15:14 am
You know what the hilarious ironic part of it all is? The Birther movement is pretty big in Kenya.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 14, 2012, 11:27:52 am
Obviously BO should run for Kenyan presidency at the same time.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on September 14, 2012, 12:25:28 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on September 14, 2012, 11:27:52 am
Obviously BO should run for Kenyan presidency at the same time.
I'm sure there's probably a strain of Birther conspiracy theory that says he plans to do exactly that, then use his combined powers to cede US national sovereignty to his chieftain in Kenya.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 14, 2012, 12:29:20 pm
It'd be a neat trick. Maybe last day of presidency or somethin'? Just for the lulz?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on September 14, 2012, 12:42:28 pm
And then we'd have no choice but to...whatever the hell it is that Birthers think they do in Kenya. Hunt lions?

Reminds me of The Onion headline in Our Dumb Century where the US surrendered to North Vietnam and reluctantly welcomed our new Vietnamese overlords.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 14, 2012, 02:33:12 pm
Quote from: Reelya on September 14, 2012, 06:24:53 am
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx
Quote from: Gallup
Whether any of these controversies is related to the shift in Americans' identification as pro-choice or pro-life is not clear. However, it is notable that while Americans' labeling of their position has changed, their fundamental views on the issue have not. If the advantage for the "pro-life" position persists in future Gallup updates on abortion, these would seem to be important factors to look at to help explain the shift in labeling.

A shift in people self-assigned labels, but no shift in how people view the legal status of abortions:

- Less people call abortion "morally wrong" than 10 years ago (2012 vs 2002)
- The exact same number call it "morally acceptable"  (2012 vs 2002)
- 20% in 2012 say abortion should be 100% illegal, in 2002 it was 22%
- 25% in both 2002 and 2012, said abortion should be legal in "any" situation
- 51% in 2002 and 52% in 2012, said abortion should be legal in "certain" situations

So, even with the "upswing" in the last set of polls related to which of the 2 "labels" people use, there has been no concurrent shift in the underlying policy values of those same respondents. If anything, going by the practical aspects, respect for legal abortions is higher if anything.

"Certain" situations varies a lot, though. It could be anywhere from "banned always except in cases of rape or incest" to "up to the third trimester", which would quite handily explain the difference in identification.

Also, note that in 2001 those respective numbers WERE considerably more pro-choice than they are today (eg. illegal under all circumstances being only 15% compared to 22% today) AND the longer graph charting views back to ~'96 shows an even stronger pro-choice lean.

This also doesn't address what exactly gives the Federal government authority over abortion in the first place, seeing as how the 10th is pretty clear about the separation between state and federal powers.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 14, 2012, 03:59:24 pm
Well, a 10 year gap should be enough to show any strong "trend". What the figures show is that 10 years ago, the numbers weren't statistically significantly any different AT ALL.

If there hasn't been a statistically significant 10 year shift, i dispute that you can show any "trend"

What you have demonstrated is that the gap from 2001-2002 is bigger than the 2002-2012 gap, and the gap from 2011-2012 is also bigger than the 10 year gap.

Do those year-to-year variances REALLY tell us a "trend"? More likely they're statistical noise.

===

For instance in 2006 there's a big jump in people who said abortion should be legal under "any situation", but no change in "certain situations", and a big drop in "illegal in all situations". within a couple of years, this jump had supposedly reversed itself like it never happened.

If you believe the statistic (22% anti-abortion in 2005, 17% anti-abortion in 2006), that means 1 in 3 hardcore pro-life people decided it should be legal between 2005 and 2006, and that they ALL changed their minds again within 3 years. I don't believe this for a second, these are long-seated views that take years to switch around in individuals. Clearly there are methodology problems with the whole set of surveys.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 14, 2012, 04:47:00 pm
Quote from: RedKing on September 14, 2012, 08:16:43 am
Quote from: Moghjubar on September 13, 2012, 08:56:17 pm
Kansas is debating removing Obama from ballot, pending more information on birth location:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/sep/13/state-panel-wants-more-information-ruling-obamas-b/
...
If this were to actually pass, I'd say the government should withhold all Federal funding until Kansas can prove it's a US state. I mean, REALLY prove it. After all, isn't it a little too convenient that the people that were supposedly present at its admission to the Union are all dead now? What are they covering up?? And it's a well-known fact that Kansas was previously part of France.

Oh look, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/14/1131926/-The-White-House-Tells-Kansas-Prove-U-S-Membership-or-Risk-Removal-from-Electoral-College
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 14, 2012, 04:55:46 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on September 14, 2012, 04:47:00 pm
Quote from: RedKing on September 14, 2012, 08:16:43 am
Quote from: Moghjubar on September 13, 2012, 08:56:17 pm
Kansas is debating removing Obama from ballot, pending more information on birth location:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/sep/13/state-panel-wants-more-information-ruling-obamas-b/
...
If this were to actually pass, I'd say the government should withhold all Federal funding until Kansas can prove it's a US state. I mean, REALLY prove it. After all, isn't it a little too convenient that the people that were supposedly present at its admission to the Union are all dead now? What are they covering up?? And it's a well-known fact that Kansas was previously part of France.

Oh look, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/14/1131926/-The-White-House-Tells-Kansas-Prove-U-S-Membership-or-Risk-Removal-from-Electoral-College

Is that one of those joke news sites? I can never tell anymore.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 14, 2012, 04:59:30 pm
Quote from: darkrider2 on September 14, 2012, 04:55:46 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on September 14, 2012, 04:47:00 pm
Quote from: RedKing on September 14, 2012, 08:16:43 am
Quote from: Moghjubar on September 13, 2012, 08:56:17 pm
Kansas is debating removing Obama from ballot, pending more information on birth location:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/sep/13/state-panel-wants-more-information-ruling-obamas-b/
...
If this were to actually pass, I'd say the government should withhold all Federal funding until Kansas can prove it's a US state. I mean, REALLY prove it. After all, isn't it a little too convenient that the people that were supposedly present at its admission to the Union are all dead now? What are they covering up?? And it's a well-known fact that Kansas was previously part of France.

Oh look, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/14/1131926/-The-White-House-Tells-Kansas-Prove-U-S-Membership-or-Risk-Removal-from-Electoral-College

Is that one of those joke news sites? I can never tell anymore.
I think it is. Only other result on Google is a Democrat Underground thread linking to that page.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 14, 2012, 05:35:07 pm
Yep, its snark: tags on bottom    birther stuff    Fiction    Kansas    Recommended    Satire    Snark

Sigh, only if.  Still, if only for the second you believe its true, its hilarious.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 14, 2012, 07:45:06 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-does-not-think-middle-class-starts-181052583.html

Yes, he does. :). This is him putting spin on it. Regardless. Most people aren't making a fraction of that right now, but he just doesn't give a shit.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 14, 2012, 07:49:07 pm
Court rules that a school cannot compel its students to give them access to their Facebook accounts. (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120913/19485120378/demanding-students-facebook-password-violation-first-amendment-rights-judge-says.shtml)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 14, 2012, 07:49:58 pm
Damn I could barely dream of making that much money.

And 200k to 250k seems like a precariously narrow area for the middle class to exist in (it doesn't).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Montague on September 14, 2012, 09:41:02 pm
Mitt either had another 'gaff' or misspoke, or the source is bullshit.

Nobody anywhere thinks 200k/yr is "middle class". Most doctors, lawyers, engineers, airline pilots or upper management in business make far less money then that. 200k/yr means you have a source of income outside of a normal job and a professional salaried position is upper-middle class at most.

Middle class(s) is generally seen as income between ~36k/year to ~150k/ year. Higher then that, you are solidly capitalist class. Salaried employees don't get paid much more then that. Now, there are a independent, business savvy and highly talented doctors, engineers and lawyers and such people that actually work hard that might pull in 1 million a year or more, but that's still beyond what people describe to be in the scope of the middle class.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 14, 2012, 09:45:06 pm
My father works in what is effectively the second-highest position (it's a partnership, not a corporation) of a not-insignificant auditing company, and he only makes 120k/yr. The median US household income is something like 54k/yr. Romney is crazy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on September 14, 2012, 09:46:15 pm
As if we needed any more proof of that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 14, 2012, 10:01:04 pm
Wisconsin anti-union laws struck down. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-strikes-wis-law-limiting-union-rights-17240678#.UFOnHI4RvP0)

EDIT: 289 workers at a garment factory in Karachi, Pakistan have burned to death due to the factory doors being barred to prevent them skipping work. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/14/karachi-factory-fire-pakistan-health-safety?newsfeed=true)

But of course, many of us have heard this story before. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 14, 2012, 10:34:53 pm
Romney used a really bizarre turn of phrase so it's not surprising it was misinterpreted.  If you're providing an upper bound you give one number, not two (he could've said "$250,000 or less").  However, due to the "or less" it's clear he wasn't saying $200k is the lower bound.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on September 14, 2012, 10:57:39 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 14, 2012, 10:01:04 pm
EDIT: 289 workers at a garment factory in Karachi, Pakistan have burned to death due to the factory doors being barred to prevent them skipping work. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/14/karachi-factory-fire-pakistan-health-safety?newsfeed=true)

But of course, many of us have heard this story before. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire)
Well Pakistan is not exactly the land of rainbows, peace, and prosperity, and Karachi is something of a notorious shithole (though of course, it's hardly the world's only one), so this is hardly surprising...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 14, 2012, 10:59:16 pm
Even in Pakistan, almost 300 people burning to death in a locked factory is pretty notably bad.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Montague on September 14, 2012, 11:03:25 pm
I've boycotted Pakistan since 2003.

I don't buy any product from overseas that isn't up to par with the worker's rights and standards of the USA, at the minimum. Only free countries.

I can say I didn't subsidize the folks responsible for the deaths of 300 Pakistani workers in their slave-pen factory, how about yourself?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on September 14, 2012, 11:12:59 pm
Quote from: Montague on September 14, 2012, 11:03:25 pm
I've boycotted Pakistan since 2003.

I don't buy any product from overseas that isn't up to par with the worker's rights and standards of the USA, at the minimum. Only free countries.

I can say I didn't subsidize the folks responsible for the deaths of 300 Pakistani workers in their slave-pen factory, how about yourself?
... That such an incredibly questionable thing to say, I'm not even sure where to start with it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on September 14, 2012, 11:20:37 pm
Yeah, I can't work out if that was cute or disturbing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on September 14, 2012, 11:27:37 pm
You know, let's try a fun comparison.

I can say with absolute certainty that my words have not been intercepted by Chinese spies, I stay away from cheap Chinese sites, and make sure that nobody I talk to is a Chinese spy. I know for sure that I've never given information to anyone who's ever been anywhere near China. Can you say the same?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 14, 2012, 11:30:13 pm
Quote from: Montague on September 14, 2012, 11:03:25 pm
I can say I didn't subsidize the folks responsible for the deaths of 300 Pakistani workers in their slave-pen factory, how about yourself?
You can say you think you didn't, anyway, haha! Chances are pretty close to 1 that someone you bought from keeps their business running, at least in part, because of someone who does do business with those of questionable employee conditions. So don't worry! You're still helping fund people who treat their employees like shit. At best, you've achieved a degree or two of separation. Welcome to the world of economics since roughly around the point we mass produced the first engine.

M'still working on figuring out if fully ethical purchasing is even possible in a first world country. Pretty sure it isn't!

As for myself, I'm taking it as I figure out companies I don't need to buy from, from an ethical perspective. It's an amusingly large list filled with plenty of companies largely or entirely based in free countries! Poor times. Have to bend ethical code in order to eat.

Not sure how free countries have any intrinsic causative effect on worker conditions, though. Or even a particularly strong correlative one. No one really seems to have a genuinely good track record anymore, heh.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on September 14, 2012, 11:49:06 pm
The really annoying thing is that there's a lot of companies that move the end of their production, the assembly, to the US so they can avoid having to stamp "Made in China" on their product, or they can stamp "Made in the US of A" to make themselves sound patriotic to all the rednecks, but they keep the rest of their production line back in China or wherever shifting a little bit of the job burden to the US in exchange for having an excuse to mark their price up a little bit, and sometimes the US side of things isn't even all that ethical either!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mlamlah on September 14, 2012, 11:52:57 pm
Quote from: Montague on September 14, 2012, 09:41:02 pm
Mitt either had another 'gaff' or misspoke, or the source is bullshit.

Nobody anywhere thinks 200k/yr is "middle class". Most doctors, lawyers, engineers, airline pilots or upper management in business make far less money then that. 200k/yr means you have a source of income outside of a normal job and a professional salaried position is upper-middle class at most.

Middle class(s) is generally seen as income between ~36k/year to ~150k/ year. Higher then that, you are solidly capitalist class. Salaried employees don't get paid much more then that. Now, there are a independent, business savvy and highly talented doctors, engineers and lawyers and such people that actually work hard that might pull in 1 million a year or more, but that's still beyond what people describe to be in the scope of the middle class.

I would like to point out that financial class divisions should take into account needs as well as income, a bachelor making 36 k a year may very well be considered middle class by some, but someone who supports 3 children on a 36 k salary isn't really middle-class.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 15, 2012, 02:47:45 am
Quote from: Montague on September 14, 2012, 11:03:25 pm
I've boycotted Pakistan since 2003.

I don't buy any product from overseas that isn't up to par with the worker's rights and standards of the USA, at the minimum. Only free countries.

I can say I didn't subsidize the folks responsible for the deaths of 300 Pakistani workers in their slave-pen factory, how about yourself?

I'm more interested in knowing how you research your companies, given that even companies that swear off bad standards tend to be very unwilling to show where their products come from and give even professional journalists a hard time trying to follow the trail. So if you really do have a working method you could tell us, it would certainly lift a boulder off my conscience.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on September 15, 2012, 03:07:22 am
Quote from: scriver on September 15, 2012, 02:47:45 am
Quote from: Montague on September 14, 2012, 11:03:25 pm
I've boycotted Pakistan since 2003.

I don't buy any product from overseas that isn't up to par with the worker's rights and standards of the USA, at the minimum. Only free countries.

I can say I didn't subsidize the folks responsible for the deaths of 300 Pakistani workers in their slave-pen factory, how about yourself?

I'm more interested in knowing how you research your companies, given that even companies that swear off bad standards tend to be very unwilling to show where their products come from and give even professional journalists a hard time trying to follow the trail. So if you really do have a working method you could tell us, it would certainly lift a boulder off my conscience.
Yes, I'd especially like to hear where he got ethical computer parts for the machine he's using, and ethical energy for that matter. Or even just ethical housing, assuming he isn't posting this from a cave with a bicycle powered self-made computer.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 15, 2012, 08:55:11 am
Quote from: Reelya on September 14, 2012, 03:59:24 pm
Well, a 10 year gap should be enough to show any strong "trend". What the figures show is that 10 years ago, the numbers weren't statistically significantly any different AT ALL.

If there hasn't been a statistically significant 10 year shift, i dispute that you can show any "trend"

What you have demonstrated is that the gap from 2001-2002 is bigger than the 2002-2012 gap, and the gap from 2011-2012 is also bigger than the 10 year gap.

Do those year-to-year variances REALLY tell us a "trend"? More likely they're statistical noise.

===

For instance in 2006 there's a big jump in people who said abortion should be legal under "any situation", but no change in "certain situations", and a big drop in "illegal in all situations". within a couple of years, this jump had supposedly reversed itself like it never happened.

If you believe the statistic (22% anti-abortion in 2005, 17% anti-abortion in 2006), that means 1 in 3 hardcore pro-life people decided it should be legal between 2005 and 2006, and that they ALL changed their minds again within 3 years. I don't believe this for a second, these are long-seated views that take years to switch around in individuals. Clearly there are methodology problems with the whole set of surveys.

Yet the trend for "identification" of pro-lifers went up noticeably, and the lowest point on the far shorter survey going into specifics just so happens to be in 2001, the year before a fairly sharp increase in the identification of pro-choicers. From '96 to '01, identification is far steadier and far more pro-choice. 2001 on its own wouldn't be enough to prove anything, but in the context of the identification graph it so happens to largely fit in to the trends.

Also, as said before, "legal under certain circumstances" can range all the way across the spectrum. You could have 20% in favour under any circumstances, 10% illegal under any circumstances and 70% under "certain circumstances", yet most of that group could very well be just about as pro-life as possible without supporting an outright ban, which would be more than enough to get them to support someone overturning the present state of abortion politics.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on September 15, 2012, 11:57:41 am
Quote from: Pnx on September 15, 2012, 03:07:22 am
Quote from: scriver on September 15, 2012, 02:47:45 am
Quote from: Montague on September 14, 2012, 11:03:25 pm
I've boycotted Pakistan since 2003.

I don't buy any product from overseas that isn't up to par with the worker's rights and standards of the USA, at the minimum. Only free countries.

I can say I didn't subsidize the folks responsible for the deaths of 300 Pakistani workers in their slave-pen factory, how about yourself?

I'm more interested in knowing how you research your companies, given that even companies that swear off bad standards tend to be very unwilling to show where their products come from and give even professional journalists a hard time trying to follow the trail. So if you really do have a working method you could tell us, it would certainly lift a boulder off my conscience.
Yes, I'd especially like to hear where he got ethical computer parts for the machine he's using, and ethical energy for that matter. Or even just ethical housing, assuming he isn't posting this from a cave with a bicycle powered self-made computer.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 15, 2012, 01:14:49 pm
Finally, I can agree with Santorum on something.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/rick-santorum-says-smart-people-will-never-be-on
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 15, 2012, 01:17:38 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on September 15, 2012, 01:14:49 pm
Finally, I can agree with Santorum on something.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/rick-santorum-says-smart-people-will-never-be-on

Holy crap please say this is an Onion article?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 01:24:20 pm
Quote from: Truean on September 15, 2012, 01:17:38 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on September 15, 2012, 01:14:49 pm
Finally, I can agree with Santorum on something.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/rick-santorum-says-smart-people-will-never-be-on

Holy crap please say this is an Onion article?
Don't you know? The Bible says "Rely not on your own understanding." Dem college intellectuals are commies and hate America.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on September 15, 2012, 01:54:01 pm
Wow. If that is true, he is a late night show scriptwriter's wet dream.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on September 15, 2012, 02:43:33 pm
Well even if it is a bit of... a weird gaff, he does actually have a point in a kind of weird way. Intelligent, well educated, people tend to trend away religious and fundamentalist values, it's because they tend to ask questions, especially difficult questions, and fundamentalists aren't good with questions, they usually fail to answer them or answer them with insane logic.

It was the same reason why Stalin didn't like intellectuals.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 15, 2012, 05:57:56 pm
You have a point Pnx but you still should not point it out (to your clientele). It's like saying: if you like my ideas you are stupid.

So ... this is a parody? not a genuine newspaper article. right?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 15, 2012, 06:09:06 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on September 15, 2012, 01:14:49 pm
Finally, I can agree with Santorum on something.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/rick-santorum-says-smart-people-will-never-be-on
This reeks of satire  :-\
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 15, 2012, 06:48:42 pm
Quote from: Sirus on September 15, 2012, 06:09:06 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on September 15, 2012, 01:14:49 pm
Finally, I can agree with Santorum on something.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/rick-santorum-says-smart-people-will-never-be-on
This reeks of satire  :-\
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n5oa55EsmI
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on September 15, 2012, 06:52:07 pm
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 06:53:45 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on September 15, 2012, 06:48:42 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n5oa55EsmI
First.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 15, 2012, 07:16:21 pm
I haven't stopped laughing. I couldn't run to facebook fast enough to share this.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 15, 2012, 07:20:53 pm
Oh man. It's actually real.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Detonate on September 15, 2012, 07:22:12 pm
Quote from: Sirus on September 15, 2012, 06:09:06 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on September 15, 2012, 01:14:49 pm
Finally, I can agree with Santorum on something.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/rick-santorum-says-smart-people-will-never-be-on
This reeks of satire  :-\

To be fair, American politics are more absurd than satire. The truth is stranger than fiction.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 15, 2012, 07:25:33 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 06:53:45 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on September 15, 2012, 06:48:42 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n5oa55EsmI
First.
Welp, I'm wrong. Apparently Santorum really is that stupid >.<
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 15, 2012, 07:27:19 pm
I always knew he was a nutbag but this just proves the depths.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 15, 2012, 07:29:53 pm
I knew this was the real deal from the start, not spectacular enough for a satire piece, plus the attack on Libertarian Republicans isn't something the other side would dream up.

Scaring away the moderates as well as the libertarians? Sounds like winning GOP policy to me!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on September 15, 2012, 07:32:14 pm
This was at the "Values Voters summit", which is the furthest right of the religious right in the United States, Santorum's line only scratches the surface of the insanity that went on down there.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 07:38:16 pm
Alright, here's news:

There is an effort to mitigate the death sentence of Terry Williams. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/terry-williams-execution_n_1885215.html)

Basic Story:
-Williams lured a known teen molester to believe they were going to have sex, and then murdered him. Very, very violently. 20 stab wounds and a baseball bat violently. For this he was convicted of third-degree murder and sentenced to 27 years imprisonment.

-Six months after the first murder but before he was found out, Williams murdered Amos Norwood, a chemist and church volunteer. He stabbed and bludgeoned him to death, and then he set his corpse on fire. He proceeded to steal Norwood's credit cards and car and was caught not long after. Here's the kicker: Remember how Norwood was a church volunteer? You guessed it, Norwood molested Williams when he was 13. For this he was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The jury was never told about Norwood and Williams' history, but upon finding out later all of them expressed that they would not have sentenced him to die if they had known.

-Williams' defense was found to be negligent by the state, but this does nothing to help him now.

-Williams has been granted a hearing to determine if the prosecution failed to disclose key evidence during his trial.

-A petition has been started to grant him clemency.

-Williams is scheduled to be executed on October 3rd.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 15, 2012, 08:12:38 pm
I don't feel he should be given any leniency based on his past. Vigilante justice isn't something to be supported or allowed; Batman is fake and for good reason.

However, I'm certainly anti giving him the death penalty, for the exact same reason I'm anti the child molester getting bludgeoned to death. Killing people isn't the way to solve problems.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 15, 2012, 08:24:21 pm
It's not the vigilante justice so much as it being revenge after years of abuse.  I know you don't understand the concept of mitigating factors but there were mitigating factors that the jury were not informed about.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 15, 2012, 08:31:01 pm
Quote from: Detonate on September 15, 2012, 07:22:12 pm
Quote from: Sirus on September 15, 2012, 06:09:06 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on September 15, 2012, 01:14:49 pm
Finally, I can agree with Santorum on something.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/rick-santorum-says-smart-people-will-never-be-on
This reeks of satire  :-\
To be fair, American politics are more absurd than satire. The truth is stranger than fiction.

This is exactly why I've been having trouble discerning satire news sites from real news sites since real politics are becoming suitably ridiculous.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 15, 2012, 08:32:35 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 15, 2012, 08:24:21 pm
It's not the vigilante justice so much as it being revenge after years of abuse.
Honestly that's worse.
Quote
I know you don't understand the concept of mitigating factors but there were mitigating factors that the jury were not informed about.
Fair 'nough.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 15, 2012, 08:43:37 pm
Was Amos prosecuted for the molestation (before his death)?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 08:44:56 pm
Not that I know of.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 15, 2012, 09:07:13 pm
Makes me wonder what prevented that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 09:13:38 pm
I don't think anyone knew about it until after he was dead. If they did, it was probably because he was involved with the church. They've been protecting child molesters for a long time, as was discovered over the past 20 years.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on September 15, 2012, 09:16:42 pm
OK, everyone here knows I oppose the death penalty in all cases, including this one, right?
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 15, 2012, 08:24:21 pm
...there were mitigating factors that the jury were not informed about.
Which may not have been relevant to the jury in this case.

It depends on specific state law, but such mitigation is only rarely relevant to a defence. I only found this cartoon (http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/18951395853/excuse-defenses-part-11-excuse-me) today but it's already useful here.

In general for provocation to be a defence for a murder the murder needs to be committed in the heat of the passion invoked by that provocation, as judged by some hypothetical 'reasonable person' (in reality, a juror trying to pretend they are a rational person). In this case the murder was years after the fact, so a 'heat of the moment' case is hard to make. I'd say that the murder being premeditated, with the planning and execution of the crime taking place long beyond any temporary loss of reason, would destroy such a defence regardless.

A justification defence (http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/20559033909/13-necessity) is even harder to make, and pretty much demands that the harm being prevented is a) immediate, b) only prevented by the actions, and c) to prevent a harm greater than that caused by the actions. Given that the killing of an individual outside of extreme circumstances is always seen as a great harm, it's nearly impossible to justify killing someone under US law, outside immediate self defence or it's sometimes subverted cousins.

I'd actually guess that his being molested in the past would only be relevant in terms of sentencing, not guilt. Again, how this would come into it depends on the state and it may be that even then it isn't sufficient for mitigation. But certainly, given how the molestation was completely irrelevant to the question of his guilt, I would not expect the jury to be informed of it. It's outside their need to know (http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/16202923895/interlude-the-jury) and may colour their ability to accurately judge the relevant points of law.

On the other hand, Wikipedia suggests the jury called for the death penalty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Williams_%28condemned_prisoner%29), but the cited article is in French. Anyone got another source on that? If that is the case then I'd guess it was the lack of the molestation being brought up that put him on death row, but that's very hard to appeal. Bringing the molestation up during trial shouldn't have changed the finding of his guilt, but may (depending on the jury, I'd say that is would or at least should) have changed his sentence.

I'd say a crystal clear case to commute the sentence, especially given the range of voices calling for such action.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 15, 2012, 09:56:01 pm
Huh?  I'm not saying he's innocent of murder (all sides agree he is guilty), rather that the people who gave him the sentence (the jury) were not given information vital to deciding whether he should receive that sentence.

I'm pretty sure the jury decides on that matter in Pennsylvania.  At least if articles like this are any indication:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/jury-gives-death-penalty-pa-torture-killing
e: other sources
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/melvin-knight-trial-death-penalty-pennsylvania-man-guilty-torture-killing_n_1846134.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSZFVoYwut4

The practice of juries having to at least recommend a death penalty seems to be standard for America, but I can't find the specific laws pertaining to it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 10:02:09 pm
My understanding is that only a jury is capable of sentencing someone to death, not a judge. In death penalty cases, first the jury determines guilt, and if found guilty if they should be executed. Both decisions have to be unanimous. Unfortunately, the law requires that all jurors in death penalty cases legally affirm a willingness to sentence someone to death before they are allowed onto the jury, so getting that unanimous vote isn't very hard.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 15, 2012, 10:13:29 pm
Yeah that seems like a great way to horribly bias the jury.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 10:19:00 pm
That's one of the prime reasons that the death penalty is almost certainly on its way out in the US. The courts have tried their hardest to balance and objectify it since it was re-instated, and have failed miserably. Quantifiers and stipulations have been piled onto the death penalty so much that it is an entirely different kind of trial from every other criminal trial now, and it still doesn't get enforced well. I'm sure Truean could tell us much more on that, though I don't think she's ever mentioned defending in a death penalty case. Eventually the courts are just going to start ruling that the system had its chance and demonstrated that it cannot handle the death penalty in a constitutional manner at all.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on September 16, 2012, 08:44:19 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 10:02:09 pm
My understanding is that only a jury is capable of sentencing someone to death, not a judge. In death penalty cases, first the jury determines guilt, and if found guilty if they should be executed. Both decisions have to be unanimous. Unfortunately, the law requires that all jurors in death penalty cases legally affirm a willingness to sentence someone to death before they are allowed onto the jury, so getting that unanimous vote isn't very hard.
Crap, yeah, was still operating under the basis that the judge is in charge of sentencing.

I'd guess that the jury should have been informed of the mitigating factors only after the initial guilty/innocent decision was made to prevent that information prejudicing the initial decision, but I'm also contaminated by the British system that has a far more protective view of the jury and what they can and can't know, so may be bringing some of that into this. Either way they should have known before sentencing. Still seems like a hard thing to correct on appeal though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on September 17, 2012, 07:28:00 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 10:19:00 pm
That's one of the prime reasons that the death penalty is almost certainly on its way out in the US. The courts have tried their hardest to balance and objectify it since it was re-instated, and have failed miserably. Quantifiers and stipulations have been piled onto the death penalty so much that it is an entirely different kind of trial from every other criminal trial now, and it still doesn't get enforced well. I'm sure Truean could tell us much more on that, though I don't think she's ever mentioned defending in a death penalty case. Eventually the courts are just going to start ruling that the system had its chance and demonstrated that it cannot handle the death penalty in a constitutional manner at all.
Jesus Christ I hope not, Europe doesn't have Mexico.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 17, 2012, 07:46:53 am
First of all, we have Belgium, which is like thirteen Mexicos, and secondly, what? Are you saying that if you don't have death penalties, then... Mexicans?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 17, 2012, 07:53:32 am
No death penalty = MEXICANS EVERYWHERE
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on September 17, 2012, 07:53:59 am
Quote from: scriver on September 17, 2012, 07:46:53 am
First of all, we have Belgium, which is like thirteen Mexicos, and secondly, what? Are you saying that if you don't have death penalties, then... Mexicans?
Wait, what? Belgium has giant drug cartels that kidnap people and perform bodily flaying and chainsaw decapitations? I just support the death penalty because there are some people which are lost causes and have to be put down.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 17, 2012, 07:55:10 am
It's cheaper (and arguably more humane) to imprison the "lost causes" for life rather than killing them. Plus it avoids the whole hypocrisy thing.

And honestly there aren't that many Hannibal Lecters in the world. Certainly not as many as we kill.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on September 17, 2012, 07:58:14 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 17, 2012, 07:55:10 am
It's cheaper (and arguably more humane) to imprison the "lost causes" for life rather than killing them. Plus it avoids the whole hypocrisy thing.

And honestly there aren't that many Hannibal Lecters in the world. Certainly not as many as we kill.
Huh. China just kills their citizens and bills the family for the bullet. Considering their western provinces and their eagerness to remove kebab, I can see why.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 17, 2012, 08:10:47 am
Quote from: Mrhappyface on September 17, 2012, 07:53:59 am
Quote from: scriver on September 17, 2012, 07:46:53 am
First of all, we have Belgium, which is like thirteen Mexicos, and secondly, what? Are you saying that if you don't have death penalties, then... Mexicans?
Wait, what? Belgium has giant drug cartels that kidnap people and perform bodily flaying and chainsaw decapitations? I just support the death penalty because there are some people which are lost causes and have to be put down.

Ask Darvi. He doesn't live there.

Also. What does insanely twisted Mexican criminals have to do with US punishments? You think a lot of those murders happen on US soil?


Quote from: Mrhappyface on September 17, 2012, 07:58:14 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 17, 2012, 07:55:10 am
It's cheaper (and arguably more humane) to imprison the "lost causes" for life rather than killing them. Plus it avoids the whole hypocrisy thing.

And honestly there aren't that many Hannibal Lecters in the world. Certainly not as many as we kill.
Huh. China just kills their citizens and bills the family for the bullet. Considering their western provinces and their eagerness to remove kebab, I can see why.

Once again, how is this related?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 17, 2012, 08:18:29 am
Quote from: scriver on September 17, 2012, 08:10:47 am
Once again, how is this related?
Italy is the non sequitur capital of the world.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on September 17, 2012, 08:26:44 am
Quote from: scriver on September 17, 2012, 08:10:47 am
Ask Darvi. He doesn't live there.
Even if I did, I don't pay attention to the news anyway, so I wouldn't know :V
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: da_nang on September 17, 2012, 08:29:51 am
In a way, most of this is old news, but still: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/sep/15/data-whistleblower-constitutional-rights (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/sep/15/data-whistleblower-constitutional-rights)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on September 17, 2012, 10:50:07 am
Quote from: scriver on September 17, 2012, 08:10:47 am
Quote from: Mrhappyface on September 17, 2012, 07:53:59 am
Quote from: scriver on September 17, 2012, 07:46:53 am
First of all, we have Belgium, which is like thirteen Mexicos, and secondly, what? Are you saying that if you don't have death penalties, then... Mexicans?
Wait, what? Belgium has giant drug cartels that kidnap people and perform bodily flaying and chainsaw decapitations? I just support the death penalty because there are some people which are lost causes and have to be put down.

Ask Darvi. He doesn't live there.

Also. What does insanely twisted Mexican criminals have to do with US punishments? You think a lot of those murders happen on US soil?


Quote from: Mrhappyface on September 17, 2012, 07:58:14 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 17, 2012, 07:55:10 am
It's cheaper (and arguably more humane) to imprison the "lost causes" for life rather than killing them. Plus it avoids the whole hypocrisy thing.

And honestly there aren't that many Hannibal Lecters in the world. Certainly not as many as we kill.
Huh. China just kills their citizens and bills the family for the bullet. Considering their western provinces and their eagerness to remove kebab, I can see why.

Once again, how is this related?
It leaks over.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 17, 2012, 10:56:07 am
The vast majority of crime "leaking over" from latin america to the US can be blamed on the drug war. If you're concerned about that, then the death penalty is one of the last things you should be advocating to fix it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 17, 2012, 11:03:48 am
Guys, I don't think you've understood his argument.  I'll lay it out for you.

- Europe doesn't have Mexico.
- China kills their citizens and bills the family for the bullet due to the behaviour of their western provinces.
- Mexico leaks over.

Therefore death penalty.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 17, 2012, 11:06:16 am
Well, I'm glad we got that sorted out.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on September 17, 2012, 11:07:19 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 17, 2012, 11:03:48 am
Guys, I don't think you've understood his argument.  I'll lay it out for you.

- Europe doesn't have Mexico.
- China kills their citizens and bills the family for the bullet due to the behaviour of their western provinces.
- Mexico leaks over.

Therefore death penalty.
Can't argue with that.

No, seriously....you can't. It's like trying to julienne Jello.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mlamlah on September 17, 2012, 11:34:14 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 17, 2012, 11:03:48 am
Guys, I don't think you've understood his argument.  I'll lay it out for you.

- Europe doesn't have Mexico.
- China kills their citizens and bills the family for the bullet due to the behaviour of their western provinces.
- Mexico leaks over.

Therefore death penalty.

Is this supposed to make sense?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 17, 2012, 11:34:39 am
Nope!

That's the joke! :D
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 17, 2012, 11:36:27 am
Quote from: Mlamlah on September 17, 2012, 11:34:14 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 17, 2012, 11:03:48 am
Guys, I don't think you've understood his argument.  I'll lay it out for you.

- Europe doesn't have Mexico.
- China kills their citizens and bills the family for the bullet due to the behaviour of their western provinces.
- Mexico leaks over.

Therefore death penalty.

Is this supposed to make sense?
Look man, I don't know how else we can put this to you.

Mexico leaks over. China has to bill people for executions of the western province. Europe doesn't have a Mexico. We need to kill people or there will be total anarchy!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on September 17, 2012, 11:43:49 am
Also, something about kebabs.
Mmmmm....羊肉串
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 17, 2012, 12:23:06 pm
I believe he intends something along the lines of this. Correct me if I'm wrong, MrHappyface.

The US has a lot of unique problems that necessitate the death penalty, such as crime coming from the drug trade with Mexico. Europe doesn't have anything that's equivalent to our Mexico problem so they wouldn't have the same perspective as us. And considering how blunt China is about executing their citizens, it's ridiculous that people over here get so bothered over our death penalty, which is far more humane.

The ridiculing ends now.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 17, 2012, 12:28:36 pm
I got that, but you can't just come on Bay 12 and give your argument in a format that incoherent.

It's also completely irrelevant. The 40 or so Americans executed every year are firstly not Mexican drug traffickers and secondly are so few that even if they were all Cartel kingpins their deaths still wouldn't crash the Cartels.

And not being as bad as China isn't hard.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 17, 2012, 12:33:06 pm
Also MetalSlimeHunt's argument made no reference to Europe at all.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 17, 2012, 12:53:18 pm
I'd like to know if anyone has one single reference to a Mexican drug cartel person executed in the USA. I can't recall any.

I think the China reference was about how affordable it is in China, as opposed to the "too expensive" American model with trials and appeals. And he's blaming China's repressive totalitarianism on uppity Muslims in the west.

He's advocating the knock-on-the-door bullet-in-the-head model of summary justice they used in the Soviet Union in the 1920's.

And don't those Chinese authorities always "get it right":

Quote
Wrongful executions

At least four people have been considered wrongfully executed by PRC courts.

Wei Qingan (Chinese: 魏清安, ?-1984, 23 years old) was a Chinese citizen who was executed for the rape of Liu, a woman who had disappeared. The execution was carried out on 3 May 1984 by the Intermediate People's court. In the next month, Tian Yuxiu (田玉修) was arrested and admitted that he had committed the rape. Three years later, Wei was officially declared innocent.[25]

Teng Xingshan (Chinese: 滕兴善, ?-1989) was a Chinese citizen who was executed for supposedly having raped, robbed and murdered Shi Xiaorong (石小荣), a woman who had disappeared. An old man found a dismembered body, and incompetent police forensics claimed to have matched the body to the photo of the missing Shi Xiaorong. The execution was carried out on 28 January 1989 by the Huaihua Intermediate People's court. In 1993, the previously missing woman returned to the villiage, saying she had been kidnapped to Shandong. The absolute innocence of the wrongfully executed Teng was not admitted until 2005.[26]

Nie Shubin (Chinese: 聂树斌, 1974-1995) was a Chinese citizen who was executed for the rape and murder of Kang Juhua (康菊花), a woman in her thirties. The execution was carried out on April 27, 1995 by the Shijiazhuang Intermediate People's court. In 2005, ten years after the execution, Wang Shujin (Chinese: 王书金) admitted to the police that, in fact, he had committed the murder.[27]

Qoγsiletu (Chinese: 呼格吉勒图, 1977-1996) was an Inner Mongolian who was executed for the rape and murder of a young girl on June 10, 1996. On December 5, 2006, ten years after the execution, Zhao Zhihong (Chinese: 赵志红) wrote the Petition of my Death Penalty admitting that, in fact, he had committed the crime.[citation needed]

4 that we know about ... Considering the quick'n'easy executions in China, and the error rate in the USA even with lengthy appeals and trials, you'd have to assume China makes a lot more mistakes. Hell, the number of executions is a state secret there.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on September 17, 2012, 01:18:42 pm
Yeah, and there's an increasing pushback from Chinese popular opinion regarding the death penalty, precisely because of several high-profile instances of wrongful (or at the very least, questionable) executions. Not that they're ready to shelve it or anything, just maybe...y'know...judicial oversight. Like local courts not being able to issue a death sentence, or that any case where a death sentence was issued would automatically go up to a provincial- or even national-level court for review.

As we've established numerous times in discussions here, local officials are the bane of good governance in China.  :-\


As to the Mexican thing...yeah, I don't get the argument. Unless it's a general "Mexicans are bad, m'kay?" sort of thing. And if you're arguing it's needed because 'those damn immgrants rapin' errybody up in here and stealing our stuff', then it ignores how most of Western Europe regards groups like the Turks, the Polish and the Roma. And they have a completely porous border by design.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 17, 2012, 02:22:21 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 17, 2012, 12:28:36 pm
I got that, but you can't just come on Bay 12 and give your argument in a format that incoherent.

There's only so much ridiculing that needs to be done. I think I cut it off before it got old.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 17, 2012, 04:17:38 pm
Quote from: RedKing on September 17, 2012, 01:18:42 pm
Yeah, and there's an increasing pushback from Chinese popular opinion regarding the death penalty, precisely because of several high-profile instances of wrongful (or at the very least, questionable) executions. Not that they're ready to shelve it or anything, just maybe...y'know...judicial oversight. Like local courts not being able to issue a death sentence, or that any case where a death sentence was issued would automatically go up to a provincial- or even national-level court for review.

As we've established numerous times in discussions here, local officials are the bane of good governance in China.  :-\


As to the Mexican thing...yeah, I don't get the argument. Unless it's a general "Mexicans are bad, m'kay?" sort of thing. And if you're arguing it's needed because 'those damn immgrants rapin' errybody up in here and stealing our stuff', then it ignores how most of Western Europe regards groups like the Turks, the Polish and the Roma. And they have a completely porous border by design.

Polish? You are so stuck in ten years ago :P Nowadays it's all about the Balkans. Oh, and don't forget the Africans and the Middle-Easterners. Besides the Turks and the Roma you already mentioned, of course.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 17, 2012, 04:33:47 pm
Anyone not in the Eurozone, then? :J
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ancre on September 17, 2012, 06:09:26 pm
Quote from: Descan on September 17, 2012, 04:33:47 pm
Anyone not in the Eurozone, then? :J

Yeah basically. Barbarians at the gate !

It kind of depends on the country's history too, I think. Here in France it's mostly the arab maghrebin immigrants, and it's other ethnic groups in, say, the UK, or Germany.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 17, 2012, 09:46:58 pm
Has this made its way through here yet?...

(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/480488_225051620953586_286036756_n.jpg)

Quote
Rape has become endemic in South Africa, so a medical technician named Sonette Ehlers developed a product that immediately gathered national attention there. Ehlers had never forgotten a rape victim telling her forlornly, “If only I had teeth down there.”

Some time afterward, a man came into the hospital where Ehlers works in excruciating pain because his penis was stuck in his pants zipper.

Ehlers merged those images and came up with a product she called Rapex. It resembles a tube, with barbs inside. The woman inserts it like a tampon, with an applicator, and any man who tries to rape the woman impales himself on the barbs and must go to an emergency room to have the Rapex removed.

When critics complained that it was a medieval punishment, Ehlers replied tersely, “A medieval device for a medieval deed.”
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 17, 2012, 09:50:10 pm
Heard of things like those before. Not quite sure what to think of them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 17, 2012, 09:50:43 pm
That's been around for a while.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 17, 2012, 09:51:15 pm
Not a new invention. I'm not totally sure of its effectiveness, either; it doesn't seem like a good deterrent since any potential rapist could just remove it beforehand if they know about it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: sluissa on September 17, 2012, 10:10:05 pm
If someone wants to put something inside of themselves... to keep things from being put inside of themselves, I suppose that's their choice. I see this potentially causing a lot more problems than it would solve though. If someone or something is attacking you, you don't jab at them with a thumb tack. No matter how sensitive of an area you hit, that's just going to piss them off, and if you're already in a position of power imbalance, then it's not going to end well for the person wielding the tiny plastic spikes. You need something capable of incapacitating the attacker.

I also don't see how that would require emergency room care to remove. Unless you were exceedingly forceful at removing it, it looks more like a scissors and a bandage type thing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 17, 2012, 10:11:37 pm
Honestly, if it works, I'm pretty sure it'd be rather incapacitating :P

I'm just not sure it'd work.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 17, 2012, 10:33:48 pm
Quote from: sluissa on September 17, 2012, 10:10:05 pm
I also don't see how that would require emergency room care to remove. Unless you were exceedingly forceful at removing it, it looks more like a scissors and a bandage type thing.

Junk bleeds... a lot.  I've heard testimony from an apartheid political prisoner that they killed one of his friends by nailing his penis to a table and letting him bleed to death.

Anyway... the device has a snopes page. (http://www.snopes.com/photos/crime/rapex.asp)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: da_nang on September 18, 2012, 01:20:35 am
At least it's not Teeth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teeth_%28film%29).

In any case, inducing bodily harm solves nothing. If it becomes common knowledge, what prevents them from removing it before the act?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 18, 2012, 01:24:46 am
I don't see how it's different than any other form of self defense. Is it suddenly wrong to harm someone who's attacking you if you're harming their penis? The internet as a whole seems to think so.

I'm not exactly sure how a typical violent rape goes down, but I'm hoping that causing a rapist to have to check for one of these would open windows for the woman to fight back or escape.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on September 18, 2012, 01:31:25 am
However you see it, fact is that it's a dick move.

Oh, the puns.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 01:35:46 am
The way I see it, it's sort of like people using razor wire to protect their home from burglars. It's overkill that can seriously harm someone; that they're doing something bad (or horrific, in this case) doesn't change that.

I don't see it quite as bad as the razor wire thing though. Ultimately I'd probably find it acceptable if all the other good practices for rape prevention are in place and it's just an added layer of protection. I'm still doubtful of its usefulness, though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: da_nang on September 18, 2012, 01:37:44 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on September 18, 2012, 01:24:46 am
I don't see how it's different than any other form of self defense. Is it suddenly wrong to harm someone who's attacking you if you're harming their penis? The internet as a whole seems to think so.

I'm not exactly sure how a typical violent rape goes down, but I'm hoping that causing a rapist to have to check for one of these would open windows for the woman to fight back or escape.
It's not the self defense part I'm arguing about. It's about curing the symptoms, not the cause. Another problem this device has is that once the trap is triggered, the rapist might get aggravated and turn the situation from rape to assault.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 18, 2012, 01:49:35 am
I dunno. I think I'd be more concerned with the thing shredding my (stereotypical male mode gooo...) most important body part to try and attack the woman I had just attempted to rape. That thing looks quite painful (assuming it, y'know, actually works) and that's a sensitive area.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: da_nang on September 18, 2012, 02:02:46 am
Hence "might". Pain threshold is individual.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 02:32:41 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 01:35:46 am
The way I see it, it's sort of like people using razor wire to protect their home from burglars. It's overkill that can seriously harm someone; that they're doing something bad (or horrific, in this case) doesn't change that.

You think it is a bad thing because people who throw themselves into it might get hurt? I mean I can understand doubts about how effect it really it, we will have to let history see. But if it is effective at stopping more harm to victims then it causes, who cares how much harm it does to the aggressor?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 03:06:05 am
I don't care much for retribution.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 03:09:33 am
Retribution? How about prevention?

And that said, Retribution is a important part of social control. No matter how wrong it might seem to you, there are a lot of things that a lot of people don't do because of Retribution.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on September 18, 2012, 03:13:47 am
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 03:09:33 am
Retribution? How about prevention?

And that said, Retribution is a important part of social control. No matter how wrong it might seem to you, there are a lot of things that a lot of people don't do because of Retribution.
That being said, it's quite ironic that the fear of retribution is the most commonly applied prevention against almost anything.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 03:17:13 am
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 03:09:33 am
Retribution? How about prevention?
Prevention is much better. I'll accept Bad Thing A happening if it prevents Worse Thing B, but ideally neither should happen.

Quote
And that said, Retribution is a important part of social control. No matter how wrong it might seem to you, there are a lot of things that a lot of people don't do because of Retribution.
I understand the concept of deterrents. If you want to argue for punishments, that's fine, but it's unlikely you'll convince me of them having any value outside of prevention. Giving people vindication for their being wronged is not something I'm sympathetic to.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 18, 2012, 03:19:25 am
I'm not sure either... But only because I don't know if it will cause permanent damage or not. I don't believe in mutilation as punishment, no matter the crime. If it just causes healable wounds, I'm more okay with it.

If the "Rapex" becomes commonplace, however, I foresee a large increase in anal rapes. Because unless the causes are dealt with as well, these products won't change anything. But then again, that isn't the direct intention, anyway.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 18, 2012, 06:50:52 am
I'm pretty ambivalent about punishment as a deterrent, but I would kinda' throw out that pretty much every bit of research we've done on the subject has shown that it, well, doesn't make (much of) a difference. Close enough to none to might as well be nonexistent. S'kinda' in the same realm as catharsis (temporary improvement of mood at best, sorry! Generally doesn't even do that, from what we've actually found.). Lots of anecdotal or historical support, falls apart under rigorous scrutiny.

I don't quite remember the specifics, but iirc (big if!), the rough of it is that A) most crimes (/actions society in general wants to be deterred) are crimes of passion, and most people caught in the heat of the moment simply aren't going to consider the consequences of their action -- potential punishment doesn't occur to them until after the act, if at all -- and B) those that aren't either don't care about the possibility of punishment (for whatever reason), making it no deterrent whatsoever, or they don't believe they'll be caught -- again, the possibility of retribution doesn't effect their actions in any particular way, insofar as prevention goes.

For all that we, as humans, in general tend to support retributive punishment, basically everything that involves hard study has shown that its usefulness is marginal, at best, and likely counterproductive in many cases. Even for the victims it tends to be little salve for the damage done. There's a reason so much literature involves the moral that vengeance is empty, perhaps.

Now, on a personal level, all I really know from experience is that dominance play (which involves a degree of punitive action, albeit much more specifically utilized than punishment tends to be in the human realm) can be pretty effective for dealing with several types of animals (dogs and cats in particular) in a positive manner. That doesn't necessarily extend to humans, especially once they're cognitively developed beyond a certain point. Most importantly to me is that retributive punishment just... doesn't seem to do anything. It doesn't seem to actually deter, it tends not to decrease recidivism, it doesn't improve the lives of those transgressed against -- for all that society seems to have this long standing message that punishment does something useful, it seems to, well, not. I'm for action that has positive effect, net gain, etc., so forth, so on. Punishment as a deterrent simply seems to not be that sort of action, which leaves me massively iffy about it.

More than that, I can't really say, I think. As for the object itself, well, maybe a bit of hypocrisy on my part. Rape's a bit of a berserk button and I'd be perfectly fine on an emotional level (if not a cognitive or ethical one) if the damned thing induced a deadly poison or something (though I'd note that removal isn't quite the same as punishment, natch. Different goals.). If it manages to do what the article claims (latch on and not let go, without causing actual damage or being able to be removed without professional intervention), it sounds like it'd be pretty good as an identifier, if not a deterrent. Especially if, I'unno, something like a tracking chip was implanted in the things. Cost'd go up a bit, but it might be useful. Maybe we'll have something even better than that thing at identifying at some point in the future.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 07:00:09 am
Pretty much entirely agree with ya there Frumple, but I'd put a bit more stock in punishments as a deterrent, due to my personal experiences (not a rigorous thing but hey). I will note though that on the level of crime and punishments, any sort of rehabilitative effort for criminals (as opposed to ones intended to punish) will almost certainly serve as a sufficient deterrent, so traditional punishments are still unnecessary.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on September 18, 2012, 07:33:30 am
I'm extremely hesitant to chime in, but I will anyway.

In my personal opinion, I like the device. It transforms karmic punishment from wishful thinking, to something more tangible. A more cruel side of me would like it to have a more malicious design to ensure that intense harm is accomplished whenever it's purpose ever becomes necessary.

That, or attempt to popularize metal chastity belts, perhaps with car alarm-style bells and whistles that go off if damaged. In the same way locked doors keep honest people honest... though I don't think that applies in this scenario, it might de-escalate the situation if the would-be rapist finds the situation is impossible, or atleast highly difficult to succeed in.

But hey, it's personally hard for me to imagine a place like Africa where barbarity and brutality is so commonplace, and justice so very rare. It's too far removed for armchair intellectuals in the first world to grasp realistically, IMO.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 18, 2012, 07:40:41 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on September 18, 2012, 01:24:46 am
I don't see how it's different than any other form of self defense. Is it suddenly wrong to harm someone who's attacking you if you're harming their penis? The internet as a whole seems to think so.

Most forms of self defense aim at reversing the imbalance of power. A rapist can rape you because he can physically overpower you. If you go to a self-defense course at the police they teach how to use clever tricks and a little martial arts know-how to negate this and stay on top. I don't see the rapex doing this. I am all for prevention of rape and if not possible in another way I won't complain if it hurts the attacker .. but i just don't see this device succeeding in that because of all the problems it has that already have been mentioned.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 08:30:45 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 03:17:13 am
Prevention is much better. I'll accept Bad Thing A happening if it prevents Worse Thing B, but ideally neither should happen.

First off, this statement assumes that rape is not as bad as a manged penis. Which is a conversation that I'm going to try to avoid by saying that you are flat out wrong. Secondly, do you really believe that it is not worth inflicted a worse thing on the aggressor then what they are trying to inflict? A rapist chooses (at least at some level) to rape. A rapist is a attacker. The victim is a innocent, they never chose this. How can you say that any level of pain is not worth it if it stops the attack?

If this truly stops more harm to victims then it causes, I don't care how much harm it does to aggressors. It could be filled with fucking lethal toxins that slay the rapist painfully... and honestly I would still say it could be worth it. Innocents are worth far far more then aggressors are.

Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 03:17:13 am
I understand the concept of deterrents. If you want to argue for punishments, that's fine, but it's unlikely you'll convince me of them having any value outside of prevention. Giving people vindication for their being wronged is not something I'm sympathetic to.

Of course punishments don't have a value outside of prevention. But they are hugely valuable for prevention. Which is what this is.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 18, 2012, 08:34:50 am
Fairly sure you got that backwards, Cript. Bad thing A is the mangled penis. Worse Thing B is rape. I'm relatively sure no one particularly sane would say that a rapist getting their genitalia ravaged is worse than the act of rape. Just still a bad thing, or at least a thing that would be-better-if-it-didn't-happen-in-an-ideal-situation (preferably due to a better way of prevention.).

E: Ah, missed the E. Sorry if I jumped the gun.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 08:38:40 am
No, it's fine. But the fact is he seems to be arguing against this on a grounds other then 'it might not work' (Which is something I feel is of course valid, we have no idea if this works and what the effect it will have is.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 18, 2012, 08:54:53 am
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 08:30:45 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 03:17:13 am
Prevention is much better. I'll accept Bad Thing A happening if it prevents Worse Thing B, but ideally neither should happen.

First off, this statement assumes that rape is not as bad as a manged penis. Which is a conversation that I'm going to try to avoid by saying that you are flat out wrong. Secondly, do you really believe that it is not worth inflicted a worse thing on the aggressor then what they are trying to inflict? A rapist chooses (at least at some level) to rape. A rapist is a attacker. The victim is a innocent, they never chose this. How can you say that any level of pain is not worth it if it stops the attack?

If this truly stops more harm to victims then it causes, I don't care how much harm it does to aggressors. It could be filled with fucking lethal toxins that slay the rapist painfully... and honestly I would still say it could be worth it. Innocents are worth far far more then aggressors are.

If it were not for that last sentence that I underscored I could have somehow accepted your argument and line of thought, but this is just wrong. No human being is worth more or less than any other. That last statement of yours violates human dignity and is as such unacceptable to me. Please take a minute of your time to have a look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_declaration_of_human_rights) and what it stands for/means to humanity.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 18, 2012, 08:57:40 am
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 08:38:40 am
No, it's fine. But the fact is he seems to be arguing against this on a grounds other then 'it might not work' (Which is something I feel is of course valid, we have no idea if this works and what the effect it will have is.)
Well, yes, to a degree. Even if it does work, if there's another method that's as effective, but doesn't involve harming rapists (preventing them from forming in the first place, ferex), then preferring or utilizing the harmful method is, well, less good? Not as moral, etc. The ideal situation is the situation of greatest effectiveness and least harm, and inflicting harm without reason or to excess of the necessary is reason to argue against something. "A bad thing is still bad if it prevents a worse thing" is the concept in question. Even if the lesser bad is preferable to the worse thing, it's still not good. Just less bad. Largely irrelevant to the item in question, if the article's accurate. It's stated to not break the skin, just be basically impossible to manually remove.

Though again, most of what we've seen from actual research into psych, sociology, etc., have been pointing strongly to punishment not being "hugely valuable" for prevention. S'why we're seeing a growing movement, such as it is, that's intensely skeptical of punishment as a method of prevention. It doesn't seem to actually work, despite such a heavy prevalence in the general cultural situation. The item being discussed would most likely be more effective at identification than prevention, if it works as described.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 18, 2012, 08:59:03 am
Quote from: lorb on September 18, 2012, 08:54:53 am
No human being is worth more or less than any other.

I could not disagree more. Sure, every human is still human, with all that entails, but I don't see how that means that every human is of the same value. And I'd be willing to bet you'd get no more than a vanishingly small part of the population to agree with that sort of crazy statement.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 09:01:31 am
Equal rights? Sure. Equal worth? Never.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 18, 2012, 09:06:08 am
What has happened to "all men are created equal"? (as written in the declaration of independence)  :-[

Edit: and how can you talk of "equal rights" when you use "not equal worth" as justification to violate article 5 of the declaration of human rights? (No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 09:07:42 am
1: It's wrong.

Or two.

2: If you don't have at least a basis of "Humans all have worth" then it is too easy to slide away from equal rights.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 18, 2012, 09:09:03 am
Just kill them all and let god sort them out.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 09:10:09 am
Yeah. Well. I think that would be a good idea. But I am a asshole, so who knows?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 18, 2012, 09:18:05 am
The declaration of independence is a propaganda piece, no more, no less. It didn't really have anything to do with anything other than rousing the masses.

Now, don't get me wrong, all people ARE create roughly equal (meaning worth not a whole lot). Differences in average value are mostly on a personal level for quite a while afterwards, which is why I have no problem with abortion. The lack of brainpower and lack of desire to keep the baby gives it no real worth.

You generally have to be well into your teens before you get any reasonable value divergence. (generally, plenty of exceptions)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 09:29:00 am
Terrifying statement. I believe people are intrinsically worth quite a lot. But the difference is there.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 18, 2012, 09:42:10 am
I think they're worth quite a lot pretty quickly. I just don't think those worths diverge much until the teens, generally.

Also good to keep in mind:
Value is ALWAYS relative.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on September 18, 2012, 10:19:22 am
Quote from: lorb on September 18, 2012, 09:06:08 am
What has happened to "all men are created equal"? (as written in the declaration of independence)  :-[

They are created equal. Meaning that no group of people (such as an ethnic group, religious group, etc.) is inherently worth more or less. It's what they do with themselves after that that adds or subtracts to that worth.

When you make the conscious decision to force yourself on an unwilling partner....you've just devalued yourself considerably.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 18, 2012, 12:21:43 pm
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ase/schelling_fences_on_slippery_slopes/ might be a good read for everyone, I think.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 12:40:08 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 08:30:45 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 03:17:13 am
Prevention is much better. I'll accept Bad Thing A happening if it prevents Worse Thing B, but ideally neither should happen.

First off, this statement assumes that rape is not as bad as a manged penis.
This has since been corrected, but I'm still curious as to why the hell you'd think I was arguing this direction and not the other.



Re: Worth of people.

IMO everyone, absolutely everyone, has some intrinsic worth. Doesn't matter what they do. This worth entitles them to basic moral considerations, such as not wanting to hurt them if possible without something worse happening.

People then have worth on top of that based on how good a person they are. This is where choice and actions and all that mumbo jumbo comes in. However, I'd argue this is pretty irrelevant when it comes to considering them in your preferred moral system: If you're a deontologist, doing Bad Things to them is no different than doing Bad Things to anyone else. A utilitarian, their happiness isn't worth less than other's. In my view as a virtue ethicist, compassion is a very respectable virtue and even more so when directed at someone you loathe.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 12:47:22 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 12:40:08 pm
This has since been corrected, but I'm still curious as to why the hell you'd think I was arguing this direction and not the other.

Because you were saying the penis mangler goes too far. You said that. You called it overkill.

Then later you said something "I'll accept Bad Thing A happening if it prevents Worse Thing B, but ideally neither should happen. "

So what the fuck is it? Overkill? Or just bad thing A?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 01:50:46 pm
By that logic you could justify any torture for almost any crime.

If the rapex is acceptable during the rape, then it's also acceptable to mutilate genitals after the event, as a corporal punishment. How about we cut one of the rapist eyes out instead of mutilating his genitals? The rapist might actually choose to lose an eye than likely get an infected penis.

But why stop at rapists? We could reinstate corporal punishment and mutilation for a number of crimes. Guillotines place near stealable stuff which chops your hand off if you try and pilfer it, that'd be just as much within rights, after all, the person made the decision to steal from you, you didn't force them. And of course, if that was justified, the government chopping you hand off for stealing would be equally justified. After all, not everyone can afford the hand-guillotine to protect their property.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 01:57:52 pm
Yeeaaah. Except not. If you were reading my posts you would already know what my response to what you just said is:

That is retribution. I don't advocate excessive retribution.

The penis mangling is to stop the action. Not as punishment for doing it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 01:59:31 pm
I have to take it that you're arguing with Kaiyuu entirely for lulz then, because that's exactly his point.

Chopping your hand off prevents stealing. Chopping the dick off prevents further rapes.

Anyway, as Scriver correctly noted they'll just rape girls asses if the rapex becomes common.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 01:59:56 pm
Quote from: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 01:50:46 pm
By that logic you could justify any torture for almost any crime.

How about we cut one of the rapist eyes out instead of mutilating his genitals? The rapist might actually choose to lose an eye than likely get an infected penis.

But why stop at rapists? We could reinstate corporal punishment and mutilation for a number of crimes.
.

The rapist mangles himself, and the victims act was in self defense.

That is an entirely different category than maiming as a punishment.

If you think its horrible that the victim would allow her attacker to be mangled by his own action in the course of her assault., how much more horrible do you find it when a victim fights back and physically resisters her rapist?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 02:00:52 pm
Quote from: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 01:59:31 pm
I have to take it that you're arguing with Kaiyuu entirely for lulz then, because that's exactly his point.

Except no.

Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 01:35:46 am
t's overkill that can seriously harm someone; that they're doing something bad (or horrific, in this case) doesn't change that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 02:02:01 pm
Two words: raped ass. Rapex fails and probably causes more infections itself than rapes it prevents.

Anyway my point about rapex justifying all sorts of mangle-traps around your home and property stands. Why stop at rapist and penises? Booby-trap everything.

Burglar should have known better, i had a shot-gun trap primed.
Unfortunately the courts don't usually see it this way.

But, the burglar was doing something bad (breaking in) so it's justified to mutilate them, right? It prevented the burglary. The fact that there might have been other ways to prevent the burglary in no way makes this less justified, right?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 02:05:48 pm
The point.

Your head.

We already went over the fact that this might not be worth it. The argument is about the idea that there is such a thing as overkill to stop a action.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 02:09:40 pm
You haven't answered any of my repeated points about why is this only limited to rape -_-

No need to be snarky.

Now you're ignoring 80% of my posts and focusing on a side point to belittle me.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 02:10:24 pm
Because I post my last post three minutes before you added them to your post. The time tags are right there.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 02:11:37 pm
Quote from: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 02:02:01 pm
Two words: raped ass. Rapex fails and probably causes more infections itself than rapes it prevents.

Anyway my point about rapex justifying all sorts of mangle-traps around your home and property stands. Why stop at rapist and penises? Booby-trap everything.

No. Your point does not stand. It explicitly fails. Laying booby traps about your home is indiscriminate. The emergency services and police have the right to enter your home without your foreknowledge and consent under certain circumstances. The only time you will have someone entering your vagina without your foreknowledge and consent is while being raped.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 18, 2012, 02:12:42 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 01:57:52 pm
Yeeaaah. Except not. If you were reading my posts you would already know what my response to what you just said is:

That is retribution. I don't advocate excessive retribution.

The penis mangling is to stop the action. Not as punishment for doing it.

Also, we're not talking about a legal punishment here. If someone clawed or cut out an eye while trying to protect themselves from being raped, I wouldn't put much blame on them either.

Also, Cript, it isn't retribution. It can't be, as retribution is giving back for something that already happened - this is about preventing something from happening or rather, protecting oneself from something who is about to happen. Unless, of course, it was you who believed "preemptive retribution".


Quote from: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 02:02:01 pm
Two words: raped ass. Rapex fails and probably causes more infections itself than rapes it prevents.

Anyway my point about rapex justifying all sorts of mangle-traps around your home and property stands. Why stop at rapist and penises? Booby-trap everything.

Burglar should have known better, i had a shot-gun trap primed.
Unfortunately the courts don't usually see it this way.

But, the burglar was doing something bad (breaking in) so it's justified to mutilate them, right? It prevented the burglary. The fact that there might have been other ways to prevent the burglary in no way makes this less justified, right?

There are many different reasons to be on somebody's house or land than burglary or crime. There are very few reasons to be in somebody's vagina, and the chances of they having a non-rape reason to be there and the woman haven't remembered to take it out is very, very small indeed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 02:15:14 pm
Agreement with Nadaka.

Quote from: scriver on September 18, 2012, 02:12:42 pm
Also, we're not talking about a legal punishment here. If someone clawed or cut out an eye while trying to protect themselves from being raped, I wouldn't put much blame on them either.

Also, Cript, it isn't retribution. It can't be, as retribution is giving back for something that already happened - this is about preventing something from happening or rather, protecting oneself from something who is about to happen. Unless, of course, it was you who believed "preemptive retribution".

Actually. That was in fact me. And what the fuck are you saying? The penis mangler is not retribution. Of course not. I have said that before. My whole point stands on it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 18, 2012, 02:18:54 pm
The lot of you are sorta' strawmanning. According to the article, the device is designed, specifically, to not mangle. Cause pain, yes, and constructed in such a way that getting it off without assistance is apparently extremely difficult, but the thing was specifically stated to not break skin.
Quote from: from the snopes page, relevant part underlined
Once it lodges, only a doctor can remove it — a procedure Ehlers hopes will be done with authorities on standby to make an arrest. "It hurts, he cannot pee and walk when it's on," she said. "If he tries to remove it, it will clasp even tighter ... however, it doesn't break the skin, and there's no danger of fluid exposure."
So, maybe pull that bit of emphasis back a bit? Or at least divorce that bit of hyperbole from the actual device?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 02:20:35 pm
Ah. Sorry. It's just, I can't really remember the name of it very well. And Penis mangler sounds so much better.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 02:24:44 pm
Obviously, if the woman left the rapex in and it injured her gynecologist, she'd be at fault. The same as if the homeowner's booby-trap injured a police officer by mistake. The main difference you've stated is the likeliness of collateral harm.

But the basis of the rapex being legitimate, is that we have a legal right to booby-trap things in such a way that potential criminals will be physically harmed if they attempt to commit the crime.  Your only criteria given so far is that the booby-trap be discriminating enough to almost only ever harm criminals.

Given that you could booby-trap your house in some discerning way, how much harm would be acceptable to inflict on a burglar?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 02:25:33 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 02:05:48 pm
The argument is about the idea that there is such a thing as overkill to stop a action.
Ah okay, I see where you're coming from then. Allow me to clarify:

When I said "overkill" in this scenario, I wasn't comparing the rape to the penis mangling, but the penis mangling to other forms of rape prevention. My comparison to booby traps was intended to convey that there are more reasonable ways to protect yourself. In the case of home invasion, regular ol' security alarms. In the case of rape prevention... well actually I'll just quote myself from earlier:
Quote
Ultimately I'd probably find it acceptable if all the other good practices for rape prevention are in place and it's just an added layer of protection.
I can be overkill. I can be acceptable. It's kinda on the border for me, and I'd consider the situation of the person fearing being raped before really saying one way or the other (and if you force me to make a generalized statement I'd probably say it's fine).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on September 18, 2012, 02:27:44 pm
Quote from: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 02:24:44 pm
Obviously, if the woman left the rapex in and it injured her gynecologist, she'd be at fault.
The thing can't break the skin. I seriously doubt it would be a big deal, even if he was shortsighted enough to stick his finger in it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 02:29:33 pm
Well it's a booby trap. A good one wouldn't be noticed beforehand, maybe even by a gynecologist.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 02:30:32 pm
Reelya.

You need to learn, or at least acknowledge the difference in scale.

A gynecologist in danger? Really?

More importantly, rape is in a whole other level of crimes then burglary. Hell, burglary can be justified. Rape is always a terrifyingly evil action.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 18, 2012, 02:31:33 pm
...I misread that post completely. Or did you do one of those quick-edits that don't show up as "edited"? Then again, it as you wrote it in the quote in my post as well... Anyway, I thought you meant that the Rapex is retribution, but that cutting out an eye would be excessive retribution, but when I look at it now it's pretty obviously not what it says. My apologies for the mistake.


Quote from: Frumple on September 18, 2012, 02:18:54 pm
The lot of you are sorta' strawmanning. According to the article, the device is designed, specifically, to not mangle. Cause pain, yes, and constructed in such a way that getting it off without assistance is apparently extremely difficult, but the thing was specifically stated to not break skin.
Quote from: from the snopes page, relevant part underlined
Once it lodges, only a doctor can remove it — a procedure Ehlers hopes will be done with authorities on standby to make an arrest. "It hurts, he cannot pee and walk when it's on," she said. "If he tries to remove it, it will clasp even tighter ... however, it doesn't break the skin, and there's no danger of fluid exposure."
So, maybe pull that bit of emphasis back a bit? Or at least divorce that bit of hyperbole from the actual device?

Well, that completely removes all my objections to it. My only hesitation was about it maybe causing permanent damage, but if it won't, then I'm okay with it.


Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 02:25:33 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 02:05:48 pm
The argument is about the idea that there is such a thing as overkill to stop a action.
Ah okay, I see where you're coming from then. Allow me to clarify:

When I said "overkill" in this scenario, I wasn't comparing the rape to the penis mangling, but the penis mangling to other forms of rape prevention. My comparison to booby traps was intended to convey that there are more reasonable ways to protect yourself. In the case of home invasion, regular ol' security alarms. In the case of rape prevention... well actually I'll just quote myself from earlier:
Quote
Ultimately I'd probably find it acceptable if all the other good practices for rape prevention are in place and it's just an added layer of protection.
I can be overkill. I can be acceptable. It's kinda on the border for me, and I'd consider the situation of the person fearing being raped before really saying one way or the other (and if you force me to make a generalized statement I'd probably say it's fine).

It's not supposed to harm. It's like a booby trap exploding blue paint on a burglar.


Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 02:29:33 pm
Well it's a booby trap. A good one wouldn't be noticed beforehand, maybe even by a gynecologist.

You figure anyone going to a gynecologist would take it out beforehand.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 02:33:10 pm
But you're explicit argument was the is no such thing as overkill.

Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 02:05:48 pm
The argument is about the idea that there is such a thing as overkill to stop a action.

Is there such a thing as overkill? I'm saying there is a level at which what you do to prevent an action becomes overkill.

Before you refer to the "rapex doesn't break the skin" point, which has been correctly brought up.
You had no objection before to the concept of "penis mangling" as a prevention to rape.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 02:34:37 pm
Quote from: scriver on September 18, 2012, 02:31:33 pm
It's not supposed to harm. It's like a booby trap exploding blue paint on a burglar.
That makes me question its purported effectiveness even more xD
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 02:36:42 pm
Quote from: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 02:24:44 pm
Obviously, if the woman left the rapex in and it injured her gynecologist, she'd be at fault. The same as if the homeowner's booby-trap injured a police officer by mistake. The main difference you've stated is the likeliness of collateral harm.

But the basis of the rapex being legitimate, is that we have a legal right to booby-trap things in such a way that potential criminals will be physically harmed if they attempt to commit the crime.  Your only criteria given so far is that the booby-trap be discriminating enough to almost only ever harm criminals.

Given that you could booby-trap your house in some discerning way, how much harm would be acceptable to inflict on a burglar?

No... The basis is not based on a booby trap. The basis is based on self defense. Its no different that biting the offending member, there is a reason this type of thing has been called a dentata in the past.

A booby trap is left alone without your supervision and again, is indiscriminate. A rapex isn't much of a deterrent if you are not present to supervise it. The rapex is a passive defense, like a bullet resistant vest.

Overkill does not enter into the equation. A woman is well within her right to kill a rapist in self defense as long as her attacker remains a clear and immediate threat.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 18, 2012, 02:37:56 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 02:34:37 pm
Quote from: scriver on September 18, 2012, 02:31:33 pm
It's not supposed to harm. It's like a booby trap exploding blue paint on a burglar.
That makes me question its purported effectiveness even more xD

Well, it's like a colour bomb which also hurts and prevents you from peeing and needs a doctor to remove, but still.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on September 18, 2012, 02:38:56 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 02:34:37 pm
Quote from: scriver on September 18, 2012, 02:31:33 pm
It's not supposed to harm. It's like a booby trap exploding blue paint on a burglar.
That makes me question its purported effectiveness even more xD
Yeah, I don't really think that it would work. Except on people with a very specific penis size.

Quote from: scriver on September 18, 2012, 02:37:56 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 02:34:37 pm
Quote from: scriver on September 18, 2012, 02:31:33 pm
It's not supposed to harm. It's like a booby trap exploding blue paint on a burglar.
That makes me question its purported effectiveness even more xD

Well, it's like a colour bomb which also hurts and prevents you from peeing and needs a doctor to remove, but still.
Does it really need a doctor to remove though? It doesn't seem all that menacing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 02:40:24 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 02:36:42 pm
Overkill does not enter into the equation. A woman is well within her right to kill a rapist in self defense as long as her attacker remains a clear and immediate threat.
I'll agree here... assuming killing the rapist is necessary to stop them/get away. But what of situations where it is not? I'd call that overkill.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 02:40:36 pm
Please Criptfiend, keep the debate about points and stop using Ad Hominem attacks, it's very annoying.

Throwing personal jibes is still trying to goad or belittle the other person even if you try and do it subtly.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 18, 2012, 02:42:23 pm
Quote from: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 02:33:10 pm
Is there such a thing as overkill? I'm saying there is a level at which what you do to prevent an action becomes overkill.
If it helps the discussion any, legally, there is. Excessive reaction can affect the legal status of a self-defense case, though I don't know the details of it and it varies of place to place. There's been a few flare-ups about castle laws in the last while, iirc, which is basically what that's concerning -- the point that self-defense becomes excessive.

There's a bit of leeway, but you don't get to skin a person and salt the wounds for trying to mug you and suchlike. Permanently damaging a rapist's genitalia in the heat of the moment is probably not going too far, but knocking out the rapist and then carving up their nethers would be. Couldn't say where a device actually intended to mangle would fit in that spectrum.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 02:43:56 pm
Quote from: scriver on September 18, 2012, 02:31:33 pm
...I misread that post completely. Or did you do one of those quick-edits that don't show up as "edited"?

I have been doing a lot of quick edits. It would not surprise me to learn that I said something wrong, you saw it, and then I fixed it before it past the point where it time stamps it.

Quote from: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 02:33:10 pm
But you're explicit argument was the is no such thing as overkill.

Not in hideous terrifying unjustifiable black and white crimes.

Quote from: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 02:33:10 pm
Is there such a thing as overkill? I'm saying there is a level at which what you do to prevent an action becomes overkill.

I don't think there is overkill in preventing crimes like rape.

Please don't take that to mean that I advocate killing everyone or something stupid. But the point is, I don't think there is a action that harms a aggressor that can not be justified as a preventative measure.

Quote from: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 02:40:36 pm
Please Criptfiend, keep the debate about points and stop using Ad Hominem attacks, it's very annoying.

Throwing personal jibes is still trying to goad or belittle the other person even if you try and do it subtly.

Piff. I'm setting a standard for reasonable discourse here. I don't have a issue identifying and avoiding idiots. It's not my job to educate people on my views. I do this for fun.

Edit: I'm not calling you a idiot. Just saying, you need to be reasonable or you are not worth my time.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: da_nang on September 18, 2012, 02:44:57 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 02:36:42 pm
A woman is well within her right to kill a rapist in self defense as long as her attacker remains a clear and immediate threat.
Um, no. Disproportionate use of violence in the name of self-defense is not an excuse and in some cases can turn the case against the victim.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 02:45:51 pm
Rape and killing are pretty damn close on the "horrifying" scale, so you might be arguing an uphill battle if you want to claim rape is the lesser.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 02:46:30 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 02:40:24 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 02:36:42 pm
Overkill does not enter into the equation. A woman is well within her right to kill a rapist in self defense as long as her attacker remains a clear and immediate threat.
I'll agree here... assuming killing the rapist is necessary to stop them/get away. But what of situations where it is not? I'd call that overkill.

This isn't a case where it is not necessary. If the Rapex gets used, it is most likely means that all other means of defense have failed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 02:47:16 pm
Quote from: da_nang on September 18, 2012, 02:44:57 pm
Um, no. Disproportionate use of violence in the name of self-defense is not an excuse and in some cases can turn the case against the victim.
What about when the attacker is a clear and immediate threat still. I dunno. I just think that using lethal force is justified when you need to use lethal force.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 02:49:57 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 02:46:30 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 02:40:24 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 02:36:42 pm
Overkill does not enter into the equation. A woman is well within her right to kill a rapist in self defense as long as her attacker remains a clear and immediate threat.
I'll agree here... assuming killing the rapist is necessary to stop them/get away. But what of situations where it is not? I'd call that overkill.

This isn't a case where it is not necessary. If the Rapex gets used, it is most likely means that all other means of defense have failed.
True. But assuming it works and the rapist gets incapacitated, I wouldn't say that the victim picking up a knife and attacking back would be justified.

...I realize now I'm going back into the "retribution vs prevention" thing. My bad. Killing someone in self defense (when it comes to rape) is grey area enough that I wouldn't judge them for it, so yes, I agree with you.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mlamlah on September 18, 2012, 03:12:12 pm
Quote from: da_nang on September 18, 2012, 02:44:57 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 02:36:42 pm
A woman is well within her right to kill a rapist in self defense as long as her attacker remains a clear and immediate threat.
Um, no. Disproportionate use of violence in the name of self-defense is not an excuse and in some cases can turn the case against the victim.
Maybe you should talk to a rape victim before you call that disproportionate, i assure you it is not.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: da_nang on September 18, 2012, 04:11:25 pm
Quote from: Mlamlah on September 18, 2012, 03:12:12 pm
Quote from: da_nang on September 18, 2012, 02:44:57 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 02:36:42 pm
A woman is well within her right to kill a rapist in self defense as long as her attacker remains a clear and immediate threat.
Um, no. Disproportionate use of violence in the name of self-defense is not an excuse and in some cases can turn the case against the victim.
Maybe you should talk to a rape victim before you call that disproportionate, i assure you it is not.
I'm sorry, but since when did rape become proportional to murder? The latter deprives one of one's life, the former does not.

If you're being raped and you have the option to stab someone in the leg or heart or abdomen in self-defense, you don't stab him in the heart or abdomen. Period. Those are vital areas that may kill him. You stab him in the leg to debilitate him long enough to make a hasty retreat and call for help. This is proportionate use.

Or to take it to the extreme: You manage to knock him unconscious and stab him multiple times. This is disproportionate use. We don't live in Tamriel where you can do whatever the fuck you want to someone as long as he delivers the first blow.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 04:20:48 pm
Piff. You are talking as if life is the most important thing in the world.

Hint: It is not. Life is fairly worthless on it's own.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 18, 2012, 04:22:15 pm
If someone is trying to rape you the amount of threat they pose to you is unknown. Rape-murders happen all the time. Hence, it is reasonable to respond with deadly force.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 18, 2012, 04:29:11 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 04:20:48 pm
Piff. You are talking as if life is the most important thing in the world.

Hint: It is not. Life is fairly worthless on it's own.

Your definition of "worth" is very flawed. Not just in this post.
Could you please specify what in your eyes the concept of "worth" is? (When applied to life or a human being.)

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 18, 2012, 04:22:15 pm
If someone is trying to rape you the amount of threat they pose to you is unknown. Rape-murders happen all the time. Hence, it is reasonable to respond with deadly force.
So your argument is that it is ok to defend yourself from rape with deadly force because the rape may turn into rape-murder. So rape is indeed a lesser crime than murder?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 04:30:33 pm
That's a interesting question. I can't think of a good answer. What is your definition of worth?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 18, 2012, 04:32:40 pm
Quote from: lorb on September 18, 2012, 04:29:11 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 18, 2012, 04:22:15 pm
If someone is trying to rape you the amount of threat they pose to you is unknown. Rape-murders happen all the time. Hence, it is reasonable to respond with deadly force.
So your argument is that it is ok to defend yourself from rape with deadly force because the rape may turn into rape-murder. So rape is indeed a lesser crime than murder?
Yes, I never argued otherwise. No one will state their intent to kill you in a mugging, rape, or similar situation, but it can and does happen.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 18, 2012, 04:35:36 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 18, 2012, 04:32:40 pm
Quote from: lorb on September 18, 2012, 04:29:11 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 18, 2012, 04:22:15 pm
If someone is trying to rape you the amount of threat they pose to you is unknown. Rape-murders happen all the time. Hence, it is reasonable to respond with deadly force.
So your argument is that it is ok to defend yourself from rape with deadly force because the rape may turn into rape-murder. So rape is indeed a lesser crime than murder?
Yes, I never argued otherwise. No one will state their intent to kill you in a mugging, rape, or similar situation, but it can and does happen.
I just wanted to make sure that rape is the lesser crime than murder. I absolutely agree with your argument than.

edit:
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 04:30:33 pm
That's a interesting question. I can't think of a good answer. What is your definition of worth?

You don't have an answer to what the worth of a human being/life is but you totally deny a rapist the same worth as other persons have (eg the victim)?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 04:39:11 pm
Answer the question or admit you can't.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 04:39:41 pm
@da_nang

A rape victim suffers from the trauma of the attack long after it is done.

A murder victim does not.

A murder victims life and all its potential both good and bad ends.

The life of the rape victim may be made into a living nightmare with scars physical and mental that never truly heal.

Rape is a dehumanizing form of torture.

It is not clear which one is the worse crime from the victims perspective.


Stabbing someone in the leg does not have a high probability of ending the threat. The most certain way to end a threat is with the most debilitating attack (the most debilitating attacks are also the fatal attacks), and you do not relent in your active defense until the aggressor no longer poses a threat.

You are going past the extreme to make an absurd strawman: If the attacker is unconscious, he no longer poses a threat. If the attacker is crippled and you can escape, he is no longer a threat. If the attacker is dead, he is no longer a threat. No one except you and Reelya is saying to keep attacking once your attacker no longer poses a threat.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 18, 2012, 04:49:35 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 04:39:11 pm
Answer the question or admit you can't.

For me this is easy. I would like to see you answer this question. (The worth of life is infinity. If you need hints as to why that may be I'll give them to you if you you give me your definition of "worth" that makes some lives have less worth than others.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 05:10:45 pm
With no concept of worth of human life, i can't see how you can objectively say rape is worth more than burglary, to say it's on a "whole other level". I'm sure there's at least 1 person who would prefer to be raped than have all their stuff stolen, probably a lot of people.

Would you choose to be raped vs lose the entirety of your possessions?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on September 18, 2012, 05:13:21 pm
Quote from: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 05:10:45 pm
With no concept of worth of human life, i can't see how you can objectively say rape is worth more than burglary, to say it's on a "whole other level". I'm sure there's at least 1 person who would prefer to be raped than have all their stuff stolen, probably a lot of people.

Would you choose to be raped vs lose the entirety of your possessions?

Atleast you can buy insurance for your possessions...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 05:43:13 pm
Quote from: lorb on September 18, 2012, 04:49:35 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 04:39:11 pm
Answer the question or admit you can't.

For me this is easy. I would like to see you answer this question. (The worth of life is infinity. If you need hints as to why that may be I'll give them to you if you you give me your definition of "worth" that makes some lives have less worth than others.)

That's not a answer. Infinity what?

Also given infinity, that means that killing is not acceptable under any circumstances ever?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: da_nang on September 18, 2012, 05:44:18 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 04:39:41 pm
A rape victim suffers from the trauma of the attack long after it is done.

A murder victim does not.
A dead giveaway, I'm sure. But even if the victim's dead, the damage has already been done. I don't think I can with good conscious say that death is less of a damage than lifelong trauma. At least that you can cope with.

Quote
The life of the rape victim may be made into a living nightmare with scars physical and mental that never truly heal.
A murder victim's wounds will never heal.

Quote
Rape is a dehumanizing form of torture.
And death is somehow better, how exactly? If you had to make the choice, would you rather be murdered or raped?

Quote
Stabbing someone in the leg does not have a high probability of ending the threat. The most certain way to end a threat is with the most debilitating attack (the most debilitating attacks are also the fatal attacks), and you do not relent in your active defense until the aggressor no longer poses a threat.
The point of self-defense is not to beat the aggressor into a bloody pulp and murder him. You use only enough force so you can make a retreat and call for help. What's important is that the force you use does not exceed the aggressor's, for if you do then you're no better than him.
Remember that there are non-lethal ways to debilitate people long enough to make a retreat.

Quote
You are going past the extreme to make an absurd strawman: If the attacker is unconscious, he no longer poses a threat. If the attacker is crippled and you can escape, he is no longer a threat. If the attacker is dead, he is no longer a threat. No one except you and Reelya is saying to keep attacking once your attacker no longer poses a threat.
Strawman or not, it still proves the point. The aggressor was unconscious, thus the victim could have easily retreated. Instead, the victim started stabbing for various reasons. Revenge is one possibility. Whatever the reason is, the fact that the victim didn't retreat and instead started stabbing an unconscious aggressor is blatantly unjustifiable. The force used was thusly disproportionate.

And FWIW, I've never said that you should keep attacking if the attacker no longer poses a threat. I don't know where you got that from.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 05:46:12 pm
This is just ridiculous strawmanning all over the place.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 18, 2012, 05:53:04 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 05:43:13 pm
Quote from: lorb on September 18, 2012, 04:49:35 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 04:39:11 pm
Answer the question or admit you can't.

For me this is easy. I would like to see you answer this question. (The worth of life is infinity. If you need hints as to why that may be I'll give them to you if you you give me your definition of "worth" that makes some lives have less worth than others.)
That's not a answer. Infinity what?

Also given infinity, that means that killing is not acceptable under any circumstances ever?

I thought infinity wasn't an actual value? (math nitpicking here)

What about the scores of victims who have committed suicide just shortly after the rape? Or even years afterwards?

Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 05:46:12 pm
This is just ridiculous strawmanning all over the place.

^
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 18, 2012, 05:57:46 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 05:43:13 pm
Quote from: lorb on September 18, 2012, 04:49:35 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 04:39:11 pm
Answer the question or admit you can't.

For me this is easy. I would like to see you answer this question. (The worth of life is infinity. If you need hints as to why that may be I'll give them to you if you you give me your definition of "worth" that makes some lives have less worth than others.)

That's not a answer. Infinity what?
Yes it is. What is your answer?

Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 05:43:13 pm
Also given infinity, that means that killing is not acceptable under any circumstances ever?
Yes.

edit:
Quote from: darkrider2 on September 18, 2012, 05:53:04 pm
I thought infinity wasn't an actual value? (math nitpicking here)
Which nicely reflects that you can't (morally) assign an actual value to human life.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Realmfighter on September 18, 2012, 06:08:04 pm
Quote from: lorb on September 18, 2012, 05:57:46 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 05:43:13 pm
Also given infinity, that means that killing is not acceptable under any circumstances ever?
Yes.

So if you had to choose between killing a man or letting 100 die you would just let the hundred die? Does a brain dead coma victim have the same value as a child with their whole life ahead of them?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 18, 2012, 06:23:01 pm
Quote from: Realmfighter on September 18, 2012, 06:08:04 pm
Quote from: lorb on September 18, 2012, 05:57:46 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 05:43:13 pm
Also given infinity, that means that killing is not acceptable under any circumstances ever?
Yes.

So if you had to choose between killing a man or letting 100 die you would just let the hundred die? Does a brain dead coma victim have the same value as a child with their whole life ahead of them?

STOP IT REALMFIGHTER.

I don't like hard questions.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 06:27:02 pm
That goes back to an old philosophical question about what is action and inaction.

Premise: you're controlling a track-lever at a rail junction. A runaway train is hurtling down the tracks. Down 1 line is 1 person, down the other line are 10 people.

Scenario 1: if you don't pull the lever, the 10 people will "be killed" by the train. But you can claim you didn't kill anyone. If you do pull the lever, you will have "murdered" 1 person, by deliberately aiming the train at them.

Opinions differ as to whether pulling the lever is the ethical choice, or not.


Scenario 2: The train is hurtling towards 1 person, and if you pull the lever 10 people will die. This one's more clear cut, so let's say the 1 person is your mother? Would you murder 10 random people to stop your mother being killed?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 06:28:14 pm
Quote from: da_nang on September 18, 2012, 05:44:18 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 04:39:41 pm
A rape victim suffers from the trauma of the attack long after it is done.

A murder victim does not.
A dead giveaway, I'm sure. But even if the victim's dead, the damage has already been done. I don't think I can with good conscious say that death is less of a damage than lifelong trauma. At least that you can cope with.

Quote
The life of the rape victim may be made into a living nightmare with scars physical and mental that never truly heal.
A murder victim's wounds will never heal.

Quote
Rape is a dehumanizing form of torture.
And death is somehow better, how exactly? If you had to make the choice, would you rather be murdered or raped?

You conveniently and dishonestly deleted the conclusion of that argument.

Quote from: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 04:39:41 pm
It is not clear which one is the worse crime from the victims perspective.

Are you denying that what could potentially be a lifetime of suffering may be worse than death? Every person who has ever committed suicide would likely disagree with you.

Quote
Quote
Stabbing someone in the leg does not have a high probability of ending the threat. The most certain way to end a threat is with the most debilitating attack (the most debilitating attacks are also the fatal attacks), and you do not relent in your active defense until the aggressor no longer poses a threat.
The point of self-defense is not to beat the aggressor into a bloody pulp and murder him. You use only enough force so you can make a retreat and call for help. What's important is that the force you use does not exceed the aggressor's, for if you do then you're no better than him.
Remember that there are non-lethal ways to debilitate people long enough to make a retreat.

There is no such thing as a non-lethal attack. A punch to the chest can be fatal, as can a careless shove, a tazer or a bit of pepper spray.

The point of self defense is to stop your aggressor and walk away unharmed or at least less harmed. The single fastest and most effective way to stop an aggressor is to cause trauma to the brain, spinal column, respiratory system or the core of the circulatory system. Anything less puts you at increased risk.

But you know what? this does not matter at all to this discussion. because we a talking about a device that is most likely even less lethal than even a careless shove. And one that is comes into effect after all other forms of self defense have failed.

Quote
Quote
You are going past the extreme to make an absurd strawman: If the attacker is unconscious, he no longer poses a threat. If the attacker is crippled and you can escape, he is no longer a threat. If the attacker is dead, he is no longer a threat. No one except you and Reelya is saying to keep attacking once your attacker no longer poses a threat.
Strawman or not, it still proves the point. The aggressor was unconscious, thus the victim could have easily retreated. Instead, the victim started stabbing for various reasons. Revenge is one possibility. Whatever the reason is, the fact that the victim didn't retreat and instead started stabbing an unconscious aggressor is blatantly unjustifiable. The force used was thusly disproportionate.
No, it does not prove a point because your straw man isn't even remotely related to the topic at hand.


Quote
And FWIW, I've never said that you should keep attacking if the attacker no longer poses a threat. I don't know where you got that from.

here might be why:
Quote from: da_nang on September 18, 2012, 04:11:25 pm
Or to take it to the extreme: You manage to knock him unconscious and stab him multiple times. This is disproportionate use. We don't live in Tamriel where you can do whatever the fuck you want to someone as long as he delivers the first blow.

or this one:
Quote from: da_nang on September 18, 2012, 05:44:18 pm
The aggressor was unconscious, thus the victim could have easily retreated. Instead, the victim started stabbing for various reasons. Revenge is one possibility. Whatever the reason is, the fact that the victim didn't retreat and instead started stabbing an unconscious aggressor is blatantly unjustifiable. The force used was thusly disproportionate.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on September 18, 2012, 06:30:04 pm
And all this over a weird rubber penis trap that probably doesn't even exist?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 06:31:52 pm
Quote from: lorb
Yes it is. What is your answer?

Okay fine. In that case. My answer is one.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Realmfighter on September 18, 2012, 06:37:14 pm
Quote from: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 06:27:02 pm
That goes back to an old philosophical question about what is action and inaction.

For me this question is 100% clear. Because for me doing nothing is still an action. If you decide to pull, one dies. If you decide not to pull, ten die. Being able to claim "Moral Superiority" for not "Actively" killing someone means jack shit when 1o times more death is caused then necessarily.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 06:39:12 pm
The current conversation about measuring the value of people is pretty sad so I'm going to try and switch gears.

Quote from: Realmfighter on September 18, 2012, 06:37:14 pm
For me this question is 100% clear. Because for me doing nothing is still an action. If you decide to pull, one dies. If you decide not to pull, ten die. Being able to claim "Moral Superiority" for not "Actively" killing someone means jack shit when 1o times more death is caused then necessarily.
These sort of thought experiments are boring. I much prefer ones where the 1 person is your significant other, and the 10 are random people you've never met. Let's take the facelessness out of the victims and then some real morality might come into play.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on September 18, 2012, 06:41:18 pm
Quote from: da_nang on September 18, 2012, 04:11:25 pm
If you're being raped and you have the option to stab someone in the leg or heart or abdomen in self-defense, you don't stab him in the heart or abdomen. Period. Those are vital areas that may kill him. You stab him in the leg to debilitate him long enough to make a hasty retreat and call for help. This is proportionate use.

Or to take it to the extreme: You manage to knock him unconscious and stab him multiple times. This is disproportionate use. We don't live in Tamriel where you can do whatever the fuck you want to someone as long as he delivers the first blow.

I want to be clear on your position here...

If the only option for self-defense is lethal force, do you think that it is immoral for a person to kill their assailant if it will prevent their rape?
If it was more likely that lethal force would result in their safety, do you think it is immoral for that person to opt for lethal force over non-lethal force which may not be adequate?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 06:42:39 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 06:39:12 pm
The current conversation about measuring the value of people is pretty sad

Maybe I should feel bad about that, but I don't care.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 18, 2012, 06:53:13 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 06:31:52 pm
Quote from: lorb
Yes it is. What is your answer?

Okay fine. In that case. My answer is one.

Explanation why worth of every human life is infinite. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism) Also my point is that every human has the same worth. Do you suddenly agree with me on that? Because you just assigned 1 to the rapist as well as to the rape victim. (Also please reread the very first post of this thread.)

Edit: You may also want to read this to form a coherent argument addressing why some humans somehow are worth less. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 06:56:24 pm
The point is that assigning a simple number as 'worth' is meaningless.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 06:58:55 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 06:39:12 pm
The current conversation about measuring the value of people is pretty sad so I'm going to try and switch gears.

Quote from: Realmfighter on September 18, 2012, 06:37:14 pm
For me this question is 100% clear. Because for me doing nothing is still an action. If you decide to pull, one dies. If you decide not to pull, ten die. Being able to claim "Moral Superiority" for not "Actively" killing someone means jack shit when 1o times more death is caused then necessarily.
These sort of thought experiments are boring. I much prefer ones where the 1 person is your significant other, and the 10 are random people you've never met. Let's take the facelessness out of the victims and then some real morality might come into play.

That was my Scenario 2, read my post.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 18, 2012, 07:02:12 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 06:56:24 pm
The point is that assigning a simple number as 'worth' is meaningless.

This is not a rational discussion. (Sorry for the broken link.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 07:03:56 pm
403 error. And stop using links for your arguments.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Realmfighter on September 18, 2012, 07:04:16 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 06:39:12 pm
These sort of thought experiments are boring. I much prefer ones where the 1 person is your significant other, and the 10 are random people you've never met. Let's take the facelessness out of the victims and then some real morality might come into play.

Person I love. The death of someone I don't know barely effects me or my happiness but someone I love dying would have a massive detrimental effect on my life.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 07:09:48 pm
Quote from: Realmfighter on September 18, 2012, 07:04:16 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 06:39:12 pm
These sort of thought experiments are boring. I much prefer ones where the 1 person is your significant other, and the 10 are random people you've never met. Let's take the facelessness out of the victims and then some real morality might come into play.

Person I love. The death of someone I don't know barely effects me or my happiness but someone I love dying would have a massive detrimental effect on my life.
So your personal happiness comes above others' lives?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 18, 2012, 07:20:59 pm
In germany the wife of the president sued google because the autocompletion function of google puts prostitute after her name. Does anyone think she should have a right to have this removed? You can read more about it here. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/defamation-case-by-bettina-wulff-highlights-double-standard-at-google-a-854914.html)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Realmfighter on September 18, 2012, 07:21:50 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 07:09:48 pm
So your personal happiness comes above others' lives?

I've spent five minutes just looking at this and I'm just going to answer yes because I need to start this somewhere.

People I care about have more value then people I don't. This is the only answer I can come up with to justify not killing myself out of grief. When someone you love dies, you feel sad and grieve. Not grieving or even feeling anything but the bare minimum of sadness to feel implies that you value that person less then people you care for. If every random person is just as valuable as your loved ones then how can you justify crying at a funeral and yet living a normal life knowing that every day thousands die in more suffering then you could even imagine?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 07:22:45 pm
Piff. Google does not directly control that. What can they do?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 18, 2012, 07:26:47 pm
Google does have control over it. They censor out words like "torrent" and others that could lead to copyright infringement.

Edit: From the link I posted:
Quote
Google lawyer Kent Walker has freely admitted that the company deletes certain terms. "We will prevent terms that are closely associated with piracy from appearing in Autocomplete," he wrote in a 2010 statement.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 07:27:55 pm
What I meant was that they did not purposely put it like that. Perhaps I was unclear.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 18, 2012, 07:28:13 pm
She should just deal with it. You are inevitably going to share your name with someone you don't care for. I know of one other person with my name, and I hate that guy because he went to the same doctor I did and our appointments always got mixed up. I've never even seen him, but I hate him for that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 07:31:47 pm
Quote from: Realmfighter on September 18, 2012, 07:21:50 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 07:09:48 pm
So your personal happiness comes above others' lives?

I've spent five minutes just looking at this and I'm just going to answer yes because I need to start this somewhere.

People I care about have more value then people I don't. This is the only answer I can come up with to justify not killing myself out of grief. When someone you love dies, you feel sad and grieve. Not grieving or even feeling anything but the bare minimum of sadness to feel implies that you value that person less then people you care for. If every random person is just as valuable as your loved ones then how can you justify crying at a funeral and yet living a normal life knowing that every day thousands die in more suffering then you could even imagine?
See this is much more interesting with difficult questions rather than easy ones :D

You can justify not crying about the thousands that die by realizing the difference between loving and caring about someone, and having a moral obligation to them. You don't have a moral obligation to cry at a funeral; any funeral. However, when our moral value systems actually come into play, then you can start considering others you don't nominally "care" about.

So in essence, your concern is feeling obligation to feel grief for others. I'd argue you don't have that obligation. Merely the obligation to consider their lives and happiness valuable when they becomes threatened.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: da_nang on September 18, 2012, 07:41:55 pm
Quote
You conveniently and dishonestly deleted the conclusion of that argument.

Are you denying that what could potentially be a lifetime of suffering may be worse than death? Every person who has ever committed suicide would likely disagree with you.
In the sense of damage done, yes. Damage being physical damage that can be somewhat quantified. Emotional and psychological trauma is pretty much impossible to quantify. Some more people are just more jaded, I guess.

Quote
There is no such thing as a non-lethal attack. A punch to the chest can be fatal, as can a careless shove, a tazer or a bit of pepper spray.

The point of self defense is to stop your aggressor and walk away unharmed or at least less harmed. The single fastest and most effective way to stop an aggressor is to cause trauma to the brain, spinal column, respiratory system or the core of the circulatory system. Anything less puts you at increased risk.
Right, because you could also just strap someone to a chair and leave him there for a week to die of dehydration. I meant non-lethal in the common sense variety. Less-lethal in Wikipedia sense.

Do you shoot to kill or shoot to debilitate? Two very different things.

Quote
But you know what? this does not matter at all to this discussion. because we a talking about a device that is most likely even less lethal than even a careless shove. And one that is comes into effect after all other forms of self defense have failed.

No, it does not prove a point because your straw man isn't even remotely related to the topic at hand.
The topic at hand is this one, since I chose to respond to it just like you may write a letter to the editor about a specific part you've read in an article. (call it a derailment, if you wish):
Quote
A woman is well within her right to kill a rapist in self defense as long as her attacker remains a clear and immediate threat.
The point of the "straw man" was to show there being a thing such as disproportionate use of violence in self-defense and where the line is drawn.

As for the device topic, I've already given my two cents on it.

Quote
here might be why:

or this one:
What. How the fuck is that telling someone that you should keep attacking? Where in those sentences do I even urge and incite anyone to keep attacking? All I'm doing is presenting a fully possible scenario where someone has crossed the line of what is acceptable in order to demonstrate where that line is drawn. That's not telling someone to keep attacking. That telling them to do the complete opposite! It's rhetorical!

Quote from: Glowcat on September 18, 2012, 06:41:18 pm
Quote from: da_nang on September 18, 2012, 04:11:25 pm
If you're being raped and you have the option to stab someone in the leg or heart or abdomen in self-defense, you don't stab him in the heart or abdomen. Period. Those are vital areas that may kill him. You stab him in the leg to debilitate him long enough to make a hasty retreat and call for help. This is proportionate use.

Or to take it to the extreme: You manage to knock him unconscious and stab him multiple times. This is disproportionate use. We don't live in Tamriel where you can do whatever the fuck you want to someone as long as he delivers the first blow.

I want to be clear on your position here...

If the only option for self-defense is lethal force, do you think that it is immoral for a person to kill their assailant if it will prevent their rape?
If it was more likely that lethal force would result in their safety, do you think it is immoral for that person to opt for lethal force over non-lethal force which may not be adequate?
Let's do it a bit generally first. "You use only enough force so you can make a retreat and call for help. What's important is that the force you use does not exceed the aggressor's, for if you do then you're no better than him."
We'll assume this.
In order for lethal to be an option, the aggressor needs to use enough force. This can be e.g. pointing a gun at you (loaded or unloaded since the victim probably wouldn't know). At that point, you can (morally) use the lethal option. However, if he isn't pointing a gun or any other weapon at you, then you may not (morally) use the lethal option. This determines the "upper limit". The lower limit may be whatever you feel like.

So if you allow the dichotomy of "lethal" case and "non-lethal" case:
Second one: If "lethal", then yes, you may choose a lethal option. If "non-lethal", you may not.
First one: There are only two cases I can currently think of (at night) that could potentially necessitate lethal force to prevent rape. Either they're pointing a weapon at you or you're being physically restrained to the point of immobility (or both, but then the former takes precedence).
If the former, then you may choose lethal. The latter's a "special" case. Since you're being restrained to the point of immobility, only a third party could remove the aggressor. He, however is not restrained, thus he has also non-lethal options. And since it's not a "lethal" case, then the lethal option is out of the question.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Realmfighter on September 18, 2012, 07:47:49 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 07:31:47 pm
You can justify not crying about the thousands that die by realizing the difference between loving and caring about someone, and having a moral obligation to them. You don't have a moral obligation to cry at a funeral; any funeral. However, when our moral value systems actually come into play, then you can start considering others you don't nominally "care" about.

So in essence, your concern is feeling obligation to feel grief for others. I'd argue you don't have that obligation. Merely the obligation to consider their lives and happiness valuable when they becomes threatened.

The problem is that when you changed the scenario from 1 life or ten into one person you love against 10 people you don't know the dilemma changed from a logic puzzle into something personal. All things equal 1 person has less value then ten, but when you change it from a math problem into this logic stops applying. When it becomes my life being effected or theirs I will chose mine every time. As evil as it sounds I would emotionally care less about ten people I don't know dying than one I do know and my emotions are the only basis of measurement I can apply to this new situation.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 18, 2012, 07:50:34 pm
There's a reason why hundreds of years of philosophizing has never satisfactorily answered those types of questions  :-\
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 08:05:31 pm
Quote from: Sirus on September 18, 2012, 07:50:34 pm
There's a reason why hundreds of years of philosophizing has never satisfactorily answered those types of questions  :-\
Indeed~


Morality is pretty useless if we can't apply it in difficult scenarios. You have to decide whether your position just "sounds" evil or if it actually is. I won't judge; this is just for mental exercise, not trying to trap people so I can silently judge them ;P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 08:12:40 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 07:22:45 pm
Piff. Google does not directly control that. What can they do?

They can do the same thing they did when they censored the "she invented = > did you mean 'he invented' " auto-complete.

http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-05-24-n36.html
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 08:14:45 pm
Quote from: Reelya on September 18, 2012, 08:12:40 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 07:22:45 pm
Piff. Google does not directly control that. What can they do?

They can do the same thing they did when they censored the "she invented = > did you mean 'he invented' " auto-complete.

http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-05-24-n36.html
That's kinda humorous actually xD
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 18, 2012, 08:19:19 pm
Quote from: Sirus on September 18, 2012, 07:50:34 pm
There's a reason why hundreds of years of philosophizing has never satisfactorily answered those types of questions  :-\

Philosophy has a ton of answers to those question. Just pick the one that satisfies you the most.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on September 18, 2012, 08:25:45 pm
Quote from: da_nang on September 18, 2012, 07:41:55 pm
Let's do it a bit generally first. "You use only enough force so you can make a retreat and call for help. What's important is that the force you use does not exceed the aggressor's, for if you do then you're no better than him."
We'll assume this.
In order for lethal to be an option, the aggressor needs to use enough force. This can be e.g. pointing a gun at you (loaded or unloaded since the victim probably wouldn't know). At that point, you can (morally) use the lethal option. However, if he isn't pointing a gun or any other weapon at you, then you may not (morally) use the lethal option. This determines the "upper limit". The lower limit may be whatever you feel like.

So if you allow the dichotomy of "lethal" case and "non-lethal" case:
Second one: If "lethal", then yes, you may choose a lethal option. If "non-lethal", you may not.
First one: There are only two cases I can currently think of (at night) that could potentially necessitate lethal force to prevent rape. Either they're pointing a weapon at you or you're being physically restrained to the point of immobility (or both, but then the former takes precedence).
If the former, then you may choose lethal. The latter's a "special" case. Since you're being restrained to the point of immobility, only a third party could remove the aggressor. He, however is not restrained, thus he has also non-lethal options. And since it's not a "lethal" case, then the lethal option is out of the question.

Right, so your position is that a person being raped should think of their assailant before themselves. I was just making sure.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 18, 2012, 08:33:26 pm
Quote from: lorb on September 18, 2012, 08:19:19 pm
Quote from: Sirus on September 18, 2012, 07:50:34 pm
There's a reason why hundreds of years of philosophizing has never satisfactorily answered those types of questions  :-\

Philosophy has a ton of answers to those question. Just pick the one that satisfies you the most.
Can't. I have no idea what I'd do until I were actually placed in a situation like that, and I hope it never actually happens.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 08:44:05 pm
Quote from: Sirus on September 18, 2012, 08:33:26 pm
Quote from: lorb on September 18, 2012, 08:19:19 pm
Quote from: Sirus on September 18, 2012, 07:50:34 pm
There's a reason why hundreds of years of philosophizing has never satisfactorily answered those types of questions  :-\

Philosophy has a ton of answers to those question. Just pick the one that satisfies you the most.
Can't. I have no idea what I'd do until I were actually placed in a situation like that, and I hope it never actually happens.
Ah, but if you decide what you should do in these situations, in the unlikely chance they'll actually come up, you're less likely to do something you'll regret. So it's not worthless to think about, despite the unlikelihood.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 18, 2012, 08:49:57 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 08:44:05 pm
Quote from: Sirus on September 18, 2012, 08:33:26 pm
Quote from: lorb on September 18, 2012, 08:19:19 pm
Quote from: Sirus on September 18, 2012, 07:50:34 pm
There's a reason why hundreds of years of philosophizing has never satisfactorily answered those types of questions  :-\

Philosophy has a ton of answers to those question. Just pick the one that satisfies you the most.
Can't. I have no idea what I'd do until I were actually placed in a situation like that, and I hope it never actually happens.
Ah, but if you decide what you should do in these situations, in the unlikely chance they'll actually come up, you're less likely to do something you'll regret. So it's not worthless to think about, despite the unlikelihood.
Well, I have to admit that what I'd do would probably depend on which lives I had to save/condemn. If, say, the one were my wife/lover, while the ten were child rapists, I'd probably let the ten die and not need as much therapy.

Please note that all of this is purely hypothetical :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 08:51:21 pm
Haha, people actually thinking about their morality is what's important to me. What conclusions they draw are their own :)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 18, 2012, 08:54:32 pm
Hey, I think about stuff like this quite often. I'm just naturally indecisive and rarely reach any actual conclusions. I'd probably be a great philosopher if I could just get the degree for it :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Realmfighter on September 18, 2012, 10:24:44 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 08:05:31 pm
Morality is pretty useless if we can't apply it in difficult scenarios. You have to decide whether your position just "sounds" evil or if it actually is. I won't judge; this is just for mental exercise, not trying to trap people so I can silently judge them ;P

"Evil" to me means what I consider society to consider wrong, which I don't really follow except to the level needed to exist inside of it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 18, 2012, 11:28:47 pm
Criptfiend, can you calm down a bit? You're not explicitly in ad hominem territory but you're quite close.

Also this discussion seems to have moved completely out of politics and into philosophy by now. I'm not sure if it belongs in this thread now. Perhaps I could add philosophy to the atheism/religion thread? I doubt it could hurt.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 18, 2012, 11:30:57 pm
It kinda evolved into a philosophy discussion, sorta. You know how Bay 12 is; before long we'll all be discussing how progressive the Neanderthals were, or something.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 11:38:37 pm
Neaderthals were an oppressed minority.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 18, 2012, 11:39:59 pm
They were a majority for a while, but....well, Sapiens Wins, Flawless Victory.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on September 18, 2012, 11:44:00 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 18, 2012, 11:39:59 pm
They were a majority for a while, but....well, Sapiens Wins, Flawless Victory.

Neanderthal DNA (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100506-science-neanderthals-humans-mated-interbred-dna-gene/): "Are you sure? Mwahahahaha!"
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 11:56:48 pm
@da_nang

Death is a rather debilitated state.

You ask if I would attack to debilitate or kill in my defense? That is a terribly naive question. You have not been paying attention. Every time you attack someone, you are taking a chance that they will die. And every time you shy away from the task with impotent half attempts you are putting yourself at greater risk.

If I am going to attack someone in self defense, I am going to debilitate them in the most efficient way possible. I will not take the chance that a shot to the leg or arm does not stop their advance. I will not take the chance that they might be tough enough that a crack to the skull will fail to stop them. I will not take the chance for them to pin me down and overpower me. The attacks with the highest chance of disabling someone are exactly the same attacks with the highest chance of killing. There is no difference between attacking to disable and attacking to kill.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on September 19, 2012, 12:20:10 am
Quote from: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 11:56:48 pm
If I am going to attack someone in self defense, I am going to debilitate them in the most efficient way possible. I will not take the chance that a shot to the leg or arm does not stop their advance. I will not take the chance that they might be tough enough that a crack to the skull will fail to stop them. I will not take the chance for them to pin me down and overpower me. The attacks with the highest chance of disabling someone are exactly the same attacks with the highest chance of killing. There is no difference between attacking to disable and attacking to kill.

Nevermind that, in the most common situation of male attacking female, the attacker is almost definitely going to have the upperhand. If that early advantage isn't pushed it means you're almost assuredly at their mercy, and the sound strategy is to open with the best chance at an incapacitating strike. But I'm sure da_nang just wants targets to shrug their shoulders and go "Well, I don't want to actually kill the guy, and since shooting him in the leg didn't work I'll just sit here and let him absolutely dehumanize me. Gee, I hope he doesn't kill me afterwords!" Rapist: "I'm going to kill you afterwords." Target snapping fingers: "Darn. At least I have the moral high ground!"

Do I sound mad about this? I'm sorta mad about this. In a culture where rape is already horribly dealt with, he wants to add the idea that a person shouldn't adequately defend themselves because the poor Rapist's life is at stake, unless they're using lethal force themselves, which will totally easy to see beforehand because rapists carry guns or something! Let's not just blame the victims who survive an assault, let's make sure to shame them before they're even attacked into considering the life of the person willfully initiating a potentially lethal violent crime before their own safety!

Okay. That's off my chest. I'm calm. I swear.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: da_nang on September 19, 2012, 01:28:56 am
Quote from: Glowcat on September 18, 2012, 08:25:45 pm
Right, so your position is that a person being raped should think of their assailant before themselves. I was just making sure.
My position is to make sure the victim doesn't become the assailant. Using self-defense, you have to weigh the force used versus the force being received. If the force used is "heavier" than the force being received on the scale of balance, you're no longer the victim. I mean, if a thief steals your purse, do you really think you have a right to pull out a gun and kill him? Because that's why there exists a thing called disproportionate use of violence.

Chapter 24 of the Swedish Criminal Code §1:
Quote
En gärning som någon begår i nödvärn utgör brott endast om den med hänsyn till angreppets beskaffenhet, det angripnas betydelse och omständigheterna i övrigt är uppenbart oförsvarlig.
"An act committed in self-defense is a crime only if it with respect to the nature of the aggression, the importance of the affected and the circumstances in general is blatantly unjustifiable."

Quote from: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 11:56:48 pm
You ask if I would attack to debilitate or kill in my defense? That is a terribly naive question. You have not been paying attention. Every time you attack someone, you are taking a chance that they will die. And every time you shy away from the task with impotent half attempts you are putting yourself at greater risk.

If I am going to attack someone in self defense, I am going to debilitate them in the most efficient way possible. I will not take the chance that a shot to the leg or arm does not stop their advance. I will not take the chance that they might be tough enough that a crack to the skull will fail to stop them. I will not take the chance for them to pin me down and overpower me. The attacks with the highest chance of disabling someone are exactly the same attacks with the highest chance of killing. There is no difference between attacking to disable and attacking to kill.
The difference between shoot to kill and shoot to debilitate is that the probability of death in the latter is orders of magnitudes lower compared to the former. If you shoot in the head, chances are it will kill the assailant. If you shoot in the kneecap, he's not going to be able to move on two feet. The worst that can happen is he bleeds to death, but chances are that by the time the police and paramedics arrive at the scene he'll still be alive if you call them as soon as possible.

Quote from: Glowcat on September 19, 2012, 12:20:10 am
Nevermind that, in the most common situation of male attacking female, the attacker is almost definitely going to have the upperhand. If that early advantage isn't pushed it means you're almost assuredly at their mercy, and the sound strategy is to open with the best chance at an incapacitating strike. But I'm sure da_nang just wants targets to shrug their shoulders and go "Well, I don't want to actually kill the guy, and since shooting him in the leg didn't work I'll just sit here and let him absolutely dehumanize me. Gee, I hope he doesn't kill me afterwords!" Rapist: "I'm going to kill you afterwords." Target snapping fingers: "Darn. At least I have the moral high ground!"

Do I sound mad about this? I'm sorta mad about this. In a culture where rape is already horribly dealt with, he wants to add the idea that a person shouldn't adequately defend themselves because the poor Rapist's life is at stake, unless they're using lethal force themselves, which will totally easy to see beforehand because rapists carry guns or something! Let's not just blame the victims who survive an assault, let's make sure to shame them before they're even attacked into considering the life of the person willfully initiating a potentially lethal violent crime before their own safety!
Strawman. I'm sorry if I come off sounding callous or something but I can't possibly justify "death for an eye". I can't possibly justify killing someone if he didn't at least make an effort to show his intention to kill (e.g. pull out a gun on you). That's barbaric and not fitting in a civilized society. Let's not resort to barbarism in the name of self-defense. Act civilized and handle it nobly.

Cue magma. Can we please get another topic, I feel this is getting us nowhere.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on September 19, 2012, 04:05:50 am
Comment: Someone kept saying strawmen "proved" something. They don't. It's a fallacy for a reason.
Comment 2: Given the chance to shoot an assaulter in the torso or the legs, I'd go with torso. It's easier to hit for lots of reasons.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on September 19, 2012, 04:30:00 am
Also, expecting a rape victim to make a clear, conscious decision is plain stupid. If someone is trying to rape me, I won't spent 5 minutes pondering the moral imperatives before reacting.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on September 19, 2012, 04:41:23 am
Quote from: da_nang on September 19, 2012, 01:28:56 am
Cue magma. Can we please get another topic, I feel this is getting us nowhere.

I'm more than willing to move onwards, but try to point out a "strawman" instead of just claiming so as an "I WIN!" that needs no more extrapolation. If you mean the exaggeration for effect, I thought it was pretty clear that I don't believe you actually want a target to do nothing in defense, but you seem to be under some misapprehensions about what is feasible in such situations and how your moral imperative against lethal force leaves even fewer options (which probably won't work) when those are already limited.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 19, 2012, 08:12:57 am
I second the motion to move on to another topic.

Apparently Neil Young has a hard time staying clean (of pot) after years of smoking it like others do cigarettes. (Writes the New York Times. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/magazine/neil-young-comes-clean.html?hp)) Makes you wonder if he could done all the nice music without the stuff or maybe he would have created even more masterwork songs without it?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 19, 2012, 12:29:51 pm
Well there have been a whole lot of shenanigans about this anti-Muslim movie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_Muslims). Specifically in France, as the government has now banned protests against the film (http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/france-to-ban-prophet-film-protests-567461.html).

Quote
Jean-Marc Ayrault said organisers of Saturday’s protest against the film Innocence Of Muslims will not receive police authorisation.

Mr Ayrault told French radio RTL today: “There’s no reason for us to let a conflict that doesn’t concern France come into our country. We are a republic that has no intention of being intimidated by anyone.”

Admittedly there have been deaths in other countries from protests, but some people in France seem to be intentionally angering Muslims by publishing mocking cartoons about Mohammed (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/internet/news/article.cfm?c_id=137&objectid=10835018). The magazine only got a condemnation from the government, but was still allowed to publish the cartoons.

France wants the conflict out of their country and that's understandable, but if they're going to let their magazines bring the conflict into the country then they should let the Muslims deal with it peacefully.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 19, 2012, 12:36:22 pm
The French government is wrong in not allowing peaceful protests against the film, but they would be equally wrong in censoring magazines for mocking Mohammed. Everyone has the right to peacefully protest.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 19, 2012, 12:40:01 pm
/me agrees with MSH

It's silly to try and remove the conflict from their country. First off, they'll inevitably fail, and secondly, they just fan the flames as they piss people off. Not to mention free speech violations.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 19, 2012, 02:26:56 pm
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chick-fil-a-stop-donations-anti-gay-groups-article-1.1162936

Can they be taught?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on September 19, 2012, 02:39:56 pm
Unlikely. Fights like this usually don't end with the losing side actually changing their stance, just putting on a new face and letting bad feelings stew.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 19, 2012, 03:25:28 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 19, 2012, 12:36:22 pm
The French government is wrong in not allowing peaceful protests against the film, but they would be equally wrong in censoring magazines for mocking Mohammed. Everyone has the right to peacefully protest.

I wasn't recommending censoring the magazines, but just pointing out that it's hypocritical to censor one kind of speech because it could result in conflict/violence and not another with similar consequences.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on September 19, 2012, 08:15:27 pm
I have just one question. What is this thread about? D:
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 19, 2012, 08:17:37 pm
Its a long story.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on September 19, 2012, 08:20:00 pm
Generally discussion about this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_politics).

I'm not sure of the origin story though, it had something to do with Vector, didn't it?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 19, 2012, 08:21:31 pm
Quote from: Truean on September 19, 2012, 02:26:56 pm
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chick-fil-a-stop-donations-anti-gay-groups-article-1.1162936

Can they be taught?

I like this.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 19, 2012, 08:23:38 pm
I think I'll keep boycotting Chik-Fil-A anyway. Zaksbys is much better and doesn't close on Sundays.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 19, 2012, 08:57:41 pm
Heck, I don't even know the origin story of the original thread. I really ought to add a "what is this thread about" section to the first post. I feel like we'd get more newcomers to the discussion that way.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 19, 2012, 09:04:43 pm
Vector decided to make a "bad things from a left-wing perspective" politics thread with an emphasis on feminist issues.  I don't think there's anything else to say about the origin.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 19, 2012, 09:05:38 pm
The feminist thing totally fell apart when she left though, I didn't notice that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 19, 2012, 09:12:50 pm
No one here is really involved in feminist issues afaik :( So no one to post interesting or rage worthy events.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 19, 2012, 09:16:36 pm
I didn't even realize that was an explicit intention of the original thread. I thought it just ended up in there sort of organically.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on September 19, 2012, 09:17:16 pm
Well, most of us here are well...men.  I'm not saying that men can't be feminists, it's just that generally women know more about women's issues than men do, and I would rather not opine on a subject I'm not all that familiar with.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 19, 2012, 09:30:13 pm
Thinking about it I'm not sure if it's really a thread we need, especially considering the absence of other general politics threads.  The previous thread kindof functioned as a blog of sorts (Vector posts about the issues she's concerned with), but this thread just kindof hangs around attracting arguments about whether it's exclusionary until someone desperately posts a random link to try and change the subject.

Maybe we could do with another thread that isn't restricted to those on the left wing?  Kindof like "post a recent development and explain why you think it is bad, then debate that point".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on September 19, 2012, 09:39:34 pm
Vector also tended to read a lot of blogs about feminist issues, and similar stuff. Though it's good to note that while she was a pretty big feminist, she didn't exclusively talk about feminist issues, although there were several big debates regarding feminist issues and battles of the sexes...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on September 20, 2012, 12:30:12 am
Quote from: Pnx on September 19, 2012, 09:39:34 pm
battles of the sexes

It'd solve the looming overpopulation problem at least.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 20, 2012, 12:31:37 am
There isn't a "looming overpopulation problem" since the birth rate is expected to start going down really soon.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on September 20, 2012, 12:39:47 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 20, 2012, 12:31:37 am
There isn't a "looming overpopulation problem" since the birth rate is expected to start going down really soon.

Because of the battle of the sexes, we already went over this.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 20, 2012, 12:41:30 am
Oh right, the wars in the deserts of Cambodia between the Men's Rights Alliance and the Feminist Horde. How could I forget.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 20, 2012, 12:52:11 am
The original reason was basically that Vector didn't feel comfortable posting in the Raeg Thread about politics so often, because it pretty much de-scussion-railed it every time, so she made her own thread to write about it, and it naturally evolved into a discussion thread from there. Hence why I still refer to it as the "Progressive Rage" thread. And yeah, a lack of active feminists means a lack of news about it, unfortunately, the same way if suddenly Truean disappeared, we would get a decrease in posts about courts/laws and gay issues (so don't you ever disappear on us, Truean ;) )
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kedly on September 20, 2012, 01:01:14 am
Quote from: scriver on September 20, 2012, 12:52:11 am
(so don't you ever disappear on us, Truean ;) )

I second this, even though you don't know who I am =P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 20, 2012, 09:06:03 am
British man imprisoned in Uganda for play that highlights the plight of homosexuals. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/20/world/africa/uganda-gay-play-arrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 20, 2012, 11:07:17 am
Mmm. Hope he avoids conviction. Sounds to me like he has a decent case (from that article alone, at least), but who knows.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on September 20, 2012, 01:00:17 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 20, 2012, 09:06:03 am
British man imprisoned in Uganda for play that highlights the plight of homosexuals. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/20/world/africa/uganda-gay-play-arrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)

American Bigots must be getting their jollies seeing their "justice" against those evul librals and homosexuals going into effect somewhere in the world. A shame that there's no legal recourse for making them responsible for their part in Uganda's human rights violations.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 20, 2012, 01:03:11 pm
Quote from: Glowcat on September 20, 2012, 01:00:17 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 20, 2012, 09:06:03 am
British man imprisoned in Uganda for play that highlights the plight of homosexuals. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/20/world/africa/uganda-gay-play-arrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)

American Bigots must be getting their jollies seeing their "justice" against those evul librals and homosexuals going into effect somewhere in the world. A shame that there's no legal recourse for making them responsible for their part in Uganda's human rights violations.
FTFY.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 20, 2012, 01:03:41 pm
Quote from: Glowcat on September 20, 2012, 01:00:17 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 20, 2012, 09:06:03 am
British man imprisoned in Uganda for play that highlights the plight of homosexuals. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/20/world/africa/uganda-gay-play-arrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)

American Bigots must be getting their jollies seeing their "justice" against those evul librals and homosexuals going into effect somewhere in the world. A shame that there's no legal recourse for making them responsible for their part in Uganda's human rights violations.
As it just so happens, there are a lot of connections between the most radical of the US fundamentalists (Family Research Council, Pat Robertson, Bryan Fisher, and the like) and Uganda. I forget the exact story, but some US fundamentalist actually sponsored their Kill The Gays Bill a couple of years back.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 20, 2012, 01:08:54 pm
Most of the homophobia in Africa today can be traced back to colonialism (I can't say for sure about Uganda but I think it is).  It is a monster almost entirely created by the west.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on September 20, 2012, 01:36:43 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 20, 2012, 01:03:41 pm
Quote from: Glowcat on September 20, 2012, 01:00:17 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 20, 2012, 09:06:03 am
British man imprisoned in Uganda for play that highlights the plight of homosexuals. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/20/world/africa/uganda-gay-play-arrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)

American Bigots must be getting their jollies seeing their "justice" against those evul librals and homosexuals going into effect somewhere in the world. A shame that there's no legal recourse for making them responsible for their part in Uganda's human rights violations.
As it just so happens, there are a lot of connections between the most radical of the US fundamentalists (Family Research Council, Pat Robertson, Bryan Fisher, and the like) and Uganda. I forget the exact story, but some US fundamentalist actually sponsored their Kill The Gays Bill a couple of years back.

Pretty much what I was referring to, although Sirus didn't seem to get the connection.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 20, 2012, 04:14:44 pm
Prisoner abuse scandal in Georgia (country, not US state). (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/19/world/europe/georgia-prison-videos/index.html?hpt=hp_t1) Warning, graphic descriptions of torture.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on September 21, 2012, 02:06:10 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 20, 2012, 01:08:54 pm
Most of the homophobia in Africa today can be traced back to colonialism (I can't say for sure about Uganda but I think it is).  It is a monster almost entirely created by the west.
Not just Africa, really, Asia too.

Which is especially ironic now that you see the Asian/African homophobes saying that homosexuality is a "disease from the west".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on September 21, 2012, 03:31:42 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 20, 2012, 04:14:44 pm
Prisoner abuse scandal in Georgia (country, not US state). (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/19/world/europe/georgia-prison-videos/index.html?hpt=hp_t1) Warning, graphic descriptions of torture.
I should not have clicked that link.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 21, 2012, 12:44:25 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/joke-photo-fox-suggests-obama-met-pirate-194154000.html

Once again Fox News does exactly ... no fact checking whatsoever, especially when that policy benefits it. The photo is from 2009, but hey, who cares how many years later and how out of context it is, right? Guys? :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on September 21, 2012, 12:58:12 pm
Quote from: Truean on September 21, 2012, 12:44:25 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/joke-photo-fox-suggests-obama-met-pirate-194154000.html

Once again Fox News does exactly ... no fact checking whatsoever, especially when that policy benefits it. The photo is from 2009, but hey, who cares how many years later and how out of context it is, right? Guys? :P
Oh, I'm almost positive they fact-checked it. And when the facts got in the way of good attack angle, they said "fuck it, nobody ever reads the corrections" and ran with it. Then issued the correction on their Twitter feed. Because we know all FOX News TV viewers are constantly plugged into Twitter.  ::)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 21, 2012, 05:48:59 pm
The real issue here is how I didn't know about this picture back in 2009. There have been 2-3 Talk Like a Pirate days since then that it wasn't used on.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on September 21, 2012, 08:56:22 pm
I wonder why governments all over the world want inflation to be zero. o_o
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 21, 2012, 08:57:36 pm
Zero inflation is impossible, but getting close to that allows money to retain a relatively static worth.

When sufficient, even deflation can have negative side effects.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 21, 2012, 09:02:37 pm
Probably more than "side" effects really.  There's a real potential for stagnation and recession since suddenly doing the financial equivalent of putting your money under a matress is consistently a better bet than investing it in things.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 21, 2012, 10:58:02 pm
Quote from: Skyrunner on September 21, 2012, 08:56:22 pm
I wonder why governments all over the world want inflation to be zero. o_o

They don't. Inflation is one of the government's best friends, since it allows for wealth to be accumulated by the government (and the government's allies in industry) without the problems of taxation. The usual targeted inflation rate is ~2%, since any more results in angry voters and any less bursts bubbles and causes economic realignment.

The problem is that central banks today are basically out of tricks and have been reduced to printing piles of money and effectively handing them out to commercial banks. The banks are actually making profits from their reserves so they aren't lending, but Ben Bernanke thinks that he can get spending going with just the credible threat of inflation (if those banks let the money out) rather than actually having to risk the US dollar's status outright. Even so, currencies worldwide have been going down the toilet as a result.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on September 22, 2012, 12:19:58 am
...Can I say "what"?

... I'm pretty sure inflation affects everyone. Including the government.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 22, 2012, 09:20:51 am
Quote from: Skyrunner on September 22, 2012, 12:19:58 am
...Can I say "what"?

... I'm pretty sure inflation affects everyone. Including the government.

Yet the government gets its hands on the money first, before prices start to rise. Furthermore, once prices start to rise, debt the government holds becomes easier to pay off, and since most governments these days are in massive debt they consider that a good thing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 22, 2012, 07:32:05 pm
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/20/chick-fil-a-only-pretends-to-stop-funding-non-profits-with-political-agendas/

It appears the answer to my earlier question is, "No, they can't learn."

Chick-fil-a is still funding anti gay groups.... I do so love not only being a third class citizen, but having entire large businesses with a fair deal of public support saying I should be a fourth class citizen if even that.... I just don't care anymore, fuck 'em. You can only take being called "an abomination" so many times until you just snap and stop being able to look at the people tormenting you as people.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on September 22, 2012, 07:35:12 pm
I feel that reporter's sentiment :c Why couldn't it have been some other fast food chain Dx

Well, at least there's no Chick-a-Fils here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 22, 2012, 07:45:15 pm
Goddamn it, and I was just about to start eating there again too. Fucking morality, ruining my ability to have bigoted chicken.

That's it, I'm petitioning for a Zaxbys in this town. Their chicken is better anyway.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Montague on September 22, 2012, 07:58:21 pm
That chicken sandwich restaurant was always Jesus-tastic, I dunno why this is any surprise now. Its always closed on sundays, that should have been a dead give-away.

I dunno why everybody hasn't boycotted it already.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on September 22, 2012, 09:19:00 pm
I have honestly never heard of Chick-fil-a until this debacle. I'm not sure there are even any in Michigan.

Though, given what I've seen, I'm kinda glad at that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 22, 2012, 11:25:15 pm
I'm in the same boat as Joshua. Never even heard of Chick-fil-a, don't have any in California that I know of. But that's fine, because I can get delicious chicken sandwiches elsewhere :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on September 22, 2012, 11:31:04 pm
Quote from: Sirus on September 22, 2012, 11:25:15 pm
I'm in the same boat as Joshua. Never even heard of Chick-fil-a, don't have any in California that I know of. But that's fine, because I can get delicious chicken sandwiches elsewhere :P

I didn't think we had them in California either so I was surprised when their store locator picked up a few nearby. Maybe they just blended in with the rampant commercialism or something.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 22, 2012, 11:34:40 pm
Most of the Chik-Fil-A's are in the South, if I am remembering correctly.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 22, 2012, 11:37:22 pm
I seem to recall seeing a couple in Utah but they're not at all common here. Mainly in the malls.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 22, 2012, 11:46:21 pm
Yeah, mostly the south. Honestly, about the only thing they have going for them is the waffle fries, in m'opinion. Not many fast food joints sell those, at least in my area. But yeah, s'been a couple of years since I've ate at one now, bleh, so I guess I'll just have to get around to learning to cook th'bloody things m'self.

Which is a good thing, I guess. Cooking means I can improve them, huehuehue.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 22, 2012, 11:49:16 pm
The waffle fries are decent, but the spicy chicken sandwich is godly and actually kind of spicy for a mainstream product. (I'm a heat freak, sue me.)

Dammit, stop tempting me! God I wish there was a Buffalo Wild Wings in Boone so I wouldn't be tempted by the Chick-Fil-A in our dining hall. Some of the students here at ASU are petitioning to have it removed, though. I am getting that fucking Zaxbys sooner or later, oh yes.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 22, 2012, 11:52:11 pm
If you want spicy chicken, try visiting Chilies (if there is one near you) and order their honey-chipotle crispy chicken. The stuff is amazing, quite spicy, and as far as I know doesn't contribute to hate groups. Win-win!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 22, 2012, 11:58:48 pm
I warn you, my definition of spicy is pretty skewed. Nothing under 100,000 Scovilles even registers anymore, and I prefer to have at least 300,000. Higher is fine, but you start to get a chemical taste from the capsicum concentration around 700,000 that I don't care much for.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 23, 2012, 12:34:21 am
BW3's has some pretty ridiculously spicy wings. I don't think anyone actually eats them unless they're on a dare. I've been told they're just spiciness without any real other flavor.

Also I really don't get all the craziness about how Chic-Fil-A tastes so delicious. I've never heard anybody praising it except in response to someone talking about boycotting it. If it was really so good that thousands of liberals are depressed they can't eat the best chicken ever, I really feel like one of them would have mentioned it to me earlier.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 23, 2012, 12:39:51 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on September 23, 2012, 12:34:21 am
BW3's has some pretty ridiculously spicy wings. I don't think anyone actually eats them unless they're on a dare. I've been told they're just spiciness without any real other flavor.
You're wrong. Wild (2nd Highest) is my regular order, but I go for Blazing (Highest) on occasion. Unfortunately they start to have that chemical taste I mentioned, hence why I don't eat them all the time. Hot (3rd Highest) and below are not spicy to me. That reminds me that I should probably order some Wild sauce since there's no Buffalo Wild Wings in Boone.

This is genetic, or perhaps just behavioral, but I definitely got it from my father, who has successfully completed the Blazing Challenge with time to spare. He described it as "fun".
Quote
Also I really don't get all the craziness about how Chic-Fil-A tastes so delicious. I've never heard anybody praising it except in response to someone talking about boycotting it. If it was really so good that thousands of liberals are depressed they can't eat the best chicken ever, I really feel like one of them would have mentioned it to me earlier.
It is full of salt and fat. Humans have a genetic predisposition to want these things because of how rare they used to be and how useful they are to us. Chik-Fil-A is basically everything your lizard brain could ever want.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 23, 2012, 12:47:50 am
It's not so much "so delicious" as it's "better than macdonalds". For a fastfood joint, it's better than most I've had the... pleasure... of encountering. Before I paid enough attention to notice CFA was owned by bigots, it was one of the few fastfood places I would willingly subject myself to, and a few of the others were strictly because they were open at four in the morning in a small town. I liked the waffle fries, and the chicken was alright. This is a higher quality of assessment than I could assign to about 95% of fastfood places I have encountered, especially in the area I'm in.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 23, 2012, 12:52:59 am
But I can get delicious chicken just about anywhere around here, and not just at fast food places either. Admittedly, waffle fries are delicious and I can't name a single restaurant around here that serves them, but it really doesn't sound much better than just about any other place I can visit.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on September 23, 2012, 02:54:32 am
Anyone know of Five Guys? Putting aside the issue of health, it tastes good. :3
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on September 23, 2012, 06:44:03 am
The Progressive Meal Thread. Get all your tolerant meals here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: sluissa on September 23, 2012, 08:06:02 am
Chick-fil-a does have great chicken sandwiches. There's one right outside the gate to the University I went to, and on the rare occasion I had some spare time before my afternoon classes I would sometimes grab one or two for lunch. Personally, I thought they were delicious... some of the best chicken I ever had. But I don't go there anymore, not least of which because I don't live near one anymore. I don't know if I could resist otherwise, but It's probably been a year or more since I had one. The waffle fries were pretty good as well, must be the extra surface area.

There is a Five guys here, but I don't like their food... just a slab of meat on soggy bread... might be okay for some, but I've even heard people who tend to love slabs of meat complain that they're just too much meat for a hamburger. If I choose to eat a fast food hamburger, it'll probably be a What-a-burger, or maybe a Krystal. There used to be a local place, it was only around for 6 months or so, but it was amazing. Simple place, only had like 3 things on the menu. Hamburgers, hotdogs and fries. Different toppings available for all, but they did them all so well that the limited menu didn't matter. Sadly, they closed down a few years ago... just never caught on, I still miss their food.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 23, 2012, 11:15:32 am
What-a-burger's been pretty decent, and while I never patronized the one that was in the town I got the bachelor's at, I heard good things about the one there. Namely about the free wi-fi and being open 24 hours; good if you can't study on campus/where you're living at the time for whatever reason, especially at like three in the morning :P Krystal...

... Mi padre use to refer to krystal's lil' sandwich things as sliders. Place is cheap, but the quality's been consistently crap (ha) the times I've given it a shot. It might be a regional thing, though. I've only tried the ones within a single city, so far.

I can't actually think of a fastfood place I'd willingly eat a hamburger at nowadays. Tend to stick to chicken, and away from sandwiches to boot. When I eat at them, anyway, which leans toward something like once every other month, heh, if that. I'd rather cook! Tastes better, get more, costs less. Slightly more effort, but bah! It's fun effort~
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vorthon on September 23, 2012, 02:18:53 pm
When it comes to fast-food, I'm pretty partial to Harvey's. Good burgers. But no idea about the political affiliations.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 23, 2012, 03:30:18 pm
I've always liked Wendy's the best myself. The fries are awesome. The chicken can vary a lot from one place to another, though; the one nearest my house often resembles rubber chicken. Of course, I've never had Chick Fil A, so I wouldn't know how it compares.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vorthon on September 23, 2012, 03:34:53 pm
Bleh. Wendy's burgers have always been a bit dry for me.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 23, 2012, 03:36:54 pm
Where do I stick my "meat is murder" sign? ;)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Wrex on September 23, 2012, 03:37:40 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 23, 2012, 03:36:54 pm
Where do I stick my "meat is murder" sign? ;)

Meat is murder? I'm okay with that :P .
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on September 23, 2012, 03:44:30 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 23, 2012, 03:36:54 pm
Where do I stick my "meat is murder" sign? ;)
Tasty, tasty murder.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 23, 2012, 03:47:19 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 23, 2012, 03:36:54 pm
Where do I stick my "meat is murder" sign? ;)
Right over here.
/me gestures towards a metal surface covered in black blast marks and with a freshly painted red dot at the center.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 23, 2012, 04:43:17 pm
meh, chik-fil=a was mediocre at best. And that isn't just because I often want a chicken sandwich on Sundays. I don't miss them at all.

I prefer zaxby's or wendy's.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on September 23, 2012, 04:47:56 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on September 23, 2012, 04:43:17 pm
chik-fil=a
Solve for i.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Montague on September 23, 2012, 04:52:30 pm
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on September 23, 2012, 04:47:56 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on September 23, 2012, 04:43:17 pm
chik-fil=a
Solve for i.

i=(l*f)^+chk

Right?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 23, 2012, 04:55:05 pm
Quote from: Montague on September 23, 2012, 04:52:30 pm
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on September 23, 2012, 04:47:56 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on September 23, 2012, 04:43:17 pm
chik-fil=a
Solve for i.

i=(l*f)^+chk

Right?

chik-fil=a

i(chk-fl)=a

i = a / (chk-fl)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 23, 2012, 05:59:21 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on September 23, 2012, 04:55:05 pm
chik-fil=a

i(chk-fl)=a

i = a / (chk-fl)

 i = a / (chk-fl)

Parenthesis means it's droppable

i = a

ia

Ia! Ia! Kitthulhu Phurrthgn!

Conclusion: Chick-fil-a supports eldritch abomination cults
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Montague on September 23, 2012, 06:38:30 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 23, 2012, 07:12:20 pm
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on September 23, 2012, 03:44:30 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 23, 2012, 03:36:54 pm
Where do I stick my "meat is murder" sign? ;)
Tasty, tasty murder.
Murderburger is actually a pretty good fast food join, from what I understand.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 23, 2012, 08:02:00 pm
today I learned this is a real place (http://www.murderburger.co.nz)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 23, 2012, 08:25:49 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on September 23, 2012, 08:02:00 pm
today I learned this is a real place (http://www.murderburger.co.nz)
One of their "vegetarian" burgers has bacon on it.

What.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 23, 2012, 09:20:12 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 23, 2012, 08:25:49 pm
One of their "vegetarian" burgers has bacon on it.
What.
The description is quite clear. The burger is intended for vegetarians, to allow them a gentle way to transition to the main menu. It's their "vegetarian gateway to meat" burger. :P It does not mean that it is meat free.

I've only had their fries (which were pretty good, but not great)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on September 23, 2012, 09:53:59 pm
That's a neat idea xD
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 23, 2012, 11:25:23 pm
Quote from: Skyrunner on September 23, 2012, 09:53:59 pm
That's a meat idea xD

fixed that for you.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on September 24, 2012, 03:27:09 am
Can't sleep in the wake of some bad news about my mom. Tried to distract myself for some time with pictures of cats on IMGUR. Then this image comes up. (http://imgur.com/gallery/8PiyX) This leads me to read more into the conflict in Syria, and the greater Arab Spring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring). This reminded me of the ongoing battle against the suppression of information and the struggle for government transparency, and led me to leaked footage of the 2007 Baghdad Airstrike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_July_2007_Baghdad_airstrike) by American soldiers.

I heard about it, but never watched the footage until I read that article. Two Reuters photojournalists gunned down, and the other civilians who tried to rescue them in a van were shot as well, including two children... a soldier watching a cameraman he'd riddled with holes crawl desperately toward a building, and verbally begging for him to pull out a weapon so he could shoot more. I understand that the event transpired near a conflict, and that it's possible those near the journalists may not have been local militia but enemy soldiers... but the American soldiers were treating the whole thing like a damned game, and even leapt on the excuse to gun down the civilians and their children who moved to rescue them, despite them posing no threat to the soldiers, and the rules of engagement giving them no right to do so. Who knows how many other similar incidents, without any leaked evidence, may have occurred.

As I said, I can understand the confusion, and know that the journalists accepted certain risks when covering a guerrilla battlefield. The thing that disgusts me, however, is how this information was suppressed. Despite that this video should have been made available under the Freedom Of Information Act, and that the cameras should have been returned to Reuters (who owned them, and had employed the journalists), both these were witheld by the US Military. And now Bradley Manning, who finally released this footage to Wikileaks two years later, is being prosecuted for this kind of whistleblowing, along with Julian Assange.

The Arab Spring, the debate surrounding the prosecution of Manning and Assange, and the battle to maintain Internet freedom; these issues are part of the same global struggle to oust corruption, seek social and political justice, and create honesty and  transparency in the modern world. It's like anywhere you look in the world, people are petitioning for change, dissenting against old regimes, or waiting anxiously for someone to make the first move.

I don't feel any better, and sure as hell can't sleep now, but I find some solace knowing that this is what history feels like when it's being made. What a time we live in, if only we had eyes to see.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 24, 2012, 06:17:33 am
You don't even get the full context and horror of that even from the video.  Here's personal testimony from Ethan McCord, a private who was among the first responding clean-up crew to the scene.  If Collateral Murder shocked you... well... it didn't shock me... and I still found this hard to watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kelmEZe8whI&feature=player_embedded).

And yeah... that was a completely normal event in Iraq, and even now in Afghanistan.  If you need confirmation of that very hard to swallow notion or are just feeling masochistic, watch a couple videos from the Iraq & Afghanistan Winter Soldier event in 2008.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 24, 2012, 10:00:48 am
With the collateral murder video, it is important to note that the first attack isn't unjustifiable. There were armed men there. The second attack, against the van? The one where the gunner lied about them collecting weapons and bodies in order to get permission to fire again? That part, and its coverup and failure to prosecute was a war crime.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: sluissa on September 24, 2012, 10:59:37 am
I'd be curious what the rules were in regards to civilians owning and carrying guns in Iraq at the time were... and even if there were laws against it, what the custom actually was and if it was a common thing despite the laws.

I know in a lot of countries it's not even strange to see armed guards with assault rifles standing outside of simple grocery stores, just for security against thieves.

I did see that video a few years ago, and honestly, it doesn't shock me at all. That's just the way the world works. What does shock me is that we've so easily forgotten about things like that. (Yes, even myself, this was a reminder and a shock to me as well.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 24, 2012, 11:08:43 am
Even if there were armed men, there were unarmed men, and killing the whole fucking block because of it isn't justifiable. Furthermore, being armed doesn't automatically mean you're hunting American soldiers.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on September 24, 2012, 11:10:20 am
I'd love to see the US army shoot anyone with weapons in say, Texas. :p (Yeah, I know, Posse Comitatus and all that jazz.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on September 24, 2012, 11:19:57 am
Sorry, our rules don't apply to us. (That's part of the rules, actually.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on September 24, 2012, 12:24:02 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 24, 2012, 11:08:43 am
Even if there were armed men, there were unarmed men, and killing the whole fucking block because of it isn't justifiable. Furthermore, being armed doesn't automatically mean you're hunting American soldiers.
It was a group of armed men and a man peeking around the corner towards a group of Americans. He was pointing a camera, but that isn't obvious from the video, and their believing it to be an RPG seems like an honest mistake to me.

Basically what Nadaka said mixed with what sluissa said.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 24, 2012, 04:38:26 pm
Did you watch the same Video I did? With audio turned on? And listening to what the guy on the heli is talking? No way has this been an honest mistake.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 24, 2012, 04:43:46 pm
Quote from: lorb on September 24, 2012, 04:38:26 pm
Did you watch the same Video I did? With audio turned on? And listening to what the guy on the heli is talking? No way has this been an honest mistake.

Have you? It isn't pretty, but it doesn't become unquestionably wrong until the van showed up and the gunner started begging for permission to open fire on obvious unarmed civilians. The first shooting could arguably have been legitimate.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 24, 2012, 04:44:41 pm
Where's the argument, then? I haven't really heard it, is the problem. If there is one, I don't know what it is or the quality of it...

It arguably gets much WORSE, later, but the earlier bit's still pretty fucked up.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 24, 2012, 04:48:24 pm
And then there's the part where Ethan McCord's commanding officer is like "WTF stop caring about children noob!"

Whether the initial engagement is a mistake or not, the event as a whole quickly turns into something that frankly makes our country look fucking evil.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 24, 2012, 04:48:45 pm
Quote from: palsch on September 24, 2012, 12:24:02 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 24, 2012, 11:08:43 am
Even if there were armed men, there were unarmed men, and killing the whole fucking block because of it isn't justifiable. Furthermore, being armed doesn't automatically mean you're hunting American soldiers.
It was a group of armed men and a man peeking around the corner towards a group of Americans. He was pointing a camera, but that isn't obvious from the video, and their believing it to be an RPG seems like an honest mistake to me.

Basically what Nadaka said mixed with what sluissa said.
I don't buy it. Even a very large camera is not comparable to a RPG-6 in size. Hell, there was an RPG-6 amongst them, which the camera was clearly not the same as.

Only two of the men were armed. If you have two armed men and a bunch of unarmed men standing around them, do you know what is not an appropriate response? 30 mm cannon fire. Shooting said cannon at the unarmed ones while they tried to run or crawl away. Lying to your operator that a van is collecting weapons so you can shoot at it too.

Furthermore, the United States Armed Forces pride themselves upon efficiency and professionalism more than almost anything else, and so I expect such standards as not shooting journalists and children to be enforced. As an occupying force, these men are responsible for the safety of civilians. That is the responsibility one takes on when they occupy another nation, even if that nation's people despise them.

I supported the Iraq War because I thought I could count on our military do get shit done correctly.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vorthon on September 24, 2012, 04:49:48 pm
/me would like to take this moment to express his desire to no longer be an occupant of this planetary body.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 24, 2012, 06:37:13 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 24, 2012, 04:48:45 pm
Quote from: palsch on September 24, 2012, 12:24:02 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 24, 2012, 11:08:43 am
Even if there were armed men, there were unarmed men, and killing the whole fucking block because of it isn't justifiable. Furthermore, being armed doesn't automatically mean you're hunting American soldiers.
It was a group of armed men and a man peeking around the corner towards a group of Americans. He was pointing a camera, but that isn't obvious from the video, and their believing it to be an RPG seems like an honest mistake to me.

Basically what Nadaka said mixed with what sluissa said.
I don't buy it. Even a very large camera is not comparable to a RPG-6 in size. Hell, there was an RPG-6 amongst them, which the camera was clearly not the same as.

Only two of the men were armed. If you have two armed men and a bunch of unarmed men standing around them, do you know what is not an appropriate response? 30 mm cannon fire. Shooting said cannon at the unarmed ones while they tried to run or crawl away. Lying to your operator that a van is collecting weapons so you can shoot at it too.

Furthermore, the United States Armed Forces pride themselves upon efficiency and professionalism more than almost anything else, and so I expect such standards as not shooting journalists and children to be enforced. As an occupying force, these men are responsible for the safety of civilians. That is the responsibility one takes on when they occupy another nation, even if that nation's people despise them.

I supported the Iraq War because I thought I could count on our military do get shit done correctly.

If you expect the military to get shit done correctly, then you're sadly mistaken.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on September 25, 2012, 04:01:27 am
Here's a bit of feminism-worthy news: New Mexico governor joins in on the redefinition of rape to deny women benefits (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/09/19/new-mexico-governor-susan-martinez-seeks-proof-forcible-rape-in-applications-chil?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rhrealitycheck+%28RH+Reality+Check%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)

Quote
"Forcible rape" is back in the news, this time in New Mexico, where the administration of Governor Susana Martinez is proposing to require a "forcible rape" means-test for women seeking childcare assistance.

Yup... "You weren't really raped, you welfare leech!"
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 25, 2012, 05:03:43 am
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-interview-says-tax-rate-fair-033140287.html
http://news.yahoo.com/why-plane-windows-dont-roll-down-romney-221323006.html

Really? How does this man have a legit chance at the Presidency? He is the logical result of the pandering we've done to the spoiled in this country who think their checkbook equals their IQ and that they should always have their way.  No, the customer is NOT always right and is in fact, often wrong. There is a reason we don't let people roll down the damn airplane windows no matter how much the morons want to....  (http://notalwaysright.com/) The fact that you are purchasing something does not should not automatically mean you can a.) always be considered correct no matter how wrong you are, and b.) get away with being a total and complete jerk.  (http://fuckyeahretailrobin.tumblr.com/) Unfortunately, that's exactly how it works out in real life....

And, as for a fair tax rate... 14%? Really? And that's just what he'll admit to. Who knows how little he paid in previous years. I really don't see what "small business" Romney has started with his 14% lower tax rate. I don't see how he's hired anybody. What company has he invested in that has hired anybody? It's the fuzzy math/broken logic that I.) Rich people employ people. II.) Rich people that have more money employ more people. III.) Give rich people more money and they will employ more people. This just blatantly ignores every other possible use of money.... It also ignores that they're hiring people... in China. The cure for everything can't be lower taxes or no taxes. That's like holding up a sugar pill as the cure for all ills without saying HOW it will cure all ills. It's a placebo.

His 14% on 21 million is fair...and  those who didn't pay federal taxes last year (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/22/biden-invokes-combat-troops-others-to-personalize-romneys-47/), are useless and not worth his time.... He has spoken. [sigh] Veterans, elderly.... When Biden, the king of dumb gaffs, is on you about gaffs, you screwed up.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 25, 2012, 09:45:06 am
14% is by no means fair. A flat tax would have to be in the 25% to 30% range to pay for the federal government. And we do not have a flat tax for good reasons. 25% of $30k a year is devastating, while 25% of $150k a year is merely inconvenient and 25% of $21 million a year need never really be felt at all. Any wealthy person paying less than that is not even close to paying a fair rate.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on September 25, 2012, 10:58:30 am
This is going to be a little long. For those who aren't bothered, have this. (http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/2012/09/24/misogynist-is-not-the-new-nigger/)

For anyone who is interested;
Spoiler: Collateral Murder discussion (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on September 25, 2012, 11:06:42 am
Personally, I find laughing at having just slaughtered 15 people exceedingly fucked up. And, "Oh well" is not an acceptable response to having shot two children. The fact that he did that does not help my perception of that as a honest mistake.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 25, 2012, 11:08:42 am
It's the same problem I have with "bad cops" - my problem isn't so much with the individual, but with the system that tells them this sort of behaviour is acceptable.

The US has a severe discipline problem in it's military.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 25, 2012, 03:48:56 pm
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57520009-503544/romney-teacher-contributions-to-politicians-should-be-limited/

I don't even know. I mean is it "free speech" to make political contributions if you're a company, but not if you're ... say ... a teacher? I mean an individual....

"(CBS News) Republican nominee Mitt Romney said Tuesday that Democratic politicians have a conflict of interest in dealing with teacher unions because the unions contribute so heavily to their campaigns. He suggested that money should somehow be diverted or cut off, although he did not offer details."

So by that logic, if you simply flipped things around, could you say that Republican politicians have a conflict of interest in dealing with business interests because the businesses contribute so heavily to their campaigns?

Shoe wouldn't look so good on the other foot would it, Mr. Romney?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on September 25, 2012, 04:06:39 pm
Quote from: Truean on September 25, 2012, 03:48:56 pm
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57520009-503544/romney-teacher-contributions-to-politicians-should-be-limited/

I don't even know. I mean is it "free speech" to make political contributions if you're a company, but not if you're ... say ... a teacher? I mean an individual....

Well, you know how it goes: "Four legs good, two legs bad" becomes "Four legs good, two legs better". Corporations deserve the same rights as people. Then after they get them, they deserve MORE rights than people.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on September 25, 2012, 04:07:44 pm
Quote from: RedKing on September 25, 2012, 04:06:39 pm
Quote from: Truean on September 25, 2012, 03:48:56 pm
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57520009-503544/romney-teacher-contributions-to-politicians-should-be-limited/

I don't even know. I mean is it "free speech" to make political contributions if you're a company, but not if you're ... say ... a teacher? I mean an individual....

Well, you know how it goes: "Four legs good, two legs bad" becomes "Four legs good, two legs better". Corporations deserve the same rights as people. Then after they get them, they deserve MORE rights than people.
That book is wonderful.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 25, 2012, 04:27:34 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on September 25, 2012, 09:45:06 am
14% is by no means fair. A flat tax would have to be in the 25% to 30% range to pay for the federal government. And we do not have a flat tax for good reasons. 25% of $30k a year is devastating, while 25% of $150k a year is merely inconvenient and 25% of $21 million a year need never really be felt at all. Any wealthy person paying less than that is not even close to paying a fair rate.

Frankly, if you advocate a flat tax, it should be a flat tax of 0%.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mlamlah on September 25, 2012, 05:38:12 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 25, 2012, 11:08:42 am
It's the same problem I have with "bad cops" - my problem isn't so much with the individual, but with the system that tells them this sort of behaviour is acceptable.

The US has a severe discipline problem in it's military.

Frankly, i think a lot of this can be boiled down to the degree of autonomy in a traditional military, there is just not enough in place to hold it responsible to a public. Military forces need to be more closely surveyed and actually held accountable for heinous actions. If a society is truly going to perform as a democratic entity, that entity needs to be able to see what the fuck it's own hands in the world are doing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 25, 2012, 05:48:31 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 25, 2012, 04:27:34 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on September 25, 2012, 09:45:06 am
14% is by no means fair. A flat tax would have to be in the 25% to 30% range to pay for the federal government. And we do not have a flat tax for good reasons. 25% of $30k a year is devastating, while 25% of $150k a year is merely inconvenient and 25% of $21 million a year need never really be felt at all. Any wealthy person paying less than that is not even close to paying a fair rate.

Frankly, if you advocate a flat tax, it should be a flat tax of 0%.

1: what is your reasoning for that? That sounds like a horrible idea. The only way to pay for government would be through inflation.

2: I would only advocate a flat tax if the social welfare system was massively better than it is. It would have to be practically utopian where everyone basic needs are met at virtually no cost.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 25, 2012, 06:24:05 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on September 25, 2012, 05:48:31 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 25, 2012, 04:27:34 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on September 25, 2012, 09:45:06 am
14% is by no means fair. A flat tax would have to be in the 25% to 30% range to pay for the federal government. And we do not have a flat tax for good reasons. 25% of $30k a year is devastating, while 25% of $150k a year is merely inconvenient and 25% of $21 million a year need never really be felt at all. Any wealthy person paying less than that is not even close to paying a fair rate.

Frankly, if you advocate a flat tax, it should be a flat tax of 0%.

1: what is your reasoning for that? That sounds like a horrible idea. The only way to pay for government would be through inflation.

2: I would only advocate a flat tax if the social welfare system was massively better than it is. It would have to be practically utopian where everyone basic needs are met at virtually no cost.

The Federal government ran a sizable surplus and had a booming economy back before it had an income tax. It's not like there aren't other ways to pay for government programs. Plus, the IRS and enforcement of the income tax uses a lot of money in of itself. Not as much as it earns, mind, but the loss wouldn't be as massive as it could be.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Karlito on September 25, 2012, 06:40:15 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 25, 2012, 06:24:05 pm
The Federal government ran a sizable surplus and had a booming economy back before it had an income tax.

You mean before 1913?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 25, 2012, 06:47:38 pm
Quote from: Karlito on September 25, 2012, 06:40:15 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 25, 2012, 06:24:05 pm
The Federal government ran a sizable surplus and had a booming economy back before it had an income tax.

You mean before 1913?

Yes, before 1913. It also managed with a very low income tax covering basically no one up through the 20s and also generated a sizable surplus.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 06:50:52 pm
1913? As in, 1913 when we were a partially agrarian economy and most people were very poor? When smallpox and polio were still around? When there were no computers and very few electrical devices? That 1913?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Karlito on September 25, 2012, 06:52:42 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 25, 2012, 06:47:38 pm
Quote from: Karlito on September 25, 2012, 06:40:15 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 25, 2012, 06:24:05 pm
The Federal government ran a sizable surplus and had a booming economy back before it had an income tax.

You mean before 1913?

Yes, before 1913. It also managed with a very low income tax covering basically no one up through the 20s and also generated a sizable surplus.

Yes, because there were no entitlements and no military.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 25, 2012, 06:54:22 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 06:50:52 pm
1913? As in, 1913 when we were a partially agrarian economy and most people were very poor? When smallpox and polio were still around? When there were no computers and very few electrical devices? That 1913?

Because the income tax industrialized the economy, made people rich, eradicated smallpox and polio and invented the widespread use of electrical/electronic devices (http://forums.combatexpertsclan.com/images/smilies/icon_awesomeface.png)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 06:58:53 pm
Perhaps you missed the memo, but it was the creation of social programs which lead to disease eradication and military encryption projects that led to computing.

Furthermore, while the income tax did not cause industrialization, the middle class, and high technology, it is a consequence of them. The government of 2012 cannot survive without an income tax unless you want to dismantle the armed forces and leave people to live or die on their resources alone.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 25, 2012, 07:42:00 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 25, 2012, 04:27:34 pm
Frankly, if you advocate a flat tax, it should be a flat tax of 0%.
Yeah, I guess if you're going to cause a massive collapse you might as well make it quick.

Also yes, income taxes were partially responsible for a lot of those things by getting the economy out of its terminal slump.  I don't see how you can regard comparing present day to 100 years ago when America was much poorer and more poverty stricken than it is today as remotely valid.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 25, 2012, 08:23:29 pm
So, income tax pays for all the things that make income possible: roads, schools, civilization in general (or the best we've managed I suppose). And, it's in proportion to the income you have (in theory), so you pay for what you take out.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on September 25, 2012, 09:54:24 pm
Man, I am so fucking sick of politics.

I am a republican, but holy shit Mitt Romney has somehow warped a small-business and individual focused party platform into WOHAY LETS LET CORPORATIONS DO MORE CRAZY SHIT.

And then Obama decides that the best course of action once accepting presidency was "Oh yeah, that whole bipartisan thing? Fuck that." and started to act like just as much of an asshole as the tea party movement was being.

Man, this entire fucking election has been a disaster. I mean, in my eyes the best candidate was Ron Paul and his platform was "Okay, I can be bipartisan, but fuck I need lots of weed to do that".

News media isn't helping. Several popular magazines (Including TIME, though they have been expanding efforts to be a tad bit more bipartisan) Are obviously, not so much leaning, but more fucking collapsing to the left. Right publications/media aren't any better (COUGHFOXNEWSCOUGH)

And now I can barely argue with anybody anymore unless I completely steer clear of religion because as soon as it comes out that i'm christian everyone goes "WOAH NOW DONT WANT TO GO ARGUE WITH SOME BIGOT WHY DONT YOU GO LYNCH SOME GAYS YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE. HEY EVERYONE, THIS GUY IS A TERRIBLE PERSON" And i'm just sitting there all like "Man ffs give me a break here"

I mean I just want an actually bi-partisan news thing or something to get news from.

So much of that was entirely just kind of a mean thing to say so sorry but I don't want to delete it so fuck it. If it's that big of an issue then when I get back home tomorrow I'll delete it before people work themselves up into a tizzy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 25, 2012, 10:03:11 pm
Believe it or not you're already ahead of what I was expecting you to say immediately after proclaiming being a republican on these forums (which is troll us).

The republican party seems to be losing bits and bits of its base lately, it doesn't seem to stem from the democrats doing things as far as I can tell, but more of internal party affairs and trying to railroad (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Railroading) everyone onto the mitt train.

That's a TVtropes link btw, be careful.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on September 25, 2012, 10:03:37 pm
Yes, this is a long post. If you'd like to learn something of why the Flat Tax (though something I support) is not a panacea for our problems, bear with me.

Just think, for a moment, about how long a second is. Now consider that a billion seconds makes up about half of your expected lifetime. Consider that, a billion days ago, our earliest hominid ancestors still hadn't begun to walk on two feet. 1 billion is an impossibly immense number.

Knowing that, realize what is truly meant when you see that the government is spending roughly 1,500 Billions of dollars on the military in one year. If dollars were seconds again, that would be 750 modern lifespans. Thats enough for you to have lived since long before recorded history began. If you had 1,500 billion seconds to live, you could have personally taken part in the building of Mesopotamia, and still be living today, with tens of thousands more years of life to look forward to.

1,500 billion dollars in a year... and what did it buy? Consider the following figures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_breakdown_for_2012). 50 of those military billions fund an agency which today spies on, interrogates, and imprisons American citizens without a trial, in direct violation of everything that is legal and constitutional... the Department of Homeland Security. Consider, too, that 100 of those Billions were spent just to pay off roughly half the yearly interest on our past war debts- not paying back the debt at all, mind you, but paying off part of the interest our debts build every year. That's so it only increases about half as fast as it would if we didn't pay it at all... and yes, in case you were wondering, that is war debt which was somehow not covered by the billions we have already been spending on war. Most of the rest, some 700 billion or so, is spent on all our military operations across the globe, which of course covers military assets, such as the gear, training, and supplies used by our soldiers. These assets go on to kill foriegn leadership we dislike (for instance, Hussein and Bin-Laden), to train and supply rebels to overthrow those we can't easily touch, and to build and garrison bases on foriegn soil, to remind them of the ever-present threat of military action if they "get out of line". We have been, and continue to use military forces to mold the world and its cultures into forms that better suit us. Can you imagine how it would be if a foriegn country built a military base in your hometown? Is it as shocking to you as it is to me, when you consider the place of American in the world stage in that light?

The ethical concerns of this aside, all these things are done in the name of our best interests, despite that it continues to bankrupt us at home, and consume the majority of our Government's funding. We can see where this cost has gotten us as well, just looking at these past 10 years... our neighbors in the Middle-East are still divided by civil wars, the corpses of their people and our own continue to pile up daily, its infrastructure remains in tatters, and the price of imported goods from the region (such as oil) are on the rise. Ignoring the cost in human life, how's that for the payoff on a $1,500 billion a year investment? Actually, it looks like we lost there too.

And yet, we keep doing this year after year, without change. What we do instead is propose cuts to our funding elsewhere... 5 billion from the National Science Foundation, 10 from the Department of Education, and so on. They've cut NASA's funding down to a meager 3 billion dollars, which is supposed to cover the launching and maintaining our global satellite network, as well as all of NASA's technological research and development. At this point, their funding was cut so far that they had to look to citizens for donations, just to get their latest probe to Mars. And when the organizations they propose cutting from have total budgets like 10 or 15 billion dollars, cutting the programs entirely wouldn't even put a drop in the bucket of the $1,500 we devote to military spending.

So, to bring this all back to the discussion at hand. Even if we taxed all Americans equally at a flat 10%, rather than allowing tax breaks for those with the most wealth, that would still only be equal to about 1.5 trillion dollars, which would barely be able to cover our military spending alone. For comparison, however, a 10% Flat Tax would cover every non-military bit of our federal budget 3 times over. The flat tax is a good idea, and one I support as a method to prevent more and more wealth from being bled out of economic circulation, and into the hoards of the impossibly wealthy. However, we need to consider our behavior as a nation, and changing it as a solution. Sadly, every politician is bound to a sort of popularity contest, due to the nature of popular elections, and thus fears cutting military spending lest they be accused of "making us look weak" on the national stage. So, as a result, they continue to run the economy into the ground, and raise the debt ceiling to postpone dealing with the crisis, making us look shortsighted, powermongering incompetents to the rest of the world instead... and ignoring the debt crisis and its obvious solution is like plugging your ears and singing as the building crumbles down on top of you.

Note that after gathering revenue, the Federal Government doesn't have a surplus left over anymore, which feeds our growth... we have a defecit, an ever-growing debt which we ignore as though it's completely unrelated to our financial problems. Is this not somehow insane?







...

Anyway, this is reminding me of why I can't look at our national budget figures. It upsets me. In fact, I think if the average person stopped and really looked at what was going on, they'd be up in arms.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 10:15:08 pm
Quote from: ggamer on September 25, 2012, 09:54:24 pm
And then Obama decides that the best course of action once accepting presidency was "Oh yeah, that whole bipartisan thing? Fuck that." and started to act like just as much of an asshole as the tea party movement was being.
You may have missed the memo on this, but Obama tried bipartisanism. Do you know what happened? The GOP locked down and refused to do anything if it was proposed by him, even if it was something they would otherwise not object to. Bipartisanism requires two willing parties, and while Obama was willing the GOP was not.
Quote
Man, this entire fucking election has been a disaster. I mean, in my eyes the best candidate was Ron Paul and his platform was "Okay, I can be bipartisan, but fuck I need lots of weed to do that".
Ron Paul isn't very bipartisan. He's extremely committed to his political beliefs.
Quote
And now I can barely argue with anybody anymore unless I completely steer clear of religion because as soon as it comes out that i'm christian everyone goes "WOAH NOW DONT WANT TO GO ARGUE WITH SOME BIGOT WHY DONT YOU GO LYNCH SOME GAYS YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE. HEY EVERYONE, THIS GUY IS A TERRIBLE PERSON" And i'm just sitting there all like "Man ffs give me a break here"
Oh yes, you poor oppressed Christian. How maligned your religion is in mainstream American culture, it is just an atrocity.

Didn't you say you lived in a heavily religious area? Come on now.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 25, 2012, 10:16:04 pm
I think Occupy Wall Street is, in no small part, the average person having stopped, looked at what's going on... and going up in arms.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 25, 2012, 10:23:13 pm
@ MSH: I'm pretty sure he meant mentioning that he was a Christian online, not IRL. Face it, some people are assholes online, and on some websites mentioning that you are religious in any way earns nothing but scorn.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EveryZig on September 25, 2012, 10:23:33 pm
@ Solifuge
Umm, that was a good argument against our immense military spending, but I don't see how that connects back to a flat tax. You say at the end that a flat tax is good for keeping wealth from being hoarded by the wealthy, but a flat tax is not the only way to do that.
IIRC, theoretical tax structures run from regressive (the rich pay a lower %) to flat (rich pay the same %) to progressive (the rich pay a higher %). When moving away from a regressive structure, why stop at flat?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 25, 2012, 10:24:51 pm
Re: Assumptions based on what religion you are.

I'm forced to listen to conservative talk radio, and one of the hosts I think made a rather good point (though not the one he was intending). He was talking about religion in politics, and how some people think it should be completely divorced when it comes to political candidates. He argued that no, people should care about the religion of candidates, since it gives insight into their character. I have to actually agree with that. What religion someone is can be very useful in determining what values they have (or lack thereof).

The problem here, of course, is that homophobia is considered a "value" in much of mainstream christianity. So, while I do agree it's a bad move to assume any particular christian is homophobic, I certainly think their being christian is worthy of suspicion of it.  In regular conversation I'd probably default to "not homophobic" just to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I would ask questions if I cared to know about someone's character, such as if they were a political candidate.

So, when it comes to religion and politics, if you hold different views from the mainstream ones of your religion, you are of course going to have to explain your views multiple times. Inductive reasoning states you probably have the mainstream views, otherwise.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 10:30:05 pm
Quote from: Sirus on September 25, 2012, 10:23:13 pm
@ MSH: I'm pretty sure he meant mentioning that he was a Christian online, not IRL. Face it, some people are assholes online, and on some websites mentioning that you are religious in any way earns nothing but scorn.
Liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiike....

I mean, there's Reddit, but Reddit is terrible in every way possible already.

Sorry, but I don't have very much tolerance for Christians portraying themselves as some kind of oppressed minority in America. The main religious group of the nation doesn't really get to play that card.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on September 25, 2012, 10:32:51 pm
Quote from: Solifuge on September 25, 2012, 10:03:37 pm
-holyfrigginsnip-
Quote from: EveryZig on September 25, 2012, 10:23:33 pm
@ Solifuge
Umm, that was a good argument against our immense military spending, but I don't see how that connects back to a flat tax. You say at the end that a flat tax is good for keeping wealth from being hoarded by the wealthy, but a flat tax is not the only way to do that.
IIRC, theoretical tax structures run from regressive (the rich pay a lower %) to flat (rich pay the same %) to progressive (the rich pay a higher %). When moving away from a regressive structure, why stop at flat?

I'm trying to indicate the Elephant in the room, which people tend to ignore when discussing how to stop the debt crisis. Revision of tax structure is good and fine, and can be part of a solution, but it is not the solution... especially in light of our militaristic imperialism, and how much we must feed it to keep it going.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 25, 2012, 10:34:37 pm
@ MSH: Alright, that second part I'll agree with. But it is indeed possible to have religious beliefs without being a horribly intolerant person, and we shouldn't be making assumptions like that. I think that's what ggamer was talking about with that last paragraph.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 25, 2012, 10:47:38 pm
If ggamer was talking about being harassed for Christianity on the internet, I'll believe it. I don't think I've ever seen it happen in real life.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 10:30:05 pm
I mean, there's Reddit, but Reddit is terrible in every way possible already.

You should see Reddit when the atheists and Christians unite against the Muslims. Suddenly every Christian is all for logic and literal interpetation of the Quran and every atheist is for the government getting as involved with religion as possible.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 25, 2012, 10:50:18 pm
Being harassed for being Christian does happen in real life...just not in the United States, usually :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on September 25, 2012, 10:57:45 pm
I think Obama's biggest problem is that he's so spineless just like every other democrat. "O-oh the republicans are upset that we changed our platform! They might say hurtful things, we gotta change it back!" That was bar-none the funniest part of the Democratic Convention, especially the guy telling them to grow a backbone before hand

Although I'm voting for Jill Stein, even though I don't agree with all of the green party's positions, it seems like the less shitty one.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 11:02:15 pm
I agree with most of the Green Party stuff...except for the trying to legislate neighborhoods into acting like hippie communes and funding fake medicine like homeopathy and CTM. I thought you were supposed to be the voice of reason, Green Party! Why did you let yourself get infected with New Age?!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 25, 2012, 11:27:22 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 11:02:15 pm
I agree with most of the Green Party stuff...except for the trying to legislate neighborhoods into acting like hippie communes and funding fake medicine like homeopathy and CTM. I thought you were supposed to be the voice of reason, Green Party! Why did you let yourself get infected with New Age?!
The first thing I noted disagreement with the green party on is  that they do not support research and development of clean nuclear power. But the homeopathy crap is also annoying.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 11:28:31 pm
Oh, yes, the anti-nuclear stance as well. Very foolish stance to take.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lemon10 on September 25, 2012, 11:29:26 pm
The green party is the fringe of the left.
The most fringe party is obviously going to attract the crazy extreme people.
If you are semi reasonable then you will vote democrat, because you realize that voting green is throwing your vote away.
Most of those who remain are very far to the left, and stand a very good chance of believing in that kind of thing (who amusingly enough are pretty much just as anti-science as the right is).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on September 25, 2012, 11:34:30 pm
Quote from: lemon10 on September 25, 2012, 11:29:26 pm
If you are semi reasonable then you will vote democrat, because you realize that voting green is throwing your vote away.
As we all know, the only way to enact change is to continue as you have always done. If you don't see that democrats and republicans are just two sides of the same shitty coin your deluding yourself.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on September 25, 2012, 11:38:59 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 11:02:15 pm
funding fake medicine like homeopathy

Hold up. You do realize how asinine it is to think that the active chemicals we discover in plants and animals, and the pharmaceuticals we manufacture using these chemicals, are not the same thing? I'm all for regulation and testing of biotic treatments; sometimes living things are more efficient at manufacturing a chemical or treatment than labs are.

Not suggesting the huffing of dried tiger testicles to cure cancer or whatever, but at least analyze plausible remedies in an unbiased and clinical setting. Drug labs don't need to have a monopoly on our well-being here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 25, 2012, 11:43:31 pm
That's not what homeopathy is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 25, 2012, 11:43:53 pm
Basically, if we discovered an herbal remedy (or whatever) in the past, we've now synthesized the active ingredient and can make pills.

Also, have the wikipedia article on homeopathy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy) As a concept it's bogus.

FAKEEDIT: Ninja.



Side note: What's wrong with hippie communes? :(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 11:44:16 pm
Quote from: Solifuge on September 25, 2012, 11:38:59 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 11:02:15 pm
funding fake medicine like homeopathy
Hold up. You do realize how asinine it is to think that the active chemicals we discover in plants and animals, and the pharmaceuticals we manufacture using these chemicals, are not the same thing?
.....What the fuck are you talking about?
Quote
Not suggesting the huffing of dried tiger testicles to cure cancer or whatever, but at least analyze plausible remedies in an unbiased and clinical setting. Drug labs don't need to have a monopoly on our well-being here.
You do realize how crazy you sound here, right? Obviously any leads that look promising will be taken regardless of their source. Aspirin was originally made from willow tree bark and aloe vera is still used as a sunburn treatment.

You're making me think you're going to respond to this about how Big Pharma is turning us into junkies so they can peddle their "unnatural remedies".
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 25, 2012, 11:43:53 pm
Side note: What's wrong with hippie communes? :(
Objectively? Nothing. But the Green Party's ideas on community are more or less an attempt to make laws that would try to steer everyone towards hippe commune-esq living. As someone who values his independence, that sounds like a nightmare and I wouldn't have anything to do with it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lemon10 on September 25, 2012, 11:58:48 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 11:44:16 pm
-snip-
Pretty sure he just thought that homeopathy was just a type/name of alternate medicine in general.
Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on September 25, 2012, 11:34:30 pm
Quote from: lemon10 on September 25, 2012, 11:29:26 pm
If you are semi reasonable then you will vote democrat, because you realize that voting green is throwing your vote away.
As we all know, the only way to enact change is to continue as you have always done. If you don't see that democrats and republicans are just two sides of the same shitty coin your deluding yourself.
Well yeah, but if your choice is A) The shitty side of the coin or B) Far shittier side of the coin or C) Indirectly help B get elected by not voting for A.
A good example is the 2000 election, Gore might not have been the best president ever, but he would have been a hell of a lot better then Bush, who would have lost if Nader hadn't run.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on September 26, 2012, 12:03:13 am
Thanks, but no thanks, I don't think I want to perpetuate a broken 2-party system. If your only voting to stop the other guy from winning, I think there might be a small problem.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 26, 2012, 12:08:22 am
You can vote to change the way we run elections if you can get enough people to go along with it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lemon10 on September 26, 2012, 12:13:41 am
There is a huge problem with our voting system. Our two party system is complete bullshit, and is perpetuated by those in power, because how voting works stops third parties from realistically forming without killing one of the two main parties (and then either becoming one of them or fading back into obscurity).

But we won't change the voting system without a massive and fundamental shift in the climate in Washington (where those elected actually try to improve our democracy at the expense of themselves and their party).

If the choice is Democrat, Republican, or +1/2 Republican (AKA green), then I will chose the slightly less corrupt and slightly less terrible party any day, until there is a real way where your vote can actually help change what you want instead of inadvertently helping what you want least.

Quote from: Nadaka on September 26, 2012, 12:08:22 am
You can vote to change the way we run elections if you can get enough people to go along with it.
Its possible, but I don't think it will happen with less then 70% of people really going for it (since it runs counter to the interests of those in power in the democratic and republican parties as well as large entrenched interests (mainly corporations in this case)), and getting that much is near impossible given our politics currently are.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on September 26, 2012, 01:00:42 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 11:44:16 pm
Quote from: Solifuge on September 25, 2012, 11:38:59 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 11:02:15 pm
funding fake medicine like homeopathy
Hold up. You do realize how asinine it is to think that the active chemicals we discover in plants and animals, and the pharmaceuticals we manufacture using these chemicals, are not the same thing?
.....What the fuck are you talking about?
Quote from: lemon10 on September 25, 2012, 11:58:48 pm
Pretty sure he just thought that homeopathy was just a type/name of alternate medicine in general.

What, have people been misusing the word "Homeopathy" around me for my whole life or something?

Quote
Ho·me·op·a·thy (noun) The method of treating disease by drugs, given in minute doses, that would produce in a healthy person symptoms similar to those of the disease.
Huh, looks like they have. I wonder how many people I've confused or accidentally agreed with up until now because of this.

==THE MORE YOU KNOW==¤
...the more you realize your past self was an ass. ._.;


But yeah, I thought you were asserting that the whole herbal medicine thing was shit, and I was trying to illustrate that most of the chemicals we now synthesize in a lab were originally discovered from folk remedies which used plants and animal parts containing said chemicals. I believe we were just experiencing a language barrier, though.

Quote
You're making me think you're going to respond to this about how Big Pharma is turning us into junkies so they can peddle their "unnatural remedies".

It's true, man. Dried tiger testicles are where it's at.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 26, 2012, 01:12:42 am
Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on September 25, 2012, 11:34:30 pm
Quote from: lemon10 on September 25, 2012, 11:29:26 pm
If you are semi reasonable then you will vote democrat, because you realize that voting green is throwing your vote away.

As we all know, the only way to enact change is to continue as you have always done. If you don't see that democrats and republicans are just two sides of the same shitty coin your deluding yourself.

A comment on this I once read went something like "I stuck to my principles in 2000 and voted for a third party. When I got deployed to Iraq in 2003 I wished I had voted for Gore."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on September 26, 2012, 02:18:46 am
Quote
But yeah, I thought you were asserting that the whole herbal medicine thing was shit, and I was trying to illustrate that most of the chemicals we now synthesize in a lab were originally discovered from folk remedies which used plants and animal parts containing said chemicals
Most herbal remedies are bullshit-ish. That natural compounds sometimes are effective treatments or lead to effective treatments does not mean that every single "natural"  thing is an effective drug. Or that the original compound will be effective without processing
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 26, 2012, 05:35:20 am
Homeopathy as I know it goes a bit beyond that definition.  The basic tenets I usually see are

1. The more you dilute something, the stronger the effects are.
2. Water has memory, so even if there isn't a single molecule of the original substance left in it the above principle still applies.

So most homeopathic medicines are literally just water.  They dilute and redilute it until there's no active ingredient left at all.

EDIT: another tenet is "That which would make a healthy person sick makes an unhealthy person well", but doing that would generally be illegal so I don't think mainstream homeopaths follow that one.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on September 26, 2012, 07:27:13 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 26, 2012, 05:35:20 am
1. The more you dilute something, the stronger the effects are.

....What? What?! D:
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 26, 2012, 07:57:02 am
Homeopathy is a stellar example of just how stupid humans can be, and the way we're usually stupid.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lemon10 on September 26, 2012, 08:06:28 am
To be fair, I don't think that 75% of the people who believe in homeopathy have any clue what it actually is.
But yeah, the those who honestly believe in it and know what it really is are very stupid people.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 26, 2012, 08:30:12 am
Quote from: Skyrunner on September 26, 2012, 07:27:13 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 26, 2012, 05:35:20 am
1. The more you dilute something, the stronger the effects are.

....What? What?! D:
Hence why a common method of mocking homeopathy is publicly overdosing on homeopathic "medicine" onehundredfold.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 26, 2012, 08:32:49 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 26, 2012, 08:30:12 am
Quote from: Skyrunner on September 26, 2012, 07:27:13 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 26, 2012, 05:35:20 am
1. The more you dilute something, the stronger the effects are.

....What? What?! D:
Hence why a common method of mocking homeopathy is publicly overdosing on homeopathic "medicine" onehundredfold.
Should watch out with that though, too much water is dangerous.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 26, 2012, 08:45:30 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 26, 2012, 08:30:12 am
Quote from: Skyrunner on September 26, 2012, 07:27:13 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 26, 2012, 05:35:20 am
1. The more you dilute something, the stronger the effects are.

....What? What?! D:
Hence why a common method of mocking homeopathy is publicly overdosing on homeopathic "medicine" onehundredfold.

Swedo-Norwegian astronaut Christer Fuglesang tried that on television once, during a debate, with homeopathic sleeping medicine. Too bad he drank so much that he still became woozy. Of course, had it actually been worked he should have died, but it kind of undermined his message.


Quote from: 10ebbor10 on September 26, 2012, 08:32:49 am
Should watch out with that though, too much water is dangerous.

A girl actually died from water "poisoning" this summer. She had played "water poker" and consumed 6 litres of water. Ironically, as she probably drank water to not have to drink alcohol.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on September 26, 2012, 08:51:49 am
Perhaps she should have drunk saline instead of water. :/
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 09:04:29 am
Quote from: Skyrunner on September 26, 2012, 07:27:13 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 26, 2012, 05:35:20 am
1. The more you dilute something, the stronger the effects are.

....What? What?! D:
This is why the ocean tastes like fish pee.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 26, 2012, 09:25:12 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 11:02:15 pm
I agree with most of the Green Party stuff...except for the trying to legislate neighborhoods into acting like hippie communes and funding fake medicine like homeopathy and CTM. I thought you were supposed to be the voice of reason, Green Party! Why did you let yourself get infected with New Age?!

From their website:
Quote
We support informed consent laws to educate consumers to potential health impact of types of treatment. For truly informed consent, a professional must explain the limitations of his or her professional training, and make the patient aware of what other professionals could offer differently or in addition.

Reading more I find that they do support homeopathy but not in a bad way imho. It seems to be more about enabling everyone to choose the treatment she/he wants, even if it's scientific bullshit.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 26, 2012, 09:36:06 am
Quote from: lorb on September 26, 2012, 09:25:12 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 11:02:15 pm
I agree with most of the Green Party stuff...except for the trying to legislate neighborhoods into acting like hippie communes and funding fake medicine like homeopathy and CTM. I thought you were supposed to be the voice of reason, Green Party! Why did you let yourself get infected with New Age?!

From their website:
Quote
We support informed consent laws to educate consumers to potential health impact of types of treatment. For truly informed consent, a professional must explain the limitations of his or her professional training, and make the patient aware of what other professionals could offer differently or in addition.
Quote
Greens support a wide-range of health care services, not just traditional medicine which too often emphasizes "a medical arms race" that relies upon high-tech intervention, surgical techniques and costly pharmaceuticals. Chronic conditions are often best cured by alternative medicine. We support the teaching, funding and practice of holistic health approaches and as appropriate, the use of complementary and alternative therapies such as herbal medicines, homeopathy, naturopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and other healing approaches.
Quote
Reading more I find that they do support homeopathy but not in a bad way imho. It seems to be more about enabling everyone to choose the treatment she/he wants, even if it's scientific bullshit.
There is no good way to support homeopathy. Medicine is not a cabinet of options to pick from, it is a scientific field with scientific evidenced-based practices. When you go to a hospital or a doctor, it is not ethical for you to be offered bullshit alongside real medicine.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Levi on September 26, 2012, 09:39:14 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 26, 2012, 09:36:06 am
There is no good way to support homeopathy. Medicine is not a cabinet of options to pick from, it is a scientific field with scientific evidenced-based practices. When you go to a hospital or a doctor, it is not ethical for you to be offered bullshit alongside real medicine.

Agreed!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on September 26, 2012, 09:41:51 am
There is no such freedom as the freedom to knowingly pick a therapy that will kill you, you mean? If so, yes. >:-(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 09:44:23 am
I'm a bit less sanguine about that view, considering I've used CTM (Chinese Traditional Medicine) to good effect in the past. Acupuncture used to be (still is in some circles) considered quackery too.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 26, 2012, 09:47:17 am
But you should be free to choose a treatment that is not accepted by the majority of science. Also the green party doesn't say it should be offered in hospitals, just that it should be more readily available than it is now. And besides: I don't think it's unethical to offer "bullshit alongside real medicine" if you keep with what I quoted from their website: the patient needs to be made aware that this is not "real medicine".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 26, 2012, 09:48:20 am
"Traditional Chinese medicine" just screams bullshit to me.

By the way, I think holistic is closer to what that person was thinking of to mean "natural cures" than homeopathy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 26, 2012, 09:49:52 am
By the way: Jill Stein, nominee of the green party for president, is a physician by profession.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 26, 2012, 09:50:08 am
Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on September 25, 2012, 11:34:30 pm
Quote from: lemon10 on September 25, 2012, 11:29:26 pm
If you are semi reasonable then you will vote democrat, because you realize that voting green is throwing your vote away.
As we all know, the only way to enact change is to continue as you have always done. If you don't see that democrats and republicans are just two sides of the same shitty coin your deluding yourself.
Unless you can suddenly get a large part of the people to vote for one specific party, I doubt you're going to change anything. America is stuck with it's 2 party system thanks to the way the elections work. (Ie, say I found a new party, that's like, for example, the democrats, but slightly different. Now, say, originally 55% of the population would have voted democrats, with 45% going to the republicains. Unfortunately my party got 10% of the votes that would have originally gone to the democrats go to me instead., causing them to lose the election.*)

*This would of course happen on a per state basis.
Quote from: Skyrunner on September 26, 2012, 09:41:51 am
There is no such freedom as the freedom to knowingly pick a therapy that will kill you, you mean? If so, yes. >:-(
I believe there's the right to deny treatment, and there's always Euthanasia, though I don't know the legality of that in the States.

Quote from: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 09:44:23 am
I'm a bit less sanguine about that view, considering I've used CTM (Chinese Traditional Medicine) to good effect in the past. Acupuncture used to be (still is in some circles) considered quackery too.
Yup, some of these things actually work.(Science often picks these up, but I remember that relatively recent research discovered that a folk medicin could cure a disease that was thought to be uncureable). Homeopathy can't work though. It completely relies on the placebo effect.

Quote from: lorb on September 26, 2012, 09:47:17 am
But you should be free to choose a treatment that is not accepted by the majority of science. Also the green party doesn't say it should be offered in hospitals, just that it should be more readily available than it is now. And besides: I don't think it's unethical to offer "bullshit alongside real medicine" if you keep with what I quoted from their website: the patient needs to be made aware that this is not "real medicine".
But is it ethical that you allow a patient to choose a medicin that you know will kill him, but he believes works. I believe that under current law you could be accused of negligence with death as a result.

Quote from: Descan on September 26, 2012, 09:48:20 am
"Traditional Chinese medicine" just screams bullshit to me.

By the way, I think holistic is closer to what that person was thinking of to mean "natural cures" than homeopathy.
There are a quite herbal remedies in there that actually work, and are currently being researched. Most of them are crap though

Edit: Damn ninjas
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on September 26, 2012, 09:51:50 am
Well, I, personally, did add an escape clause of "kill"... Acupuncture don't kill people, and neither does eastern traditional medicine. I don't think traditional medicine is a good replacement for modern drugs, though. Perhaps fine as a health supplement, but there's nothing like the correct antibiotic for a bacterial infection. There were many people who died because they didn't have anything other than TM, and were prescribed things like dried, ground herbs or antlers...

@Desc: I won't be quite sure about that. Some work well, like ones for fever or aches, and using them as a health supplement is fine. :P

@ebbor: Euthanasia isn't a therapy. Denying treatment isn't therapy. Homeotherapy is, and it doesn't work. :/
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 09:52:36 am
Seems to me that their position is "stop pushing treatments based on profitability and instead offer multiple treatments that suit the patient best." And of course, the patient would be able to choose the treatment that suits them best.

MSH, you seem to be implying that there is One True Medicine (tm) and that all other options are inherently bullshit. Now, we can agree that homeopathy is an example of bullshit, but there are other alternative methods that are not. RedKing gave some examples. The Green Party's position to me reads as supporting those alternative methods, and while pointing out their supporting homeopathy is a valid criticism, it doesn't undermine their entire position on the issue (not nearly).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 26, 2012, 09:56:55 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on September 26, 2012, 09:50:08 am
Quote from: lorb on September 26, 2012, 09:47:17 am
But you should be free to choose a treatment that is not accepted by the majority of science. Also the green party doesn't say it should be offered in hospitals, just that it should be more readily available than it is now. And besides: I don't think it's unethical to offer "bullshit alongside real medicine" if you keep with what I quoted from their website: the patient needs to be made aware that this is not "real medicine".
But is it ethical that you allow a patient to choose a medicin that you know will kill him, but he believes works. I believe that under current law you could be accused of negligence with death as a result.

Kinda boils down to the question "Is there a right to suicide?". If I tried everything I could to make it clear to that patient that this will kill/harm him why would I be obliged to stop him from still choosing it? (Assuming he is legally sane.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 26, 2012, 09:59:56 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 09:52:36 am
but there are other alternative methods that are not.
No.

Clearly there might be treatments here or there have have remained unfound by science, I think someone mentioned them before, but they are exceptions, not normal. The reason that generally all alternative medicine is bullshit is because if it works, then it is no longer alternative medicine. It becomes just medicine.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 10:03:31 am
Self harm shouldn't be illegal. To me it's on the same level as drug legalization; I have no problem with people harming themselves like that so long as they know what they're doing.

If you're worried about people doing stupid things, push education. If they do it anyway, that's their right.

Quote from: Criptfeind on September 26, 2012, 09:59:56 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 09:52:36 am
but there are other alternative methods that are not.
No.

Clearly there might be treatments here or there have have remained unfound by science, I think someone mentioned them before, but they are exceptions, not normal. The reason that generally all alternative medicine is bullshit is because if it works, then it is no longer alternative medicine. It becomes just medicine.
1) Extremely out of context quote. Please don't do that.
2) Nothing you said disagrees with me. The point of contention isn't whether it's "real" medicine but whether it's known and available. If it's not profitable, or if it's not as effective (but still effective), it currently isn't. "Alternative" isn't analogous to "bullshit"; it's exactly what it says it is: alternative.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 26, 2012, 10:06:08 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 09:52:36 am
Seems to me that their position is "stop pushing treatments based on profitability and instead offer multiple treatments that suit the patient best." And of course, the patient would be able to choose the treatment that suits them best.

MSH, you seem to be implying that there is One True Medicine (tm) and that all other options are inherently bullshit. Now, we can agree that homeopathy is an example of bullshit, but there are other alternative methods that are not. RedKing gave some examples. The Green Party's position to me reads as supporting those alternative methods, and while pointing out their supporting homeopathy is a valid criticism, it doesn't undermine their entire position on the issue (not nearly).

There is only one true medicine. Medicine with effectiveness backed by properly performed scientific trials. Everything else is superstition.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 26, 2012, 10:09:48 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 10:03:31 am
1) Extremely out of context quote. Please don't do that.
2) Nothing you said disagrees with me.

1) No. It's not. There is one medcine (tm) and what you said was bullshit.
2) Alternative is analogous to bullshit.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Karlito on September 26, 2012, 10:10:41 am
Quote from: Nadaka on September 26, 2012, 10:06:08 am
There is only one true medicine. Medicine with effectiveness backed by properly performed scientific trials. Everything else is superstition.

Of course, with that definition a lot of modern pharmaceuticals might fall into the superstition category, but perhaps that's a different issue.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 26, 2012, 10:11:52 am
When alternate medicine works, its called medicine.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 10:13:32 am
Quote from: Nadaka on September 26, 2012, 10:06:08 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 09:52:36 am
Seems to me that their position is "stop pushing treatments based on profitability and instead offer multiple treatments that suit the patient best." And of course, the patient would be able to choose the treatment that suits them best.

MSH, you seem to be implying that there is One True Medicine (tm) and that all other options are inherently bullshit. Now, we can agree that homeopathy is an example of bullshit, but there are other alternative methods that are not. RedKing gave some examples. The Green Party's position to me reads as supporting those alternative methods, and while pointing out their supporting homeopathy is a valid criticism, it doesn't undermine their entire position on the issue (not nearly).

There is only one true medicine. Medicine with effectiveness backed by properly performed scientific trials. Everything else is superstition.
I do not see how this disagrees with anything I said, barring semantic pedantry. Of course medicine should be backed with properly performed scientific trials, and if you're claiming I'm saying differently then you're strawmanning me. My position is that there is more than one method to tackle any particular problem, and not all options are being provided.

Well actually that isn't my position; that's the Green Party's position. I'm just arguing it as a devil's advocate type of thing, since I'm not educated on the matter enough to have a real opinion. I'm absolutely making an assumption that not all valid methods are being provided, and if you can prove differently, then there's no further debate here.

Quote from: Criptfeind on September 26, 2012, 10:09:48 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 10:03:31 am
1) Extremely out of context quote. Please don't do that.
2) Nothing you said disagrees with me.

1) No. It's not. There is one medcine (tm) and what you said was bullshit.
2) Alternative is analogous to bullshit.
If you're going to continue to cut out portions of my posts so you can ignore them, I'm not going to argue with you.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on September 26, 2012, 10:15:58 am
That would infer that the other, not provided methods were actually effective. Which kinda goes against the point you're trying to advocate for.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 26, 2012, 10:16:46 am
The problem is that the alternatives that are not being offered are the ones that have either not been through proper scientific trials, have been and failed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 10:20:03 am
Quote from: Darvi on September 26, 2012, 10:15:58 am
That would infer that the other, not provided methods were actually effective. Which kinda goes against the point you're trying to advocate for.
Or they're not as profitable.

Quote from: Nadaka on September 26, 2012, 10:16:46 am
The problem is that the alternatives that are not being offered are the ones that have either not been through proper scientific trials, have been and failed.
A much better rebuttal, and one I agree with if so.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 26, 2012, 10:23:15 am
I'm not ignoring parts of your posts. I am just flatly saying that everything you said was bullshit.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 26, 2012, 10:24:14 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 10:13:32 am
Well actually that isn't my position; that's the Green Party's position. I'm just arguing it as a devil's advocate type of thing, since I'm not educated on the matter enough to have a real opinion. I'm absolutely making an assumption that not all valid methods are being provided, and if you can prove differently, then there's no further debate here.
If there are valid methods not being provided then the problem is that doctors are not supplying all available medicine.  It has nothing to do with alternative medicines which are by their nature not proved to be valid methods.  Again: alternative medicine that works is medicine.

I'm not convinced it's possible to give informed consent in this case.  Maybe if you have studied medicine for years and read all the literature on the treatment you are going to reject and all the literature on the not-proven-to-work or proven-not-to-work treatment you are about to receive then that could qualify as informed consent.  But regular members of the public are not likely to achieve that level of knowledge about the matter - more likely some quack told them that chemotherapy is evil and homeopathy works way better, look at my mail order degree I can't be lying.

Thus I can see an argument for allowing patients to choose between different alternatives that have an actual scientific basis, and maybe for offering a euthanasia option, but including shady alternative medicines that don't work is likely to confuse an average citizen.

Lastly I have no idea what you mean by not as profitable.  I guess something would be less profitable if it didn't work?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 26, 2012, 10:26:23 am
The biggest problem (for me) is that every alternative medicine I've ever had the displeasure to be exposed to hasn't just been "alternative", which I'm actually fine with, but downright fraudulent. There is no regulation of truth or veracity in claims, no standards, no way to tell who to trust. The "medicines" that succeed are the ones that can best extract money from their "patients" with the least possible cost: thus, the prevalence of homeopathy.

Throw the 90% of alternative "doctors" (that are really just new agey con men) in prison, and the alternative medicine that remains might actually be worth a damn, but my experience with the field (coming from New Hampshire, where homeopaths seem to outnumber regular doctors) is that they are, at best, grossly negligent, and are more commonly outright malicious for person gain. But they lie, constantly. About pretty much everything. Regular doctors don't have much of a reputation for honesty, but they are leagues and bounds beyond your standard homeopath or naturopath. Probably because of all that legal stuff that requires them to make certain disclosures and label in certain ways and answer certain questions, regulations the alt.med. fraudsters do not need to operate under.

I know there are many effective natural medicines - it would be nice if those were offered, but they don't make money. And with the industry in the state it's in, supporting it is either stupidity or conspiracy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 26, 2012, 10:30:58 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 26, 2012, 10:26:23 am
Throw the 90% of alternative "doctors" (that are really just new agey con men) in prison, and the alternative medicine that remains might actually be worth a damn, but my experience with the field (coming from New Hampshire, where homeopaths seem to outnumber regular doctors) is that they are, at best, grossly negligent, and are more commonly outright malicious for person gain. But they lie, constantly. About pretty much everything. Regular doctors don't have much of a reputation for honesty, but they are leagues and bounds beyond your standard homeopath or naturopath. Probably because of all that legal stuff that requires them to make certain disclosures and label in certain ways and answer certain questions, regulations the alt.med. fraudsters do not need to operate under.

But that can't be a reason to disagree with the green party because what they support is exactly the opposite of dishonesty and lies. They absolutely are against any kind of fraudulent or deceiving behaviour in either medicine or alternative medicine.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 26, 2012, 10:42:36 am
Quote from: lorb on September 26, 2012, 10:30:58 am
But that can't be a reason to disagree with the green party because what they support is exactly the opposite of dishonesty and lies. They absolutely are against any kind of fraudulent or deceiving behaviour in either medicine or alternative medicine.
It's hard to claim that when they make specious claims in their platform about them. Calling homeopath "medicine", a "healing approach", or talking about how "Chronic conditions are often best cured" by these kinds of treatments? Those are lies. Fraudulent is most likely, but deceptive at best.

(In the UK, at least, they've even made public policy a desire to eliminate regulation making homeopathy claims require evidence of truth or require it to be honest with its customers about composition and effect - so they not only lie about it, publicly, but they seek to make it impossible for the government to prosecute such fraudulent behaviour.

I know this last bit doesn't really reflect on the US green party, but this is an international thread, after all.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 26, 2012, 10:47:45 am
This discussion was started from someone wanting to vote for the US Green Party candidate, though. How closely is the US Green Party tied with the parties in other nations?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 26, 2012, 10:49:29 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 26, 2012, 10:24:14 am
Lastly I have no idea what you mean by not as profitable.  I guess something would be less profitable if it didn't work?
That probably falls somewhere into the "medicine but not being provided" bit. A great deal of doctors are pretty damned notorious for pushing the most expensive method of treatment. They'll usually back off if the patient is proactive about it (such as asking for generics rather than named brands, as a base example), but first offer and primary suggestion tends not to aim for effective and least expensive, but effective and most expensive. Even when there's no or nearly no difference in effectiveness.

At times, you have to flat out go somewhere else to get an equally effective treatment -- or even slam identical one -- for a lower price. This would be an example of an effective treatment not being provided in favor for a (more) profitable one.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 10:50:04 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 26, 2012, 10:24:14 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 10:13:32 am
Well actually that isn't my position; that's the Green Party's position. I'm just arguing it as a devil's advocate type of thing, since I'm not educated on the matter enough to have a real opinion. I'm absolutely making an assumption that not all valid methods are being provided, and if you can prove differently, then there's no further debate here.
If there are valid methods not being provided then the problem is that doctors are not supplying all available medicine.  It has nothing to do with alternative medicines which are by their nature not proved to be valid methods.  Again: alternative medicine that works is medicine.

I'm not convinced it's possible to give informed consent in this case.  Maybe if you have studied medicine for years and read all the literature on the treatment you are going to reject and all the literature on the not-proven-to-work or proven-not-to-work treatment you are about to receive then that could qualify as informed consent.  But regular members of the public are not likely to achieve that level of knowledge about the matter - more likely some quack told them that chemotherapy is evil and homeopathy works way better, look at my mail order degree I can't be lying.

Thus I can see an argument for allowing patients to choose between different alternatives that have an actual scientific basis, and maybe for offering a euthanasia option, but including shady alternative medicines that don't work is likely to confuse an average citizen.
/me nods

Fair enough on all points.

Quote
Lastly I have no idea what you mean by not as profitable.  I guess something would be less profitable if it didn't work?
Well there are two possibilities I can see, both admittedly rather rare:
- There are several rare curable diseases, but aren't properly treated due to the expense of treatment. The medicine isn't in demand enough to mass produce it. I see these brought up every once in a while as a criticism for profit based healthcare.
- It doesn't seem to far fetched to me to come up with alternative treatments that are effective, but not as effective, that are pushed aside as completely irrelevant because they can't be monetized as well. I'm pretty sure most doctors would push the most effective treatments unless they're prohibitively expensive, but lesser ones that a cheaper might be ignored. This is conjecture on my part, so could very well be wrong.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on September 26, 2012, 11:37:12 am
Quote from: darkrider2 on September 26, 2012, 10:11:52 am
When alternate medicine works, its called medicine.

Stupid sleeping and making me miss a perfect opportunity to quote Tim Minchin...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on September 26, 2012, 11:37:28 am
There is scant evidence suggesting that any of these purported "alternative treatments" do anything. As a doctor I have  a moral duty to keep scientific integrity when dealing with my patients. I'm not about to start offering to them "complementary" or "alternative" treatments that dont really seem to compliment anything, and I don't think that hospitals (let alone hospitals in a social security networks, or nationalized healthcare systems) should be spending their resources in those. Furthermore I feel duty-bound to let them know my professional opinion - as gently as possible*, of course, as the idea is not to antagonize them by insulting their beliefs, but first make sure they will not stop taking the real stuff, and then try to explain to them why whatever their faith healer of choice is doing does not make much sense.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 26, 2012, 11:41:34 am
Quote from: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 09:44:23 am
I'm a bit less sanguine about that view, considering I've used CTM (Chinese Traditional Medicine) to good effect in the past.

Seeming as there is tons of people that swear by homeotherapy as well, such a statement doesn't really mean anything. Especially since traditional Chinese medicine is, from what I know at least, heavily focused on preventing ails rather than during them, which makes it all the more easier to fraud people with it.

Furthermore, nobody is ever saying that there isn't some parts in CTM that works. "Western" medicine, which actually should be titled Scientific Medicine, is loosely based on an equally ancient and equally full of bullshit medicinal tradition, as you probably know, but then we decided to find out what parts of it actually worked and what didnt. All in all, people are saying two simple things:
1, Nobody who practices CTM has any real knowledge of what they're doing. All they have is superstition and unscientific natural philosophy which they arbitrarily decided was correct. And when CTM actually does work, nobody has any idea of the real reason why, or what all the other chemicals you ingested with the working one will do to you.
2, Just like with Western Traditional Medicine, when something out of CTM is proven to work and we know how and why it works, it becomes Scientific Medicine.


Quote
Acupuncture used to be (still is in some circles) considered quackery too.

Acupuncture used to be called bullshit because it was said to cure things, cancers, brain diseases, genetic stuff, all of those ails we still haven't got very good cures for (what a coincidence, huh?). Now, it is used as a painkiller and/or relaxation therapy. Anyone claiming it does anything more is still a quack.

Prerog: MASSIVE NINJA INVASION! But then again, I started writing this a few words at a time several hours ago. Gonna go read the rest now.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 11:45:24 am
I'd like to point out that self prescribed placebos still work as effective placebos :)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 26, 2012, 12:02:03 pm
Quote from: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 09:44:23 am
I'm a bit less sanguine about that view, considering I've used CTM (Chinese Traditional Medicine) to good effect in the past. Acupuncture used to be (still is in some circles) considered quackery too.
Yeah, great. Just because CTM happened to stumble upon something that works doesn't mean that you can trust some or even most of it.

Acupuncture used to be considered complete quackery, but then do you know what happened? We did science. We tested it. And it turned out that Acupuncture used for stress and pain relief is real medicine but none of its other uses are. And now we know. We can do that with everything else. I'm not saying we shouldn't do tests. But if the tests call them bullshit they're bullshit and not medicine, which means they need to be discarded.

A lot of modern CTM is just from hostility to real medicine because it is perceived as "Western" and thus "Not appropriate for Chinese people". Its the same bullshit as the occasional claims by Japanese people that they can't digest imported rice because it is "Not Japanese Enough".
Quote from: lorb on September 26, 2012, 09:49:52 am
By the way: Jill Stein, nominee of the green party for president, is a physician by profession.
Which doesn't necessarily make her credible. Furthermore, being candidate doesn't mean you get to write the platform.
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 09:52:36 am
Seems to me that their position is "stop pushing treatments based on profitability and instead offer multiple treatments that suit the patient best." And of course, the patient would be able to choose the treatment that suits them best.
Firstly, that isn't what they're saying. At all. I don't know where you're getting this from. Secondly, a patient doesn't know best. A patient doesn't know about the various treatments available to them. A patient doesn't know about maladies that aren't felt physically. A patient is thus informed by a legitimate doctor in an ethical fashion so that with the patient's status and feelings combined with the doctor's knowledge and expertise they may come to a consensus on the best treatment.
Quote
MSH, you seem to be implying that there is One True Medicine (tm) and that all other options are inherently bullshit. Now, we can agree that homeopathy is an example of bullshit, but there are other alternative methods that are not. RedKing gave some examples. The Green Party's position to me reads as supporting those alternative methods, and while pointing out their supporting homeopathy is a valid criticism, it doesn't undermine their entire position on the issue (not nearly).
There is One True Medicine and all other options are inherently bullshit. Alternative medicine that works is called medicine, to quote a certain someone.
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on September 26, 2012, 11:37:28 am
There is scant evidence suggesting that any of these purported "alternative treatments" do anything. As a doctor I have  a moral duty to keep scientific integrity when dealing with my patients. I'm not about to start offering to them "complementary" or "alternative" treatments that dont really seem to compliment anything, and I don't think that hospitals (let alone hospitals in a social security networks, or nationalized healthcare systems) should be spending their resources in those. Furthermore I feel duty-bound to let them know my professional opinion - as gently as possible*, of course, as the idea is not to antagonize them by insulting their beliefs, but first make sure they will not stop taking the real stuff, and then try to explain to them why whatever their faith healer of choice is doing does not make much sense.
Thank you.

There you all are. You now have the perspective of an actual doctor on this and why it is bullshit.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 12:46:46 pm
Damn, didn't realize we had a contingent of medical fundamentalists around here. I won't make the mistake of interrupting the adoration of the One True God Medicine with my heathen ways.

And for the record, I'm not saying that CTM is the end-all and be-all of medicine. Hell, 99% of CTM professionals wouldn't say that. What they will say is that Western medicine is fantastic at certain things (treating acute problems) and not so great at others (like treating low-level or chronic problems). It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing approach.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 26, 2012, 01:00:37 pm
That's an accurate criticism of Western medicine, I think. General health in the west is dominated by a lot of bullshit too, especially at the every day level, and I don't think it's appropriate to conflate scientific medicine and western medicine - a lot of out generally accepted medical beliefs have little or no scientific backing, and ineffective methods are quite often popularized while effective methods and accurate information languish because of an inability to market them, or simply because they are dismissed out of hand, or simply because the person who discovered it wasn't able to push it to prominence, or even because it's generally known the doctors you work with don't understand even the most basic techniques in applying statistically powerful medicine to individual cases or even applying statistics, period.

Unfortunately, a criticism of method A (Western Medicine), no matter how accurate, is not support of method B. CTM in general is based on a lot of bullshit and quakery and the version most people see is just as profit centered as Western medicine.

Honestly, I'd love for there to be a reliable field of medicine, or a medical tradition, based around helping those who have chronic but relatively minor (comparatively) issues. But there isn't. It's an area where profits are minimal if you're being honest, where quality information is expensive and hard to come by - if you're not being screwed over by one of those factors, you're probably being screwed over by the other... it's not really conducive to coming up with a good alternative.

/me shrugs.

It's definitely possible for CTM to offer something that will work for you. It's just not likely. (Beyond, as always, the always wonderful Placebo effect)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 26, 2012, 01:24:40 pm
Quote from: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 12:46:46 pm
Damn, didn't realize we had a contingent of medical fundamentalists around here. I won't make the mistake of interrupting the adoration of the One True God Medicine with my heathen ways.

If you got that from what people have been saying here, then I have to question your reading abilities, RedKing. Don't try to pain us as some sort of blindered supremacists, I might as well paint you as a Sino-phile in love with anything remotely "Chinese" and without ability to keep apart your romanticised view of CTM and the reality. So let's keep the personal accusation out of it, shall we?

Me and others have made our position very clear. If it's scientifically proven to work, we have no problems with it. It won't be CTM any more, of course. It will just be medicine.


Quote from: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 12:46:46 pm
And for the record, I'm not saying that CTM is the end-all and be-all of medicine. Hell, 99% of CTM professionals wouldn't say that. What they will say is that Western medicine is fantastic at certain things (treating acute problems) and not so great at others (like treating low-level or chronic problems). It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing approach.

First of all, the concept of "Western" medicine versus "Chinese" is bullshit. We don't do "Western" medicine any more. We used to, but doctors started realising it was baseless folklore. The fact that the medicinal enlightenment happened in the West is completely irrelevant. You might as well claim physics is "Western physics", or that math is "Western math". Secondly, yeah, I'd like to see them back that up with proof.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 01:45:23 pm
When I see a comment like

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 26, 2012, 12:02:03 pm
There is One True Medicine and all other options are inherently bullshit.

I could easily replace the word "Medicine" with "God", and it would fit perfectly into the mouth of a Pentecostal fundamentalist. Claiming that your way is the only correct way and all others are inherently invalid *is* fundamentalism, whether you like it or not. Replace "scientifically testable" with "in the Bible", and you even have the same discriminator as to what's acceptable and not acceptable.

There is a very complex system of thought underlying CTM, but yes...it does derive from a Taoist worldview which is inherently unscientific. If you consider that bollocks, then obviously you're going to consider CTM bollocks. If you actually *do* believe in Taoist metaphysics (and let me remind me you I've been a Taoist for roughly 20 years now), then it's a lot more valid. I'll grant you that that justification is no more sound than Christian faith healing. But the general attitude of "There Is But One Law And It Is SCIENCE" gets old after a while. Some times I think we have a few too many atheists around here.  ::)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 26, 2012, 01:50:23 pm
But... It's provable. Either it works or it doesn't. It's one of the few things in science we can be fairly close to absolutely certain about. It doesn't matter what world view is behind it. All an ethical doctor should care about is what heals his/her patients.

I don't know how else to argue against that point, Red. That kind of thinking, it just... Throws me off.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on September 26, 2012, 01:54:36 pm
There's a difference between science and faith, and one of the biggest ones is falsifiability. Empirical evidence can prove that a given medicine is better at treating a specific condition as opposed to an alternative method, whereas religion is for the most part a subjective thing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 01:55:22 pm
Quote from: Descan on September 26, 2012, 01:50:23 pm
I don't know how else to argue against that point, Red. That kind of thinking, it just... Throws me off.
I know. That's why I'm not continuing this argument. It's like arguing apples and walruses.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 26, 2012, 01:57:50 pm
I can agree to that. There are certain axioms both parties need to hold before any debate can be had. What truth is and how you arrive at it is one of them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on September 26, 2012, 01:58:28 pm
Quote from: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 01:55:22 pm
Quote from: Descan on September 26, 2012, 01:50:23 pm
I don't know how else to argue against that point, Red. That kind of thinking, it just... Throws me off.
I know. That's why I'm not continuing this argument. It's like arguing apples and walruses.
Walrusses are better than apples hands down!

They both don't compare to cubism, though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 02:09:04 pm
I'm going to pop in and point out I'm impressed by people respecting different axioms when it comes to stuff like this. High fives. :)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on September 26, 2012, 02:32:14 pm
Quote from: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 01:45:23 pm
I could easily replace the word "Medicine" with "God", and it would fit perfectly into the mouth of a Pentecostal fundamentalist. Claiming that your way is the only correct way and all others are inherently invalid *is* fundamentalism, whether you like it or not. Replace "scientifically testable" with "in the Bible", and you even have the same discriminator as to what's acceptable and not acceptable.

Oh the poor oppressed Woo Medicine. How ever will it be free if its practitioners can't charge for phony treatments? Well, besides literally in the economic sense of 'free' or at least priced without fraudulent claims of its effects so that customers can make informed decisions.

Suddenly, Storm (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0W7Jbc_Vhw) has become even more appropriate to the conversation. Kinda disappointed to be honest... as usually I respect your opinions. The whole perception that everything is just opinion and none of those can be wrong is a poison on public discourse. That sort of thinking is the tool of those too stubborn to admit they can't back their ideas, but it becomes outright foul when it results in tangible harm done under false beliefs.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 26, 2012, 02:34:50 pm
Science in the practice of medicine is something that really should be fundamental. It is a matter of life and death and the scientific method really does establish a fundamentally better system for determining if a treatment will be effective, ineffective or even harmful.

Superstition and magic had no place in there. It doesn't matter if it is toism, dancing with rattlesnakes, voodoo dolls, animal sacrifice or praying to some god, water memory or the philosophies of the ancient greeks.

If you want Chinese traditional medicine to be held in equal value to modern medicine, put it to the test. Some of it may hold up to scrutiny and be incorporated into modern medicine, most of it probably won't.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 26, 2012, 02:36:40 pm
Oh, I don't respect it. Oh sure, I respect it exists. And I respect that people, like Big  here, hold to it. And I respect that it'd be as close to impossible to convince him or anyone else who holds it that they're wrong as it would be to convince me that science as an axiom is wrong. But if I respected it as an axiom, I would hold it myself. Since I don't hold it, I can't say I respect it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 02:39:03 pm
@glowcat
RedKing's argument in that particular quote has to do with rhetoric. He's claiming the argument is bad, not necessarily what it's supporting. (he's got some other arguments too which I won't go into, but those aren't in the portion you quoted)

Quote from: Descan on September 26, 2012, 02:36:40 pm
But if I respected it as an axiom, I would hold it myself. Since I don't hold it, I can't say I respect it.
This is a bit silly. Why can't you say you respect it without holding it? Axioms are, by definition, assumptions we make that have no support. You can respect them the same way you respect any sort of difference of opinion.

It's like saying you can't respect someone liking a movie that you don't. (such a difference of opinion is obviously of far lesser magnitude, but the logic is the same)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on September 26, 2012, 02:42:14 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 02:39:03 pm
It's like saying you can't respect someone liking a movie that you don't.
I thought that was the cultural standard?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 02:43:06 pm
Quote from: Darvi on September 26, 2012, 02:42:14 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 02:39:03 pm
It's like saying you can't respect someone liking a movie that you don't.
I thought that was the cultural standard?
We've got a lot of stupid cultural standards :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on September 26, 2012, 02:43:52 pm
Agreed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on September 26, 2012, 02:45:15 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 02:39:03 pm
@glowcat
RedKing's argument in that particular quote has to do with rhetoric. He's claiming the argument is bad, not necessarily what it's supporting. (he's got some other arguments too which I won't go into, but those aren't in the portion you quoted)

That's not the impression I got, especially when combined with his own rhetoric which is aptly called a cliche for how often I see it used (yet never adequately defended when challenged). I'll give his posts a reread later but for now I've got to get back to studying.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 26, 2012, 02:47:55 pm
Axioms disgust me. Always crawling in your shoes at night, leaving their slime trails everywhere. Fucking disgusting.

So, yeah, new topics maybe? He said he didn't want to talk about it, and everyone else is agreeing, so this piling on is a bit much.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 26, 2012, 03:06:20 pm
Quote from: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 01:45:23 pm
When I see a comment like

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 26, 2012, 12:02:03 pm
There is One True Medicine and all other options are inherently bullshit.

I could easily replace the word "Medicine" with "God", and it would fit perfectly into the mouth of a Pentecostal fundamentalist. Claiming that your way is the only correct way and all others are inherently invalid *is* fundamentalism, whether you like it or not. Replace "scientifically testable" with "in the Bible", and you even have the same discriminator as to what's acceptable and not acceptable.
Science is nothing like religion. Science depends upon results, religions depend upon dogma. If you can't see the difference there we aren't going anywhere. That you can switch words around to make my statement wrong by jumping into entirely different concepts doesn't refute anything.
Quote
But the general attitude of "There Is But One Law And It Is SCIENCE" gets old after a while. Some times I think we have a few too many atheists around here.  ::)
If you're disregarding science for something that you yourself admit is inherently unscientific, in the world of medicine no less, then it looks to me like we don't have nearly enough.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 26, 2012, 03:18:14 pm
MSH is, by his own definitions, always right.

His statement is: "There is One True Medicine and all other options are inherently bullshit. "
And these are the definitions that he uses:
The One true medicin: All treatments, even those incorporated in traditional stuff, that work
All other options: Those that don't work.

This statement can therefore not be wrong, but is also completely meaningless.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 26, 2012, 03:19:29 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 26, 2012, 03:06:20 pm
Science is nothing like religion. Science depends upon results, religions depend upon dogma. If you can't see the difference there we aren't going anywhere. That you can switch words around to make my statement wrong by jumping into entirely different concepts doesn't refute anything
Quote
But the general attitude of "There Is But One Law And It Is SCIENCE" gets old after a while. Some times I think we have a few too many atheists around here.  ::)
If you're disregarding science for something that you yourself admit is inherently unscientific, in the world of medicine no less, then it looks to me like we don't have nearly enough.

"There is One True Medicine and all other options are inherently bullshit." is not a scientific statement. I /thought/ it was tongue in cheek, but by your response here, maybe I was wrong. There is no One True anything in science, because science recognizes that odds, context, and limited information pretty much preclude that from ever being possible. Like Democracy, it is not perfect, it is simply the best we have (and there are ways to do it poorly and ways to improve your methodology).

Medicine isn't even science. It has science in it, sure. But there's a lot more to it than that, as we're all well aware.

You're both sounding stubbornly dogmatic, here. As long as he doesn't go around insisting to other people that it will help them, lying to them about likely effects, or trying to spend the countries money on it, I've got no problem with him. People do a lot of things for a lot of very unscientific reasons. Big woop. I just want laws against this stuff being fraudulently advertised.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 26, 2012, 03:24:20 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 26, 2012, 03:19:29 pm
"There is One True Medicine and all other options are inherently bullshit." is not a scientific statement. I /thought/ it was tongue in cheek, but by your response here, maybe I was wrong.
Of course it was tongue in cheek!

I swear, I can't say anything without getting critically misunderstood. The context of the original statement was me sarcastically replying to kaijyuu who accused me of legitimately stating that there was "One True Medicine". My understanding was that we were all aware that I was doing so in confirmation of supporting only medicine that produces evidential results as being real medicine, not actually stating that there is One True Medicine.

And alternative medicine is still bullshit.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 26, 2012, 03:37:06 pm
Bah! Then why didn't you say that when someone misinterpreted it, instead of defending it! Argh. I can never ever follow disagreements here. -__-
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on September 26, 2012, 03:38:21 pm
I somehow get the feeling that most disagreements here are caused by both sides actually not being serious about what they're saying and just continuing for the hell of it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 26, 2012, 03:39:54 pm
God damn it, I KNOW someone got serious at some point! (other than me.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 26, 2012, 03:43:02 pm
Quote from: Darvi on September 26, 2012, 03:38:21 pm
I somehow get the feeling that most disagreements here are caused by both sides actually not being serious about what they're saying and just continuing for the hell of it.

So basically Poe's Law in overdrive?

Somehow... I'm fine with that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 26, 2012, 03:43:49 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 26, 2012, 03:39:54 pm
God damn it, I KNOW someone got serious at some point! (other than me.)
It's Pathos all the way down, I'm afraid.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 26, 2012, 05:32:09 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on September 26, 2012, 03:18:14 pm
This statement can therefore not be wrong, but is also completely meaningless.

It's not really meaningless. Not so long as people use things that don't work and pretend that they do work.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 26, 2012, 06:44:47 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 10:50:04 am
Well there are two possibilities I can see, both admittedly rather rare:
- There are several rare curable diseases, but aren't properly treated due to the expense of treatment. The medicine isn't in demand enough to mass produce it. I see these brought up every once in a while as a criticism for profit based healthcare.
- It doesn't seem to far fetched to me to come up with alternative treatments that are effective, but not as effective, that are pushed aside as completely irrelevant because they can't be monetized as well. I'm pretty sure most doctors would push the most effective treatments unless they're prohibitively expensive, but lesser ones that a cheaper might be ignored. This is conjecture on my part, so could very well be wrong.
These points do make sense, but neither case would generally involve alternative medicine as far as I can tell.  The first case is a nasty dilemma about how much money you're prepared to pay per person (ultimately you have to set a limit, unfortunately).  I can imagine something like the second case arising through patents (big pharma pushing their own patented drugs over the cheaper "generic" drugs they no longer hold the patent on) but that case only really works if both drugs have already been shown to work.

It's also something that should be addressed in Ben Goldacre's new book, which I need to get a hold of and read as soon as possible.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 26, 2012, 07:22:42 pm
Quote from: darkrider2 on September 26, 2012, 03:43:02 pm
Quote from: Darvi on September 26, 2012, 03:38:21 pm
I somehow get the feeling that most disagreements here are caused by both sides actually not being serious about what they're saying and just continuing for the hell of it.

So basically Poe's Law in overdrive?

Somehow... I'm fine with that.

Devil's Advocateception?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 26, 2012, 07:45:58 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 02:39:03 pm
It's like saying you can't respect someone liking a movie that you don't.
No, it's like saying you can respect someone but not respect their tastes in movies.

:P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 26, 2012, 07:58:53 pm
Here, have something else to talk about: Israel lobbyist suggesting false flag attacks to get US to war with Iran: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M84l19H68mk
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mlamlah on September 26, 2012, 08:02:25 pm
Quote from: Descan on September 25, 2012, 10:16:04 pm
I think Occupy Wall Street is, in no small part, the average person having stopped, looked at what's going on... and going up in arms.

This.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on September 26, 2012, 08:13:34 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on September 26, 2012, 07:58:53 pm
Here, have something else to talk about: Israel lobbyist suggesting false flag attacks to get US to war with Iran: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M84l19H68mk
Ok, I get that Israel is surrounded by countries that hate it and have tried to snuff it out from pretty much the day it was created, but the attitudes it has are really not helping, and it's really going to get itself into big trouble one of these days.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on September 26, 2012, 10:46:52 pm
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/26/14115231-us-documents-reportedly-refer-to-assange-wikileaks-as-enemy?lite
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 27, 2012, 04:48:38 pm
The thing about the US having no mandated paid vacation time, sick leave, or maternity leave (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/27/opinion/freedman-american-families/index.html?hpt=hp_t2) has come up again.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Levi on September 27, 2012, 04:49:35 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 27, 2012, 04:48:38 pm
The thing about the US having no mandated paid vacation time, sick leave, or maternity leave (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/27/opinion/freedman-american-families/index.html?hpt=hp_t2) has come up again.

Really?  That must suck.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 27, 2012, 05:01:04 pm
Quote from: Levi on September 27, 2012, 04:49:35 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 27, 2012, 04:48:38 pm
The thing about the US having no mandated paid vacation time, sick leave, or maternity leave (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/27/opinion/freedman-american-families/index.html?hpt=hp_t2) has come up again.

Really?  That must suck.

Yeah... I've complained about my workplace a lot here... and it really is horrible... but I've stayed with them for three reasons.

1.  I have really good seniority, which means that I'm very last on the chopping block when they do lay-offs.  It's the best job security I could possible find right now.
2.  Decent health insurance benefits, which is incredibly rare in America right now.
3.  Four weeks worth of paid vacation (moving up to 5 next year), which is REALLY good by current American standards.

Many low-level jobs offer zero benefits and zero vacation.  American businesses in general have been treating their employees with barely hidden contempt and mockery in recent years, and are quite open about not giving a shit about families.  I've had to damn near get into a yelling match with my boss over the phone about taking government protected (via FMLA) UNPAID days off to take care of my son when my wife wasn't available to do so.  He's diabetic.  It's kinda important.  He could die.  Boss still thought I should be at work.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on September 28, 2012, 08:09:28 am
Quote from: Moghjubar on September 26, 2012, 07:58:53 pm
Here, have something else to talk about: Israel lobbyist suggesting false flag attacks to get US to war with Iran: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M84l19H68mk
Can anyone find anything about this guy being an Israel lobbyist outside assertions from conspiracy theory sites (visit the homepage linked from that video for an example of that)? The only history I can find for him are the IMF and World Bank, plus his work at the Washington Institute which is a general Near East policy think tank. Everything I've read about him makes him out to be a financial wonk who is also an expert on Iran. I'm having a really hard time finding the Israel connection.

As for his actual words, there is a little bit of context. After an hour long discussion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsvDWZTVP3E) (the part shown is around 1:15:15, with direct context for a few minutes before that) they are asked questions by journalists. One of them is about the US's ability, diplomatically and politically speaking, to use force against Iran in the case that they don't respond to diplomacy or sanctions and develop a nuclear bomb. The journalist asking mentions a poll showing that 70% of American are against such an intervention.

The first response is about Obama's being willing to use force as a last resort, based on his commitment to prevention of Iran getting such a weapon as opposed to a strategy of containment.

Then it's the guy in the video who solely addresses the popularity aspect of going to war with Iran. He basically says that the US rarely gets to declare wars without a clear threat to (or attack on) their own interests. As such, if the US were to go to war with Iran it would be most likely started by someone else.

It was odd language and phrasing, and the guy is somewhat weird (he later makes some remarks about Iranian subs that are odder than the clip shown IMO, suggesting covert military ops have a place alongside sanctions), but I actually think it's an interesting point and, frankly, right. If the US were to ever end up in an armed conflict with Iran it wouldn't be because they fired the first shots. IT would be because (most likely) Israel had made a strike against their nuclear facilities. The site of the Institute giving the talk have a lengthy article on that scenario (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-day-after-responding-to-an-israeli-strike-on-iran) that is worth reading.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 28, 2012, 01:15:26 pm
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-28/obama-leads-in-latest-swing-state-polls-as-debate-nears

I You declare yourself, "job and company killer"

"Sept. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Mother Jones magazine has released a video of Mitt Romney in 1985 discussing Bain Capital. He says the firm manages companies to "harvest them at a significant profit.""

I mean, just wow. "Harvest" companies.... Harvest? He's not talking about farming. He's talking about being a corporate raider who goes in, takes all the value and leaves a trail of destroyed companies and destroyed jobs in his wake.

I don't understand how on earth people can vote for this man. He's basically written off half the country (47% including vets, the elderly, and tons of other people), and now he's on tape showing that much touted "business experience" consists of raiding companies, plundering the wealth and skipping a now jobless town.... And, they're still trying to spin this stuff somehow into something positive, which I can't imagine.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 28, 2012, 01:22:49 pm
Though, to be fair, a proper "harvest" sows the seeds for NEXT years crop.

So you can stretch the metaphor to mean good things.

... Still bullshit, but fair is fair.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 28, 2012, 01:35:03 pm
Quote from: Descan on September 28, 2012, 01:22:49 pm
Though, to be fair, a proper "harvest" sows the seeds for NEXT years crop.

So you can stretch the metaphor to mean good things.

... Still bullshit, but fair is fair.
I don't know about you, but I'd prefer that human civilization maintain a exponential increase in quality rather than a cyclical process of great prosperity and mass die-off. 
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on September 28, 2012, 01:35:07 pm
I think I have the GOP's plan figured out.

They know that the '12 elections are a lost cause, so they knowingly got a nutbag candidate so their next candidate '16 looks sane in comparison.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on September 28, 2012, 01:37:04 pm
Nahh, they're too disorganized for a plan like that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on September 28, 2012, 01:37:49 pm
Yeah, or you can harvest apples without killing the tree.

Problem being, the Bain approach would be to harvest the apples, sell the apples, then chop down the tree and sell it for firewood, then take the chunks that weren't suitable for firewood and have them ground into pulp to sell to a paper mill.  :-\
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 28, 2012, 01:38:43 pm
Quote from: Darvi on September 28, 2012, 01:35:07 pm
I think I have the GOP's plan figured out.

They know that the '12 elections are a lost cause, so they knowingly got a nutbag candidate so their next candidate '16 looks sane in comparison.

I'm not sure I've seen the republicans ever try to think in the long term. It's probably more of a "Meh, he's the best we could get (he's the one all our sponsors chose)".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 28, 2012, 01:39:51 pm
Quote from: RedKing on September 28, 2012, 01:37:49 pm
Yeah, or you can harvest apples without killing the tree.

Problem being, the Bain approach would be to harvest the apples, sell the apples, then chop down the tree and sell it for firewood, then take the chunks that weren't suitable for firewood and have them ground into pulp to sell to a paper mill.  :-\
Then declare the orchard ground an industrial dumping site.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Gantolandon on September 28, 2012, 01:43:20 pm
Quote
I don't understand how on earth people can vote for this man. He's basically written off half the country (47% including vets, the elderly, and tons of other people), and now he's on tape showing that much touted "business experience" consists of raiding companies, plundering the wealth and skipping a now jobless town.... And, they're still trying to spin this stuff somehow into something positive, which I can't imagine.

At this point, I'm not sure if you shouldn't wish he won instead of Obama. His anti-charisma would ensure that it would be very hard for him to pass something actually harmful, at least without causing significant outrage. His opponent, at this point, can do almost anything he wants and no one will bat an eye, because he is still better than Romney. ;)

The joys of two-party system...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on September 28, 2012, 04:16:52 pm
Someone shared this on Facebook.  Still not sure how the government "uses guns" to immorally steal money from the rich to give to the poor.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 04:19:26 pm
People who post things like that don't understand the concept of responsibility. You're getting "forced" to help people because it's your goddamn responsibility to help them, not because it's compassionate.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 28, 2012, 04:55:47 pm
I really don't like Penn & Teller.  This is just one more case.  I understand what he's saying, but it's also pretty stupid if you think 10 more seconds into it.  Their show is also blatant political propaganda.  What really bothers me is they somehow manage to appeal to normally intelligent people who I would expect to be able to see through that kind of... bullshit.

Anyway, they're well-known as libertarian.  From the libertarian perspective, everything the government does is carried out with the threat of force behind it.  Very rarely is encouragement offered instead.  If you don't cooperate with what the government wants, you face an escalating series of consequences, which eventually involves guns and cages and years of your life.

Of course, what he's failing to include in his statement (because he's too busy, as usual, declaring absolutist moral ultimatums) is the obvious reality that most people don't have the resources to just go out and help the poor on their own.  In fact, most people are poor or one case of bad luck/judgment away from being poor.  The government exists, in theory, to give such people some power in society so they don't live purely as slaves to the rich.  I suppose he thinks such people are also immoral self-righteous bullying lazies.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 28, 2012, 04:57:41 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/congresswoman-wants-protect-silly-internet-laws-002611165.html

Apparently, there is someone in government trying to keep things like SOPA from happening again.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 05:00:21 pm
Bloop bloop wrong window
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on September 28, 2012, 05:06:25 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 28, 2012, 04:55:47 pm
I really don't like Penn & Teller.  This is just one more case.  I understand what he's saying, but it's also pretty stupid if you think 10 more seconds into it.  Their show is also blatant political propaganda.  What really bothers me is they somehow manage to appeal to normally intelligent people who I would expect to be able to see through that kind of... bullshit.
I can't find the article (I think it was in the middle of the whole Atheism+ avalanche) but there was a fun quote about how that happens with 'sceptics'.

They find it easy to apply sceptical reasoning to, say, religion, alternative medicine and all kinds of ideas that are generally thought of as slightly kooky. They then consider themselves skeptics and to have already subjected any other beliefs they just happen to hold as justified. After all, they are skeptics, so if such beliefs were valid they wouldn't hold them, would they?

And that's ignoring the people who don't even bother with the reasoning part and just align their views with the common perception of skeptic beliefs so that they can feel the righteousness that comes with being better than all those deluded sheeple.

That's (mostly) when you get into the whole libertarian, sexist and racist strains within the skeptic/atheist/whatever community.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 28, 2012, 05:07:44 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 04:19:26 pm
People who post things like that don't understand the concept of responsibility. You're getting "forced" to help people because it's your goddamn responsibility to help them, not because it's compassionate.

Responsibility? How?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 28, 2012, 05:13:18 pm
Wow... (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/26/14114021-hong-kong-playboy-tycoon-offers-65-million-to-find-husband-for-lesbian-daughter?lite)

I'm pretty sure this guy just resigned his daughter to hell.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 28, 2012, 05:14:46 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 28, 2012, 05:13:18 pm
Wow... (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/26/14114021-hong-kong-playboy-tycoon-offers-65-million-to-find-husband-for-lesbian-daughter?lite)

I'm pretty sure this guy just resigned his daughter to hell.

I posted that recently in the WTF thread.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Levi on September 28, 2012, 05:16:48 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 28, 2012, 05:13:18 pm
Wow... (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/26/14114021-hong-kong-playboy-tycoon-offers-65-million-to-find-husband-for-lesbian-daughter?lite)

I'm pretty sure this guy just resigned his daughter to hell.

Or his daughter found a great way to scam her dad out of 65 mil.  :D
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 05:19:49 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 28, 2012, 05:07:44 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 04:19:26 pm
People who post things like that don't understand the concept of responsibility. You're getting "forced" to help people because it's your goddamn responsibility to help them, not because it's compassionate.

Responsibility? How?
By virtue of being in a society you have a responsibility to others within it. You don't live in a vacuum where you don't have to care about anyone but yourself. I realize I'm circularly reasserting myself here, but I can't explain "why" any more than I can explain "why" you have to care about anyone in any situation.

Just take all those things you learned in preschool, like don't hit other people, share your toys, and play nice, and extrapolate. It's not toys we're sharing, even, but basic necessities.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 28, 2012, 05:19:58 pm
Quote from: Euld on September 28, 2012, 04:16:52 pm
Someone shared this on Facebook.  Still not sure how the government "uses guns" to immorally steal money from the rich to give to the poor.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

This is a particular brand of taking words and phrases of someone else. Namely it's a phrase straight out of Ayn Rand. If you read Atlas Shrugged, this is a recurring theme: figurative at first and then literal. It's also part of Galt's very long speech towards the end.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 05:22:46 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 28, 2012, 05:07:44 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 04:19:26 pm
People who post things like that don't understand the concept of responsibility. You're getting "forced" to help people because it's your goddamn responsibility to help them, not because it's compassionate.
Responsibility? How?

Same way its your responsibility to pay taxes, same reason it's your responsibility to pay taxes for infrastructure development, same reason you can be called for the draft and the same reason you're supposed to vote.

We live in a society, a nation, and it is the responsibility of those who dwell within the nation to make it a good one, to do their part, so that through cooperation we can accomplish more than we would be able to as individuals. By living here, you agree to that. While the United States has always been big on liberty, and you can shirk many of those responsibilities without facing it's legal wrath, this does not make it any less of a responsibility for you to do your party.

It is through the action's of those who acted responsibly, acted in such a way to better this nation, that we've become as good as we are, and it is a lack of that responsibility that threatens us now.

I would think that a conservative would understand the notion of responsibility in respect to community and country. These are our neighbours, our extended family, our countrymen, and we do not leave them to suffer when we can do something to fix it.

And, like with the draft, if we can not manage success with voluntary adherence to that responsibility, we will use the force of law to insure those who attempt to shirk it also do their part.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 05:25:33 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 05:22:46 pm
I would think that a conservative would understand the notion of responsibility in respect to community and country...
Dude, even I can see this as ad hominem, and I agree with the rest of your post :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 05:32:46 pm
...what? How?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 05:46:01 pm
"I would think you'd know X if you were Y" is a personal attack intended to discredit the opponent and not their argument, as it implies they're either not Y or a bad Y. No matter what Y is, or whether the person fits in that group, it's irrelevant to the points they're making.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 05:51:50 pm
Since ad hominem is by definition an attempt to discredit an argument, it can't be ad hominem, then. And I'm not sure I trust your declaration of a personal attack either - it was intended an appeal.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 05:56:09 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 05:51:50 pm
Since ad hominem is by definition an attempt to discredit an argument, it can't be ad hominem, then.
???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Quote
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it.

Ad hominem is a fallacy since it avoids the argument entirely. If it discredits an argument, it can only do so indirectly, through discrediting the person advocating it.

I'm guessing we're having a semantic mixup here?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 28, 2012, 05:59:37 pm
It might be slightly, but it isn't beyond the pale to call into question contradictions.

Conservatives tout "support the troops." Yet, they often do not like taxes. The logic short circuit is that taxes support the troops with pay, equipment, VA benefits, everything.
Not paying taxes is, failing to support the troops and that would've been self evident in World War II.  Just in case anybody doubts me. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqMVpcbhpqw). If the tea party existed in 1941, they would've been tarred and feathered. After all "taxes kill the axis." Now, that's a more palatable version. More people will agree on "support the troops" than "support everybody." This is somewhat tragic given that many homeless people actually are veterans, and they tell you that right after your release, but whatever.

As for everybody else, it's a question of responsibility to make the world a better place v. taking whatever you can for yourself and screwing over everybody else.

Look, these however many millions of Americans who are unemployed are not lazy, or worthless or whatever. A couple years ago, they were employed and paying taxes. What the hell happened? They're the same people they were and they can be just as productive now. Through something they don't want and that isn't their fault, they are currently unemployed. The notion that people who don't have a job in this terrible economy are "lazy" is laughable at best and contemptible really,  because it's saying that millions upon millions of people are so worthless and lazy that they would actually let themselves and their entire family rot in poverty.  (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-mitt-romneys-47-percent-poll-20120925,0,5822326.story)

I am openly and notoriously cynical as hell and even I don't think that all the unemployed people are so lazy as to let themselves and their loved ones die on purpose. "Personal Responsibility? " Romney thinks these people don't take "personal responsibility?" Who are the people getting foreclosed upon and losing their homes? Who are the people who have to do without? Who are the people who have to pay the brunt of this catastrophe we call our current economy while rich bankers somehow get bonuses? Personal responsibility? They're swimming in it, actually they're drowning in it. This coming from a man whose parents paid for his college and really his entire life. Personal responsibility? No wonder Romney misuses those words, he's never had any....

And all these people, who are drowning in that personal responsibility Romney says they don't have, can't fail. If anything is too big to fail, it's the 1 in 6 or 1 in 8 people in poverty (depending upon what survey you believe) in the US. How many millions of people is that? How can you continue to have a society when that many people are being left behind? You can't. The society we can't have if millions of people are left behind, is what made the rich people rich. They didn't get wealthy on a desert isle; people bought whatever they sold... the same people who many of them are now advocating don't matter.... need a lil help at the moment.

Even from a completely dispassionate, logical stance, all these rich people and companies, need a healthy middle class consumer base, or else there won't be any customers to buy all the stuff they sell..... It's in their best interest to keep what they rudely consider the "herd" healthy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 06:01:35 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 05:56:09 pm
Ad hominem is a fallacy since it avoids the argument entirely. If it discredits an argument, it can only do so indirectly, through discrediting the person advocating it.
I'm guessing we're having a semantic mixup here?

Yes, due to the fact that you are ignoring the words before what you bolded. The intent of an ad hominem NEEDS to be the refutation of the opposing argument, or it's not an ad hominem. The fact that attacking a person is not a valid refutation is why it's a fallacy, but the intent needs to be to discredit the argument.

An ad hominem is an attempt to discredit an argument by attacking the person. This is why it's a fallacy!

You specifically said that my intent was only to attack the person and not the argument - thus, it is a personal attack, but it is not a logical fallacy, simply a cheap shot.

None of which changes the fact that it was intended as an appeal. And hell, appeals can be fallacies, so if you want to point out one of those that applies, feel free. But if you're going to be accusing me of stuff, make it the right stuff.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Wrex on September 28, 2012, 06:02:59 pm
Well said Truean. Couldn't have put it better myself.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 06:04:25 pm
Blah. I suppose you could argue the tu quoque form, but even that would be a stretch. My optimal situation would be for him to accept the premise that he is someone who values these things, and thus strengthen the rest of my argument.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 06:11:52 pm
I have to get back to work but posting to say I'll be back with some questions later. You've convinced me that I'm missing something here, so I'll ask to be educated on some details later.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on September 28, 2012, 06:35:50 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 05:56:09 pm
I'm guessing we're having a semantic mixup here?
No, I think you are just unclear about what an ad hom is. Lots of people are.

Ad hom is solely when you attack or insult the person making the argument to discredit their point. Unless it is actually intended as or in the place of an argument then it isn't actually an ad hom attack.

A few quick examples demonstrate this best;

A: I think X.
B: We all know A is a glue sniffing conservative toff. Therefore Not X.

Here B is committing an ad hom, insulting A as though that were an argument against A's actual point. This is the clearest form of the fallacy possible.

A: I think X.
B: Well, for reason y, Y is true, not X. But I'd expect such lies from a Tory bastard like yourself.

This is a slightly different form of ad hom, where the attack on the person is closer to an attempt to poison the well than anything. While they do attack the argument with reasoning (possibly even valid reasoning) they are trying to reinforce this with the insult while also making it easier to dismiss anything they say in the future out of hand. You see this one a lot where gradually the reasoned arguments fade away and you revert to the first form over time.

It's also popular during dog piles on people who are voicing an unpopular or fringe belief in a hostile environment, where people are less interested in making valid arguments than with point scoring with the other people who agree with them. You commonly see that sort of tagged on dismissive line being the only part of such posts being quoted by others who agree with them, who probably didn't even bother reading the rest and were happy with just the idea that such an argument was made. But that's internet sociology, not logical fallacies, so ignore this paragraph.

A: I think X.
B: Well, for reason y, Y is true, not X. So fuck you, you were wrong.

Here B is not committing an ad hom, despite his insulting A. The insult is independent of the argument and not part of it. It is just an insult (and not a dismissive or personal one) and so not a fallacy.

A: I think X.
B: Well, for reason y, Y is true, not X. You idiot.

This is more borderline, but I'd push it towards being ad hom. While the insult is not part of the argument it is intended to be dismissive of the person themselves and so could be taken as trying to support their point (saying the person is inherently not smart enough for their arguments to be right). I'd honestly try to avoid this kind of thing, but for better reasons than it being fallacious reasoning. Insults referencing something inherent about a person are usually just bad.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 28, 2012, 06:54:31 pm
I would call  gryph said more of an external version of "No True Scotsman" than ad hominem. Could be both, of course.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 07:48:23 pm
Okie dokie, I have some time now for replies/questions. I'm pretty much on Input Mode, with the exception of one thing to Truean...
Quote from: Truean on September 28, 2012, 05:59:37 pm
It might be slightly, but it isn't beyond the pale to call into question contradictions.
If something is "slightly" fallacious, then the argument is flawed. If the argument isn't flawed, then there are no fallacies. It's never justified to use a fallacy, though one might be correct in spite of the fallacy.

So yeah, no "yes but..." excuses when it comes to fallacies :P If the conclusion is still correct, you have to find a new way to reach it that actually makes sense.



There was also some stuff in your post about contradictory positions. That is a fine thing to talk about, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure that applies to GreatJustice. If you want to point out contradictions as an argument, make sure it's your opponent's contradictions you're arguing against, not some vague group they ostensibly belong to. Any arguments against "conservativism" as a philosophy do not necessarily apply to any particular conservative, and it's an association fallacy to think they do.


Okay, now Input Mode.
Quote
You specifically said that my intent was only to attack the person and not the argument - thus, it is a personal attack, but it is not a logical fallacy, simply a cheap shot.
That's what I read it as, yes: a cheap shot. Sort of like Descan said below you: a no true scotsman fallacy type thing (though I don't think it fits that perfectly).
I cannot see how something can be a cheap shot but not an ad hominem, unless it's an insult for giggles rather than an attempt to discredit. This would be where I guess I'm missing something?

Anyway, no hard feelings or anything; if an insult wasn't intended, then I see no reason to be insulted once that's cleared up (even though it'd be GreatJustice in this case rather than me).

Quote
None of which changes the fact that it was intended as an appeal.
This is where I'm mainly confused. What do you mean by "appeal"?

"Appeal" when used in logical debate, as I understand it, always is an appeal to something. When making an argument, what you "appeal" to is the support. An appeal to authority would be saying "this dude says X, and is a valid authority on the subject, therefore X is true." An appeal to popularity would be saying "X movie is the best since it's the most popular."

But that doesn't seem to fit the word as you used it. Based on context, I guess you're indirectly asking a question?

Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 06:04:25 pm
Blah. I suppose you could argue the tu quoque form, but even that would be a stretch.
Tu Quoque, as I understand it, is the fallacious appeal to hypocrisy. Responding to "X is bad" with "but you do X!" is tu quoque. Whether or not they do X is irrelevant.


@Palsch
Okay. I can see insults being thrown to get an audience on one's side, rather than a real attempt to discredit an opponent.

Side note: What kind of argument would you classify the part of Glyph Gryph's original post I quoted as?


Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 28, 2012, 08:34:13 pm
Pointing out a contradiction in a common worldview.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 29, 2012, 07:22:05 am
Article 15, Indian constitution (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/609295/):
The important stuff:
Quote
1. The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them
Quote
4. Nothing in this article or in clause ( 2 ) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

What it means:
HOW CAN SHE SLAP? HOW CAN SHE SLAP?! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOjZxM5FF14)

So what does bay12 think? Good idea, true equality and all that, or a system that will eventually lead to abuse?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kedly on September 29, 2012, 07:39:05 am
Equality, but I don't really like that either person slapped the other xD
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 29, 2012, 07:39:21 am
I don't even know what "system" is being referenced here. Not allowing gender discrimination?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kedly on September 29, 2012, 07:41:16 am
Actually good point, the video distracts from the constitution. Gender equality isn't about who can hit who. It's about equality
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 29, 2012, 07:46:40 am
Quote from: Kedly on September 29, 2012, 07:41:16 am
Gender equality isn't about who can hit who.
The "how can she slap" was in reference of when a female TV presenter slapped some dude, and in response the dude slapped her back. He gets mobbed by the entire audience and beaten the crap up, whilst shouting "how can she slap?!"
So the video was specifically addressessing that double standard.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kedly on September 29, 2012, 07:48:38 am
Yeah that makes sense, I think laws don't quite stop that kind of mob activity though
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 29, 2012, 10:54:08 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 05:22:46 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 28, 2012, 05:07:44 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 04:19:26 pm
People who post things like that don't understand the concept of responsibility. You're getting "forced" to help people because it's your goddamn responsibility to help them, not because it's compassionate.
Responsibility? How?

Same way its your responsibility to pay taxes, same reason it's your responsibility to pay taxes for infrastructure development, same reason you can be called for the draft and the same reason you're supposed to vote.

We live in a society, a nation, and it is the responsibility of those who dwell within the nation to make it a good one, to do their part, so that through cooperation we can accomplish more than we would be able to as individuals. By living here, you agree to that. While the United States has always been big on liberty, and you can shirk many of those responsibilities without facing it's legal wrath, this does not make it any less of a responsibility for you to do your party.

It is through the action's of those who acted responsibly, acted in such a way to better this nation, that we've become as good as we are, and it is a lack of that responsibility that threatens us now.

I would think that a conservative would understand the notion of responsibility in respect to community and country. These are our neighbours, our extended family, our countrymen, and we do not leave them to suffer when we can do something to fix it.

And, like with the draft, if we can not manage success with voluntary adherence to that responsibility, we will use the force of law to insure those who attempt to shirk it also do their part.

These are all reasonable arguments against a Conservative using the Penn and Teller argument against taxes/welfare. However, I've never heard of conservatives attacking taxes from this standpoint, and you'd find that most libertarians would find conservatives to be contradictory in their views.

From a libertarian view (or a hardcore libertarian view, which leans in the direction of "anarchist"), no one has a responsibility to pay taxes,  be drafted (ESPECIALLY drafted, since that nears outright slavery) or vote. From that view, people have a responsibility to treat others with respect, to not mess with their things, and to deal with others in a mutually beneficial way. Therefore, the government is viewed as a bit of a parasite, since you have no choice in whether you "sign up" with it or not, it has no competition in a given area, and any services it offers are by their very nature monopolistic and uncompetitive. Take roads: the government provides roads, but the libertarian asks "Are these roads as efficient in cost and high quality as they could possibly be for my money's worth?" and comes to the conclusion that he can never know for sure because the government takes money that would otherwise go to something else (say, railways or a different kind of road) and crowds out competition because it doesn't need to satisfy consumer demand in the process. If the government does something stupid, it only becomes accountable via elections, which are so broad in issue that you might fix problem (A) but create a bunch of new problems in the process. It is also apt to engage in legalized plunder, where everyone tries to rob everyone else for their own benefit through the government, ultimately making everyone poorer except those with the best lobbyists (eg. farming or oil subsidies).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EveryZig on September 29, 2012, 11:43:18 am
I would agree that governments are inefficient and forcing people to do things is unethical, but I still say it is the lesser evil compared to not having a government. The core problem of the libertarian efficiency argument is that it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what efficiency actually is. A process is not simply 'efficient'; it is efficient for a specific set of objectives and constraints. And the objectives of the market rarely include the best interests of the majority of people. That road is probably not worth the libertarian's money no matter how expensive or cheap it is, because he has no reason to include the locals' well-being in his objectives.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 29, 2012, 11:53:48 am
Good point.  The market is extremely inefficient at promoting equality.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Zero Wing Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 29, 2012, 01:11:00 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 29, 2012, 10:54:08 am
Take roads: the government provides roads, but the libertarian asks "Are these roads as efficient in cost and high quality as they could possibly be for my money's worth?" and comes to the conclusion that he can never know for sure because the government takes money that would otherwise go to something else (say, railways or a different kind of road) and crowds out competition because it doesn't need to satisfy consumer demand in the process.
On the other hand, recorded history.  Can you give an example of a country where modern infrastructure magically sprung up from the free market without the government providing most of it?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 29, 2012, 02:11:16 pm
I think in Canada the government funds the construction but private companies bid for the contract to build the roads.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Zero Wing Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 29, 2012, 02:47:42 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 29, 2012, 01:11:00 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 29, 2012, 10:54:08 am
Take roads: the government provides roads, but the libertarian asks "Are these roads as efficient in cost and high quality as they could possibly be for my money's worth?" and comes to the conclusion that he can never know for sure because the government takes money that would otherwise go to something else (say, railways or a different kind of road) and crowds out competition because it doesn't need to satisfy consumer demand in the process.
On the other hand, recorded history.  Can you give an example of a country where modern infrastructure magically sprung up from the free market without the government providing most of it?

Depends on what you mean by modern infrastructure. The US up until the mid 19th century basically had no government providing things such as roads, yet roads were built by private entities instead. For example:
(Large image)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Mind, roads weren't quite as essential during the period before the US government became involved (between 1910 and 1920), but there was certainly no huge infrastructure problem in the US before then. Furthermore, because roads weren't subsidized, methods of "public" transportation were quite a bit more common.

Trains WERE heavily subsidized, but the subsidized train lines were hugely inefficient because they were subsidized by length, meaning they built exceptionally long lines with poor material to squeeze the government for support quite often. They also largely abused government support in stealing land from farmers and native Americans in the process, with few exceptions.

Besides that, gas, electric, and telephone companies were very abundant before US government regulation, and the initial "pioneers" (AT&T, etc) were rapidly losing market share by 1900. Cities like Baltimore had many separate gas and electric companies each, and prices were quite competitive. In general, those industries consolidated when the government (local or federal in this case) decided to consolidate such companies in the interest of "efficiency" or else provided a few with privileges over the rest.

Just to get this out of the way, though, the 19th century, even in the US, was not a period which libertarians would call "ideal". Regulations, controls, and taxes were lower, but cronyism was more blatant among other things.

Quote from: EveryZig on September 29, 2012, 11:43:18 am
I would agree that governments are inefficient and forcing people to do things is unethical, but I still say it is the lesser evil compared to not having a government. The core problem of the libertarian efficiency argument is that it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what efficiency actually is. A process is not simply 'efficient'; it is efficient for a specific set of objectives and constraints. And the objectives of the market rarely include the best interests of the majority of people. That road is probably not worth the libertarian's money no matter how expensive or cheap it is, because he has no reason to include the locals' well-being in his objectives.

Now here is a legitimate criticism.

However, you seem to think of the "market" as a monolithic entity existing entirely for the purpose of profit. The market is simply a very large group of people trading things they have but don't want for things they don't have and want. It doesn't serve a "majority" of people per se, but it will generally trend towards serving each individual in his or her way.

For example, Jim in this hypothetical libertarian New York obviously doesn't much care about building a road in the middle of Kansas (unless he owns a company there or has relatives there or something), so he probably wouldn't spend money on roads in Kansas. However, Joe in Kansas certainly does want a road in Kansas, and would likely pay to use it. Unless Joe lives literally in the middle of nowhere, there would probably be a profit making a road, or at least a transportation system of some kind,  in this area. Now at this point, there are any number of solutions. If enough people in the area want a road, they could pitch in some money, hire some contractors, and form a non-profit road company that would be funded either through donations or through paying a toll for passing through. Alternatively, an entrepreneur could see a chance to make some money and make the road himself and then it would also charge a toll, but enough to cover the entrepreneur's expenses plus some profit.

Naturally, the road wouldn't be of the finest quality were it covering an area with low population, but then it would have to be good enough (and cheap enough) for the area, or else someone else would see a chance and try to make their own road instead. With the government making the roads, cost and quality aren't necessarily as immediate concerns. Small towns could have unnecessarily lavish, excellent roads that no one uses while well traveled roads could spend months or years in poor condition without much punishment for those in government.

Quote from: SalmonGod on September 29, 2012, 11:53:48 am
Good point.  The market is extremely inefficient at promoting equality.

Equality, yes. The market generally won't promote equality, since it has more of a tendency to promote wealth creation. However, it certainly would allow for more social mobility in the long run, which is something that actually is desirable.

Quote from: Descan on September 29, 2012, 02:11:16 pm
I think in Canada the government funds the construction but private companies bid for the contract to build the roads.

Which isn't really ideal, since that's a form of private-public partnership. Such things are quite common in the UK, and generally result in the "competing" companies trying to squeeze every penny out of the government for as low a price as possible. Since the companies don't actually own what they're building/operating, quality is a fairly low concern. Just look at British Rail.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Zero Wing Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 29, 2012, 03:09:18 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 29, 2012, 02:47:42 pm
Depends on what you mean by modern infrastructure. The US up until the mid 19th century basically had no government providing things such as roads, yet roads were built by private entities instead. For example:
Mid-19th century is not modern by any stretch of the imagination.  I think I explained this to you before.  Not least because there was no mass automobile use.

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 29, 2012, 02:47:42 pm
Mind, roads weren't quite as essential during the period before the US government became involved (between 1910 and 1920), but there was certainly no huge infrastructure problem in the US before then. Furthermore, because roads weren't subsidized, methods of "public" transportation were quite a bit more common.

Trains WERE heavily subsidized, but the subsidized train lines were hugely inefficient because they were subsidized by length, meaning they built exceptionally long lines with poor material to squeeze the government for support quite often. They also largely abused government support in stealing land from farmers and native Americans in the process, with few exceptions.

Besides that, gas, electric, and telephone companies were very abundant before US government regulation, and the initial "pioneers" (AT&T, etc) were rapidly losing market share by 1900. Cities like Baltimore had many separate gas and electric companies each, and prices were quite competitive. In general, those industries consolidated when the government (local or federal in this case) decided to consolidate such companies in the interest of "efficiency" or else provided a few with privileges over the rest.
Nice original research I guess?  These examples are so vague I can't even google them.  Also not modern.

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 29, 2012, 02:47:42 pm
Just to get this out of the way, though, the 19th century, even in the US, was not a period which libertarians would call "ideal". Regulations, controls, and taxes were lower, but cronyism was more blatant among other things.
Give me a time period and country that was close to this "ideal" then.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Zero Wing Thread
Post by: Flying Dice on September 29, 2012, 03:31:32 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 29, 2012, 02:47:42 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 29, 2012, 01:11:00 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 29, 2012, 10:54:08 am
Take roads: the government provides roads, but the libertarian asks "Are these roads as efficient in cost and high quality as they could possibly be for my money's worth?" and comes to the conclusion that he can never know for sure because the government takes money that would otherwise go to something else (say, railways or a different kind of road) and crowds out competition because it doesn't need to satisfy consumer demand in the process.
On the other hand, recorded history.  Can you give an example of a country where modern infrastructure magically sprung up from the free market without the government providing most of it?

Depends on what you mean by modern infrastructure. The US up until the mid 19th century basically had no government providing things such as roads, yet roads were built by private entities instead.

They were also relatively insignificant and small-scale affairs; turnpikes of the 1800s are hardly comparable to, say, the interstate highway system (which would almost certainly never existed without a national government). I've also heard it put best like this: During that period of time, the corporate form had a much different ethos, one oriented more on serving the community rather than generating profits. In other words, almost exactly the opposite of corporations (and markets as a whole) in the modern world. Incidentally, that is one of the main roles of government.

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 29, 2012, 02:47:42 pm
Mind, roads weren't quite as essential during the period before the US government became involved (between 1910 and 1920), but there was certainly no huge infrastructure problem in the US before then. Furthermore, because roads weren't subsidized, methods of "public" transportation were quite a bit more common.

Trains WERE heavily subsidized, but the subsidized train lines were hugely inefficient because they were subsidized by length, meaning they built exceptionally long lines with poor material to squeeze the government for support quite often. They also largely abused government support in stealing land from farmers and native Americans in the process, with few exceptions.

Besides that, gas, electric, and telephone companies were very abundant before US government regulation, and the initial "pioneers" (AT&T, etc) were rapidly losing market share by 1900. Cities like Baltimore had many separate gas and electric companies each, and prices were quite competitive. In general, those industries consolidated when the government (local or federal in this case) decided to consolidate such companies in the interest of "efficiency" or else provided a few with privileges over the rest.

Just to get this out of the way, though, the 19th century, even in the US, was not a period which libertarians would call "ideal". Regulations, controls, and taxes were lower, but cronyism was more blatant among other things.

Steamers were actually in use a decent length of time before commercial railroads really came into their own, and were arguably a more important form of transportation up until around the 1830s. Incidentally, I don't see how government is to blame for inefficiencies and corruption caused by the absurdly large influence of the business magnates and trusts of the era. Do note that pretty much as soon as the government was out of the hands of the wealthy businessmen, it (in no small part thanks to Teddy Roosevelt) went about instituting progressive reforms and breaking up the monopolies that had allowed such an incredible degree of corruption in American business.

Government is only as good as the people controlling it; when the people controlling it are the same people abusing both it and the market for their own gain, it naturally follows that it isn't much good at all.

It's rather funny that you say that about libertarians not finding the late 1800s to be ideal; what's not to like? You've got a free market, weak government, taxes are low, and practically everything useful that gets done is done so by small groups of people with no other choice. You can't very well advocate a worldview without also advocating the result. Such an ideal is (perhaps) feasibly in small, pre-industrial communities. Large, modern nations? Not so much.

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 29, 2012, 02:47:42 pm
Quote from: EveryZig on September 29, 2012, 11:43:18 am
I would agree that governments are inefficient and forcing people to do things is unethical, but I still say it is the lesser evil compared to not having a government. The core problem of the libertarian efficiency argument is that it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what efficiency actually is. A process is not simply 'efficient'; it is efficient for a specific set of objectives and constraints. And the objectives of the market rarely include the best interests of the majority of people. That road is probably not worth the libertarian's money no matter how expensive or cheap it is, because he has no reason to include the locals' well-being in his objectives.

Now here is a legitimate criticism.

However, you seem to think of the "market" as a monolithic entity existing entirely for the purpose of profit. The market is simply a very large group of people trading things they have but don't want for things they don't have and want. It doesn't serve a "majority" of people per se, but it will generally trend towards serving each individual in his or her way.

For example, Jim in this hypothetical libertarian New York obviously doesn't much care about building a road in the middle of Kansas (unless he owns a company there or has relatives there or something), so he probably wouldn't spend money on roads in Kansas. However, Joe in Kansas certainly does want a road in Kansas, and would likely pay to use it. Unless Joe lives literally in the middle of nowhere, there would probably be a profit making a road, or at least a transportation system of some kind,  in this area. Now at this point, there are any number of solutions. If enough people in the area want a road, they could pitch in some money, hire some contractors, and form a non-profit road company that would be funded either through donations or through paying a toll for passing through. Alternatively, an entrepreneur could see a chance to make some money and make the road himself and then it would also charge a toll, but enough to cover the entrepreneur's expenses plus some profit.

Naturally, the road wouldn't be of the finest quality were it covering an area with low population, but then it would have to be good enough (and cheap enough) for the area, or else someone else would see a chance and try to make their own road instead. With the government making the roads, cost and quality aren't necessarily as immediate concerns. Small towns could have unnecessarily lavish, excellent roads that no one uses while well traveled roads could spend months or years in poor condition without much punishment for those in government.

Saying something is so doesn't make it so. Trying to pretend that a single person of average wealth has comparable market strength to a single multimillionaire is absolutely absurd. The market is not monolithic simply because there is no single individual with the vast majority of the wealth in the system. What it is, however, is a plutocracy. When the vast majority of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small group of individuals, the market tends towards things which benefit one of those few individuals. Misinterpreting one of those market actions that coincidentally benefits some "normal" people as the market functioning properly is akin to claiming that there is a plague because someone in the city angered Zeus.

Once again, you are approaching things from the attitude that the entire world is composed of tiny, insular communities connected by nebulous agents of the free market who provide funding for worthy projects. Maybe you were right three hundred or four hundred years ago. Today? Not so much. You can clap your hands as much as you want, but that won't make Ayn Rand right, either rationally or ethically.

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 29, 2012, 02:47:42 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 29, 2012, 11:53:48 am
Good point.  The market is extremely inefficient at promoting equality.

Equality, yes. The market generally won't promote equality, since it has more of a tendency to promote wealth creation. However, it certainly would allow for more social mobility in the long run, which is something that actually is desirable.

Social mobility is the load of crap that has been used to justify exploitation of the working class for as long as it has existed. I normally don't lean this far towards Marx, but geez. Do you know why poor, white sustenance farmers in the antebellum South supported slavery, despite not being able to afford slaves? Because the plantation owners instilled false hope that someday they would be able to buy a slave and live an easier life. The rich leading the poor on with promises that they, too can make it big is as old as the shift from noble/serf to business magnate/factory worker. Every generation you have one or two people who do genuinely make it big, usually through some latent talent. The vast majority of the wealthy people in the world were born to wealthy families. Most of the most prominent self-made million- and billionaires tend to be the ones who do the most charitable work.

In short, social mobility would be a worthy thing if it wasn't largely a load of crap invented to pacify the working class. The bottom line is that in any closed system (such as our world) there is a limited amount of wealth, a limited number of resources. The wider the disparity between the resource distribution, the fewer people who can improve their condition. It is criminal that some people are more wealthy than some nations and that they waste that wealth on utterly trivial things. Not legally criminal, but ethically and morally evil. Come back to me when every person in the world has a roof over their head and food in their stomach, then maybe we can talk about social mobility. Until then, every bit of Smithian and Randian propaganda only exists to preserve the wealth and power of those who already possess it.

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 29, 2012, 02:47:42 pm
Quote from: Descan on September 29, 2012, 02:11:16 pm
I think in Canada the government funds the construction but private companies bid for the contract to build the roads.

Which isn't really ideal, since that's a form of private-public partnership. Such things are quite common in the UK, and generally result in the "competing" companies trying to squeeze every penny out of the government for as low a price as possible. Since the companies don't actually own what they're building/operating, quality is a fairly low concern. Just look at British Rail.
It would, after all, be much better to cut out the private contractors altogether and do things properly. Government is a representation of every individual it governs, and as such has the welfare of each of those individuals as its first and most important goal. Any government acting in a way that is not in accordance with this is a flawed one. Things done by private individuals and companies are inherently flawed as they are driven by profit; government at least has the potential to be driven by the interests of its constituents. And for a final note, please don't start in on that BS about equating philanthropy to corporations rather than noblesse oblige, or worse yet trying to suggest it as a workable substitute for government.

tl;dr: Government is flawed, certainly, but has far more potential than private enterprise in terms of promoting the well-being of society as a whole and the individuals which compose it. As if that was a surprise.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on September 29, 2012, 03:48:35 pm
There's always issues with penny pinching and cost cutting no matter how it's done, and there's always the issues of corruption and illegitimate practises. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to guarantee everyone will do the job they're supposed to do, do it well, and not rampantly rake money into their pockets.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 29, 2012, 04:19:16 pm
Quote from: Pnx on September 29, 2012, 03:48:35 pm
There's always issues with penny pinching and cost cutting no matter how it's done, and there's always the issues of corruption and illegitimate practises. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to guarantee everyone will do the job they're supposed to do, do it well, and not rampantly rake money into their pockets.
Well, since all humans are flawed, all human organisations will be too.

Therefore, all hail our robotic overlords.

On topic, let's make a small comparison between the USA(pretty much free economy) and Belgium(Quite a lot of governement interference, and I live there).

Things of note:

Health expenditure per percentage of GDP are higher in USA than in Belgium. Which is strange, since Health insurance is governement backed in Belgium, and mandatory. Also note that American GDP per capita is quite a lot higher.
Belgium hospitals and such are better equiped, having almost twice the amount of beds availble per capita as in America
Education expenditures/ GDP are just slightly larger in Belgium.
Youth unemployement is about 4% higher in Belgium.

Onward to economy

Nothing special to note, exept that Belgian economy grows slightly faster than the American one.
Belgian unemployement is about 2% lower than American unemployement.
Population below the poverty line is near equal.
Investement in Belgium is higher
Belgium governement deficit is only half as big, when calculated in %
48.6% tax rate of GDP as opposed to 15.3%
Public dept is worse in Belgium, nearing 100% of GDP
Inflation is a bit lower in US

I could continue, but I got bored. So no conclusion yet.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 29, 2012, 04:29:46 pm
The problem with the "just look at British Rail" argument against public transport, is that it's still a free market for the consumer, you can drive a car, or take a private taxi or a bus service in the UK, yet people CHOOSE to ride on British Rail, then complain about it.

So, it can't be all that inefficient. Like GreatJustice's "just good enough" roads built by private enterprise (by the way, i'd like to see the death tolls on those private roads), British Rail is "just good enough" to get people from point A to point B for the minimal cost. Luxury it isn't, but you'd PAY for that luxury, and nobody WANTS to pay more than the bare minimum. British Rail would STILL have a "first class" if anyone would pay more than minimum.

I really lol'd at the "just build another road" concept for when the "road company" either raises the toll too high, or leaves the existing road as a deathtrap covered in potholes. What happens when you run out of space for roads? Who pays for the warning signs that the cheapskate road company didn't clean up after an accident because the cost of cleanup and repairs would exceed the value of the tolls, and they could get more profits by investing the repair money elsewhere, and leaving the road decrepit?

An agent who ONLY cares about the direct profit they can make off people who travel down that road has the wrong "economy of scale", because there is a lot of economic activity that is promoted by the existence of that road that does not DIRECTLY benefit the owner of the road or the person driving down the road - e.g. profits earnt by other companies because people could use the road to access markets, employees driving to work. The "owner" of a single piece of road maximizing their profits can bottleneck profits for other players. Raising tolls on the road could stop employees being able to afford to drive to a job. So it's not just people who DIRECTLY drive down that road who benefit from the road is it? Every business connected to that road benefits. Tolls do not capture this relationship.

With roads, what are you going to have? A city-wide road monopoly - totally defeating the whole point of "free market", or massive redundancy and/or toll booths on every corner? Either way, it makes every other aspect of commerce in the city less efficient doing things this way. Especially because there can be major road accidents, do you want clogged toll booths blocking fire trucks, ambulances, police (all of whom would be run by competing private firms btw with no coordination).

Let's have 15 fire services, 15 police services and 15 ambulance services per city as well, all unregulated. And let them refuse to help you if you didn't pay a membership fee to each one. Just hope the one you're signed up with turns up when needed, or they'll have to phone around before they can scrape your sorry ass off the road Jimbob built. Hell it was your fault hitting that pothole, you didn't read the fine-print on the roadsigns.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on September 29, 2012, 05:20:49 pm
Erm, I do hope all this chatter about British Rail is aware of it's 1994 privatisation. I mean, I ride British trains every week, and while some most of them are old BR rolling stock they certainly aren't run by BR any more.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ancre on September 29, 2012, 05:32:15 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on September 29, 2012, 04:19:16 pm
Population below the poverty line is near equal.

Just a quick note on that, if Belgium is anything like France (where I live), then "poverty" isn't quite the same in Belgium and in the US, and it'll be interesting to compare both situations more extensively.

On top of my head, unlike the US, if you're poor in Belgium you still can afford to go to the hospital, you can forego having a car and use the public transportation, etc, you actually have access to a lot of services, paid by the government, that you couldn't really afford otherwise. In the US, all that falls on your shoulders.

Also, there's all the social laws and protection. Unemployment indemnities are higher, last longer, and low-pay jobs are better in many regards (vacations?). It's also more complicated to get fired. In the US, not only do you have to pay everything yourself, but your income is much less secure, and if you lose it, things can get ugly real quick.

So being poor doesn't quite mean the same thing in the US and in Belgium. Poverty is also not always defined in the same way - different governments have different ways to measure it. (Or am I saying something stupid and "poverty line" is an international standard ?). Anyways, I thought it'd be an interesting thing to note.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 29, 2012, 05:59:32 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on September 29, 2012, 04:19:16 pm
Quote from: Pnx on September 29, 2012, 03:48:35 pm
There's always issues with penny pinching and cost cutting no matter how it's done, and there's always the issues of corruption and illegitimate practises. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to guarantee everyone will do the job they're supposed to do, do it well, and not rampantly rake money into their pockets.
Well, since all humans are flawed, all human organisations will be too.

Therefore, all hail our robotic overlords.

On topic, let's make a small comparison between the USA(pretty much free economy) and Belgium(Quite a lot of governement interference, and I live there).

Things of note:

Health expenditure per percentage of GDP are higher in USA than in Belgium. Which is strange, since Health insurance is governement backed in Belgium, and mandatory. Also note that American GDP per capita is quite a lot higher.
Belgium hospitals and such are better equiped, having almost twice the amount of beds availble per capita as in America
Education expenditures/ GDP are just slightly larger in Belgium.
Youth unemployement is about 4% higher in Belgium.

Onward to economy

Nothing special to note, exept that Belgian economy grows slightly faster than the American one.
Belgian unemployement is about 2% lower than American unemployement.
Population below the poverty line is near equal.
Investement in Belgium is higher
Belgium governement deficit is only half as big, when calculated in %
48.6% tax rate of GDP as opposed to 15.3%
Public dept is worse in Belgium, nearing 100% of GDP
Inflation is a bit lower in US

I could continue, but I got bored. So no conclusion yet.

Healthcare is hardly a free market in the US, nor does the US constitute a radically more free market country than Belgium.

It is worth noting, however, that American citizens have notably more purchasing power and more expendable income than most Europeans.

Quote from: Reelya on September 29, 2012, 04:29:46 pm
The problem with the "just look at British Rail" argument against public transport, is that it's still a free market for the consumer, you can drive a car, or take a private taxi or a bus service in the UK, yet people CHOOSE to ride on British Rail, then complain about it.

I think you missed my argument here. I'd advise you look up "British Rail" sometime, because they aren't really "public transit" anymore. Also, assuming it was, you still don't get the choice in whether you PAY for it or not, only whether you use it.

Quote from: Reelya on September 29, 2012, 04:29:46 pm
So, it can't be all that inefficient. Like GreatJustice's "just good enough" roads built by private enterprise (by the way, i'd like to see the death tolls on those private roads)

They'd have to practically plant land mines on their roads to beat the present death tolls from American roads.

Quote from: Reelya on September 29, 2012, 04:29:46 pm
I really lol'd at the "just build another road" concept for when the "road company" either raises the toll too high, or leaves the existing road as a deathtrap covered in potholes. What happens when you run out of space for roads? Who pays for the warning signs that the cheapskate road company didn't clean up after an accident because the cost of cleanup and repairs would exceed the value of the tolls, and they could get more profits by investing the repair money elsewhere, and leaving the road decrepit?

Who's going to take a road covered in potholes, or that charges extortionate fees? It would go out of business rather fast, especially considering the fact that roads aren't the only kind of transportation.
Quote
An agent who ONLY cares about the direct profit they can make off people who travel down that road has the wrong "economy of scale", because there is a lot of economic activity that is promoted by the existence of that road that does not DIRECTLY benefit the owner of the road or the person driving down the road - e.g. profits earnt by other companies because people could use the road to access markets, employees driving to work. The "owner" of a single piece of road maximizing their profits can bottleneck profits for other players. Raising tolls on the road could stop employees being able to afford to drive to a job. So it's not just people who DIRECTLY drive down that road who benefit from the road is it? Every business connected to that road benefits. Tolls do not capture this relationship.

So? The businesses could buy the road. The people who put it in place would have had to make agreements with the people along the side of the road as to which was road and which was owned by the people living there.
Quote
With roads, what are you going to have? A city-wide road monopoly - totally defeating the whole point of "free market", or massive redundancy and/or toll booths on every corner? Either way, it makes every other aspect of commerce in the city less efficient doing things this way. Especially because there can be major road accidents, do you want clogged toll booths blocking fire trucks, ambulances, police (all of whom would be run by competing private firms btw with no coordination).

Because competing firms wouldn't share information to keep some level of order  ???
Quote
Let's have 15 fire services, 15 police services and 15 ambulance services per city as well, all unregulated. And let them refuse to help you if you didn't pay a membership fee to each one. Just hope the one you're signed up with turns up when needed, or they'll have to phone around before they can scrape your sorry ass off the road Jimbob built. Hell it was your fault hitting that pothole, you didn't read the fine-print on the roadsigns.

Most fire services are volunteer. Bit of a simplification, here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 29, 2012, 07:30:42 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 29, 2012, 05:59:32 pm
It is worth noting, however, that American citizens have notably more purchasing power and more expendable income than most Europeans.

On paper, perhaps, but not in practice. Most Europeans don't have to put aside huge amounts of money for healthcare and their children's education.


Quote
Who's going to take a road covered in potholes, or that charges extortionate fees? It would go out of business rather fast, especially considering the fact that roads aren't the only kind of transportation.

Everybody who has to go anywhere without making long detours? Or do you envision some sort intrastructural landscape where several roads, owned by different road companies, that all go to the same places, lie right next to one another? Because that would never happen.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 29, 2012, 07:39:35 pm
But you just said that America is not libertarian at all so the failings inherent in its systems can't be used against it (even for this 19th century paradise you keep going on about)!  It's like it's an example of a libertarian country only when you want it to be.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Gantolandon on September 30, 2012, 06:02:30 am
Quote from: Flying Dice
It's rather funny that you say that about libertarians not finding the late 1800s to be ideal; what's not to like? You've got a free market, weak government, taxes are low, and practically everything useful that gets done is done so by small groups of people with no other choice.

While I agree with your post, there is one thing you got wrong - the governments in late 1800s were anything but weak. Even if you don't count still existing near-absolute monarchies (like Russia or Austria-Hungary), business and politics often intermarried. The Suez Canal, for example, couldn't be built without using de Lesseps connections obtained when he was a French diplomat and forced labor supplied by Egyptian government. Vanity projects, like The Great Exhibition, were more common than today - the state would organize a grandioze ceremony or build a great monument just to show its greatness, funneling huge amount of money to private contractors. There were many occasions where the governments would artificially try to create new markets or protect them from outside influence - in Prussia, for example, people were forbidden from gathering anything from privately-owned forests without their owners' permission, including sticks, berries or mushrooms, to force them to buy these goods instead.

It is somewhat hilarious that libertarians frequently use the word "capitalism" to describe their perfect, free from governmental influence, market. This term was first-used in the modern sense by socialists Blanc and Proudhon, then popularized by Marx and Engels. And what they meant, was the system of mostly private ownership of the means of production, with legal framework and physical infrastructure provided by the state.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 30, 2012, 06:44:09 am
The 1800's American Governement was weak though. Europe was going strong at that time, it's the time of imperialism after all.

Quote from: scriver on September 29, 2012, 07:30:42 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 29, 2012, 05:59:32 pm
It is worth noting, however, that American citizens have notably more purchasing power and more expendable income than most Europeans.

On paper, perhaps, but not in practice. Most Europeans don't have to put aside huge amounts of money for healthcare and their children's education.
Couldn't find any numbers on it, but I do know that, in Belgium, wages are automatically adjusted to preserve purchasing power. It's a pretty much unique system, and while it does work, it causes inflation to jump through the roof.

Also, on topic of Health and education costs. Health costs are lower in Belgium(while the quality of the health service seems better) and education costs are certainly lower.
The lower tiers are always free(Governement abolished fees) and university/colleges registration fees are fixed and indexed. At most you'll be paying €500.40 and €567.80/ year. (Note: Seems to be outdated. New costs are 800-900). That is if you don't apply for any benefits, which reduce things to as low as €50-100 a year.

Quote from: author=scriver link=topic=103213.msg3651706#msg3651706 date=1348965042
Quote
Who's going to take a road covered in potholes, or that charges extortionate fees? It would go out of business rather fast, especially considering the fact that roads aren't the only kind of transportation.

Everybody who has to go anywhere without making long detours? Or do you envision some sort intrastructural landscape where several roads, owned by different road companies, that all go to the same places, lie right next to one another? Because that would never happen.
Monopolies are mean.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 30, 2012, 10:35:00 am
Quote from: scriver on September 29, 2012, 07:30:42 pm
On paper, perhaps, but not in practice. Most Europeans don't have to put aside huge amounts of money for healthcare and their children's education.

Healthcare is more expensive in the US, but practically speaking, the average American's healthcare is already paid for by their employer through insurance, so it doesn't much affect them as an expense. It's still absurdly expensive because of the gigantic mess of a regulatory system that governs American medicine, but that absurd expense only actually reaches Americans when they have to pay out of pocket for whatever reason and aren't friends with a non-Medicare using doctor.

American education actually is already paid for in taxes, so that wouldn't count towards disposable income unless they were paying for private school as well. It is also terrible in quality and has actually decreased literacy of Americans over the years.

Quote
Everybody who has to go anywhere without making long detours? Or do you envision some sort intrastructural landscape where several roads, owned by different road companies, that all go to the same places, lie right next to one another? Because that would never happen.

Hardly. Most of the time, road owners would have little incentive to gouge, not in the least because after a certain point no one would bother driving on them. People might actually build another road (though it would probably take a different route), or they might leave town or find another method of transportation. Whatever the case, the road owner would end up losing all his money.

It's also worth noting that a lot of roads wouldn't necessarily even be for profit. Some would be to encourage movement to an area (IIRC this was the case in Brooklyn) or to keep commercial trucks and so on going without delay.

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 29, 2012, 07:39:35 pm
But you just said that America is not libertarian at all so the failings inherent in its systems can't be used against it (even for this 19th century paradise you keep going on about)!  It's like it's an example of a libertarian country only when you want it to be.

So what? Certain aspects are libertarian, certain are not, same as any other country. I doubt you have any "perfect" country to point to as an example of progressivism working completely.

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on September 30, 2012, 06:44:09 am

Couldn't find any numbers on it, but I do know that, in Belgium, wages are automatically adjusted to preserve purchasing power. It's a pretty much unique system, and while it does work, it causes inflation to jump through the roof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage

The "disposable income" list is a bit different and doesn't include Belgium, but at any rate going by this the average Belgian has about half the purchasing power of the average American.

Quote
Monopolies are mean.

Nothing about roads makes them much more monopolistic than, say, electricity, gas, or telecom, all of which were extremely competitive before being effectively nationalized.

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 29, 2012, 03:09:18 pm
Mid-19th century is not modern by any stretch of the imagination.  I think I explained this to you before.  Not least because there was no mass automobile use.


Shifting the goalposts. Again, we don't have an example because the government started to take things over in the early 20th century.

Quote
Nice original research I guess?  These examples are so vague I can't even google them.  Also not modern.

I haven't noticed you placing citations beside your claims, either. Besides that, "not modern" is meaningless in this context. We still use electricity, gas, and telecom last I checked, and most are used as examples of "natural monopolies".
Quote
Give me a time period and country that was close to this "ideal" then.

Closest would probably be the Icelandic Commonwealth, which existed in the medieval ages.

Back to the main point, "it's never happened before" is not an argument. At varying points in history, neither did republics, paper currency, or "nations" (in the modern, post-1812 sense).

Quote from: Flying Dice on September 29, 2012, 03:31:32 pm

They were also relatively insignificant and small-scale affairs; turnpikes of the 1800s are hardly comparable to, say, the interstate highway system (which would almost certainly never existed without a national government). I've also heard it put best like this: During that period of time, the corporate form had a much different ethos, one oriented more on serving the community rather than generating profits. In other words, almost exactly the opposite of corporations (and markets as a whole) in the modern world. Incidentally, that is one of the main roles of government.

What, so the government taking over charitable/community focused activities crowded out the alternatives? Whowuddathunk?

This also isn't an argument. Libertarians don't want "great profitsssssss", they want voluntary exchange. Under present laws, you can't form a corporation that exists for the sake of assisting a community or what have you. Under libertarianism, what a corporation could be formed for would only be limited by what the people involved were willing to agree to.


Quote
Steamers were actually in use a decent length of time before commercial railroads really came into their own, and were arguably a more important form of transportation up until around the 1830s. Incidentally, I don't see how government is to blame for inefficiencies and corruption caused by the absurdly large influence of the business magnates and trusts of the era. Do note that pretty much as soon as the government was out of the hands of the wealthy businessmen, it (in no small part thanks to Teddy Roosevelt) went about instituting progressive reforms and breaking up the monopolies that had allowed such an incredible degree of corruption in American business.

Government is only as good as the people controlling it; when the people controlling it are the same people abusing both it and the market for their own gain, it naturally follows that it isn't much good at all.

Steamers were noticeably less subsidized and controlled than railways, though, and weren't really part of the topic at hand, though.

The government is to blame because it was responsible for giving such magnates and trusts power in the first place. Rather blatantly, too.

Roosevelt actually didn't "destroy" the monopolies and trusts, he just changed the ways in which they are formed. Of those he "broke up", none were out and out private sector monopolies. Furthermore, he created the new method of forming "monopolies", which was to lobby the government to either impose heavy regulations on an industry (the method of huge companies that could absorb extra expenses) or to use antitrust against large companies (the method of smaller companies that weren't doing so well). Just look at the meat packing industry: the largest companies lobbied for "safety regulations", which Roosevelt promptly created. The small companies went out of business and the large ones just used the increased revenue from fallen competitors to cover increased costs.

Quote
Saying something is so doesn't make it so. Trying to pretend that a single person of average wealth has comparable market strength to a single multimillionaire is absolutely absurd. The market is not monolithic simply because there is no single individual with the vast majority of the wealth in the system. What it is, however, is a plutocracy. When the vast majority of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small group of individuals, the market tends towards things which benefit one of those few individuals. Misinterpreting one of those market actions that coincidentally benefits some "normal" people as the market functioning properly is akin to claiming that there is a plague because someone in the city angered Zeus.

Once again, you are approaching things from the attitude that the entire world is composed of tiny, insular communities connected by nebulous agents of the free market who provide funding for worthy projects. Maybe you were right three hundred or four hundred years ago. Today? Not so much. You can clap your hands as much as you want, but that won't make Ayn Rand right, either rationally or ethically.

How do such individuals make their wealth, then? If they aren't robbing people in some way, then they make it through satisfying the needs and wants of others. They would hardly have a reason to create a rich kids club excluding everyone else.

Besides that, this argument can just as easily be turned around against the present system. After all, the exceptionally rich of today (Bildebergers) are actually LESS limited in their power, since they have large, centralized organizations called governments that they need only indirectly control to exert coercive influence, whereas the exceptionally rich of libertaland would have to create large centralized organizations from the ground up, would ALL need to be in on it, and would need to have a way to prevent smaller competitors from stealing their niche and replacing them.

Also, you're still strawmanning by putting Rand in the picture. Rand was an objectivist and completely believed in the existence of government. Try Rothbard instead.
Quote
Social mobility is the load of crap that has been used to justify exploitation of the working class for as long as it has existed. I normally don't lean this far towards Marx, but geez. Do you know why poor, white sustenance farmers in the antebellum South supported slavery, despite not being able to afford slaves? Because the plantation owners instilled false hope that someday they would be able to buy a slave and live an easier life. The rich leading the poor on with promises that they, too can make it big is as old as the shift from noble/serf to business magnate/factory worker. Every generation you have one or two people who do genuinely make it big, usually through some latent talent. The vast majority of the wealthy people in the world were born to wealthy families. Most of the most prominent self-made million- and billionaires tend to be the ones who do the most charitable work.

Nirvana fallacy. Obviously the number of Andrew Carnegies is exceptionally few even in the best of circumstances. There aren't many people that are dirt poor who will become absurdly rich over the course of their lifetime.

However, you would find that a disproportionate number of early industrialists and entrepreneurs were not, in fact, landed aristocrats but people from the middle class. In Britain, the aristocracy was very much against industrialization because it devalued their land, moving the illiterate English peasants into the cities to become factory workers for a mixture of former merchants/burghers and former peasants themselves. In the US, the most powerful of the rich were generally not born exceptionally rich, they were born in the middle classes, as was the case of Vanderbilt and Rockefeller.

Meanwhile, the American poor began to move into the middle class as the standard of living improved drastically. It wasn't uncommon for an unskilled worker to work at the same company for his entire life, moving up positions until he ultimately was making enough to leave his family reasonably well off afterwards.

Quote
In short, social mobility would be a worthy thing if it wasn't largely a load of crap invented to pacify the working class. The bottom line is that in any closed system (such as our world) there is a limited amount of wealth, a limited number of resources. The wider the disparity between the resource distribution, the fewer people who can improve their condition. It is criminal that some people are more wealthy than some nations and that they waste that wealth on utterly trivial things. Not legally criminal, but ethically and morally evil. Come back to me when every person in the world has a roof over their head and food in their stomach, then maybe we can talk about social mobility. Until then, every bit of Smithian and Randian propaganda only exists to preserve the wealth and power of those who already possess it.

There is no such thing as a limited amount of wealth. The economy is not a pie.

Yes, there is a fixed amount of resources on Earth (ignoring space for the moment). That doesn't mean it is impossible to use new resources for different things, to use current resources more efficiently, or to find new things to use resources for. A hunk of iron and a pile of wood is basically useless in their unmodified forms, but they can be used to make axes, saws, farming equipment, and plenty of other things as well. So long as these things have a price, everyone has a reason to want to use the most efficient method (cheapness vs quality) or make the best of what they have.

Through the price system, people then can tell what people want and what is currently being provided. Thus, if there is a shortage of, say, pants, then anyone who wants to make some money goes out and sets up a pants factory, or else gets together with other people to make a pants factory.

Quote
It would, after all, be much better to cut out the private contractors altogether and do things properly. Government is a representation of every individual it governs, and as such has the welfare of each of those individuals as its first and most important goal. Any government acting in a way that is not in accordance with this is a flawed one. Things done by private individuals and companies are inherently flawed as they are driven by profit; government at least has the potential to be driven by the interests of its constituents. And for a final note, please don't start in on that BS about equating philanthropy to corporations rather than noblesse oblige, or worse yet trying to suggest it as a workable substitute for government.

tl;dr: Government is flawed, certainly, but has far more potential than private enterprise in terms of promoting the well-being of society as a whole and the individuals which compose it. As if that was a surprise.

Government is a representation of the people who control it, which is generally extremely powerful bankers, bureaucrats, and lobbyists. What "the people" want is irrelevant when those interests are threatened.

Even assuming it is a representation of the people, that ignores the fact that each person has his or her own desires and wants. Under the best of circumstances, the government can't satisfy the needs or wants of everyone, so it has to make sweeping, clumsy attempts to satisfy the needs and wants of certain people. There are certain wants it can't satisfy, and there are certain wants it can satisfy for some at the expense of others.

Above all else, though, government exists to propagate itself. Try seceding from the government or not paying your taxes and see what happens. It puts its own existence above that of the people it supposedly represents often, such as when it drafts them to go die in a war they have no part in, or arrests them for a "crime" that hurts no one.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 30, 2012, 10:52:08 am
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 30, 2012, 10:35:00 am
Shifting the goalposts. Again, we don't have an example because the government started to take things over in the early 20th century.
And this just happened to coincide with the US becoming an actually prosperous nation.

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 30, 2012, 10:35:00 am
So what? Certain aspects are libertarian, certain are not, same as any other country. I doubt you have any "perfect" country to point to as an example of progressivism working completely.
That's not the problem.  Whenever there's a good thing about the US you're claiming that's due to the magic of libertarianism, but whenever there's a bad thing you say it's down to that pesky government without basis, and that the US isn't really libertarian anyway.  I can point to Scandinavian countries as examples of progressive economic policies working well, and socialized healthcare systems all over the world as effective.  I can point to the economic crash of 1929 and the fact that government intervention was clearly required to save the economy.  I can point to Iceland and Ireland, who were great examples of libertarian policies working until their economies crashed and burnt dramatically even by world standards (Ireland for instance is likely to need a bailout from the UK, and Iceland is likely to need some kind of debt write off).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 30, 2012, 10:54:49 am
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 30, 2012, 10:35:00 am
Quote from: scriver on September 29, 2012, 07:30:42 pm
On paper, perhaps, but not in practice. Most Europeans don't have to put aside huge amounts of money for healthcare and their children's education.

Healthcare is more expensive in the US, but practically speaking, the average American's healthcare is already paid for by their employer through insurance, so it doesn't much affect them as an expense. It's still absurdly expensive because of the gigantic mess of a regulatory system that governs American medicine, but that absurd expense only actually reaches Americans when they have to pay out of pocket for whatever reason and aren't friends with a non-Medicare using doctor.

American education actually is already paid for in taxes, so that wouldn't count towards disposable income unless they were paying for private school as well. It is also terrible in quality and has actually decreased literacy of Americans over the years.

Education includes College and University, you know. It's free as well over here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 30, 2012, 11:41:58 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 30, 2012, 10:52:08 am
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 30, 2012, 10:35:00 am
Shifting the goalposts. Again, we don't have an example because the government started to take things over in the early 20th century.
And this just happened to coincide with the US becoming an actually prosperous nation.

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 30, 2012, 10:35:00 am
So what? Certain aspects are libertarian, certain are not, same as any other country. I doubt you have any "perfect" country to point to as an example of progressivism working completely.
That's not the problem.  Whenever there's a good thing about the US you're claiming that's due to the magic of libertarianism, but whenever there's a bad thing you say it's down to that pesky government without basis, and that the US isn't really libertarian anyway.  I can point to Scandinavian countries as examples of progressive economic policies working well, and socialized healthcare systems all over the world as effective.  I can point to the economic crash of 1929 and the fact that government intervention was clearly required to save the economy.  I can point to Iceland and Ireland, who were great examples of libertarian policies working until their economies crashed and burnt dramatically even by world standards (Ireland for instance is likely to need a bailout from the UK, and Iceland is likely to need some kind of debt write off).

Basically yes, libertarianism does try to take credit for all the good points of it and none of the bad ones. We don't mention that child labor wasn't ended by the free market but by government decree. There isn't poison in your water, because of the government. Somebody had to sue the companies to make sure we didn't have another Love Canal, because as we found out with asbestos and a host of other health concerns, companies will gleefully poison you for profit.

The notion that "everything would be just fine on the playground without the teachers butting in" works until the bullies figure it out and ruin the place, because they can.

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 30, 2012, 10:35:00 am
Shifting the goalposts. Again, we don't have an example because the government started to take things over in the early 20th century.
And this just happened to coincide with the US becoming an actually prosperous nation.[/quote]

That's a heck of a coincidence isn't it? "Just happened to coincide...."

So even if those regulations didn't CAUSE America's prosperity (they certainly helped), they didn't hamper it too much.

Every time we propose a sensible regulation, the business being regulated cries that the sky will fall, and so far the sky is still right up there. 8 hour workday?!?! We'd have to put on 3 shifts instead of 2!!! It'll raise our labor costs and we'll never be able to afford it. Nothing bad happened. Not a damn thing, even though the business labor costs rose by 150% by adding on an entirely new shift. The notion that massive businesses are so fragile that they can't pay anything or it will have catastrophic consequences is not founded in the real world, but a desire to pay for nothing and keep everything.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 30, 2012, 02:39:04 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 30, 2012, 10:52:08 am
And this just happened to coincide with the US becoming an actually prosperous nation.

[CITATION NEEDED]

What do you call prosperous? People weren't significantly better off between 1900 and 1913, or even 1900 to 1930.  People's lives were better because of the spread of new inventions, but not by gigantic leaps and bounds and certainly not compared to the jump from 1870 to 1900.

Quote
That's not the problem.  Whenever there's a good thing about the US you're claiming that's due to the magic of libertarianism, but whenever there's a bad thing you say it's down to that pesky government without basis, and that the US isn't really libertarian anyway.

So what? The US isn't libertarian, and that's just that. It does have and has had examples of it being so in some ways, however.
Quote
I can point to Scandinavian countries as examples of progressive economic policies working well, and socialized healthcare systems all over the world as effective.

Well, Norway has a gigantic oil reserve that it can use to fund whatever it needs (similar to Gaddafi-era Libya or Saudi Arabia), Sweden has significant levels of unemployment and very little actual money or growth, and Denmark is a country in which a third of the population receives less than nine years of education. Hardly examples of success.

Socialized healthcare systems are only effective when you compare them to other socialized healthcare systems, or pseudo-corporatist systems like in the US. When you compare more socialized (Canada, Sweden, UK) with less socialized (Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland) you generally find the less socialized ones do a bit better.
Quote
I can point to the economic crash of 1929 and the fact that government intervention was clearly required to save the economy. 

You mean the one that lasted up until 1946 and featured strong government intervention the whole way through? The one which lasted far longer than the one in 1920, where the government did nothing but cut spending/taxes, and its equivalent in Britain, which ended within a few years? THAT economic crash?

Ha! Ha! Ha!
Quote
I can point to Iceland and Ireland, who were great examples of libertarian policies working until their economies crashed and burnt dramatically even by world standards (Ireland for instance is likely to need a bailout from the UK, and Iceland is likely to need some kind of debt write off).

Ireland had a sizable welfare state, lots of government spending, and ran up a huge deficit, all things a libertarian country wouldn't do. Not to mention it bailed out its banks and strongly intervened once recession struck.

Iceland had a lot of similar problems, especially so far as taxes went, and their initial response was similar. They have handled things somewhat better since, though.

Quote from: scriver on September 30, 2012, 10:54:49 am
Education includes College and University, you know. It's free as well over here.

It isn't quite THAT much more expensive in the US, though, and you aren't getting educated over the entire course of your life. Plus, generally speaking, the more education you get, the higher of a paying job you will end up with. So even if you pay ~$300,000 in education costs for medical school, you'll make that up pretty quickly working as a doctor, especially one from the sort of school that would cost that much.

Quote from: Truean on September 30, 2012, 11:41:58 am
We don't mention that child labor wasn't ended by the free market but by government decree.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Quote
There isn't poison in your water, because of the government.

[CITATION NEEDED]
Quote
Somebody had to sue the companies to make sure we didn't have another Love Canal

Last I checked, Love Canal was the result of the (local) government completely ignoring repeated warnings of Hooker Chemical that what they were doing was retarded, and that they shouldn't go ahead. They even refused to sell for quite a while. But if you think it was somehow different, then please enlighten me.
Quote
because as we found out with asbestos and a host of other health concerns, companies will gleefully poison you for profit.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Quote
So even if those regulations didn't CAUSE America's prosperity (they certainly helped), they didn't hamper it too much.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Quote

Every time we propose a sensible regulation, the business being regulated cries that the sky will fall, and so far the sky is still right up there. 8 hour workday?!?! We'd have to put on 3 shifts instead of 2!!! It'll raise our labor costs and we'll never be able to afford it. Nothing bad happened. Not a damn thing, even though the business labor costs rose by 150% by adding on an entirely new shift. The notion that massive businesses are so fragile that they can't pay anything or it will have catastrophic consequences is not founded in the real world, but a desire to pay for nothing and keep everything.

Last I checked, US industry was moving to countries like Honduras and China in droves. Massive businesses aren't fragile because increased regulations generally hurt their smaller competitors more than them, and they get indirect bonuses from the government regularly.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 30, 2012, 04:30:05 pm
...?

Really? So you have little if any citation in your posts but I've gotta cite everything in mine? Honestly some of it is blatantly obvious. Especially:

"because as we found out with asbestos and a host of other health concerns, companies will gleefully poison you for profit. "

.... Asbestos? Really? You're going to challenge asbestos as anything other than corporations condemning people to a slow, painful death for money? The billions of dollars in lawsuits, the people who have died from asbestosis, the fact that it's one of the largest legal areas to this day and has been for decades....

My God, just the  Johns Manville company alone  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johns_Manville#Asbestos_litigation_and_Johns_Manville) did so much damage that it wasn't even funny. The otherwise healthy company then filed for bankruptcy protection to try to avoid the MASSIVE litigation it knew was coming its way.... The companies knew the asbestos was deadly; they knew it'd take 30 years to kill you.

If you're not going to even admit companies willfully harmed people for money with asbestos, then I don't even know what to say.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 30, 2012, 04:56:01 pm
Quote from: Truean on September 30, 2012, 04:30:05 pm
...?

Really? So you have little if any citation in your posts but I've gotta cite everything in mine? Honestly some of it is blatantly obvious. Especially:

"because as we found out with asbestos and a host of other health concerns, companies will gleefully poison you for profit. "

.... Asbestos? Really? You're going to challenge asbestos as anything other than corporations condemning people to a slow, painful death for money? The billions of dollars in lawsuits, the people who have died from asbestosis, the fact that it's one of the largest legal areas to this day and has been for decades....

My God, just the  Johns Manville company alone  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johns_Manville#Asbestos_litigation_and_Johns_Manville) did so much damage that it wasn't even funny. The otherwise healthy company then filed for bankruptcy protection to try to avoid the MASSIVE litigation it knew was coming its way.... The companies knew the asbestos was deadly; they knew it'd take 30 years to kill you.

If you're not going to even admit companies willfully harmed people for money with asbestos, then I don't even know what to say.

I can provide sources if you want, and (most of) the statements I've made can be double checked with google. Yours seem to involve a lot of "correlation = causation".

Also, http://mondediplo.com/2000/07/15asbestos (http://mondediplo.com/2000/07/15asbestos)

Those noble, selfless regulators have a tendency to actually make things worse, by moving responsibility from the individual and companies involved to the government, creating both a false sense of security and helping crooks get away with things even worse than what they would get away with otherwise (See: the US Government and lead in gasoline)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lemon10 on September 30, 2012, 05:53:57 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 30, 2012, 04:56:01 pm
Quote from: Truean on September 30, 2012, 04:30:05 pm
...?

Really? So you have little if any citation in your posts but I've gotta cite everything in mine? Honestly some of it is blatantly obvious. Especially:

"because as we found out with asbestos and a host of other health concerns, companies will gleefully poison you for profit. "

.... Asbestos? Really? You're going to challenge asbestos as anything other than corporations condemning people to a slow, painful death for money? The billions of dollars in lawsuits, the people who have died from asbestosis, the fact that it's one of the largest legal areas to this day and has been for decades....

My God, just the  Johns Manville company alone  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johns_Manville#Asbestos_litigation_and_Johns_Manville) did so much damage that it wasn't even funny. The otherwise healthy company then filed for bankruptcy protection to try to avoid the MASSIVE litigation it knew was coming its way.... The companies knew the asbestos was deadly; they knew it'd take 30 years to kill you.

If you're not going to even admit companies willfully harmed people for money with asbestos, then I don't even know what to say.

I can provide sources if you want, and (most of) the statements I've made can be double checked with google. Yours seem to involve a lot of "correlation = causation".

Also, http://mondediplo.com/2000/07/15asbestos (http://mondediplo.com/2000/07/15asbestos)

Those noble, selfless regulators have a tendency to actually make things worse, by moving responsibility from the individual and companies involved to the government, creating both a false sense of security and helping crooks get away with things even worse than what they would get away with otherwise (See: the US Government and lead in gasoline)
Did you even read that article?
It was saying that companies were perfectly happy using abestos, and even went to the extent of hiring scientists and trying to make everyone think abestos was perfectly fine and wasn't very bad at all.
If anything that article just proves Truean's point that companies will do anything they can get away with, and in the absence of a strong government willing to regulate and enforce laws they can get away with pretty much anything.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 30, 2012, 07:31:21 pm
California bans the use of "gay conversion therapy" on minors, New Jersey to vote on similar legislation. (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/30/14159337-california-becomes-first-state-in-nation-to-ban-gay-cure-therapy-for-children?lite)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on September 30, 2012, 07:33:53 pm
Hurrah for California!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Fenrir on September 30, 2012, 07:36:29 pm
I did not even know that was legal.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 30, 2012, 07:42:49 pm
That is indeed legal. Or rather, legal in 49/50, now. Legally, US parental rights tend to operate under the assumption that if the law does not specifically prohibit it, it is allowed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Fenrir on September 30, 2012, 07:44:09 pm
Well, my praise to California for taking the lead. Let us hope other states follow.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 30, 2012, 07:44:31 pm
Legal in quite a few states, at least. Haven't they killed a few people? Might be conflating 'em with something that happened a bit back with a boot-camp style wazthing, I'unno.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 30, 2012, 07:46:28 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 30, 2012, 07:31:21 pm
California bans the use of "gay conversion therapy" on minors, New Jersey to vote on similar legislation. (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/30/14159337-california-becomes-first-state-in-nation-to-ban-gay-cure-therapy-for-children?lite)
Another step forward for society.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 30, 2012, 07:46:47 pm
I don't recall them killing anyone directly, but that would not be including the suicides they cause.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 30, 2012, 07:50:21 pm
Huzzah! Not much more to say than has already been said.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Wrex on September 30, 2012, 08:02:20 pm
Excellence. Nobody deserves to have that done to them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 30, 2012, 08:33:02 pm
For the first time in years, I'm proud of my home state's politics. Huzzah!

Just watch though, as out-of-state conservatives come pouring in to fight it :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 30, 2012, 09:15:24 pm
"Pray the gay away" has been one of the larger worries of gay kids for quite some time. I am happy one state outlawed it. Ihope the won't just send the kid accross state lines or worse ...to the gutter.

Still it is something good.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 30, 2012, 09:16:37 pm
My parents have said, in a roundabout way, that I would've gotten "help" had I come out earlier (such as when I was a teenager, even though I didn't realize I was bi back then).

So it's not an unfounded fear. Not at all.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Fenrir on September 30, 2012, 11:10:08 pm
How Orwellian.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 30, 2012, 11:39:32 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice
Socialized healthcare systems are only effective when you compare them to other socialized healthcare systems, or pseudo-corporatist systems like in the US. When you compare more socialized (Canada, Sweden, UK) with less socialized (Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland) you generally find the less socialized ones do a bit better.

Woo, Singapore, Hong Kong and Switzerland are the only "Libertarian" examples you have?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Singapore
Quote
Singapore has a highly developed and successful free-market economy; the state owns stakes in firms that comprise perhaps 60% of the GDP[...] Its innovative yet steadfast form of economics that combines economic planning of Singapore Economic Development Board with free-market has given it the nickname the Singapore Model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore
Quote
Singapore has a non-modified universal healthcare system where the government ensures affordability of healthcare within the public health system, largely through a system of compulsory savings, subsidies and price controls. Singapore's system uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions to provide subsidies within a nationalized health insurance plan known as Medisave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Hong_Kong
Quote
Taxation in Hong Kong raises revenues from the sale and taxation of land [...] From its revenues, the government has built roads, schools, hospitals, and other public infrastructure facilities and services [...] All land in Hong Kong is owned by the government and leased to private users. By restricting the sale of land leases, the Hong Kong government keeps the price of land at what some would say are artificially high prices and this allows the government to support public spending with a low tax rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Hong_Kong
Quote
Hong Kong's medical infrastructure consists of a mixed medical economy, with 12 private hospitals and more than 50 public hospitals. [...] The Department of Health, under the Food and Health Bureau, is the health adviser of Hong Kong government and an executive arm in health legislation and policy. Its main role is to safeguard the health of the community through promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative services in Hong Kong. The main function of the department includes child assessment service, immunisation programmes, dental service, forensic pathology service, registration of healthcare professionals etc., though boards and councils (i.e. Medical Council of Hong Kong, Pharmacy and Poisons Board of Hong Kong) are independent statutory bodies established under the relevant ordinances that operate independently to discharge their statutory functions.
Hospital Authority
The Hospital Authority is a statutory body established [...] to manage all 38 public hospitals and institutions in Hong Kong. It is mainly responsible for delivering a comprehensive range of secondary and tertiary specialist care and medical rehabilitation through its network of health care facilities. The Authority also provides some primary medical services in 74 primary care clinics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
- Sounds EXACTLY like "Obamacare" btw
Quote
Healthcare in Switzerland is universal and is regulated by the Federal Health Insurance Act of 1994 (Krankenversicherungsgesetz - KVG). Health insurance is compulsory for all persons residing in Switzerland [...]Swiss are required to purchase basic health insurance, which covers a range of treatments detailed in the Federal Act. It is therefore the same throughout the country and avoids double standards in healthcare. Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on October 01, 2012, 04:01:23 am
Quote from: Truean on September 30, 2012, 09:15:24 pm
"Pray the gay away" has been one of the larger worries of gay kids for quite some time. I am happy one state outlawed it. Ihope the won't just send the kid accross state lines or worse ...to the gutter.

Still it is something good.
I spent many years of my life trying to "pray the gay away."  Didn't work.  I'd imagine a lot of my Christian friends would say I "didn't try hard enough."  I"m quite happy being gay, happier than I was before.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 01, 2012, 05:02:39 am
Quote from: Euld on October 01, 2012, 04:01:23 am
Quote from: Truean on September 30, 2012, 09:15:24 pm
"Pray the gay away" has been one of the larger worries of gay kids for quite some time. I am happy one state outlawed it. Ihope the won't just send the kid accross state lines or worse ...to the gutter.

Still it is something good.
I spent many years of my life trying to "pray the gay away."  Didn't work.  I'd imagine a lot of my Christian friends would say I "didn't try hard enough."  I"m quite happy being gay, happier than I was before.
/me hugs

Being in a similar experience before... I know how horrible that is.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 01, 2012, 02:08:46 pm
Quote from: Reelya on September 30, 2012, 11:39:32 pm
Woo, Singapore, Hong Kong and Switzerland are the only "Libertarian" examples you have?

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 29, 2012, 05:59:32 pm
Socialized healthcare systems are only effective when you compare them to other socialized healthcare systems, or pseudo-corporatist systems like in the US. When you compare more socialized (Canada, Sweden, UK) with less socialized (Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland) you generally find the less socialized ones do a bit better.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Now, back to the actual argument:

-Singapore is more "controlled" than the US, but is significantly less regulated and has less indirect controls.

-Switzerland is basically the American model, again without the extra regulations (the AMA, the FDA, Medicare, etc) and with a mandate.

-Hong Kong's healthcare system has significant numbers of government run hospitals, but the system itself is generally private. For reference, around 90% of American hospitals are owned by the government, so Hong Kong is actually LESS controlled both directly and indirectly.

And, to go off topic,
Quote
All land in Hong Kong is owned by the government

Certainly. Land in Hong Kong also happens to be extortionately expensive, however, so it hardly constitutes an example of intervention working. It also happens to be the ONLY example of major interventionism you seem to find worth mentioning. Are you seriously going to say that government ownership of the land is progressive in the absence of welfare, a minimum wage, etc etc etc? Keep in mind, there ARE interventionist policies in Hong Kong (moreso ones implemented quite recently), but most are with regards to their monetary system.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on October 01, 2012, 02:18:04 pm
I'm sorry but I was just skimming this argument and;
Quote from: GreatJustice on October 01, 2012, 02:08:46 pm
For reference, around 90% of American hospitals are owned by the government,
Erm, what? (http://www.aha.org/research/rc/stat-studies/fast-facts.shtml)
Quote
   Total Number of All U.S. Registered Hospitals: 5,754
...
Number of State and Local Government Community Hospitals: 1,068
...
Number of Federal Government Hospitals: 213
Those are the major categories of public hospitals I can see in there. Including the ones that are probably public (Psychiatric Hospitals, Long Term Care and Hospital Units of Institutions) you still only get up to 1,837 public hospitals out of those 5,754. I make that 32%, not 90%.

Not really inspiring confidence in the rest of your unreferenced assertions here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 01, 2012, 03:14:38 pm
@GreatJustice: I DID NOT present a strawman at all - i directly challenged your assertion that those countries were "less socialized". Underlining the very assertion i challenged and calling what i wrote a strawman is a non-sequiter.

Switzerland does in fact have a doctors association (like the AMA) and a regulatory body for pharmaceuticals (like the FDA). So unless you have some citations explaining that they work radically differently to the American versions, i'll assume they perform equivalent functions. The AMA is a private enterprise btw.

While Switzerland has mandated that citizens must purchase private health insurance, they also regulate what the plans must contain and force the insurers to run as non-profit organizations. While they have one of the lowest government spending on health, their total per capita spending on health is the third highest in the world. Considering that they're proud that a 25 year old pays the same as an 80 year old (by law), this implies it's not such a great system in terms of cost-effectiveness. Might as well just tax all the people equally, and have a single managed fund, like Singapore does.

Switzerland would only be the "American Model" if Obamacare is fully implemented, and then American health insurers were banned from making a profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore
- In Singapore it is correct that the private health system is not heavily regulated, but like many countries, 70-80% of citizens are in the public health system. And the MediSave system demands workers put aside 6.5-9.0% of their income into a government-managed health fund. That's quite a large chunk of change, there, which explains why the public health system is so well-funded.

As for the situation in Hong Kong, my point about the land taxes was relevant to how "From its revenues, the government has built roads, schools, hospitals, and other public infrastructure facilities and services".
Quote from: GreatJustice
It also happens to be the ONLY example of major interventionism you seem to find worth mentioning.
I quoted two entire paragraphs detailing a complex set of health regulation authorities in Hong Kong, so that's just not true at all. For your benefit i'll reprint the whole thing. Considering that Hong Kong is only ONE CITY, that's quite an extensive bureaucracy for health care:
Quote
The Department of Health, under the Food and Health Bureau, is the health adviser of Hong Kong government and an executive arm in health legislation and policy. Its main role is to safeguard the health of the community through promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative services in Hong Kong. The main function of the department includes child assessment service, immunisation programmes, dental service, forensic pathology service, registration of healthcare professionals etc., though boards and councils (i.e. Medical Council of Hong Kong, Pharmacy and Poisons Board of Hong Kong) are independent statutory bodies established under the relevant ordinances that operate independently to discharge their statutory functions.
Hospital Authority
The Hospital Authority is a statutory body established [...] to manage all 38 public hospitals and institutions in Hong Kong. It is mainly responsible for delivering a comprehensive range of secondary and tertiary specialist care and medical rehabilitation through its network of health care facilities. The Authority also provides some primary medical services in 74 primary care clinics.

===

It seems to me, you want to cherry-pick specific details from totally different health systems like Switzerland and Singapore, whilst ignoring other stuff going on there, and that strict government legislation exists in each country to make all that happen.

What about the health systems in Japan, Iceland and Australia - all 3 with universal health coverage, and all in the top 10 of life expectancy?

Or can you explain your criteria for effectiveness?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kedly on October 05, 2012, 01:04:37 am
Ugh (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/healthy-masculinity-why-m_b_1933324.html)... am I the only one who feels like I'm being blamed for just being male? I think I'm understanding that the point is that we need to remove violence as a characteristic of masculinity, which in itself is a valid point, but halfway through the article I felt under fire just because I'm male.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on October 05, 2012, 01:25:35 am
Quote from: Kedly on October 05, 2012, 01:04:37 am
Ugh (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/healthy-masculinity-why-m_b_1933324.html)... am I the only one who feels like I'm being blamed for just being male? I think I'm understanding that the point is that we need to remove violence as a characteristic of masculinity, which in itself is a valid point, but halfway through the article I felt under fire just because I'm male.

It attacked how aggressiveness and entitlement to female sexuality is commonly an aspect of the masculine image. It attacked the way women end up being blamed when the only issue should be a man being an asshole (and society coming down on that). I'm not sure where you got the idea that the author was blaming you for being male. Care to explain which parts you found problematic?

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

Speaking of assholes behaving badly and blame being misplaced: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/03/947981/court-requires-disabled-rape-victim-to-prove-she-fought-back-calls-for-evidence-of-biting-kicking-scratching/?mobile=nc (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/03/947981/court-requires-disabled-rape-victim-to-prove-she-fought-back-calls-for-evidence-of-biting-kicking-scratching/?mobile=nc)

Yeah. That happened. Anyone selling tickets off this planet?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 05, 2012, 01:33:40 am
Quote from: Glowcat on October 05, 2012, 01:25:35 am
Speaking of assholes behaving badly and blame being misplaced: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/03/947981/court-requires-disabled-rape-victim-to-prove-she-fought-back-calls-for-evidence-of-biting-kicking-scratching/?mobile=nc (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/03/947981/court-requires-disabled-rape-victim-to-prove-she-fought-back-calls-for-evidence-of-biting-kicking-scratching/?mobile=nc)

Yeah. That happened. Anyone selling tickets off this planet?
Note that the court's ruling is not completely illogical, as the victim is incapable of speaking and would only have been able to demonstrate her lack of consent through physical actions.

The court's real failing is not recognizing that someone with the cognitive abilities of a 3-year old isn't capable of consenting at all.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 01:34:15 am
I find it problematic, but it's a lot to go into.

Well she talks about how males / females should be largely interchangeable, fair enough.

Then she talks about "gendered violence" => domestic violence. A lot of feminist literature says that females make up 95% of victims. But other reports show that about 40% of domestic violence cases are female abuser / male victim. Hiding one set of victims to highlight another set of victims is indefensible in my book if you want to claim any objectivity.

Quote
A good example, as Hugo Schywzer just put it in a Role/Reboot piece, is that "Too many of us do accept a similarly indefensible argument: that short skirts can drive men to rape."
Who the fuck thinks that's correct? I've certainly NEVER met another guy in my life who ever said anything like "she was asking for it". I'm pretty certain if this was brought up as a defense of rape 99/100 males would want to lynch the rapist.

One thing covered here that this same crowd are pushing was that playing tag was "rape training". someone on bay12 mentioned seeing a TV advert of kids playing in the playground and all the little boys with arrows labeled "potential abuser". I can only think that's related to "boys games = rape training" meme that was common with educators a few years ago.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on October 05, 2012, 01:38:07 am
I would be one of those 99.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 05, 2012, 01:39:37 am
Quote from: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 01:34:15 am
Quote
A good example, as Hugo Schywzer just put it in a Role/Reboot piece, is that "Too many of us do accept a similarly indefensible argument: that short skirts can drive men to rape."
Who the fuck thinks that's correct? I've certainly NEVER met another guy in my life who ever said anything like "she was asking for it". I'm pretty certain if this was brought up as a defense of rape 99/100 males would want to lynch the rapist.
Unfortunately, people like this do exist. I may in fact be living in close quarters with one, it would be in line with his other opinions. It may not be as blatant as that, however. In most cases you will hear it more as "She shouldn't have put herself in danger by dressing so provocatively" and such.

It is a lot more prevalent the more repressed a society gets, hence why the Islamic world is a powder keg for this stuff and you'll hear about things like women being gang raped, charged with indecency, and then gang raped again by the police because she showed her fucking hair or something. It's crazy. The US is nowhere even remotely near that, but there are still plenty of neo-puritians in it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 01:53:31 am
IDK, i agree that people should be able to dress how they want, but i also agree that you can put yourself at risk. Just because a consequence is unfair doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I agree a short skirt doesn't "drive a man to rape", but if a girl was walking alone after dark in a dangerous neighborhood scantily dressed, she could definitely draw unwanted attention.

Same as if you were white and went to some neighborhoods where there are black gangs. May sound racist to say that, but there are definitely neighborhoods in the USA that white people shouldn't walk alone. Does it mean i'm anti-white if I say a white person asked for trouble going there? Or that i'm anti-black for pointing out that a specific area had black people who were actually dangerous?

tl;dr i don't think saying "you put yourself at risk dressing like that" is ANYWHERE near the "rapist defense" that short skirts make it OK.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on October 05, 2012, 01:57:01 am
In other words, you accept the argument that short skirts drive men to rape?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 02:19:07 am
One thing i take offence to is how male => female violence is the ONLY violence that matters. But according to studies, each gender is almost equally likely to initiate domestic violence. Address violence in BOTH sexes or STFU.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
Quote
About two in five of all victims of domestic violence are men, contradicting the widespread impression that it is almost always women who are left battered and bruised, a new report claims.

Men assaulted by their partners are often ignored by police, see their attacker go free and have far fewer refuges to flee to than women, says a study by the men's rights campaign group Parity.

The charity's analysis of statistics on domestic violence shows the number of men attacked by wives or girlfriends is much higher than thought. Its report, Domestic Violence: The Male Perspective, states: "Domestic violence is often seen as a female victim/male perpetrator problem, but the evidence demonstrates that this is a false picture."

Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available. In 2006-07 men made up 43.4% of all those who had suffered partner abuse in the previous year, which rose to 45.5% in 2007-08 but fell to 37.7% in 2008-09.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on October 05, 2012, 02:19:53 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 05, 2012, 01:33:40 am
Note that the court's ruling is not completely illogical, as the victim is incapable of speaking and would only have been able to demonstrate her lack of consent through physical actions.

The court's real failing is not recognizing that someone with the cognitive abilities of a 3-year old isn't capable of consenting at all.

This fits into the putting the blame on women. As RAINN pointed out, women who are attacked are almost always physically weaker than their attacker and if they did react in a way which proved "lack of consent" they could very well provoke an even more violent response. It's like the people who first created those laws didn't stop to think a woman might be seriously worried about her life in that situation...

But yeah, there's also the whole incapable of consent in the first place deelio, so all around it's a pretty shitty ruling and a pretty shitty law.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 02:20:21 am
@Scriver: You're putting words in my mouth and obviously not attempting to understand what i said. no strawman for me thx.

nobody was driven to rape by clothing. it's not a defense. But saying it's not a defense doesn't mean it's not possible to put yourself in danger.

girls SHOULD be able to walk late a night, alone, safely. But in reality, that puts them at risk. Am I claiming "night time drives men to rape" by saying that?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on October 05, 2012, 02:28:42 am
So what exactly do you mean, if not that?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 02:30:00 am
Dude, it IS possible for a girl to put herself at risk by ANY number of things. Clothes probably is a part of that (in that they get noticed by the bad guys).

Just pointing out the risk factors isn't saying that those factors "excuse" rape.

Like i said, "late at night" is high-risk. Is saying "that girl shouldn't have been out alone in the industrial estate at that hour" saying that "late night drives men to rape"?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on October 05, 2012, 02:47:38 am
Except your assumption that sexual assault is primarily about desire for sex is flawed (Hint: it's more about control over another person) and you're pretty much stating that women shouldn't wear "provocative clothes" if they don't want to tempt an assault (Hint: That's blaming them), as if it was a reasonable restriction, so... yeah.

Oh, and classic "BUT WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ!" complaint about the article. Really classy. As if pointing out problems women face can't be done on its own without implicitly declaring all issues men face to be invalid. Nevermind that the issue of under reporting domestic abuse on the male side is also due to the image of masculinity or anything.. the author should just STFU because she didn't make it her topic.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 05, 2012, 02:54:27 am
Just wanted to come in and report that GreatJustice doesn't know what he's talking about.

I just spent 3 weeks in Singapore and my mum had various injuries that we had to go to the hospital for.

Singaporeans pay an extremely high tax rate, but hospital fees and other services are "cheaper". Thus like Thailand, where I am now, you see many "medical tourists" from the US, Europe, Australia, middle-east, and other parts of Asia.

It's extremely socialised in Singapore.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 05, 2012, 02:59:21 am
This also deserves it's own reply:

Quote from: Wiki
Singapore was ranked 6th in the World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems in the year 2000.[1]
Singapore has a non-modified universal healthcare system where the government ensures affordability of healthcare within the public health system, largely through a system of compulsory savings, subsidies and price controls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore
EDIT- part of this posted earlier ^^^

They force you to set aside a large portion of your wages for retirement and future healthcare needs.

One of the most socalised and regulated countries in the world, ranked 6th in healthcare by WHO.

So let's look at the other winners...

1: France = extremely socialist (one of universal health care largely financed by government national health insurance. In its 2000 assessment of world health care systems, the World Health Organization found that France provided the "close to best overall health care" in the world.[1])

2: Italy = 75% socalised Healthcare is provided to all citizens and residents by a mixed public-private system.

3: San Marino = highly socalist San Marino has a high standard of compulsory, state-funded healthcare and medical staff are highly qualified

4: Andorra = extremely socialist Healthcare in Andorra is provided to all employed persons and their families by the government-run social security system, CASS (Caixa Andorrana de Seguretat Social), which is funded by employer and employee contributions in respect of salaries.[47] The cost of healthcare is covered by CASS at rates of 75% for out-patient expenses such as medicines and hospital visits, 90% for hospitalisation, and 100% for work-related accidents. The remainder of the costs may be covered by private health insurance. Other residents and tourists require full private health insurance

5: Malta = Free healthcare socialism Malta has a long history of providing publicly funded health care. The first hospital recorded in the country was already functioning by 1372.[119] Today, Malta has both a public healthcare system, known as the government healthcare service, where healthcare is free at the point of delivery, and a private healthcare system.

Are you starting to notice a pattern about how successful socalised healthcare is?

Source: http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf
The World Health Organisation: The World Health Report (last ranked year 2000)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 03:42:00 am
@thx Kael, i did post some of that quote a few pages back i think.

@glowcat: I don't think trying to assess potential risk factors is sexist in any way. Is saying clothes might be a factor "blame the victim" whilst saying "don't walk alone at night" isn't "blame the victim"? Both are equally decisions made by the victim. But clothing is tied into a lot of other issues about sexism, whilst "walking alone at night" isn't so much.

Looking at the research online just now, yes, it does look like clothing isn't much of an issue, but there's VERY little research. I think most people making recommendations about dressing "sensibly" actually do mean well, but might be misguided, and most of those who object to that advice do so on ideological grounds unrelated to rape at all. (female rights vs patriarchy).

As for the "what about the men?" complaint. What i pointed out was omission of an alternate viewpoint. By labeling domestic violence as gendered violence, and explicitly stating that as man=abuser, woman=victim, you say that this in no way dismisses that female=abuser, male=victim abuse occurs. I'm saying it actually does dismiss that.

I find this a difficult objection to swallow because feminist literature very often uses the same logic of patriarchal language containing sexism due to omission of the female viewpoint. You're saying that can't happen both ways?

One thing i totally disagree with the article on is this paragraph:
Quote
First, consider, this example of the language we use to describe violence: "Women get raped and beaten up by men they know every day. Millions of them." OR, "Millions of men rape and beat women up every day. Millions of them." Here's another: "She went to a party. Drank too much. Passed out and was sexually assaulted." VERSUS "During the party, two boys inserted their fingers into her vagina and took pictures while she was unconscious." "She was a victim of domestic abuse," doesn't give the same impression as, "He broke his wife's nose five times and knocked out two of her teeth during a two-year period."
I think the passive verb form which is stated to be the common usage, with the woman as the object, asks you to empathize with the woman as the victim in these cases: "The woman was raped by the man", makes me think about what the woman is experiencing. Whereas the active verb form "The man raped the woman", put the image of "the man" in my head at the start, and "the woman" is tacked on almost like an afterthought, like they're not the important part of the whole thing. I think if normal language use was reversed in this case, they'd be complaining that it should be the other way.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on October 05, 2012, 04:19:38 am
The problem with talking about risk factors is that they inevitably reach the conclusion that the woman should've done those things to prevent any ill-occurrence. The better question to ask is whether your concern is reasonable. The world is full of dangers as it is. Is it a reasonable precaution to never drive just to avoid getting hit by a drunk driver? Is it reasonable to never eat seafood because you might get food poisoning? No? Then why the hell is it suddenly a major point that a woman dresses how she wants or goes out at night?

Quote
As for the "what about the men?" complaint. What i pointed out was omission of an alternate viewpoint. By labeling domestic violence as gendered violence, and explicitly stating that as man=abuser, woman=victim, you say that this in no way dismisses that female=abuser, male=victim abuse occurs. I'm saying it actually does dismiss that.

You're doing jack to prove it. And no, you can't just refer to some vague uncited monolith of feminist literature to back up your view. Talking about an issue as it relates to women does not require the author to go out of her way in addressing different topics just to sate your unreasonable demands.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kedly on October 05, 2012, 04:23:35 am
I was just pointing out the article was super aggressive to the point I had a hard time viewing its message because I became defensive early on. The points it raised were valid, I was just upset with HOW they were raised.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 04:59:09 am
"unreasonable demands"? i'm talking about addressing the full scope of the same topic. The root of all violence (being male), and terms like "domestic violence" are claimed to be fully defined by the article. If a large class of domestic violence cases are excluded by that definition and are never mentioned, then that's highly relevant.

The same way that a movie with no female roles is said to be sexist against women. "women weren't relevant to this story" would NOT be accepted as a defense of having no speaking roles for women.

But you're saying a non-fictional article discussing domestic violence in such a way as to exclude 40% of victims without even a hand-wave isn't sexist against those excluded people. I'm sure if i wrote an article SOLELY discussing male victims of domestic violence without even hinting that more females are victims than males, that wouldn't be seen as acceptable.

http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/style-and-usage/sexist-language.html
Quote
Sexist language is language that excludes either men or women when discussing a topic that is applicable to both sexes.

You're going to tell me this definition isn't applicable?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on October 05, 2012, 05:18:05 am
Quote from: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 04:59:09 am
"unreasonable demands"? i'm talking about addressing the full scope of the same topic. the term "domestic violence" is claimed to be fully defined by the article. If a large class of domestic violence cases are excluded by that definition and are never mentioned, then that's highly relevant.

*looks through the article again*

I see a mention of the gendered aspect in much male-on-female domestic abuse... but not that. Try again?

Quote
The same way that a movie with no female roles is said to be sexist against women. "women weren't relevant to this story" would NOT be accepted as a defense of having no speaking roles for women.

*facepalm*

So non-male non-white character representation in entertainment media can somehow be tied to including additional topics in an article that wasn't primarily about domestic abuse anyway. Got it.

... I think I'm done with this line of conversation.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 05:27:19 am
I don't think you're materially addressed any point i raised except to throw about a general air of ridicule. Well let me extract quotes from the article:

Quote
masculinity is inextricably bound to violence. And that violence is inextricably bound to female vulnerability.
Quote
For the world to be male-dominated, men must have a clear monopoly on violence
Quote
fundamental to how we understand and deal with violence, especially with gendered violence: domestic abuse, rape,

C'mon, that's not even "coded": "masculinity is inextricably bound to violence [...] men must have a clear monopoly on violence [...] how we understand and deal with violence, especially with gendered violence: domestic abuse"

It states that men have a monopoly on violence which is inextricably bound to masculinity, and that domestic violence is a subset of gendered violence with a male abuser / female victim. It's pretty well spelt out, and it clearly rules out any "other" view of domestic violence.

But i guess that's not "really" sexist because there were non-sexist comments as well? So i can load a passage with sexism as long as it's not "mainly about that"? From what I recall it only takes 1 sexist statement in a speech to be classed sexist and a male professor to lose his job. (the dean of Harvard), and all he did was state a factual comment about statistics.

A single word "he" in a text example can and has been jumped on as sexist. And that doesn't even necessarily "rule out" that "she" examples can exist, unlike the text we're discussing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on October 05, 2012, 06:11:07 am
Quote from: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 03:42:00 am
@glowcat: I don't think trying to assess potential risk factors is sexist in any way. Is saying clothes might be a factor "blame the victim" whilst saying "don't walk alone at night" isn't "blame the victim"? Both are equally decisions made by the victim. But clothing is tied into a lot of other issues about sexism, whilst "walking alone at night" isn't so much.

Looking at the research online just now, yes, it does look like clothing isn't much of an issue, but there's VERY little research. I think most people making recommendations about dressing "sensibly" actually do mean well, but might be misguided, and most of those who object to that advice do so on ideological grounds unrelated to rape at all. (female rights vs patriarchy).
People making such recommendations are not just misguided, they are actually harmful. Being well intentioned doesn't matter (http://www.anamardoll.com/2012/01/deconstruction-why-your-well.html). This isn't ideological, it's how humans think.

In her example, Ana creates a list of ways people 'could' avoid getting wet in the rain. Then she says this;
Quote
But the problem with the scenario we've created with this Rainy Tips list is that we've posited a universe where rain is an uncontrollable but to-be-avoided occurrence and then we laid out Easy! Simple! Guaranteed! tips for avoiding the rain.

Imagine that someone read my Rainy Day Tips here and then saw someone wringing out their wet hair after being drenched in rain. Imagine that instead of immediately feeling sympathy, now thanks to my tips they are puzzled. Why is the wet person wet? Are they ignorant and failed to read the Rainy Day Tips? Are they stupid and failed to work out how to properly implement the Rainy Day Tips? Are they lazy and didn't properly attain the right umbrella, car, house, and workplace as the Rainy Day Tips suggested? Are they greedy and refused to follow the Rainy Day Tips because they wanted to squander their money on non-umbrellas, non-cars, and non-houses with attached garages?

You didn't say that. Nowhere in your advice did you say or even suggest that failure to follow your advice would indicate that a victim deserved their victimization. In fact, you may have even stated explicitly that the advice would be difficult for some to follow and that it wasn't their fault if they didn't or couldn't follow your advice. So it's not your fault if someone takes your coulds and turns them into shoulds to use against the victim, right?

Wrong.

Whether you mean for them to or not, your coulds are going to be taken as shoulds. Humans want and need to believe that the world we live in is one of predictable causes and effects, where doing the 'right' things will result in precisely the right outcomes and the wrong outcomes can be avoided.

By providing "Rape Prevention Tips" or "Advice For Poor Black Children", you are effectively saying that you have a list of 'right' things to do that could, no, should result in the right outcome and prevent the wrong one. The should is implied because the tips aren't random, right? They should work... if you do them right. And since everyone wants the right outcome and wants to avoid the wrong outcome, your system of could-should tips adds to the overall belief that the world we live in can be controlled through the actions of a single individual. And that, in turn, leads to the confirmation that those single individuals who got the wrong outcome in life didn't follow the could-should rules to the last letter. And that is victim blaming in its purest form.
That piece is one of Mardoll's best, IMO, and well worth reading in it's entirety.

And by the way, that vague, undefined reference to feminist literature? This is what it actually looks like.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Gantolandon on October 05, 2012, 06:13:43 am
In short: the article doesn't attack men, but a common cultural theme that basically says they are rabid beasts unable to control themselves. I'll try to explain it more thoroughly later, as typing it on phone will be a nightmare.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 06:43:01 am
@Gantolandon: the main gist of my argument was that it excludes male victims of domestic abuse, by setting up a logical train of thought where violence and maleness were "inextricably" linked in a monopoly, then referring to the importance of understanding violence, specifically gendered violence, of which the very first concrete example was "domestic violence". I really didn't actually call it on "attacking men" at all, but on excluding a large number of people who were victims themselves, and pretty much implying it was impossible for their abusers to exist.

@palsch: Doh, i've read quite a bit of feminist literature thanks, no need to be rude. What i did say was about feminists critiques of coded language. That's not some abstract concept, it's a common theme.

In the very article you've quoted it talks about how "could" advice turns into "you SHOULD have followed it". Which is exactly "coded language" in action. That article states that saying "don't let someone spike your drink" is really saying "i already warned you, so if your drink get's spiked that's YOUR FAULT". So "helpful tips" to protect the victim are actually victim-bashing and fatalism.

thanks for your example of a feminist critique of coded language in action :D I don't think you can really say "you're reading too much into that domestic violence = male violence" thing, while also holding that "well-intentioned helpful(or not) tips" = a blatant attack on victims.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on October 05, 2012, 07:09:02 am
Quote from: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 05:27:19 am
I don't think you're materially addressed any point i raised except to throw about a general air of ridicule. Well let me extract quotes from the article:
Quote
masculinity is inextricably bound to violence. And that violence is inextricably bound to female vulnerability.
Quote
For the world to be male-dominated, men must have a clear monopoly on violence
Quote
fundamental to how we understand and deal with violence, especially with gendered violence: domestic abuse, rape,
C'mon, that's not even "coded": "masculinity is inextricably bound to violence [...] men must have a clear monopoly on violence [...] how we understand and deal with violence, especially with gendered violence: domestic abuse"
Those are all points that the author is criticising. Seriously, read the article. She is talking about views of masculinity are harmful to both men and women by encouraging male violence. It's a case where the gender stereotypes that feminists attack are damaging to men as much as women, and why the major groups and projects she focuses on later are mainly male-focused and dominated.

She states that, "masculinity is inextricably bound to violence," as a harmful thing that should be changed. She states, "men must have a clear monopoly on violence," as a simple description of an idea of masculinity born of a patriarchal society, where men must be dominant to be Real True Men. When she talks about, "gendered violence: domestic abuse, rape," she is talking about, well, actually gendered violence, not necessarily just male-on-female.

Because on that last point female-on-male (or frankly any-on-male) gendered violence tends to be covered by those same patriarchal norms that male-on-female is 'encouraged' (in a sense). Men are not taken seriously as men if they are abused because of the same concepts of masculinity that encourage them to do violence to others. The underlying problems with dealing with abuse against men are the same as those that Chemaly is trying to address in the article.

Essentially you are trying to make this out to be sexist by entirely reversing her position, with a few cherry picked quotes.
Quote from: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 06:43:01 am
In the very article you've quoted it talks about how "could" advice turns into "you SHOULD have followed it". Which is exactly "coded language" in action. That article states that saying "don't let someone spike your drink" is really saying "i already warned you, so if your drink get's spiked that's YOUR FAULT". So "helpful tips" to protect the victim are actually victim-bashing and fatalism.
That's not coded language. Read the article again. It's talking about the way people react to such advice and why that advice is more harmful than helpful, not anything about the advice itself being coded. There is a major difference between the two, mostly dealing with intent.

Also maybe try discussing the message of the article? I was posting it because I thought you were falling into the trap that she describes, of ignoring the actual results of such well-intended advice. Do you flat reject that or not? Do you have a reason?

EDIT:
Quote
I don't think you can really say "you're reading too much into that domestic violence = male violence" thing, while also holding that "well-intentioned helpful(or not) tips" = a blatant attack on victims.
If you read the article, she isn't saying they are blatant attacks, but she is saying they are inadvertent ones, creating an atmosphere that is harmful to victims. Offering safety advice isn't an open attack, but that doesn't mean it can't cause harm in an indirect manner. Again, it's worth addressing the point of the article.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 07:10:18 am
Well of course she's arguing against these things, in the future, but she clearly believes they are all true statements, right now.

masculinity is inextricably bound to violence <= current state in most of the world, she says..
For the world to be male-dominated, men must have a clear monopoly on violence <= world is currently male-dominated, making this statement true. She's definitely not arguing that the "clear monopoly" doesn't exist.
domestic abuse is stated as a subset of gendered violence. She just states that this is the case, and gendered clearly means "male aggressor" => "female victim" in the context of the article.

All those are the existing state, that's her argument. Of course she's arguing for change, but she wouldn't discuss them unless she thought they were all true.

===

Coded language doesn't have to be MALICIOUS or conscious. That's also not something i claimed. There are plenty of articles about how language itself is sexist and perpetuates sexism by it's very constructs.

"well intentioned" MEANS inadvertent. I already addressed that. She made it clear in her article that giving such advice wasn't "maybe" victim-blaming they were 100% certifiable victim-blaming. That's why I said "blatant".

And ok, it's inadvertent, but so was my criticism of the earlier article's tautology that pretty much all victims = female, all aggressors = male. I never once claimed she did that on purpose. But, just like Ann Mardoll states, it doesn't have to be on purpose.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kedly on October 05, 2012, 07:31:57 am
Yeah, I didnt get the feeling the article was disproving those statements. Those are pretty much the statements that made me upset with the article. I guess I'll give it a second read through.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on October 05, 2012, 07:37:23 am
Quote from: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 07:10:18 am
masculinity is inextricably bound to violence <= current state in most of the world, she says..
Yes, and as a guy, I agree.

Pretty much every traditional view of masculinity is bound up in using force to maintain your position and dominance. It's hard to pretend otherwise.

But there is a clear difference between these views of masculinity and being male. Masculinity is the cultural view of maleness, but not an inherent property of being a male. The 'bound to violence' part belongs squarely on the cultural side of things.

The problem here is that, culturally, men are encouraged towards these standards of masculinity that are 'bound to violence', making such violence more normalised. The entire article is about changing these standards of masculinity away from such harmful models. It's worth noting again that the groups she mentions and promotes are largely male-lead.
Quote
domestic abuse is stated as a subset of gendered violence. She just states that this is the case, and gendered clearly means male aggressor => female victim in the context of the article.
To the first part, well, domestic abuse is gendered violence. I disagree that she clearly restricts gendered violence to male-on-female, but don't think it matters either way within the context of the article. I don't see her erasing female-on-male violence simply by not offering explicit discussion of it in an article discussing male violence and ways to reduce it. It would be off-topic for her actual point.

And again, the actual violence that happens is best addressed by focusing on the same gender perceptions that she is discussing. So even if she was to insert a paragraph about female-on-male violence it wouldn't change any of the rest of the article. It was just be a way to head off what-about-the-menz comments, and look like such to anyone reading.
Quote
Dude "well intentioned" MEANS inadvertent. I already addressed that.

And ok, it's inadvertent, but so was my criticism of her article's tautology that pretty much all victims = female, all aggressors = male. I never once claimed she did that on purpose. But, just like Ann Mardoll states, it doesn't have to be on purpose.
I... I'm not even sure of your meaning here. The phrasing here doesn't make sense to me at all.

Well intentioned =/= inadvertent. Unless you are explicitly talking about the harm that results from such actions there is a disconnect there. And at no point did you actually discuss the harm, only the intent behind those offering the advice. The whole point of my talking about inadvertent harm was to point out that there is actual harm, regardless of intent.

I'm assuming you meant that her describing all abusers as male, etc, was inadvertent, not your criticism. And here, sure, she inadvertently did not address female-on-male violence. But again, the article is discussing male violence and male gender roles that encourage such violence. What benefit would there be to talk about something outside the scope of the article in the article?

EDIT: Urg, edits didn't show on the preview.
Quote
She made it clear in her article that giving such advice wasn't "maybe" victim-blaming they were 100% certifiable victim-blaming. That's why I said "blatant".
OK. I read the word "blatant" as "obvious", but guess this could just a usage difference and it sort of fits. Again, I think this is rolled into inadvertent nicely. Inadvertent has the lack of intent combined with unavoidable end result, at least in the contexts I usually see it used in. But semantics blah blah.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 07:44:38 am
Well i'll restate "not mentioning" the other way (pro-male bias) is routinely seen as denying or downplaying the existence of the female examples of something, e.g. if you only used examples of a male firefighter in a school textbook there would be outcries to include a female example.

===

"I disagree that she clearly restricts gendered violence to male-on-female" <= i have to disagree with that statement more than most others, she clearly uses gendered in a VERY strict male-on-female sense:
Quote
gendered violence: domestic abuse, rape, acid throwing, sex trafficking, child brides, and more.

As for "well intentioned": "well intentioned" is almost always invoked in situations where there was some negative outcome that was unexpected - "inadvertent harm" (at least by the person with the intentions). If the advice wasn't harmful, we just call it "good advice".

Blatant does mean obvious, but statements may be obvious to some people, but not others. The harmfulness of the statements we were discussing were certainly obvious to Ann Mardoll, and inadvertent to the "well intentioned" person she invokes.
 
===

Well, Ann Mardoll's article talked about how 1 set of language was inadvertently sexist victim-blaming. My example was that through the earlier article's setting up of definitions, she inadvertently ruled out the very existence of ~40% of domestic abuse victims. Both are sexist, just like it would be sexist to inadvertently only use male pronouns in examples.

Can you 100% show that downplaying the existence of victims of both genders hasn't caused harm? Whereas "don't leave your drink unattended" HAS caused harm?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on October 05, 2012, 08:15:47 am
Quote from: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 07:44:38 am
Well, Ann Mardoll's article talked about how 1 set of language was inadvertently sexist victim-blaming. My example was that through the earlier article's setting up of definitions, she inadvertently ruled out the very existence of ~40% of domestic abuse victims. Both are sexist, just like it would be sexist to inadvertently only use male pronouns in examples.
There is a difference of context here.

If I were writing an article specifically about men's sports, would it be sexist to exclude women's sports teams?

Or to take a more illustrative example, let's convert this to a race based example.

Let's say I was reporting on an African American lead effort to reduce black-on-black gang violence. I include in my article several references to such violence, but fail to mention white-on-white or white-on-black violence. Is that racist?

Again, this is an article discussing a real attempt by both feminist and men's groups, in coalition, to reduce male violence by addressing (and trying to change) cultural views of masculinity. It discusses multiple forms that violence takes, including gendered violence, within that context.

Maybe she could have included a paragraph on female-on-male or other domestic violence and rape, in the same way that the author of the piece on black-on-black violence might include a reference to non-black violent crime. But those paragraphs would be superfluous to the article. They don't add to the central arguments or purpose of the article. Anyone who would avoid discussing the central point because it doesn't mention the cases not relevant to the discussion is unlikely to turn around and accept the article simply because it makes mention of what they view as the real problem.
Quote
Can you 100% show that downplaying the existence of victims of both genders hasn't caused harm? Whereas "don't leave your drink unattended" HAS caused harm?
Do we have a standard for evidence here?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 08:17:11 am
It would be sexist if you invoked things about men's sports like "Men are great at sports. Many men play sports, it's in their nature.", this may be true, but it also implies it's something unique to a class of people you've labeled "men".

And the black-on-black violence one would be racist if you stated that "black men are capable of violence, many black men kill other black men and rape black women." The wording implies this is something special and unique to black people, reading between the lines.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on October 05, 2012, 08:54:34 am
Quote from: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 08:17:11 am
It would be sexist if you invoked things about men's sports like "Men are great at sports. Many men play sports, it's in their nature.", this may be true, but it also implies it's something unique to a class of people you've labeled "men".

And the black-on-black violence one would be racist if you stated that "black men are capable of violence, many black men kill other black men and rape black women." The wording implies this is something special and unique to black people, reading between the lines.
None of which Chemaly did.

Again, you are conflating criticism of cultural models of masculinity (in the article) with criticism of something inherent to all men (not in the article).

And going back because you edited after my last post;
Quote from: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 07:44:38 am
"I disagree that she clearly restricts gendered violence to male-on-female" <= i have to disagree with that statement more than most others, she clearly uses gendered in a VERY strict male-on-female sense:
Quote
gendered violence: domestic abuse, rape, acid throwing, sex trafficking, child brides, and more.
You are going to have to explain how that excluded female-on-male or other violence. Is listing near-exclusively male-on-female crimes enough to clearly restrict the entire list to male-on-female? Because that would make it very hard to discuss generalised gender violence without always, by definition, excluding either female-on-male cases or a whole subset of violence that only (or nearly only) happens against women.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 09:09:20 am
She did exactly that, but in a stronger sense than my examples: My examples merely suggested that only men were great at sports, or that only blacks could be violent. Her statement outright certified that her target group had a monopoly on the trait, so hers was actually a stronger version:

"For the world to be male-dominated, men must have a clear monopoly on violence " clearly precludes any significant violence by women of any type, if you also assume the world is male-dominated. You can leave out the gendered bit if you want, that statement by itself implies ALL the others, especially since the extent of the monopoly is doubly emphasized ("clear").

Again i'll point out that her wording implied domestic violence was always "gendered" in her approved way. She stated that men's monopoly on violence is vital to maintaining men's power. Monopoly has a very clear meaning that there cannot be any significant examples of the alternative.

Quote
You are going to have to explain how that excluded female-on-male or other violence
Men have a monopoly on violence, hence they have a monopoly on any subset of violence, hence gendered violence can only mean male-on-female because any other configuration is logical excluded. Assuming same-sex violence doesn't count as "gendered".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on October 05, 2012, 09:27:42 am
Quote from: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 09:09:20 am
Again i'll point out that her wording implied domestic violence was always "gendered" in her approved way. She stated that men's monopoly on violence is vital to maintaining men's power. Monopoly has a very clear meaning that there cannot be any significant examples of the alternative.
Two problems with this.

Do you honestly believe that she is saying only men can or do ever commit violence? I mean, she is apparently capable of using the internet, so assuming such incredible ignorance seems unreasonable. You would have to be willing to assume the absolute worst about the author to take that idea away from the text.

As for what she is actually describing;
Monopoly on violence or force is a fairly common term and rarely implies that violence doesn't happen outside the monopoly. Any existent state is said to have a monopoly on force within it's borders. That doesn't mean that force isn't used by non-state actors, only that such use of force is seen as illegitimate and that legitimate, state force is used to stop or discourage those non-state applications. In the most extreme forms, patriarchal views of masculinity take a similar view, making certain subsets of male violence legitimate uses of force to maintain dominance and discourage those who would oppose the patriarchal order of things.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 09:34:28 am
I think you're pretty much grasping at straws here if you think she's defining "gendered violence" as anything but pure man-vs-woman. It's quite clear i would think from the ccntext, but also from other sources which use the term, that it has the very specific meaning: (http://eycb.coe.int/gendermatters/chapter_2/1.html)
Quote
‘Gender-based violence’ (GBV) is still an emerging and developing term. Originally it was used mostly to replace the term ‘(male) violence against women’, because the word woman refers to both individuals of the female sex and to feminine gender roles in society. Those developing the term wanted to emphasize that violence against women is a phenomenon that is related to the gender of both victim and perpetrator. Many definitions continue to focus solely on the fact that women are victims of violence: for example, the UNHCHR’s CEDAW (Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) committee states that GBV is “…violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately”.

I have the UNHCR as my source for that definition. So, whether or not you agree that she literally meant men have a monopoly on violence or just on "legitimate right to violence". Men's monopoly on gender-based violence is in the definition.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 05, 2012, 09:38:40 am
So, I've noticed the Falkland Islands thing seems to be a big hot button issue for progressives, but I just can't understand how Argentina possible has a claim on them. Does anyone here support then, and can you explain it to me?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on October 05, 2012, 09:45:04 am
Quote from: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 09:34:28 am
I have the UNHCR as my source for that definition.
Except that the page you are quoting (http://eycb.coe.int/gendermatters/chapter_2/1.html) goes on to discuss how the term is being generalised and used to refer to all, well, gender based violence.

And again, you are not addressing what I actually say or what is said in the article.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 05, 2012, 09:38:40 am
So, I've noticed the Falkland Islands thing seems to be a big hot button issue for progressives, but I just can't understand how Argentina possible has a claim on them. Does anyone here support then, and can you explain it to me?
Any recent links you can give me? The last discussion of the Falklands in my feeds were a debate over the role of naval power in the modern world (Crooked Timber (http://crookedtimber.org/2012/10/04/who-needs-a-navy/) vs Lawyers, Guns and Money (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/10/and-it-continues), both fairly progressive sites, in case anyone is interested). Most of the British sources mentioned it back during the flare up over the summer, but the general view was apathy.

This piece was vaguely interesting (http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2012/02/lets-give-falklands-to-argentina.html) and reflects the level of seriousness given to the debate.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 09:48:59 am
No, i have specifically addressed things you've said. You're not happy that 'clear monopoly' means total control, i can't help that.

And you're not happy with the sources for "gender-based violence" which state pretty clearly that it IS a monopoly of male-on-female violence. So i have two independent lines of reasoning that she's referring to domestic violence as an exclusively male-on-female form of violence (plus the fact that it's included in a list of sex crimes often limited to female victims. hard to imagine a male "child bride").

Even the new expanded meaning seems to preclude a domineering female partner:
Quote
However, there is a development towards extending this definition to all forms of violence that are related to (a) social expectations and social positions based on gender and (b) not conforming to a socially accepted gender-role. In this way gender-based violence is increasingly a term that connects all acts of violence rooted in some form of ‘patriarchal ideology’ (see 1.4), and can thus be committed against both women and men by women and men with the purpose of maintaining social power for (heterosexual) men. This evolution of the definition can be observed in the following description:
the expanded meaning is ALWAYS about expanding male power. Thus precluding pretty much female's beating their husband to control them. If it expands influence for a woman or women in general, it's is by the "new" definition NOT GBV. and if you read further the only "anti-male" examples are of violence against LGBT. I wouldn't be surprised if those are the ONLY anti-male examples ever contemplated in the "improved version".

I'll restate that "gender-based violence" CANNOT mean a woman initiating violence to control a man, by ALL the definitions in use. Unless you accept that women being in control is a "socially accepted gender-role.". I'll assume she's using the accepted meaning.

I've gone over the contents many ways, and i only ever said there was that one weakness in how her argument was presented. I don't need to address every issue in her article, because I only made claims about a single issue she raised.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 05, 2012, 09:53:16 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 05, 2012, 09:38:40 am
So, I've noticed the Falkland Islands thing seems to be a big hot button issue for progressives, but I just can't understand how Argentina possible has a claim on them. Does anyone here support then, and can you explain it to me?
According to Wikipedia the UK might've expelled some Argentinian settlers in 1833.  Other than that... Argentina has never held the islands other than for a brief occupation period in 1982, and the islanders identify as British and want to remain British.  Unless that changes I don't think there's any real case at all.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 05, 2012, 09:59:01 am
Well since there seems to be general agreement on that issue, I'll move to the Republican Party in my close neighbour-state of Maine and their newest attempt to unseat a democratic opponent.

By saying we don't want someone who played WoW, because they are violent.

(https://www.mainegop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Lachowicz-2.jpg)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 05, 2012, 10:07:52 am
If it weren't for the comments at the top and bottom I'd think it was a campaign to inspire young voters.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on October 05, 2012, 10:10:30 am
That's pretty lame. I'd have marginally more respect if they said it was because she played Horde or always rolled on gear she couldn't use.

EDIT: Hell, I'd take that comment about upping her DPS as a positive, because it means she's looking at the underlying structure of the game and doing math.

"Colleen Lachowicz: If she can optimize her DPS, she can balance a budget."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on October 05, 2012, 10:18:17 am
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-completely-wrong-47-percent-comments-050305729--abc-news-politics.html

I think that's Romney admitting he was wrong? I didn't think that would happen.... Not sure if it could perhaps be because it's become so blatantly obvious of a mistake that he has no choice or what's going on but just wow. I mean, is this borderline Romney showing some semblance of respect for the rest of us who are not rich or what? Pure speculation.

I started quoting a USA today article, but they had some scary looking copyright language down there about not re-posting. I don't really get that, because you'd think linking to their site would give them web traffic/views. So I guess Yahoo.com's news people get the viewers who click on that link instead of USA today. I mean if USA today deosn't want something reposted, then that's cool.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on October 05, 2012, 10:20:57 am
Quote from: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 09:48:59 am
She obviously meant the new, expanded meaning, and not the UNHCR meaning which just coincidentally matched her article's contents 100% :P
No. Just no.

For starters, you have massively misread what she wrote in the most hostile manner possible, then ignored any attempts to explain why your reading was wrong. You have flat out asserted that she said only men can be violent and then said that it doesn't matter if you were wrong about that because an unrelated definition she doesn't refer to of a term she doesn't precisely use (the one definition of 'gendered' violence as opposed to GBV is of the more general variety (http://www.cfuw.org/en-ca/advocacypolicy/advocacyissues/genderedviolence.aspx)) proves that you are right.

You have refused to actually engage on points and have instead skipped away to other, unrelated points rather than actually discuss anything of importance or interest, or to try to actually understand what she is talking about. You haven't once actually discussed the questions of masculinity or male identity that are the point of the article, or maybe looked at the differences between male-on-female and female-on-male domestic violence that may illustrate why the article was written in the first place (that link you use for a definition might be a good starting point).

At this point, what exactly is your view of the article? Do you seriously believe she is calling all men uncontrolled violence beasts or something? Because I think I've lost track of your objections about eight back.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 05, 2012, 09:59:01 am
Well since there seems to be general agreement on that issue, I'll move to the Republican Party in my close neighbour-state of Maine and their newest attempt to unseat a democratic opponent.

By saying we don't want someone who played WoW, because they are violent.
[snip]
So long as it was her opponents who thought DPS means Deaths Per Second, I'd be happy to overlook her bad taste in games for her seeming support of trans* performances of the Vagina Monologues.

Quote from: Truean on October 05, 2012, 10:18:17 am
I think that's Romney admitting he was wrong? I didn't think that would happen.... Not sure if it could perhaps be because it's become so blatantly obvious of a mistake that he has no choice or what's going on but just wow. I mean, is this borderline Romney showing some semblance of respect for the rest of us who are not rich or what? Pure speculation.
I think it's that his debate 'victory' (whatever that actually means) was built on his constantly lying and being a bullying arrogant son-of-a-bitch. His walking back his most publicly well known lie about the 47% makes him look more willing to admit his mistakes/falsehoods, so deflects from everyone on the planet calling him a liar about every other word he said during the debate.

Whether or not it will work is another question.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 05, 2012, 10:23:00 am
Although she IS a rogue - I've heard them say other classes have damage per second, rogues have deaths per second. ;)

Not really in WoW though, and yeah I think it was put in by the Republicans.

And also... you in opposition to the trans Vagina Monologues for some reason?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on October 05, 2012, 10:24:02 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 05, 2012, 10:23:00 am
And also... you in opposition to the trans Vagina Monologues for some reason?
Nope. Her support for that lets me overlook her playing the travesty people pretend is a game called WoW.

...

And not often on a gamer site I could say that and have it be a more popular statement than the opposite.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 05, 2012, 10:24:46 am
Oh, hah, I read that as "or" for some reason.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 05, 2012, 10:32:07 am
Palsch, it's not just her article, there are dozens of sources which have the same skewed figures on domestic violence. I'm not saying she's perpetrating it personally, but i believe her article has been colored by a large body of blogs and writings which catergorically state that abuse of males basically never happens at all. None of those sources ever cite credible figures.

http://www.clackamas.us/domesticviolence/myths.html

That ones says if any woman abuses her spouse, it's because he was a horrible person, on top of having horridly skewed data on the number of abusers. They claim 95% of abusers are male, and the majority of the 5% of female abusers are just "getting back" at those evil men.

Nobody would accept that line of logic for a male abuser (that the victim "had it coming").
And that's just the first link i googled.

And if you read further there's a REALLY odd line: Lesbians are at least 15 times more violent than straight girls according to this "fact sheet" !! (gays and lesbian couples are violent 25-33% of the time. even if you assume straight couples are violent 100% of the time, still only about 2% of those would involve a legitimately violent female, since the majority of the 5% were only defending themselves)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on October 05, 2012, 10:36:50 am
Attourney managed to drop his joint in court, directly in front of police. (https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/new-orleans-attorney-drops-joint-court-article-1.1173673#ixzz28R439E15)

He is forced to resign and his wife (running for city council) has to throw him under the bus;
Quote
“I love my husband unconditionally and am very concerned for his health and well-being, and for that of our family," Cantrell said. "I hope that this incident will encourage Jason to seek the professional help,” she added.
... it was one joint. Although I guess carrying a joint into court is a minor sign that you might have a problem, I'm not sure that problem isn't just lack of thought.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 05, 2012, 11:59:03 am
WoW is a fine game. If you don't like it, sure, whatever, but they've got quite a lot of good designers working on it, and it's stayed afloat for 8+ goddamn years. I think it deserves some respect.

Anywho that alone would earn her my vote :)



@attorney guy with joint

Poor guy :(
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 05, 2012, 12:33:23 pm
WoW is a grinding game and has only started getting anything resembling depth due to the more recent expansions, which I understand are vastly improved. I find games like those terrible, but I know that (for some crazy reason) they appeal to others. Much like social games, though, being "popular" isn't enough to be considered good in my book. Zynga has stayed afloat for a while, too.

(And I know there are other games involved within it, but you can't play any of THOSE games unless you play the grinding game first.)

/me shrugs.

But I'm certainly not going to judge someone for their taste in games, anymore than I want people to judge me based on my taste in socks.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on October 05, 2012, 01:04:08 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 05, 2012, 09:59:01 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I would vote for her for this reason alone. When those game censorship bills come around again, she'll have my side.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 05, 2012, 01:04:47 pm
It took me a minute to realize that the WoW thing wasn't a bunch of people posting in the wrong thread.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on October 05, 2012, 01:06:22 pm
This lady reminds me of Joe, she behaves like she actually has a life outside politics.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 05, 2012, 01:07:24 pm
And besides, anything that takes a bite out of "gaming shame" is a plus in my book too. It's nowhere near as bad as it once was, but it's still far from a socially acceptable hobby like sports.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on October 05, 2012, 01:08:45 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on October 05, 2012, 01:07:24 pm
And besides, anything that takes a bite out of "gaming shame" is a plus in my book too. It's nowhere near as bad as it once was, but it's still far from a socially acceptable hobby like sports.

Knowing every combo in tekken is absurd and stupid, knowing every football play is fine.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on October 05, 2012, 01:09:26 pm
Quote from: darkrider2 on October 05, 2012, 01:04:08 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 05, 2012, 09:59:01 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I would vote for her for this reason alone. When those game censorship bills come around again, she'll have my side.
So would I, if I were the type to vote :V
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on October 05, 2012, 05:20:35 pm
Quote from: Darvi on October 05, 2012, 01:09:26 pm
Quote from: darkrider2 on October 05, 2012, 01:04:08 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 05, 2012, 09:59:01 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I would vote for her for this reason alone. When those game censorship bills come around again, she'll have my side.
So would I, if I were the type to vote :V

I cant view that picture. Is it gone?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on October 05, 2012, 05:25:11 pm
There never was a pic in that post.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on October 05, 2012, 05:26:23 pm
There was, I saw it... but... its gone now? Did it get taken off the server? IDK.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on October 05, 2012, 05:30:26 pm
Nope. The existence of such a pic is demonstrably not a thing, and anybody claiming otherwise is a government shill sent to disrupt our conspiring plots.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 05, 2012, 05:31:06 pm
I'm not gonna say it was Time-traveling Imperial Republican Cyberbots, but you can believe what you want.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 05, 2012, 05:32:38 pm
Though for the record, I doubt that video game censorship will come around in the US again, not since the Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association) ruling.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on October 06, 2012, 02:03:16 pm
 Reasons and examples (http://books.google.com/books?id=2IWr7NkfwTYC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=ole+dan+tucker+hogge&source=bl&ots=rc2W5wYHDY&sig=53treFamFbz6EAfyniVMhOqkZjc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Am42UISwAsuhyAHdvYCQCA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ole%20dan%20tucker%20hogge&f=false)

  of capitalism failing miserably. (http://books.google.com/books?id=SkGJBi86reAC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=hogge+money&source=bl&ots=8gOyTVjWzy&sig=LNd06m5Y63-1etbbYrQvzIU1jBM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mG02UK7OLoizyAGnv4CIBw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=hogge%20money&f=false)

All of those privately owned stock companies in Bermuda back in the colony period decided you'd work for their own brand of "credit." No real government existed that didn't give total authority to the companies, who forced you to work for their "money." Eventually the islanders called BS on this and the King was finally forced to have a governor appointed, who oddly enough decided to use brass coins..... Worthless coins, as his currency. Eventually they tricked him into leaving the island.

I just thought that was funny, because there are "no examples of capitalism failing." :) Other than the great depression of course....

Kind of a sidebar but yeah.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on October 06, 2012, 02:06:23 pm
Oh, you read Cracked too~?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on October 06, 2012, 02:09:11 pm
Quote from: Descan on October 06, 2012, 02:06:23 pm
Oh, you read Cracked too~?

Yup. Have for years. Would've directly cited but I didn't think we could here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on October 06, 2012, 04:08:09 pm
Its generally bad form to cite semi-parody/humor sites for this thread. But meh. Sometimes they get it right.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 06, 2012, 04:15:12 pm
I'd prefer more serious stuff, but I'd rather have links to Cracked than no sources at all.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on October 06, 2012, 04:55:45 pm
And Cracked usually cites their sources (even if it is just to other internet articles without citation of their own). Also, they're funny.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 06, 2012, 06:00:01 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 30, 2012, 02:39:04 pm
So even if you pay ~$300,000 in education costs for medical school, you'll make that up pretty quickly working as a doctor, especially one from the sort of school that would cost that much.
Without straying too much off the main topic into this let me tell you: you're very, very wrong.  Generally speaking being a doctor shouldn't be about the money because it simply doesn't pay. The particulars on how it doesn't pay vary from country to country, but it holds true pretty much everywhere in the First World.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on October 07, 2012, 01:41:51 am
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on October 06, 2012, 06:00:01 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 30, 2012, 02:39:04 pm
So even if you pay ~$300,000 in education costs for medical school, you'll make that up pretty quickly working as a doctor, especially one from the sort of school that would cost that much.
Without straying too much off the main topic into this let me tell you: you're very, very wrong.  Generally speaking being a doctor shouldn't be about the money because it simply doesn't pay. The particulars on how it doesn't pay vary from country to country, but it holds true pretty much everywhere in the First World.
My understanding is that it pays off like being a lawyer does, which pays off like being an artist of any kind does. Rarely, you will become filthy rich. More likely, you'll be lucky to keep your bank account positive, while being insulted disturbingly frequently by your customers, most of whom fail to grasp that they're not just paying for the time you actually spend working in front of them, but also for the training and education you had to get in the past, and the work you have to do behind the scenes in order to be able to do that work in the first place.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 07, 2012, 07:31:42 am
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on October 06, 2012, 06:00:01 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 30, 2012, 02:39:04 pm
So even if you pay ~$300,000 in education costs for medical school, you'll make that up pretty quickly working as a doctor, especially one from the sort of school that would cost that much.
Without straying too much off the main topic into this let me tell you: you're very, very wrong.  Generally speaking being a doctor shouldn't be about the money because it simply doesn't pay. The particulars on how it doesn't pay vary from country to country, but it holds true pretty much everywhere in the First World.

Well, a doctor in Canada is generally paid over 100k if they work "part time" at a clinic, and can make much, much more than that if they work overtime (keep in mind, different parts of Canada pay vastly different amounts of money). A specialist requires more schooling, but can make anywhere from 150k to millions and millions of dollars depending on what they specialize in. However, some parts of Canada have "ceilings" on how much a doctor can make.

Now consider that Canadian doctors regularly run to the US to get paid even more then they already do, and its pretty easy to see that doctors make quite a lot of money. Maybe "1st world" Europe is different, though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 07, 2012, 07:56:34 am
I don't know the particulars of Canada at the moment, but I doubt it gets as high as you think. Maybe it can get to 100K (Canadian?) dollars plus night shifts, but you can only do a limited number of these (for legal, logistical and practical reasons) and there's the fact that, well, you're spending whole days at your workplace. I doubt very much the final "average" earnings get beyond 150K, and those are gross earnings. Substract taxes and cost of living, plus debts and insurance when applicable (US insurance rates are ridiculous). Having a little business on the side won't earn that much either, at best it will qualify as an extra wage (at the cost of having an even longer work day), and it's not really an option for everyone. No specialist will make "millions and millions" of dollars, that I can guarantee you. Some plastic surgeons might have somewhat big incomes by virtue of keeping private clinics, but for every one who got lucky and pulled that out there are a hundred who didn't (and in fact, in the US the average plastic surgeon does not earn that much). This is pretty much a constant in North America and Western Europe (present company excluded because here a doctor makes half of what he would earn elsewhere in Europe/America). I specified "first world" because funnily enough the earnings-compared-to-cost of living do skyrocket in Iberoamerica, with bonuses for those with West-Europe/America training (even then it falls short of "millions and millions". Very short)
Don't believe me? Just google it around. Or, if you don't feel like googling, just check medscape. They keep a yearly table of the gross earnings (and job satisfaction) by speciality in the US
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 07, 2012, 08:12:53 am
I have a friend who is a doctor who fled the USA because rates to stay insured against malpractice were sky high.

See? Anecdotal evidence with no sources is fun!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on October 07, 2012, 08:15:23 am
Quote from: GreatJustice on October 07, 2012, 07:31:42 am
Maybe "1st world" Europe is different, though.

Did you just imply Europe is not "first world" because we don't pay our doctors as much?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 07, 2012, 08:15:42 am
There's one problem with saying "$300,000 in school fees is no problem, because you earn money after that pretty easily". The key term is that you earn the money after, not before. Which means anyone who cannot access $300,000 is denied the education regardless of talent. Thus ensuring only a select few with money can access the education, keeping doctors relatively scarce, but also reducing competitiveness (it's basically Affimative Action, but favoring rich people).

It's basically like Affirmative Action, but favoring rich people. Only the wealthy can access the courses, keeping numbers down, fees high, and making doctors face less competition after graduation, which keeps medical prices high. That's because an arbitrary screening process (how rich you are) distorts competition based on pure talent.

Where exactly does one get that money without low-interest student loans provided as a public service. Private banks tend to not want to give that sort of huge loan unless you're buying some sort of property which can be repossessed if you fail payments. Classes cannot be repossessed, and if you "drop out" or fail to find a job, you declare bankruptcy and the bank loses out.

Saying medical students should just work their own way through college to pay for fees, books and living expenses, also reduces the amount of time they have to study. With doctors in training, this isn't just something that affects themselves, it's potentially lives at risk.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 07, 2012, 08:16:21 am
Europe's a rat-infested communist hovel, clearly implied.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 07, 2012, 08:17:42 am
It's funny because as I posted earlier in the thread, Europe has the top countries ranked by the World Health Organisation in health care.

And they're all '' socialist''.

EDIT: yes I'm quoting myself from the other thread. Deal with it.
 
Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on October 07, 2012, 08:09:00 am
Pretty sure greatjustice is a troll. He never did respond to all my facts on socialism in Singapore (since I was there) and how WHO rated a bunch of socialist countries with best health care in the world.

When presented with facts he either runs or threadshits a bunch of irrelevant or false information.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 07, 2012, 09:36:02 am
Quote from: scriver on October 07, 2012, 08:15:23 am
Quote from: GreatJustice on October 07, 2012, 07:31:42 am
Maybe "1st world" Europe is different, though.

Did you just imply Europe is not "first world" because we don't pay our doctors as much?
The three worlds theory isn't even vaild anymore. With the fall of the Soviet Union everywhere in the world is by definition First or Third World.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on October 07, 2012, 09:39:10 am
It's not even valid across a single country. The United States is First *and* Third World, depending on which part you're talking about.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on October 07, 2012, 10:54:08 am
Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on October 07, 2012, 08:17:42 am
It's funny because as I posted earlier in the thread, Europe has the top countries ranked by the World Health Organisation in health care.

And they're all '' socialist''.

EDIT: yes I'm quoting myself from the other thread. Deal with it.
 
Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on October 07, 2012, 08:09:00 am
Pretty sure greatjustice is a troll. He never did respond to all my facts on socialism in Singapore (since I was there) and how WHO rated a bunch of socialist countries with best health care in the world.

When presented with facts he either runs or threadshits a bunch of irrelevant or false information.

Good to see you a bit more active again, by the way. Are you gonna stay around for a while, or is it just the Thai rain period making you bored?

Disclaimer: I have no idea when in the year the rain season actually is.


Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 07, 2012, 09:36:02 am
The three worlds theory isn't even vaild anymore. With the fall of the Soviet Union everywhere in the world is by definition First or Third World.

The expression is still valid in use, though, as it as evolved to mean "industrialised vs unadvanced", or "rich vs poor", or "modern vs backwater". Or any other such unfairly generalized concepts, but you know what I mean.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 07, 2012, 10:58:10 am
I know, it just irks me because I'm obsessed with political science and like to argue with people over trivial things.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 07, 2012, 11:13:29 am
Quote from: scriver on October 07, 2012, 10:54:08 am

Good to see you a bit more active again, by the way. Are you gonna stay around for a while, or is it just the Thai rain period making you bored?

Disclaimer: I have no idea when in the year the rain season actually is.
It is the rainy season, and has been thunderstorming every day. I'm spending time with relatives and have a bit of downtime. I noticed that even though I was pretty active in vector's thread, I never really posted in this one. So here I am.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 07, 2012, 01:13:12 pm
WTH? Some Florida cities drug testing employees for nicotine now - by law.

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/10/06/1334240/hiring-smokers-banned-in-south-florida-city

Quote
Hiring Smokers Banned In South Florida City
"On October 2, City Commissioners of Delray Beach finalized a policy which prohibits agencies from hiring employees who use tobacco products. Delray Beach isn't alone though; other Florida cities such as Hollywood and Hallandale Beach, require prospective employees to sign affidavits declaring themselves tobacco-free for 12 months prior to the date of application. Throughout the states, both government and businesses are moving to ban tobacco-use beyond working hours. Many medical facilities, e.g. hospitals, have implemented or intend to implement similar policies. In some more-aggressive environments referred to as nicotine-free, employee urine-samples can be taken and tested for any presence of nicotine, not excluding that from gum or patches. Employees testing positive can be terminated.
As much as I dislike cigarettes, this is going a bit far. Of course, attack the user, not the supplier. Totally logical.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 07, 2012, 01:21:27 pm
This is utterly ridiculous. Your employer has no rights over you outside working hours in the first place, and nicotine does not affect job performance. This is discriminatory.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 07, 2012, 01:30:43 pm
Seems they want the best of both worlds. In feudal society, lord and peasant both had duties and obligations. Now, your boss only wants to be accountable to you during work hours, but expects you to be accountable to him 24/7.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 07, 2012, 01:33:56 pm
That post doesn't tell the whole story.  It links to a source which does at least.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/delray-beach-florida-bans_n_1933172.html

It's another completely avoidable problem caused by health insurance.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 07, 2012, 01:38:10 pm
Lol, that kind of makes it worse since it's totally not about caring about people's health at all, but about saving a dollar. And the only reason it's "smokers" is that they are not considered a protected class under anti-discrimination laws.

They'd pretty much ban workers with any pre-existing condition which could raise insurance costs if they could get away with it. I guess smokers lose because they are a "low sympathy" group.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 07, 2012, 02:06:14 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 07, 2012, 08:15:42 am
There's one problem with saying "$300,000 in school fees is no problem, because you earn money after that pretty easily". The key term is that you earn the money after, not before. Which means anyone who cannot access $300,000 is denied the education regardless of talent. Thus ensuring only a select few with money can access the education, keeping doctors relatively scarce, but also reducing competitiveness (it's basically Affimative Action, but favoring rich people).

It's basically like Affirmative Action, but favoring rich people. Only the wealthy can access the courses, keeping numbers down, fees high, and making doctors face less competition after graduation, which keeps medical prices high. That's because an arbitrary screening process (how rich you are) distorts competition based on pure talent.

Where exactly does one get that money without low-interest student loans provided as a public service. Private banks tend to not want to give that sort of huge loan unless you're buying some sort of property which can be repossessed if you fail payments. Classes cannot be repossessed, and if you "drop out" or fail to find a job, you declare bankruptcy and the bank loses out.

Saying medical students should just work their own way through college to pay for fees, books and living expenses, also reduces the amount of time they have to study. With doctors in training, this isn't just something that affects themselves, it's potentially lives at risk.

You just made an excellent argument against the AMA on my behalf. Thanks, Reelya!

Quote from: scriver on October 07, 2012, 08:15:23 am
Quote from: GreatJustice on October 07, 2012, 07:31:42 am
Maybe "1st world" Europe is different, though.

Did you just imply Europe is not "first world" because we don't pay our doctors as much?

Quite the opposite, I was wondering if it was being implied that Canada and the US were not first world, because I've never heard anyone claim that  doctors weren't paid well before.

Anyway, seeing as how you want a source:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/09/14/canadian-doctors-still-make-dramatically-less-than-u-s-counterparts-study/ (http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/09/14/canadian-doctors-still-make-dramatically-less-than-u-s-counterparts-study/)
Quote
Primary-care physicians include family doctors, pediatricians, internal-medicine specialists and obstetrician-gynecologists. Those in the U.S. earned an average after expenses in 2008 of $186,582, versus $125,000 in Canada, $159,000 in Britain and just $92,000 in Australia.

So in short, I was incorrect in that British doctors actually DO make quite a lot of money after all. However, the only "underpaid doctors" here are apparently Australian. (Yes, I know the National Post isn't a great source, but it certainly is sufficient for the purposes of the discussion unless someone finds something contradictory).

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on October 07, 2012, 08:17:42 am
It's funny because as I posted earlier in the thread, Europe has the top countries ranked by the World Health Organisation in health care.

And they're all '' socialist''.

EDIT: yes I'm quoting myself from the other thread. Deal with it.
 
Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on October 07, 2012, 08:09:00 am
Pretty sure greatjustice is a troll. He never did respond to all my facts on socialism in Singapore (since I was there) and how WHO rated a bunch of socialist countries with best health care in the world.

When presented with facts he either runs or threadshits a bunch of irrelevant or false information.

I'm replying to this in the other thread, but this is literally of no relation to the present discussion whatsoever
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 07, 2012, 02:57:46 pm
"Laws are like women: they're there to be raped" (http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/111rwp/a_spanish_official_who_had_just_gotten_the_job/)

Oh well, at least this gigantic piece of manure has resigned from his post. But really, how he got there in the first place is a question in itself.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 07, 2012, 03:00:36 pm
wat
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 07, 2012, 03:04:25 pm
Yeah, it's one of those quotes that can't be taken out of context.

Or rather, it can. Out of context you might think it's a particularily tasteless joke. But in context it''s worse: it's a particularily tasteless joke in reference to something he was proposed, that is, tamper with official records of their activities).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 07, 2012, 03:06:29 pm
I'm not even mad, I'm just confused. I have no idea how this even could have taken place.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 07, 2012, 03:07:06 pm
Yeah the mind boggles at how you could decide it's a good idea to simultaneously make a very tasteless joke and perform a corrupt action.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Wrex on October 07, 2012, 03:07:44 pm
Wha- huh?

I cannot even begin to understand.


Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on October 07, 2012, 03:10:31 pm
Not to mention saying that in front of a majority woman audience.

I mean, most sexist assholes know enough not to say sexist 'jokes' in front of women. Sexist meant-to-be-insults, that's another matter.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 07, 2012, 03:27:51 pm
GreatJustice, you realize that the AMA is a private organization? What method of getting rid of them do you propose which doesn't involve a government crackdown?

Also yelling "AMA" is a total non-sequiter to my point that in a completely private university set-up, only those already wealthy can do those $300,000 courses. Private banks won't loan that kind of money to students because they can't repossess a degree, like they can with a house. High fees excludes many people who would make excellent doctors, but their parents weren't rich.

Ever thought that the massive costs of medical education is why America has to import doctors from everywhere from Canada to India (which have affordable public universities), and what keeps medical bills so high. Apparently those "socialist" trained doctors are good enough for America after all. Canadian doctors can make more in the USA for the same reason selling products in a market with shortages and inflation is highly profitable. A bubble in prices isn't necessarily a sign of great market health.

Getting rid of the AMA fixes this problem exactly how?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 07, 2012, 04:46:43 pm
I have some doubts about his "border crossing" Canadian doctors. Unless there is some special treaty with Canada, the US doesn't accept specialist titles from abroad. Plus there are the issues of boards and insurance.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 07, 2012, 04:56:52 pm
Regardless, people flocking to sell a product in a particular market doesn't necessarily mean it's due to a healthy economy, it could be supply shortages.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on October 07, 2012, 04:57:20 pm
I've never seen any proof of it, but if the border-crossing-Canuck-doctor is mythical, it's a very wide-spread myth. I was taught it in school when I was around 13.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on October 07, 2012, 06:20:37 pm
Canadian doctors has always been at war with Eurasia!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 07, 2012, 06:27:59 pm
All of North America was part of Oceania.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on October 07, 2012, 08:49:32 pm
Finally saw taped presidential debate.... (First one).

PBS was the clear loser. Fox News was the clear winner. The people at Fox News must've looked at each other and finally said, "We can report this one pretty much exactly as it happened." It's entirely possible Obama may have been asleep.

Also this, apparently:
(http://images.christianpost.com/full/55844/josh-ciesla-shared-an-image-of-big-bird-with-the-sesame-street-character-saying-mitt-romney-is-trying-to-kill-me.jpg)

Big bird? Really? The guy took a swipe at Big Bird.... I mean there's low hanging fruit and then there's whatever the hell that was....

No more subsidy to PBS... really? I mean, people actually voluntarily donate to PBS (those telethon things), so is it really that much of a drain?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on October 07, 2012, 09:20:59 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 07, 2012, 06:27:59 pm
All of North America was part of Oceania.

I would link you to CompletelyMissingThePoint, but it's bad manners to expose people to tvTropes :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on October 08, 2012, 12:41:09 am
http://torrentfreak.com/microsofts-bogus-dmca-notices-censor-bbc-cnn-wikipedia-spotify-and-more-121007/

Microsoft has created an automatic copyright infringement algorithm that automatically files false DMCA notices. These are real "I just committed perjury" DMCA notices, not mere legal posturing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 08, 2012, 12:51:23 am
Quote
Unfortunately this notice is not an isolated incident. In another DMCA notice Microsoft asked Google to remove a Spotify.com URL and on several occasions they even asked Google to censor their own search engine Bing.
Wow, microsoft admits truth about bing.com
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on October 08, 2012, 02:12:24 am
This is good, ironically. It makes it very easy to demonstrate just how wrong-hitting these laws are.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 08, 2012, 02:28:57 am
Apparently a lot of those DMCA notices were because the URLs referenced the number '45' and that has some connection with Windows 8.

Hey - everyone get your hands of Microsoft's proprietary numerical values!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 08:33:12 am
Quote from: Reelya on October 07, 2012, 03:27:51 pm
GreatJustice, you realize that the AMA is a private organization? What method of getting rid of them do you propose which doesn't involve a government crackdown?

Also yelling "AMA" is a total non-sequiter to my point that in a completely private university set-up, only those already wealthy can do those $300,000 courses. Private banks won't loan that kind of money to students because they can't repossess a degree, like they can with a house. High fees excludes many people who would make excellent doctors, but their parents weren't rich.

Ever thought that the massive costs of medical education is why America has to import doctors from everywhere from Canada to India (which have affordable public universities), and what keeps medical bills so high. Apparently those "socialist" trained doctors are good enough for America after all. Canadian doctors can make more in the USA for the same reason selling products in a market with shortages and inflation is highly profitable. A bubble in prices isn't necessarily a sign of great market health.

Getting rid of the AMA fixes this problem exactly how?

Except the AMA is an organization that has monopoly privilege over doctor licensing, granted by the government in 1910. It's rather arbitrary to say that removing its monopoly on licensing would be a "government crackdown".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kedly on October 08, 2012, 08:46:13 am
Wait? Becoming a doctor in canada is cheap!? (=P)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 08, 2012, 08:55:51 am
Saying the AMA has a monopoly over licensing rather overstates matters by implying that all doctors must join the AMA or else, which simply isn't true.

According to their own figures the AMA membership is declining, it now only represents about 15% of practicing American doctors as it's members (down from 30% a decade ago). 15% isn't a "monopoly" by any stretch. And they specifically DO NOT license doctors to practice medicine in the USA. That's the "United States Medical Licensing Examination" that does that.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association
Quote
Membership

Published membership figures for the AMA include:

    In 2002, it was reported that the AMA had 278,000 members, among whom were "less than 30% of American physicians."
    By 2007, the AMA had 238,977 members, of which 20.5% were medical students and 9% were residents.
    There were 215,854 members as of December 2010, of which 47,227 (21.9%) were medical students and 31,049 (14.4%) were residents or fellows. The total was a decrease from the 2009 membership of 228,150.
    A 2011 article asserted that "somewhere in the neighborhood of 15% of practicing US doctors now belong to the AMA." Membership total as of Dec 31, 2011 (including residents and students) was 217,490 of approximately 954,000 practicing physicians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Medical_Licensing_Examination
Quote
The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) is a multi-part professional exam sponsored by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME). Physicians with an M.D. degree are required to pass this examination before being permitted to practice medicine in the United States of America; see below for requirements of physicians with a D.O. degree.

That entire article makes zero references to the AMA. They are not involved in licensing doctors, and 5 out of 6 doctors aren't even members. So it's not a "closed shop" and the AMA has nothing to do with licensing doctors. Anyone who focuses on the AMA is just trying to divert your attention away from the HMO's.

The 1910 link seems to be in relation to the Flexner report of 1910. which lead to the situation that "Each state branch of the American Medical Association has oversight over the conventional medical schools located within the state", but that is specifically NOT a monopoly in "doctor licensing".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kedly on October 08, 2012, 09:02:25 am
Isn't part of the reason it is so good because only the rich have access to it? (Semi-serious, allready regretting asking this)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 09:29:25 am
Quote from: Reelya on October 08, 2012, 08:55:51 am
According to their own figures the AMA membership is declining, it now only represents about 15% of practicing American doctors as it's members (down from 30% a decade ago). 15% isn't a "monopoly" by any stretch. And they specifically DO NOT license doctors to practice medicine in the USA. That's the "United States Medical Licensing Examination" that does that.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association
Quote
Membership

Published membership figures for the AMA include:

    In 2002, it was reported that the AMA had 278,000 members, among whom were "less than 30% of American physicians."
    By 2007, the AMA had 238,977 members, of which 20.5% were medical students and 9% were residents.
    There were 215,854 members as of December 2010, of which 47,227 (21.9%) were medical students and 31,049 (14.4%) were residents or fellows. The total was a decrease from the 2009 membership of 228,150.
    A 2011 article asserted that "somewhere in the neighborhood of 15% of practicing US doctors now belong to the AMA." Membership total as of Dec 31, 2011 (including residents and students) was 217,490 of approximately 954,000 practicing physicians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Medical_Licensing_Examination
Quote
The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) is a multi-part professional exam sponsored by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME). Physicians with an M.D. degree are required to pass this examination before being permitted to practice medicine in the United States of America; see below for requirements of physicians with a D.O. degree.

That entire article makes zero references to the AMA. They are not involved in licensing doctors, and 5 out of 6 doctors aren't even members. So it's not a "closed shop" and the AMA has nothing to do with licensing doctors. Anyone who focuses on the AMA is just trying to divert your attention away from the HMO's.

The 1910 link seems to be in relation to the Flexner report of 1910. which lead to the situation that "Each state branch of the American Medical Association has oversight over the conventional medical schools located within the state", but that is specifically NOT a monopoly in "doctor licensing".

Yet before 1910, the AMA had no influence in licensing whatsoever, whereas after it was effectively at the helm. Furthermore, licensing boards were created at the behest of the AMA in the first place! In fact, prior to the Flexner Report, doctor's were paid quite modestly.

If you would prefer, though, you can blame the Licensing Boards instead. It all adds up to the same thing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 08, 2012, 09:38:24 am
Also before 1910, there were an abundance of doctor "schools" run by illiterates, which accepted students without even high school educations, and made them "doctors" in only 2 years, and the word "quack" abounded.

The AMA had no influence on licensing before 1910 because there was no such thing as licensing.

Seeing as medical licensing is an integral part of the medical system in America, which you've stated is the world's greatest, what exact elements of the system do you actually like, since you seem to disagree with every specific of how the system is run?

- Canadian doctors going to America for higher wages: you implied this was a failing of the Canadian system, and a sign of success of the American system. Yet, you're also opposed to the higher wages which attracted the Canadian doctors to the USA in the first place, and your now calling it a failing of the American system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html?pagewanted=all
Quote
American doctors and hospitals kill patients through surgical and medical mistakes more often than their counterparts in other industrialized nations.
Yeah, i know New York Times isn't unbiased like whichever nameless conservative blog you use as a source, greatjustice. Man, those commie doctors overseas and their "let's not kill the patients" routine.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 10:45:39 am
Quote from: palsch on October 01, 2012, 02:18:04 pm
Erm, what? (http://www.aha.org/research/rc/stat-studies/fast-facts.shtml)
Quote
   Total Number of All U.S. Registered Hospitals: 5,754
...
Number of State and Local Government Community Hospitals: 1,068
...
Number of Federal Government Hospitals: 213
Those are the major categories of public hospitals I can see in there. Including the ones that are probably public (Psychiatric Hospitals, Long Term Care and Hospital Units of Institutions) you still only get up to 1,837 public hospitals out of those 5,754. I make that 32%, not 90%.

Not really inspiring confidence in the rest of your unreferenced assertions here.

Allow me to reword that. I didn't put that quite right, sorry.

As of 1910, 90% of hospitals were for-profit and non-subsidized. As of 1990, that percentage was 10%, the rest being either government owned, government subsidized and non-profit, and under extremely heavy regulations.

Quote
Seeing as medical licensing is an integral part of the medical system in America, which you've stated is the world's greatest, what exact elements of the system do you actually like, since you seem to disagree with every specific of how the system is run?

No. America's system isn't anywhere near the world's greatest. It's certainly not socialized like other countries, but it's a corporatist/fascist system that is arguably worse.

In terms of things I like, I like healthcare paid for out of pocket as of 1960, when insurance wasn't as widespread and Medicare/Medicaid didn't exist. In turn, American healthcare was extremely high quality, and yet the mess of insurance companies, subsidies, regulations on coverage, didn't exist, so it was fairly affordable (a whole discussion if you want to go that way).
Quote
Also before 1910, there were an abundance of doctor "schools" run by illiterates, which accepted students without even high school educations, and made them "doctors" in only 2 years, and the word "quack" abounded.

That wasn't the reason provided for closing many of the medical schools, though, and quackery was rapidly on its way out regardless. Not to mention, most people actually hired doctors with a good record and references, rather than Doctor Murphy, Miracle Elixir provider (for example, the high level of quality yet low cost found by mutual aid associations, who were quite discerning in who they hired).
Quote

- Canadian doctors going to America for higher wages: you implied this was a failing of the Canadian system, and a sign of success of the American system. Yet, you're also opposed to the higher wages which attracted the Canadian doctors to the USA in the first place, and your now calling it a failing of the American system.

No, no, no. That particular article was in reference to the guy claiming that doctors aren't paid well in the first world, and that they can "barely cover expenses". That was the only reason I brought it up, which I'm pretty sure I mentioned when I posted it.
Quote
Isn't part of the reason it is so good because only the rich have access to it? (Semi-serious, allready regretting asking this)

Not sure what you mean by that. Could you elaborate?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on October 08, 2012, 10:49:51 am
Quote from: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 10:45:39 am
Quote from: palsch on October 01, 2012, 02:18:04 pm
Erm, what? (http://www.aha.org/research/rc/stat-studies/fast-facts.shtml)
Quote
   Total Number of All U.S. Registered Hospitals: 5,754
...
Number of State and Local Government Community Hospitals: 1,068
...
Number of Federal Government Hospitals: 213
Those are the major categories of public hospitals I can see in there. Including the ones that are probably public (Psychiatric Hospitals, Long Term Care and Hospital Units of Institutions) you still only get up to 1,837 public hospitals out of those 5,754. I make that 32%, not 90%.

Not really inspiring confidence in the rest of your unreferenced assertions here.

Allow me to reword that. I didn't put that quite right, sorry.

As of 1910, 90% of hospitals were for-profit and non-subsidized. As of 1990, that percentage was 10%, the rest being either government owned, government subsidized and non-profit, and under extremely heavy regulations.
This has already been refuted. Repeating it does mean that we have forgotten.
Quote
Quote
Seeing as medical licensing is an integral part of the medical system in America, which you've stated is the world's greatest, what exact elements of the system do you actually like, since you seem to disagree with every specific of how the system is run?

No. America's system isn't anywhere near the world's greatest. It's certainly not socialized like other countries, but it's a corporatist/fascist system that is arguably worse.

In terms of things I like, I like healthcare paid for out of pocket as of 1960, when insurance wasn't as widespread and Medicare/Medicaid didn't exist. In turn, American healthcare was extremely high quality, and yet the mess of insurance companies, subsidies, regulations on coverage, didn't exist, so it was fairly affordable (a whole discussion if you want to go that way).
Quote
Also before 1910, there were an abundance of doctor "schools" run by illiterates, which accepted students without even high school educations, and made them "doctors" in only 2 years, and the word "quack" abounded.

That wasn't the reason provided for closing many of the medical schools, though, and quackery was rapidly on its way out regardless. Not to mention, most people actually hired doctors with a good record and references, rather than Doctor Murphy, Miracle Elixir provider (for example, the high level of quality yet low cost found by mutual aid associations, who were quite discerning in who they hired).
Quote

- Canadian doctors going to America for higher wages: you implied this was a failing of the Canadian system, and a sign of success of the American system. Yet, you're also opposed to the higher wages which attracted the Canadian doctors to the USA in the first place, and your now calling it a failing of the American system.

No, no, no. That particular article was in reference to the guy claiming that doctors aren't paid well in the first world, and that they can "barely cover expenses". That was the only reason I brought it up, which I'm pretty sure I mentioned when I posted it.

And you still have no source for the rest of this conjecture. Yes I remember when you brought it up before.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 08, 2012, 10:50:34 am
I'd stay longer but I have to go wax my cat for the glory of the state.

That's about the most relevant thing I can say now.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 11:12:35 am
Quote
This has already been refuted. Repeating it does mean that we have forgotten.

Yet there's a source for this one. (http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/2876767)
Quote
And you still have no source for the rest of this conjecture. Yes I remember when you brought it up before.

Which? The 1960 healthcare costs?

Allow me to re-source everything from the very first time I brought this up:

Sources of healthcare spending (Proving my "largely paid for out of pocket conjecture"):
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Costs of American healthcare in 1960, adjusted for inflation (Proving the "affordable conjecture"):
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Mutual Aid Associations (indirect and takes a bit of work to sift through) (Proving the "MAA's generally received high quality healthcare alongside low costs through discernment conjecture"):
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
(NOTE: Other sources, less direct but more specific, can be provided on request)

That covers... most of the things that aren't easily found with a google search or common sense.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on October 08, 2012, 11:14:16 am
Quote from: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 11:12:35 am
common sense.
NOOOOOOOO MY ONE TRUE WEAKNESS.

Actually I'm only being halfway facetious here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 08, 2012, 11:45:12 am
26% infant mortality in 1960, 6.9% today. Your source GreatJustice.

Life expectancy increase from 69.7 to 77.8. An aging population get's a lot more expensive to treat, too. Cost of medical treatment by age is not linear, it's definitely exponential.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on October 08, 2012, 11:57:34 am
Disturbingly, I think I can see the canned response to that. You'd have to compare mortality rates across nations in 1960 vs today.* If the states were ranked over ~50 back then, then there's been relative degradation. Which, going by this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate) US was ranked somewhere around 14th (counted 13 with a lower number) back in 1960, as compared to around 49th in 2012 (Though there's some source conflict there; the latter's from the CIA numbers, the former from the UN). Or 34th in the '05-'10 period, if you're sticking to the UN stuff.

Of course, going by the ones that ranked above, it looks like the path that would have the best odds of decreasing infant mortality, at least, would be a stronger socialized medical system. Most of the ones above us are socialized to a greater degree than the states, from what I understand.

*E: Even that wouldn't quite be ideal, as things like demographics (urban/industrial vs rural/agricultural), and population and country size would factor in, but it's a decent enough heuristic, I guess.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 08, 2012, 12:05:54 pm
Let me head off greatjustice then "because America's infant mortality hasn't fallen as fast as socialized health countries, that's PROOF we need a libertarian health system".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 08, 2012, 12:09:44 pm
Oh, that's what's going on!

Quick, I never learned what libertarians are. You have thirty seconds to say something unfavorable about them and influence my poor impressionable mind forever. (And while you're at it, what would a libertarian health care system be like?)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 08, 2012, 12:20:05 pm
A Libertarian health system wouldn't have any doctor licensing system at all. So anyone could open up shop and call yourself "doctor". This will improve accessibility for "doctors" and reduce costs. The mechanism that will control quality is that if too many of your patients die, then you won't get customers. So the "free market" will reward those doctors who aren't serial killers. But you'll be free to change your name and practice medicine in another town where nobody knows you as the "granny killer". You could also forge documents claiming you went to a prestigious medical school, since the law against that won't exist under libertarianism.

There will be no form of subsidies like medicare / medicaid. Everything would be up-front payment, private hospitals, or competing private health insurance. There will be no taxes, and no mandated savings for health care or retirement, because those oppress our self-determination to live in the moment.

Insurance providers would be free to write the contracts any way they like or exclude sick people from insurance altogether, or have clauses where they can more or less rewrite the rules any time they like, just like credit card issuers and cell phone providers can. Note that it would be part of a libertarian social system, so there would be no food, drug or product standards at all and selling faulty products, misleading advertising and misleading contracts would be entirely legal. If anything adverse happened to you or your family, friendly litigation would ensure justice.

But if something you buy kills you, it's not the sellers fault, it's you fault as soon as you take possession of the product, you know, since you freely gave your money to that person in a free and fair exchange, they're not liable if it explodes 5 seconds after purchase.

Also, drugs could be sold with false advertising without any clinical testing (in fact, they could legally lie and claim they tested it, because the law won't exist) and companies would not be held liable if you got sick or died, because those laws wouldn't exist anymore.

If anything happened to you from using any of these "free market" medical services, they would not be liable, because government enforcement would not exist. But you could take them to court to try and get some compensation.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 08, 2012, 12:32:09 pm
Sounds fun!

It's got to be better than all the current systems!

EDIT: that was a joke you guys please come back
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Meansdarling on October 08, 2012, 01:54:54 pm
lol So is that really what it would be like?

Sounds like the wild wild west.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 02:57:37 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 08, 2012, 12:05:54 pm
Let me head off greatjustice then "because America's infant mortality hasn't fallen as fast as socialized health countries, that's PROOF we need a libertarian health system".

Infant mortality is measured differently in the US compared to in other countries. (http://mjperry.blogspot.ca/2008/08/infant-mortality-measurements-not.html) Apples and oranges.

At any rate, I'd say "infant mortality was higher" would fall under common sense; of course it was higher, medical technology in 1960 was vastly inferior to where it is today. See, that's a problem with measuring healthcare systems across fifty years.

However, it is pretty clear that the increase in the cost of  (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Health_costs_USA_GDP.gif)American healthcare isn't proportionate the increase in quality. (http://menghusblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/growth-of-health-care-costs-compared-to-cpi.jpg)

Quote from: Reelya on October 08, 2012, 12:20:05 pm
A Libertarian health system wouldn't have any doctor licensing system at all. So anyone could open up shop and call yourself "doctor". This will improve accessibility for "doctors" and reduce costs. The mechanism that will control quality is that if too many of your patients die, then you won't get customers. So the "free market" will reward those doctors who aren't serial killers. But you'll be free to change your name and practice medicine in another town where nobody knows you as the "granny killer". You could also forge documents claiming you went to a prestigious medical school, since the law against that won't exist under libertarianism.

Any could call themselves "doctor", just like anyone can call themselves King. They couldn't claim to have gone to a prestigious medical school, since that would constitute fraud, which would be coercive and thus a crime. Ratings agencies similar to the Canadian Standards Association and Underwriter Laboratories would crop up, though many exist in a limited form already (http://www.ratemymd.ca/). 
Quote
There will be no form of subsidies like medicare / medicaid. Everything would be up-front payment, private hospitals, or competing private health insurance. There will be no taxes, and no mandated savings for health care or retirement, because those oppress our self-determination to live in the moment.

Costs would be forced to remain low so as to remain competitive, and the poor would be able to receive care through charity hospitals or mutual aid associations. People would not be forced by the government to pay for a "retirement plan" that pays substantially less than one could get by putting it in a decent hedge fund (http://mises.org/daily/4595/) and has its payout dates changed arbitrarily so that those who enter the system later get paid less than what they put in.
Quote
Insurance providers would be free to write the contracts any way they like or exclude sick people from insurance altogether, or have clauses where they can more or less rewrite the rules any time they like, just like credit card issuers and cell phone providers can. Note that it would be part of a libertarian social system, so there would be no food, drug or product standards at all and selling faulty products, misleading advertising and misleading contracts would be entirely legal. If anything adverse happened to you or your family, friendly litigation would ensure justice.

Insurance providers would only be present for the worst of unforeseen situations. Since they would not be forced by states to cover certain things, they would offer far higher payouts for these unexpected circumstances, would have far lower premiums, and would be far more flexible regarding pre-existing conditions (which would now prevent you from getting insurance for that specific condition, but not unrelated problems). They would also have to remain flexible to keep up with competition, which would be far greater when things such as mutual aid and new companies came into the picture. Food and drugs would be regulated the same way appliances are, with competing certification agencies in turn backed up by third parties such as insurance companies. Huge pharmaceutical companies would not be favoured as under the present system, so innovation would increase and cronyism would be reduced.
Quote
But if something you buy kills you, it's not the sellers fault, it's you fault as soon as you take possession of the product, you know, since you freely gave your money to that person in a free and fair exchange, they're not liable if it explodes 5 seconds after purchase.

If someone sells you something that has adverse affects without warning, they would be sued, again, for fraud. If someone sells you something and warns you of a certain percentage chance of causing Problem X and Problem X arises, then they would not be sued as you knowingly made the decision.

However, if you were dying of a horrible disease and only Medication X could help you, the government would not actively prevent you from buying Medication X because it has a tiny chance of causing an unpleasant side effect. It would be the decision of the patient rather than a bureaucrat in the FDA.
Quote
Also, drugs could be sold with false advertising without any clinical testing (in fact, they could legally lie and claim they tested it, because the law won't exist) and companies would not be held liable if you got sick or died, because those laws wouldn't exist anymore.

See above. Clinical testing would likely be common via third party licensing agencies, not to mention insurance companies (since you wouldn't want to have to make constant payouts because your clients are taking dangerous drugs that you haven't stipulated aren't covered). If you got sick or died, the pharmaceutical company would be held responsible to the victims, not a government agency that would fine them an arbitrary amount. People would not be exposed to the moral hazard (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192603/ns/health-arthritis/t/report-vioxx-linked-thousands-deaths/#.UHMvh1Gz58E) of relying on a single source that they assume is always correct compared to multiple reliable sources that they would double check.
Quote
If anything happened to you from using any of these "free market" medical services, they would not be liable, because government enforcement would not exist. But you could take them to court to try and get some compensation.

See above, again.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 08, 2012, 03:19:49 pm
The real question greatjustice, is that you want to go back to the health system of 1960, i pointed out that infant mortality fell from 29% to 6.9% in America. Apples and apples. Or are you going to claim that how infant mortality is measured has changed in America?

You made a big deal about increasing health costs since 1960 being a bad thing, but are you going to ignore improvements in treatment which correlate with those increased costs? Remember i cited the change in infant mortality from the same source you brought to the table.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 08, 2012, 03:24:51 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 11:12:35 am
]

Which? The 1960 healthcare costs?

Allow me to re-source everything from the very first time I brought this up:

Sources of healthcare spending (Proving my "largely paid for out of pocket conjecture"):
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Costs of American healthcare in 1960, adjusted for inflation (Proving the "affordable conjecture"):
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Mutual Aid Associations (indirect and takes a bit of work to sift through) (Proving the "MAA's generally received high quality healthcare alongside low costs through discernment conjecture"):
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
(NOTE: Other sources, less direct but more specific, can be provided on request)

That covers... most of the things that aren't easily found with a google search or common sense.
Remember when you made literally this EXACT same argument and I demonstrated that the socialist hellhole of the UK had both a cheaper and better healthcare system in the 1960s (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=112341.msg3417907#msg3417907) (amongst other refutations of your argument)?  Good times.

I already know you're going to argue that 1960s America wasn't a TRUE libertarian paradise now and that three selective facts about the UK shows that our healthcare system is actually the more libertarian somehow.

Costs were lower back then because dead people are cheaper than living people.  But other countries with clearly more socialized systems had it cheaper than the US even back then.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 08, 2012, 03:29:24 pm
It's a well known fact that socialized healthcare systems are more efficient than social-security arrangements, and light years beyond private insurance systems.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 03:35:58 pm
Technically speaking, social security is partially a subset of socialized healthcare. It's just indirect.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on October 08, 2012, 03:37:28 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 02:57:37 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 08, 2012, 12:05:54 pm
Let me head off greatjustice then "because America's infant mortality hasn't fallen as fast as socialized health countries, that's PROOF we need a libertarian health system".
Infant mortality is measured differently in the US compared to in other countries. (http://mjperry.blogspot.ca/2008/08/infant-mortality-measurements-not.html) Apples and oranges.
Yeah... if you had kept following the links in that thing, you would have ran into the notice that difference in reporting methods was ultimately found to not substantially explain the difference in rates between the states and elsewhere (coming from an '09 report, at least a year after what the blog posts were referencing.). As well, the reporting methods have standardized within WHO reporting countries, with five or six (Out of nearly two hundred) exceptions. So they're actually comparing apples and apples these days. That blog post was referring to another blog post that was referring to an unreferenced piece by a (singular) doctor done about four years ago. A little sketchy without some sources to back it up, and I wasn't able to actually find where they were getting the numbers from.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 08, 2012, 04:03:16 pm
If you look at citations, it's clear many other countries are every bit as inclusive of live births as America. There are some that exclude certain cases, but not all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality#Comparing_infant_mortality_rates

Quote
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat. Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality.

Quote
Many countries, including the United States, Sweden and Germany, count an infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but according to United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) researchers, some other countries differ in these practices. All of the countries named adopted the WHO definitions in the late 1980s or early 1990s, which are used throughout the European Union. However, in 2009, the US CDC issued a report that stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries. It also outlined the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation.

Why does America have a "high rates of premature babies" according to the CDC? That isn't just a difference in reporting rates, it's a acknowledgement of having more actual premature babies. It could be due to obesity. Obese mothers are not good for baby.

And they noted that a grand total of 5 European countries used the 500 g / 22 weeks definition. The rest use the WHO definition. Sweden has half the infant mortality of the USA, and just as stringent reporting.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 08, 2012, 04:16:15 pm
The CDC report itself: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm
Quote
All live births: Austria, Denmark, England and Wales, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Northern Ireland, Portugal, Scotland, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, United States

Live births at 12 weeks of gestation or more: Norway

Live births at 500 grams birthweight or more, and less than 500 grams if the infant survives for 24 hours: Czech Republic

Live births at 22 weeks of gestation or more, or 500 grams birthweight or more: France

All live births for civil registration, births at 500  grams birthweight or more for the national perinatal register: Ireland

Live births at 22 weeks of gestation or more, 500 grams birthweight or more if gestational age is unknown: Netherlands

Live births at 500 or more grams birthweight:Poland

As can be seen, plenty of countries have the same criteria as the United States, and still have far lower infant mortality. Sweden and Finland stand out as world leaders on infant mortality, which catergorically DO NOT discount low-weight or premature births. Norway isn't far behind and "12 weeks" is pretty inclusive of viable births. The only country in the "all live births" category on this list which scores lower than USA is Slovak Republic.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 04:26:09 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 08, 2012, 03:19:49 pm
The real question greatjustice, is that you want to go back to the health system of 1960, i pointed out that infant mortality fell from 29% to 6.9% in America. Apples and apples. Or are you going to claim that how infant mortality is measured has changed in America?

You made a big deal about increasing health costs since 1960 being a bad thing, but are you going to ignore improvements in treatment which correlate with those increased costs? Remember i cited the change in infant mortality from the same source you brought to the table.

Which, as I already mentioned had you even finished my reply, is pretty clearly not proportionate to the costs of healthcare. Unless you think a ten year life expectancy increase (A) Had nothing to do with other conditions (eg. a decline in the smoking population) and (B) was only possible through exponentially increasing healthcare costs. Which is silly, since as the second chart shows, such increasing costs did not occur in other industries where massive advances were made.

Quote from: Leafsnail on October 08, 2012, 03:24:51 pm
Remember when you made literally this EXACT same argument and I demonstrated that the socialist hellhole of the UK had both a cheaper and better healthcare system in the 1960s (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=112341.msg3417907#msg3417907) (amongst other refutations of your argument)?  Good times.

Yes I do. I was asleep, and when I came back Toady himself had arrived to close the thread due to excessive personal attacks and trolling. Sound familiar?

Quote
I already know you're going to argue that 1960s America wasn't a TRUE libertarian paradise now and that three selective facts about the UK shows that our healthcare system is actually the more libertarian somehow.

It was certainly closer than any system today. It had problems relating to licensing (which had arisen in the 1910s) and some weird incentives regarding insurance (which had arisen in the 1940s), but it was close enough for the purposes of the debate.

Well, for one thing, you argued that British healthcare was cheaper, yet you only provided the assumed cost of the NHS rather than the actual cost of the NHS per household (which only begins in 1974, for some reason). It is also worth mentioning that the source I provided assumed that $3,000 was about how much one paid, period, whereas the NHS is only a portion of British healthcare costs.

For another, it DOES naturally follow that Britain and other countries would pay less for healthcare. After all, they had a noticeably lower GDP per capita, so they had less to spend in the first place! (http://www.publicpurpose.com/lm-ppp60+.htm)

You also mentioned that British life expectancy was higher in 1960 than in the US. This is true; my own source (http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/history-of-life-expectancy) puts the US life expectancy at 69.8 and the UK life expectancy at 71.1.

However, there are a couple of problems with the conclusion you draw here in terms of quality. First, the PRESENT life expectancy in the US is 78.2 whereas in the UK it is 80.1. The US is substantially closer to socialized medicine, I think you would agree, than it was in 1960, whereas the UK is roughly about as socialized as it was then. Yet despite the US moving closer in Britain's direction, the disparity increased. Furthermore, in 1960, Britain's life expectancy was identical to Canada, despite the fact that Canada's Medicare system wasn't truly implemented until 1961 (at least on a Federal level), and it wasn't the system we have today until 1965. So clearly, there are more factors at play here than the quality of healthcare.

Now, looking over statistics, it's worth noting that America's homicide rate was (and still is) substantially higher than in Britain. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade) No amount of improved healthcare is going to stop homicide. Plus, America's automobile fatality rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year) was pretty high, too. Britain today has far less car accidents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate) than the US does, and it presumably was similar in 1960, when American automobile deaths per capita were quite a bit higher (unfortunately, I can't find anything relating to British automobile deaths, though sources are welcome). Obesity in the US was also quite a bit (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7307756/Obesity-rates-20-per-cent-higher-now-than-in-the-1960s.html)higher (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883555.html).

Quote
Costs were lower back then because dead people are cheaper than living people.  But other countries with clearly more socialized systems had it cheaper than the US even back then.

Yet life expectancy increased from ~38 years in 1880 to ~52 years in 1910 (before any significant regulation at all, and when healthcare was as cheap as a couple dollars a year), and it increased from ~52 years to ~69 years from 1910 to 1960, when regulation was moderate and cost increases were not anywhere near as substantial. There is no particular evidence that incredible price increases are required for increases in life span.
Quote
If you look at citations, it's clear many other countries are every bit as inclusive of live births as America. There are some that exclude certain cases, but not all.

Okay. But then, do those countries have higher declines, or were their infant mortality rates not much higher before they implemented their healthcare systems?

Quote
Why does America have a "high rates of premature babies" according to the CDC? That isn't just a difference in reporting rates, it's a acknowledgement of having more actual premature babies. It could be due to obesity. Obese mothers are not good for baby.

...Which isn't something that a good healthcare system will be solving outright. I think we can agree that if obesity is the problem, then it won't be solved simply by implementing a universalized system.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 08, 2012, 04:46:08 pm
This PDF (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aihw.gov.au%2FWorkArea%2FDownloadAsset.aspx%3Fid%3D6442459116&ei=wkhzUM3ABo-yiQegyoC4BQ&usg=AFQjCNFWaxGb_jbXHCrR8ECyZYbCp7KMaw&cad=rja), see figure 2, show USA dead last in reduction of infant mortality from 1950 - 1994 out of 20 countries considered.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 05:05:28 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 08, 2012, 04:46:08 pm
This PDF (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aihw.gov.au%2FWorkArea%2FDownloadAsset.aspx%3Fid%3D6442459116&ei=wkhzUM3ABo-yiQegyoC4BQ&usg=AFQjCNFWaxGb_jbXHCrR8ECyZYbCp7KMaw&cad=rja), see figure 2, show USA dead last in reduction of infant mortality from 1950 - 1994 out of 20 countries considered.

Well, of the "best"  countries, Norway and Sweden both had very low infant mortality from the start, and I couldn't find Finland.

Of the remainder, obviously the biggest declines were from countries that were previously quite poor and experienced massive increases in wealth (Eg. Hong Kong), and similar declines to the US were experienced in Canada, the UK, and so on. The US decline was slower, but then as you so kindly mentioned, US obesity is and was quite a bit higher, so the quality of healthcare is unlikely to have been the main deciding factor.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 08, 2012, 05:15:05 pm
You're arguing two COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY arguments in the same post there:

- bigger percentage drops than USA in Asia are explainable because they started with a HIGHER infant mortality.

- bigger percentage drops than USA in Europe are explainable because they started with a LOWER infant mortality.

You can't just say "well sweden already had low mortality" because a country with lower mortality reducing it faster than one with higher mortality is actually quite remarkable. For the same reasons you pointed out the reductions in Asian mortality were wholly unremarkable.

At least be consistent in your logic within a single post.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 05:56:30 pm
No, no, no, that isn't what I'm saying.

Sweden, the "best example" provided that was on the chart, actually experienced a smaller decline, but because they started lower in the first place. The Asian countries experienced large drops, but then they experienced massive increases in wealth unrelated to healthcare quality. The rest of the Western world experienced drops fairly close to what the US experienced.

Not sure how you got "Sweden, etc had BIG percentage drops because they started low" from "Sweden and Norway started pretty low from the start".

Also,

Quote
show USA dead last in reduction of infant mortality

Not true. The USA's declined by 21.3, whereas Sweden's only declined by 16.6 among others. The USA is dead last in actual infant mortality as of now, but (A) It is already mentioned that a lot of the countries shown actually do use different methods of measurement and (B) The difference is not incredible, nor is it entirely caused by a difference in healthcare systems.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EveryZig on October 08, 2012, 06:13:50 pm
So, a more general question about libertarianism: Is it accurate to say that libertarianism relies on lawsuits as its primary method of reducing fraud and negative externalizes? I ask because that would imply that lawsuits are the best way to handle such matters, which seems contrary to what I have heard about how civil lawsuits work in practice (especially from the actual lawyer in here).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 08, 2012, 06:29:02 pm
@GreatJustice: Well that was the only interpretation that made sense. Let's look at the data

- America did worse than every country on the chart in percentage drop

- America did worse than every country on the chart in current infant mortality

Now, you want to focus total reduction in mortality per 1000 births, but America ALSO did worse on this than most of the countries on the chart. The only ones it "beat" by that measure already had a low infant mortality, yet still managed to reduce their percentage faster than America.

If Sweden had a drop of 21.3 infant mortality per 1000 live births in that time period, as you say they need to "match" America's great effort, then it would have ZERO infant mortality, a clear impossibility. It's ludicrous to clock that one up as a win for America.

Basically you're bitching now that Sweden didn't do as well as USA because Sweden didn't get down to 0% infant mortality. That's really fucking dumb.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on October 08, 2012, 06:33:52 pm
Quote from: EveryZig on October 08, 2012, 06:13:50 pm
So, a more general question about libertarianism: Is it accurate to say that libertarianism relies on lawsuits as its primary method of reducing fraud and negative externalizes? I ask because that would imply that lawsuits are the best way to handle such matters, which seems contrary to what I have heard about how civil lawsuits work in practice (especially from the actual lawyer in here).

Yes. Without regulatory monitoring and enforcement the only means of correcting fraud and negative externalities would be lawsuit is civil suit. And outside of small claims, it is effectively impossible for a wronged individual to wage such a suit against a monied corporation because they have a thousand lawyers on retainer and can out spend you by millions of dollars, and then counter sue for the cost of the defense if you drop the case or lose. Also note that without regulatory monitoring and enforcement, corporations would easily doctor their records and destroy any evidence of wrongdoing before they are sued.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 08, 2012, 07:12:15 pm
Now that we're (hopefully) done talking about infant mortality rates being measured wrong in Sweden (oh boy, semantics!), I have some questions too! For GreatJustice only, mind you. Everyone else, hands off for now!

- How would the libertarian system be an improvement on the existing American system? And I don't mean crap like "Um, well, look how bad we are now! Everything could be better!" or whatever we're all hung up on. I mean actual points like "It would be cheaper" or "It would make eagles cry".
- How would the libertarian system outperform almost every socialized system in place today, like France and Canada? I'd like to know the actual improvements. You aren't allowed to decry the opposition until it seems way worse than whatever you can come up with.
- Who benefits the most from this system, and why? And don't say "everyone" because that's impossible.
- What happens when a community has a single doctor and he charges tens of thousands of dollars because he can get away with it? What (again, realistic) things can the happy inhabitants of Libertarian Town do to stop this?
- What are the differences between the swingin' sixties and the glorious paradise you envision for the future (other than lots of radioactivity)? Why is 60s America better than every other current system?
- In a "free-market" health-care system, poor people will be out on their asses. What will they do? Will they be happily told to get a job while they die of diseases they were born too poor to afford immunization against? Will some idealistic person start his own charity to happily do what the entire department of Social Services does, except better because it's privatized?
- How does this free-market system react when a new, unknown pandemic comes along? No saying that "it's unrealistic", because it could happen! Without government funds, will they rely on a little donation box labeled "THE HELP US NOT DIE OF MYSTERY PLAGUE FUND" in the corner to aid research? Will the cleansing of those too poor to afford protection be regarded as a boon on society? How will business rivals find the time to co-operate in their search for a cure?

Please tell me, I'd love to find out why this is the absolute best possible system. I'm already stealing commemorative plaques off walls and selling them for the copper so I can afford chemo when I'm 50 and dying of cancer in Libertarian Canadian Paradise.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Fenrir on October 08, 2012, 07:29:07 pm
Quote from: GoombaGeek on October 08, 2012, 07:12:15 pm
I'm already stealing commemorative plaques off walls and selling them for the copper...
SO IT WAS YOU!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 09, 2012, 05:02:40 am
I don't know why you guys are still bothering debating greatjustice, as he is only a libertarian as long as it benefits his needs, and a traitor socialist when he doesn't get his way in practical simulation games.  :P

I posted this in the American Election Megathread.

 
Quote from: Simrepublic bay12 player
bay12'ers played a political strategy game together (simRepublic), where we settled as Libya. and we tried to help GreatJustice out by giving him a communally-built glass factory to run (a government grant basically). He didn't manage to construct anything by himself.

He then declared he had mandated ownership of all the sand (used for glassmaking) in Libya. sand was just random stuff lying around on the maps that anyone can pick up.  when other people collected and used the sand themselves ("it's a free world dude"),  he threw a royal hissy-fit and proceeded to sabotage everyone else's work, and conspired with the governments of countries hostile to Bay12's Libya.

Funny how people's "deeply felt" ideologies suddenly collapse in these sort of simulations. I would've thought that a "libertarian" would have accepted that if a declared property right could not be enforced, it didn't exist.


I would like to throw out for discussion how the USA is the highest per capita spender on healthcare, yet ranked 37th in the world for quality of care.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on October 09, 2012, 06:35:32 am
Kael, please stop with the ad hominem. If GreatJustice was actually the secret clone of Joseph Stalin, it wouldn't change the merit of his arguments.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 09, 2012, 06:39:33 am
Actions speak louder than words. You can spout all the ideologies and arguments in the world, but it doesn't matter if the application of them doesn't work. I'm an engineer at heart. It's not about the Internet arguments, but actually practice and implementation.

Especially if you prove that your own application of libertarian doesn't work.

It actually isn't an ad hominem because it's a perfect example of greatjustice practicing what he preaches and why pure libertarianism doesn't work... Because people are assholes.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on October 09, 2012, 06:41:12 am
It's still not cool, though, especially when you go from thread to thread reposting it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on October 09, 2012, 06:43:03 am
Not in an argument, no. Plus, a libertarian society depend on people acting in their self-interest, which he did. I don't actually see how his actions were anti-libertarian.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 09, 2012, 06:44:40 am
Well it's in both threads now, all I'm pointing out is that you're debating and having an in depth argument with a known hypocrite and/or troll. The whole thing is pretty useless. Excuse me for trying to save your time. So have fun :P
Quote from: Sheb on October 09, 2012, 06:43:03 am
Not in an argument, no. Plus, a libertarian society depend on people acting in their self-interest, which he did. I don't actually see how his actions were anti-libertarian.
He mandated ownership of all sand to be his, which is silly in a 'Libertarian' society. That sounds like some other forms of government to me...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: V-Norrec on October 09, 2012, 07:07:00 am
Completely off topic note, I come to this thread when I want to remind myself why I never leave Other Games and Roll to Dodge/Forum Games.  I do agree with Sheb though, if the guy is an asshat, everyone will pick up on it and figure it out for themselves.  You're just making yourself look worse for all the work you're putting in.

*disappears into the night like a misinformed Batman*
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 09, 2012, 07:13:10 am
Well fuck me for actually trying to steer the thread to decent discussion.

The whole thread has become 'inane post by greatjustice' followed by a million quotes. You guys are just feeding him.

Once again:
The US is by far the highest spender per capita on healthcare, but 37th in overall health.
 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 09, 2012, 07:29:28 am
Really it would be a lot funner if we found a decent simulator game and battled out the political philosophies that way.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 09, 2012, 07:32:07 am
Yeah! How about Simrepublic.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on October 09, 2012, 07:32:25 am
Maxis vs Capcom?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 09, 2012, 07:51:25 am
It's single-player, but Democracy II is the finest politics simulator i've come across.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on October 09, 2012, 08:14:22 am
His actions in a game are not relevent to the merits of his argument. Keep that shit out of this thread. His argument is deeply flaawed, self inconsistant, poorly cited and repeated ad nauseum. We have been dealing with him posting "supporting links" that he has not bothered to read and that actually support the opposite of what he claims for weeks. He is a troll. But attacking him over a game is not at all productive.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 09, 2012, 08:21:51 am
I would argue that his particular actions in a political simulation game are pertinent to the discussion on libertarianism. And in particular, if he's just here to piss people off.

And if you think I'm an asshole for posting it, so be it. Shoot the messenger. But people ought to be informed of who they're spending their time debating with, nadaka.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 09, 2012, 08:21:58 am
Maybe he is a troll, and a better one than I thought.  The kind of exchanges I'm seeing on this page are everything a troll wishes for.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 09, 2012, 10:50:54 am
Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on October 09, 2012, 08:21:51 am
I would argue that his particular actions in a political simulation game are pertinent to the discussion on libertarianism. And in particular, if he's just here to piss people off.

And if you think I'm an asshole for posting it, so be it. Shoot the messenger. But people ought to be informed of who they're spending their time debating with, nadaka.
The actions in a game should only be relevant if said game was a perfect simulation of reality. Besides, one should not judge an idea based on the action of the person who defends it.
That's the basis of an Ad hominem. So yes, we're going to shoot the messenger, because the message is neither relevant, nor correct, nor really usefull.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on October 09, 2012, 11:44:35 am
So...

There was a PPP poll (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/minnesota-supports-gay-marriage.html) of Minnesota last weekend, and the good news is there was movement on the "marriage" amendment towards no from the firms previous poll.
(Last month's numbers in brackets.)
Quote from: PPP
Q1 Should the Minnesota Constitution be
amended to provide that only a union of one
man and one woman shall be valid or
recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?
Yes.................................................................. 46% [48%]
No ................................................................... 49% [47%]
Not sure .......................................................... 5%
Won't vote on the amendment ........................ 1%

I highly doubt only 1% of voters won't vote on the amendment, it'll probably be more like 2-3%, and those automatically count as "no" votes.  And the poll's crosstabs are typical of the state (38% D, 29% R, 32% I), and the topline of 53-43 Obama is expected, so these numbers aren't extremely favorable one way or the other.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 09, 2012, 12:15:24 pm
Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on October 09, 2012, 06:39:33 am
Actions speak louder than words. You can spout all the ideologies and arguments in the world, but it doesn't matter if the application of them doesn't work. I'm an engineer at heart. It's not about the Internet arguments, but actually practice and implementation.

Especially if you prove that your own application of libertarian doesn't work.

It actually isn't an ad hominem because it's a perfect example of greatjustice practicing what he preaches and why pure libertarianism doesn't work... Because people are assholes.

Kael, I have mowed down countless civilians with a machine gun in video games. Virtual actions do not hold any water.

I'm declaring the socialized/free market healthcare discussion over. It hasn't been productive for a while.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on October 09, 2012, 01:07:42 pm
You guys are JUST NOW figuring out he's a troll? Dayum :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 09, 2012, 01:11:09 pm
Quote from: Sirus on October 09, 2012, 01:07:42 pm
You guys are JUST NOW figuring out he's a troll? Dayum :P
I will stand to defend my neocommunistic healthcare regime against those capitalists, even if they are trolls. Trolling does not give one the right to be wrong(defenition discusionable) on the internet.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on October 09, 2012, 01:12:44 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on October 09, 2012, 01:11:09 pm
Quote from: Sirus on October 09, 2012, 01:07:42 pm
You guys are JUST NOW figuring out he's a troll? Dayum :P
I will stand to defend my neocommunistic healthcare regime against those capitalists, even if they are trolls. Trolling does not give one the right to be wrong(defenition discusionable) on the internet.
Defend against someone who might actually be convinced. All you're doing is wasting your own time, but if that's what you want to do go right ahead :)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 09, 2012, 01:26:51 pm
Quote from: Sirus on October 09, 2012, 01:12:44 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on October 09, 2012, 01:11:09 pm
Quote from: Sirus on October 09, 2012, 01:07:42 pm
You guys are JUST NOW figuring out he's a troll? Dayum :P
I will stand to defend my neocommunistic healthcare regime against those capitalists, even if they are trolls. Trolling does not give one the right to be wrong(defenition discusionable) on the internet.
Defend against someone who might actually be convinced. All you're doing is wasting your own time, but if that's what you want to do go right ahead :)
Considering that I spend my time looking things up and learning things, I'm pretty sure it'd spent my time a bit more usefull than what I'd otherwise been doing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 09, 2012, 02:00:19 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on October 09, 2012, 08:21:58 am
Maybe he is a troll, and a better one than I thought.  The kind of exchanges I'm seeing on this page are everything a troll wishes for.

I've been sticking to actual arguments as opposed to personal attacks, so I don't think I've done much to cause it except argue a particular point of view. I was even going to ignore Mr.Ad Hominem, since besides him it seemed like it was getting more civil as opposed to less. Ah well, seeing as how Penguin declared the discussion to be over, I guess it's over.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 09, 2012, 02:33:35 pm
And I never even got my questions answered...

Guess I'll go screw those plaques back on...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 09, 2012, 02:38:47 pm
Quote from: GoombaGeek on October 09, 2012, 02:33:35 pm
And I never even got my questions answered...

Guess I'll go screw those plaques back on...

Thats the way this thread seems to have gone over the last 10 pages or so - lots of anrgy point scoring, little discussion of merit. Heres hoping the next topic brings more fruitful discourse, as opposed to what basically boils down to shouting in each others faces without any kind of listening.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 09, 2012, 02:39:53 pm
Quote from: GoombaGeek on October 09, 2012, 02:33:35 pm
And I never even got my questions answered...

Guess I'll go screw those plaques back on...

I'd happily answer them if Penguin made an exception, but he's the thread creator so his word goes.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on October 09, 2012, 02:43:49 pm
Yeah please move on to a different (hopefully more productive) topic, I'm tried of avoiding this thread 'cause of all the... argumentativeness.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Fenrir on October 09, 2012, 02:51:51 pm
META-REMARK ABOUT META DISCUSSION ABOUT ENDING A DISCUSSION
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on October 09, 2012, 02:55:25 pm
META-INSULTING SEMI-WITTY RETORT
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 09, 2012, 02:58:34 pm
GreatOrder and GoombaGeek, you two can talk over PM. Even if you just answer his questions, I know people are going to want to call you out on stuff and then this whole thing will start over again. We'll let the topic of healthcare chill for a while.

I was going to say something about this meta-discussion, but I couldn't end up with a sentence that didn't end with "is over is over is over" so I gave up.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EveryZig on October 09, 2012, 03:02:15 pm
Maybe we should start a new thread to discuss it and then pretend we are surprised when it gets shut down before ten pages?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 09, 2012, 03:03:00 pm
I have no control over what additional threads get created.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on October 09, 2012, 03:07:26 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on October 09, 2012, 02:58:34 pm
GreatOrder and GoombaGeek, you two can talk over PM.
Wait when was the Fapmaster ever an issue here?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on October 09, 2012, 03:09:32 pm
Eesh. Well, if it's fodder for different discussion, there's two sorta-interesting amendments coming up on the florida voting ballot, amendments six and eight.
Spoiler: Here's the text on six (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: And here's the text on eight (click to show/hide)

The latter particularly seems kinda' nasty to me, though par for course for this kinda' shit. Big issue with it is the fact that it's an and statement, and while the first part is possibly unobjectible (depending on what they mean by entity; if it were just individual I'd probably withdraw potential objections), the latter is one hell of a rider, and a damned nasty one on that. It's somewhat damned telling that the amendment itself is titled "Religious freedom" when the latter aspect has basically jackall to do with that.

As for the former... I'm reminded of the hullabaloo a bit back with the non-church religious organizations making a fuss about not being able to buy health-insurance that covers abortion and then deny their employees that portion of the benefits. Seems a way to target insurance policies that provides such, somewhat indirectly harming (by disallowing them from offering the coverage in question to public employers) institutions that do so.

A more thorough going opinion on either would be interesting. Also suddenly curious how many other states have similar things on the ballot this cycle...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on October 09, 2012, 03:15:31 pm
Quote from: Frumple on October 09, 2012, 03:09:32 pm
(depending on what they mean by entity; if it were just individual I'd probably withdraw potential objections)

law.com has a legalese dictionary. It says:
entity
n. a general term for any institution, company, corporation, partnership, government agency, university or any other organization which is distinguished from individuals.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on October 09, 2012, 03:28:15 pm
I'm of the opinion that religious organizations shouldn't have to cover birth control or abortion if they don't feel comfortable with it.

However, I am also convinced that in such a situation, the government needs to cover it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 09, 2012, 03:34:08 pm
Religious organizations only have their exception when they stay confined to religion. It's the same as with tax-exemptions. If a religious organization gets into politics, they are no longer purely religious and thus lose their tax-exception. Similarly, when a religious organization or a member thereof starts to intrude into the economic sphere, they lose the right to not follow economic laws like a birth control mandate.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 09, 2012, 03:34:50 pm
Religious organizations don't have to cover birth control anyway - they just aren't allowed to force insurance companies to stop doing so.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on October 09, 2012, 03:38:32 pm
Quote from: greatorder on October 09, 2012, 03:17:29 pm
Quote from: Darvi on October 09, 2012, 03:07:26 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on October 09, 2012, 02:58:34 pm
GreatOrder and GoombaGeek, you two can talk over PM.
Wait when was the Fapmaster ever an issue here?
I accidentally buggered up the thread with a mass release of fap-radiation.

sorry, I'll remember to stay in my lead box, next time :<
in all honesty, I think it was a minor screw up on his behalf. either that, or someone changed their name to mine to fuck with him and me

Oh god, you don't know what "buggered" means either do you XD
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 09, 2012, 03:38:43 pm
Quote from: Darvi on October 09, 2012, 03:07:26 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on October 09, 2012, 02:58:34 pm
GreatOrder and GoombaGeek, you two can talk over PM.

Wait when was the Fapmaster ever an issue here?

Oops, I meant GreatJustice. GreatOrder and GoombaGeek can still talk over PM if they want, though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on October 09, 2012, 03:41:22 pm
Do we need another avatar for the fapmaster?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on October 09, 2012, 03:44:39 pm
Der Buggermeister?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on October 09, 2012, 04:07:58 pm
Do you, or do you not, know what to bugger someone mean?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on October 09, 2012, 07:18:45 pm
Quote from: Frumple on October 09, 2012, 03:09:32 pm
Eesh. Well, if it's fodder for different discussion, there's two sorta-interesting amendments coming up on the florida voting ballot, amendments six and eight.
Spoiler: Here's the text on six (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: And here's the text on eight (click to show/hide)

The latter particularly seems kinda' nasty to me, though par for course for this kinda' shit. Big issue with it is the fact that it's an and statement, and while the first part is possibly unobjectible (depending on what they mean by entity; if it were just individual I'd probably withdraw potential objections), the latter is one hell of a rider, and a damned nasty one on that. It's somewhat damned telling that the amendment itself is titled "Religious freedom" when the latter aspect has basically jackall to do with that.

As for the former... I'm reminded of the hullabaloo a bit back with the non-church religious organizations making a fuss about not being able to buy health-insurance that covers abortion and then deny their employees that portion of the benefits. Seems a way to target insurance policies that provides such, somewhat indirectly harming (by disallowing them from offering the coverage in question to public employers) institutions that do so.

A more thorough going opinion on either would be interesting. Also suddenly curious how many other states have similar things on the ballot this cycle...

For the ballot measures, ballotpedia (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/2012_ballot_measures) has a quite exhaustive list of all the different state's measures sorted by category on their site.

Looking over it, the only one with "Abortion" is a proposed measure in Montana that would require an adult's consent for a minor's abortion, not quite as stringent as Florida's proposed Number Six.

As for Number 8, it seems to be the only one that ridiculous, thankfully.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on October 11, 2012, 07:47:03 am
Speaking of abortion, it's good to know that vocal abortion opponents are upstanding, moral pillars and would never have an affair and then coerce their mistress into having an abortion.

Oh, wait. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/10/report-anti-choice-republican-forced-mistress-to-have-an-abortion/)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on October 11, 2012, 07:55:46 am
The hypocrisy, it burrrnnssssss!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on October 11, 2012, 08:14:00 pm
Quote from: RedKing on October 11, 2012, 07:47:03 am
Speaking of abortion, it's good to know that vocal abortion opponents are upstanding, moral pillars and would never have an affair and then coerce their mistress into having an abortion.

Oh, wait. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/10/report-anti-choice-republican-forced-mistress-to-have-an-abortion/)
Relevant. (http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 12, 2012, 05:58:31 am
Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union. Just when we thought that the NPP couldn't be any more discredited.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on October 12, 2012, 06:31:07 am
Agreed. We never should have let the Norwegians have it :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on October 12, 2012, 06:50:22 am
Should this be in the WTF thread?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on October 12, 2012, 06:51:29 am
If you look into the history of the EU it makes sense. For example the very organisation (the ECSC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community) which is the historical foundation of the European Union was founded to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible." (Robert Schuman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuman_Declaration)) After WW2 this is what helped european nations to get together in peace again.

Edit: It's certainly better substantiated than giving it to Obama.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 07:00:36 am
Hell, France and Germany are historical enemies and the French offered alliance with Germany only 5 years after WWII. Now you don't even need a Visa to travel. That's really quite an ahievement for countries which were mortal enemies in living memory.

Then consider that American politicians keep talking about building fences between USA and Mexico, and those 2 countries haven't fought a war since the time of the Alamo.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on October 12, 2012, 07:32:15 am
It makes more sense than the speculation I saw about giving the economics not-Nobel prize for saving the Euro.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 12, 2012, 07:47:07 am
The EU has been a fraud from the beggining, and is now a doomed fraud.  This prize is just a weaksauce attempt to RCP a corpse.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on October 12, 2012, 08:07:13 am
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on October 12, 2012, 07:47:07 am
The EU has been a fraud from the beggining, and is now a doomed fraud.  This prize is just a weaksauce attempt to RCP a corpse.

Do you have one single real argument or fact to back up your opinion? By the way: Norway (the host of the NPP committee) is not a member of the European Union.
You really should inform yourself a little about european post-war history to understand why the new york times for example writes: "The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded its 2012 peace prize on Friday to the 27-nation European Union, lauding its role over six decades in building peace and reconciliation among enemies who fought Europe’s bloodiest wars, even as the continent wrestles with economic strife that threatens its cohesion and future. "

Edit: Besides binding france and germany together, isn't it nobel-peace-prize worthy to spread democracy beyond the iron curtain? To reconcile european nations that have been deeply split by the cold war? Hell it may be one of the reasons a third world war didn't break out.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 12, 2012, 08:19:58 am
Quote
Do you have one single real argument or fact to back up your opinion?
Have you lived under a rock the last two years? Read a newspaper, any newspaper, and check out what's going on in the EU.
Quote
By the way: Norway (the host of the NPP committee) is not a member of the European Union.
Irrelevant
Quote
Besides binding france and germany together
Let's see how long that will last. (Best guess: until they finally bleed Greece dry and turn on each other)
Quote
isn't it nobel-peace-prize worthy to spread democracy beyond the iron curtain?
The European Union hasn't spread democracy *anywhere*. Giving this banking coalition the credit for what democratic advances the people of Eastern Europe have managed to wrestle from their goverments is an insult to their struggles. Particularily when now it's set on replacing goverments with "Technicians" (Italy) or putting them under the rule of the so-called "Troika advisors".
Quote
To reconcile european nations that have been deeply split by the cold war? Hell it may be one of the reasons a third world war didn't break out.
Lets see how long this "reconciliation" lasts.

PD: Hey! Look at what I found!
http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/05/29/european-unity-on-the-rocks/
(http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2012/05/EU0039.png)
And this is from May. Want to play-guess on what's the current take on the EU  right now?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on October 12, 2012, 09:02:54 am
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on October 12, 2012, 08:19:58 am
Quote
Do you have one single real argument or fact to back up your opinion?
Have you lived under a rock the last two years? Read a newspaper, any newspaper, and check out what's going on in the EU.
Here's what I read in the newspapers after putting the tabloids aside: Greece faked their balance sheet to get into the European nation, it has been hit very hard by the US-caused financial crisis, richer european nations are spending billions of euros on greece to save it nonetheless but in return they ask greece to be responsible in dealing with the money. Besides that there is a huuuge fight of differing economic worldviews what "responsible fiscal/monetary policies" actually are.
Besides that the nobel prize is awarded with a look at the last 70 years, not just 2.

Quote from: ChairmanPoo on October 12, 2012, 08:19:58 am
Quote
By the way: Norway (the host of the NPP committee) is not a member of the European Union.
Irrelevant
Just a reply to other people pointing at Norway.
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on October 12, 2012, 08:19:58 am
Quote
Besides binding france and germany together
Let's see how long that will last. (Best guess: until they finally bleed Greece dry and turn on each other)
There are differences in economic worldviews but besides that the crisis forced them to work together like they never did before. Do you think without the EU germany (or any other country) would spend a single cent for something like the ESM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Stability_Mechanism) to help the nations that are in financial difficulty.  Without that bailout greece would be in an even worse situation.

Quote from: ChairmanPoo on October 12, 2012, 08:19:58 am
Quote
isn't it nobel-peace-prize worthy to spread democracy beyond the iron curtain?
The European Union hasn't spread democracy *anywhere*. Giving this banking coalition the credit for what democratic advances the people of Eastern Europe have managed to wrestle from their goverments is an insult to their struggles. Particularily when now it's set on replacing goverments with "Technicians" (Italy) or putting them under the rule of the so-called "Troika advisors".
See above. And: Monti is doing a fine job. He got Italy from being at the brink from becoming the next spain to relative safety but even if he didn't achieve anything positive there is no way he did a worse job than Berlusconi.
Regarding Democracy: What about the nations that are former yugoslavia? Or the support of Solidarność that led to polands first free and democratic elections in 1989? Just about any democracy that emerged out of the Soviet Bloc did so with a lot of help.

Quote from: ChairmanPoo on October 12, 2012, 08:19:58 am
Quote
To reconcile european nations that have been deeply split by the cold war? Hell it may be one of the reasons a third world war didn't break out.
Lets see how long this "reconciliation" lasts.
Irrelevant. (The NPP is awarded for past achievements.)

Quote from: ChairmanPoo on October 12, 2012, 08:19:58 am
PD: Hey! Look at what I found!
http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/05/29/european-unity-on-the-rocks/
(http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2012/05/EU0039.png)
And this is from May. Want to play-guess on what's the current take on the EU  right now?
Proofs my point?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 09:06:38 am
European reconcillation is permanent. And Europe as a whole is way less in debt than the United States. American media just wants something to take the attention off their own problems.

There are only a handful of nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt) in Europe with debts exceeding the United States on a per GDP basis, and they make up a fairly small fraction of the EU's GDP. Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, add up to less than 17% of the EU's GDP. It's positively laughable for the American media to hype up the "debt crisis" in Europe with a straight face.

The economies in Europe that are really floundering are the ones which have always been considered the "poor men" of Europe, and almost all of those only really became modernized democractic economies in about the 1970's (Greece, Spain, Portugal).

Saying that all of Europe is doomed because the historically weakest economies are fragile makes no more sense than saying the USA is doomed because of all the dirt-poor third world countries in the American sphere of influence.

Greece for example only makes up 1.7% of the European Union's GDP, yet it's the example we always hear about how Europe's ways are bringing the whole thing down. Yet it was purely the Greek government's fault they got into so much debt, they were cooking the books and lied to the EU about their spending vs revenue, which should have excluded them from joining the EU in the first place.

Greece is where the European Union is least favorable in your chart, even though they've been bailed out HEAPS. Any EU blame in Greece is the local media wanting to blame someone else for a crisis which is purely a Greek invention. Basically they don't like their being conditions to get the free money.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 12, 2012, 09:32:42 am
Greece is bleeding itself dry - I honestly don't understand how it lasted as long as they did before something like this, considering the level of crime, corruption and mismanagement going on at the government level. I mean, other counties can get pretty corrupt and incompetent, but from what I understand they really brought the artform to new heights.

I've never heard anything about how Greek's inability to manage itself as a nation is the fault of the EU.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 12, 2012, 09:47:17 am
Because it was a setup - they were  and are involved in a series of abusive loans, the last of which is th so-called "rescue fund" (which by decree has to be directed at paying the other loan's interest first), and comes in exchange for economy-throttling "reforms" which are literally deadly for the Greek people. Oh, and by the way, those funds come from all the other countries. So yes, the "rescue fund" is actually rescuing the loans of central-European banks using everyone's money. Why do you think the German goverment is so keen on Spain being "rescued" like Greece and Portugal were? Rescues are good -for their banks. They increase their revenue using everyone's cash (the parallels with the Delos league are ironical enough). Furthermore, as the Risk Premium of the South soar (and "rescues" make them soar) their loan interests grow, while as a rebound effect those in Central Europe plummet. It's win-win for them.

The ECB is doing at a regional level what the IMF did with the developing countries for decades - saddle them with unpayable debts to keep them under a permanent economic yoke. It won't last for long, though. Things were barely holding together before, and with Spain on the brink of bankrupcy it's a matter of time before this financial racket comes down in flames.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 09:52:48 am
It's kind of implied by all the "debt crisis" articles which call it a Europe-wide crisis then mainly discuss Greece. Like this one from FOX:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/12/nobel-peace-prize-to-be-announced-by-committee-in-oslo/

Which oddly enough gives a run-down of what austerity measures (like Romney/Ryan spending cuts) actually do to your economy:

Right now, Europe is stuck in a three-year financial crisis caused by too much government debt. To combat this, governments across the region have imposed harsh tax and spending measures to bring their deficits under control. However a fall in government spending has had a damping effect on Europe's economy — in the second quarter of this year, the EU's gross domestic product shrank 0.2 percent compared to the previous quarter. A wide variety of indicators are pointing to a further slump in the third quarter.

The austerity measures have also hit jobs — the EU's unemployment rate is currently 10.5 percent. But some countries such as Spain and Greece have rates as high as 25 percent. In Spain, every other person under 25 is unemployed.[/quote]

And that's trying to fix a "debt crisis" significantly smaller than the one in America. Kinda laughable that America can smugly say "I told you so" while they're just letting that same snowball get even bigger. Europe's taking the hard medicine before their debts get to the American levels. That actually shows guts, in my book

There's no points awarded for just kicking the can down the street.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 09:54:13 am
Chairman Poo, that's called the IMF's normal operating procedures, and the United States has plenty of fingers in the IMF pie.

The IMF is based in Washington DC for a reason ... the USA also has the biggest share of votes in decisions. The European Union's structures have no direct control over the IMF like the United States does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund#Board_of_Governors

Quote
United States influence

A second criticism is that the United States’ transition to neoliberalism and global capitalism also led to a change in the identity and functions of international institutions like the IMF. Because of the high involvement and voting power of the United States, the global economic ideology could effectively be transformed to match the US's. This is consistent with the IMF’s function change during the 1970s after the Nixon Shock ended the Bretton Woods system. Another criticism is that allies of the United States are able to receive bigger loans with fewer conditions
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on October 12, 2012, 10:00:17 am
And now the EU wants a central banking organ so they can directly control all members as if it was a federation. Screw that. I don't want to be part of the same country as France and Germany when all they ever to is cater to their own populaces and bleed the Swedish system. No fucking way. The EU has too much control as it is now, it has to be severely cut down or we will have to get out before it is too late.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 10:08:29 am
Well you don't have the Euro for a start, so how's that going to affect you? and do you have data on them bleeding Sweden? Or is that just local tabloids?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 12, 2012, 10:18:46 am
The fact that they kept their own coin is a big asset for the British. It allows them to upregulate or downregulate it according to their own needs (and not those of the Deutsche Central European Bank).
And to think that this was touted as British sillyness in the media a decade ago...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on October 12, 2012, 10:21:36 am
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on October 12, 2012, 09:47:17 am
[conspiracy theory]

It's unbelievable how you mistreat facts. The rescue makes the loan interests grow? It's the point of the rescue to make them fall.
Look:
Yield on 10 year Greek Bonds
Before the first bailout: 12.45%
After the first bailout: 7.24%
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 10:35:59 am
The Euro has nothing to do with the debt Crisis. Non-Euro Britain is just as much in debt as Eurozone Germany or France. And only 4 out of

Any fuck the Greeks is all i can say since...

Quote
In early 2010, it was revealed that successive Greek governments had been found to have consistently and deliberately misreported the country's official economic statistics to keep within the monetary union guidelines. This had enabled Greek governments to spend beyond their means, while hiding the actual deficit from the EU overseers.

They brought it on themselves, nothing to do with the Euro, by deliberately lying to maintain political control. At this stage they basically deserve whatever repayment conditions are imposed on them, you can't go "boo hoo big bad Europe!" on this one.

"Because it was a setup" no it wasn't, the GREEKS were scamming everyone, and now they have their hand out. no one forces money into your hands.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on October 12, 2012, 10:38:48 am
Quote from: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 10:08:29 am
Well you don't have the Euro for a start, so how's that going to affect you? and do you have data on them bleeding Sweden? Or is that just local tabloids?

Because the current proposition would allow them to regulate all members, not just Euro-countries, yet non-Euro nations wouldn't even get a pretend-say.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 12, 2012, 10:40:49 am
Quote from: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 10:35:59 am
The Euro has nothing to do with the debt Crisis. Non-Euro Britain is just as much in debt as Eurozone Germany or France.

Any fuck the Greeks is all i can say since...

Quote
In early 2010, it was revealed that successive Greek governments had been found to have consistently and deliberately misreported the country's official economic statistics to keep within the monetary union guidelines. This had enabled Greek governments to spend beyond their means, while hiding the actual deficit from the EU overseers.

They brought it on themselves, nothing to do with the Euro, by deliberately lying to maintain political control. At this stage they basically deserve whatever repayment conditions are imposed on them, you can't go "boo hoo big bad Europe!" on this one.
I think it's worth noting WHO set those conditions, and to WHOM's advantage. And whose banks kept lending the Greek goverment (...because it's not like the common people, the ones hit worst by the crisis now, were any less deceived, yknow?). And the Euro has quite a bit to do with this. If the currently indebted European nations retained divise control, they could try deprecating their coin to favor exports and investment. As it is now the only way to manage deficit they have is budget-slashing.

If you ask me the Greeks should pull an Iceland and send the Troika back home.

Quote from: scriver on October 12, 2012, 10:38:48 am
Quote from: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 10:08:29 am
Well you don't have the Euro for a start, so how's that going to affect you? and do you have data on them bleeding Sweden? Or is that just local tabloids?

Because the current proposition would allow them to regulate all members, not just Euro-countries, yet non-Euro nations wouldn't even get a pretend-say.
It's not like Euro-countries as a whole have much of a say in the Euro's worth. All members are equal but some are more equal than others. Which is precisedly my point
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 10:41:16 am
@scriver: You mean the proposition of not running deficits? I think all the countries will benefit from each other staying out of debt, even if there's a slight direct loss of control. You don't sell many exports if your trading partners have a financial crisis.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 10:44:04 am
@ChairmanPoo: would you favor different states in the USA having their own local currencies? Then indebted states could devalue to boost exports to the other states.

When you're talking Europe and the USA both the populations, GDP and debts are on the same scale.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 12, 2012, 10:50:06 am
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on October 12, 2012, 10:40:49 am
Quote from: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 10:35:59 am
The Euro has nothing to do with the debt Crisis. Non-Euro Britain is just as much in debt as Eurozone Germany or France.

Any fuck the Greeks is all i can say since...

Quote
In early 2010, it was revealed that successive Greek governments had been found to have consistently and deliberately misreported the country's official economic statistics to keep within the monetary union guidelines. This had enabled Greek governments to spend beyond their means, while hiding the actual deficit from the EU overseers.

They brought it on themselves, nothing to do with the Euro, by deliberately lying to maintain political control. At this stage they basically deserve whatever repayment conditions are imposed on them, you can't go "boo hoo big bad Europe!" on this one.
I think it's worth noting WHO set those conditions, and to WHOM's advantage. And whose banks kept lending the Greek goverment (...because it's not like the common people, the ones hit worst by the crisis now, were any less deceived, yknow?). And the Euro has quite a bit to do with this. If the currently indebted European nations retained divise control, they could try deprecating their coin to favor exports and investment. As it is now the only way to manage deficit they have is budget-slashing.

If you ask me the Greeks should pull an Iceland and send the Troika back home.
You can't drop your coin worth when the bank sector is weakened. It would just collapse it.

If Greece hadn't been using the Euro, it currency would have collapsed, taking it's already weakened banking sector and much of the governement finances with t. Loan rates would have risen astronomically, and internal investement would have grinded to a halt. The Greek's can't do the same thing Iceland did. Iceland had a financial crisis, in Greece the entire country is effectively bankrupt.

A similair crisis is waiting to happen in the US, while the debt is not that bad and the economy is doing fine, you're deficit is almost as large (8.6% GDP vs 9.6 GDP)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 12, 2012, 10:57:28 am
I don't think that analogy holds water - as far as I know, US Federal Law guarantees far more parity between union members than the EU does (and it's not heading towards greater parity precisedly - recent reforms give far more weight to the more populated countries). Also, insofar as I know US states do not engage in predatory financial maneuvers against each other. Now, things would probably be different if the EU was built differently, more along US lines, and with more parity between members - but it wasn't.

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on October 12, 2012, 10:50:06 am

You can't drop your coin worth when the bank sector is weakened. It would just collapse it.

If Greece hadn't been using the Euro, it currency would have collapsed, taking it's already weakened banking sector and much of the governement finances with t. Loan rates would have risen astronomically, and internal investement would have grinded to a halt. The Greek's can't do the same thing Iceland did. Iceland had a financial crisis, in Greece the entire country is effectively bankrupt.

A similair crisis is waiting to happen in the US, while the debt is not that bad and the economy is doing fine, you're deficit is almost as large (8.6% GDP vs 9.6 GDP)
The way things are going everything is being set on fire in favor of the banks. It's not working out too well.

http://www.datosmacro.com/en/risk-premium/greece

http://www.datosmacro.com/en/risk-premium/portugal

http://www.datosmacro.com/en/risk-premium/italy

http://www.datosmacro.com/en/risk-premium/spain

I picked these four because they have been following the EU directives on deficit management for a while now -two of the... and they're going from bad to worse. So, sure, the Greek goverment years ago fucked up - but now they're following EU's orders religiously, and so are the other three, yet they are falling faster if anything. Surely now their EU advisors share at least  *some* of the blame for what's going on, right?


Also: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/opinion/krugman-triumph-of-the-wrong.html?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto&_r=1&fb_source=message&
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 11:13:19 am
Quote
To keep within the monetary union guidelines, the government of Greece had also for many years misreported the country's official economic statistics. At the beginning of 2010, it was discovered that Greece had paid Goldman Sachs and other banks hundreds of millions of dollars in fees since 2001, for arranging transactions that hid the actual level of borrowing. Most notable is a cross currency swap, where billions worth of Greek debts and loans were converted into Yen and Dollars at a fictitious exchange rate by Goldman Sachs, thus hiding the true extent of Greek loans. The purpose of these deals made by several successive Greek governments, was to enable them to continue spending, while hiding the actual deficit from the EU. The revised statistics revealed that Greece at all years from 2000-2010 had exceeded the Euros stability criteria, with the yearly deficits exceeding the recommended maximum limit at 3.0% of GDP, and also the debt level clearly exceeding the recommended limit at 60% of GDP.

Why am I not surprised that Americans had their fingers deep in this scam? blame the Germans all you want, they're not making a profit from cleaning up this mess. There would have been far more profitable places to invest 250 billion Euros than propping up Greece after they imploded, no fault of anyone but themselves.

Hell, they could have just bought US Treasury bonds with that money instead.
Quote
On 21 February 2012 the Euro Group finalized the second bailout package (see below), which was extended from €109 billion to €130 billion. In a marathon meeting in Brussels private holders of governmental bonds accepted a slightly bigger haircut of 53.5%[121] Creditors are invited to swap their Greek bonds into new 3.65% bonds with a maturity of 30 years, thus facilitating a €110bn debt reduction for Greece, if all private bondholders accept the swap.[122] EU Member States agreed to an additional retroactive lowering of the bailout interest rates. Furthermore they will pass on to Greece all profits that their central banks made by buying Greek bonds at a debased rate until 2020. Altogether this is expected to bring down Greece's unsustainable debt level from 165% in 2011, to a more sustainable level of 117% of GDP in 2020,[123] somewhat lower than the originally expected 120.5%.[121] The deal is expected to be finalized before 20 March, when Greece needs to repay bonds worth €14.5bn or default on its debts.[124]

You see, all profits from buying the Greek bonds get sent straight back, and all debt to private creditors is knocked in half. With that going on, i find it hard to see how it's "predatory". Ask Latin America about predatory loans from the United States, i never heard of a deal to send all profits back to those countries.

Hell, they're loaning about 250 billion Euro, with the loan recipient to get all the profits back, and with a "free" 110 billion Euro debt-reduction.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 12, 2012, 11:22:53 am
The images don't load for me, so I'm not sure what they are portraying. However, if it is what it thinks it is, it can be atributed by the mass panic about Greece, and the fact that Greek was much worse when the EU started to take charge then the other countries. Besides, the banks are getting losses too, I believe they had to drop a rather significan part of the loans, as well as postpone several others. At this point everything is being done to prevent an outright bankruptcy, which unfortunately, involves getting the loans back on track. Besides, the EU isn't the only one sponsoring Greece, the IMF owns a rather large share of the debts.

That being said, a currency Union is not nessecerially a bad thing, as long as everyone abides by the rules, which certain countries didn't. For example, Belgium and Luxemburg had a shared currency for about 2 decenia IIRC, and it never have us any problems, just benefits. Besides, there are quite some benefits to the Union. The Euro allows you to pay everywhere you go. I can cross internal borders without any problems. Internal trade in the Union is going strong, and at this point going back is basically not an option anymore.

The EU has as much blame for Greek crisis as the US. Both failed in respectively controlling Greece or the banking sector. Whitout the crisis, the Greek situation might have stabilized and would certainly be much better off.

Quote from: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 11:13:19 am
snip

Why am I not surprised that Americans had their fingers deep in this scam? blame the Germans all you want, they're not making a profit from cleaning up this mess. There would have been far more profitable places to invest 300 billion Euros than propping up Greece after they imploded, no fault of anyone but themselves.

Hell, they could have just bought US Treasury bonds with that money instead.

I don't count a country with an 8.6% GDP debt as stable. I mean, at that point you'd better invest in Italy, or Belgium for the matter. More security and thanks to mass panic, better interest rates. Leave buying up US treasury bonds to the Chinese.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 11:36:01 am
Spoiler: ChairmanPoo on risk premiums (click to show/hide)

That's not even making sense. The "risk premium" is a BAD thing, not a good thing. Notice how it went UP when the crisis started, but is going DOWN since the bail-out. Dropping is GOOD for this statistic. All the "crisis countries" had a "risk premium" that went up in about 2009, but are heading back down now.

Risk premium indicates how much above a "safe" market interest rates you have to offer as a return because the market expectation that you're going to default. If you're unlikely to default, your risk premium is low. The declining risk premium after the bail out indicates that markets do not view your investment as risky, so you don't have to offer so much "premium" (interest rates higher than the market rate).

Basically high risk premium means nobody trusts you to pay your debts, so you have to keep jacking up interest rates on treasury bonds, send you even MORE into debt.

===

Quote from: nytimes
Republicans, on the other hand, insist that the path to prosperity involves sharp cuts in government spending.
And Republicans are dead wrong.

The problem was that Greece was literally unable to finance further debt without offering 200% return on 1 year bonds! (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/1-year-greek-yields-pass-200-first-time-ever) That's what the huge spike in risk premiums was about. Obviously a lot would take these offers, but it couldn't be a sustainable path. Basically they'd be doubling the deficit every 12 months until all lines of credit dried up or they'd be selling more bonds than the Greek economy is actually worth.

It indicates they would have face a hyper-inflation situation if they'd had their own currency and just printed the deficit, which totally closes the door to the idea of "devaluing" the currency as some magic bullet, or "spend your way out of the slump".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 12, 2012, 11:38:47 am
Good news, Alberta may balance its budget this year!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on October 12, 2012, 11:45:45 am
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on October 12, 2012, 10:57:28 am
The way things are going everything is being set on fire in favor of the banks. It's not working out too well.

Sure. That must be the reason why all private holders (=banks) of greek governmental bonds had to accept a 53.5% hair cut. (Which is equivalent to a 75% net value loss.) So banks that have lend money to greece already lost three-fourths of it. (Which is one of the reasons why greece has to pay such a high risk premium.)
(Link to a Source.) (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/world/europe/agreement-close-on-a-bailout-for-greece-european-finance-ministers-say.html)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on October 12, 2012, 12:09:52 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 10:41:16 am
@scriver: You mean the proposition of not running deficits? I think all the countries will benefit from each other staying out of debt, even if there's a slight direct loss of control. You don't sell many exports if your trading partners have a financial crisis.

That's really funny, because the EU is pretty good at hindering Sweden from exporting goods as it is now.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 12, 2012, 12:11:47 pm
Quote from: scriver on October 12, 2012, 12:09:52 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 10:41:16 am
@scriver: You mean the proposition of not running deficits? I think all the countries will benefit from each other staying out of debt, even if there's a slight direct loss of control. You don't sell many exports if your trading partners have a financial crisis.

That's really funny, because the EU is pretty good at hindering Sweden from exporting goods as it is now.
We are?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 12:31:50 pm
They certainly don't restrict your ability to export to non-EU countries.

And "not being part" of a trade bloc would NOT increase your exports within that trade bloc. The only thing that would possibly assist that is if every single country you want to export more to left the trade bloc.

It's pretty illogical to think that leaving the EU would spur exports to other EU countries.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 12, 2012, 02:13:02 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 09:52:48 am
It's kind of implied by all the "debt crisis" articles which call it a Europe-wide crisis then mainly discuss Greece. Like this one from FOX:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/12/nobel-peace-prize-to-be-announced-by-committee-in-oslo/

Which oddly enough gives a run-down of what austerity measures (like Romney/Ryan spending cuts) actually do to your economy:

Right now, Europe is stuck in a three-year financial crisis caused by too much government debt. To combat this, governments across the region have imposed harsh tax and spending measures to bring their deficits under control. However a fall in government spending has had a damping effect on Europe's economy — in the second quarter of this year, the EU's gross domestic product shrank 0.2 percent compared to the previous quarter. A wide variety of indicators are pointing to a further slump in the third quarter.

The austerity measures have also hit jobs — the EU's unemployment rate is currently 10.5 percent. But some countries such as Spain and Greece have rates as high as 25 percent. In Spain, every other person under 25 is unemployed.

And that's trying to fix a "debt crisis" significantly smaller than the one in America. Kinda laughable that America can smugly say "I told you so" while they're just letting that same snowball get even bigger. Europe's taking the hard medicine before their debts get to the American levels. That actually shows guts, in my book

There's no points awarded for just kicking the can down the street.

Just because the US has its own problem doesn't make the Eurozone's any better.

In fact, the US running up a huge deficit only stands to make the European problems worse, since a weak USA would in turn weaken the countries that import to it, especially Japan and China. Seeing as how Europe's bonds are presently reliant on support from Japan, China, and the Federal Reserve, the US taking a turn for the worse would bring down the Eurozone (the opposite holding true as well).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on October 12, 2012, 02:37:11 pm
Actually, the US is benefiting from the Eurozone crisis in that people are fleeing the European bond markets and investing US Treasury bond, lowering rates. A US debt crisis would be great for the Eurozone for the same reason.

By the way, the US don't have a debt crisis right now. Sure, they've got large deficit. But given the rate they pay on their new debt, they can totally afford it. When you adjust for inflation, they actually have a negative interest rate. The smart thing to do would be to run more debt and invest it in education and infrastructure.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 02:56:09 pm
@GreatJustice: I was more referring to the fact that the "debt crisis" actually refers to a few of the weakest economies of Europe. It's hardly of a scale that's going to devastate all of Europe, but you'd hardly know that from the news articles. Greece is 1.7% of Europe's GDP

When UK, Germany and France are running up debt levels like the USA, then we can talk about a crisis.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on October 12, 2012, 03:06:05 pm
Debt crisis isn't really related to the amount of debt you have. Debt crisis is when your interest rate is so high that you start having difficulties paying your bonds, fueling fear and higher interest rates. The problem with Europe is our shitty government and lack of coordination. The US have more debts, but a more efficient government, and no one think they're going to default. So their interest rates are rock-bottom.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 03:19:03 pm
Which rates in particular? The central bank rates in Europe are 0.75% and in USA 0.25%, it really doesn't add up to much. I'd like to hear some comparative figures on rates charged to consumers though.

Though i did mention that the debt-troubled nations with excessive interest rates on their bonds only make up a tiny fraction of the European GDP. I'd like some info on how this affects the wider Europe, because I haven't seen anyone come up with any.

Here's the same data source showing that bond yields on Germany Treasuries are lower than the united states, showing that the above statements are not true. Germany obviously has no problem selling bonds.

http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/germany/

http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/us/
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on October 12, 2012, 03:24:45 pm
That's the rate the ECB charge banks. Banks charge state 6% in Italy and Spain, 2.5% in France or Belgium, and a whooping 29% for Greece. The US pay 1.6%, in the Eurozone, only Germany pay less than that. (Source from my paper edition of the economist)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 12, 2012, 03:29:11 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 02:56:09 pm
@GreatJustice: I was more referring to the fact that the "debt crisis" actually refers to a few of the weakest economies of Europe. It's hardly of a scale that's going to devastate all of Europe, but you'd hardly know that from the news articles. Greece is 1.7% of Europe's GDP

When UK, Germany and France are running up debt levels like the USA, then we can talk about a crisis.

The UK, Germany, and France aren't running up debt levels like the USA, but they all have their own problems. In particular, the UK is teetering on the brink of stagflation, and France's economy has been steadily grinding to a halt.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 03:30:41 pm
Because they're not borrowing $1 trillion per year to pump into the economy, i guess.

Sorry, $1.134 trillion

Anyway, i think that "grinding to a halt" thing is nonsense. the french economy doubled since 2000. and growth has been fine. Google gives 1.7% growth for BOTH USA and France. Are they both "grinding to a halt"?

France managed to get the same growth rate, but with a lower deficit. That also blows away the idea that USA is so much more efficient with how they spend that money.

Now, UK does have 0.7% growth. But they're not even in the Eurozone. So they don't even count as part of the "Eurozone crisis". At least not to explain why Both France and Germany have growth rates equal to or exceeding the United States, while non-Euro UK is stagflating with their magical sovereign currency which should have fixed all the problems.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on October 12, 2012, 04:00:33 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 12:31:50 pm
They certainly don't restrict your ability to export to non-EU countries.


For example, we aren't allowed to export our Swedish apples. Why? Oh, because "they get marks on the skin from being transported". Let's not let people decide if they want to buy them anyway, they need to be banned!

The allusions of "free trade" in the EU is nothing but a bullshit system designed to favour the select few.

Quote
And "not being part" of a trade bloc would NOT increase your exports within that trade bloc. The only thing that would possibly assist that is if every single country you want to export more to left the trade bloc.

It's pretty illogical to think that leaving the EU would spur exports to other EU countries.

Well, since the only one who thought that was you, I guess you would feel a bit illogical now. Or, you know, stop jumping to conclusions about what others think and stop putting words in their mouths.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 04:04:10 pm
WTF? if you left the EU, they'd restrict your exports even more. that's how a trade bloc works.
Being a member isn't the root cause of export bans.

What i was saying was illogical is the idea that:

"other countries block my exports" = "cut trade ties". Remember, you were mentioning these export restrictions as an excuse to leave the Union.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on October 12, 2012, 04:13:19 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 04:04:10 pm
WTF? if you left the EU, they'd restrict your exports even more. that's how a trade bloc works.

Nobody has said it wouldn't.


 [/quote] Being a member isn't the root cause of export bans.

What i was saying was illogical is the idea that:

"other countries block my exports" = "cut trade ties". Remember, you were mentioning these export restrictions as an excuse to leave the Union. [/quote]

No, I used it as an example of how the EU is systemically designed to favour the few. I don't want to leave the EU, I'm saying we'll have to unless it changes.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 12, 2012, 04:19:14 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 03:30:41 pm
Because they're not borrowing $1 trillion per year to pump into the economy, i guess.

Sorry, $1.134 trillion

Anyway, i think that "grinding to a halt" thing is nonsense. the french economy doubled since 2000. and growth has been fine. Google gives 1.7% growth for BOTH USA and France. Are they both "grinding to a halt"?

France managed to get the same growth rate, but with a lower deficit. That also blows away the idea that USA is so much more efficient with how they spend that money.

Now, UK does have 0.7% growth. But they're not even in the Eurozone. So they don't even count as part of the "Eurozone crisis". At least not to explain why Both France and Germany have growth rates equal to or exceeding the United States, while non-Euro UK is stagflating with their magical sovereign currency which should have fixed all the problems.

Hey, you're the one who said "the UK" here.

French growth certainly isn't impressive when you consider that the bulk of French GDP is government spending now, while the French private sector is getting worse (take, for example, the automobile sector, where French sales have basically collapsed). Certainly they aren't running as much of a deficit, but to run up a deficit like the US would be impressive considering the fact that the US is paying for a gigantic military, bases across the globe, and the capability to strike just about anywhere on short notice.

The US is engaging in massive stimulus that will hurt it in the long term. However, the US at least isn't fleecing its people for cash to pay off the banks. A lot of the European countries have reached the point in the Laffer curve where revenues are actually going down from tax increases as evasion goes up.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 12, 2012, 04:41:43 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on October 12, 2012, 04:19:14 pm
French growth certainly isn't impressive when you consider that the bulk of French GDP is government spending now, while the French private sector is getting worse (take, for example, the automobile sector, where French sales have basically collapsed).
And using government money to support the economy is cheating, I won't allow it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 12, 2012, 04:49:43 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on October 12, 2012, 04:41:43 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on October 12, 2012, 04:19:14 pm
French growth certainly isn't impressive when you consider that the bulk of French GDP is government spending now, while the French private sector is getting worse (take, for example, the automobile sector, where French sales have basically collapsed).
And using government money to support the economy is cheating, I won't allow it.

It doesn't much reflect the state of the economy at all, really. If the government takes money and spends it on bombs, has the economy strengthened at all? Again, the private sector has been experiencing huge layoffs, closures, and losses, something that no amount of responsive government spending will fix.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 04:50:05 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on October 12, 2012, 03:29:11 pm
The UK, Germany, and France aren't running up debt levels like the USA, but they all have their own problems. In particular, the UK is teetering on the brink of stagflation, and France's economy has been steadily grinding to a halt.

^ That was your statement greatjustice, you mentioned the UK first. And you said that in response to discussion of the Eurozone Debt Crisis. UK hasn't got anything to do with the Eurozone Debt Crisis because UK isn't in the Eurozone.

Which is why I mentioned that they're the only ones floundering out of the Big Guns of Europe.

Anyway WWII shows that it's not true that government spending doesn't grow the economy. I guess the great depression fixed itself? All those people who are hired by the government spend money don't they?

It's good to receive your wisdom that GDP isn't a valid measure of performance. What do you use?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 12, 2012, 06:23:01 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on October 12, 2012, 04:49:43 pm
It doesn't much reflect the state of the economy at all, really. If the government takes money and spends it on bombs, has the economy strengthened at all? Again, the private sector has been experiencing huge layoffs, closures, and losses, something that no amount of responsive government spending will fix.
...Yeah, it has, because there is more stuff being made and more people being paid.  Bombs are a bad way to do it because they don't help your citizens twice like actual services do, but that's not really relevant to you arbitrarily discounting a section of the economy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 06:30:15 pm
One could also state that eating ice-cream doesn't grow the economy either, since the ice-cream is just gone after consumption. And ice-cream actually depresses demand for competing food products, whilst bombs do not. So you could make the argument that ice-cream reduces the economy even more than bombs.

Who do you think makes all those bombs? The private sector. And how many jobs in America do you think are backed by America spending 50% of the world arms budget?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 13, 2012, 09:02:12 am
Quote from: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 04:50:05 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on October 12, 2012, 03:29:11 pm
The UK, Germany, and France aren't running up debt levels like the USA, but they all have their own problems. In particular, the UK is teetering on the brink of stagflation, and France's economy has been steadily grinding to a halt.

^ That was your statement greatjustice, you mentioned the UK first. And you said that in response to discussion of the Eurozone Debt Crisis. UK hasn't got anything to do with the Eurozone Debt Crisis because UK isn't in the Eurozone.

To quote my quote with your quote:

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 12, 2012, 03:29:11 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 02:56:09 pm
@GreatJustice: I was more referring to the fact that the "debt crisis" actually refers to a few of the weakest economies of Europe. It's hardly of a scale that's going to devastate all of Europe, but you'd hardly know that from the news articles. Greece is 1.7% of Europe's GDP

When UK, Germany and France are running up debt levels like the USA, then we can talk about a crisis.

The UK, Germany, and France aren't running up debt levels like the USA, but they all have their own problems. In particular, the UK is teetering on the brink of stagflation, and France's economy has been steadily grinding to a halt.

I'd much appreciate some honesty.



Quote
Anyway WWII shows that it's not true that government spending doesn't grow the economy. I guess the great depression fixed itself? All those people who are hired by the government spend money don't they?

WWII featured wage controls, rationing, and a draft. Employment and GDP were both up for incredibly obvious reasons that had nothing to do with the economy improving.
Quote
It's good to receive your wisdom that GDP isn't a valid measure of performance. What do you use?

It isn't a valid measure of performance when the government is spending so as to keep up the appearance of a stable economy. Reliable measures of performance vary, but for France? Just look at vehicle sales (Down by record amounts) (http://www.ccfa.fr/IMG/pdf/cpseptembre2012inter.pdf), vehicle production (also down drastically) (http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/automobile/20120926trib000721421/le-chiffre-qui-fait-peur-la-production-de-renault-et-psa-chute-de-138-en-france.html), the PMI (where France barely outperforms such industrial juggernauts as Spain) (http://www.markiteconomics.com/MarkitFiles/Pages/ViewPressRelease.aspx?ID=10129), and the confidence barometer for small businesses, now at record lows (http://www.latribune.fr/actualites/economie/france/20120914trib000719533/rien-ne-va-plus-dans-les-pme-.html).

Quote from: Leafsnail on October 12, 2012, 06:23:01 pm
...Yeah, it has, because there is more stuff being made and more people being paid.  Bombs are a bad way to do it because they don't help your citizens twice like actual services do, but that's not really relevant to you arbitrarily discounting a section of the economy.

Yet whether something is "helpful" isn't a factor in measuring GDP. Furthermore, measuring whether something the government did as "helpful" is rather arbitrary, since the resources involved would have gone to something else had the government not acted.

Quote from: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 06:30:15 pm
One could also state that eating ice-cream doesn't grow the economy either, since the ice-cream is just gone after consumption. And ice-cream actually depresses demand for competing food products, whilst bombs do not. So you could make the argument that ice-cream reduces the economy even more than bombs.

Yet people actually want ice cream, which is why they buy it. In this case, ice cream is the end desire, and buying more of it means (on a larger scale) that there will be more to buy later.

People do not (usually) want bombs. The government wants bombs, but the money it spends on building bombs is taken from people who otherwise would have spent it on other things instead.

Quote from: Reelya on October 12, 2012, 06:30:15 pm
Who do you think makes all those bombs? The private sector. And how many jobs in America do you think are backed by America spending 50% of the world arms budget?

I didn't know war profiteering constituted the creation of a healthy economy.

Yeah, the private sector bomb companies "benefit", but that money CAME from other individuals who, again, wouldn't have spent it on bombs. The money used to build bombs could very well have been used towards capital investment, hiring people, or research but instead went towards an ultimately unproductive activity. Similarly, the government could commission the construction of a gigantic pyramid in the middle of Nebraska, hire thousands of construction companies, and spend trillions on this project. Certainly, the construction companies would be better off, as would their workers, and GDP would look great, but the overall wealth of Americans wouldn't be improved in the slightest by having a portion of it taken away to build a pyramid.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 11:24:02 am
Defense industry employs a lot of people and contributes greatly to an economy, which isn't the point of it, the point is to make bombs and guns and things to defend the country. So hopefully they are only making as many bombs as they need to do this with their gov't funding.

Employing people or spending money without need is wasteful and ultimately self defeating.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 13, 2012, 11:30:32 am
I think free market types shouldn't use the 'wasteful' argument. A lot of services generate employment but no permanent improvement in wealth. i.e. they consume resources without generating any wealth.

Like taking your dog to a pet salon for an expensive shampoo. You'll have a hard time showing me how that's not wasteful, while building something permanent (even if it's a bomb) is wasteful. At least you can dismantle and recycle the bomb parts.

Also, consumption = waste almost by definition. Eating ice-cream or taking your car for a drive (consuming non-renewable oil) may be a choice, but it's not the most efficient choice in terms of maximizing true, material wealth of anyone.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 11:49:40 am
Quote from: Reelya on October 13, 2012, 11:30:32 am
I think free market types shouldn't use the 'wasteful' argument. A lot of services generate employment but no permanent improvement in wealth. i.e. they consume resources without generating any wealth.

Like taking your dog to a pet salon for an expensive shampoo. You'll have a hard time showing me how that's not wasteful, while building something permanent (even if it's a bomb) is wasteful. At least you can dismantle and recycle the bomb parts.

Also, consumption = waste almost by definition. Eating ice-cream or taking your car for a drive (consuming non-renewable oil) may be a choice, but it's not the most efficient choice in terms of maximizing true, material wealth of anyone.

Yeah you have a point there. I personally tend to sneer at such decadence as pet salons and the sort. But it's not entirely wasteful, the yuppie paid money to have their pet groomed by choice and everybody's happy. Money traded hands and nothing of substance was really consumed besides some time and some shampoo.

Bombs and bomb components are made and stored because they are needed. While it makes sense to produce and stockpile such things, there is a limit. You couldn't be justified in making more bombs/tanks/guns then you needed just because it kept people employed. This is what the Soviets did and now the world is awash in shoddy bombs/tanks/guns because they flooded the market and made too much of it just to keep people employed. Really, the end result of their labor were products worth little more then the materials used to make them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 13, 2012, 03:55:53 pm
Quote
I think free market types shouldn't use the 'wasteful' argument. A lot of services generate employment but no permanent improvement in wealth. i.e. they consume resources without generating any wealth.

Like taking your dog to a pet salon for an expensive shampoo. You'll have a hard time showing me how that's not wasteful, while building something permanent (even if it's a bomb) is wasteful. At least you can dismantle and recycle the bomb parts.

It isn't wasteful because its what people want; if no one wanted to give dogs expensive shampoos, then people who give them expensive shampoos wouldn't have enough customers and would close down. I agree that I find it to be pretty stupid, but it's their money, and if they want to do such things for their dogs then they can go ahead.

The government, however, is not a person. It does not have any particular end goals the way a person does, and its only real objective is to exist and perpetuate itself. A corporation has a similar problem, though at least in its present form a corporation has the goal of "making money", and it could potentially have goals besides that as corporations did in the past.

When the government spends money, it (A) takes it from unwilling individuals and (B) spends it on something those individuals probably wouldn't have spent it on. Because the government is a monopolistic institution by definition, it has no market mechanisms to draw information of needs or desires from. The entire point of the economy is to maximize the fulfillment of human needs and desires in a world of finite resources; however, the government doesn't have the ability to know what each individual wants, how much he wants it compared to other desires, etc (See the Calculation Problem). Thus, the government has to make broad, sweeping decisions that aren't as efficient with resources as they would have been in the hands of the individuals the money was taken from.

Actually, bombs are probably one of the least inefficient things the government  can buy; after all, defense is basically a public good, and most of the individuals involved would benefit from defense without wanting to actually purchase it. However, the amount of bombs a government needs for "defense" isn't something that can be calculated even by the government. Were they only needed as a deterrent by a peaceful nation, it is likely the amount of bombs needed would be comparably small. War between global powers these days is incredibly unlikely, even if some of them don't have massive defense budgets. However, a lot of military spending is used for interventions into poorer nations for strategic benefit, something that benefits very few and is nothing but a burden on everyone else. Bombs only "improve" the lives of the citizens inasmuch as the country is threatened by foreign enemies, and only then up to the point where the bombs purchased are sufficient as a deterrent towards those invaders.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ancre on October 13, 2012, 04:29:20 pm
I actually strongly disagree with that statement. The government is a representation of the people who formed it ; it makes things that can be done collectively yet cannot be done by lone individuals ; and unlike corporations, it is not here to make profits first, and can work more effectively at meeting needs that are difficult to meet if you try to make a profit out of it.

It doesn't have the ability to know what its constituants want, true, but that's not its role. It can, however, know what its constituants need, or more exactly, do the things that its constituants decide it should do.

The money it takes from its constituants is not forcefully taken. It has been accepted by a vote first, and is used for the goals set by the representants of the people (to whom they are accountable).

Well, at least, in theory. In practice, I don't know, I'm french, it seems to work kinda well. Much better than the US at the very least. There's flaws, like every other human system, but overall the system is good. Having two nationalities, I have been poor in the US and have been poor in France, and while it's not fun to be poor anywhere, living in France is much less dangerous and precarious than living in the US. I don't know much about politics and economics like all of you here, but I have seen which society is best at keeping its people in good health and which one is best at helping them in time of need. I don't know, I guess it always depends on what your goals are in the end.

I don't feel like the government is taking my money by force as well, and while there's a lot of bickering about what the government's goals should be and how should they be reached, I haven't really seen anyone who think taxes are money taken from them by force here. Everyone discuss the details, but nobody think the general idea is flawed and should be scrapped away. That the government steals your money seems to be very american a sentiment.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 04:51:29 pm
Quote from: Ancre on October 13, 2012, 04:29:20 pm
I actually strongly disagree with that statement. The government is a representation of the people who formed it ; it makes things that can be done collectively yet cannot be done by lone individuals ; and unlike corporations, it is not here to make profits first, and can work more effectively at meeting needs that are difficult to meet if you try to make a profit out of it.

It doesn't have the ability to know what its constituants want, true, but that's not its role. It can, however, know what its constituants need, or more exactly, do the things that its constituants decide it should do.

The money it takes from its constituants is not forcefully taken. It has been accepted by a vote first, and is used for the goals set by the representants of the people (to whom they are accountable).

Well, at least, in theory. In practice, I don't know, I'm french, it seems to work kinda well. Much better than the US at the very least. There's flaws, like every other human system, but overall the system is good. Having two nationalities, I have been poor in the US and have been poor in France, and while it's not fun to be poor anywhere, living in France is much less dangerous and precarious than living in the US. I don't know much about politics and economics like all of you here, but I have seen which society is best at keeping its people in good health and which one is best at helping them in time of need. I don't know, I guess it always depends on what your goals are in the end.

I don't feel like the government is taking my money by force as well, and while there's a lot of bickering about what the government's goals should be and how should they be reached, I haven't really seen anyone who think taxes are money taken from them by force here. Everyone discuss the details, but nobody think the general idea is flawed and should be scrapped away. That the government steals your money seems to be very american a sentiment.

There is a middle ground here, taxes are indeed forcibly taken. The entity obliged and solely authorized for killing and jailing people is taking money from you. This isn't necessarily an evil thing if those funds are being used for a reasonable reason and the government is the only entity able to deliver some service beneficial to the taxpayer. national defense, or road maintenance, public education and the sort are most easily done by the government. Vast majority of people are OK with the government taxing them and spending money toward these things. There needs to be a consensus of course. It is not good governance to tax people and spend the money on something wasteful or stupid, like midnight basketball or whater. The government is there to kill people, not attempt to solve all of society's ills.

There are some things the government is suited to do and they are able to do well and tax money is well spent in this reguard. However the government tends to overstep it's authority and try to solve every stupid problem presented to it. This is the people's fault as well, religious groups trying to have the government legislate and enforce stupid morality issues. It isn't the job of the government and it's immoral for them to take your tax money and use it to deny your rights.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 13, 2012, 04:57:13 pm
The government is there to do whatever the people who elected representatives want it to. If the voters want midnight basketball then it's the government's job to comply. That's democracy.

Just because you say your philosophy demands the government only do certain things, that's irrelevant. You guys lost the voter war, so your views are irrelevant.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on October 13, 2012, 04:59:25 pm
Technically the government's job is to do whatever the guys who got voted by the populace want it to do, within the boundaries set by the constitution of course.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 13, 2012, 05:01:22 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 13, 2012, 04:57:13 pm
The government is there to do whatever the people who elected representatives want it to. If the voters want midnight basketball then it's the government's job to comply. That's democracy.

Just because you say your philosophy demands the government only do certain things, that's irrelevant. You guys lost the voter war, so your views are irrelevant.
If that's the case, then the minorities are under the tyranny of the majorities. I wouldn't want a "true" democracy if everything is popular vote and not at least some objective values.

I'm subjective in most things, but a select few morals and philosophies should be inherent rights, imo.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 13, 2012, 05:02:22 pm
Prelude: I'm not American, though I do live pretty close to the border. A lot of American right wingers have really weird, inconsistent views of their government. The idea that the government can't be trusted to feed the poor, but it can be trusted with the unlimited power to kill anyone it considers a threat, for example.

Quote from: Ancre on October 13, 2012, 04:29:20 pm
I actually strongly disagree with that statement. The government is a representation of the people who formed it ; it makes things that can be done collectively yet cannot be done by lone individuals ; and unlike corporations, it is not here to make profits first, and can work more effectively at meeting needs that are difficult to meet if you try to make a profit out of it.

But who formed the government? I certainly didn't, and no one I know of did. In fact, everyone who formed my government is dead so far as I know.

The people who presently "represent" in Parliament could be argued to fill this role, but their top priority is getting elected and reelected, something that doesn't benefit me unless they decide my vote is incredibly important.

Quote
It doesn't have the ability to know what its constituants want, true, but that's not its role. It can, however, know what its constituants need, or more exactly, do the things that its constituants decide it should do.

I'll get to this.
Quote
The money it takes from its constituants is not forcefully taken. It has been accepted by a vote first, and is used for the goals set by the representants of the people (to whom they are accountable).

But whether it was accepted by a vote or not is irrelevant. Yes, the politicians are accountable to the majority, but they aren't accountable to each individual voter.

It most certainly is forcefully taken on an individual basis. What happens if you don't pay your taxes, or declare yourself to be "independent" from your country? The tax man comes over and demands you pay up. If that fails, armed goons in uniform with guns come and drag you to a cage, whereupon a person with a gavel decrees that a certain amount of your possessions can be stolen and that you can be kidnapped and held for a set period of time. If you attempt to resist these armed goons, they will quite willingly shoot you and THEN seize your possessions.

What, exactly, makes the government a "legitimate" institution? If everyone on my street has a vote to seize the property of a quarter of the people living here and we vote yes, are we justified in taking their things? After all, we are the majority, and we are the "constituents" of whoever we send to actually repossess that which we consider to be ours. How about our town, our county, our province? At what point do we cease to be criminal and become a government? What differentiates the government from, say, the mafia? Is the mafia legitimate if it provides services of some kind to those it extorts?
Quote
Well, at least, in theory. In practice, I don't know, I'm french, it seems to work kinda well. Much better than the US at the very least. There's flaws, like every other human system, but overall the system is good. Having two nationalities, I have been poor in the US and have been poor in France, and while it's not fun to be poor anywhere, living in France is much less dangerous and precarious than living in the US. I don't know much about politics and economics like all of you here, but I have seen which society is best at keeping its people in good health and which one is best at helping them in time of need. I don't know, I guess it always depends on what your goals are in the end.

The welfare state doesn't ultimately improve the lives of its people, it simply shuffles resources around and fools people into thinking their lives are improved. There comes a point where the welfare state is incapable of providing for its people enough to make the costs seem justified, and at this point people begin to resist. This point as already been reached in Greece and Italy, and it likely this point will be reached soon in the rest of the world, including both the USA and France.
Quote
I don't feel like the government is taking my money by force as well, and while there's a lot of bickering about what the government's goals should be and how should they be reached, I haven't really seen anyone who think taxes are money taken from them by force here. Everyone discuss the details, but nobody think the general idea is flawed and should be scrapped away. That the government steals your money seems to be very american a sentiment.

Certainly most people, in fact an overwhelming majority, would not consider the government to be illegitimate. It wouldn't work if even a sizable minority rejected it's authority. However, that certainly doesn't make it justified. Even in France, you have people of this viewpoint. (http://bastiat2012.fr/) In fact, ideologically speaking, you would find that the earliest and most important people who viewed the government this way were French, in particular Bastiat and De Molinari. American proponents of this view only really existed because of European migrants in the 1920s and 30s.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 05:39:42 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 13, 2012, 04:57:13 pm
The government is there to do whatever the people who elected representatives want it to. If the voters want midnight basketball then it's the government's job to comply. That's democracy.

Just because you say your philosophy demands the government only do certain things, that's irrelevant. You guys lost the voter war, so your views are irrelevant.

Yes, this is how free democracies do things, but philosophically, at a base level, this is a rather stupid way of doing business. This is 4 wolves and 3 sheep deciding on what to have for dinner. The government needs to be pure, to have a real mission, purpose for existing that is neutral and unbiased. It should not demand it's people to do irrational things, nor should it's people demand it to do irrational things. It should keep the peace and nothing else, leave people to create their own solutions to petty matters below it's scope of responsibility.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 13, 2012, 05:43:11 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 13, 2012, 04:57:13 pm
The government is there to do whatever the people who elected representatives want it to. If the voters want midnight basketball then it's the government's job to comply. That's democracy.

Just because you say your philosophy demands the government only do certain things, that's irrelevant. You guys lost the voter war, so your views are irrelevant.

Okay. I want 1/3rd of the population to be forced into slavery for the other 2/3rds. The other 2/3rds wins the election and the remaining 1/3rd is forced into slavery. Are their views irrelevant after losing the voter war?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 13, 2012, 05:47:18 pm
From all those questions you seem to be struggling to understand how a society works.  Don't worry, I'll help answer them.

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 13, 2012, 05:02:22 pm
But who formed the government?
If you meant the current government, then a group of people elected (directly or indirectly) by the adult populace of your country.  If you mean the original government institution that's somewhat irrelevant since they're dead now - they aren't the ones making decisions today.  The elected people are the ones making decisions today, and it should be possible to override any decisions made by the now dead people which aren't popular.

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 13, 2012, 05:02:22 pm
What happens if you don't pay your taxes, or declare yourself to be "independent" from your country?
For taxes: same thing as what happens if you break any other law deemed to be necessary by the democratically elected government.  For declaring yourself independent: nothing at all, just like declaring yourself to be an 8th grade pianist or a wizard.

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 13, 2012, 05:02:22 pm
What, exactly, makes the government a "legitimate" institution?
Democratic elections among the people being governed.  This isn't synonymous with morality though - for the conditions of it being a legitimate and moral government see below (generally the government should reflect the moral standards of the people electing it).

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 13, 2012, 05:02:22 pm
If everyone on my street has a vote to seize the property of a quarter of the people living here and we vote yes, are we justified in taking their things?
Assuming you mean morally justified then in this question the answer is probably no.  However if a service is required to keep your entire street operational (let's say road repairs, firefighting) and some members of your street are gaining more money as a resident of this street (and thus as a result of this service) you are justified in taking a larger amount from them in order to continue providing this service.  This doesn't stop applying if some of the services are only needed by some of the people, as long as everyone is relying on that same service to keep the whole street operational.  If they do not feel they need these services they can move to another street.  This is a more valid analogy to a government, and I can understand your confusion if you previously believed all the government did was randomly take 25% of the populations things.

In practice it's a lot easier to administrate over a much larger area than a street (otherwise each street would need its own accountancy and enforcement and fire brigade and so on - clearly wasteful when one fire engine can cover multiple streets, and one accountant can oversee the services for many streets) which is countries are generally larger than one street.


Quote from: GreatJustice on October 13, 2012, 05:02:22 pm
How about our town, our county, our province?
See above - a group of people could decide to form a societal unit of that size, but it would be wasteful.  Generally you have some devolution to each of those levels to handle local issues, but having the whole thing overseen by a more centralized government is more efficient.

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 13, 2012, 05:02:22 pm
At what point do we cease to be criminal and become a government?
"Criminal" is a slippery term, tied directly to law.  Assuming there was no state above you then you aren't actually a criminal at any of those levels since you had no laws to break.  However I'll assume by "criminal" you mean "immoral/amoral".

If you follow the guidelines I said in the previous questions you aren't immoral/amoral at any of those levels.  If you take your bad analogy at face value then you are amoral/ immoral at all of them.

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 13, 2012, 05:02:22 pm
What differentiates the government from, say, the mafia?
- Organized criminals are generally not democratically elected by the people in their areas
- Organized criminals do not care about the wellbeing of and generally do not even claim to represent the people living in their areas
- Organized criminals are unlikely to have mechanisms by which their constituents can petition them to change how they operate in an area
- Organized criminals do not provide services essential to a modern society
- Organized criminals do not operate according to a consistent set of laws set down by members of their society, and even if they did they probably would not have an accountable and democratic mechanism for changing those laws
- Organized criminals often do not let their victims stop paying if they leave their area (or they may prevent them from leaving)

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 13, 2012, 05:02:22 pm
Is the mafia legitimate if it provides services of some kind to those it extorts?
No - that is only one of the major differences between the government and your average group of organized criminals.  If your question was amended to the following:
"Is the mafia legitimate if it provides essential services to those it extorts, has democratic elections to decide its members, care about the wellbeing of and represent the interests of those it extorts, have mechanisms whereby those it exorts can petition them to change their practices, operate according to a set of rules determined by their society with clear and democratic means of changing those rules and allows those it extorts to leave their area at any time?"
It might be answerable with "yes", although it may be something of a contradictory question as you've pretty much left the definition of "mafia" by that point.

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 13, 2012, 05:02:22 pm
The welfare state doesn't ultimately improve the lives of its people, it simply shuffles resources around and fools people into thinking their lives are improved. There comes a point where the welfare state is incapable of providing for its people enough to make the costs seem justified, and at this point people begin to resist. This point as already been reached in Greece and Italy, and it likely this point will be reached soon in the rest of the world, including both the USA and France.
This isn't a question but it is a hilariously unjustified assertion.  I can now eat food and sleep under a roof but apparently the government is only tricking me, I was better off when I was sleeping rough and eating from garbage cans.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 13, 2012, 06:12:18 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on October 13, 2012, 05:43:11 pm
Okay. I want 1/3rd of the population to be forced into slavery for the other 2/3rds. The other 2/3rds wins the election and the remaining 1/3rd is forced into slavery. Are their views irrelevant after losing the voter war?

The benefit of an actual democratic government is that, hey, at least you need to get a majority to agree with you on something before screwing a minority over. (And why we have things like constitutions and courts to prevent said abuses)

With good ol'capitalism, you really just need to be smart enough and determined enough to do so - you don't need a majority at all!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on October 13, 2012, 06:34:42 pm
I'd call mafiosos more capitalists than governments. More libertarian, at least.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 06:49:58 pm
Quote from: Descan on October 13, 2012, 06:34:42 pm
I'd call mafiosos more capitalists than governments. More libertarian, at least.

Capitalism plays by a set of rules. Mafiosos don't.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 06:53:25 pm
Sure they do, the rules are just different. Be loyal to the Family, respect your superiors, don't play ball with the cops, don't hurt our business, don't let anyone else disrespect the Family. Stuff like that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 13, 2012, 07:31:11 pm
Hence why it's called organized crime.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 07:37:19 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 06:53:25 pm
Sure they do, the rules are just different. Be loyal to the Family, respect your superiors, don't play ball with the cops, don't hurt our business, don't let anyone else disrespect the Family. Stuff like that.

They bend the rules when it suits them... Well, sorta like cops do.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 13, 2012, 07:39:09 pm
Quote from: Montague on October 13, 2012, 07:37:19 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 06:53:25 pm
Sure they do, the rules are just different. Be loyal to the Family, respect your superiors, don't play ball with the cops, don't hurt our business, don't let anyone else disrespect the Family. Stuff like that.

They bend the rules when it suits them... Well, sorta like cops do.
Like any group does. Blindly sticking to the rules regardless of the circumstances is deep in Lawful Stupid territory.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on October 13, 2012, 09:09:58 pm
Also organized crime gangs usually run by the same basic principles of a corporation or any capitalistic business, because they are a capitalistic business.

The primary purpose of a gang is to make money, be it through extortion, the black market, assassinations, and sometimes even a little bit of legitimate business.

They do pretty much everything a corporation does too, they pay their members, sometimes it's commission, sometimes it's a regular wage. They have management structures, bases of operations, and also do things like PR (sometimes in the form of intimidating people, sometimes in the form of charity work to cultivate a good reputation). A successful gang is essentially just another corporation, although one that tends to employ a lot of violence and intimidation (although of course in the old days before the law tended to start holding them accountable, so did corporations).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 09:20:13 pm
Quote from: Pnx on October 13, 2012, 09:09:58 pm
Also organized crime gangs usually run by the same basic principles of a corporation or any capitalistic business, because they are a capitalistic business.

The primary purpose of a gang is to make money, be it through extortion, the black market, assassinations, and sometimes even a little bit of legitimate business.

They do pretty much everything a corporation does too, they pay their members, sometimes it's commission, sometimes it's a regular wage. They have management structures, bases of operations, and also do things like PR (sometimes in the form of intimidating people, sometimes in the form of charity work to cultivate a good reputation). A successful gang is essentially just another corporation, although one that tends to employ a lot of violence and intimidation (although of course in the old days before the law tended to start holding them accountable, so did corporations).

Gangs have an absolute code of rules they abide by. Well, they have very strict guidelines and the punishment is usually severe, anyways. Idk if you would call that honor. They have life-long commitments. You cannot just leave a gang and join another at your whimsy, unlike with a corporation.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 09:22:36 pm
They aren't necessarily life-long commitments. Some gangs are for life, but others let you retire from the lifestyle peacefully. Apparently a common reason for that is starting a family, at which point continuing the gang life would put them in danger.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 13, 2012, 09:24:04 pm
Quote from: Montague on October 13, 2012, 09:20:13 pm
Gangs have an absolute code of rules they abide by. Well, they have very strict guidelines and the punishment is usually severe, anyways. Idk if you would call that honor. They have life-long commitments. You cannot just leave a gang and join another at your whimsy, unlike with a corporation.
Why is that? Is it because corporations are inherently superior, or because they abide by rules of law that would prevent that type of behavior?

Their argument, of course, is that a mafia type gang is the ideal government-less entity. Now I wouldn't call them totally representative of corporations in a randian paradise, as their dodging law and regulation is a significant part of why they're violent and such, but how gangs deal with each other in a cutthroat manner is less far fetched a comparison.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 13, 2012, 09:28:40 pm
And actually, depending on your skills and job, you can bounce from gang to gang being employed by them. Though from what I understand it's not common, and you're never really a "member" of the gang, just employed by them - a contractor, kind of.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 13, 2012, 09:29:51 pm
Guys we're offtopic, we have a whole subforum dedicated this kind of chat too.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 09:32:14 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on October 13, 2012, 09:24:04 pm
Quote from: Montague on October 13, 2012, 09:20:13 pm
Gangs have an absolute code of rules they abide by. Well, they have very strict guidelines and the punishment is usually severe, anyways. Idk if you would call that honor. They have life-long commitments. You cannot just leave a gang and join another at your whimsy, unlike with a corporation.
Why is that? Is it because corporations are inherently superior, or because they abide by rules of law that would prevent that type of behavior?

Their argument, of course, is that a mafia type gang is the ideal government-less entity. Now I wouldn't call them totally representative of corporations in a randian paradise, as their dodging law and regulation is a significant part of why they're violent and such, but how gangs deal with each other in a cutthroat manner is less far fetched a comparison.

Well, gangs make their living through criminal and immoral acts, which require strict secrecy in their membership. Their organization is diffuse to make it hard for a single snitch to bring everybody down. Corporations might have secrets, or be corrupt, but their trade is legitimate. Some might sell missiles and missile accessories. They hire and fire people, but they make them all sign NDAs and threaten them with jail time if they break their promises.

They don't exploit people, or brand them, or force them to murder people to be introduced into the organization. Lots of differences.

Yeah, but we really should be talking about progressivnessism or whatever. I'm not trying to provoke anybody, I'm just challenging people to think a little, on a silly internet forum in a box full of text. Thought is good for you.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 09:33:53 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on October 13, 2012, 09:29:51 pm
Guys we're offtopic, we have a whole subforum dedicated this kind of chat too.
Not really. Name aside, this has functioned as our general political/social discussion thread for a while now.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 13, 2012, 09:34:41 pm
Leaf was making a joke on us talking about "mafia."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 09:35:22 pm
Oh. Right. That thing. I completely forgot that existed.

How's that been going with Vector gone, anyway? My understanding was that she was mostly responsible for administrating it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 13, 2012, 09:59:11 pm
Vector was an avid player but Mephansteras is probably closer to an "administrator".  Not that he has mod powers or anything, if he left we could probably just make another thread.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on October 13, 2012, 11:51:55 pm
Quote from: Montague on October 13, 2012, 09:20:13 pm
Gangs have an absolute code of rules they abide by. Well, they have very strict guidelines and the punishment is usually severe, anyways. Idk if you would call that honor. They have life-long commitments. You cannot just leave a gang and join another at your whimsy, unlike with a corporation.

Idk about that one. I mean if you're boss doesn't like you enough you can end up with some nasty stuff written on their report of you, basically making a job anywhere else hard or impossible to get. So basically the mafia's "I like you kid, you're going places, so just stick around, capiche?".

...

Maybe I've been watching too much TV.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Montague on October 14, 2012, 12:05:09 am
Yeah, nah so honestly, not really.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lemon10 on October 14, 2012, 12:16:38 am
Quote from: Montague on October 13, 2012, 09:32:14 pm
Well, gangs make their living through criminal and immoral acts, which require strict secrecy in their membership. Their organization is diffuse to make it hard for a single snitch to bring everybody down. Corporations might have secrets, or be corrupt, but their trade is legitimate. Some might sell missiles and missile accessories. They hire and fire people, but they make them all sign NDAs and threaten them with jail time if they break their promises.

They don't exploit people, or brand them, or force them to murder people to be introduced into the organization. Lots of differences.
Corporations do exploit people.
There are some that have people killed, or get their local goverments to do it, there are corporations that cause goverments to be overthrown, and corporations that basically own goverments.

The reason that these actions aren't very common is because its bad for business, if the government with power over them finds out about their illegal actions (and the government has the will to enforce the law), then they get shut down.

Eg. United fruit company and Guatemala (oppressing the people, organizing a coop against the goverment when kicked out),
Debeers and Botswanan natives
Quote from: wikipedia
In Botswana, a long dispute has existed between the interests of the mining company, De Beers, and the relocation of the Bushman tribe from the land, in order to exploit diamond resources. The Bushmen have been facing threats from government policies since at least 1980, when the diamond resources were discovered.[55] A campaign is being fought in an attempt to bring an end to what the indigenous rights organisation, Survival International considers it to be a genocide of a tribe that has been living in those lands for tens of thousands of years.[56][57][58] On the grounds that their hunting and gathering has become obsolete and their presence is no longer compatible with preserving wildlife resources, they were persecuted by the government in order to make them leave the reserve. To get rid of them, they have had their water supplies cut off, they have been taxed, fined, beaten, and tortured as per land clearing requests by De Beers.
In both of those cases the companies do anything they can get away with to further their own interests (I could doubtlessly find many more cases if you really need them).


In the absolute absense of the rule of law, there isn't really that big of a difference between a gang and a cutthroat corporation.
EDIT: There are a few differences though, corporations just want money, so they don't really ever aspire to ruling a country outright, and as such if they get powerful enough that they do functionally control a country, they can just use their puppet government to kill/threaten/extort for them. Which takes all the responsibility off them. Gangs want power, which comes from both money and more direct means (eg threats, people with guns), and as such don't ever even pretend to be subservient to the government.
I do think that the gang=goverment is a far more apt comparison though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Montague on October 14, 2012, 12:36:40 am
Edit, posted the wrong thing in the wrong place.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Gantolandon on October 14, 2012, 06:52:55 am
Quote from: GreatJustice
It most certainly is forcefully taken on an individual basis. What happens if you don't pay your taxes, or declare yourself to be "independent" from your country? The tax man comes over and demands you pay up. If that fails, armed goons in uniform with guns come and drag you to a cage, whereupon a person with a gavel decrees that a certain amount of your possessions can be stolen and that you can be kidnapped and held for a set period of time. If you attempt to resist these armed goons, they will quite willingly shoot you and THEN seize your possessions.

This makes no sense, because all rights (including right to protection of property) are implicitly granted to you by the society you live in. You would like to be able to declare yourself no longer a member and have no obligations, but still retain your rights. It's like you came to your boss and said "I won't be doing any work from now on, but still expect to be paid."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 14, 2012, 09:11:52 am
@GreatJustice: Hell, if you have possessions you're not able to personally secure, then your ownership was being indirectly subsidized by enforcement of laws that say "don't steal". Basically saying you have possessions that others would desire to steal in the absence of the military, police and court system, but why should you have pay for it?

How about we exclude you from tax paying but stick a sign around your neck "this guy isn't protected by laws?"
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 14, 2012, 09:22:05 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on October 13, 2012, 05:47:18 pm


Quote
For taxes: same thing as what happens if you break any other law deemed to be necessary by the democratically elected government.  For declaring yourself independent: nothing at all, just like declaring yourself to be an 8th grade pianist or a wizard.

So yes, being dragged off by men in uniform and possibly shot. Thanks for the confirmation.
Quote
Democratic elections among the people being governed.  This isn't synonymous with morality though - for the conditions of it being a legitimate and moral government see below (generally the government should reflect the moral standards of the people electing it).

That doesn't address the secession question. The CSA seceded (something the people being governed supported) and the USA attempted to prevent them from doing so (something that the remaining people supported).

Quote
Assuming you mean morally justified then in this question the answer is probably no.  However if a service is required to keep your entire street operational (let's say road repairs, firefighting) and some members of your street are gaining more money as a resident of this street (and thus as a result of this service) you are justified in taking a larger amount from them in order to continue providing this service.  This doesn't stop applying if some of the services are only needed by some of the people, as long as everyone is relying on that same service to keep the whole street operational.  If they do not feel they need these services they can move to another street.  This is a more valid analogy to a government, and I can understand your confusion if you previously believed all the government did was randomly take 25% of the populations things.

Think of it as a form of welfare for the remaining 2/3rds of us. They are supporting their fellow citizens in the democratically elected street government, so they have no reason to complain since they were allowed to vote.
Quote
In practice it's a lot easier to administrate over a much larger area than a street (otherwise each street would need its own accountancy and enforcement and fire brigade and so on - clearly wasteful when one fire engine can cover multiple streets, and one accountant can oversee the services for many streets) which is countries are generally larger than one street.

Don't dodge the question. Would the existing country allow the street to leave the country and become its own? At was size is it legitimate for the majority of a given area (a minority in the whole "country") to secede?
Quote
See above - a group of people could decide to form a societal unit of that size, but it would be wasteful.  Generally you have some devolution to each of those levels to handle local issues, but having the whole thing overseen by a more centralized government is more efficient.

But would the government allow competition?

What about if I formed a company that provides the same services as the government, and doesn't arrest or attack competition? Would the government let me create a system of subscribers without a given geographic range or borders?

Quote
"Criminal" is a slippery term, tied directly to law.  Assuming there was no state above you then you aren't actually a criminal at any of those levels since you had no laws to break.  However I'll assume by "criminal" you mean "immoral/amoral".

So morality and law stems only from government?

Quote
- Organized criminals are generally not democratically elected by the people in their areas

Many governments in the world are not democratically elected, and yet they are still "recognized".

Besides that, they certainly could be. Would they become a government?
Quote
- Organized criminals do not care about the wellbeing of and generally do not even claim to represent the people living in their areas

So if they care about the well being of the people living in the area, they become the government?
Quote
- Organized criminals are unlikely to have mechanisms by which their constituents can petition them to change how they operate in an area

If they're responsive to requests by people in the area, they become a government?
Quote
- Organized criminals do not provide services essential to a modern society

They generally provide protection of a sort. If they monopolized various services and offered them to others, would they be the government?
Quote
- Organized criminals do not operate according to a consistent set of laws set down by members of their society, and even if they did they probably would not have an accountable and democratic mechanism for changing those laws

Nonsense. Organized criminals (especially the Mafia) have fairly strict codes that they have to follow. If these codes were modifiable by vote, would the mafia be the government?
Quote
- Organized criminals often do not let their victims stop paying if they leave their area (or they may prevent them from leaving)

Governments tax people who have already left the country, or tax them for the privilege of leaving the country.
Quote

No - that is only one of the major differences between the government and your average group of organized criminals.  If your question was amended to the following:
"Is the mafia legitimate if it provides essential services to those it extorts, has democratic elections to decide its members, care about the wellbeing of and represent the interests of those it extorts, have mechanisms whereby those it exorts can petition them to change their practices, operate according to a set of rules determined by their society with clear and democratic means of changing those rules and allows those it extorts to leave their area at any time?"
It might be answerable with "yes", although it may be something of a contradictory question as you've pretty much left the definition of "mafia" by that point.

Again: would the existing government allow this well-intentioned mafia to compete with it? Does ANY existent government allow competition to it within its own borders?


Quote
This isn't a question but it is a hilariously unjustified assertion.  I can now eat food and sleep under a roof but apparently the government is only tricking me, I was better off when I was sleeping rough and eating from garbage cans.
No. In the short term, anyone being provided welfare is better off, naturally. In the long term, however, the system is utterly unfeasible, and isn't likely to last.

Quote
@GreatJustice: Hell, if you have possessions you're not able to personally secure, then your ownership was being indirectly subsidized by enforcement of laws that say "don't steal". Basically saying you have possessions that others would desire to steal in the absence of the military, police and court system, but why should you have pay for it?

How about we exclude you from tax paying but stick a sign around your neck "this guy isn't protected by laws?"

So assume I create my own court system, military, and police, and a certain number of people join it. Is the government going to sit idly by, or perhaps improve its conditions to increase competitiveness?

No. They'll throw me, and anyone else involved, in jail. The government doesn't do competition, just like the mafia doesn't do competition.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 14, 2012, 09:56:22 am
- You'd only be shot if you threatened them with lethal force, generally (which is fair because you were threatening to do the same to them).  Otherwise yes, if you claim the rights that society gives you and don't bother to help pay for those rights they will punish you.

- I don't think I expressed any opinion on the legality or morality of the American Civil War, so that's irrelevant.

- If the welfare is needed to allow your street to survive and that quarter are the quarter who are most able to pay for it then sure.

- Generally there has to be a genuine cultural difference and historical reasons to break off from an already established country.  You can wax lyrical about the morality of this but the fact of the matter is that otherwise murderers could just declare themselves "independent" and thus immune to prosecution.  You can't claim all the benefits of living in a modern society and then duck out of the responsibilities when you feel like it (especially since in this "independent street" you'd still be enjoying the benefits such as trade with areas covered by their police forces and the security that the country around you provides).  As such to form your own independent place you'd either a) need a relevant cultural claim on it and widespread agreement on that claim in the area or b) your own place to live.

- Yes, you are allowed to provide whatever services you like (you can run your own private healthcare or detective services, for instance).  No, this doesn't mean you are allowed to dodge taxes because the society as a whole still depends on the essential government services.

- That is literally the exact opposite of what I said.

- Undemocratically elected governments have to be recognised for practical political reasons.  There is simply no way for us to overthrow them as it stands.  This is irrelevant because we are talking about democratically elected governments.

- Blah blah blah defending your stupid analogy.  Yes the government would allow this "mafia" (which is now absolutely nothing like any mafia in reality) to do what it wants if it's prepared to follow the laws (it could provide its own healthcare and police services if it wanted to, for instance).  So yes, they allow that competition.  No, that doesn't mean you're allowed to avoid paying for the underlying rights and stability granted to you by your society.

- You've replaced a hilariously unjustified assertion with an equally unjustified one.  Sure there are welfare states that have lasted over 100 years but THEY WILL COLLAPSE SOMEHOW
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 14, 2012, 10:36:52 am
Not sure how you can justify that laws have nothing to do with government, greatjustice. That's pretty much in the definition of what a law is. Crime is also defined as the breaking of laws.

Quote
Law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. Laws are made by governments, specifically by their legislatures.
Quote
Crime is the breaking of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction.

Morals and "feeling wronged" may overlap with laws and crimes, but they are not synonymous.

Quote
What about if I formed a company that provides the same services as the government, and doesn't arrest or attack competition? Would the government let me create a system of subscribers without a given geographic range or borders?
I never heard of delivery services being shut down because they compete with the post office, and I never heard of private security being shut down because of competition with the police. Government gets stuck with the stuff that needs to be done but is not directly profitable. Not because of some conspiracy, but because the private sector couldn't come up with a model to directly make a profit off those things. The government would and has been happy to hand off any service to someone else to run, that's less they're responsible for and have to pay for.

People don't want to pay for stuff like "feed and educate these orphans and 20 years from now, they'll be better customers and employees, and less likely to be criminals costing money for the police and jacking up insurance premiums". Paying for stuff like that now might be a good investment, but it's too indirect to say EXACTLY which company will benefit exactly from which orphan, so it's a "hard sell" to get individuals to shell out now, for these things that are a group benefit in the future.

Each individual's rational logic is that "i pay $1 and i only benefit $0.01 for that dollar, down the track. I'm sharing my reward with other people, which is unfair". This is logical from an individuals standpoint, but that individual is also benefiting $0.01 from each and everyone else's social investment.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 14, 2012, 11:38:10 am
Quote
I never heard of delivery services being shut down because they compete with the post office

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company)
Quote
and I never heard of private security being shut down because of competition with the police.

Is the private security competing directly against the government, though? No.
Quote
Government gets stuck with the stuff that needs to be done but is not directly profitable. Not because of some conspiracy, but because the private sector couldn't come up with a model to directly make a profit off those things. The government would and has been happy to hand off any service to someone else to run, that's less they're responsible for and have to pay for.

Haven't heard of the government letting people stop paying their taxes if they are capable of providing the services themselves. If I don't have kids, or else I do have kids but I homeschool them/private school them, I still pay for public education, etc

Quote
People don't want to pay for stuff like "feed and educate these orphans and 20 years from now, they'll be better customers and employees, and less likely to be criminals costing money for the police and jacking up insurance premiums". Paying for stuff like that now might be a good investment, but it's too indirect to say EXACTLY which company will benefit exactly from which orphan, so it's a "hard sell" to get individuals to shell out now, for these things that are a group benefit in the future.

The government is not necessary for the existence of basic charity and human kindness.

Quote
Each individual's rational logic is that "i pay $1 and i only benefit $0.01 for that dollar, down the track. I'm sharing my reward with other people, which is unfair". This is logical from an individuals standpoint, but that individual is also benefiting $0.01 from each and everyone else's social investment.

Then why can't the individual be allowed to make that decision for themselves? Logically speaking, the people under the completely voluntary government would thrive versus those who weren't, so it would become evident which worked better in the long run.

-----------
Quote
- You'd only be shot if you threatened them with lethal force, generally (which is fair because you were threatening to do the same to them).  Otherwise yes, if you claim the rights that society gives you and don't bother to help pay for those rights they will punish you.

Society can't "give" me rights. Rights stem from basic principles (eg. self-ownership), not government decrees. If I reject the (unasked for) rights and benefits from being a part of the country, I STILL have to pay for everyone else's with the exact same penalty as if I didn't.
Quote
- I don't think I expressed any opinion on the legality or morality of the American Civil War, so that's irrelevant.

I'm asking you as to who is in the right, from the "democratic" viewpoint. It rather obviously stems into the discussion: the majority of a small group secedes from the majority of a larger group, and the larger group fights to prevent this. Both sides are in the "majority" in a manner of speaking, and both are largely represented by their respective governments.

Quote
- If the welfare is needed to allow your street to survive and that quarter are the quarter who are most able to pay for it then sure.

We don't need it to survive, we just decide we'd like the stuff of the quarter (henceforth known as "Group B", since "the quarter" is a bit of a weird turn of phrase). Even if we did, though, then any sufficiently large gang can justify itself when it robs others, so long as the gang is sufficiently poor compared to the victim.

Quote
- Generally there has to be a genuine cultural difference and historical reasons to break off from an already established country.  You can wax lyrical about the morality of this but the fact of the matter is that otherwise murderers could just declare themselves "independent" and thus immune to prosecution.  You can't claim all the benefits of living in a modern society and then duck out of the responsibilities when you feel like it (especially since in this "independent street" you'd still be enjoying the benefits such as trade with areas covered by their police forces and the security that the country around you provides).  As such to form your own independent place you'd either a) need a relevant cultural claim on it and widespread agreement on that claim in the area or b) your own place to live.

You could argue that places like San Marino and Luxembourg have no right to exist, either; after all, they benefit from the police and military forces of their far larger neighbours.

All of these problems would be rather easily solved through the use of service fees. You pay your taxes, you get a "I paid my taxes!" card of some kind that you use to "pay" for government services. You don't, you either pay cash straight up or find an alternative source of such services.

Cultural differences aren't always massive when secession occurs. The USA and CSA weren't significantly different in religion, traditions, etc. The primary reasons involved were political (relating to free trade and slavery), not cultural.

Quote
- Yes, you are allowed to provide whatever services you like (you can run your own private healthcare or detective services, for instance).  No, this doesn't mean you are allowed to dodge taxes because the society as a whole still depends on the essential government services.

Who is "society"? Why do I have to pay for "society" when I already provide or else am provided to be the same services as I would be with the government? Also, why can't the government have people pay via service fees?

Quote
- Blah blah blah defending your stupid analogy.  Yes the government would allow this "mafia" (which is now absolutely nothing like any mafia in reality) to do what it wants if it's prepared to follow the laws (it could provide its own healthcare and police services if it wanted to, for instance).  So yes, they allow that competition.  No, that doesn't mean you're allowed to avoid paying for the underlying rights and stability granted to you by your society.

But the mafia is now the government, according to you. It can make its own laws, create its own "rights", and provide its own stability!
Quote
- You've replaced a hilariously unjustified assertion with an equally unjustified one.  Sure there are welfare states that have lasted over 100 years but THEY WILL COLLAPSE SOMEHOW

Such as? The only one I can think of offhand is Germany, and their government was completely replaced four times in the course of about four decades, with their welfare systems being similarly changed as well.

They certainly aren't in very good shape these days.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Gantolandon on October 14, 2012, 11:41:21 am
Quote
So assume I create my own court system, military, and police, and a certain number of people join it. Is the government going to sit idly by, or perhaps improve its conditions to increase competitiveness?

Nothing prevents you from creating your own courts, military and police outside the national borders (except maybe available land), using your own resources. You can also move to another country, provided it wants you there. It's the same advice that libertarians give when someone is unhappy about his job.

The thing you are proposing is basically: "OK, guys, I no longer work here, Bob and Tim also resign and we are going to compete with you. We will take this set of cubicles and all the equipment inside, we can share electricity cost, but you are still expected to shelf money when the building needs repairs, why is the security here, WHERE ARE YOU TAKING ME YOU HATE FREE MARKET HELP MAFIA IS STOMPING ON MY RIGHTS!!!".

Quote
Society can't "give" me rights. Rights stem from basic principles (eg. self-ownership), not government decrees.

These "basic principles" comes from the other people's around you (the society) understanding what is right. So yes, the society grants you rights.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 14, 2012, 02:37:57 pm
Quote
Nothing prevents you from creating your own courts, military and police outside the national borders (except maybe available land), using your own resources. You can also move to another country, provided it wants you there. It's the same advice that libertarians give when someone is unhappy about his job.

Outside national borders? Where? There is no place in the world not claimed by a state of some kind or else protected by international treaties. Even in Somalia, which was nominally anarchist for a while, the UN has been rabidly attempting to impose a state for the past 20 years. Also, again, you often get taxed if you leave a country with your assets, so this isn't a solution.
Quote
The thing you are proposing is basically: "OK, guys, I no longer work here, Bob and Tim also resign and we are going to compete with you. We will take this set of cubicles and all the equipment inside, we can share electricity cost, but you are still expected to shelf money when the building needs repairs, why is the security here, WHERE ARE YOU TAKING ME YOU HATE FREE MARKET HELP MAFIA IS STOMPING ON MY RIGHTS!!!".

The business, however, actually originally created those things at its own cost and while competing with other businesses. Anything the government creates was created by taking money from others involuntarily and monopolizing it to ensure no one else interrupts them.

More accurate would be the competitors making their own business, beginning to do well, whereupon the rival sends over a squad of goons and throws them into a closet for a month for trying to compete with them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 14, 2012, 04:19:28 pm
Wow, you have an example of propping up a government monopoly from 1851. Got anything more relevant to the world we live in today?

A big part of "Letter Mail Co"'s success was that it only offered services in the most lucrative of markets - a few large cities on the East Coast, whereas US Post is obliged to offer delivery for the same stamp price throughout the country. Letter Mail Co driving US Post out of business in those big cities would drive prices up everywhere else. See how they'd go if they were forced to build and staff their own post offices in every village, town and city across the country.

And of course, any profit by a publicly owned company replaces taxes. A drop in revenue could lead to taxes rising, a hidden cost in privatizing a service. Look at Singapore, 14% tax, 60% Government ownership. They could privatize everything, but taxes would have to rise to compensate.

===

People being educated pays dividends for more than just the person with kids. Business's take for granted that they'll have literate 18 year olds to hire for minimum wage.

If you think literacy is bad in the United States, one of the countries with the highest literacy in the world, due in no small part to public education, think about living in a country with poor public school access, where literacy is 49% rather than 99%

Everyone benefits from education, even if you're not the direct person being educated.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 14, 2012, 04:28:33 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 14, 2012, 04:19:28 pm
Wow, you have an example of propping up a government monopoly from 1851. Got anything more relevant to the world we live in today?
Rule number 1 of libertarianism: do not talk about anything which happened in the last 100 years.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 14, 2012, 04:31:16 pm
In 1851 it was the Gold Rush and the Wild West too. Also, you claim American's don't keep slaves?? This publication from 1851 proves otherwise.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EveryZig on October 14, 2012, 11:35:35 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on October 14, 2012, 11:38:10 am
The government is not necessary for the existence of basic charity and human kindness.
How in the world do you get to the conclusion that human kindness is at all reliable on a societal societal level?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lemon10 on October 14, 2012, 11:45:02 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on October 14, 2012, 02:37:57 pm
Outside national borders? Where? There is no place in the world not claimed by a state of some kind or else protected by international treaties. Even in Somalia, which was nominally anarchist for a while, the UN has been rabidly attempting to impose a state for the past 20 years. Also, again, you often get taxed if you leave a country with your assets, so this isn't a solution.
Are you actually of the opinion that Somalia is better off without a government and the UN trying to make a government there is a bad thing?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 14, 2012, 11:56:40 pm
Somalia wasn't even anarchist. It wasn't even anarchist in name. It was a bunch of Islamist warlords fighting with a bunch of tiny democratic factions backed by the UN, who also held an independent presence in the nation.

And even then sometimes they'd fight other people inside their own ideological group for one reason or another.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on October 15, 2012, 12:54:22 am
People actually believe that governments are unnecessary? where ever there is a power vacuum, it will be filled. Take OWS for example, while all the poor people protested, stood in the cold, and talked about taking down the man, the rich yuppies had meetings in the bank across the street making "plans". They even had segregated themselves from the poor.

The funny thing is, if a revolution did happen, if there were riots in the streets. Those yuppies would probably be get a face full of brick, long before any wall street executives .
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 15, 2012, 12:56:53 am
Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on October 15, 2012, 12:54:22 am
The funny thing is, if a revolution did happen, if there were riots in the streets. Those yuppies would probably be get a face full of brick, long before any wall street executives .
Proportionally, a bloody revolution would harm the upper classes more than the lower (going by the Reign of Terror as historical precedent, anyway). 'Course, that's proportionally; there'd be far more corpses from those in the lower classes. Most would survive without a knife in their gut though, while the upper classes would be mostly decapitated.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on October 15, 2012, 01:05:27 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on October 15, 2012, 12:56:53 am
Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on October 15, 2012, 12:54:22 am
The funny thing is, if a revolution did happen, if there were riots in the streets. Those yuppies would probably be get a face full of brick, long before any wall street executives .
Proportionally, a bloody revolution would harm the upper classes more than the lower (going by the Reign of Terror as historical precedent, anyway). 'Course, that's proportionally; there'd be far more corpses from those in the lower classes. Most would survive without a knife in their gut though, while the upper classes would be mostly decapitated.
Think of it, a world were I don't have to listen to twits yammering on about steve jobs, with their stupid thick rimmed glasses and ironic t-shirts. A world were dubstep isn't blared from cars at an excess of 100dBs.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on October 15, 2012, 01:44:34 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on October 15, 2012, 12:56:53 am
Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on October 15, 2012, 12:54:22 am
The funny thing is, if a revolution did happen, if there were riots in the streets. Those yuppies would probably be get a face full of brick, long before any wall street executives .
Proportionally, a bloody revolution would harm the upper classes more than the lower (going by the Reign of Terror as historical precedent, anyway). 'Course, that's proportionally; there'd be far more corpses from those in the lower classes. Most would survive without a knife in their gut though, while the upper classes would be mostly decapitated.

I'm not really sure that it'd play out the same nowadays when they've got their own jet planes to run over to the nearest safe country. Maybe those who aren't quick enough will be dragged through the street but the rest will be evacuating asap until it all blows over.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Gantolandon on October 15, 2012, 12:56:12 pm
AFA protests an anti-bullying program because... (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/us/seeing-a-homosexual-agenda-christian-group-protests-an-anti-bullying-program.html?_r=0)

Quote
“Anti-bullying legislation is exactly the same,” Mr. Fischer said. “It’s just another thinly veiled attempt to promote the homosexual agenda. No one is in favor of anyone getting bullied for any reason, but these anti-bullying policies become a mechanism for punishing Christian students who believe that homosexual behavior is not something that should be normalized.”
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 15, 2012, 01:13:26 pm
Quote from: Glowcat on October 15, 2012, 01:44:34 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on October 15, 2012, 12:56:53 am
Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on October 15, 2012, 12:54:22 am
The funny thing is, if a revolution did happen, if there were riots in the streets. Those yuppies would probably be get a face full of brick, long before any wall street executives .
Proportionally, a bloody revolution would harm the upper classes more than the lower (going by the Reign of Terror as historical precedent, anyway). 'Course, that's proportionally; there'd be far more corpses from those in the lower classes. Most would survive without a knife in their gut though, while the upper classes would be mostly decapitated.

I'm not really sure that it'd play out the same nowadays when they've got their own jet planes to run over to the nearest safe country. Maybe those who aren't quick enough will be dragged through the street but the rest will be evacuating asap until it all blows over.
The way things are going the nearest safe country will be North Korea
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on October 15, 2012, 01:20:22 pm
Quote from: Gantolandon on October 15, 2012, 12:56:12 pm
AFA protests an anti-bullying program because... (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/us/seeing-a-homosexual-agenda-christian-group-protests-an-anti-bullying-program.html?_r=0)

Quote
“Anti-bullying legislation is exactly the same,” Mr. Fischer said. “It’s just another thinly veiled attempt to promote the homosexual agenda. No one is in favor of anyone getting bullied for any reason, but these anti-bullying policies become a mechanism for punishing Christian students who believe that homosexual behavior is not something that should be normalized.”

WWJD?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 15, 2012, 01:40:49 pm
Stop telling us to stop bullying you! You're bullying us!

AFA might as well take up the 'god hates fags' banner.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 15, 2012, 01:46:10 pm
I'd just counter with a "Fags love you" banner. See who really promotes peace and love, eh?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on October 15, 2012, 01:53:52 pm
I can imagine them running away. :p
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 15, 2012, 02:24:59 pm
Quote from: lemon10 on October 14, 2012, 11:45:02 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on October 14, 2012, 02:37:57 pm
Outside national borders? Where? There is no place in the world not claimed by a state of some kind or else protected by international treaties. Even in Somalia, which was nominally anarchist for a while, the UN has been rabidly attempting to impose a state for the past 20 years. Also, again, you often get taxed if you leave a country with your assets, so this isn't a solution.
Are you actually of the opinion that Somalia is better off without a government and the UN trying to make a government there is a bad thing?

Certainly, it was significantly better off than it was back when it had a government in '91. A lot of Somalia's problems can be traced to the UN funding (secular) warlords in support of a state, which caused (rival or Islamist) warlords to band together against them. At least some areas of even southern Somalia were quite improved in between the fights between those two groups.

Quote from: Reelya on October 14, 2012, 04:19:28 pm
Wow, you have an example of propping up a government monopoly from 1851. Got anything more relevant to the world we live in today?

Got any example of proper competitors to the US postal service? FedEx, etc are not postal companies by the way, so they wouldn't count.

But since, you asked, there's always the monopoly on the creation of currency. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar) Keep in mind, none of these "Liberty Dollars" at all resembled US Dollars, so its not like they could practically be considered counterfeit.
Quote

A big part of "Letter Mail Co"'s success was that it only offered services in the most lucrative of markets - a few large cities on the East Coast, whereas US Post is obliged to offer delivery for the same stamp price throughout the country. Letter Mail Co driving US Post out of business in those big cities would drive prices up everywhere else. See how they'd go if they were forced to build and staff their own post offices in every village, town and city across the country.

So the government isn't a monopoly, except when it has to compete with more efficient rivals? You're actually incorrect as to the effects of competition on cost, by the way; prior to the ALMC, the cost of stamps had been rising steadily. After it became a competitor, the cost of stamps actually dropped. Not to mention the fact that the USPS should have at least been capable of matching the ALMC's service and cost in the big cities since it's funded by tax dollars and doesn't actually need to make a profit.
Quote
And of course, any profit by a publicly owned company replaces taxes. A drop in revenue could lead to taxes rising, a hidden cost in privatizing a service. Look at Singapore, 14% tax, 60% Government ownership. They could privatize everything, but taxes would have to rise to compensate.

Only if the government is unable to even compete with the private companies in the first place. If the USPS actually makes a profit of, say, 10%, then in a normal company this would mean they already covered operating costs. For the USPS, that means that the tax rate for mail should be 0%, because the cost of mailing already covers the expenses and the surplus is deposited in the treasury. If the USPS is actually running a deficit, that means that they need to improve efficiency in some way, just like a company that's in the red.

Yes, you could argue that the government is held back by its having to do somewhat unprofitable things to cover everyone, but there isn't much evidence that that's the case.

Quote
People being educated pays dividends for more than just the person with kids. Business's take for granted that they'll have literate 18 year olds to hire for minimum wage.
If you think literacy is bad in the United States, one of the countries with the highest literacy in the world, due in no small part to public education, think about living in a country with poor public school access, where literacy is 49% rather than 99%

Everyone benefits from education, even if you're not the direct person being educated.

Funny enough, literacy today is actually lower then it was before public schooling. (http://www.educationnews.org/articles/literacy-then-and-now-.html) Countries with poor public school access also usually have poor public schools, so it isn't like increasing access to the public schools in those places would significantly improve literacy.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on October 15, 2012, 02:35:42 pm
Actually, the USPS is supposed to fund itself. AFAIK, it doesn't get tax dollars. And since it has a mandate to serve every American for the same price, it cannot compete with a private company in more lucrative markets (like big cities), because it needs higher profit margin from those markets to subsidy the other parts of the country. Inneficient? Maybe in some sense, but if left to private markets, large part of flyover America would no longer have postal service.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 02:39:23 pm
That article, uh, actually states that the literacy rate has dropped since the 1950s, yes, but that todays numbers are still higher than back then before the 1900s. It gave an average literacy of somewhere in the 70s in the states that led - so, basically best case scenario. Edit: In the 17th century, anyway. Supposedly higher in the 18th, no numbers though. Regardless, 1950s still seem to be the highest.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of a lack of public education, I would think. After all, according to the link, literacy peaked in the 1950s, which just so happens to have been a period of high public education.

And haven't literacy standards (how much you have to do to be able to be considered literate) increased significantly since then?

Edit:
Realized the article doesn't actually have numbers for the 1700s - still seems to indicate the 1950s
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on October 15, 2012, 02:48:49 pm
No, it does not.

Quote
Best-selling historian David McCulloch, whose most recent book is 1776, is another knowledgeable source who said that the literacy rate in Massachusetts was higher in 1798 than it is today.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 02:50:03 pm
Then it makes contradictory claims. Often by mixing non-matching statistics, obviously.

I'm not seeing where it's pulling the numbers for that statement - I was going from the literacy rates listed. But I was going by the pre-1800 and thus pre-public-school numbers. I just realized he doesn't actually offer any numbers for the 1700s - it's 1640 to 1700 that was in the 70% range.

So I guess I'll have to check that source for numbers there.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on October 15, 2012, 02:51:04 pm
http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 02:59:23 pm
Actually, can anyone actually find any decent sources for those literacy numbers? I'm finding stuff that varies wildly - from the low 20s to the high 90s for the 1700-1800 period.

The David McCulloch seems to be a pop historian with an agenda - although I can't actually find how where or how he came to that conclusion. (I don't have his book, it might just be in there and not on the web)

I'll keep looking though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 03:07:55 pm
I ifind it hard to believe we're supposed to reject most studies of modern literacy due to "methodological issues", yet we're meant to take 18th and 19th century near-universal literacy for granted.

Quote
As public schooling was getting underway after 1834, literacy in Massachusetts was as high as 98%. That compares to 91% in that state today, which still may be the highest in the nation. Nor was West alone. Neil Postman, who has written widely on education, in his Building a Bridge to the 18th Century, 1999, said the literacy rate in Massachusetts and Connecticut from 1640-1700 was as high as 95% for men, ands 62% for women, even though the latter received little formal education at the time.

If you average male+female from the historic data, the overall rate is lower than today's figure which is both sexes. That's assuming those historic estimates were of unbiased samples of the male population.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 03:11:29 pm
From what I can, at the VERY least US literacy was significantly higher than Britain- no matter how it's counted. Hypothesis are basically "anyone who could afford to bring their kids overseas was more likely to be literate, and thus value literacy in the children" - a cultural divide, if you will, created by a general uptick in the number of people from middle class backgrounds.

Still, something doesn't add up here - I've read a lot of history from this period, and running themes seem to be relatively important people still not knowing how to read. Is it just better hidden nowadays? It seems like it would be almost impossible, what with it being far more vital a skill in so many ways.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 03:14:19 pm
A lot of that article seems like comparing apples and oranges (literacy for males in the old times highlighted against both-sex literacy today), casting reasonable doubts on recent studies, yet blind faith in centuries-old census data.

" In 1900 only 10.7% of Americans were functionally illiterate. That is, they could not read or write a simple message in any language."

This is playing semantics. That definition is of strict illiteracy.

Quote
Functional illiteracy is imprecisely defined, with different criteria from nation to nation, and study to study. However, a useful distinction can be made between pure illiteracy and functional illiteracy. Purely illiterate persons cannot read or write in any capacity, for all practical purposes. In contrast, functionally illiterate persons can read and possibly write simple sentences with a limited vocabulary, but cannot read or write well enough to deal with the everyday requirements of life in their own society.

The 1900 study is clearly referring to that stronger sense of illiteracy. It would seem they're playing semantics here with different definitions of illiteracy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 15, 2012, 03:29:12 pm
Quote
Best-selling historian David McCulloch, whose most recent book is 1776, is another knowledgeable source who said that the literacy rate in Massachusetts was higher in 1798 than it is today. One reason why, he adds, was nearly everybody read the Bible.
So "Kindof knew the contents of the Bible" = literacy back then I guess.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on October 15, 2012, 03:33:23 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 03:14:19 pm
A lot of that article seems like comparing apples and oranges (literacy for males in the old times highlighted against both-sex literacy today), casting reasonable doubts on recent studies, yet blind faith in centuries-old census data.

" In 1900 only 10.7% of Americans were functionally illiterate. That is, they could not read or write a simple message in any language."

This is playing semantics. That definition is of strict illiteracy.

Quote
Functional illiteracy is imprecisely defined, with different criteria from nation to nation, and study to study. However, a useful distinction can be made between pure illiteracy and functional illiteracy. Purely illiterate persons cannot read or write in any capacity, for all practical purposes. In contrast, functionally illiterate persons can read and possibly write simple sentences with a limited vocabulary, but cannot read or write well enough to deal with the everyday requirements of life in their own society.

The 1900 study is clearly referring to that stronger sense of illiteracy. It would seem they're playing semantics here with different definitions of illiteracy.

I would also point out that prior to the 20th century, it is unlikely that non-white males were accounted for by the listed literacy rate for "males".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 15, 2012, 03:36:36 pm
So currency is free-market too?

How does that even?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on October 15, 2012, 03:44:40 pm
And now for something less rage inducing?

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/erin-dimeglio-florida-first-female-qb-her-school-105141507.html

Admittedly, she isn't the first string qb. But still, first female quarterback in Florida varsity football.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 03:54:08 pm
Quote from: GoombaGeek on October 15, 2012, 03:36:36 pm
So currency is free-market too?
How does that even?

There are several free market currencies. Not all money is fiat money. Corporate script, gold/silver/previous metals in general, bitcoin, are the classic examples.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 04:02:38 pm
Those Liberty Dollars seem to have been targeted for being too similar to US currencies. Other currencies like Phoenix Dollars, which are also backed by precious metals, never got targeted by the law.

But Phoenix Dollars are actually a physical ounce of silver, whilst Liberty Dollars are worthless paper and coins that a company nominally guarantees for an amount of precious metals. There are ALL sorts of scams you could pull with that. e.g. just like fractional reserve banking, there is no actual need to hold the gold/silver to back every Liberty Dollar in existence, since a Liberty Dollar for example is defined as being worth a certain amount of gold, if anyone tries to cash in too much Liberty Dollars at once, the company can just trade for more gold with new Liberty Dollars effectively setting up a type of Ponzi scheme. As long as you can get enough people to accept the "face value" of a Liberty Dollar it turns into an infinite money pump.

And then you just hire yourselves as consultants, pay yourselves in whatever hard currencies are coming in plus millions of Liberty Dollars, and pass those off. When the whole thing collapses due to not having enough reserve, then you abandon the shell company with massive debts, and retire rich.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 15, 2012, 04:08:20 pm
(don't use bitcoins unless you like losing all your money)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 15, 2012, 04:23:20 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on October 15, 2012, 04:08:20 pm
(don't use bitcoins unless you like losing all your money)
But then it's like you're surrendering your soul to the Man, man.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 15, 2012, 05:04:31 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 04:02:38 pm
Those Liberty Dollars seem to have been targeted for being too similar to US currencies. Other currencies like Phoenix Dollars, which are also backed by precious metals, never got targeted by the law.

But Phoenix Dollars are actually a physical ounce of silver, whilst Liberty Dollars are worthless paper and coins that a company nominally guarantees for an amount of precious metals. There are ALL sorts of scams you could pull with that. e.g. just like fractional reserve banking, there is no actual need to hold the gold/silver to back every Liberty Dollar in existence, since a Liberty Dollar for example is defined as being worth a certain amount of gold, if anyone tries to cash in too much Liberty Dollars at once, the company can just trade for more gold with new Liberty Dollars effectively setting up a type of Ponzi scheme. As long as you can get enough people to accept the "face value" of a Liberty Dollar it turns into an infinite money pump.

And then you just hire yourselves as consultants, pay yourselves in whatever hard currencies are coming in plus millions of Liberty Dollars, and pass those off. When the whole thing collapses due to not having enough reserve, then you abandon the shell company with massive debts, and retire rich.

So they were arrested for having the ability to do something that governments and state-chartered banks have done for literally centuries (and continue to do to this very day)?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on October 15, 2012, 05:04:58 pm
Quote from: GoombaGeek on October 15, 2012, 04:23:20 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on October 15, 2012, 04:08:20 pm
(don't use bitcoins unless you like losing all your money)
But then it's like you're surrendering your soul to the Man, man.
I know someone who spent 10k on a buttcoin mining rig, we still laugh about it in his face.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 15, 2012, 05:13:40 pm
Assuming they haven't caught fire he might at least be able to host a decent gaming night with all those graphics cards.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on October 15, 2012, 05:14:35 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 04:02:38 pm
[...] if anyone tries to cash in too much Liberty Dollars at once, the company can just trade for more gold with new Liberty Dollars effectively setting up a type of Ponzi scheme. As long as you can get enough people to accept the "face value" of a Liberty Dollar it turns into an infinite money pump.
[...]

Same thing is true for the US Dollar. (which the US government has by far not enough gold to cover for)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 05:17:23 pm
Well... actually, no. You can't have a run on the US dollar, because it's not backed by a material good you could exchange it for. And when it was, we COULD actually back it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 05:37:15 pm
A big difference between federal currency and a private one is that a private shell company could issue piles of currency then declare bankruptcy, the directors have already cleared out all the profits, and the currency is completely worthless overnight. The more of their "currency" gets circulated, the greater the temptation to default.

Governments by their nature have a degree of continuity, a collapse of confidence in the current US Administration doesn't render all US Dollars in circulation 100% worthless overnight.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 15, 2012, 05:46:38 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on October 15, 2012, 05:04:31 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 04:02:38 pm
Those Liberty Dollars seem to have been targeted for being too similar to US currencies. Other currencies like Phoenix Dollars, which are also backed by precious metals, never got targeted by the law.

But Phoenix Dollars are actually a physical ounce of silver, whilst Liberty Dollars are worthless paper and coins that a company nominally guarantees for an amount of precious metals. There are ALL sorts of scams you could pull with that. e.g. just like fractional reserve banking, there is no actual need to hold the gold/silver to back every Liberty Dollar in existence, since a Liberty Dollar for example is defined as being worth a certain amount of gold, if anyone tries to cash in too much Liberty Dollars at once, the company can just trade for more gold with new Liberty Dollars effectively setting up a type of Ponzi scheme. As long as you can get enough people to accept the "face value" of a Liberty Dollar it turns into an infinite money pump.

And then you just hire yourselves as consultants, pay yourselves in whatever hard currencies are coming in plus millions of Liberty Dollars, and pass those off. When the whole thing collapses due to not having enough reserve, then you abandon the shell company with massive debts, and retire rich.

So they were arrested for having the ability to do something that governments and state-chartered banks have done for literally centuries (and continue to do to this very day)?
Yes, and if you show up at a UN meeting pretending to be the President you get kicked out, even though you're doing exactly the same thing the government is allowed to do with no repercussions. Is this a sign of a fair and just society? I think not!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 15, 2012, 06:07:45 pm
Tesco's had the nerve to drag me out (using physical force!  If I had used a gun to defend my rights they might have even shot me!) of one of their board meetings!  Apparently I'm not allowed to sit in the CEO's chair and talk about how I'm going to run the company even though they have been doing the same thing for years (and continue to do to this very day).  They are just like the mafia, not allowing any competition.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on October 15, 2012, 06:09:12 pm
But you're the KING of the mafia! They should listen to you!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 15, 2012, 06:26:05 pm
Form a citizen's militia to oust their evil oppressive forces!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: sluissa on October 15, 2012, 08:35:14 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 02:59:23 pm
Actually, can anyone actually find any decent sources for those literacy numbers? I'm finding stuff that varies wildly - from the low 20s to the high 90s for the 1700-1800 period.

The David McCulloch seems to be a pop historian with an agenda - although I can't actually find how where or how he came to that conclusion. (I don't have his book, it might just be in there and not on the web)

I'll keep looking though.

I believe I've got his 1776 hanging around from an old uni class. I can take a skim of it if there's anything specific you're looking for.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 08:38:47 pm
If it mentions literacy numbers, could you find a bit about the methodology and the actual numbers? What it measures, who, and where?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 09:21:23 pm
It looks like there was a National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) survey done in 1992, and again in 2003. There are relevant results obtainable from that.

http://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographics.asp

14% fall in the "below basic prose literacy" level, but this doesn't mean all 14% fall in the same category as the 1900 "illiteracy" category which was defined as people who cannot read or write even a simple sentence. It's notable that only 12% fall in the "below basic document literacy", which is the category for reading things like bills and labels etc.

These surveys certainly put a question mark on the literacy article posted a couple of pages ago (http://www.educationnews.org/articles/literacy-then-and-now-.html) that claims 20% of Adult Americans couldn't even read or write a simple sentence in any language in 1993.

One interesting note is that people over 65 are heavily over-represented in the lowest category of "Below Basic Prose Literacy", they made up 15% of the sample, but 26% of the "below basic"s in 2003. And this data shows over 65's improved from 1992 to 2003, rather than declined:

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=69

If a 65+ year old in 2003 (someone born before 1938) is twice as likely to be functionally illiterate as the population average, and people born before 1927 (the 65+ people in 1992) score even lower then that really puts a dent in those magical 1950's literacy rates. I don't think people "forget" how to be basically literate, but plenty of adults obtain literacy later in life, given the chance. I'd have to assume that a larger percentage of those age groups were actually illiterate in their younger years than now.

Notable is that there was some average slippage from 1992 to 2003, but ALL of it was due to "Hispanics", every other racial demographic improved from 1992 - 2003. This implies it's the influx of young hispanic immigrants with lower educational attainment, which is affecting the overall statistics, rather than a slippage in education standards as a whole.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: sluissa on October 15, 2012, 10:07:38 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 08:38:47 pm
If it mentions literacy numbers, could you find a bit about the methodology and the actual numbers? What it measures, who, and where?

Short of doing a thorough cover to cover reading, I've given it a going over and I can't find anything about literacy or education except for specific people, which doesn't help. He seems to mostly draw from diaries and personal writings. The whole book seems to be a long series of anecdotes told by various people and whether any specific section is cited or not is hard to tell without doing a ton of page flipping.(Nothing is cited within the text, you just have to go back to the sources section to see if what you just read is listed back there.) There seems to be some serious bias as well and small chunks of what I read seem to if not contradict, at least sound at odds to what I've heard from other sources. He does seem to put a lot of emphasis on papers such as "Common Sense" as reason for the push for independence though, so I wouldn't be surprised if he wanted to argue that literacy was somewhat high.

Still, no idea about the literacy numbers you were looking for. Might be in one of his other books, but I wouldn't have any idea which to look in. His books seem to be all over US history going as far as Truman based on the advertisements stuck in my copy.

Sorry.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: sluissa on October 15, 2012, 10:18:28 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 09:21:23 pm
It looks like there was a National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) survey done in 1992, and again in 2003. There are relevant results obtainable from that.

http://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographics.asp

14% fall in the "below basic prose literacy" level, but this doesn't mean all 14% fall in the same category as the 1900 "illiteracy" category which was defined as people who cannot read or write even a simple sentence. It's notable that only 12% fall in the "below basic document literacy", which is the category for reading things like bills and labels etc.

These surveys certainly put a question mark on the literacy article posted a couple of pages ago (http://www.educationnews.org/articles/literacy-then-and-now-.html) that claims 20% of Adult Americans couldn't even read or write a simple sentence in any language in 1993.

One interesting note is that people over 65 are heavily over-represented in the lowest category of "Below Basic Prose Literacy", they made up 15% of the sample, but 26% of the "below basic"s in 2003. And this data shows over 65's improved from 1992 to 2003, rather than declined:

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=69

If a 65+ year old in 2003 (someone born before 1938) is twice as likely to be functionally illiterate as the population average, and people born before 1927 (the 65+ people in 1992) score even lower then that really puts a dent in those magical 1950's literacy rates. I don't think people "forget" how to be basically literate, but plenty of adults obtain literacy later in life, given the chance. I'd have to assume that a larger percentage of those age groups were actually illiterate in their younger years than now.

Notable is that there was some average slippage from 1992 to 2003, but ALL of it was due to "Hispanics", every other racial demographic improved from 1992 - 2003. This implies it's the influx of young hispanic immigrants with lower educational attainment, which is affecting the overall statistics, rather than a slippage in education standards as a whole.

That article also quotes Mike Huckabee saying that: "Two years later, in 1998, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, in his book, Kids Who Kill, stated that as many as 90 million American adults are illiterate and another 35 million can only read simple material with difficulty."

That's saying that between 27 and 30% of adults are completely illiterate and another 10-11% can only read simple things. EDIT: My numbers are wrong here, they should actually be higher, since I was basing that off of total population, not just adult. Still, ignore it because it's not right. Non-proportional numbers are still in the quote.

I'd say that whole article is questionable, to be honest. It's also written by a group that seems to have a strong privatization angle in it's educational commentary. So it's in their best interest to say that public schools are doing things wrong. http://www.freedomfoundation.us/education_ (http://www.freedomfoundation.us/education_)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 10:24:44 pm
It also presumes that about 1 in 3 American parents who were fully literate themselves just never gave a crap that their children couldn't read AT ALL. I really don't buy that one.

seriously, even TV has writing on it, are we supposed to believe that about 1/3 Americans can't even read the captions on FOX News and just like looking at the "pretty pictures". How do these people all dial on a mobile phone or send text messages?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 15, 2012, 10:51:54 pm
Indeed. There are almost no Americans who are unable to read at all. Literacy rates in the modern day are all about competency, not yes/no.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on October 16, 2012, 08:04:55 am
Gary McKinnon won't be extradited to the USA. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19957138)

This was pretty unexpected, although always a possibility.

What might be more significant in the future is that this is the last extradition decision to be made by ministers. In the future it will be judges who get the final say in the process. This is, to my mind, a good idea. Already there have been accusations that this decision was politically motivated, comparing it to (arguably) comparable terrorism cases where suspects were extradited despite health claims.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 16, 2012, 11:48:02 am
They can't say it in their decision but the charges the US courts are attempting to bring against him are trumped up and ridiculous.  I understand they need to set a precedent against foreign "cyber terrorists", but there really isn't anything to suggest that Gary McKinnon was intentionally trying to cause damage to the US military.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on October 16, 2012, 12:23:03 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on October 16, 2012, 11:48:02 am
They can't say it in their decision but the charges the US courts are attempting to bring against him are trumped up and ridiculous.  I understand they need to set a precedent against foreign "cyber terrorists", but there really isn't anything to suggest that Gary McKinnon was intentionally trying to cause damage to the US military.
Erm... (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/762.html)
Quote
    "US foreign policy is akin to Government-sponsored terrorism these days … It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand down on September 11 last year … I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels … "
That's a statement he left on a hacked military computer that he admitted to in court.

He noted that as part of a defence that his actions were political in nature and would expose him to political discrimination if he were extradited to the US. That defence failed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 16, 2012, 12:28:41 pm
Fair enough I guess.  Strange that they wouldn't treat the other man with a similar condition in the same way - is it a matter of severity of the disability?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on October 16, 2012, 12:39:37 pm
Quote from: palsch on October 16, 2012, 08:04:55 am
Gary McKinnon won't be extradited to the USA. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19957138)
Quote
"That is why I have decided to introduce a forum bar. ''

Once I read that, all I could think of was this bar for Bay12 forumites, called the 'Forum Bar'. 't Would be awesome.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on October 16, 2012, 12:46:44 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on October 16, 2012, 12:28:41 pm
Fair enough I guess.  Strange that they wouldn't treat the other man with a similar condition in the same way - is it a matter of severity of the disability?
Pretty much universal agreement is that this is political, and well timed at that.

As I noted, it's the last time the Home Secretary will have the power to make such a decision, so this doesn't set any precedent for future extradition cases. Add into that the absolutely huge and popular Free Gary campaign and you have the perfect time to make a grand liberal gesture, regardless of the details of the case.

Not to mention it was something of a zombie case. The original plea bargain offered in 2003 would have limited the sentence to only a couple-few years as opposed to the 60 maximum for the proposed charges (which his first extradition defence effectively admitted to). It also suggested he could spend the sentence in an English jail as opposed to an American one after the trial. His rejection of that plea bargain is what set up the last nine years of legal battles, his entire health-based defence (based around his suicide risk, not his Asperger's) and everything else. The US kinda created the situation by waiting for the new US-UK extradition treaty before seeking his extradition, but at the same time they waited in the hope of an easy and fast extradition and conviction. No-one wanted the eventual outcome here. I doubt that the US are all that broken up about this, although I wouldn't be surprised to see it feature in a House floor rant and maybe some rhetoric about trying to pass a cybersecurity bill in the Senate.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 18, 2012, 12:49:36 pm
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/solitary-confinement-shane-bauer

Just thinking of treating people like this makes me throw up a little in my mouth.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on October 18, 2012, 01:33:31 pm
Pretty much, yeah. Incidentally... this was a hell of a line
Quote from: emphasis added
When Gray took the matter to court, the judge ruled that "a prisoner has no constitutionally guaranteed immunity from being falsely or wrongfully accused of conduct which may result in the deprivation of a protected liberty interest." In other words, it is not illegal for prison authorities to lie in order to lock somebody away in solitary.

Once again, America's justice system displays just how fucked up it is. Not sure what else can be said about it :-\
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on October 18, 2012, 01:35:29 pm
Punitive prisons in general make me throw up a little in my mouth. :/
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 18, 2012, 02:13:22 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on October 15, 2012, 06:07:45 pm
Tesco's had the nerve to drag me out (using physical force!  If I had used a gun to defend my rights they might have even shot me!) of one of their board meetings!  Apparently I'm not allowed to sit in the CEO's chair and talk about how I'm going to run the company even though they have been doing the same thing for years (and continue to do to this very day).  They are just like the mafia, not allowing any competition.

Tesco had the nerve to drag the CEO of Costco out (using physical force! If he had used a gun to defend his rights they might have even shot him!) of one of his board meetings! Apparently Costco isn't allow to compete with Tesco in the field of grocery chains anymore even though they've been doing the same thing for years (and continue to do to this very day. They are like the mafia, not allowing any competition.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 18, 2012, 02:15:36 pm
... what?

I think you may have forgotten what this analogy was about, GJ.

We do in fact allow that sort of competition.

Usually.

Iraq being a recent notable exceptions.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 18, 2012, 02:20:44 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 18, 2012, 02:15:36 pm
... what?

I think you may have forgotten what this analogy was about, GJ.

We do in fact allow that sort of competition.

Usually.

Iraq being a recent notable exceptions.

The analogy was about Liberty Dollars and privately minted money. Unless you think the Liberty Dollar people declared themselves chairmen of the Federal Reserve Board, they pretty clearly were arrested for competing with the FRB in currency.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 18, 2012, 02:26:50 pm
But other countries all have their own currencies without us kicking out their leaders. (The Iraq thing was mostly a joke to the only "foreign CEO" we've dragged out lately)

I think this analogy may have been a bit stretched to be honest. I'm not really sure what we're gaining from it. Back to regular language time, maybe?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on October 18, 2012, 02:35:41 pm
US appeals court in New York casts down DOMA as unconstitutional.

http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-ny-rules-gay-marriage-law-unconstitutional-160159196.html
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 18, 2012, 02:43:23 pm
Hooray! One step closer to crushing all these laws against same sex relations :)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on October 18, 2012, 02:56:14 pm
Yay!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 18, 2012, 02:59:11 pm
Thank god. I don't understand how it lasted as long as it did. Even those I know who (stupidly) oppose gay marriage grudgingly admit it was an unconstitutional pile of shit.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 18, 2012, 03:01:31 pm
Actually i think we should abolish license plates on cars, and driver's licenses, as well as taxi cab licensing / cab driver accreditation. All those things are a government monopoly.

Anyone who can get a car should be able to stick a sign on and call themselves a cab service.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Levi on October 18, 2012, 03:04:15 pm
That terrifies me.  How would I identify who ran me over after I get ran over by a 10 year old!?!?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 18, 2012, 03:06:38 pm
Serious mode on that note, I really think the age limit on drivers licenses should be abolished. Along with massive testing reform; most drivers are not competent enough to drive, and as such our testing standards should be raised significantly.


There are 10 year olds out there that are better drivers than I.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 18, 2012, 03:06:54 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 18, 2012, 03:01:31 pm
Anyone who can get a car should be able to stick a sign on and call themselves a cab service.

Uh... I'm actually kind of cool with this? I'm not entirely sure why it should be against the law for me to get compensation in exchange for giving people rides (unless I've got a fleet of such vehicles or am willing to give over 100% of my profit to various gatekeepers of course).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 18, 2012, 03:08:34 pm
Technically you already can do that, but you have to jump through some bureaucratic hoops before you can do it legally. That way, you can be taxed and tracked and such effectively.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 18, 2012, 03:09:43 pm
Not around here, you can't.

(Again, unless you've got far more money than you could ever make that you're more than happy to throw away. and even then you'd only be purchasing the /chance/ to be /allowed/ to)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ancre on October 18, 2012, 03:11:22 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on October 18, 2012, 03:06:38 pm
Serious mode on that note, I really think the age limit on drivers licenses should be abolished. Along with massive testing reform; most drivers are not competent enough to drive, and as such our testing standards should be raised significantly.


There are 10 year olds out there that are better drivers than I.

It would be nice, but first you have to make the US less dependent on cars. I think one of the reasons it's so easy to get a driver license in the US is that everybody needs to drive to do stuff like going to the store to buy food.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 18, 2012, 03:13:35 pm
Not coincidentally, I'd love some mass transit reform too :)

Though maybe both problems can be solved easily if those self driving cars become cheap within the next decade or two.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ancre on October 18, 2012, 03:16:23 pm
In my country, tramways are the current fashion trend :D

But yeah, self driving cars (working on something else than oil) would be a nice solution.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 18, 2012, 03:16:31 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 18, 2012, 03:06:54 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 18, 2012, 03:01:31 pm
Anyone who can get a car should be able to stick a sign on and call themselves a cab service.

Uh... I'm actually kind of cool with this? I'm not entirely sure why it should be against the law for me to get compensation in exchange for giving people rides (unless I've got a fleet of such vehicles or am willing to give over 100% of my profit to various gatekeepers of course).

My main concern isn't what you'd do, it's about how easy it would make it for other wrong-doers to get coercive control of young ladies etc without any trace of who was driving. I'm cool with the idea too in relation to the vast bulk of the population, but if there were 10's of thousand of unregistered 1 person cab companies in New York, that'd be great cover for serial killers, kidnappers, gangs trafficking in sex slaves and other types.

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/061803/met_12819930.shtml

Quote
Cabdriver arrested in 6 serial killings

It was Durousseau's work as a cabdriver that first linked him to the slayings. A surveillance tape at a bank showed McCalister making an ATM transaction on Jan. 10 with a Gator City cab in the background, police said. Investigators pulled dispatch records from the cab company, which showed Durousseau's fare log. Police could not say last night when the dispatch records were reviewed.

he definitely wouldn't have been working for a legit cab company with traceable records if that hadn't been legally required.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 18, 2012, 03:35:23 pm
One of the main jobs of cabdrivers is to take vulnerable (often drunk) people who can't drive home.  Therefore there really needs to be a system to vet them and ensure there is a way to safely identify and hold and hold them accountable.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on October 18, 2012, 03:48:51 pm
A taxicab is a car and a car has a license plate. I think that's sufficient.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 18, 2012, 03:52:46 pm
I'm meant to look at the Taxi's numberplate and work out if it's truthworthy from that alone?  And then if something bad happens I'm meant to remember the number which I saw briefly while drunk in order to identify the driver?

It's a heck of a lot easier if I can just remember a name or face and bring the complaint to the taxi licensing firm.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on October 18, 2012, 03:54:51 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on October 18, 2012, 03:52:46 pm
I'm meant to look at the Taxi's numberplate and work out if it's truthworthy from that alone?  And then if something bad happens I'm meant to remember the number which I saw briefly while drunk in order to identify the driver?

It's a heck of a lot easier if I can just remember a name or face and bring the complaint to the taxi licensing firm.
If you can remember, if you escape, if you are alive. For sufficiently bad things that happen, seeing the license plate number won't track it down at all.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: da_nang on October 18, 2012, 03:56:31 pm
Quote from: lorb on October 18, 2012, 03:48:51 pm
A taxicab is a car and a car has a license plate. I think that's sufficient.
Unless you're Jamie Hyneman. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJh3tOiDq8w&t=0m49s)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 18, 2012, 03:59:17 pm
You guys do realize that getting permission to run cab services cost 600,000 dollars (admittedly, less in some places, but usually not much less), right?

I'm not buying thats for safety reasons. If I'm prepared to meet the safety regulations, I should be allowed to drive to a cab - a displayed id, registering my name and probably license plate, this stuff I'm fine with.

But 600,000 dollars?

Quote
If you can remember, if you escape, if you are alive. For sufficiently bad things that happen, seeing the license plate number won't track it down at all.
Nor will remembering the taxi drivers face.


Also, Reelya, I'm not sure how much "protection" that offers when they only found out what happened thanks to ATM cameras - which could have been adequately accomplished by simply requiring all potential cabs to maintain some publicly displayed identity number on the sides, no?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on October 18, 2012, 04:04:26 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 18, 2012, 03:59:17 pm
You guys do realize that getting permission to run cab services cost 600,000 dollars (admittedly, less in some places, but usually not much less), right?

I'm not buying thats for safety reasons. If I'm prepared to meet the safety regulations, I should be allowed to drive to a cab - a displayed id, registering my name and probably license plate, this stuff I'm fine with.

But 600,000 dollars?

Quote
If you can remember, if you escape, if you are alive. For sufficiently bad things that happen, seeing the license plate number won't track it down at all.
Nor will remembering the taxi drivers face.

Liability against lawsuit in case of accident?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 18, 2012, 04:05:01 pm
What?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on October 18, 2012, 04:07:48 pm
The NY cab regulations are kind of insane, they're essentially an institutional cartel.

But at the same time, having used cabs overseas I'm okay with some regulation. My wife was in Taiwan, and her taxi drove right past what she knew was the right road to turn onto, then went up a ways, stopped the car and demanded more money. I think the dude was shocked when she started cursing him a blue streak and demanding he go back. He finally gave in when it was clear she wasn't going to be extorted and was likely to turn him into a eunuch if he touched her.

Only problem I ever had was that Chinese cabbies aren't terribly fond of using the road. They'd rather drive on the sidewalk, the median, the lane for oncoming buses, etc. I would not have been surprised had they driven on the side of a building. Again...NY cabbies drive aggressive, but they're not insane. Chinese cabbies are a mixture of insane and fucking brilliant.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on October 18, 2012, 04:09:19 pm
Hell if I know I don't even know what started this cab discussion, I don't remember anyone bringing in any references to start it off.

I had (and still have) no idea how much it costs, or why.

But its cost may not be relevant to the if it is licensed or not and why.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 18, 2012, 04:13:02 pm
Licensing solely exists as a barrier to entry in these cases. That is literally the only purpose.

And it was brought up because Reelya believed that it was an obvious "everyone will agree no-brainer" type issue that all cab drivers should be specially licensed and accredited, and you average person should not be allowed to run taxi services.

Considering the state of licensing and accreditation for cab drivers in the US (at least, but also in general), I find that a hard statement to agree with, since they exist explicitly and solely to keep competition out. It means identified needs (such as the stretch from my Universities distant parking lot to the actual school itself) will never be serviced at all, when an otherwise enterprising student could make some decent work-my-way-through college money doing so.

It's saying "You cannot give these people what they want without government approval". I think that's a bit sketchy as a supposedly basic, no brainer argument.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on October 18, 2012, 04:44:40 pm
Quote from: RedKing on October 18, 2012, 04:07:48 pm
The NY cab regulations are kind of insane, they're essentially an institutional cartel.

But at the same time, having used cabs overseas I'm okay with some regulation. My wife was in Taiwan, and her taxi drove right past what she knew was the right road to turn onto, then went up a ways, stopped the car and demanded more money. I think the dude was shocked when she started cursing him a blue streak and demanding he go back. He finally gave in when it was clear she wasn't going to be extorted and was likely to turn him into a eunuch if he touched her.

Only problem I ever had was that Chinese cabbies aren't terribly fond of using the road. They'd rather drive on the sidewalk, the median, the lane for oncoming buses, etc. I would not have been surprised had they driven on the side of a building. Again...NY cabbies drive aggressive, but they're not insane. Chinese cabbies are a mixture of insane and fucking brilliant.

Little known fact: Kung Fu walk-running was invented not because it made them more agile fighters or looked cool, but simply because they needed a way to get around town. Taxi drivers are the foremost practicioners of the technique, called Car-Kata, in today's society.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 18, 2012, 04:59:13 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 18, 2012, 03:59:17 pm
Also, Reelya, I'm not sure how much "protection" that offers when they only found out what happened thanks to ATM cameras - which could have been adequately accomplished by simply requiring all potential cabs to maintain some publicly displayed identity number on the sides, no?
Well you're just proposing a different licensing and accreditation scheme here.

How's that relevant when my (devil's) argument was that the government shouldn't regulate cabs or road vehicles for that matter at all? Remember i said to do away with driver's licenses, license plates, and any form of cab-driver monitoring.

"requiring" is a law, so it's already slipping back from the free-for-all that i (sarcastically) proposed, which was that anyone and their dog should be allowed to give rides for pay without any government intervention (full libertarian).

you're actually backing up my argument now, not debunking it. By saying that cab company regulation is the solution to the problems i pointed out.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 18, 2012, 05:10:41 pm
I was arguing against your stance of Licensing/accreditation being a no brainer, not for the absence of any rules whatsoever. No more than I'm arguing against said taxi driver having to follow speed limits.

Following certain rules != requiring government permission, which was explicitly the stance you were taking. That people should have to get government permission before being allowed to give other people rides in their car (at least when being compensated. Free rides are apparently okay).

I disagree with that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 18, 2012, 05:18:39 pm
I was actually mocking the libertarian extremes which state that e.g. even printing money should be a competitive business, just to make it clear. If you allow private accreditation of e.g. driver's licenses, then everyone can declare themselves an accreditation body, hence nobody needs a license.

Since i was specifically mocking the extreme position of zero-regulations whatsoever saying the current regulation scheme can be modified to improve things isn't related at all to what i was saying. I never claimed the current system was preferable to all other possible regulation schemes, or made any defense of the pricing of licenses.

By saying cabs have to be registered with a central body as cab services you've already back-tracked from the idea that "anyone" can advertised themselves as a cab-service without any registration.

It's not the same as "taxi drivers must follow the speed limit" at all, you're saying special rules just for cabs must exist (a central registrar, checkable registered ID information located on the side of the cab), to answer some of the potential problems with safety of clients. So, not "anyone" can offer these rides then, they must still go through a vetting process and be tracked by the authorities.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 18, 2012, 05:28:00 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 18, 2012, 05:18:39 pm
I was actually mocking the libertarian extremes which state that even printing money should be a competitive business, just to make it clear. If you allow private accreditation of e.g. driver's licenses, then everyone can declare themselves an accreditation body, hence nobody needs a license.

Since i was specifically mocking the extreme position of zero-regulations whatsoever saying the current regulation scheme can be modified to improve things isn't related at all to what i was saying. I never claimed the current system was preferable to all other regulation schemes.

Regulations don't necessarily stem from government, though.

Again, household appliances by your definition should be the "Wild West", yet they are quite safe in general. Why? Because private agencies like the CSA and UL exist that check their safety, and in turn other companies (eg. insurance companies) consider their ratings when dealing with customers. Just because there isn't a law against X does not mean X will happen.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on October 18, 2012, 05:31:08 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on October 18, 2012, 05:28:00 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 18, 2012, 05:18:39 pm
I was actually mocking the libertarian extremes which state that even printing money should be a competitive business, just to make it clear. If you allow private accreditation of e.g. driver's licenses, then everyone can declare themselves an accreditation body, hence nobody needs a license.

Since i was specifically mocking the extreme position of zero-regulations whatsoever saying the current regulation scheme can be modified to improve things isn't related at all to what i was saying. I never claimed the current system was preferable to all other regulation schemes.

Regulations don't necessarily stem from government, though.

Again, household appliances by your definition should be the "Wild West", yet they are quite safe in general. Why? Because private agencies like the CSA and UL exist that check their safety, and in turn other companies (eg. insurance companies) consider their ratings when dealing with customers. Just because there isn't a law against X does not mean X will happen.

By definition regulations stem from the government. The government is the only body with authority to enforce regulations.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 18, 2012, 05:34:16 pm
You can have non-government regulations, but they do, ultimately, have to stem from a basic example of government power - the criminalization of fraud.

Once you've got that, you can have private regulations that are required in order to get a recommendation or "stamp of approval", and this does work sometimes. For example, the video game industry with its ESRB ratings.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 18, 2012, 05:39:04 pm
Hehe, the ESRB is such a joke.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on October 18, 2012, 05:44:07 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 18, 2012, 05:18:39 pm
I was actually mocking the libertarian extremes which state that e.g. even printing money should be a competitive business, just to make it clear. If you allow private accreditation of e.g. driver's licenses, then everyone can declare themselves an accreditation body, hence nobody needs a license.

Driver's licenses don't function because there is a monopoly on issuing them, but because the police stops you from operating a vehicle if you don't have a valid one. In an extreme libertarian world streets/roads would be owned by private persons, which may or may not allow you to drive on them depending on whether you have a license issued by them or not. A radical libertarian may than argue that if that proves to be impractical or dangerous a private organization will arise to deal with it. (An this company will also deal with driving practices because accidents cause a lot of economic damage and so there is profit to be made by preventing them.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 18, 2012, 05:45:44 pm
The ESRB is just kind of an advisory thing, and like the Hayes Code and MPAA before it they sprung up to try to cut the government off at the pass and have "soft" censorship instead of legally enforced censorship.

But now that comics, movies, and video games have all been declared as under the First Amendment they're unnecessary.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on October 18, 2012, 05:48:55 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on October 18, 2012, 05:31:08 pm
By definition regulations stem from the government. The government is the only body with authority to enforce regulations.

No. They can also stem from an economic imbalance of power. Imagine someone with a monopoly on some crucial infrastructure: "You want to use it? First you gotta pay me, second you gonna behave like I say (e.g. to avoid damage to my property) or you are banned from using it."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on October 18, 2012, 08:11:39 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on October 18, 2012, 05:39:04 pm
Hehe, the ESRB is such a joke.
No kidding o_O  Assassin's Creed is rated M, then EA sells action figures in toy stores.  Yeah I don't understand that one either.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on October 18, 2012, 09:28:07 pm
Quote from: lorb on October 18, 2012, 05:44:07 pm
Quote from: Reelya on October 18, 2012, 05:18:39 pm
I was actually mocking the libertarian extremes which state that e.g. even printing money should be a competitive business, just to make it clear. If you allow private accreditation of e.g. driver's licenses, then everyone can declare themselves an accreditation body, hence nobody needs a license.

Driver's licenses don't function because there is a monopoly on issuing them, but because the police stops you from operating a vehicle if you don't have a valid one. In an extreme libertarian world streets/roads would be owned by private persons, which may or may not allow you to drive on them depending on whether you have a license issued by them or not. A radical libertarian may than argue that if that proves to be impractical or dangerous a private organization will arise to deal with it. (An this company will also deal with driving practices because accidents cause a lot of economic damage and so there is profit to be made by preventing them.)

If there is a lack of government, private citizens will rise up and become the government.  What 'age' this government is in will vary.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on October 19, 2012, 03:15:56 am
A good exemple of non-governamental regulation is the FIFA that regulate soccer cup. It actually has courts and fine players for stuff like fixing results. Dunno what's the libertarian point of view on this: a good exemple that government isn't needed, or a exemple that if government was to stop doing some things, bodies would grow in its place to enforce the same kind of liberty-destroying regulations.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 19, 2012, 09:08:31 am
Well, sports organizations are conglomerates of the teams that play the sport, and while individual teams may want to cheat they don't want anyone else to be able to cheat them, so the rise of a competent regulatory agency is the natural solution.

The same doesn't really apply to for-profit businesses, as they sell products rather than performance.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on October 19, 2012, 12:04:55 pm
Minnesota bans free online classes (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/10/18/minnesota_bans_coursera_state_takes_bold_stand_against_free_education.html) because they might not be worth people's time.  In all fairness, they're trying to crack down on diploma mill online schools that offer fake degrees, but still, they're banning free classes as well.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 19, 2012, 12:09:49 pm
Argh, this is like the taxi situation but 10x worse, because no one is even being charged for anything. -_-
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on October 19, 2012, 12:10:05 pm
Quote from: Euld on October 19, 2012, 12:04:55 pm
Minnesota bans free online classes (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/10/18/minnesota_bans_coursera_state_takes_bold_stand_against_free_education.html) because they might not be worth people's time.  In all fairness, they're trying to crack down on diploma mill online schools that offer fake degrees, but still, they're banning free classes as well.

Just a thought: Is there a lobbying effort by large colleges to perhaps reduce sources of free education so that students might not be able to breeze through as quickly, and thus pay higher tuition fees?

Just seems like something that I might expect in this day and age.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 19, 2012, 12:16:01 pm
Actually, its colleges that are supporting the free online education. MIT is offering free online courses at the moment, as I recall. Colleges are generally more ideological than profit-based.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 19, 2012, 12:17:51 pm
Note that Minnesota DOES let actual fraudulent universities offer online courses. (Exactly the people they claim this law is supposed to protect from)

Maybe this is just them trying to squash their competition? Those guys most definitely care about nothing but profit.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on October 19, 2012, 12:24:26 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 19, 2012, 12:16:01 pm
Actually, its colleges that are supporting the free online education. MIT is offering free online courses at the moment, as I recall. Colleges are generally more ideological than profit-based.
Not sure about that. A lot of the free online education I see is coming from Ivy League and other well-known universities. These are the ones who can actually afford it, because it's amazing publicity and their degrees are worth as much or more than the education they provide when it comes to getting a job, so they're not undercutting themselves significantly. Not that I'm complaining, free education is pretty much great.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on October 19, 2012, 01:17:22 pm
Let me just say, MIT's online chemistry is bloody amazing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: sluissa on October 19, 2012, 01:31:46 pm
Just was linked to this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/opinion/global/chinas-leftover-women.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&
 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/opinion/global/chinas-leftover-women.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&)

Couple of nice quotes: "Pretty girls don't need a lot of education to marry into a rich and powerful family, but girls with an average or ugly appearance will find it difficult. These kinds of girls hope to further their education in order to increase their competitiveness. The tragedy is, they don't realize that as women age, they are worth less and less, so by the time they get their M.A. or Ph.D., they are already old, like yellowed pearls."

"When you find out that he is having an affair, you may be in a towering rage, but you must know that if you make a fuss, you are denying the man “face” ... No man is capable of spending a lifetime being loyal to an outmoded wife who never changes ... Try changing your hairstyle or your fashion. Women must constantly change for the better."

Those come from China’s state feminist agency, the "All-China Women’s Federation."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 19, 2012, 02:14:30 pm
........

The fuck is wrong with China?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 19, 2012, 02:16:23 pm
A traditionalist society with defined anti-egalitarian gender and social roles that have existed for millennium and survived decades of communist dictatorship.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on October 19, 2012, 03:36:58 pm
Quote from: sluissa on October 19, 2012, 01:31:46 pm
Just was linked to this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/opinion/global/chinas-leftover-women.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&
 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/opinion/global/chinas-leftover-women.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&)

Couple of nice quotes: "Pretty girls don't need a lot of education to marry into a rich and powerful family, but girls with an average or ugly appearance will find it difficult. These kinds of girls hope to further their education in order to increase their competitiveness. The tragedy is, they don't realize that as women age, they are worth less and less, so by the time they get their M.A. or Ph.D., they are already old, like yellowed pearls."

"When you find out that he is having an affair, you may be in a towering rage, but you must know that if you make a fuss, you are denying the man “face” ... No man is capable of spending a lifetime being loyal to an outmoded wife who never changes ... Try changing your hairstyle or your fashion. Women must constantly change for the better."

Those come from China’s state feminist agency, the "All-China Women’s Federation."

I'm all for cultural relativism, and trying to understand why societies develop the roles and values they do from as unbiased a perspective as I can muster... but this shit pisses me off.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 19, 2012, 04:39:23 pm
There's a difference between "cultural relativism" and accepting any sort of values. At least as far as I'm concerned, that is. I don't believe my morals are superior to, say, the taliban's, because of some higher power or natural law. There is nothing objetivelly making them "superior", except the fact that I and others regard them as such. Which... makes it all the more important to defend them. (AKA: for me moral relativism is not some kind of postmodernist nihilism, but simply an assessment of the standing realities)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on October 19, 2012, 04:49:25 pm
What Castillian Monkey Jesus said.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 19, 2012, 05:16:48 pm
You left out the best quote:

Quote
Many highly educated “leftover women” are very progressive in their thinking and enjoy going to nightclubs to search for a one-night stand, or they become the mistress of a high official or rich man. It is only when they have lost their youth and are kicked out by the man, that they decide to look for a life partner. Therefore, most “leftover women” do not deserve our sympathy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 19, 2012, 05:36:58 pm
That's a total non sequitur. How in the hell does any of that make them "not worth sympathy"?

Also it's a nice catch 22 with one of the earlier ones. Women are supposed to look for a life partner but men shouldn't be expected to keep them?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 19, 2012, 05:46:38 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on October 19, 2012, 05:36:58 pm
That's a total non sequitur. How in the hell does any of that make them "not worth sympathy"?
It isn't a non sequitur to them. They aren't being "proper women" by being barefoot and pregnant because they're "progressives" who just want to get sex out of good hardworking men and then abandon them or poison their marriage by becoming a mistress. Then they lose all their seductive charm and face their deserved fate as old single hags forever.

Not that different from how most conservative traditionalists anywhere see women who don't want to function as family slaves for men.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 19, 2012, 05:58:10 pm
If you read the nytimes article it explains the background well. They're concerned that smart women aren't breeding enough. This really smacks of more of traditional right-wing thinking (genetic superiority/breeding = social superiority/success) than left-wing thinking (educational opportunities => success opportunities). My theory is that once any belief-system becomes entrenched ideology, then conservative thought processes takes over it's dissemination and justification, no matter what the core ideas were originally.

Since Chinese education is by definition socialist and perfect, any "remaining" inequalities can only be explained by the right-wing idea of genetic superiority. Once you're committed to the concept that you can determine genetic superiority based on social position, social eugenics becomes a no-brainer.

A much better solution than shaming single women, would be to allow 2 children when both parents have a university education. But that might sow discontent amongst the populace, so it's easier to demonize academic women who don't have the regulation 1 child.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on October 19, 2012, 06:12:50 pm
I'm also confused about the thinking behind:

1)Men are allowed to have mistresses
2)Women aren't allowed to be mistresses

o_O
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 19, 2012, 06:21:24 pm
Quote from: Euld on October 19, 2012, 06:12:50 pm
I'm also confused about the thinking behind:

1)Men are allowed to have mistresses
2)Women aren't allowed to be mistresses

o_O
As everyone knows Euld, male sexuality is good and a measure of success while female sexuality is bad and a measure of failure. Haven't you been paying attention at all?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on October 19, 2012, 06:35:44 pm
I have trouble grasping the logic behind double-minded double-standards at times  :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on October 19, 2012, 07:44:53 pm
http://www.queerty.com/gop-senate-hopeful-supports-doma-dadt-but-says-hes-for-the-gays-20121019/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Queerty+Active&utm_campaign=Queerty+Daily+Newsletter

This is, clearly a publication for "teh gays." However, the video speaks for itself.

Mr. Mandel says he is for everybody, even gays, but he doesn't like any of our issues.... ???
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SomeStupidGuy on October 19, 2012, 09:04:09 pm
It's like he's trying to be as unappealing to each side as possible.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on October 19, 2012, 11:27:08 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 19, 2012, 06:21:24 pm
Quote from: Euld on October 19, 2012, 06:12:50 pm
I'm also confused about the thinking behind:

1)Men are allowed to have mistresses
2)Women aren't allowed to be mistresses

o_O
As everyone knows Euld, male sexuality is good and a measure of success while female sexuality is bad and a measure of failure. Haven't you been paying attention at all?

Thus I propose that the only extramarital sex that is universally good, and which can rightly be sanctioned by the state, is man-to-man homosex.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 19, 2012, 11:28:34 pm
Quote from: Solifuge on October 19, 2012, 11:27:08 pm
Thus I propose that the only extramarital sex that is universally good, and which can rightly be sanctioned by the state, is man-to-man homosex.
I can't complain :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on October 20, 2012, 12:17:51 am
Nah I'm pretty sure China hates gay sex too, for its lack of reproductiveness o_O

Scary how much China's backwards ideals are frighteningly similar to the old hardcore prudish ideals the US had (and in some ways still has) to this day.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EveryZig on October 20, 2012, 01:25:50 am
Quote from: Euld on October 20, 2012, 12:17:51 am
Nah I'm pretty sure China hates gay sex too, for its lack of reproductiveness o_O
But homosex does one better than a one-child policy!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on October 20, 2012, 03:40:47 am
Boy Scouts of America has been hiding 50+ years of (http://wvgazette.com/News/201210190179) pedophile crimes, often comforting and getting counseling for the rapists while doing little for the victims and their families, and when a pedophile was actually persecuted they made sure the court documents never mentioned the rapist was a leader in Boy Scouts.

Good god.  My whole family has been involved in Boy Scouting, even as far back as my grandparents.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Snowblind on October 20, 2012, 04:19:48 am
Quote from: Euld on October 20, 2012, 12:17:51 am
Nah I'm pretty sure China hates gay sex too, for its lack of reproductiveness o_O

Scary how much China's backwards ideals are frighteningly similar to the old hardcore prudish ideals the US had (and in some ways still has) to this day.

Are you joking? China's government has a serious, nearly unethical obsession with reducing their population. They mandated the goddamn 'one child rule' ffs. No other country in the world does that. For all of China's government policies, they have equal rights for men and women, it's nothing at all like the USA in it's history.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on October 20, 2012, 12:28:03 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois

This video renews my faith in humanity, also the preacher is actually a pastor (http://brentwoodchristianchurch.wordpress.com/welcome/staff/).

He also runs a pretty cool blog.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vorthon on October 20, 2012, 02:32:29 pm
Quote from: Euld on October 20, 2012, 03:40:47 am
Boy Scouts of America has been hiding 50+ years of (http://wvgazette.com/News/201210190179) pedophile crimes, often comforting and getting counseling for the rapists while doing little for the victims and their families, and when a pedophile was actually persecuted they made sure the court documents never mentioned the rapist was a leader in Boy Scouts.

Good god.  My whole family has been involved in Boy Scouting, even as far back as my grandparents.

Wait you've just found out about this now?

It's kind of old news, IIRC.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on October 20, 2012, 03:15:51 pm
Heard about a couple days ago, didn't remember to post about it until yesterday o_O  I guess I'm sorta annoyed that everyone just went "meh" about it and moved on.  One of my earliest memories involved Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, it's been a part of my life since forever.  Then suddenly you find out it's been a haven of sorts for pedophiles to regularly get away with things for more years than you've been alive :/
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 20, 2012, 03:28:14 pm
Yeah I heard about that. Lots of apologetics about it over the radio yesterday.

The child molestation thing happens in a lot of places with authority figures over young kids (priests, teachers, etc) and anywhere will likely cover things up if it makes them look bad. Ultimately I'm just not too shocked about it at all, as it's the sort of thing I'd suspect in any similar organization.

I'm generally more pissed at them for their homophobia and pushing of religion than this, because those things are actively pushed by them rather than a skeleton in their closet.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 20, 2012, 03:47:35 pm
Something similar came to light with Jimmy Savile (OBE) recently.  It's really terrible that he managed to get away with it for years and only really got exposed after his death.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on October 22, 2012, 02:20:35 am
Quote from: justinlee999 on October 20, 2012, 12:28:03 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois

This video renews my faith in humanity, also the preacher is actually a pastor (http://brentwoodchristianchurch.wordpress.com/welcome/staff/).

He also runs a pretty cool blog.

At first I was like >:?

...Then I saw what he did there. That speech was masterfully done. Thank you for sharing that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on October 22, 2012, 06:55:33 am
The best part is that he's really progressive, check out his blog, he's progressive in almost every other issue as well.

Goes to show that religious people can be progressive.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on October 22, 2012, 07:01:24 am
Progressive religious types don't tend to ram their views down your throat, and the right wing religious fundamentalists tend to use that polarizing logic, like "Republican = For God, therefore Democrats/liberals are anti-god". They're good at "owning" the issues, I'll give them that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 22, 2012, 12:49:05 pm
Yeah that speech is a good example of why I point out rhetoric to people who make bad arguments. Even if you're supporting a valid cause, if I can switch around the nouns in your argument to something horrible, your argument is bad.

Obviously his satirical first half wasn't supporting a good cause, but still :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 01, 2012, 08:34:35 am
Former executioners share their misgivings about death penalty (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-death-penalty-executioner-20121027,0,6229511.story)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 09:49:29 am
Yea. My biggest qualms about supporting the death penalty have always been:
1: The chance that an innocent person is killed.
2: Those executed are disproportionately minorities.
3: The psychology of those who would be involved. Though I have to admit I was more concerned about the kind of person who would seek out the position of executioner to satisfy their blood-lust than the one who reluctantly accepted that position

Its why I wouldn't mind seeing the death penalty being banned, even though I do think some people are so terrible that they should die to protect the rest of society.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on November 01, 2012, 10:06:07 am
That's kind of my position as well. I'm not at all inherently anti-death penalty, but I am more than willing to agree that the implemention is heavily flawed and probably deserves a moratorium until it can be reformed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on November 01, 2012, 10:22:00 am
I remember reading a sad story related to death row in a cooking comic, of all places. '식객' (shik-gek).
Korean death row prisoners in solitary fear each time they are taken out of their cell. Are they going to turn left at the junction, to execution, or right, to some other place? Is today the last day of their life? Living in perpetual fear of that is hard to imagine. Even if they are criminals, I suppose they still have humane rights.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 12:23:04 pm
I'm always promoting rehabilitation when possible; vengeance be damned. For those that can't though... Life imprisonment with the option of euthanasia (yes I know there's potential abuse in giving the "option" of euthanasia, mainly in the form of pressuring them to do it).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 01, 2012, 01:05:05 pm
Eh, it's not that hard to just commit suicide in prison if you really can't take life imprisonment.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on November 01, 2012, 01:21:45 pm
It's no really a question of ease. It's a question of decency.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 01:50:49 pm
Firstly, a makeshift noose made out of a towel is a horrible way to go.

Secondly, the guards and potentially other inmates will actively try to stop it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 02:05:00 pm
The death penalty isn't necessarily about vengeance (not in every case anyway).

Charles Manson and Anders Breivik for example? These are people who walked through murder, smiled and kept going. People who have or intend to infect the minds of others and smother the world in chaos and blood. These are people that can not be redeemed. Their continued existence is a risk I would rather not take, and the same goes for most serial killers and a fair number of mass murderers.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 02:17:11 pm
For such there is life imprisonment. Whether you believe that worse than death or not I dunno, but that's why I give the option for euthanasia.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on November 01, 2012, 02:20:10 pm
But even so-called "life sentences" carry the possibility of parole after a certain number of years. Charles Manson has tried repeatedly to get out, and supposedly Breivik will have the same opportunity in ten years or so. What if one day they actually succeed and are released?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on November 01, 2012, 02:24:11 pm
Charles Manson has been repeatedly rejected parole and by the time he gets his next hearing he will be *ninety*. Don't be ridiculous
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 02:25:47 pm
Manson and Breivik don't need to leave prison to get their message out and instigate more murders.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Durin Stronginthearm on November 01, 2012, 02:31:48 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 02:25:47 pm
Manson and Breivik don't need to leave prison to get their message out and instigate more murders.

They don't need to be alive to do it either. Martyrs have a lot of power.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 02:35:36 pm
Quote from: Sirus on November 01, 2012, 02:20:10 pm
But even so-called "life sentences" carry the possibility of parole after a certain number of years. Charles Manson has tried repeatedly to get out, and supposedly Breivik will have the same opportunity in ten years or so. What if one day they actually succeed and are released?
If they're actually competent to become members of society again, then great! If not, then the parole board has some issues it needs resolved.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 01, 2012, 02:43:45 pm
By the way, I know it makes me a terrible person, but I couldn't help giggling when I read this one year ago or so. France decided to implement "anit-suicide kit" for inmate at risks, kits that included stuff like paper pyjamas and fireproof mattress.

Sure enough, a couple month later, someone managed to commit suicide with the anti-suicide kit.  (http://www.liberation.fr/societe/01012332201-un-detenu-se-suicide-avec-son-kit-anti-suicide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on November 01, 2012, 02:45:31 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 02:35:36 pm
Quote from: Sirus on November 01, 2012, 02:20:10 pm
But even so-called "life sentences" carry the possibility of parole after a certain number of years. Charles Manson has tried repeatedly to get out, and supposedly Breivik will have the same opportunity in ten years or so. What if one day they actually succeed and are released?
If they're actually competent to become members of society again, then great! If not, then the parole board has some issues it needs resolved.
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly with the first part. The second part, however, can be as simple as someone saying "Hey Manson, you're 90-something now, how about we let you live your last few years outside prison?"
Bam. Unrepentant mass murderer who still has followers on the loose.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 02:46:47 pm
I'd still say resolving that is best done by making sure your parole board doesn't make such mistakes, not by killing people so they never have the opportunity to.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 01, 2012, 02:47:01 pm
Quote from: Sirus on November 01, 2012, 02:45:31 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 02:35:36 pm
Quote from: Sirus on November 01, 2012, 02:20:10 pm
But even so-called "life sentences" carry the possibility of parole after a certain number of years. Charles Manson has tried repeatedly to get out, and supposedly Breivik will have the same opportunity in ten years or so. What if one day they actually succeed and are released?

If they're actually competent to become members of society again, then great! If not, then the parole board has some issues it needs resolved.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly with the first part. The second part, however, can be as simple as someone saying "Hey Manson, you're 90-something now, how about we let you live your last few years outside prison?"
Bam. Unrepentant mass murderer who still has followers on the loose.

Who in their right mind would do that? I think that falls under "the parole board has some issues it needs resolved".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on November 01, 2012, 02:51:27 pm
I'm not saying it would happen, or even that it's likely. It is a risk though, unless another parole board can come in and overrule the release.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 01, 2012, 02:56:08 pm
Well, you usually have rules about parole. Live the convicts have to demosntrate repentence, and be judged to not pose a risk for society.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on November 01, 2012, 03:05:03 pm
I don't have time to find them right now, but I'm pretty sure I could find you scores of cases of "parole board released a convicted killer, who then killed somebody while on release".

I agree in principle with the "let's correct the problems with the parole board rather than kill people" but the problem is that when the parole board makes mistakes in judgement, innocent people can die as a result.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 01, 2012, 03:07:00 pm
And when judges make a mistake and apply the death penalty, innocent dies.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 03:09:33 pm
Invariably mistakes will be made, but just make sure your preventative measures aren't worse than what you're trying to prevent.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 01, 2012, 04:53:44 pm
There is an actual "life without parole" punishment in the UK.  As in, you're never ever going to be considered for release unless your convictions are quashed.  That's the alternative to the death penalty.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 01, 2012, 04:57:13 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on November 01, 2012, 04:53:44 pm
There is an actual "life without parole" punishment in the UK.  As in, you're never ever going to be considered for release unless your convictions are quashed.  That's the alternative to the death penalty.
....That isn't present in other places? It's present in the US, at least.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 01, 2012, 05:02:33 pm
From the way Sirus was talking I assumed they didn't have them in his area.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on November 01, 2012, 05:03:37 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on November 01, 2012, 05:02:33 pm
From the way Sirus was talking I assumed they didn't have them in his area.
Pretty sure they do. Problem is I'm not sure where the dividing line between "life with possibility of parole" and "life without parole" lies. If Manson can get parole, how bad do you have to be to not get it?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 01, 2012, 05:06:11 pm
Sometimes it isn't a matter of badness. It is usually the judge's prerogative.

Anyway, Manson can't get parole. He is eligible for it, but he'll never get it.

Brevik, on the other hand, will never get released since he's so fucking crazy that it would never be appropriate to, and thus none of his reviews will ever pass.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on November 05, 2012, 01:26:06 pm
So, as the election is tomorrow, there are four ballot measures concerning LGBT rights that need to be monitored.
BALLOT MEASURES TO LEGALIZE SAME SEX MARRIAGE (Basically, "Yes" is the desired result for progressives on these three ballot measures)
Maine
Question 1 (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Maine_Same-Sex_Marriage_Question,_Question_1_%282012%29) would overturn the same sex marriage ban in the state if it passes.
Maryland
Question 6 (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Maryland_Same-Sex_Civil_Marriage_Referendum,_Question_6_%282012%29) determines whether or not to uphold same sex marriage law passed by the legislature earlier this year.
Washington
Referendum 74 (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Same-Sex_Marriage_Veto_Referendum,_Referendum_74_%282012%29) would determine whether same sex marriage would be legal in the state.

BALLOT MEASURE TO BAN SAME SEX MARRIAGE
Minnesota
Amendment (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Minnesota_Same-Sex_Marriage_Amendment,_Amendment_1_%282012%29) to ban same sex marriage.  Hoping for a "No" victory here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on November 05, 2012, 01:44:26 pm
I disagree on the euthanasia front for one of the same reasons i disagree with the death penalty front unless under exceptional circumstances, which is a "next" is far from guaranteed and their lifetime is the only chance you have of having them understand what they've done. No opt outs in any shape or form, but that does not mean no kindness.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 05, 2012, 01:51:34 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 01, 2012, 05:06:11 pm
Brevik, on the other hand, will never get released since he's so fucking crazy that it would never be appropriate to, and thus none of his reviews will ever pass.

Never say never. Though it's highly unlikely, it might be possible. Got something similair in Belgium with the whole Dutroux case (which caused the reform of most of the Belgian justice and police systems). While there were nowhere near that amount of victims (nor is the case comparable) you'd say they'd never get him or his wife released. Guess what happened earlier this year. (Though there was a lot of public protest about it, and she was only let go provided she'd take up residence in a cloister order).

I do approve of that though, people deserve a second chance.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 05, 2012, 01:52:31 pm
Preventing someone from ending their life is basically the complete obliteration of bodily autonomy and express tyranny of one's will over another. People have the right to many plenty of other life altering decisions, why not give them the most important one?

Mind you, I honestly think we should move towards legalizing self-suicide before worrying about the euthanasia stuff. Allow doctors to set up a situation where a patient can self-administer, for example.

Quote
but that does not mean no kindness.
If you say I have no choice but to suffer for months in unbearable agony, or remain almost completely unconscious via drugs, all the while piling hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt on my family, expressly in opposition to my desires, "for my own good" - yes, an absence of kindness (or any shred of decency, respect, or recognition of my rights as a human being) is very much the result.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 05, 2012, 01:59:31 pm
10ebbor10, his wife had a lighter sentence, and there is a rational for freeing her (Namely that she was unde rhis influence). Dutroux will never, ever get out. He was condemned with a specific clause that allow the government to keep him longer if deemed necessary, and no government ever is going to free Dutroux.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 05, 2012, 02:04:38 pm
Quote from: Sheb on November 05, 2012, 01:59:31 pm
10ebbor10, his wife had a lighter sentence, and there is a rational for freeing her (Namely that she was unde rhis influence). Dutroux will never, ever get out. He was condemned with a specific clause that allow the government to keep him longer if deemed necessary, and no government ever is going to free Dutroux.
I know, just saying. Nothing is permanent. (Also, he did escape once, which was what resulted in the whole result stuff.)

As for people never getting out, we'll see. Don't be sure of everything. Also, there's no specific clause, just lifelong sentence, which is indeed for the rest of your live. (Actually, it's that +10 years ...)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 05, 2012, 02:05:43 pm
Well I doubt that they'll keep him in there post-mortem. Right?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on November 05, 2012, 02:06:38 pm
Quote from: Sheb on November 05, 2012, 01:59:31 pm
10ebbor10, his wife had a lighter sentence, and there is a rational for freeing her (Namely that she was unde rhis influence). Dutroux will never, ever get out. He was condemned with a specific clause that allow the government to keep him longer if deemed necessary, and no government ever is going to free Dutroux.

That may be the case for Dutroux. But for Breivik, he may be released if his message is successful and his country descends to radical nationalism.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 05, 2012, 02:08:35 pm
Quote from: Darvi on November 05, 2012, 02:05:43 pm
Well I doubt that they'll keep him in there post-mortem. Right?
It happened before. Belgium's prison system is a tad overcrowded*. Had a case of cannibalism a few years back. (Someone ate someone's lung).

*Take that as 200% above capacity on average. Also, often buildings are not in a very good shape.

Quote from: Nadaka on November 05, 2012, 02:06:38 pm
Quote from: Sheb on November 05, 2012, 01:59:31 pm
10ebbor10, his wife had a lighter sentence, and there is a rational for freeing her (Namely that she was unde rhis influence). Dutroux will never, ever get out. He was condemned with a specific clause that allow the government to keep him longer if deemed necessary, and no government ever is going to free Dutroux.
That may be the case for Dutroux. But for Breivik, he may be released if his message is successful and his country descends to radical nationalism.
Or maybe if it's decide that he's crazy, at which point he's no longer accountable for his actions. Then it's psychiatry, and after that he's free to go.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 05, 2012, 02:20:08 pm
Well, except being commited to an asylum mean you can't go out until you're cured. I don't see Breivik being "cured" any time soon.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 05, 2012, 02:22:06 pm
A nation does not quickly forget the killing of dozens of children.  Even if Norway turned nationalist the outrage over the act itself would remain.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 05, 2012, 02:30:47 pm
Quote from: Sheb on November 05, 2012, 02:20:08 pm
Well, except being commited to an asylum mean you can't go out until you're cured. I don't see Breivik being "cured" any time soon.
But what if that's exactly what happened. (Hypothese here) Say Breivik is declared unaccountable for his actions(from that point he's actually set free off all charges, but forced into psychatry because he's a danger to the community), send into an asylum and after a few years gets out.

Would the public accepts that. I'm afraid they won't, which is sad.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 05, 2012, 05:09:25 pm
Quote from: Jervill on November 05, 2012, 01:26:06 pm
Washington
Referendum 74 (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Same-Sex_Marriage_Veto_Referendum,_Referendum_74_%282012%29) would determine whether same sex marriage would be legal in the state.
I've a personal investment in this, and am extremely hopeful that gay marriage will be legal there :D Woohoo!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on November 05, 2012, 05:29:43 pm
I know I'm approving 74.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 05, 2012, 05:33:09 pm
Quote from: greatorder on November 05, 2012, 05:12:38 pm
if it's unnatural, why does it happen in nature?
Don't let logic cloud your mind! That's the method of Satan!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TripJack on November 05, 2012, 05:52:26 pm
uh, aren't civil unions already legal in washington?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 05, 2012, 05:54:14 pm
No. The bill passed the legislature months ago, but it was petitioned for a referendum vote. This is that. (And also, civil unions =/= same-sex marriage.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 05, 2012, 06:10:50 pm
Quote from: TripJack on November 05, 2012, 05:52:26 pm
uh, aren't civil unions already legal in washington?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state

Civil unions are legal. Marriage is not, and is hopefully soon to be.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on November 05, 2012, 06:21:27 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 05, 2012, 01:52:31 pm
Preventing someone from ending their life is basically the complete obliteration of bodily autonomy and express tyranny of one's will over another. People have the right to many plenty of other life altering decisions, why not give them the most important one?

Mind you, I honestly think we should move towards legalizing self-suicide before worrying about the euthanasia stuff. Allow doctors to set up a situation where a patient can self-administer, for example.

Quote
but that does not mean no kindness.
If you say I have no choice but to suffer for months in unbearable agony, or remain almost completely unconscious via drugs, all the while piling hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt on my family, expressly in opposition to my desires, "for my own good" - yes, an absence of kindness (or any shred of decency, respect, or recognition of my rights as a human being) is very much the result.

a. it would be abused, and though i recognize worst case scenarios, the circumstance above is a worst case scenario and it it would be rather more common for abuses of the allowance to take place. B. prison sentences are meant to serve as a deterrent as well as a way of helping the commiter of the crime. An enforced life sentence, or ideally until they realize why what they did was wrong in the worse cases, with the help needed to achieve it, can be viewed as harsher then a suicide in my opinion. Legalizing self-suicide is also unlikely to have any net positives, especially if you're held accountable for preventing them from doing such. I'm far from certain about this in general life however, and should be viewed on a case by case basis in my opinion. Take the case here in the UK for example, where a paralyzed man wished for the law to be changed so he could have assisted suicide. However, because of the potential for abuses, he was denied it and starved himself to death. On the other hand, take Terry Pratchett. He says if his conditions worsens to a certain point he'll end it while his mind is still working well, and i understand why. Wishing to end life on a high is understandable, though i don't know about his current stance. Personally, i take the view that any life at all is preferable to death so long as they'res the potential for some good in it, simply because we don't know what comes next and it could quite easily be simply an end. However, others take another view, often rather easily staved off by survival instinct and perhaps a subconscious awareness of logical fallacies which is why we don't have mass suicides, thankfully. In the end, however, the potential for people to be pushed off the brink intentionally or due to it being an easier option outweighs the possible gains, and i cannot support legalizing it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TripJack on November 05, 2012, 10:25:18 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on November 05, 2012, 06:10:50 pm
Civil unions are legal. Marriage is not
what's the difference?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on November 05, 2012, 10:27:31 pm
We found out decades ago that "separate, but equal" doesn't really work.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 06, 2012, 12:54:30 am
Quote from: TripJack on November 05, 2012, 10:25:18 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on November 05, 2012, 06:10:50 pm
Civil unions are legal. Marriage is not
what's the difference?
I'm actually unsure of the details, but yeah, "separate but equal" isn't equal.


If it's truly no different, then the law changes nothing except removing some added bureaucracy. Simplifies things. Which is good.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on November 06, 2012, 05:01:24 am
Quote from: TripJack on November 05, 2012, 10:25:18 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on November 05, 2012, 06:10:50 pm
Civil unions are legal. Marriage is not
what's the difference?

It differs from state to state but most differences fall in one of those groups:
taxes: there are a lot of tax breaks only open to married couples because civil unions can't file joint-tax returns
benefits: a lot of benefits open to married couples aren't to same-sex couples
adoption/parental rights: married couples always have a better (legal) standing here

edit: differences also exist for veterans benefits, health insurance, medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, immigration law ...

edit2: so "separate but equal" would actually be a huge improvement over the current situation
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on November 06, 2012, 06:38:38 am
Washington in particular looked like it had things up to the level of separate but equal, at the very least, before this, according to a cursory search (i.e. checked the wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Washington)).

Be nice if the washington ref got through, though, even if it's sorta' in the opposite direction I'd find ideal. Personally, I'd love it if marriage was just dissolved as a legal construct and everything on the legal level was civil unions. It'd shut a lot of the religious folks up about same-sex relationships, at least insofar as the legal aspects are concerned.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 06, 2012, 07:14:14 am
I'd love to dissolve it further and just go with "households" or something similar.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 07:21:01 am
Quote from: Jervill on November 05, 2012, 10:27:31 pm
We found out decades ago that "separate, but equal" doesn't really work.

Well, hey know, it still seems to be working and have a lot of support in some cases. I dare say the vast majority of the US supports separate but equal enforced gender segregation. Just makes everyone more comfortable to only be around those of the same gender, you know? No one seems particularly interested in changing that, so I would say it works.

For matters like this, of course, where it isn't actually equal and people are quite unhappy about it, though, it's obviously a problem.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on November 06, 2012, 07:28:55 am
I would prefer gender neutral everything. Then again, as a gay man, I want everyone as uncomfortable in the showers as I am.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 06, 2012, 07:52:59 am
Unisex toilets + Alcohol, though, sounds like a BAD mix as far as security goes. I've only seen 1 pub in my life that tried that, basically because they were too cheap to stick another loo in the front bar, and the place dated from the era when there was a men's bar and a ladies bar (which they later turned into a bistro).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 06, 2012, 07:54:52 am
Yeah I'd prefer all the gender segregation to be done away with, myself. It's not a huge deal in most cases, but for some it's a hassle. Just ask a transsexual which bathroom they should go into.

Quote from: Descan on November 06, 2012, 07:28:55 am
Then again, as a gay man, I want everyone as uncomfortable in the showers as I am.
This also :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on November 06, 2012, 09:22:20 am
Quote from: Frumple on November 06, 2012, 06:38:38 am
Washington in particular looked like it had things up to the level of separate but equal, at the very least, before this, according to a cursory search (i.e. checked the wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Washington)).

It still is far from equal because anything that is not a marriage is not recognized as one on the federal level and because of that you don't get any federal tax breaks, federal benefits and so forth no matter how equal you are on state level. But there is movement to transform same-sex civil unions into full marriages. :)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 09:39:00 am
Even marriage doesn't qualify for equal federal protection thanks to DOMA, however any sane supreme court would cast DOMA down as unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, if only we had a sane supreme court.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 10:01:03 am
That isn't fair, the Supreme Court has never even reviewed DOMA. They can't unless it is brought to them, which it probably will be as two of the District Courts have struck down DOMA for that very reason.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on November 06, 2012, 11:56:33 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on November 06, 2012, 07:54:52 am
Quote from: Descan on November 06, 2012, 07:28:55 am
Then again, as a gay man, I want everyone as uncomfortable in the showers as I am.
This also :P

Aha! Now we have it writing! I knew the Gay Agenda could not be denied forever! To the press-machines!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TripJack on November 06, 2012, 02:19:41 pm
separate bathrooms are 'gender segregation' now?

beautiful :D
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 02:25:03 pm
Even if you don't think its wrong, separate bathrooms for separate genders is by definition gender segregation. What else would you call it?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 02:25:22 pm
When were they ever /not/ gender segregation? And we have gender-specific gyms and clubs and other businesses and whatnot too.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 06, 2012, 02:26:57 pm
Imo there shouldn't even be gender integration because imo people shouldn't even be together in dressing rooms bathrooms etc regardless of gender. So yeah.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 02:30:48 pm
Darvi, your solution sounds incredibly expensive compared to the current system and would greatly ruin the bonds of the sauna.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 06, 2012, 02:33:27 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 02:30:48 pm
and would greatly ruin the bonds of the sauna.
Just another plus.

And it wouldn't be all that expensive. Most toilets already have individual cabins (or at least I hope so) and so do some dressing rooms, I believe.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 02:37:04 pm
Also, at least here, we even segregate our 1-person rooms.

1 person dressing room/bathroom for women only, 1 person dressing room for men only.

Most men/women don't want to be in the same room a member of the opposite sex was in, near I can tell. So even individual bathrooms would still need to be segregated.

(Also, womens toilets generally have their own stalls, mens toilets it's about half and half stalls and urinals, which don't have their own section. Rooms are a great many times more expensive than stalls, though)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 06, 2012, 02:46:41 pm
Quote from: TripJack on November 06, 2012, 02:19:41 pm
separate bathrooms are 'gender segregation' now?

beautiful :D
Why yes, that is a good example of separate but equal's problems.  Women's bathrooms often have long queues while men's bathrooms have none at all, clearly showing waste and failure to properly share out the resources between the two.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 02:48:55 pm
Also, mens bathrooms are disgusting, and I would prefer to use the cleaner women's bathroom anyway.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 06, 2012, 02:51:37 pm
Hmm I think you're implying knowledge you shouldn't have with that one!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 06, 2012, 02:53:16 pm
There's plenty of situations where it's acceptable as a guy to go into a women's bathroom or vice-versa. Say, as a cleaning person or when the restaurant where you're eating at uses one of the toilets as a dressing room.

True story.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TripJack on November 06, 2012, 02:54:18 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on November 06, 2012, 02:46:41 pm
Why yes, that is a good example of separate but equal's problems.  Women's bathrooms often have long queues while men's bathrooms have none at all, clearly showing waste and failure to properly share out the resources between the two.
Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 02:48:55 pm
Also, mens bathrooms are disgusting, and I would prefer to use the cleaner women's bathroom anyway.
amusing :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 02:59:42 pm
I dunno, I have a perfume allergy and women's restrooms have an overpowering perfumey smell. Not like a mans restroom that smells like urine and sweaty ass... Ok, I think I would like to have a private bathroom just for me wherever I go.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 03:00:23 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on November 06, 2012, 02:51:37 pm
Hmm I think you're implying knowledge you shouldn't have with that one!

I have very little patience for waiting, do not follow rules I don't understand if they inconvenience me, and don't understand the reason for segregated room-level bathrooms, I admit it.

I am fighting for freedom in my own special way.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on November 06, 2012, 03:31:46 pm
Imagine Glyph sitting in the women's toilet, taking a dump.

*plumpf*

GlYphgryph: FREEEEEEEEEDOOOOOM!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on November 06, 2012, 04:26:42 pm
I wish there were more of those squatting toilets like you see in asian countries in the USA and such.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on November 06, 2012, 04:44:38 pm
Quote from: JoshuaFH on November 06, 2012, 04:26:42 pm
I wish there were more of (those squatting toilets like you see in asian countries) in the USA and such.

Does that help?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on November 06, 2012, 05:09:36 pm
Excuse my sleepy grammar. Though I also want asian countries IN the USA, it would make looking at our map way more interesting if there were just this little independent country smack dab in the bible belt.

Reminds me of something I did in Civ 2.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on November 06, 2012, 05:26:44 pm
Quote from: JoshuaFH on November 06, 2012, 05:09:36 pm
just this little independent country smack dab in the bible belt.

So Texas?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on November 06, 2012, 05:34:59 pm
Some men do not deserve the right to stand and pee.  In one bathroom I used today, there as pee all over the seat, like the guy didn't bother to put the seat up and didn't seem so keen about aiming for the middle either.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Levi on November 06, 2012, 05:36:02 pm
Quote from: Euld on November 06, 2012, 05:34:59 pm
Some men do not deserve the right to stand and pee.  In one bathroom I used today, there as pee all over the seat, like the guy didn't bother to put the seat up and didn't seem so keen about aiming for the middle either.

Gah, hate that so much.  These are skills people should have learned as children.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 06, 2012, 05:36:32 pm
I make it a point to never, ever sit down in a public restroom if at all possible. Emergencies only, and I'll wipe the seat off first.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Levi on November 06, 2012, 05:37:54 pm
I put layers of TP on the seat first.  People may think its stupid, but it makes me feel better.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 05:40:10 pm
I just wipe the seat off. Touching the stall door handle is like 100x more unsanitary than sitting on a dirty seat, honestly.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 06, 2012, 05:41:24 pm
Oh yes, handles. I manipulate them with my foot and/or cover my hand with a sleeve instead of touching those things directly.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Levi on November 06, 2012, 05:43:24 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 05:40:10 pm
I just wipe the seat off. Touching the stall door handle is like 100x more unsanitary than sitting on a dirty seat, honestly.

But you can wash your hands afterwards!  You can't wash your ass in the sink!  (well, without people giving you questionable looks anyway)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on November 06, 2012, 05:44:14 pm
There's like a communal bathroom at our college and holy shit. I always end up walking around looking for the cleanest shit cause half the time there's piss on the wall next to the toilet, and then the seats covered in wet toilet paper.

wtf.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 06, 2012, 05:46:27 pm
Ok today we learnt it's possible to send this thread spiraling off on a bizarre derail with the merest mention of bathrooms.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 07, 2012, 12:55:01 am
I've sat in a public restroom like twice in the past 10 years.  I'll only do it in an emergency.  I also move the seat up/down and flush with my foot, and manipulate doors with forearm/knuckles.

I'm not even germophobic at all.  People are just that disgusting.  A couple years ago where I work, someone even shit on the floor and then stepped in it and tracked it all around the office.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on November 07, 2012, 01:00:12 am
I manipulate everything in the bathroom with telekinesis, then give my brain a thorough washing later.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 07, 2012, 01:53:04 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on November 07, 2012, 12:55:01 am
I've sat in a public restroom like twice in the past 10 years.  I'll only do it in an emergency.  I also move the seat up/down and flush with my foot, and manipulate doors with forearm/knuckles.

I'm not even germophobic at all.  People are just that disgusting.  A couple years ago where I work, someone even shit on the floor and then stepped in it and tracked it all around the office.

Surely that'd be noticed when they came out of the bathroom?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on November 07, 2012, 02:31:58 am
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 02:34:59 am
I remember Salmon talking about it, so yeah, it happened. Why? Who the fuck knows?

I know if I "missed," I'd grab some toilet paper and clean it up. It's hard to comprehend exactly how to miss, though.



On topic: Gay Marriage, 9 states in the union out of 50 (51?). Woo~
And I'm moving to one of them. Woo!

Pretty sure it was mentioned not too many pages back but it's official now.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on November 07, 2012, 03:10:13 am
We welcome you to our rainy, caffeine-powered rainbow paradise  :o
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 03:14:20 am
Quote from: Euld on November 07, 2012, 03:10:13 am
We welcome you to our rainy, caffeine-powered rainbow paradise  :o
/me cheers
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 03:57:23 am
Frankly, I feel bad about PR joining the US. Mostly because 50 is such a nice round number in base 10 and equals 42 in the duodecimal system.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on November 07, 2012, 04:11:00 am
Quote from: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 03:57:23 am
Frankly, I feel bad about PR joining the US. Mostly because 50 is such a nice round number in base 10 and equals 42 in the duodecimal system.

Maybe we can kick out Mississippi to balance it again. Please? No? Darn.

What to do about that flag now...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 04:17:10 am
Maybe you could unite NC and SC into the true Greater Carolina. Yeah?

No?

I'll be quiet.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on November 07, 2012, 04:45:18 am
We could put North and South Dakota together. The Virginias?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 04:47:37 am
Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on November 07, 2012, 04:45:18 am
We could put North and South Dakota together. The Virginias?
Id prefer the dakota's to others. Virginia's actually have differences. Dakota, I mean what is that?

Quote from: Glowcat on November 07, 2012, 04:11:00 am
Quote from: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 03:57:23 am
Frankly, I feel bad about PR joining the US. Mostly because 50 is such a nice round number in base 10 and equals 42 in the duodecimal system.

Maybe we can kick out Mississippi to balance it again. Please? No? Darn.

What to do about that flag now...
Well, they don't need to change it every time.

Also, if we kick out miississippi, where does it go? It's totally surrounded by the US.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 04:48:53 am
Never stopped the Vatican or Lesotho.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 04:51:07 am
Quote from: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 04:48:53 am
Never stopped the Vatican or Lesotho.
First, Lesotho? What is that? Besides, the vatican is De Facto Italy, only has observer status in UN.

Pooint is, they're totally dependant on the surrounding area. We'd still have Mississippi, just one we can't control.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on November 07, 2012, 05:39:52 am
Lesotho is an actual country fully surrounded by SA.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 07, 2012, 08:14:25 am
San Marino, too. And unlike the Vatican, they survive in Italy without holy protection.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 07, 2012, 10:40:04 am
But they're actually an associated state of Italy, similar to the relation between Puerto Rica and the US except different.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on November 07, 2012, 11:17:51 am
Same Sex Marriage Update Full results:
Maine Question 1 (Legalize same sex Marriage)
With 76% in, called for YES
YES 53%
NO 47%
Maryland Question 6 (Legalize same sex Marriage
With 98% in, called for YES
YES 52%
NO 48%
Washington Referendum 74 (Legalize same sex Marriage
With 51% in, uncalled on CNN
YES 52%
NO 48%
And for the one measure that was looking to ban same sex Marriage:
Minnesota Amendment 1 (Ban same sex Marriage)
With 99% in, called for NO
YES 48%
NO 51%

A damn good night for marriage equality. :D
Also, here in Minnesota an amendment to require Voter ID also failed. :D
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 07, 2012, 11:31:50 am
And a bad night for slippery slopes. People will be petitioning to marry their pets before you know it (http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/05/12/oreillys-ark-gay-marriage-could-lead-to-goat-du/150069), mark my words.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on November 07, 2012, 11:37:48 am
Quote from: Reelya on November 07, 2012, 11:31:50 am
And a bad night for slippery slopes. People will be petitioning to marry their pets before you know it (http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/05/12/oreillys-ark-gay-marriage-could-lead-to-goat-du/150069), mark my words.
anndddd who cares? As far as I'm concerned people can marry a rock if they feel like it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on November 07, 2012, 11:40:57 am
Progressive discussion thread becomes progressive happy thread, if only for a while.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Levi on November 07, 2012, 11:42:47 am
Quote from: Reelya on November 07, 2012, 11:31:50 am
And a bad night for slippery slopes. People will be petitioning to marry their pets before you know it (http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/05/12/oreillys-ark-gay-marriage-could-lead-to-goat-du/150069), mark my words.

And finally ducks! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 11:43:43 am
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on November 07, 2012, 11:37:48 am
Quote from: Reelya on November 07, 2012, 11:31:50 am
And a bad night for slippery slopes. People will be petitioning to marry their pets before you know it (http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/05/12/oreillys-ark-gay-marriage-could-lead-to-goat-du/150069), mark my words.
anndddd who cares? As far as I'm concerned people can marry a rock if they feel like it.

Is it a rock that is capable of providing written consent while signing a marriage license without duress? Ok.

But there is nothing even remotely similar between allowing "the gays" to suffer through marriage like the rest of us, and allowing marriage to inanimate or non sapient objects/food items.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on November 07, 2012, 11:45:27 am
In the immortal words of Jimmy McMillan ~ You wanna marry a shoe, I'll marry ya.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 07, 2012, 11:52:25 am
Honestly, the only sort of slippery slope I see is for 3+ person marriages, and that's honestly a ways down the road as far as public support, technically difficult, and not actually a bad thing.

So a big ol' *shrug*
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 07, 2012, 12:03:02 pm
Changing the number of people clearly requires legal changes to allow it to make sense.  Changing the gender of a participant doesn't.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 07, 2012, 12:04:30 pm
But you have to admit that requiring people of the same gender to be able to marry is an needed step for marriages involved more than one person. :P

So it's a slope... but it's honestly not that slippery, with all those road blocks and brambles and technical legal debris in the way.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 12:06:04 pm
The only problem with legalizing polygamous marriage is logistical, not moral.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 12:18:59 pm
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on November 07, 2012, 11:37:48 am
Quote from: Reelya on November 07, 2012, 11:31:50 am
And a bad night for slippery slopes. People will be petitioning to marry their pets before you know it (http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/05/12/oreillys-ark-gay-marriage-could-lead-to-goat-du/150069), mark my words.
anndddd who cares? As far as I'm concerned people can marry a rock if they feel like it.
Indeed. And they actually can, right now. They just can't get the legal definition of "marriage," which is just a piece of paper and some extended privileges, not anything remotely "sacred," and that stuff wouldn't apply to rocks (or goats for that matter) anyway.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 12:06:04 pm
The only problem with legalizing polygamous marriage is logistical, not moral.
Eeyup. This.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on November 07, 2012, 12:35:27 pm
Quote
not anything remotely "sacred," and that stuff wouldn't apply to rocks (or goats for that matter) anyway.

Spoiler: Are you implying my rock is not sacred?!? (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: anzki4 on November 07, 2012, 12:37:43 pm
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on November 07, 2012, 12:35:27 pm
Quote
not anything remotely "sacred," and that stuff wouldn't apply to rocks (or goats for that matter) anyway.

Spoiler: Are you implying my rock is not sacred?!? (click to show/hide)
Fixed the image link.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 12:38:39 pm
No you didn't.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on November 07, 2012, 12:38:42 pm
Like hell you did.

EDIT: Ninjas everywhere.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: anzki4 on November 07, 2012, 12:43:22 pm
Well at least I see it fine that way, whereas the original doesn't work.
Can you see this:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 12:44:10 pm
Quote from: anzki4 on November 07, 2012, 12:43:22 pm
Well at least I see it fine that way, whereas the original doesn't work.
Can you see this:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
No.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: anzki4 on November 07, 2012, 12:45:39 pm
Quote from: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 12:44:10 pm
Quote from: anzki4 on November 07, 2012, 12:43:22 pm
Well at least I see it fine that way, whereas the original doesn't work.
Can you see this:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
No.
Wait... Now I can't see them either. WHAT IS THIS MADNESS!?!?

EDIT: Refreshing the page, they occasionally seem to work.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:46:04 pm
I can't see any of them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on November 07, 2012, 12:46:10 pm
Quote from: anzki4 on November 07, 2012, 12:45:39 pm
Wait... Now I can't see them either. WHAT IS THIS MADNESS!?!?
Funnyjunk being shitty as always.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:47:58 pm
Re-upload it to img.ie

oh wait
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 02:55:30 pm
Imgur, dudes. IMGUR.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on November 07, 2012, 02:56:52 pm
Photobucket FTW!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on November 07, 2012, 02:57:53 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 02:55:30 pm
Imgur, dudes. IMGUR.
Hear, hear.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 03:00:04 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 02:55:30 pm
Imgur, dudes. IMGUR.
Imgur is all well and good, until you hit the never-mentioned 300 upload limit and they start demanding money. I switched to Postimage a while ago.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 03:00:52 pm
I've uploaded well over 300 images and never had issues.

You didn't like, sign up for an account, did you?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 03:04:52 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 03:00:52 pm
I've uploaded well over 300 images and never had issues.

You didn't like, sign up for an account, did you?
Of course I did. When you're running LPs and the like, you gotta stay organized.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 07, 2012, 03:07:26 pm
Quote from: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 03:04:52 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 03:00:52 pm
I've uploaded well over 300 images and never had issues.

You didn't like, sign up for an account, did you?
Of course I did. When you're running LPs and the like, you gotta stay organized.
Or you can just come up with an ID naming system for images and upload them without an account.  :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on November 10, 2012, 04:23:30 am
Bradley Manning's lawyer on his proposed plea. (http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2012/11/pfc-mannings-offered-plea-and-forum.html) More complete Guardian story on this. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/08/bradley-manning-wikileaks-responsibility-trial)
Quote
The statement is technically known as "pleading by exceptions and substitutions". By taking this legal route, Manning is not pleading guilty to any of the 22 charges brought against him, and nor is he making a plea bargain. He is asking the court to rule on whether his plea accepting limited responsibility is admissible in the case. Coombs set out the details in a statement that was posted on his website after the hearing.

Should the judge presiding over Manning's court martial allow the soldier to plead guilty by "exceptions and substitutions", army prosecutors could still press on with all 22 counts. In this instance, a full trial would go ahead next year. Manning would continue to face the most serious charge of "aiding the enemy", which carries a maximum sentence of life in military custody with no chance of parole.
This seems to be a step before trying to make a plea bargain, or at least a partial bargain on the lighter charges before fighting the heavier ones. It's not overly surprising to me, given that Manning had effectively admitted to the leaking of files in the original chat logs released. Fighting those charges would be likely futile short of an extreme defence.

Manning has also chosen to have the case heard before only a military judge.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on November 10, 2012, 10:48:06 am
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on November 07, 2012, 02:57:53 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 02:55:30 pm
Imgur, dudes. IMGUR.
Hear, hear.
Same here. Although, that's more influenced by the fact that It was the first thing to show up when I googled image sharer. :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 11:27:57 am
Not even the police are safe from the police. (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/09/police-denver-area-officer-mistakenly-shot-killed-by-fellow-officer/?hpt=hp_t4)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on November 10, 2012, 12:56:20 pm
So many loose cannons.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on November 10, 2012, 03:16:01 pm
Wow... I don't even...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on November 10, 2012, 04:42:33 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 11:27:57 am
Not even the police are safe from the police. (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/09/police-denver-area-officer-mistakenly-shot-killed-by-fellow-officer/?hpt=hp_t4)
This would never have happened if there were stricter gun laws! Only the government should- Oh wait.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 10, 2012, 04:48:33 pm
If there were stricter gun laws then you could afford to not give ordinary, under-trained police officers guns.  An insightful comment.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 04:49:39 pm
I don't think training would have prevented this. Police in the US are a very trigger-happy, paranoid bunch. Their work culture promotes it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 10, 2012, 04:50:43 pm
Which is why you'd want to not give them guns if at all possible.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 04:53:55 pm
That just isn't going to happen here. The police are armed, the criminals are armed, everybody is armed. There is no way to disarm 315,000,000 people, even if we passed stricter gun laws, even if we banned guns.

Nobody is going to accept not arming the police and sending them up against armed criminals, leaving us with a very difficult conundrum. I don't see many options, and no effective ones.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 10, 2012, 05:19:15 pm
Gradually move the entire country into gun-free gated communities.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on November 10, 2012, 05:20:54 pm
Stop ammunition supply. Shut down any factories and ban import. There you go.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on November 10, 2012, 05:34:56 pm
Quote from: misko27 on November 10, 2012, 05:20:54 pm
Stop ammunition supply. Shut down any factories and ban import. There you go.

Joe Survivalist has a small munitions depot in his hidey hole in Idaho for the day when the black helicopters come to abduct everyone. Now not only is he still heavily armed, he's making a pile of money selling excess ammunition to everyone else.

Also, confiscating ammunition is even harder to do than confiscating guns. You'd be hard pressed to hide an assault rifle on your person, but it would be trivial to hide ammunition somewhere.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 05:39:13 pm
Also, it isn't hard to manufacture bullets, even without industrial tools. It's somewhat harder, but not even remotely impossible, to manufacture guns (look up garage guns for examples).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on November 10, 2012, 05:42:16 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 05:39:13 pm
Also, it isn't hard to manufacture bullets, even without industrial tools. It's somewhat harder, but not even remotely impossible, to manufacture guns (look up garage guns for examples).
On a scale of 150 million? Most are unlikely to posess the ability to do so.
 
However! The thing about amunition? You run out. Sure, it might take a while, but it'll happen. AS people rapidly expend their remaining ammunition, what is left will be highly expensive on the black market. Yes, Guns are easier to ban, but think of it like this:
 
When presented the option of going out and taking america's guns away from them, and starving them of ammunition, which would you choose?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 05:43:58 pm
Quote from: misko27 on November 10, 2012, 05:42:16 pm
On a scale of 150 million? Americans are fat. Most are unlikely to posess the ability to do so.
I am now abandoning this conversation.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 10, 2012, 05:49:27 pm
If we wanna get rid of guns it'll have to be gradual. Decades.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on November 10, 2012, 05:52:12 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on November 10, 2012, 05:49:27 pm
If we wanna get rid of guns it'll have to be gradual. Decades.
Yep, short of nuclear war were in it for the long haul. It's not the guns that are the problem, it's the gun mentality. the mindset of someone who owns a gun. We must dismante gun culture itself to be sucessful.
 
However, movin past that is going to be HARD. Really hard. Really, Really hard. Pacifying the Balkans hard.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on November 10, 2012, 05:56:24 pm
Quote from: misko27 on November 10, 2012, 05:52:12 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on November 10, 2012, 05:49:27 pm
If we wanna get rid of guns it'll have to be gradual. Decades.
Yep, short of nuclear war were in it for the long haul. It's not the guns that are the problem, it's the gun mentality. the mindset of someone who owns a gun. We must dismante gun culture itself to be sucessful.
 
However, movin past that is going to be HARD. Really hard. Really, Really hard. Pacifying the Balkans hard.

No. America has a violence problem that is very much disentangled with guns.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 10, 2012, 05:58:54 pm
If we teach people that violence isn't an acceptable way to solve problems, the guns will disappear along with the mentality (at least the guns intended to hurt human beings).

But of course, we'll have to stop being hypocritical and trying to police the world first.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 10, 2012, 06:07:49 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on November 10, 2012, 05:58:54 pm
If we teach people that violence isn't an acceptable way to solve problems, the guns will disappear along with the mentality (at least the guns intended to hurt human beings).
You're right, we just need magic.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 10, 2012, 06:11:07 pm
Pretty much.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 10, 2012, 06:19:18 pm
A few permanent widened Calm Emotions would do for starters.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on November 10, 2012, 06:30:07 pm
So magic AND a lawful evil alignment 
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 10, 2012, 06:31:53 pm
Nope, any bard or cleric can cast it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on November 10, 2012, 08:00:19 pm
First of all guns and ammunition aren't all that hard to make, ammunition is a bit harder to make from scratch but completely doable.
The problem isn't guns, guns have been apart of american culture since it's inception. Before columbine kids at my high school took hunting rifles with them to school so they could hunt after, it didn't have people dying left and right.

Guns don't magically make people into mass murderers, blaming guns diverts attention from the underlying problem.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 10, 2012, 08:06:24 pm
Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on November 10, 2012, 08:00:19 pm
The problem isn't guns, guns have been apart of american culture since it's inception.
The second part of this statement doesn't really refute the first
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 08:07:44 pm
Violent crime is going down and gun laws are at some of their laxest in US history, so I'm thinking there isn't a very strong correlation between the two.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 10, 2012, 08:09:37 pm
They're going down because people just couldn't figure out how to commit more in a shorter amount of of time and they had to take a break! [/snark]
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on November 10, 2012, 08:12:32 pm
Oh, and I forgot to mention (though Kilroy did) that supporting a gun/ammunition ban would be political suicide almost anywhere in the US.

To not be royally trounced after doing so in the following election, the district would have to both be unusually progressive and anti-gun progressive at that. For example, if you tried to do so in Vermont, a veritable Democratic stronghold and one of the first to support the PPCA, you would be thrown out in five seconds because Vermont has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the US. Really, gun control on a large scale ceased to be politically viable somewhere in the 1990s.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on November 10, 2012, 08:15:31 pm
Quote from: Darvi on November 10, 2012, 08:09:37 pm
They're going down because people just couldn't figure out how to commit more in a shorter amount of of time and they had to take a break! [/snark]
They're going down because we're running out of victims. Send help before our murder economy crashes.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 10, 2012, 08:21:33 pm
You know it's possible that there is more than one factor affecting the violent crime rate.

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 10, 2012, 08:12:32 pm
Oh, and I forgot to mention (though Kilroy did) that supporting a gun/ammunition ban would be political suicide almost anywhere in the US.
Wait a second, am I getting a "majority is always right" lecture from a Ron Paul supporter?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on November 10, 2012, 08:46:19 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on November 10, 2012, 08:21:33 pm
You know it's possible that there is more than one factor affecting the violent crime rate.

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 10, 2012, 08:12:32 pm
Oh, and I forgot to mention (though Kilroy did) that supporting a gun/ammunition ban would be political suicide almost anywhere in the US.
Wait a second, am I getting a "majority is always right" lecture from a Ron Paul supporter?

Not right necessarily. Just pointing out that it wouldn't pass even if it was a good idea and there wasn't a gigantic pile of evidence showing gun control to be unsuccessful at stopping homicide.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Durin Stronginthearm on November 10, 2012, 10:28:05 pm
Plenty of countries have gun ownership but low gun crime. Much as I have a strong distaste for firearms (I come from a culture where they're only really owned by police, military or criminals) it's not gun ownership in itself that's the cause of gun crime in the US.

It's because Americans can't fight using their fists like REAL MEN ;)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on November 10, 2012, 10:35:44 pm
A better vetting and re-qualification system would probably cut down on the number of accidental gun deaths (and the non-fatal incidents as well, of course), though, which are pretty far from non-zero. All I'm really after in the realm of US gun control is better pre-ownership training and an occasional checkup to make sure folks haven't forgotten what the hell they're doing. I've mentioned it before, but my own experiences with gun ownership and licensing haven't exactly filled me with confidence in the system as-is.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on November 10, 2012, 10:52:49 pm
Anti-gay and can't win in the USA? Bring the war elsewhere! (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/11/09/1175721/nom-to-blackmail-equality-supporting-companies-by-stoking-middle-east-anti-gay-persecution/)

And then start an anti-gay rebellion anyway or something (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/11/09/1169541/hate-group-doubles-down-on-violent-rhetoric-calling-for-anti-equality-revolution/)

It's amazing the sort of fear people have about equal rights.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on November 10, 2012, 11:47:56 pm
Quote from: Durin Stronginthearm on November 10, 2012, 10:28:05 pm
Plenty of countries have gun ownership but low gun crime. Much as I have a strong distaste for firearms (I come from a culture where they're only really owned by police, military or criminals) it's not gun ownership in itself that's the cause of gun crime in the US.

It's because Americans can't fight using their fists like REAL MEN ;)

The term "gun crime" is a loaded phrase. GUN MURDER is no worse than KNIFE MURDER! or HEFTY STICK MURDER!!!111

Quote from: Frumple on November 10, 2012, 10:35:44 pm
A better vetting and re-qualification system would probably cut down on the number of accidental gun deaths (and the non-fatal incidents as well, of course), though, which are pretty far from non-zero. All I'm really after in the realm of US gun control is better pre-ownership training and an occasional checkup to make sure folks haven't forgotten what the hell they're doing. I've mentioned it before, but my own experiences with gun ownership and licensing haven't exactly filled me with confidence in the system as-is.

It wouldn't hurt, though you would have to be a bit careful with periodic tests what with the widespread conspiracy theories of the gubment comin' to take yall guns for the UN's one world gubment run by a computer called SATAN! On second thought, those might be the people who shouldn't have guns.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on November 11, 2012, 12:27:07 am
I don't really care about banning gun ownership so much, but I would like to see more gun regulation. Right now it's far too easy for a gun that's purchased legally in the US to just magically slip out of the purchaser's hands and then wind up on the black market where it makes it's way into, for example, a Mexican drug cartel's hands. And there is rarely if ever much of anything done to prevent this kind of stuff.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a certain degree of accountability for guns in the US. With a few simple measures that most gun owners would barely, if at all, feel the effect of, I think you could do a lot to curtail this kind of thing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on November 11, 2012, 12:51:06 am
Quote from: Pnx on November 11, 2012, 12:27:07 am
I don't really care about banning gun ownership so much, but I would like to see more gun regulation. Right now it's far too easy for a gun that's purchased legally in the US to just magically slip out of the purchaser's hands and then wind up on the black market where it makes it's way into, for example, a Mexican drug cartel's hands. And there is rarely if ever much of anything done to prevent this kind of stuff.
(http://media.salon.com/2011/11/holder22-460x307.jpg)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 11, 2012, 12:57:59 am
The cartels wouldn't even be a problem if we ended the war on drugs.

Speaking of that, I bet they're shaking in their boots about Colorado and Washington right now. 70% of cartel profits in 2011 came from marijuana, according to the DEA report on the subject.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on November 11, 2012, 01:05:21 am
It does seem pretty damn popular. In high school I don't think I met a single person who had used meth, herion, or any of those drugs (at least, any that I knew of), but I knew at least a half dozen people who smoked marijuana, or had smoked marijuana in the past and told me about it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 11, 2012, 01:49:36 am
I think half the people I know smoke at least every once in a while. Varying amounts do the middle stuff like E or LSD, but I don't know anyone who would do heroin/meth. I know some people who used to do heroin, but they got caught up with it when they were too young to know what they were getting themselves into. It's a really shitty drug.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 11, 2012, 02:04:32 am
I'll actually admit to being a person who wouldn't of smoked weed when it was illegal, but am now considering it.

Assuming anyone here actually cares that people might be encouraged to try it now, anyway. I'm betting most people here don't, but those shouting "usage will rise!" are at least probably right in my case.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on November 11, 2012, 02:06:24 am
I think it'll rise for a bit, then people will realize that it's not all it's chalked up to be, and it'll drop to normal levels.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on November 11, 2012, 02:13:10 am
I tend to think of marijuana as like cigarettes and alcohol. Ban it, and watch shit go down. Let people have, but know what the consequences are.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 11, 2012, 07:59:00 am
Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on November 11, 2012, 12:51:06 am
Quote from: Pnx on November 11, 2012, 12:27:07 am
I don't really care about banning gun ownership so much, but I would like to see more gun regulation. Right now it's far too easy for a gun that's purchased legally in the US to just magically slip out of the purchaser's hands and then wind up on the black market where it makes it's way into, for example, a Mexican drug cartel's hands. And there is rarely if ever much of anything done to prevent this kind of stuff.
(http://media.salon.com/2011/11/holder22-460x307.jpg)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Kilroy, you should know better. NOBODY bought guns and "gave" them to cartels. The cartels sent guys to buy guns. Guys who were LEGALLY allowed to buy guns. The ATF merely didn't stop them buying them.

"Operation Don't Do Anything" would have seen even MORE guns get into cartel hands, with less way to track them.

Stop spreading blatant propaganda. And I'm sure you know damn well that it was a Bush era ATF idea, there's no demonstrable evidence that the idea came from, or was endorsed by, Holder, and the agent in charge was the same agent running the show under Bush.

Not stopping gun sales is the conservative dream. And by NRA logic, they wanted guns and would've got them one way or another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Don't blame the Feds for the Phoenix ATF repeating dubious operations which were their own idea.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on November 11, 2012, 08:57:35 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 11, 2012, 12:57:59 am
The cartels wouldn't even be a problem if we ended the war on drugs.

This isn't really true. Ending the "war on drugs" (which I support the end of, by the way) and/or legalising certain drugs would boost the sales in the US and as such boost the income of the cartels, because they are the only providers in place. Within a decade or so their business would probably have gone down as other corporations take over the distribution, but until then they're still going to be the one's profiting from the market.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 11, 2012, 09:05:18 am
Not right at all:

- Cartels are not the only provider, there are legal growers and medical marijuana sellers already in place.
- the laws provide that you can home-grow up to 6 plants in colorado, i think, so that will reduce a lot of the "trade", or at least create millions of micro-providers

The likely result is that prices will plummet and the cartel distribution network will disintegrate starting with front-line dealers and working back.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on November 11, 2012, 09:07:36 am
I don't think that's their main product.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 11, 2012, 09:10:49 am
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on November 11, 2012, 09:07:36 am
I don't think that's their main product.

Actually, it is their main product. Marijuana is by far the biggest selling illegal drug, although not the one with the highest profit margins per kilo. Still, that one drug is over 50% of cartel profits.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja-arizona/2010/09/05/mexican-marijuana-fuels-drug-cartels/

Quote
One of the major sources of income for the Mexican drug cartels is the smuggling of marijuana into the US. The marijuana is grown in the Sierra Madre, then hauled over the border in many devious ways, and sold on the streets of the US.

US pot heads are providing the cash flow to fuel Mexican drug cartel violence.  Some estimate that as much as 60% of the revenue to the drug cartels comes from marjuana.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Cthulhu on November 11, 2012, 09:33:58 am
Yeah, I'm not sure legalizing marijuana is going to mean shitty Mexican pot is going to be all you can find at first.  Kentucky's number one cash crop is marijuana, I can't imagine it's much different in places like California.  So much of their workforce was paid under the table at one point it was putting noticeable dents in tax revenue, I wouldn't be surprised if that was pot-related too.

The pot thing's not over yet, we'll need somebody to play Scopes and get it taken to the Supreme Court first to get the DEA off everybody's backs, that'll be interesting.  If it gets legalized in Ohio and there's no risk of going to jail I might light up just because I can, but as has been mentioned, all the evidence shows legalizing drugs only temporarily increases usage.  Once the novelty wears off it goes back down to pre-ban levels.

I had something relevant and not weed-related the other day but I forgot.  :/

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on November 13, 2012, 11:43:33 am
http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/10/12/florida-passes-plan-for-racially-based-academic-goals/
http://www.nwpr.org/post/firestorm-erupts-over-virginias-education-goals

So, virginia and florida are varying the required test scores by race, ignoring socioeconomic factors in favor of racial profiling and  promoting the idea that minorities (other than asians) are inferior.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on November 13, 2012, 12:09:13 pm
"Florida happily displays its proclivity toward being full of racist fucks, again" was my initial reaction, though that's obviously influenced by being in the part of the state that really is full of racist fucks (especially in the town I'm currently mostly stuck in, which on last census -- or possibly the one before that, so it might have like... quintupled* since then -- had an african american population of one. Not one percent. One.).

Actually reading through the article, my reaction is still mostly that, but there's some weird stuff going on too, apparently, such as the decision being influenced by provisions of the no-child-left-behind act and the apparent fact that other groupings (such as socioeconomic factors, or at least poverty) is also included (leading to the question of why the hell you need the racial profiling, then?). Still pretty damned reprehensible, but at least there's some nominal other factors involved.

*Which would still leave that demographic in the single digits.

E: Also, the florida numbers appear to be considerably less racist (if that's even a sliding scale thing at all, and not just binary) than the virginia one. Congratulations, Virginia! You've achieved the accomplishment no one actually wants: Out bigoting Florida.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 13, 2012, 12:26:02 pm
I'll play devil's advocate here, since the article isn't saying that non-whites have lower targets individually, they're state targets for how many of each demographic group reach the same standards.

If 80% of whites were graduating, and only 50% of blacks were graduating, setting a goal by 2020 of 60% blacks graduating would NOT be racist, it would be realist.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 13, 2012, 12:26:20 pm
I... don't actually have a problem with that. They want to see improvements across all demographics, but are setting reasonable targets based on where the demographics are now. (And one of those demographics happens to be race, but others aren't and there is overlap)

If you're going to be setting targets of this sort, this seems like one of the better ways to do it.

Their expectations for an individual student aren't any lower, after all - and they are hoping to get more from more students, period, than they were before.

Eh, I don't know.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on November 13, 2012, 12:32:38 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 13, 2012, 12:26:20 pm
I... don't actually have a problem with that. They want to see improvements across all demographics, but are setting reasonable targets based on where the demographics are now. (And one of those demographics happens to be race, but others aren't and there is overlap)

If you're going to be setting targets of this sort, this seems like one of the better ways to do it.

Their expectations for an individual student aren't any lower, after all - and they are hoping to get more from more students, period, than they were before.

Eh, I don't know.
Yeah, pretty much this. I don't see a problem here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on November 13, 2012, 05:10:59 pm
I have to say. I just don't freaking understand Florida. At all. What the hell is up with them. I mean, one would think, in a world ruled by logic, that a swing-state would be moderate yes? But no. it acts like a stereotypical southern state, like the ones that have still not apologized for thier Eugenics programs, or the ones that teach Creationism Hell, there is a town in florida where Satan is illegal. He can't go there. seriously (ACLU showed up and intervened, o now he isn't allowed on public property.). I mean what, do the democrats there just not vote until presidential elections?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on November 13, 2012, 05:14:00 pm
Satan gives zero shits about your laws. He's already stuck in Hell for eternity, so what could you possibly do to him?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 13, 2012, 05:15:44 pm
Ditto even if he does turn up there. So you want to arrest the Prince of Lies? Tough luck.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on November 13, 2012, 05:20:48 pm
"I'm not Satan! I'm... Santa. Yes, that's it. Santa. Ho ho ho, merry Christmas, and all that!"
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on November 13, 2012, 05:21:02 pm
Quote from: Darvi on November 13, 2012, 05:15:44 pm
Ditto even if he does turn up there. So you want to arrest the Prince of Lies? Tough luck.
They have Prince of Darkness covered though. And "leader of men astray". But he is allowed, just not on public property.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 13, 2012, 05:23:38 pm
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on November 13, 2012, 05:20:48 pm
"I'm not Satan! I'm... Santa. Yes, that's it. Santa. Ho ho ho, merry 666mas, and all that!"
FTFY

It's also suspicious that Santa's last name is "Claws" and he likes the color red, and horned animals. And he demands sacrifices, whilst coming down the chimney in winter (with the fire going I imagine). Saint Nicholaus is the old name for Santa, whilst Old Nick is a name for the devil. The list just goes on and on.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 13, 2012, 05:28:58 pm
Well he is allowed on public property during December. *insert obvious Santa Clause pun*
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 13, 2012, 05:44:04 pm
Are these grade things on actual class grades or on standardized testing? If I recall correctly, students of color tend to do worse on standardized tests than white students even if both students have the same abilities otherwise.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 13, 2012, 06:32:24 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 13, 2012, 05:44:04 pm
Are these grade things on actual class grades or on standardized testing? If I recall correctly, students of color tend to do worse on standardized tests than white students even if both students have the same abilities otherwise.

I read some stuff on that which was of dubious scholarship. Well, not so much the research, as the interpretation.

The researchers assumed that black kids felt that they themselves would do badly on the tests, because they were black, so they in fact did badly. The researchers then gave the black kids a "pep talk", and they performed better. Hence "proving" that black kids were biased to believe they'd do badly - because they were black. e.g. self-racism.

But this kind of sounds like circular logic, since they were using the assumptions to prove the assumptions. Also, it's also non-scientific, since they only gave pep-talks to the black kids and evaluated them against "standard" scores of white kids, without considering that ALL the kids might have "jitters" about their up-coming test performance.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 13, 2012, 06:38:32 pm
I'll admit i haven't seen any actual scholarship on the topic, and I only got the same things you did when I googled it just now.

What I heard a long time ago was that pretty much all of the word problems and passages and stuff were things that were relevant to middle class white culture, and although the unfamiliarity with it wasn't going to make other kids fail it was enough to make them lose a few points on average.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on November 13, 2012, 07:32:19 pm
The phrase you're looking for is "stereotype threat."  The standard test w.r.t. standard tests is to note that black folks and women who have to declare these things before taking a math exam do far worse than those who don't.  It's not even about pep talks, it's about being told "we're paying attention to your race/gender.  Now let's see if you satisfy the stereotype or not."  This increases stress, which causes a deterioration of exam performance.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 13, 2012, 07:44:08 pm
I was actually thinking of an article which worked a little different to the methodology of "stereotype threat" i think i read on science2.0 or some such science news aggregator. It specifically was not "stereotype threat". I already know about that.

Part of the way to alleviate any stereotype threat if you still want demgraphic data is as simple as ensuring that you collect any gender/race info after the test, not before it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on November 13, 2012, 07:45:35 pm
Oh, okay.  But yeah, a lot of the IQ tests and stuff rely on things like a picture of a teacup and "draw what is missing" (the saucer), which will only occur to you if you're in a certain cultural position.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 13, 2012, 07:51:37 pm
Yeah, I'm not much of a fan of IQ testing methodology. Much of the field fails at being science.

One problem is that most science fields start with data and then fit theory to that data. Even if you start with theory, you collect data as objectively as possible, and you have falsifiable predictions etc.

Whereas the IQ field starts with theory (ideological assumptions), then throws out data sets (by creating "calibrated" tests) that do not match the theory, thus the assumptions of the field are unfalsifiable.

But I did think that things like pictures of steamships, telephones, saucer and cups have been a HUGE no-no for a long time in IQ testing? That sort of tech/cultural bias is fairly old news and has been debated for many decades.

Not much can be done with vocabulary questions, those still have a LOT of potential cultural bias, but omitting vocabulary questions is problematic, for ideological test-creation reasons, since the balance of spatial vs verbal is how they mainly calibrate equality between the genders.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on November 13, 2012, 10:19:41 pm
Audio from Lambis's Interview with Atwater Released (http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy#)

Quote from: Atwater
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

Well I'm glad that it's on the record in a manner which can't be questioned (barring complete reality denial).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 14, 2012, 12:51:15 am
Venezuela Wins Seat on UN Human Rights Council (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/11/12/venezuela-aspires-to-un-human-rights-council-sparking-outrage/)

FOX is outraged that Venezuela got a seat on UN Human Rights Council. I guess all those people Chavez ordered killed (grand total: Zero) will be rolling in their non-existent graves.

It's a country with no death penalty, never started a war, no "disappeared" or assassinated opposition leaders, unlike many countries that the USA holds up as beacons of freedom (looking at you, Colombia).

You'll notice that FOX's anti-Venezuela "human rights" article above, cannot list a SINGLE violent accusation against Chavez - not one single suppression of demonstrators, not one killing, not one incident of torture, etc. All the things they accuse him of is "being powerful." through means such as having a parliamentary majority, and appointing friendly supreme court judges - which I'd argue is a natural right conferred by winning the elections in the first place.

and the idea that Chavez "controls the media" is bullshit, just read Venezuelan newspapers online. El Universal, the leading daily, is openly anti-Chavez to the level of FOX News, and has never been shut down:
http://www.eluniversal.com/english/

If winning a majority of seats in parliament makes you a human-rights abuser, than i guess that invalidates every single government in the world.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 14, 2012, 12:59:08 am
It is rather suspicious how much influence he has. The absence of all but light dissent makes me wary of him at the least.

Still better than the time Iran got on the Women's Rights Council, though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 14, 2012, 12:59:39 am
dude, all the TV channels and newspapers hate Chavez. There is one single state owned channel which has fairly small market share.

Read el Universal, their leading paper

The corporate media there is constantly thinking up anti-chavez conspiracy theories, daily.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 14, 2012, 01:02:00 am
I mean in the sense that the National Assembly is firmly in his pocket and has been for a long time. That's something that doesn't generally happen in a functioning democracy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on November 14, 2012, 01:03:17 am
Quote from: Reelya on November 14, 2012, 12:51:15 am
You'll notice that FOX's anti-Venezuela "human rights" article above, cannot list a SINGLE violent accusation against Chavez - not one single suppression of demonstrators, not one killing, not one incident of torture, etc. All the things they accuse him of is "being powerful." through means such as having a parliamentary majority.
Mighty powerful though. And do you know who else was powerful? Hitler!

You clearly don't understand the progression. Socialism=Communism=Bad=Repression=NoHumanRights. It's basic maths.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 14, 2012, 12:59:08 am
Still better than the time Iran got on the Women's Rights Council, though.
Please tell me that is not a thing. Please.

At least it's not, well no, even that is better. Uhh. Hmm.

Well, at least it wasn't North korea on Internet freedom.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 14, 2012, 01:04:34 am
North Korea, while a member of the UN, generally does not attend and is thus not appointed to things very often.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on November 14, 2012, 01:06:35 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 14, 2012, 01:04:34 am
North Korea, while a member of the UN, generally does not attend and is thus not appointed to things very often.
And I think we can all agree it is a good thing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 14, 2012, 01:07:49 am
the meme spread about Chavez's 100% media control is a propaganda piece, itself. What the truth behind that is two TV channels conspired with the army to overthrow Chavez in 2002 in a violent takeover, massacred civilian protestors, and imposed a fascist regime which abolished the constitution, parliament, supreme court, election commission, human-rights ombusdman.

And the corporate media there LAPPED IT UP and supported these violent thugs who sent armoured cars around machine-gunning down crowds of unarmed Chavez supporters.

The company that ran TV station RCTV which helped organized and carry out the coup, didn't get their broadcast license renewed when it expired. But none of the went to jail.

What would you do if Rupert Murdoch led an armed overthrow of the government and massacred thousands of Democrats in the street while imposing a fascist military dictatorship? Would YOU let him keep broadcasting after his Junta was overthrown?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 14, 2012, 01:15:43 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 14, 2012, 01:02:00 am
I mean in the sense that the National Assembly is firmly in his pocket and has been for a long time. That's something that doesn't generally happen in a functioning democracy.

That's because the Venezuelan opposition lead a violent coup in 2002 and massacred a lot of people, including THEIR OWN GUYS so they could blame the socialists. All this is on video with alarming amounts of evidence. They just didn't hide their tracks because they didn't expect the lower-rank soldiers to rebel and put the elected government back into power.

Since then, the opposition hasn't had any credibility. It's kind of hard to do when your guys shot civilians on camera.

also, look it up, the opposition deliberately boycotted the 2005 parliamentary elections because they knew they were going to lose, Chavez's party won a lot of seats, then the Bush administration who were allied with the opposition used the fact of their parliamentary dominance to claim he was a dictator / rigged elections somehow.

Plus, the 20% are the well-off whites and the 80% were the oppressed mixed-race peasant majority, who now pretty much all vote socialist because they remember the old days of police massacres and beat beaten and shot. That's one thing Chavez can boast since he got in. 100% less government-ordered massacres.

this is the most famous massacre before Chavez got in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracazo
It happened the same year as the Tienamin Square massacre in China, funny the West never covered this in the news:

Quote
The Caracazo or sacudón is the name given to the wave of protests, riots and looting and ensuing massacre[1] that occurred on 27 February 1989 in the Venezuelan capital Caracas and surrounding towns. The riots — the worst in Venezuelan history — resulted in a death toll of anywhere between 275 and 3,000 deaths,[2] mostly at the hands of security forces. The main reason for the protests were the neoliberal, pro-market reforms imposed by the government of Carlos Andrés Pérez, who had recently been elected in a campaign where he promised the opposite of such reforms.[1]

The clearest consequence of the Caracazo was political instability. The following February, the army was called to contain similar riots in Puerto La Cruz and Barcelona, and again in June, when rising of transportation costs ended in riots in Maracaibo and other cities. The free-market reforms programme was modified. In 1992 there were two attempted coups d'état, in February and November. Carlos Andrés Pérez was accused of corruption and removed from the presidency. Hugo Chávez, an organiser of one of the coups, was found guilty of sedition and incarcerated. However, he was subsequently pardoned by Pérez's successor, Rafael Caldera, and went on to be elected president after him.

In 1998, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights condemned the government's action, and referred the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In 1999, the Court heard the case and found that the government had committed violations of human rights, including extrajudicial killings. The Venezuelan government, by then headed by Chávez, did not contest the findings of the case, and accepted full responsibility for the government's actions.[3]

276 is the "official" death toll. most accounts say ~2000. but idk about the following massacres of the next few years.

Now, you might have heard Chavez himself led a coup in 1992. But consider that he lead a coup against a psychotic regime that had a bazillion massacres of civilians over the preceding 3 years ... and consider that the party which conducted those massacres is still one of the biggest opposition parties.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on November 14, 2012, 01:36:25 am
Venezolan elections have repeatedly been held with international observers, who found no fault. I find Chavez too flamboyant for my taste, but the whole "He's a dictator!" rap he gets is an obvious propaganda scheme.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 14, 2012, 01:50:28 am
This movie is amazing (youtube: though the quality here sucks) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id--ZFtjR5c) : some guys from Ireland were making a documentary about Chavez, and during filming the coup happened, so they changed it into a doco about the coup. They actually got stuck in the parliament building with army tanks surrounding it, and the army threatening to bomb the building and kill everyone unless they gave them Chavez.

This film has it all, political intrigue, media wars, crazy commandos, army soldiers rebelling, APCs in the streets machine-gunning protestors, killer cops with shotguns and swords. (the Venezuelan cops are die-hard opposition NAZIs who revel in killing socialists).

and like all good movies it has a great ending: evil coup leaders overthrown, elected officials rescued and put back into power by the rank-and-file army soldiers.

From this and other things I've decided: Venezuelan army GOOD, Venezuelan cops BAD (VERY BAD). All the worst stuff seems to be initiated by the cops there, and the army itself hasn't been as directly involved in mass-killings of civilians. A traditional cop there won't think twice if he's ordered to civilians in the street. but the army grunts will actually rebel against orders that are too horrific.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 14, 2012, 02:03:12 am
So basically the world of LCS?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 14, 2012, 02:10:55 am
I haven't played LCS, but just from what I've osmosed about it in my time here, I think I can safely say that South America in general is the embodiment of that game.  The history of ultra-violent fascist dictatorships slaughtering peaceful liberals is staggering and USA media is very careful to keep its population mostly ignorant of it, because many U.S. businessmen and politicians (plenty still active today) had their hands deep in that pool of blood.  The initial investments that launched Romney's Bain Capital came from people who controlled fascist death squads in El Salvador, for instance.

It amazes me that it's not brought up more often in political discussions, because it's very fresh and relevant to modern ideologies.  You always hear the Soviet states brought up as a boogeyman against socialism, but you never hear people bring up the U.S. backed coups against peacefully elected and successful socialist leaders brought up as a boogeyman against capitalism.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 14, 2012, 02:35:04 am
Romney's El Salvador financier's spiritual leader actually led a military unit a few years prior to Romney taking their money, which assassinated the catholic arch-bishop of the country, whilst he was doing the Eucharist, spilling the wine which mixed with his blood and cascaded all over the altar. Because he spoke out against massacres. A week later they did a grenade and machine gun attack on the people at his funeral. This was all very well-known in the American press (including which families backed the assassins) by 1981, well before Romney accepted their money.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/deathsquads_ElSal.html

Quote
Carlos Antonio Gomez Montano was a paratrooper stationed at Ilopango Air Force Base. He claimed to have seen eight Green Beret advisers watching two "torture classes" during which a 17-year-old boy and a 13-year-old girl were tortured. Montano claimed that his unit and the Green Berets were joined by Salvadoran Air Force Commander Rafael Bustillo and other Salvadoran officers during these two sessions in January 1981. A Salvadoran officer told the assembled soldiers, "[watching] will make you feel more like a man.''

Here's the above story (http://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/11/world/us-advisers-saw-torture-class-salvadoran-says.html) but a dated 1982 nytimes archive version. The nytimes one notes that the 2 children were murdered after the torture training, but not within sight of the Green Berets, though other accounts note that US advisors were fully aware but made it clear actual deaths should not occur within their vision.

Here's another one from the first link:

Quote
Rene Hurtado worked as intelligence agent for the Treasury Police, one of the three Salvadoran paramilitary forces. After a falling out with an officer, he fled to Minnesota, took refuge with a Presbyterian Church congregation, and began describing routine torture methods used by paramilitary forces. These included beatings, electric shock, suffocation, and mutilation. He described techniques such as tearing the skin from " interrogation" subjects, sticking needles into them, or beating them in such a manner that lasting internal injuries but no telltale external marks would be sustained. According to Hurtado, CIA employees and Green Berets taught some of these torture techniques to the Treasury Police in Army staff headquarters.

General John Vessey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was particularly disturbed by the implication of the Green Berets and initiated an investigation. The investigator from the Army Criminal Investigation Division stated, "My job was to clear the Army's name and I was going to do whatever [was] necessary to do that." Hurtado refused to cooperate with the investigator on the advice of a member of Congress whom the church parishioners had called upon. When the investigator was told this by the minister, he responded, "Tell Mr. Hurtado that the Congressman has given him very costly advice. When I went to El Salvador to investigate his allegations, at the advice of the U.S. Ambassador, I did not talk to members of the Salvadoran military. If I go again and talk to the military, we don't know who will be hurt, do we?''
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 14, 2012, 03:10:50 am
Yeah... like I said... of all the (recent) things the U.S. gets criticized for, it blows my mind how the absolute worst is almost never mentioned.  When I discovered the Dirty Wars, I had to stop myself from reading too deeply into it, because I couldn't handle the revulsion I felt.

It's also worth noting that I didn't become aware of this part of history until my mid-20's because I had never heard the slightest mention of it before ever.  Not in school or the mainstream media or any conversation.  I first discovered it when listening to an audiobook of "The Shock Doctrine" and immediately went diving for more info.  It felt like stumbling upon a hidden basement full of 1000 dead bodies right under my bed that half the authority figures in my life knew about but never told me.

Stuff like this is why I'm such a paranoid cynic, and information freedom is my #1 political priority.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on November 14, 2012, 11:54:38 am
http://news.yahoo.com/ireland-probes-death-ill-abortion-seeker-115438751.html

Pro life kills people.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Virex on November 14, 2012, 01:22:03 pm
Quote from: scriver on November 11, 2012, 08:57:35 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 11, 2012, 12:57:59 am
The cartels wouldn't even be a problem if we ended the war on drugs.

This isn't really true. Ending the "war on drugs" (which I support the end of, by the way) and/or legalising certain drugs would boost the sales in the US and as such boost the income of the cartels, because they are the only providers in place.
Most batch-scale pharmaceutical plants can switch their production portfolio on a daily basis and expanding capacity takes only half a year tops. Building time is about 3 years tops for a completely new plant, and may be as low as 1 year for small-capacity plants on an existing chemical campus. A decade is a bit of a long time for the pharmaceutical companies to chime in.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 14, 2012, 01:26:31 pm
Quote from: Virex on November 14, 2012, 01:22:03 pm
Quote from: scriver on November 11, 2012, 08:57:35 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 11, 2012, 12:57:59 am
The cartels wouldn't even be a problem if we ended the war on drugs.

This isn't really true. Ending the "war on drugs" (which I support the end of, by the way) and/or legalising certain drugs would boost the sales in the US and as such boost the income of the cartels, because they are the only providers in place.
Most batch-scale pharmaceutical plants can switch their production portfolio on a daily basis and expanding capacity takes only half a year tops. Building time is about 3 years tops for a completely new plant, and may be as low as 1 year for small-capacity plants on an existing chemical campus. A decade is a bit of a long time for the pharmaceutical companies to chime in.
Also, for a variety of drugs, the parts not fit for medical use/overproduced  are simply destroyed. Lot's of that can quite probably be recovered.

For example: Coca Cola still uses Coca leaves in their product, but they have the cocaine removed first by a medicinal compagny then put the waste in their product(Really, it's nothing more than filtered plant ash. Stupid copyright stuff).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 15, 2012, 07:36:14 am
Some guys made a pro-gay marriage video. I now consider banning marriage between a gay man and a woman. (http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6846855/gay-men-will-marry-your-girlfriends)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 15, 2012, 01:17:56 pm
Haha, yeah, I saw that a while ago :)

None of the stereotypes really fit me though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on November 15, 2012, 03:57:00 pm
Quote from: Sheb on November 15, 2012, 07:36:14 am
Some guys made a pro-gay marriage video. I now consider banning marriage between a gay man and a woman. (http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6846855/gay-men-will-marry-your-girlfriends)
That is not supposed to be the logical outcome of that, but I thank you for thinking outside the box.
 
Although, Even I started getting a feeling of "The Gay dudes are taking our WOMEN!". Not supposed to be tntended reaction.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on November 15, 2012, 04:01:43 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/bp-executive-charged-lying-authorities-190951786.html

In relation to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill 2 bp executives have been charged for lying to congress and manslaughter for negligence leading to the death of 11 rig workers.

Its about damn time that executives start getting charged for the deaths their actions cause.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Virex on November 15, 2012, 05:16:02 pm
Quote from: Sheb on November 15, 2012, 07:36:14 am
Some guys made a pro-gay marriage video. I now consider banning marriage between a gay man and a woman. (http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6846855/gay-men-will-marry-your-girlfriends)
Hell, while we're at it, can we ban heterosexual marriage as well? If you can't marry your girlfriend, no one can steal her ;)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on November 15, 2012, 07:51:43 pm
Barnesville teen denied Catholic confirmation after Facebook post supporting gay marriage (http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/380452/).

Quote
The decision by the Rev. Gary LaMoine to deny the religious rite of passage for Lennon Cihak in mid-October shocked his mother, who said her son has gone to church every week and volunteered around the community in preparation for his confirmation this year.

Apparently, it's more important to support the church's failed crusade against "teh gays" than community service and generally being a decent person. ::)
This isn't the first time the Catholic Church here has done something like this, such as when they revoked funding for the Land Stewardship Program (http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/2012/10/catholic-guilt-association-how-minnesota-marriage-amendment-politics-hurt-land-stew) simply because of guilt by association.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 15, 2012, 07:54:27 pm
That's absolutely normal around these parts with the Mormon church, so it doesn't strike me as particularly odd. I dunno if they'd go so far as to deny priesthood ascension due to simply support gay marriage, but being gay? Yes. Along with a lot of other "sexual sins."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 15, 2012, 07:55:59 pm
These days the Catholic Church has taken the "burn it down" approach to approaching social change. If they can't enforce their code, they won't help anyone.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on November 15, 2012, 07:59:48 pm
I wonder when they will start using the "excommunicate all the states with gay marriage" approach?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on November 15, 2012, 08:02:07 pm
If they continue that approach, the Catholic Church will be relegated to the dust bin of history where it belongs.  It will be interesting to see if the numbers decline here from the last time a religion poll Demographics for Minnesota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Minnesota#Demographics) was taken.  28% Roman Catholic in 2010.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 15, 2012, 08:04:08 pm
Quote from: misko27 on November 15, 2012, 07:59:48 pm
I wonder when they will start using the "excommunicate all the states with gay marriage" approach?
That stopped being effective around 1500. These days all they'd accomplish would be making another denomination that acts exactly like them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 16, 2012, 04:10:54 pm
Fox's Kilmeade On How Fox Hires Female Hosts: "We Go Into The Victoria's Secret Catalogue And We Said, 'Can Any Of These People Talk?'"  (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/16/foxs-kilmeade-on-how-fox-hires-female-hosts-we/191435)





Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 16, 2012, 04:14:40 pm
To be fair, physical appearance obviously matters for someone that's going to be on the air talking all the time.

I'll absolutely agree that Fox's hiring of what are essentially the same thing as booth babes is pretty disgusting, but I won't go so far as to say sex appeal doesn't matter. Yes, it's news, not T&A, but let's look at this practically too; they want someone who's going to catch an eye while flipping through channels. 
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 16, 2012, 04:16:34 pm
If it matters for women but not for men then it is sexist.  Fox's male hosts are ugly and old.

Although if they decide to start hiring male underwear models I will support the practice if only because it means Glenn Beck will lose his spot.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 16, 2012, 04:18:13 pm
I agree that there's truth to the need for reasonably attractive hosts, but for someone to openly claim that the female hosts on their own channel are nothing but underwear models seems a bit excessively sexist.

I mean, it wasn't from someone criticizing the hiring practices, it was said as if it was a point of pride.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 16, 2012, 04:21:53 pm
Indeed and agreed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 16, 2012, 04:24:55 pm
Well the actual comment was probably a joke but it's clear they are sexist in their hiring practices.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 16, 2012, 08:28:11 pm
Yeah, but joking about something you're organization is actually doing wrong is normally seen as in bad taste.

In other news:

They told him not to enforce drug laws in white areas. Really. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=72Lf9ZQK8t0#!)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Korbac on November 16, 2012, 08:41:20 pm
Quote from: Reelya on November 16, 2012, 08:28:11 pm
Yeah, but joking about something you're organization is actually doing wrong is normally seen as in bad taste.

In other news:

They told him not to enforce drug laws in white areas. Really. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=72Lf9ZQK8t0#!)


What I'm getting from this that the issue wasn't directly race, it was more of a case of social status. Still ridiculous though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 16, 2012, 09:13:22 pm
Quote from: Korbac on November 16, 2012, 08:41:20 pm
Quote from: Reelya on November 16, 2012, 08:28:11 pm
Yeah, but joking about something you're organization is actually doing wrong is normally seen as in bad taste.

In other news:

They told him not to enforce drug laws in white areas. Really. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=72Lf9ZQK8t0#!)


What I'm getting from this that the issue wasn't directly race, it was more of a case of social status. Still ridiculous though.

That's not really what he was saying. He was saying that they were directly instructed to not bother enforcing in suburban/rural areas because the families there knew lawyers, judges, politicians, and so forth. Even if he hadn't outright stated it, it isn't particularly difficult to read between the lines. Nor does it greatly surprise me. Though the core issue, perhaps as much as the racism, is the sheer apathy behind that attitude of only enforcing laws for people who can't effectively fight back.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on November 16, 2012, 11:49:16 pm
So... did Anonymous prevent Karl Rove from doing a man-in-the-middle attack in Ohio?
http://wonkette.com/489966/anonymous-claims-it-stopped-karl-rove-from-hacking-the-election-by-hacking-orca-we-think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=REn1BnJE3do
Would explain Rove's reaction election night...  and the similarities to 2004 are uncanny...
on the other hand, it could just be BS.... go go conspiracy theory or just plain random posturing?
In any case... there are many words....
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 16, 2012, 11:59:51 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on November 16, 2012, 11:49:16 pm
So... did Anonymous prevent Karl Rove from doing a man-in-the-middle attack in Ohio?
http://wonkette.com/489966/anonymous-claims-it-stopped-karl-rove-from-hacking-the-election-by-hacking-orca-we-think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=REn1BnJE3do
Would explain Rove's reaction election night...  and the similarities to 2004 are uncanny...
on the other hand, it could just be BS.... go go conspiracy theory or just plain random posturing?
In any case... there are many words....

I really wish I could dismiss it as a conspiracy theory or posturing on the part of anon, but... Yeah, it's Rove, and I really don't think it was a coincidental event.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on November 17, 2012, 12:19:12 am
Eh... No offence but the way they're saying this stuff is kind of childish, melodramatic, and smug. I think whoever did this stuff really needs to work on their interpersonal skills.

As for whether they were trying to hack stuff, I wouldn't be that surprised if they were, but I haven't really seen solid evidence that that's what was attempted. Also I have to ask, if they do have some kind of evidence backing this up, why haven't they just come forward with it? Seems a bit silly to pull your punches like that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on November 17, 2012, 04:10:47 am
Childish melodramatic and smug sounds like anonymous. They are a bunch of malcontents and ner do wells who occasionally think they can get more lulz by trolling the bad and the guilty rather than random people.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 17, 2012, 02:31:39 pm
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/11/16/1837217/website-calls-out-authors-of-racist-anti-obama-posts

Discuss:

Quote
"A tumblr blog entitled 'HelloThereRacists' is publicly identifying other online posters who make racist/assassination comments about President Obama. Beyond merely identifying online usernames, the blog's author is uncovering and publishing the real names and locations of offending posters. It's an interesting mess of legal issues. The outed posters are at risk of a Secret Service visit, but the trouble may not end there. The HelloThereRacists blogger himself may have some problems publicly identifying posters, who are frequently underage teenagers."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 17, 2012, 02:35:06 pm
I don't particularly see a problem provided this information is freely available (on facebook or whatever). Now, there's some risks involved if the internet comes down on these people like a ton of bricks, but then it'd be the fault of the harassers, not the HelloThereRacists blogger.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 17, 2012, 02:39:30 pm
In other news, Indian science text-book goes all denialist - on meat eaters. Woohoo for vegetarian propaganda.

http://idle.slashdot.org/story/12/11/16/2246210/indian-school-textbook-says-meat-eaters-lie-and-commit-sex-crimes

Quote
"Meat-eaters 'easily cheat, lie, forget promises and commit sex crimes,' according to a controversial school textbook available in India. New Healthway, a book on hygiene and health aimed at 11 and 12 year-olds, is printed by one of India's leading publishers. '
...
'The strongest argument that meat is not essential food is the fact that the Creator of this Universe did not include meat in the original diet for Adam and Eve. He gave them fruits, nuts and vegetables,' reads a chapter entitled Do We Need Flesh Food? The chapter details the 'benefits' of a vegetarian diet and goes on to list 'some of the characteristics' found among non-vegetarians. 'They easily cheat, tell lies, forget promises, they are dishonest and tell bad words, steal, fight and turn to violence and commit sex crimes,' it says."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 17, 2012, 02:40:50 pm
Hey, I never did a sex crime! Or forget a promise for that matter. Technically.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 17, 2012, 02:44:52 pm
Well, vegetarians do all that stuff too :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on November 17, 2012, 02:57:42 pm
Quote from: Darvi on November 17, 2012, 02:40:50 pm
Hey, I never did a sex crime! Or forget a promise for that matter. Technically.

Does speeding while getting road head count?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 17, 2012, 03:00:18 pm
Unless you promised not to...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Fenrir on November 17, 2012, 03:35:17 pm
Quote
The strongest argument that meat is not essential food is the fact that the Creator of this Universe did not include meat in the original diet for Adam and Eve.
People really will use that Guy to justify anything.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 17, 2012, 03:38:21 pm
I don't get it. The stigma against meat eaters is from Hinduism, but the justification is from Christianity?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 17, 2012, 03:40:35 pm
If meat wasn't meant to be eaten, explain bacon.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on November 17, 2012, 03:44:02 pm
Quote from: Darvi on November 17, 2012, 03:40:35 pm
If meat wasn't meant to be eaten, explain bacon.

It is pure distilled temptation for sin. It was put on earth by god to test the faith of men.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 17, 2012, 03:52:04 pm
Quote from: Reelya on November 17, 2012, 02:31:39 pm
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/11/16/1837217/website-calls-out-authors-of-racist-anti-obama-posts
He should really stop outing underage teenagers.  It's both illegal and pretty wrong (kids generally don't really have fully formed political opinions anyway, and may have inherited them from parents).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on November 17, 2012, 05:10:17 pm
And of course they don't mention the part where Jesus said it's ok to eat just about anything and when it's reaffirmed later in the New Testament.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on November 17, 2012, 05:12:50 pm
Quote from: Euld on November 17, 2012, 05:10:17 pm
And of course they don't mention the part where Jesus said it's ok to eat just about anything and when it's reaffirmed later in the New Testament.
How about a human child? How about drinking the blood of an infant? How bout a unbaptized infant? What about A Arch-Angel? What about my parents? What about my local priest?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 17, 2012, 05:34:49 pm
Did Jesus said that? From what I remember, Paul had a vision of god saying ti was okay to eat any animals, and then it went down as part of the PR package by the early church for non-Jew convert.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 17, 2012, 05:42:27 pm
Quote from: misko27 on November 17, 2012, 05:12:50 pm
Quote from: Euld on November 17, 2012, 05:10:17 pm
And of course they don't mention the part where Jesus said it's ok to eat just about anything and when it's reaffirmed later in the New Testament.
How about a human child? How about drinking the blood of an infant? How bout a unbaptized infant? What about A Arch-Angel? What about my parents? What about my local priest?
I'd like quotations for that. 3 to 1 your using the wrong intrepretation. The church has some rather nice catch all's for stuff like those:

Quote from: Mangled  pharafrasing of the Doctrina Christiana from Augustinus of Hippo one of the Church fathers, around 350- 430
Any people reading and intrepreting the Bible needs to have an attitude inspired by the 7 virtues. Further on any intrepretation needs to lead to an increase in belief, hope and love. Litteral intrepretations that do not conform to these rules need to be dropped in favour of methaporical ones. 
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on November 17, 2012, 05:48:55 pm
Gotta love methaporical interpretations.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 17, 2012, 05:49:43 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on November 17, 2012, 05:48:55 pm
Gotta love methaporical interpretations.
and allegorical, and whatever other intrepretations you got out there.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on November 17, 2012, 05:53:35 pm
Mathew 15:1-20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+15&version=NIV)  The "zinger" is verses 16-20.

I am in no way arguing a "proper" way to interpret the Bible, nor am I going to argue about the "logic" of the Bible.  Yes, technically someone could read this verse and conclude cannibalism but I'm not going to argue that either, ick.  I'm only saying one thing: Jesus talks about the relation (or lack of) between sin and food in this one section, thus the Bible addressed the subject relating to sin and food more than twice.  That's it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on November 17, 2012, 05:56:53 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on November 17, 2012, 05:49:43 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on November 17, 2012, 05:48:55 pm
Gotta love methaporical interpretations.
and allegorical, and whatever other intrepretations you got out there.

I was making a bad joke about the speIling.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 17, 2012, 06:02:16 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on November 17, 2012, 05:56:53 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on November 17, 2012, 05:49:43 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on November 17, 2012, 05:48:55 pm
Gotta love methaporical interpretations.
and allegorical, and whatever other intrepretations you got out there.

I was making a bad joke about the speIling.

I'm tired, English is not my first language and bloody hell do  I care about a language that uses h's everywhere it doesn't need to .
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on November 17, 2012, 06:20:05 pm
I, for one, would welcome a radical change to the English language to make it easier to learn and more consistent.  But that's just me.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 17, 2012, 06:23:51 pm
Half the charm of English is that it's such an inconsistent pain, though. Insert old joke here.

(http://i.imgur.com/5zsBb.jpg)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on November 17, 2012, 07:42:12 pm
Quote from: greatorder on November 17, 2012, 03:54:28 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 17, 2012, 03:38:21 pm
I don't get it. The stigma against meat eaters is from Hinduism, but the justification is from Christianity?
Welcome to the world known as earth!

May I take your bags? No guarantees they'll be returned intact!

Eastern mysticism-inspired Christianity or Abrahamaic-inspired Hinduism or Buddhism. It's not exactly unheard of.


Quote from: Euld on November 17, 2012, 05:53:35 pm
Mathew 15:1-20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+15&version=NIV)  The "zinger" is verses 16-20.

I am in no way arguing a "proper" way to interpret the Bible, nor am I going to argue about the "logic" of the Bible.  Yes, technically someone could read this verse and conclude cannibalism but I'm not going to argue that either, ick.  I'm only saying one thing: Jesus talks about the relation (or lack of) between sin and food in this one section, thus the Bible addressed the subject relating to sin and food more than twice.  That's it.

Reading that list of sins, it seems to me those lines are the very basis for what they think of meat-eaters.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 17, 2012, 09:17:49 pm
Ack! in 2008 Colombia bombed Ecuador (killing the Colombian rebel's peace negotiation team and accusing them of launching attacks from that base) and threatened Venezuela with the same. And the Colombian & US media + politicians labelled Ecuador + Venezuela as the aggressors.

Now it's been publicly admitted (http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7492) that in 2009 Colombia flew American-made drones over the border with Venezuela to the deep jungle, in preparation to attack...guess who? The rebels latest peace-negotiator. Who, just like the last guy, they would label as plotting attacks with the collusion of a neighboring country - all countries which coincidentally used to be colonial assets of Gran Colombia...

The damn Colombian fascist government leave active, violent, kidnapping, rebels in-place (read up about how the Colombians "rescued" Ingrid Betancourt using a network of double-agents that have infiltrated EVERY LEVEL of the rebel groups, to the point of being able to order the rebels to perform military maneuvers whenever they want) while they take out all the peace negotiators. That's classic fascism for you ...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ancre on November 23, 2012, 05:21:17 am
Posting to watch.

Also, here in France we're having a push for same-sex marriage, what with our president being socialist for the first time in twenty years or something. We're in the "huge pro and against manifestations" stage it seems ; it'll go in front of the Parliament in January 2013 and from there we'll see. There's a large part of the population in favor for it. I don't think we have ever been that close to legalize same-sex marriage, but I'm kinda new to politics and stuff. It's interesting.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 23, 2012, 06:23:18 am
There were huge protests, and some scuffle when neo-nazis were pushed by a priest to assault pro-gay feminists with nun headgear and bare boobs. (Understood it yet?) On a side not, showing boobs do seem to be a good way to get the media to pay attention to your (counter-)protest.

But since french Presidents have an history of not paying attention and trying to look good for History, I'm pretty sure this will get through.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ancre on November 23, 2012, 06:32:42 am
Oh yes. That was hilarious. We had some other positively ridiculous (http://cache.20minutes.fr/img/photos/20mn/2012-10/2012-10-23/article_mariage-gay.jpg) manifestations too. I guess politics are a nice thing to watch for the comedic effect as well. Some things people say or do are so deliciously grotesque they become funny.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on November 24, 2012, 06:33:21 am
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120

Thoughts. To be honest, i understand why the social worker made her decision, if not (yet) condone it. "End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government" sounds just veiled enough not to elicit a bnp reaction but look at it with very cool eyes. On the other hand, the parents appear not to be awful human beings, and we all know the morass that belonging to a political party is. Nevertheless, i would not want to be fostered there.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 24, 2012, 06:37:08 am
It is an over reaction on the part of social services, but after they have come in for so much stick in recent years and blamed for not preventing child deaths in a number of high profile cases I can see why they went so heavy handed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 24, 2012, 02:33:04 pm
Police Raid Home of 9-Year-Old Pirate Bay User, Seize "Winnie the Pooh" Laptop (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/11/22/2330215/police-raid-home-of-9-year-old-pirate-bay-user-seize-winnie-the-pooh-laptop)

Quote
According to TorrentFreak, the girl tried to download a number of songs by Finnish pop star Chisu using The Pirate Bay, where she was led after searching for the songs on Google (GOOG). The downloads failed, according to the girl’s father, and the two went to a local store the following day to purchase a Chisu album. ISPs working with CIAPC flagged the activity, however, and the group’s anti-piracy procedures went into effect.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on November 24, 2012, 02:36:25 pm
Quote from: Reelya on November 24, 2012, 02:33:04 pm
Police Raid Home of 9-Year-Old Pirate Bay User, Seize "Winnie the Pooh" Laptop (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/11/22/2330215/police-raid-home-of-9-year-old-pirate-bay-user-seize-winnie-the-pooh-laptop)
I want to be honest here. Ordinarily, when everyone else is liek "Oh no, a 12 year-old was just eaten by Coyotes!' I usually don't care. But this, sickens me, for some reason. This, more then anything, more then Police beating protestors, more then all that stuff, makes me sick.
 
It might be cause I imagined what it was like to be that kid for a moment. I really don't even know what to say.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 24, 2012, 02:45:32 pm
Uhh update: The artist has publically stated that all her music is ACTUALLY FREE on the internet:

http://www.techspot.com/news/50888-police-raid-targets-9-year-old-pirate-winnie-the-pooh-laptop-seized.html
Quote
Indeed upon hearing about the situation Chisu apologized to the 9-year-old and pointed to a link on Spotify where her music can be played for free. Electronic Frontier Finland also took note of the case and said it is an indication of just how far copyright enforcement has progressed in Finland.

Which makes the raid even more retarded. Anyway, it was google which sent her to TPB rather than spotify. Why not raid Google? After all she just wanted the songs and google directed her to a torrent site, even though she wasn't a torrent user. google could have pointed her at either spotify or youtube and avoided the whole mess.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 30, 2012, 02:32:56 am
Got a good one here:

Fox's Stossel Attacks Government Food Inspection After Inspectors Found A Peanut Butter Salmonella Outbreak  (http://mediamatters.org/video/2012/11/29/foxs-stossel-attacks-government-food-inspection/191567)

Stossel says the FDA were wrong to shut down the plant after finding Salmonella in the product, because companies can self-regulate without government control. But the fact that the FDA actually found the problem and had to shut them down rather defeats the argument that such things just wouldn't happen without health inspectors, because companies always check themselves and they're more proactive about it than the FDA.

It's a really hard argument to buy that companies are more lax now while there are food inspectors, but would tighten things up 100% if inspectors disappeared because of "market forces" (don't those same market forces operate on companies right now? And aren't health violations a real phenomena?).

Market forces will ensure no product ever harms you (according to John Stossel). But only if we get rid of inspectors, apparently.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on November 30, 2012, 02:57:43 am
Quote from: Reelya on November 30, 2012, 02:32:56 am
Got a good one here:

Fox's Stossel Attacks Government Food Inspection After Inspectors Found A Peanut Butter Salmonella Outbreak  (http://mediamatters.org/video/2012/11/29/foxs-stossel-attacks-government-food-inspection/191567)

Stossel says the FDA were wrong to shut down the plant after finding Salmonella in the product, because companies can self-regulate without government control. But the fact that the FDA actually found the problem and had to shut them down rather defeats the argument that such things just wouldn't happen without health inspectors, because companies always check themselves and they're more proactive about it than the FDA.

It's a really hard argument to buy that companies are more lax now while there are food inspectors, but would tighten things up 100% if inspectors disappeared because of "market forces" (don't those same market forces operate on companies right now? And aren't health violations a real phenomena?).

Market forces will ensure no product ever harms you (according to John Stossel). But only if we get rid of inspectors, apparently.

I guess he needs to be reminded that The Jungle was a real thing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on November 30, 2012, 03:09:18 am
Christianity isn't a religion anymore, guys.  Time to go home.  :o

Bill O'Reilly announces that Christianity (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/11/28/bill-oreilly-christianity-is-not-a-religion-its-a-philosophy/) is a philosophy and somehow not a religion.

TAX THE CHURCHES, MEN.  WE'VE GOT THEM BACKED INTO A CORNER.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 30, 2012, 03:15:32 am
There's an outright "War On Christmas" like O'Reilly says. Unlike that "War On Women" - which is a myth.

I think Chrstianity is a quantum phenomena, Christianity both is, and isn't, a religion at the same time, just like corporations are both persons, and not persons, and when you do an "observation" the wave-functions collapse into whatever of the 2 states are convenient for the current argument.

Man, O'Reilly uses some pretty aggressive body language, with the yelling and the pointing xD he almost feels like a thug. When the atheist said O'Reilly WOULD have a problem if someone said "happy winter solstice", O'Reilly pointed and retorted "don't tell me what I think!".

But O'Reilly demonstrably does have a problem if some people just say "happy holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u_Vlmnt1r
Yeah, so unlike his rhetoric, it's not just about live and let live, he wants to force everyone to refer to the holidays as Christmas.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 30, 2012, 12:19:54 pm
GMO giant hires retired cops to hunt down farmers (http://rt.com/usa/news/gmo-agro-dupont-intellectual-926/)

Quote
DuPont Co, the second-largest seed country in the world, is hoping to find farmers that have purchased contracts to use their genetically modified soybean seeds but have breached the terms of agreement by illegally using the product for repeat harvests.

Quote
“Everyone always goes to the idea that we are trying to intimidate people and nothing could be further from the truth,” Agro President Dennis Birtles tells Bloomberg. “We are trying to create deterrence.”

Umm... can you describe the difference between intimidation and deterrence, please?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on November 30, 2012, 12:54:22 pm
Quote from: Reelya on November 30, 2012, 02:32:56 am
Got a good one here:

Fox's Stossel Attacks Government Food Inspection After Inspectors Found A Peanut Butter Salmonella Outbreak  (http://mediamatters.org/video/2012/11/29/foxs-stossel-attacks-government-food-inspection/191567)

Stossel says the FDA were wrong to shut down the plant after finding Salmonella in the product, because companies can self-regulate without government control. But the fact that the FDA actually found the problem and had to shut them down rather defeats the argument that such things just wouldn't happen without health inspectors, because companies always check themselves and they're more proactive about it than the FDA.

It's a really hard argument to buy that companies are more lax now while there are food inspectors, but would tighten things up 100% if inspectors disappeared because of "market forces" (don't those same market forces operate on companies right now? And aren't health violations a real phenomena?).

Market forces will ensure no product ever harms you (according to John Stossel). But only if we get rid of inspectors, apparently.
Stossel is a colossal Randian dickhead and a purveyor of the worst kind of yellow journalism.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 30, 2012, 12:56:36 pm
What's the deal with Ayn Rand anyway? I haven't read Atlas Shrugged and honestly have no desire to do so.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 30, 2012, 12:59:48 pm
Rand basically states that self-interest is the height of morality and that everything will work out if everyone looks after themselves only and stops trying to create collective solutions. Randian philosophy holds that altruism and collectivism are inherently evil because they lessen the motivation of the individual to act for their own interest.

Atlas Shrugged is a story about civilization winding down due to the "true producers" (industrialists and the like) abandoning society due to it not appreciating them enough. The most enigmatic of these is John Galt, who forms the basis of this movement. Eventually the old society collapses and the "true producers" return and take their rightful place as its rulers. "Atlas Shrugged" refers to the story of Atlas, who was cursed to hold the world on his shoulders in mythology. The title would be taken to mean that the world's Atlas, in this case the "true producers", decide to abandon their role keeping everything aloft.

tl;dr: It's fucking crazy.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on November 30, 2012, 01:06:27 pm
More practically, Randians are hyperlibertarians. They basically believe that a world devoid of government regulation and operating on utterly laissez-faire capitalism would be a utopia. Whereas the rest of us (rightly, IMHO) think of Bartertown from Mad Max.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 30, 2012, 02:28:29 pm
Yeah, it's delusional in that they mistake wealth for something that holds up society, perpetrated by assholes who feel they have no responsibility to anyone but themselves, and tends to put the "right" to property above actual legitimate rights.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 30, 2012, 02:40:49 pm
It's also the height of hypocrisy - a "think for yourself" philosophy that also contends that without the boss to "hold your hand", nobody would be able to do their jobs properly. So, the same people saying the country as a whole doesn't need any planning, also tells you that without the bosses' top-down direction, the workplace will collapse into anarchic chaos.

so you can see that Randianism is classist, since enlightened self-interest is only moral for the rich. "doing what you're told" is moral for the poor. If the poor form a union to petition for higher wages - which they believe is in their own best interest - Randianism says "they didn't know their own best interests", so they'd be better off doing as they are told.

So you can see "enlightened self-interest" isn't for you and me, it's for the rich.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on November 30, 2012, 02:46:51 pm
After all, the rich have proven they know what is in their best interest by becoming rich. The poor are obviously stupid and weak as proven by their poverty, so they should listen to the rich man. The rich man who is acting in his best interest, by exploiting the stupidity and weakness of the poor. It makes perfect sense!

 ::)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 01, 2012, 06:22:01 am
Nicely put Nadaka

In other news:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/30/hard-authoritative-evidence-of-climate-change-b/191610

FOX News climate denialist accepts latest devastating data on melting ice, and accepts it's a huge problem. But, from his perspective the sole "problem" is that conclusive data gives the climate lobby ammunition to get politicians to actually do something about the problem.

Quote from: Get Smart
"Don't tell me there's massive climate disruption!?"

"There's massive climate disruption"

"I told you not to tell me that"

His fear is that the government will get a carbon tax through on the basis of this data and get a "huge cash windfall". Well, let's hope they do a flat carbon tax rather than carbon credits. A huge cash windfall like that would really crimp the national debt.

Also, "tax evasion", normally seen as a bad thing, is actually a good thing with the carbon tax. Avoiding the carbon tax by not doing the activities that cause carbon emissions. Any money raised through the tax can be funneled into incentives for further reduction.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on December 01, 2012, 11:18:21 am
In the UK I think it's mainly used to make your trip into London more miserable than it usually is.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on December 02, 2012, 04:57:19 pm
Following a debate on IRC, I was given these links concerning child custody issues (specifically if there's a bias against men).

http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1454&context=wlulr
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/cust_myths.html


Thoughts? Is the "men get screwed in child custody cases" thing a myth?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 02, 2012, 05:14:03 pm
I'm not sure you can draw that conclusion either way from the articles. In the HTML, under the heading "Myth 3:  Custody transfers to abusive parents are rare" they talk about abusers being able to "play the system" often, saying that " an abusive man is more likely than a nonviolent father to seek sole physical custody of his children ...70% of the time an abuser who requests custody is able to convince the court to give it to him."

But they go on to say that men get custody 9-10% of the time. Which means women get custody 90-91% of the time. Assuming that more men are not abusers than are abusers (and that women are not abusers), that means no more that 5% of custody transfers are to an abusive father. How "rare" is "rare"?

so these sociopathic abusers who are able to "play the system" actually represent a small portion of the male population.
And men are VERY rarely granted custody, unless you count 10% of the time as fair.

They also talk about child-abuse allegations:
Quote
Of female-initiated allegations, just 1.3% were deemed intentionally false by civil courts, compared with 21% when the man in the failed relationship brought similar allegations.
Which could be looked at several ways. Either men are 15 times more likely to lie, or the court is much more likely to believe a man was an abuser, and to disbelieve that a female was an abuser. Gays and lesbians have about a 30% chance of some domestic violence. Kind of makes you think if 30% of lesbians are beating each other, female abuse can't be all that rare.

And other data which could have double meanings:
Quote
In other words, fathers who were violent were just as likely to receive custody when they asked for it as fathers who were not violent. Only 17% of fathers with a known history of domestic violence were denied child visitation and they were no more likely than other fathers to be required by the court to have a third party supervise child visitations.
^ this could mean the court turns a blind eye towards abusers, or it views all men potential abusers.

Let me go through the PDF and get some data:
Quote
The  statistics  from 1995  showed  that
courts  granted  physical  custody,  whether  contested  or uncontested  by  the
parties,  to  fathers  in eight percent of the cases  and  to mothers  in fifty-nine
percent ofthe cases.

Then, they claim it's improved, but give everything except the latest data, opting instead to give every other possible stat they can, to make it sound "unbiased" - i.e. that the non-custodial parent gets the same visitation rights etc - but they skirt around giving the updated custody stats. Didn't fit the theory they were pushing, is my guess.

Quote
In the area of  child support awards and enforcement there were, generally
speaking, no major concerns regarding gender bias.  However,  two items bear
noting.  First,  although we  heard much  from members  of  the  fathers'  rights
movement, our data showed that  the courts granted  requests for child support
reductions  seventy-five  percent of  the time when a father asked that  the court
modify an  award because  of a negative  change  of circumstances  in his  em-
ployment.
Second,  testimony  in public hearings,  as well as responses  from
family  law attorneys,  suggest  that child  support  orders  are not enforced  as
consistently against women as they are against men.
Ok...that's fair, if the guy loses his job they reduce his child support payments. Doesn't say much about who got custody though. And they don't hold women to the same standard of payment.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on December 02, 2012, 08:09:04 pm
This is not legal advice and if you try to take it as such, then you are stupid.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9682263/Occupy-Wall-St-protesters-wipe-5m-off-Americas-debt.html

Pure, god damn brilliance.

"If we raise $50,000, then we can get rid of $1,000,000 in debt." Yup. And that sounds like it might work actually. Pennies on the dollar will purchase "bad debt." That is, debt that nobody really thinks is collectable. The whole point here is, these people aren't trying to collect it, it's being forgiven, expressly not collected and expressly canceled. Even if the numbers are a bit off, and it's $1,000,000 for every $100,000 raised, that's still not bad at all.

There are some drawbacks, like having the forgiven debt counted as "income," under IRS code 64(a) (4-5) and IRS Code 108. That is the IRS doesn't count the money you get given to you as a loan as "income," because you're allegedly going to pay it back. If it comes up that you get so you are never going to pay it back (bankruptcy, etc), then it can be included as income in your tax return. <--- This is a pitfall. However, especially if you are in a low tax bracket or have legitimate deductions, you'd much rather pay 25% of all that debt you owe to the IRS and thus the government, than some debt collector. That's absolutely right, if you had say... $100,000 of debt discharged and/or forgiven this way, you'd owe the IRS income taxes on that amount. I'd still rather pay the IRS $35,000 rather than some debt collector $100,000. The IRS has payment plans....

So basically our country has been sold out from under us, but the good news is, we could buy it back. It doesn't matter that we shouldn't have to buy it back, the point is that we can and it might be a legit way to actually make something happen.

Let's use the $100,000 per $1,000,000 figure (10 cents on the dollar to purchase bad debt). Do you realize what that means? If somehow these or otherwise legit people could purchase all the defaulted student loan debt, medical bills facing bankruptcy possibility, credit card debt, etc. and they could raise $1,000,000 in funding to purchase that debt that somehow got classified as "bad debt," then they'd wipe out $10,000,000 in debt to give real people a start over....

Now let's say they raised $100,000,000 (One Hundred Million Dollars) in donations, that would be about $0.33 (Thirty-Three cents) for just about every man woman and child in the United States (actually less today). If you use that ratio, then $100,000,000 wipes out $1,000,000,000 (One Trillion Dollars).

That would basically wipe out all the student loan, credit card, medical bill, and perhaps various other types of debt that currently can't be realistically paid back in the US.

The problems and reasons why this wouldn't work: a.) people won't part with the $0.33, b.) it's hard to find somebody to trust with all that money, c.) the debt collectors might wise up to the plan and screw it over, d.) you'd still have approximately 1/3 of the amount owed to the IRS as tax income (but that is actually a better outcome), and e.) cynicism.

This is why the government should nationalize the bad debt collection industry and buy it up.... $0.33 per every person in the country.... Bad debt goes poof, tax revenue goes up. Problem freaking solved.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 02, 2012, 08:13:35 pm
Quote from: Truean on December 02, 2012, 08:09:04 pm
This is not legal advice and if you try to take it as such, then you are stupid.
Best disclaimer. Reminds me of the small penis rule. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_penis_rule)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on December 02, 2012, 08:26:54 pm
:)

It also really helps to view Jesus as the ultimate bankruptcy attorney. Instead of debt in the world, he got rid of all the sin in the world....

This is not a new idea http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s13e03-margaritaville
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 02, 2012, 09:13:03 pm
That site's really unfriendly if you're not in America, Truean. I could read the text for a about 2 second before a big "you're not American" thing came up, covering everything, with no way to close it.

Oh: and was the other person who said Jesus was a lawyer, a lawyer too ? ;D
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on December 02, 2012, 09:15:07 pm
Quote from: Truean on December 02, 2012, 08:26:54 pm
Instead of debt in the world, he got rid of all the sin in the world....
Fun fact: in German, sin and debt are one and the same word.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on December 02, 2012, 11:05:23 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 02, 2012, 08:13:35 pm
Quote from: Truean on December 02, 2012, 08:09:04 pm
This is not legal advice and if you try to take it as such, then you are stupid.
Best disclaimer. Reminds me of the small penis rule. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_penis_rule)
I... I... wow.  I don't even... XD
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on December 03, 2012, 03:36:46 am
Quote from: Darvi on December 02, 2012, 09:15:07 pm
Quote from: Truean on December 02, 2012, 08:26:54 pm
Instead of debt in the world, he got rid of all the sin in the world....
Fun fact: in German, sin and debt are one and the same word.


And then we get surprised about why Merkel is screwing the Eurozone.

Also, there is a movement growing over here in Belgium to audit the debt and see exactly where it came from and what part of it are "legitimate" (aka, do not come from bailing out banks and such).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on December 03, 2012, 04:39:30 am
Quote from: Truean on December 02, 2012, 08:09:04 pm
This is not legal advice and if you try to take it as such, then you are stupid.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9682263/Occupy-Wall-St-protesters-wipe-5m-off-Americas-debt.html

Pure, god damn brilliance.

"If we raise $50,000, then we can get rid of $1,000,000 in debt." Yup. And that sounds like it might work actually. Pennies on the dollar will purchase "bad debt." That is, debt that nobody really thinks is collectable. The whole point here is, these people aren't trying to collect it, it's being forgiven, expressly not collected and expressly canceled. Even if the numbers are a bit off, and it's $1,000,000 for every $100,000 raised, that's still not bad at all.

If I can buy $10 of your debt with 1$ why can't you do so yourself. That is: If they are willing to sell the debt at a tenth of it's nominal worth why don't the just tell the debtors: "hey, you know what. just pay 10% of your debt and we forget about the rest. ok?"

Besides that I don't think it's such a brilliant idea because the money they are using to buy the bad debt goes directly to the most evil loan sharks.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on December 03, 2012, 05:02:17 am
Well banks, don't want to create a so-called "moral hazard" by fogiving even part of the debt. What they do is sell it to debts collectors that then collect them. That way they still make some money without creating the "moral" hazard.

As for the debts they're buying, well that debt would have been sold to debts collectors. Better have it bought by Occupy Wall Street.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on December 03, 2012, 05:26:06 am
I'm not entirely convinced that participating in the system this way is the best way to make up for it's shortcomings.

By the way: Wouldn't it be better to instead of raising the money by relying on donations to take out a loan (of say $100k) and use that to buy debt (of say $1m) and thus "eliminating" debt without pouring more "fresh/new" money into the lending-industry?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on December 03, 2012, 05:34:22 am
Who's going to lend you 100,000$ like this?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on December 03, 2012, 05:34:45 am
Money lenders?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on December 03, 2012, 06:32:56 am
a) You can't choose which debt to buy.

b) They don't just downgrade debt to 10% or 1% of its value randomly.  You have to be really clearly unable to afford the whole thing.

c) After being burned so badly by subprime mortgages they're going to be reluctant to make these terrible loans.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 03, 2012, 10:57:51 am
Well, with high interest rates.

Didn't Greece just start such a buyback program? Let's hope it works out for them, when I get into the job market I want this crisis to be over!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 06, 2012, 06:02:43 am
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/05/laura-ingrahams-newsletter-doesnt-remember-when/191698

Quote
The December 5 edition of conservative pundit Laura Ingraham's newsletter attacked President Obama for recently meeting with MSNBC personalities, claiming that "if Fox News hosts and conservative personalities had stopped by the Bush White House to discuss policy" the press "would have been rightly outraged." But President Bush did meet with a group of Fox News and conservative personalities at the White House -- including Laura Ingraham. 
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on December 06, 2012, 07:44:24 am
Par for the hilarious course.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on December 06, 2012, 08:35:54 am
Obviously anything they do isbeyond reproach.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 07, 2012, 10:53:08 pm
Ladies and gentlemen, it is official: DOMA and Proposition 8 are going to the Supreme Court. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/07/us/court-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

DOMA is dead in the water. That's not even really a question. It violates the equal protection clause on its face and has never passed a constitutional challenge in lower courts.

Proposition 8 is going to be....interesting.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on December 07, 2012, 10:55:55 pm
Hmm. Arguments will last till june of next year. Will be interesting now that John Roberts is Mister Swing-voter Extraordinaire.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on December 07, 2012, 11:01:29 pm
Here's hoping that Prop 8 gets struck down on the national stage, not just in the state.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on December 07, 2012, 11:03:03 pm
It is, of course, concievable the courts could dodge the enire issue and solve them on strict results. The thing about California is that Prop 8 violated the Californian Constitution.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 07, 2012, 11:12:48 pm
Quote from: Sirus on December 07, 2012, 11:01:29 pm
Here's hoping that Prop 8 gets struck down on the national stage, not just in the state.
It's a state thing, it can't be struck down nationally.
Quote from: misko27 on December 07, 2012, 11:03:03 pm
It is, of course, concievable the courts could dodge the enire issue and solve them on strict results.
Possibly, but they probably would not have accepted it if they were going to do a strict resolution. They only accept so many cases per year, and strict resolutions are mostly a waste for the highest court.
Quote
The thing about California is that Prop 8 violated the Californian Constitution.
Once again, at least four members of the Supreme Court must have seen the potential that this is an issue concerning the US Constitution for this to have even been accepted.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on December 07, 2012, 11:19:10 pm
What I mean is that I'm hoping that the Supreme Court backs up the Californian Court's decision. If the Supreme Court instead turns around and says "Nope, should have let the votes decide", then the anti-gay crowd here will get some fresh wind in their sails.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on December 07, 2012, 11:26:55 pm
All I will say is that THIS SCOTUS handling DOMA scares me. History is repeating; this is Brown v. Board all over again. Except this time, we may have a less reasonable court. The NAACP did not want Brown in SCOTUS then, because the risk of a bad result was too great. That is exactly my position, here, now, with this. I do not want DOMA in front of the current SCOTUS. I'm afraid they will order its enforcement.

I would much rather Obama got to replace a conservative justice to two before this case was decided. These are the same ones who said corporations are people (but only for the good parts of being people, can't jail them, or their directors), so who knows what on earth they'll come up with this time.

I will grudgingly respect this SCOTUS, solely and entirely because I have no choice. I don't trust it though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 07, 2012, 11:32:08 pm
Well, now that I've covered Big Gay Law, here are the latest Big Gay Polls, fresh from Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/159089/religion-major-factor-americans-opposed-sex-marriage.aspx):

-By far, the most likely reason for an American to oppose Same-Sex Marriage is PRASE JEBUS, at 47% of those opposed. The secondary reason, MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN, is far below, at only 20%.

-The most likely reasons for an American to support Same-Sex Marriage are EQUALITY and LIBERTY, both at 32% of those in support.

-Currently, 53% of Americans believe Same-Sex Marriage should be legal. This completely retakes last year's 3% dive, putting it back at the record high.

-You are most likely to support Same-Sex Marriage if you are between the ages of 18 and 29 (73%), are a Democrat (73%), and attend church on a less than monthly basis (70%).

-You are least likely to support Same-Sex Marriage if you are over the age of 65 (38%), are a Republican (30%), and attend church weekly (28%).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 08, 2012, 12:15:48 am
Quote from: Truean on December 07, 2012, 11:26:55 pm
I would much rather Obama got to replace a conservative justice to two before this case was decided. These are the same ones who said corporations are people (but only for the good parts of being people, can't jail them, or their directors), so who knows what on earth they'll come up with this time.
Has anyone ever tried some unnatural selection? SCOTUS members are among the most powerful people there are, annd they're elected for life - shorten that of those you don't like, and see to it that a president you agree with makes the choice of replacement.

(Just to be on the safe side (and give the CIA less of a reason to come pay me a visit): I'm in no way trying to advocate killing supreme court justices. Seriously.)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on December 08, 2012, 12:24:48 am
Quote from: Helgoland on December 08, 2012, 12:15:48 am
Quote from: Truean on December 07, 2012, 11:26:55 pm
I would much rather Obama got to replace a conservative justice to two before this case was decided. These are the same ones who said corporations are people (but only for the good parts of being people, can't jail them, or their directors), so who knows what on earth they'll come up with this time.
Has anyone ever tried some unnaturall selection? SCOTUS members are among the most powerful people there are, annd they're elected for life - shorten that of those you don't like, and see to it that a president you agree with makes the choice of replacement.

(Just to be on the safe side (and give the CIA less of a reason to come pay me a visit): I'm in no way trying to advocate killing supreme court justices. Seriously.)
They are getting older, It's quite possible Obama will replace one in his term.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 08, 2012, 12:31:34 am
It is more likely than not that Scalia and Ginsburg will both retire and/or die during Obama's second term. Both are nearing average life expectancy and are in poor health.

It is, of course, not out of the question that any of the Justices might suddenly need to retire. Even the youngest amongst them, Kagen, is 52 and thus vulnerable to health problems that younger individuals will rarely experience.

And hell, they are all able to retire if they feel like it. Some people might want to die in office, but some don't. Any one of the Justices might decide to forgo their position at any time.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on December 08, 2012, 01:06:47 am
It's a very up in the air thing though, it really entirely depends on the justices. Some of them may decide to put off retiring to avoid having their successor picked by a black guy, it's very hard to tell. What will happen with the supreme court depends on what's in their minds, and their hearts (particularly the quantity of cholesterol).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on December 08, 2012, 01:59:54 am
Scalia will say fuck you to death as long as Obama is in office.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on December 08, 2012, 02:01:31 am
Quote from: Nadaka on December 08, 2012, 01:59:54 am
Scalia will fuck you to death as long as Obama is in office.
One little word missing and it becomes a whole new sentence.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on December 08, 2012, 02:05:54 am
Quote from: Descan on December 08, 2012, 02:01:31 am
Quote from: Nadaka on December 08, 2012, 01:59:54 am
Scalia will fuck you to death as long as Obama is in office.
One little word missing and it becomes a whole new sentence.

Without meaning anything very different.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on December 08, 2012, 03:50:26 am
Quote from: Helgoland on December 08, 2012, 12:15:48 am
Quote from: Truean on December 07, 2012, 11:26:55 pm
I would much rather Obama got to replace a conservative justice to two before this case was decided. These are the same ones who said corporations are people (but only for the good parts of being people, can't jail them, or their directors), so who knows what on earth they'll come up with this time.
Has anyone ever tried some unnatural selection? SCOTUS members are among the most powerful people there are, annd they're elected for life - shorten that of those you don't like, and see to it that a president you agree with makes the choice of replacement.

(Just to be on the safe side (and give the CIA less of a reason to come pay me a visit): I'm in no way trying to advocate killing supreme court justices. Seriously.)

So, are you volunteering to cook scalia bacon and ice cream for breakfast, mcdonalds for lunch and wiskey + unfiltered cigars for dinner every single day?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on December 08, 2012, 07:08:23 am
Well, don't forget that Scalia may be old, but he's also in the 1%. Average life expenctancy in the US depends a lot on wealth, and Scalia would spend 2 years with a truckful of machines assuming most of his vital function if that allowed him to last until 2016.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on December 08, 2012, 07:39:24 am
Average life expectancy  is less biased than in the times of rampant infant mortality, but nonetheless it doesn't mean much.  Don't count on Zeus stricking down Scalia just because he's in his eighties.

Edit: just googled it and he's not *that* old either
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 08, 2012, 11:37:45 am
Quote from: Sheb on December 08, 2012, 07:08:23 am
Well, don't forget that Scalia may be old, but he's also in the 1%. Average life expenctancy in the US depends a lot on wealth, and Scalia would spend 2 years with a truckful of machines assuming most of his vital function if that allowed him to last until 2016.
None of the Justices are in the 1%, actually. Most of them are millionaires, but the richest of them is Ginsberg, with 25 million. Scalia has 2.8 million. They're rich, but not 1% rich.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on December 08, 2012, 11:47:03 am
Apparently, to be in the 1% by wealth you need 8.4 millions. (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/measuring-the-top-1-by-wealth-not-income/)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 08, 2012, 12:02:55 pm
In that case, only Breyer and Ginsberg are in the 1%.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on December 08, 2012, 01:01:58 pm
So... They're in the 2%? 5% at least? :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on December 08, 2012, 01:46:56 pm
Rich enough to be the 1%'s lapdogs at least.

..too much of an ad hominem?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 08, 2012, 01:48:22 pm
The conservative Justices are actually far less wealthy than the liberal ones. Thomas is actually the least wealthy of them.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on December 08, 2012, 02:40:20 pm
I've recently heard a statistic being thrown about in ultra conservative circles that the welfare handout per poor household is now greater than the median income. This sounds UNBELIEVABLE, considering that I am familiar with welfare from my childhood and I know several people who are on or attempting to get welfare and failing. All I find is the same circle jerk of conservative media on the subject. Where can I find actual information on this?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 08, 2012, 02:44:31 pm
Official statistics seem like your best bet, everything else probably is spinned to say the least. Though when in doubt I'd trust the liberal media rather than the seven circles of hell that is Fox News and associates.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on December 08, 2012, 02:49:45 pm
I looked around, and it is diffcult getting info. It's either Conservtive websites ranting about it, or Government sites without what I'm looking for.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 08, 2012, 02:53:33 pm
The median income is about 53,000 dollars, there's no way that welfare payouts match that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on December 08, 2012, 02:54:53 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 08, 2012, 02:53:33 pm
The median income is about 53,000 dollars, there's no way that welfare payouts match that.

I know. But I can not find any refutation of the shit that is being spewed.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on December 08, 2012, 02:57:00 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on December 08, 2012, 02:54:53 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 08, 2012, 02:53:33 pm
The median income is about 53,000 dollars, there's no way that welfare payouts match that.

I know. But I can not find any refutation of the shit that is being spewed.

Maybe its just too ridiculous to be worthy of refutation? Or (and I don't watch the news) it hasn't hit fox yet.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 08, 2012, 03:07:09 pm
I'd just multiply the number of people on welfare by the median income and see if it goes over the allotted government welfare budget, but I can't find any reliable statistics on the number of people on welfare. I'm seeing numbers claimed from one million to one hundred million, and everything in between.

The lowest number I've found comes out to 53 billion dollars the highest to 5.3 trillion dollars. Total welfare budget for 2013 is 422 billion dollars, though that encompasses family payments, workers compensation, unemployment, and housing assistance.

It isn't impossible if we take the lowest estimated number of welfare recipients, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on December 08, 2012, 03:20:56 pm
They may also be counting school funding and the guarantees of student loans as "welfare", as well as social security and medicaid.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on December 08, 2012, 03:23:29 pm
*scratches head* If... if there's still interest come monday I can hop over to the library and ask what folks around here are getting. Library's the ones handling most of the welfare processing for my town, insofar as general family stuff goes. Small town, which probably throws some stuff off, but... still. S'something. Can't recall Florida's primary website thingy at the mo', but it'd be pretty easy to get that and, like, check monthly stipends and crap.

Or call up mi madre, I guess. Works with adult education, probably be able to point me at info for that.

E: I can say that florida unemployment caps out at 275/week, at max, or 14-ish thousand a year.

Looking up some more stuff (Found TANF documentation, so far), most of what I'm running into is giving families comfortably less than the poverty line, nevermind median income. I'd be fairly comfortable at this point calling bullshit by the numbers, in Florida, at least.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 08, 2012, 03:31:12 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on December 08, 2012, 03:20:56 pm
They may also be counting school funding and the guarantees of student loans as "welfare", as well as social security and medicaid.
That's probably it: Mitt Romney probably is a welfare recipient as well if we define the term loosely enough. Lies, damned lies and statistics, as it was.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on December 08, 2012, 03:54:16 pm
I found a debunking: http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/20/fox-news-echoes-gops-misleading-definition-of-w/190792
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on December 08, 2012, 04:03:37 pm
From statistics brain, I calculated that if what the said was true, the Budget would be more the 227 million. The amount actually spent on welfare is 131 million. Tut Tut tut.
 
((Note, Statistics do not include people or money related to food stamps or unemployment))
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/ (http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 08, 2012, 04:25:33 pm
Wow, to get their "$1 trillion for welfare" sound byte they had to count things like infrastructure spending as "welfare". That's really stretching the metaphor. And tax credits which the Republicans implemented were also counted as "welfare".

So tax breaks for lower-income working folks are welfare, but we're not allowed to call tax breaks for the rich as welfare?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 08, 2012, 04:27:53 pm
Quote from: Reelya on December 08, 2012, 04:25:33 pm
So tax breaks for lower-income working folks are welfare, but we're not allowed to call tax breaks for the rich as welfare?
Of course not, being a waste to society is only for those....poor folk.

Jeeves! More gold flake champagne!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on December 08, 2012, 04:29:58 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 08, 2012, 04:27:53 pm
Quote from: Reelya on December 08, 2012, 04:25:33 pm
So tax breaks for lower-income working folks are welfare, but we're not allowed to call tax breaks for the rich as welfare?
Of course not, being a waste to society is only for those....poor folk.

Jeeves! More gold flake champagne!

Its also interesting that they are not counting those people receiving income tax breaks as welfare recipients, while calling the tax breaks they get welfare. That is how they manage to push that number so high.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on December 08, 2012, 04:44:13 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on December 08, 2012, 03:54:16 pm
I found a debunking: http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/20/fox-news-echoes-gops-misleading-definition-of-w/190792
From that, a link to the report itself (http://www.scribd.com/doc/110413572/CRS-Report-on-Welfare-Spending). Giving it a gander.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on December 08, 2012, 04:51:15 pm
Gaah! After searching for welfare statistics I'm being followed by google ads for Townhall.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on December 08, 2012, 04:53:55 pm
Gotta love the age of free information.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 08, 2012, 04:54:59 pm
You know, by Republican logic, it's the "47%" who are getting this welfare that adds up to more than the median income. And the 47% who are eligible for the welfare, by definition are those earning less than the median income. So, 50% of people earn more than median income to start with, and 47% of the remaining people get assistance, which means they are also earning more than median income.

That only leaves 3% of America earning less than median income (which is defined as the amount that 50% of the population earn less than).

**HEAD ASSPLODES**
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on December 08, 2012, 05:04:32 pm
This joke may have been made already but I'd like to reiterate, lies, damn lies and statistics.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 08, 2012, 05:04:41 pm
No, the Republicains are just saying that welfare is wasting money. So the governement pays, but none of the poor actually profits much. Not as much as they could if they had done it their way, anyway.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on December 08, 2012, 05:05:35 pm
Pshaw, math. Math is for NERDS. OnlY NERDS use math to justify their arguments!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on December 08, 2012, 05:06:41 pm
Sometimes I wonder if the wealthy actually realize that their wealth comes from the lower 80% of society which is responsible for actually buying the shit their company sells.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 08, 2012, 05:07:33 pm
Of course they do. It's why they want to keep them poor and force them to buy their products.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 08, 2012, 05:07:56 pm
There were a lot of random unrelated things thrown into that "welfare" mix. Like bridge building. Everyone benefits from roads and bridges being in good repair. Why label it "welfare" and link it to poor people who don't even own a car?

I guess when they built the interstates, that was a waste of money?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Virex on December 08, 2012, 05:08:33 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on December 08, 2012, 05:04:41 pm
No, the Republicains are just saying that welfare is wasting money. So the governement pays, but none of the poor actually profits much. Not as much as they could if they had done it their way, anyway.
How the hell does the government waste money? Is it burning bills to keep buildings warm or something?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: darkrider2 on December 08, 2012, 05:10:46 pm
Quote from: Virex on December 08, 2012, 05:08:33 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on December 08, 2012, 05:04:41 pm
No, the Republicains are just saying that welfare is wasting money. So the governement pays, but none of the poor actually profits much. Not as much as they could if they had done it their way, anyway.
How the hell does the government waste money? Is it burning bills to keep buildings warm or something?

Usually it just goes to war.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on December 08, 2012, 06:03:11 pm
Or hands away public property to the friends of its current occupants at a cost to itself. Speaking of which.... http://www.euronews.com/2012/12/05/spanish-health-workers-protest-against-privatisation/
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 08, 2012, 06:08:51 pm
Quote from: Reelya on December 08, 2012, 05:07:56 pm
I guess when they built the interstates, that was a waste of money?
Of course not, building the interstates was a military project to ensure fast movement against foreign communist aggressors, the combat of which is the duty of all citizens. You do want us to beat the communists, don't you citizen?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 08, 2012, 06:14:04 pm
Would you like to know more, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF5YFiCyX2A) Citizen? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMTz9nIUkGc)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Detonate on December 08, 2012, 06:19:50 pm
http://www.richblockspoorblocks.com/

This is pretty interesting. You put in the city and state and the site will show you a map that shows the average household income of the area, compared to the state average. You can click each area to get an exact figure.

Here's Detroit

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Charlotte, NC

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on December 08, 2012, 06:48:00 pm
It's interesting seeing the ranges of wealth for different states as well.

Minneapolis-Saint Paul

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on December 08, 2012, 08:37:24 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on December 08, 2012, 02:54:53 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 08, 2012, 02:53:33 pm
The median income is about 53,000 dollars, there's no way that welfare payouts match that.
I know. But I can not find any refutation of the shit that is being spewed.

The Internet has a place where you can obtain aaaaall the information you will ever need to refute claims like that one:
http://factfinder2.census.gov (http://factfinder2.census.gov)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 09, 2012, 04:00:29 am
Quote from: Nadaka on December 08, 2012, 04:29:58 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 08, 2012, 04:27:53 pm
Quote from: Reelya on December 08, 2012, 04:25:33 pm
So tax breaks for lower-income working folks are welfare, but we're not allowed to call tax breaks for the rich as welfare?
Of course not, being a waste to society is only for those....poor folk.

Jeeves! More gold flake champagne!

Its also interesting that they are not counting those people receiving income tax breaks as welfare recipients, while calling the tax breaks they get welfare. That is how they manage to push that number so high.
"Atlus shrugged?

More like Atlus subcontracted his globe holding responsibilities to cheap Chinese labor and  whined a lot."
(from a comment on that debunking article)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Africa on December 09, 2012, 11:37:10 am
Those maps are pretty awesome, although for the two cities I've lived in, they aren't that precise. Partly because the presence of college students makes a lot of really fancy areas look like ghettoes, and partly because in Philadelphia, everything is so block-by-block that this just can't capture it. You can have blocks with mansions two number-streets away from lower-middle-class rowhomes or projects.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on December 09, 2012, 12:36:36 pm
Quote from: Detonate on December 08, 2012, 06:19:50 pm
http://www.richblockspoorblocks.com/

This is pretty interesting. You put in the city and state and the site will show you a map that shows the average household income of the area, compared to the state average. You can click each area to get an exact figure.

Here's Detroit

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Charlotte, NC

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Damn shame there isn't one of those for Canada.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glubags on December 09, 2012, 01:26:32 pm
I always find it interesting that most old river port cities have developed in such a way that the poor tend to dwell around the former main port of commerce (riverside areas which generally have the oldest housing/infrastructure in the city; also often the cheapest and most poorly maintained area) while the wealthy have spread out to the surrounding countryside as the city expands and the riverside areas are rendered nearly obsolete in terms of economic importance to the city.  Several cities and towns here in the southeastern US are founded on rivers that are now lined mostly with slums and dying industry... those income distribution maps reflect it well.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 09, 2012, 01:31:34 pm
Lots of cities in the EU, and particular the UK, have got around this problem (Known as "Hole in the Donut", also visible in towns where the inner city heavy industries has long since moved out) by means of agressive redevelopment - level the old dockside buildings and replace with convention centres, stadia, buisness parks and expensive apartment block housing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 09, 2012, 01:35:45 pm
That's what's generally called gentrification, right? At least in Germany, many people complain about it, saying that gentrification destroys the old neighborhoods.
(There's this hilarious book about a guy who lives in Berlin together with a communist kangoroo; he claims that if you know the term, you're part of it :D )
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glubags on December 09, 2012, 01:40:25 pm
That's what's currently happening in my wonderful port city of Montgomery, AL.  Recent developments include a new baseball stadium on the river, several old warehouse buildings have been redeveloped into rather expensive lofts and the like, the creation of more opportunities for small businesses with rezoning and agreeable leasing rates.  Still a long way to go, but the difference even in the last 5 years is pretty remarkable.  I'm afraid it's all cyclical and unsustainable, though.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the area back to a state of neglect before I'm gone.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 09, 2012, 01:43:50 pm
Some times it works, some times it doesn't. Cardiff is a much nicer city since the bay area was turned from a slummy wasteland into a pretty nice commerical area. I was at the old docks in Liverpool last week, which has had a similar process done to it, but it felt empty of life and very soulless - there are only so many car parks a city can make use of.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 09, 2012, 01:45:31 pm
.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 11, 2012, 06:13:14 am
Another amazing internet security bill, this time in the UK! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20668953
Of course, that's before we get to foreign players recieving cultural lessons in order to stop racism. I'm struggiling to see why anyone bothers with proffesional football at this point. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20672812
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on December 11, 2012, 09:00:54 am
I keep wanting to vote against the Liberal Democrats but my Lib Dem MP keeps coming out with good opinions (opposed to this bill, also wrote on ending the war on drugs last week).  I'm torn.

Hopefully this bill can be stopped.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on December 11, 2012, 09:04:56 am
That bill is pure madness o_O
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 11, 2012, 09:06:36 am
Quote from: Dutchling on December 11, 2012, 09:04:56 am
That bill is pure madness o_O
YOU WILL NOT CRITICISE THE COMPUTER THE GOVERNEMENT. THE COMPUTER GOVERNEMENT IS YOUR FRIEND.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on December 11, 2012, 12:23:39 pm
In its current form it probably doesn't have too much chance.  The Conservatives don't even have a majority, so the fact that quite a few of them and their coalition partners are likely to vote against it ruins its chances.  It could be saved by Labour support (and lord knows Labour isn't any better on this kind of thing than the Conservatives), but then again this is exactly the kind of bill you want to shoot down while in opposition to make the government look weak and hypocritical.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Guardian G.I. on December 12, 2012, 04:05:28 pm
North Korea has successfully launched a satellite in orbit. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20697922)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on December 12, 2012, 04:12:00 pm
Say your prayers, guys, only 9 days 'til they fire the doomsday laser.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on December 12, 2012, 04:14:47 pm
While destroying it outright would be rude, we should definitely to space and spraypaint over the lens (assuming it's a camera satellite).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on December 12, 2012, 04:15:55 pm
You guys sure it's not a satellite in the purely literal sense? Meaning, just a big metal chunk that's now orbiting the Earth?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on December 12, 2012, 04:16:03 pm
As bad as NKorea is, how does their launching a satellite fit into the progressive thread?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on December 12, 2012, 04:17:12 pm
Something that 50 years ago, only the two richest, most powerful countries on earth could do... Is now being done by one of the poorest, backwards countries on earth.

I love living in the 21st century.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2012, 04:24:39 pm
Quote from: Descan on December 12, 2012, 04:17:12 pm
Something that 50 years ago, only the two richest, most powerful countries on earth could do... Is now being done by one of the poorest, backwards countries on earth.

I love living in the 21st century.
They can only do it because their people are slaves.

Anyway, I'm giving it a few months before their satellite fails, at the most.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 12, 2012, 04:26:38 pm
Not bothering to feed your people frees up funds for a space programme.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on December 12, 2012, 04:29:07 pm
I'm not saying it's awesome how they're doing it.

Just that it's even possible...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on December 12, 2012, 04:51:00 pm
Now that Kim Jong Un has a satellite, all the 3rd World dictators are going to want one. Mugabe, Chavez, Castro, ummm...that guy in Belarus?

Dang, the last few years have seriously depleted the "Colorful 3rd World Dictator" pool.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Guardian G.I. on December 12, 2012, 05:04:23 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2012, 04:24:39 pm
Quote from: Descan on December 12, 2012, 04:17:12 pm
Something that 50 years ago, only the two richest, most powerful countries on earth could do... Is now being done by one of the poorest, backwards countries on earth.

I love living in the 21st century.
They can only do it because their people are slaves.

Anyway, I'm giving it a few months before their satellite fails, at the most.
Even if it fails, it still means that North Korea is slowly but surely getting closer and closer to having ICBMs.
North Koreans still have to overcome technical problems and develop a proper nuclear warhead, but they're working on it, that's for sure.

Quote from: RedKing on December 12, 2012, 04:51:00 pm
Now that Kim Jong Un has a satellite, all the 3rd World dictators are going to want one. Mugabe, Chavez, Castro, ummm...that guy in Belarus?

Dang, the last few years have seriously depleted the "Colorful 3rd World Dictator" pool.
"that guy in Belarus" already has one satellite in orbit (http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/belka-2.htm).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2012, 05:05:25 pm
Seriously, the least al-Asad could do is be amusing before he dies, like Gaddafi was. But no, he just makes sarin and doesn't afraid of anything.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 12, 2012, 06:34:52 pm
Well, he's killed tens of thousands of people - in 20 years, that'll make for hilarious jokes :P

@NK satellite: I bet shortly before they launch the first proper ICBM (non-armed) there's gonna be a few quiet noises, some NK technicians and scientists dropping dead, and subsequently a palace revolution leading to reforms a la Deng Xiaoping.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 12, 2012, 06:41:04 pm
Quote from: RedKing on December 12, 2012, 04:51:00 pm
Now that Kim Jong Un has a satellite, all the 3rd World dictators are going to want one. Mugabe, Chavez, Castro, ummm...that guy in Belarus?

Dang, the last few years have seriously depleted the "Colorful 3rd World Dictator" pool.
Chevez is no dictator, and doesn't belong lumped in with Mugabe. Look at all the economic and social statistics under Chavez, they're going forwards since he was elected, not backwards. He's certainly a LOT better than many other elected leaders. but I don't see you labeling every other elected leader as a dictator.

Don't be a patsy for right-wing propaganda, RedKing, you're better than that. Back up what you say with credible sources.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on December 12, 2012, 06:44:41 pm
Quote from: Reelya on December 12, 2012, 06:41:04 pm
Quote from: RedKing on December 12, 2012, 04:51:00 pm
Now that Kim Jong Un has a satellite, all the 3rd World dictators are going to want one. Mugabe, Chavez, Castro, ummm...that guy in Belarus?

Dang, the last few years have seriously depleted the "Colorful 3rd World Dictator" pool.
Chevez is no dictator, and doesn't belong lumped in with Mugabe. Look at all the economic and social statistics under Chavez, they're going forwards since he was elected, not backwards.

Lumping him in with them is basically letting the right-wing propaganda fuck you in the ass.
Silly reelya, Right-wing propaganda never fucks you in the ASS. That's GAY. They Fuck your girlfriend.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 12, 2012, 06:46:18 pm
Quote from: misko27 on December 12, 2012, 06:44:41 pm
Quote from: Reelya on December 12, 2012, 06:41:04 pm
Quote from: RedKing on December 12, 2012, 04:51:00 pm
Now that Kim Jong Un has a satellite, all the 3rd World dictators are going to want one. Mugabe, Chavez, Castro, ummm...that guy in Belarus?

Dang, the last few years have seriously depleted the "Colorful 3rd World Dictator" pool.
Chevez is no dictator, and doesn't belong lumped in with Mugabe. Look at all the economic and social statistics under Chavez, they're going forwards since he was elected, not backwards.

Lumping him in with them is basically letting the right-wing propaganda fuck you in the ass.
Silly reelya, Right-wing propaganda never fucks you in the ASS. That's GAY. They Fuck your girlfriend.
Naah, they make you fuck them, cause if you're not with them you must be gay. (Totally not armored closet :P )
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 12, 2012, 07:04:28 pm
Well, just need to look at statistics before and after Chavez's 12 years. 12 years should be enough of a time-period to determine how well he's done?

Inflation when he was elected ~ 35%, right now 18%. They blame Chavez for high inflation, without giving you the historical; figures.

Poverty before - 54% of the population below the poverty line, now it's about 25%.

Yeah, there are shortages in shops, but that's because demand has skyrocketed due to the previously-starving masses now able to buy stuff. Food production has actually faster than population growth, but consumption has increased even quicker. They just tell you "food shortages" in the news articles, without giving you historical context.

This article below gives some context, plus graphs directly linked from World Bank figures. e.g. from 1986 to 1999, when Chavez was elected, total cereal production actually declined in Venezuela, but since Chavez's election, it's doubled.

There are other stats, which taken without context can be made to look bad, e.g. the percentage of GDP made up by manufacturing since Chavez's election has fallen from 23% to 14%. That means manufacturing output is lower, right. Wrong! Because total GDP (inflation adjusted, compared to US dollars, etc) grew by 300% during that time period, so the 14% is 14% of something 4 times the size of before, so the manufacturing sector is 2.5 as large as before, or 150% growth in the 12 year period.
 
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7513

Here's Mark Weisbrot of the center for economic research in Washington's 10 year report on Venezuela:

http://venezuelanalysis.com/indicators/2009
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on December 12, 2012, 07:57:25 pm
I'm going to assume that your "is no dictator, and doesn't belong lumped in with Mugabe" were actually different claims, and you're only bothering to argue the second one because the first one is obvious it needs no argument. :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on December 12, 2012, 08:00:39 pm
Actually, He has cancer, and it just resurfaced, so he may not even be on that list to argue about. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/12/us-venezuela-chavez-idUSBRE8BB0XY20121212 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/12/us-venezuela-chavez-idUSBRE8BB0XY20121212)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2012, 10:38:33 pm
Apparently I gave North Korea too much credit, their satellite is spinning out of control and rapidly losing altitude. (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/12/15866530-north-korean-satellite-tumbling-out-of-control-us-officials-say?lite)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on December 12, 2012, 10:41:16 pm
As if there was any chance that wouldn't happen.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on December 13, 2012, 12:56:29 am
Well that's not true, it might have flown out of orbit and drifted into outer space
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 13, 2012, 01:34:56 am
I really want to know how they handle failing at everything they do. What kind of shitty scientists does their government employ?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on December 13, 2012, 01:35:59 am
What are these "scientists" you speak of?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on December 13, 2012, 01:40:53 am
In north Korea, there is only MAGIC MAN.

TODAY MAGIC MAN DISAPPOINT KOREA. HE SHALL BE THROWN OFF A CLIFF.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on December 13, 2012, 10:48:59 am
The Bee Gees?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on December 13, 2012, 10:50:52 am
http://news.yahoo.com/9-11-trial-mention-torture-classified-military-judge-003521708.html

So, any mention of the torture the US is doing is classified, see we have nothing to hide once you are not allowed to look at things!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on December 13, 2012, 11:27:20 am
@Reelya: I'm not saying Chavez is ineffective or even bad for Venezuela. But dude is not exactly on the up-and-up when it comes to democratic norms. And I say this from having a friend and former classmate that is about as left-leaning as it gets for the US who lived in Venezuela working for an NGO for a few years and facepalms at all the shit Chavez does. And he *is* colorful, you gotta give him that.


As for NK, I wonder how much of the problem is simply no money or time for quality control. Which realistically, should make us all somewhat less worried about Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program. I would give their nukes a 50/50 chance of detonating early and wiping their own base off the map.

There's also that whole "Oh god it's hard to calculate orbital mechanics when I HAVEN'T EATEN IN THREE WEEKS" problem.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on December 13, 2012, 11:28:19 am
I think they've played too much KSP.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 13, 2012, 11:33:35 am
As I recall, NK has about 10 nukes (all smaller than Fat Man), and no effective launching system for them. Which we are seeing further proof of now.

At the moment, Aegis anti-missile ships are sitting off the coast of Japan and around Hawaii, so if NK suddenly tries something it won't go far. Japan and SK have less advanced anti-missile systems of their own, but theirs only has the capacity to hit a falling missile, not a rising one.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 13, 2012, 11:38:59 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2012, 10:38:33 pm
Apparently I gave North Korea too much credit, their satellite is spinning out of control and rapidly losing altitude. (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/12/15866530-north-korean-satellite-tumbling-out-of-control-us-officials-say?lite)
How, But How. How can you even ... 

It takes an exceptional level of fail to accomplish this. I mean, as long as you manage to get in orbit friction and stability shouldn't be a problem anymore.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on December 13, 2012, 11:40:05 am
North Korean missiles seem to have the falling part down pat. Not so much the rising.

The Taepodong 1 isn't a terrible MRBM (it's basically a SCUD with a booster stage), which is more than enough to reach Japan and SK. It's the Taepodong 2 (the ICBM upscaled version) that seems to be made of epic fail.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 13, 2012, 12:11:44 pm
The only thing I will say is that the USA itself hasn't been so great on "democratic norms" in Venezuela - outright supporting a coup in 2002 by straight-up fascists who massacred their own followers so they could blame it on Chavez as a pretext. After the coup plot fell apart, rather than distance themselves from those factions, America doubled-down on the financial support to the groups who'd lead a coup and massacred civilians.

Hell if you look at the footage of the opposition rally the day of the coup (in the film The Revolution will not be televised), the right-wingers are outright leading the crowd in making NAZI-style salutes while talking about toppling the government by force!

The generals who lead the coup pre-recorded their statement of outrage about snipers shooting civilians (both anti and pro Chavez factions came under sniper fire, but it was selectively broadcast to paint a picture that made the coup plotters to be the victims). The massacre followed a "spontaneous" diversion of the opposition rally to attack the presidential palace. This diversion came AFTER they recorded the "outrage" video, so they either knew their were snipers, and knowlingly ordered the civilians to their deaths, or the right-wing placed the snipers themselves, then shot their own rally.

This video mentions that the army recorded their outrage at snipers shooting civilians 2 hours before it happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2Uqx_mkhPs

Basically, the military took over the country, the cops joined in and are on film on several docos plainly massacring anyone who came out in opposition to the coup (video'd firing shotguns straight at socialist protestors), the coup leaders abolished parliament, the constitution, the supreme court, the electoral commission, and the human-rights ombudsman.

Meanwhile American TV reported "democracy has been restored".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on December 13, 2012, 12:13:20 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on December 13, 2012, 01:34:56 am
I really want to know how they handle failing at everything they do. What kind of shitty scientists does their government employ?

They will simply deny this ever happened.
And then throw magic man to the sea, of course.

Or maybe not, its certainly an improvement over their last "satellite launch" (which exploded in mid-air. They claimed it was a glorious success nonetheless)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on December 13, 2012, 12:24:13 pm
Obviously they'll scale back their objective to meet their results.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on December 13, 2012, 12:36:57 pm
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on December 13, 2012, 12:13:20 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on December 13, 2012, 01:34:56 am
I really want to know how they handle failing at everything they do. What kind of shitty scientists does their government employ?

They will simply deny this ever happened.
And then throw magic man to the sea, of course.

Or maybe not, its certainly an improvement over their last "satellite launch" (which exploded in mid-air. They claimed it was a glorious success nonetheless)
What satellite launch?? That was a fireworks display for the Glorious Leader's amusement! It was super effective!


@Reelya: No argument that the counter-Chavez folks aren't on the up-and-up either. That doesn't validate Chavez, though. It's not always a case of "the enemy of bad is good". Sometimes (hell, most of the time when you're talking Third World squabbles) the enemy of a bad guy is another bad guy. Just look at Syria. al-Qaeda is one of the most effective groups fighting the Assad loyalists. Which leaves us in an incredibly uncomfortable place of not really being able to back anybody, but kind of required to pick a dog in that fight. And if we back some secular rebel faction that really didn't do that much to win the civil war, and place them in charge when the dust settles....will it be any wonder if the Syrian people reject that?

Honestly, we should just stay the fuck out of Venezuelan domestic politics, but thanks to economic and strategic concerns, we can't.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 13, 2012, 01:54:36 pm
Can you cite some sources that show Chavez is undermining democracy, because every link I see is like this one:
http://truth-out.org/news/item/12074-independent-observers-venezuelas-election-a-model-of-democracy
Or this one:
http://foundationfordemocraticadvancement.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/insight-into-venezuelas-automated.html

If you compare the electoral system in Venezuela vs the USA the voting machines used in VZ are far more transparent, with complete paper trail and compulsory manual counts in parallel to the electronic counts, and they have built in many more checks and balances than the US machines, and are actually open-source, though encypted, and each political party plus the electoral commission generate part of the encryption key for each machine, which they exchange only after the election. This allows the hard-drives of all machines to be cloned and audited independently by each political party after the elections have concluded, and also prevents direct manipulation of the data stored on the machines during the election process.

The design of the Venezuelan machines has some really brilliant anti-vote-fraud mechanisms built-in, they're really cutting edge ideas in the design, it's just too improbable that they're just "faking it" and have purely by chance come up with these ingenious ideas.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on December 13, 2012, 02:17:44 pm
Well, elections are not enough to do a democracy. Putin won every single of his elections, and would have even without the ballot stuffing.
Chavez undermined the courts, nudged opposition medias out of business and also got that tendency to make irrelevant a level of power when he loose it. (Like when he instaured local council after loosing lots of municipalities).

So not a dictator. But not a real democrat either.

(Oh, and while his management of the economy is better than his predecessors, it's far from perfect. He didn't invest in much of anything, and the economy depends entirely on oil.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on December 13, 2012, 02:20:49 pm
Yeah, I suppose "dictator" might be a bit too strong a word. He's more in the same category as Berlusconi, I suppose. Although I think he does veer a bit more toward the heavy-handed side than Berlusconi.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 13, 2012, 03:36:21 pm
One thing that does cloud the waters is that the private channels in Venezuela, which get about 80% of the viewers, are virulently anti-Chavez, and they demonize of Chavez in the same manner as FOX vs Obama. A lot of the stuff about Chavez is easily fact-checked, and is complete rubbish, which tends to make it difficult to sift the crazy stuff from the legitimate criticism.

Think if every single American channel was FOX News spewing Obama hate 24/7.

===

The one big human-rights thing every anti-Chavez website / news source points to, is that his government didn't renew the broadcast license of RCTV in 2007. But the stated reason, which is highly transparent given the amount of relevant TV footage, is that RCTV was directly involved in planning, and executing the coup in 2002, some admirals etc, even went on a talk show on the channel the day after the coup and thanked the network for their assistance.

But RCTV wasn't even shut down, and they waited until their terrestrial broadcast license expired, and just didn't renew it. So not quite the same as "shutting them down", and specifically done in a completely legal, and constitutional manner. No government has a legal obligation to renew broadcast licenses to particular companies, especially if that companies executives have used the license to commit high treason.

And even now, they're still allowed to broadcast on cable and satellite, and none of their directors are in prison or anything - does that sound like a "heavy handed" way to deal with an organization which openly tried to overthrow the constitutional government?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 13, 2012, 04:13:06 pm
Some discussion from happy thread that people thought belonged in here.

Quote from: Nadaka on December 13, 2012, 02:41:16 pm
I've never understood why so many libertarians decide to associate themselves with plutocrats, police statists and theocrats among the conservatives who explicitly are against everything you believe in, except that parts empower those same plutocrats, police statists and theocrats. On a fundamental level, libertarians are just another flavor of liberal, with a different priority of liberties and a difference of opinion on what constitutes economic liberty/equality.

Quote from: penguinofhonor on December 13, 2012, 02:56:20 pm
My dad has called me a libertarian based on my personal values, actually. He just believes it's the individual/community/market should do what I think the government should do.

Quote from: Nadaka on December 13, 2012, 03:17:55 pm
Eh? This is getting off pretty far off topic, and we should probably drop it or go elsewhere. But that doesn't really sound much like a libertarian point of view.

Quote from: penguinofhonor on December 13, 2012, 03:31:47 pm
He believes that individual liberty should be maximized. Where people are disadvantaged and incapable, the community should make up for it with charity. He thinks the free market allows the maximum amount of liberty in purchasing decisions through the free market's natural self-regulation.

I also believe that individual liberty should be maximized. If anyone cannot exercise their rights, the government should protect and enable them. I think a government-controlled market allows the most liberty in purchasing decisions (with the exception of purchases that harm society) through outlawing fraud and deception.

Quote from: Nadaka on December 13, 2012, 03:43:35 pm
Your dad sounds like the libertarian.

Regulated markets to prevent fraud, deception tend to be more of a liberal idea.

Yeah, he's a libertarian and I'm a liberal. I was bringing it up because originally Nadaka said that liberals and libertarians are very similar fundamentally, as shown by the fact that I and my father have really similar ideals but opposite executions. It was an anecdote of agreement.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on December 13, 2012, 05:12:37 pm
Yeah, RedKing, it's fine to not like some of Chavez's policies, but it's silly to say he even comes close to being a dictator. He's got clear and widespread democratic support, their elections are pretty high quality, and politically they seem to be on par with the US quality-wise.

They've got a lot of factors we don't have to deal with too, like the people trying launch violent coups. I'd argue they are doing better than we did under similar circumstances...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on December 14, 2012, 04:30:09 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on December 13, 2012, 04:13:06 pm
I was bringing it up because originally Nadaka said that liberals and libertarians are very similar fundamentally, as shown by the fact that I and my father have really similar ideals but opposite executions.

This tends to be my relationship with libertarians as well.  I know some that are decently intelligent and informed, and can respectably debate their stances pretty far.  The most divisive factor between me and them is they seem to be more dogmatic about the execution than consequences.  For just one example among many, they think that government interference in the free market is what creates monopolies and extreme inequality.  I tend to concede that point and ask them what they think should be done about current levels of inequality that, regardless of where they came from, are now firmly entrenched and will probably just get worse if you dismantle the government.  The typical response I get is "FREE MARKET FREE MARKET FREE MARKET IS ALWAYS THE ANSWER!!!".  There are some important points that just seem to short circuit them, and it seems to put their rabid pursuit of ultimate free market purity on par with those extremist Christians who will do anything, no matter how horrible, to bring about the conditions for rapture.  It frustrates and scares me, because this kind of dogmatic libertarianism seems to be spreading very quickly, based on personal encounters.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 14, 2012, 04:56:38 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on December 14, 2012, 04:30:09 am
It frustrates and scares me, because this kind of dogmatic libertarianism seems to be spreading very quickly, based on personal encounters.
It's a shame, yeah. I guess it's mostly because there's a widespread discontent with the inefficient government/administration, and the only semi-cool/rebellious person in the establishment happens to be Ron Paul.

I want FDR back - a magnificient bastard if ever there was one.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 14, 2012, 05:06:49 pm
Connecticut thread. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=120457.0) Keep it there, I don't really want to moderate it right now.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on December 15, 2012, 07:13:39 am
5 Million Farmers Suing Monsanto (http://growtest.org/articles/5-million-farmers-sue-monsanto-for-7-7-billion/)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 15, 2012, 08:09:17 am
Just FYI, these are the guys that developed Agent Orange. Quite glad to see that they finally get some resistance.

Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on December 15, 2012, 08:14:48 am
Well, let me be the devil's advocate here, but those farmers knew that when they bought the seeds. No one put a gun to their head.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 15, 2012, 08:19:57 am
Nah not really. They bought the seeds and are sued when they try replanting them. Often that was not in the original contract.

I mean, Monsanto when as far as sueing the farmers living close to GMO fields, because birds and rodents and natural pollination had spread the modified seeds to their fields.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on December 15, 2012, 08:28:57 am
While I have no love for Monsanto and would really like to see them lose this lawsuit, (which accordingly to this site (https://rt.com/news/monsanto-brazil-seed-soy-908/) they already did in brazil and now are appealing it) the broken system of patents and IP we have is also to blame for the crazy things that are going on here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on December 15, 2012, 09:16:11 am
Well, if it was not in the contract, then we got a problem.

But I'm spilt on the general issue: the only way to get private companies to invest in better germplasm is to have patents on them. Like patents for new drugs.

Also, re: the contamination, I mostly remember that canadian case, where it turned out the farmer sprayed one of his non-GMO field with Roundup so that all plants would die save the few % contaminated (I'm not sure if it was legit contamination, of GMO seeds from the previous year lef tover). He then collected the seed to sow them again. It's clearly a case of somebody wanting GMO seeds without paying for them, which is why he eventually lost in courts.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 15, 2012, 09:20:36 am
Their have been many other contamination cases, where the farmers where not at fault.

Problem with Monsanto is that they have/ are actively manipulating politics to suit their goals. Many of their products have not been tested properly. Worse even, when a certain group of farmers started selling milk from cows that hadn't been treated(and noted this on the product) by their possibly carcinogenic hormone therapy, they installed a lobbying group to take it of the market.

(As for having lost already , AFAIK, they have also had problems in India)

Edit: Also, I'm not sure we want private compagnies investing this much into these topics. Especially healthcare and food sources are problematic, since "Corruption" is widespread. Corporate funded researches have been shown to have 75% positive results*, while that number is below 50% on governement/ independent researches.

*Product works, no side effects, stuff like that
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on December 15, 2012, 09:29:06 am
Source please?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 15, 2012, 09:32:42 am
Look at the wikipedia page, sources enough.

Or Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fONUvkPPMGY)

((Belgian Television))
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on December 15, 2012, 09:34:12 am
Come on, not that movie. It's one of the worst piece of propaganda I've seen. It's really, really terrible. In the french version, you could even hear that she mistranslated what those indian peasants said to make it anti-GMO.

Also, I looked on the wiki, and don't find anything reprehensible.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on December 15, 2012, 09:46:33 am
To be fair, the pharma industry is the one that invests the largest % of its profits in R+D. They are not saints, but the model works. I'd rather have goverments being forced to invest large chunks of their GDP by law on R+D, but as it stands politicians are unlikely to agree to that because the first things they slash from funding are those which will produce results further than 4 years away.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on December 15, 2012, 10:06:00 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on December 15, 2012, 09:20:36 am
Edit: Also, I'm not sure we want private compagnies investing this much into these topics. Especially healthcare and food sources are problematic, since "Corruption" is widespread. Corporate funded researches have been shown to have 75% positive results*, while that number is below 50% on governement/ independent researches.

*Product works, no side effects, stuff like that
Bad Pharma's been a pretty good read so far, noting how they manage to bury negative results and the like.

Quote from: ChairmanPoo on December 15, 2012, 09:46:33 am
I'd rather have goverments being forced to invest large chunks of their GDP by law on R+D
A thousand times this.  If a creative industry really needs money to keep functioning I'd rather give it that money than create horrible copyright/ patent laws that lead to people dying.  I mean we're just destroying value here.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on December 15, 2012, 11:04:44 am
Quote from: Sheb on December 15, 2012, 09:29:06 am
Source please?

I have no source at hand for the higher rate of positive results in private research, but if you are willing to trust a random stranger on the internet who claims he has read that in a reliabable source I'll tell you that I have.

But for the general case: there are studies that show that especially in the field of biomedicine, less governmental funding and increased/extended usability of patents did cripple the overall output of life-saving innovations: Source (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/280/5364/698.full)
So shortening the span patents are valid, or decreasing the amount of things that can be patented actually _helps_ innovation.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on December 15, 2012, 11:09:28 am
Patents have a strong incentive effect, but ALSO have a strong inhibition effect on research. It's a hard problem. The best solution seems to be (relative) short patents that are still long enough to result in a decent average return over the lifetime of production, while also being fairly narrow in their interpretation and enforcement.

But that's a balance that is hard to get right when we are so intent on letting the foxes run the chicken coop.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on December 15, 2012, 11:13:39 am
Don't forget that government financed research also is a solution: it needs no patent incentive. (Or at least less than in the private sector. Universities do make money from patents atm)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 15, 2012, 11:13:59 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on December 15, 2012, 11:09:28 am
Patents have a strong incentive effect, but ALSO have a strong inhibition effect on research. It's a hard problem. The best solution seems to be (relative) short patents that are still long enough to result in a decent average return over the lifetime of production, while also being fairly narrow in their interpretation and enforcement.
Which was how patents and copyrights started out, and it worked well. Now these things are so long lasting that it doesn't even pretend to be about innovation. Copyright especially so, since they last after the creator is dead, which is kind of a silly way of convincing them to make more works.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 15, 2012, 11:30:49 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on December 15, 2012, 09:20:36 am
Edit: Also, I'm not sure we want private compagnies investing this much into these topics. Especially healthcare and food sources are problematic, since "Corruption" is widespread. Corporate funded researches have been shown to have 75% positive results*, while that number is below 50% on governement/ independent researches.

*Product works, no side effects, stuff like that

That's interesting, but could be related to the sheer amount of "new" drugs made by corporations which have the same active region (therefore known side-effects), but they attach it to any one of millions of known "inert" compounds, making it technically a "new" molecule. Then they can apply for a fresh patent as a whole new drug, or get around someone else's patent. It's a lot more lucrative doing things this way, and often the rearranged drugs are marketed as a completely "new" drug. Even though it's no better (but no worse) than what you were already taking.

It's often left up to the public sector to do the basic research (with the corporations scouring the data afterwards for low-hanging fruit) or study the stuff that's not a clear immediate winner. But it's the stuff that's novel or unexpected where the biggest gains often come from, although you're going to hit more potholes too.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Twi on December 15, 2012, 11:39:32 am
Can't blame them for that.

Being a semi-active reader of a blog of a pharmaceutical chemist ( this guy, Derek Lowe (http://pipeline.corante.com/)), I think I can safely conclude one thing.

Making new drugs is REALLY, REALLY hard. You spend a lot of time and money, and often end up with nothing to show for it but a lot of tests. Making knockoffs is significantly easier. Of course, it won't make you ultra-rich, but it will give you money. And it looks a lot better to investors than the risks of new drug development, no?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on December 15, 2012, 11:43:39 am
Quote from: Sheb on December 15, 2012, 09:16:11 am
Well, if it was not in the contract, then we got a problem.

But I'm spilt on the general issue: the only way to get private companies to invest in better germplasm is to have patents on them. Like patents for new drugs.

There were also the many cases in India where farmers were promised the seeds would be more resistant to weather and insects. Then came the bugs and devasted the fields. So yeah, that private research isn't always the best except for the company itself.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 15, 2012, 11:58:18 am
Quote from: scriver on December 15, 2012, 11:43:39 am
Quote from: Sheb on December 15, 2012, 09:16:11 am
Well, if it was not in the contract, then we got a problem.

But I'm spilt on the general issue: the only way to get private companies to invest in better germplasm is to have patents on them. Like patents for new drugs.

There were also the many cases in India where farmers were promised the seeds would be more resistant to weather and insects. Then came the bugs and devasted the fields. So yeah, that private research isn't always the best except for the company itself.
That's not exactly an argument against private research; your point might still be valid, though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on December 15, 2012, 01:14:12 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 15, 2012, 11:13:59 am
Which was how patents and copyrights started out, and it worked well. Now these things are so long lasting that it doesn't even pretend to be about innovation. Copyright especially so, since they last after the creator is dead, which is kind of a silly way of convincing them to make more works.
I can see an argument for allowing copyright to last a bit of time after the author's death - otherwise an author falling dead soon after signing a contract could seriously harm a publisher.  But it really doesn't need to be decades and decades.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 15, 2012, 01:22:23 pm
Yeah. What about...oh, a decade after the death of the author?

That seems like it would work. It allows some leeway for "oh, but it only became famous right after he died," it acts as life insurance for the kids (which is not a bad thing), and it's really not that long.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on December 15, 2012, 01:25:09 pm
Only a very small minority of books still make decent money after a decade too.  And the kind that do would be nice to have in the public domain really.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on December 15, 2012, 01:48:43 pm
Why not just decouple it from the author entirely? 20 years, dead or alive. Maybe even less.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on December 15, 2012, 02:07:18 pm
Quote from: Descan on December 15, 2012, 01:48:43 pm
Why not just decouple it from the author entirely? 20 years, dead or alive. Maybe even less.
Because that would be simple, rational, and benefit all mankind. The only allowable copyright reform is to make is increasingly destructive to the public good.  ::)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on December 15, 2012, 02:11:27 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on December 15, 2012, 02:07:18 pm
Quote from: Descan on December 15, 2012, 01:48:43 pm
Why not just decouple it from the author entirely? 20 years, dead or alive. Maybe even less.
Because that would be simple, rational, and benefit all mankind. The only allowable copyright reform is to make is increasingly destructive to the public good.  ::)

I just think there's some form of bureaucratic or political aversion to making things simpler. I'm not big into how things work, but there never seems be be something along the lines of "Just scrap what we're doing right now and do it again from scratch", instead it's just tacking more things ontop of eachother until it's a labyrinthine mess whose original intentions are obfuscated by generation after generation of tinkering and revisions.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on December 15, 2012, 03:26:25 pm
Quote from: JoshuaFH on December 15, 2012, 02:11:27 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on December 15, 2012, 02:07:18 pm
Quote from: Descan on December 15, 2012, 01:48:43 pm
Why not just decouple it from the author entirely? 20 years, dead or alive. Maybe even less.
Because that would be simple, rational, and benefit all mankind. The only allowable copyright reform is to make is increasingly destructive to the public good.  ::)

I just think there's some form of bureaucratic or political aversion to making things simpler. I'm not big into how things work, but there never seems be be something along the lines of "Just scrap what we're doing right now and do it again from scratch", instead it's just tacking more things ontop of eachother until it's a labyrinthine mess whose original intentions are obfuscated by generation after generation of tinkering and revisions.

Its because a lot of policy (at least in democratic nations) is the result of some compromise politicians made with their opponents or lobbyists.  If its in there someone probably has a strong stake in making sure it remains the way it is.  If you start cutting swathes of policy, you start stepping on people's toes.  In the case of copyright law, its corporations that make boatloads of money from milking the same IPs for decades.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on December 17, 2012, 11:23:21 am
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/legally-recognize-westboro-baptist-church-hate-group/DYf3pH2d

Petition to have the Westboro Baptist Church labeled a hate group.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 17, 2012, 11:28:10 am
Considering that's the same page where there were petitions for and against building a death star by 2016, I doubt it'll matter.

What did they do wrong anyway. I don't follow American cults.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on December 17, 2012, 11:34:45 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on December 17, 2012, 11:28:10 am
Considering that's the same page where there were petitions for and against building a death star by 2016, I doubt it'll matter.

What did they do wrong anyway. I don't follow American cults.

They harass and intimidate people who are grieving at funerals with hate and damnation. They hate the gays, and the muslims, and the government, and pretty much everything and everyone.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on December 17, 2012, 11:35:58 am
They aren't a cult, they are a business built to abuse the law to separate people from their money, and they make their money through antagonism and harassment that fall juuuust this side of legal, followed by suing those who respond in a questionably legal manner in response. Their dominate tactic recently is picketing the funerals of people who've been killed in terrible tragedies, to get the family members so upset and enraged that they engage in some sort of violence against the group and they can pull off a big payday by adding insult to injury.

It's doubtful they actually hate everyone - but acting like they has proven incredibly profitable.

Currently, they are picketing the funerals for the Connecticut kids.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 12:09:53 pm
No, they're really a cult. They're also really abusing the law for their benefit.

That their feelings are genuine are made clear by the defectors. One of their kids (now an atheist) talked about how Phelps would tear his wife's hair out and beat all of his children with an axe handle for "displeasing god".
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on December 17, 2012, 12:15:56 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 12:09:53 pm
No, they're really a cult. They're also really abusing the law for their benefit.

That their feelings are genuine are made clear by the defectors. One of their kids (now an atheist) talked about how Phelps would tear his wife's hair out and beat all of his children with an axe handle for "displeasing god".

AKA, why I am an atheist.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 17, 2012, 12:16:30 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 12:09:53 pm
beat all of his children with an axe handle
If only once he did it with the other end, we'd get rid of several problems at once! :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 01:05:52 pm
You can remove the axe head, which is what he did. As I recall, he actually gave them bone fractures with it more than once.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 17, 2012, 01:23:51 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on December 17, 2012, 12:15:56 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 12:09:53 pm
No, they're really a cult. They're also really abusing the law for their benefit.

That their feelings are genuine are made clear by the defectors. One of their kids (now an atheist) talked about how Phelps would tear his wife's hair out and beat all of his children with an axe handle for "displeasing god".

AKA, why I am an atheist.

4 posts before a Holier-Than-Thou less-Holy-than-thou post.

Got to be a record.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on December 17, 2012, 01:28:28 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on December 17, 2012, 01:23:51 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on December 17, 2012, 12:15:56 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 12:09:53 pm
No, they're really a cult. They're also really abusing the law for their benefit.

That their feelings are genuine are made clear by the defectors. One of their kids (now an atheist) talked about how Phelps would tear his wife's hair out and beat all of his children with an axe handle for "displeasing god".

AKA, why I am an atheist.

4 posts before a Holier-Than-Thou less-Holy-than-thou post.

Got to be a record.

Dude, Nadaka and his mother (and sister?) escaped from a violent Christian church (and the only reason I do not use sect here is because he has not made clear how sect-like it was) themselves, so it is literally why he is an atheist.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 17, 2012, 02:10:14 pm
Quote from: greatorder on December 17, 2012, 01:25:41 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 01:05:52 pm
You can remove the axe head, which is what he did. As I recall, he actually gave them bone fractures with it more than once.
They also aren't allowed to use the toilet by themselves until they were adults, IIRC.
What?? Was Phelps scared that toilet-goblin babysnatchers would suck them to hell.

More realistically, it's some perverse anti-masturbation thing I think. Your whole life without letting one off? I can see how I'd be enraged too.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 02:14:20 pm
I know some (marginally) less crazy people will limit their children to five minute cold showers for the same reason.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on December 17, 2012, 03:07:24 pm
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/revoke-tax-exempt-status-westboro-baptist-church-re-classify-westboro-baptist-church-hate-group/tNVz4V7Q

oh. This one would actually productive at shutting down the westboro baptist church is it was actually acted on. Declaring them a hate group will probably have little effect, but removing their  tax exempt status will hit them in the pocket book.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 17, 2012, 03:14:15 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on December 17, 2012, 03:07:24 pm
Declaring them a hate group will probably have little effect, but removing their  tax exempt status will hit them in the pocket book.
It's the same reason they're trying to ban the German Nazi party[1] right now: You can't make these people better, but you can limit their potential to do harm by taking away their money and putting them in gulags prison, if possible.
Maybe a more general law should be passed, one that prevents any person or organizations that endorse views that are against the fundamental principles of the state from receiving government aid and lowering the barriers for preventive action, i.e. bans and penalties.


[1]: No, not that one; it's called NPD, and if you ever see one of them, kick them in the head until they stop moving.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 03:14:25 pm
If you want to revoke their tax status, you need to go through the IRS. They have a form, though I forget which number it is, for this kind of thing. You can file it against any religious organization if you have proof that they've delved into politics.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on December 17, 2012, 03:15:45 pm
Quote from: scriver on December 17, 2012, 01:28:28 pm
Dude, Nadaka and his mother (and sister?) escaped from a violent Christian church (and the only reason I do not use sect here is because he has not made clear how sect-like it was) themselves, so it is literally why he is an atheist.
Perhaps this is something for another thread, but that's actually a terrible reason to be an atheist. Great one to be anti-(insert the christian denomination he previously was part of here), though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 03:21:58 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on December 17, 2012, 03:15:45 pm
Quote from: scriver on December 17, 2012, 01:28:28 pm
Dude, Nadaka and his mother (and sister?) escaped from a violent Christian church (and the only reason I do not use sect here is because he has not made clear how sect-like it was) themselves, so it is literally why he is an atheist.
Perhaps this is something for another thread, but that's actually a terrible reason to be an atheist. Great one to be anti-(insert the christian denomination he previously was part of here), though.
No it isn't. Religion's inability to operate without hurting people physically or emotionally is a completely legitimate reason to be an atheist.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 17, 2012, 03:26:54 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 03:21:58 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on December 17, 2012, 03:15:45 pm
Quote from: scriver on December 17, 2012, 01:28:28 pm
Dude, Nadaka and his mother (and sister?) escaped from a violent Christian church (and the only reason I do not use sect here is because he has not made clear how sect-like it was) themselves, so it is literally why he is an atheist.
Perhaps this is something for another thread, but that's actually a terrible reason to be an atheist. Great one to be anti-(insert the christian denomination he previously was part of here), though.
No it isn't. Religion's inability to operate without hurting people physically or emotionally is a completely legitimate reason to be an atheist.
But not that particular religion's inability. If you believe that all religions are (on some level) like this, then it's a legitimate point of view, of course.
Not a particular reasonable one, but still. :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on December 17, 2012, 03:29:40 pm
It's hard to be theist when that's the sort of stuff you associate with god, on a purely emotional level, I'd wager.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on December 17, 2012, 03:37:12 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 03:21:58 pm
No it isn't. Religion's inability to operate without hurting people physically or emotionally is a completely legitimate reason to be an atheist.
Claiming religion intrinsically harms people physically and/or emotionally is quite the tall claim.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 03:40:19 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on December 17, 2012, 03:37:12 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 03:21:58 pm
No it isn't. Religion's inability to operate without hurting people physically or emotionally is a completely legitimate reason to be an atheist.
Claiming religion intrinsically harms people physically and/or emotionally is quite the tall claim.
There's quite the pile of evidence.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on December 17, 2012, 03:43:35 pm
That individual religions do it? Yes, there is. I know that quite well myself.

Doesn't mean it's intrinsic to the concept of belief in supernatural deities, though.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 03:45:54 pm
Being that there is no reason to believe in supernatural deities, any such belief will be based on a denial of evidence and will eventually either die out or delve into unhealthy behavior in order to maintain the belief in the face of stark reality.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 17, 2012, 03:46:49 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 03:40:19 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on December 17, 2012, 03:37:12 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 03:21:58 pm
No it isn't. Religion's inability to operate without hurting people physically or emotionally is a completely legitimate reason to be an atheist.
Claiming religion intrinsically harms people physically and/or emotionally is quite the tall claim.
There's quite the pile of evidence.
There's quite the counterexample: Post-70 AD judaism, for example.
To argue a la Marx (look at my avatar, my avatar is amazing, give it a lick... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=DE&hl=de&v=vbPBASC9rYo)) that religion in most instances was used to harm the workers, that's a more defensible position. Different discussion, though.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 03:45:54 pm
Being that there is no reason to believe in supernatural deities, any such belief will be based on a denial of evidence and will eventually either die out or delve into unhealthy behavior in order to maintain the belief in the face of stark reality.
Also no reason not to - that's the beauty of an intrinsically unproveable concept :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on December 17, 2012, 03:50:17 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on December 17, 2012, 03:37:12 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 03:21:58 pm
No it isn't. Religion's inability to operate without hurting people physically or emotionally is a completely legitimate reason to be an atheist.
Claiming religion intrinsically harms people physically and/or emotionally is quite the tall claim.

Remember, kids, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Not all gun users are irresponsible murderers, so it's wrong to think gun culture is intrinsically harmful...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 03:53:05 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on December 17, 2012, 03:46:49 pm
To argue a la Marx (look at my avatar, my avatar is amazing, give it a lick... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=DE&hl=de&v=vbPBASC9rYo)) that religion in most instances was used to harm the workers, that's a more defensible position. Different discussion, though.
Marx's argument was that religion is a tool for control, regardless if that control is used for good or evil. Hence, opiate of the masses. Of course, Marx being Marx, he disapproved of controlling people altogether.
Quote
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 03:45:54 pm
Being that there is no reason to believe in supernatural deities, any such belief will be based on a denial of evidence and will eventually either die out or delve into unhealthy behavior in order to maintain the belief in the face of stark reality.
Also no reason not to - that's the beauty of an intrinsically unproveable concept :P
Irrelevant. This is not a level playing field. There is an infinite number of absurd concepts with no evidence "for or against", but people disbelieve in almost all of these. That they throw a blind dart and defend the one they hit with "but you can't prove it ISNT" is just plain stupid.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 17, 2012, 03:59:55 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 03:53:05 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on December 17, 2012, 03:46:49 pm
To argue a la Marx (look at my avatar, my avatar is amazing, give it a lick... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=DE&hl=de&v=vbPBASC9rYo)) that religion in most instances was used to harm the workers, that's a more defensible position. Different discussion, though.
Marx's argument was that religion is a tool for control, regardless if that control is used for good or evil. Hence, opiate of the masses. Of course, Marx being Marx, he disapproved of controlling people altogether.
Same thing, basicaally - when's it ever been used for helping them?

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 03:53:05 pm
Quote
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 03:45:54 pm
Being that there is no reason to believe in supernatural deities, any such belief will be based on a denial of evidence and will eventually either die out or delve into unhealthy behavior in order to maintain the belief in the face of stark reality.
Also no reason not to - that's the beauty of an intrinsically unproveable concept :P
Irrelevant. This is not a level playing field. There is an infinite number of absurd concepts with no evidence "for or against", but people disbelieve in almost all of these. That they throw a blind dart and defend the one they hit with "but you can't prove it ISNT" is just plain stupid.
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Roberts

I only contest your claim that any irrational belief will have to die out because of its intrinsic contradictions (Hegel's kinda cool, too; complete nonsense, bu cool :P ) - just imagine Russell's teapot in a world without telescopes, or something analogous.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 17, 2012, 04:01:14 pm
Not the right thread for this. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=113483)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 17, 2012, 05:04:43 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 03:53:05 pm
Quote
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 17, 2012, 03:45:54 pm
Being that there is no reason to believe in supernatural deities, any such belief will be based on a denial of evidence and will eventually either die out or delve into unhealthy behavior in order to maintain the belief in the face of stark reality.
Also no reason not to - that's the beauty of an intrinsically unproveable concept :P
Irrelevant. This is not a level playing field. There is an infinite number of absurd concepts with no evidence "for or against", but people disbelieve in almost all of these. That they throw a blind dart and defend the one they hit with "but you can't prove it ISNT" is just plain stupid.
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Roberts

I only contest your claim that any irrational belief will have to die out because of its intrinsic contradictions (Hegel's kinda cool, too; complete nonsense, bu cool :P ) - just imagine Russell's teapot in a world without telescopes, or something analogous.
[/quote]
We're going existenialistic again, but there's no reason to believe that you can trust your senses, and that you actually exist and live this live, as opposed to being a sidewatcher in some cheap B-Movie virtual world plot.

Also, humans can and will cling to all their beliefs, even if there's no proof. The idea of the American dream's a good one, for example.

As for the latter part, when you can prove that there isn't a diety/pantheon/whatever. What makes your version of reality better than mine*? Who says that there are such things as laws of nature, or rationality/predictability on the universes part. An transcedent God is impossible to disprove, while scientific laws are proven wrong and adjusted time over time.

*Note: Version of reality being defended might only partially or not at all overlap with my opinion.

Now, the point of most/several/whatever religions is not to explain how the universe worse. There's no science in scripture. However, each religion and each subfaction has it's doctrines and it's intrepretations of it's holy texts which sketch an ideal of a better world.

Edit: Apologies to Nadaka
Edit2: Might continue this on the right thread.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 17, 2012, 05:40:28 pm
Ebbor, I'd appreciate it if you edited the content out of your post and moved it elsewhere. And if you didn't ignore me in the future.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 23, 2012, 09:37:55 am
Reporter covering protest against sex crimes in India shot dead... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-20831435)

There is so much wrong with this I just dont know where to start.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on December 23, 2012, 10:52:43 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on December 23, 2012, 09:37:55 am
Reporter covering protest against sex crimes in India shot dead... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-20831435)

There is so much wrong with this I just dont know where to start.

I have a couple friends in India who are posting a lot of stuff about rape lately.  Looks like some major failures in law enforcement on the subject over there, and a lot of popular anger about it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on December 23, 2012, 11:15:28 am
The article seems to say the protests are against giving the rapists "weak" sentences like life imprisonment. They want nothing less than the death penalty.

Can't say I'm in agreement with the protesters, here. Though I am in agreement with their right to protest and not get beaten or shot, of course. The sin of india's government in this case is trying to put down the protests.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 23, 2012, 11:36:15 am
I presume that life imprisonment, with the corruption in India, doesn't mean much.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on December 23, 2012, 12:31:33 pm
Then should they not be protesting about corruption?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 23, 2012, 12:33:43 pm
They know that's a hopeless cause :P

But seriously, they do. But corruption is one of the hardest things to prevent, becausse you can't just shoot fire a few people and be done with it.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 23, 2012, 12:50:46 pm
Corruption reduction has a few field proven methodologies. The simplest is to make the penalty for corruption so insanely high that nobody would take the risk. The main problem with that is that you need someone extremely powerful and extremely convicted to make such policy in the first place, and it also usually involves human rights violations. High treason was very rare in England because you'd get hanged, drawn, and quartered if you did, and it was the only crime which resulted in such a crazy violent punishment.

Then there's weaponized pride. Ataturk did this, as did several Central American nations. If you can get people to believe strongly in your country, corruption will take care of itself because people will follow the spirit of your institution. It's a bad idea to offer someone a bribe when they see it as sullying the worth of their great nation. This is effective but difficult.

You can also take the opposite end of the risk-assessment strategy, and make conditions for not being corrupt so good that embracing corruption isn't a worthwhile endeavor. You can do this both with and without simultaneously doing the first strategy. The main problem is that if you don't employ adequate safeguards, the corrupt will just take your benefits and continue to secretly be corrupt.

Finally, there's revolution. Burn it all down and chop the fucker's heads off, you're running the show now. Nothing like a cleansing righteous fire to get rid of corruption. The problem here is that it is very easy to go full circle, or end up even worse than your predecessors.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on December 23, 2012, 01:10:48 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/mitts-son-says-never-wanted-president-anyway-150612736.html

He sure seems to have spent an awful lot of his and other people's money on something he didn't want.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on December 23, 2012, 01:15:39 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on December 23, 2012, 11:15:28 am
The article seems to say the protests are against giving the rapists "weak" sentences like life imprisonment. They want nothing less than the death penalty.

That is what it looks like, but the cause for their anger is that everyone knows at least one girl/woman who has been sexually assaulted or raped and nobody got any sentence. It's not about the single case, it's about the usually weak or non-existing sentences/prosecution.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 23, 2012, 01:20:03 pm
I've heard many a tale about India's hostile sexual environment, especially when immigration causes it to spill over to places without the same standard. Supposedly, men will go so far as to grope random women openly and violently, and this isn't seen as abnormal.

I can't say I'm too surprised. India is one of those places where the law has totally blown past the population's social expectations, to the degree that neither are on the same spectrum anymore. Parliamentary democracy and universal human rights are a strange thing in a nation where there's still a latent caste system and more religious Hindus try to sell off their daughters as child brides.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on December 23, 2012, 01:24:03 pm
Genuine openness and accountability is another way to prevent corruption.  It's also probably literally the hardest thing to get politicians to vote for.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on December 23, 2012, 01:44:45 pm
Quote from: Truean on December 23, 2012, 01:10:48 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/mitts-son-says-never-wanted-president-anyway-150612736.html

He sure seems to have spent an awful lot of his and other people's money on something he didn't want.
In all honesty I kind of suspected this was the case, I don't think the republicans really expected to win the presidential election, they've just been too unpopular recently, and as much as people rip on Obama he does have popular appeal, I also suspect that the reason they didn't want Ron Paul to run is because they feared he might win, and that A) might mean they'd have to change their crazy policies, and B) a conservative would be in office when the economy was bad.

This might be a bit too conspiracy theory-y, but I think they want Obama in office right now so they can point at him later and say, "The democrats didn't do anything when they were in charge." or something.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 23, 2012, 01:55:11 pm
He's just trying to save face, trust me, the Republicans wanted this bad.

Besides, even if that was their plan, it is failing miserably. Opinion polls show that the whole fiscal cliff situation is falling on the Republican's heads right now.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 23, 2012, 02:47:21 pm
Quote from: Pnx on December 23, 2012, 01:44:45 pm
Quote from: Truean on December 23, 2012, 01:10:48 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/mitts-son-says-never-wanted-president-anyway-150612736.html

He sure seems to have spent an awful lot of his and other people's money on something he didn't want.
In all honesty I kind of suspected this was the case, I don't think the republicans really expected to win the presidential election, they've just been too unpopular recently, and as much as people rip on Obama he does have popular appeal, I also suspect that the reason they didn't want Ron Paul to run is because they feared he might win, and that A) might mean they'd have to change their crazy policies, and B) a conservative would be in office when the economy was bad.

This might be a bit too conspiracy theory-y, but I think they want Obama in office right now so they can point at him later and say, "The democrats didn't do anything when they were in charge." or something.

Not in the slightest. Considering, it was probably their go-to rather then contingency plan.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on December 23, 2012, 08:22:13 pm
Ron Paul would definitely not win.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 23, 2012, 08:28:21 pm
He might have if he were the nominee. It's hard to say. The social conservatives would have a hissy fit, of course. The economic conservatives, on the other hand, would fall in love with him.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on December 23, 2012, 08:39:13 pm
Every poll of him vs Barack Obama I've seen has him being crushed (other than than the hilariously cherrypicked ones on www dot RON PAUL dot com).  He generally also polls worse in those than Romney did in Romney vs Obama polls.

Basically a Republican candidate cannot afford to lose the social conservative base.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 23, 2012, 08:43:47 pm
The issue is that those polls aren't in a vacuum. Everyone knew that the game would come down to Obama v. Romney, and that would alter the results. If everyone knew that it was RON PAUL RON PAUL or Obama, the social conservatives might have changed their tune, if grudgingly.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on December 23, 2012, 09:10:15 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 23, 2012, 08:43:47 pm
The issue is that those polls aren't in a vacuum. Everyone knew that the game would come down to Obama v. Romney, and that would alter the results. If everyone knew that it was RON PAUL RON PAUL or Obama, the social conservatives might have changed their tune, if grudgingly.
Might is the keyword. The thing is he might end up splitting it instead, either gaining socials to spite Obama, or else non-voting. They Are a powerful demographic in the base.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on December 27, 2012, 11:04:49 am
This may be old news. You know how "waterboarding isn't torture"? Turns out the US actually prosecuted and convicted several Japanese officials for torture using waterboarding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on December 27, 2012, 12:36:18 pm
Yep, the US government is still hypocritical as fuck  ::)  Bush definitely didn't help in that department.  Then again, considering torture was instrumental in catching Osama bin Laden, I guess Obama looked the other way too.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on December 27, 2012, 12:42:50 pm
I think I've come to the conclusion that a certain level of hypocrisy is unavoidable when trying to govern and safeguard a large country. Pragmatism trumps idealism, and most of the time that's for the greater good that it does.  :-\
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on December 27, 2012, 12:43:17 pm
Quote from: Euld on December 27, 2012, 12:36:18 pm
Yep, the US government is still hypocritical as fuck  ::)  Bush definitely didn't help in that department.  Then again, considering torture was instrumental in catching Osama bin Laden, I guess Obama looked the other way too.

Except that torture wasn't instrumental to catching Osama bin Laden. It was the result of a lot of intelligence, only some of wich involved torture. And the CIA says that it is not irreplaceable, or even necessarily the fastest and most effective method capable of doing the same thing.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on December 27, 2012, 11:41:34 pm
Quote from: RedKing on December 27, 2012, 12:42:50 pm
I think I've come to the conclusion that a certain level of hypocrisy is unavoidable when trying to govern and safeguard a large country. Pragmatism trumps idealism, and most of the time that's for the greater good that it does.  :-\

Do you actually mean hypocrisy, here?  As in doing one thing while saying another?  As in forcing other people to live to standards that you don't hold for yourself?  I doubt hypocrisy is what you actually mean here.

I think what you mean to say is that you don't believe in absolutes.  This is also where "idealism" is a horribly abused word.  Idealism isn't about denying reality, it's about working towards a better reality.  Someone who bases their decisions on the assumption that the world operates according to their ideals is simply an idiot, not an idealist.  An ideal isn't meant to be fully realized, or else it wouldn't be called an ideal.  An ideal is a conceptual model, and reality can never match the purity of an idea.  Nobody should expect an ideal to ever be fully realized, any more than an artist should expect to produce a work that cannot be improved on.

When pragmatism calls for action counter to ideals, reasonable people understand.  When you expect others to be tolerant of your own pragmatism but do not extend that tolerance to others, that is hypocrisy and I don't understand how it can be argued for.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on December 28, 2012, 12:22:28 am
Quote from: Euld on December 27, 2012, 12:36:18 pm
Yep, the US government is still hypocritical as fuck  ::)  Bush definitely didn't help in that department.  Then again, considering torture was instrumental in catching Osama bin Laden, I guess Obama looked the other way too.
Seconding the "No, it really wasn't".

Hell, torture hasn't even been successful as the best method of interrogation, and interrogation wasn't the key to how they figured out where he was anyway.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on December 28, 2012, 01:00:25 am
I think in the end they found and caught him mostly by bribing people.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on December 28, 2012, 02:38:55 am
Hm.  Guess I'm quite wrong, and I'm ok with that ^_^
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on December 28, 2012, 10:52:31 am
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fiscal-cliff-accelerate-millionaire-deaths-201648757.html

Ok... so a pending rise in the inheritance tax seems destined to "advance the death rate" of elderly millionaires, so that their inheritors can take advantage of the lower tax rate.

People actually think like that?

People actually think like that!


Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on December 28, 2012, 11:35:41 am
It's all the rage in estate planning. For a while now, you sorta can't pick up a legal article about estate planning without them mentioning the difference in the exemptions and the rate of tax.

Most of the time I hear this as a joke between lawyers--something about it being a good year to die before the estate tax stuff hits....

I think they're kidding. I really hope they're kidding. :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on December 28, 2012, 11:42:34 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on December 27, 2012, 11:41:34 pm
Quote from: RedKing on December 27, 2012, 12:42:50 pm
I think I've come to the conclusion that a certain level of hypocrisy is unavoidable when trying to govern and safeguard a large country. Pragmatism trumps idealism, and most of the time that's for the greater good that it does.  :-\

Do you actually mean hypocrisy, here?  As in doing one thing while saying another?  As in forcing other people to live to standards that you don't hold for yourself?  I doubt hypocrisy is what you actually mean here.

I think what you mean to say is that you don't believe in absolutes.  This is also where "idealism" is a horribly abused word.  Idealism isn't about denying reality, it's about working towards a better reality.  Someone who bases their decisions on the assumption that the world operates according to their ideals is simply an idiot, not an idealist.  An ideal isn't meant to be fully realized, or else it wouldn't be called an ideal.  An ideal is a conceptual model, and reality can never match the purity of an idea.  Nobody should expect an ideal to ever be fully realized, any more than an artist should expect to produce a work that cannot be improved on.

When pragmatism calls for action counter to ideals, reasonable people understand.  When you expect others to be tolerant of your own pragmatism but do not extend that tolerance to others, that is hypocrisy and I don't understand how it can be argued for.

What I'm saying is that I got into international relations because I saw decades of US foreign policy where we said we were all for freedom and democracy, even as we propped up Third World dictators. Blatantly hypocritical, and I'd long chalked it up to "Cold War mentality caused us to make a lot of bad decisions in the name of anti-Communism". But as I've delved into the history and seen modern-day analogues in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and Libya and Egypt....it's become much harder for me to judge them.

Sometimes you have to support undemocratic options in the greater interest of democracy. And sometimes working for American interests means working against the interests of most of the rest of the world. I guess I've become something of a neorealist over time (though not of the Machivellian/neoconservative breed, more of a John Mearshimer bent).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on December 28, 2012, 02:22:44 pm
Re: Death taxes.

What's stopping these rich people from just handing their kids all their money in a truckload of large briefcases before they die?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on December 28, 2012, 02:56:56 pm
The economy is crashing! what are we going to do!


We are going to renew the god damn warrantless wiretapping law!

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/12/28/1850240/senate-renews-warrantless-eavesdropping-act

Thank you senatorial fuckshits.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on December 28, 2012, 03:24:14 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on December 28, 2012, 02:56:56 pm
The economy is crashing! what are we going to do!


We are going to renew the god damn warrantless wiretapping law!

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/12/28/1850240/senate-renews-warrantless-eavesdropping-act

Thank you senatorial fuckshits.
Admittedly, there isn't a hell of a lot else FOR them to do. The Senate already passed a bill to avert the fiscal cliff, with a balanced mix of cuts and letting the Bush tax cuts expire over $250,000. This was entirely too close to the realm of sanity, so of course the House refuses to pass anything close to it. Instead, Boehner (with Tea Party loons at his back with pitchforks) is offering their version, which reinstates ALL the tax cuts and makes up the difference by deeper cuts in social services. Which is DOA for the Senate.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: flameaway on December 28, 2012, 03:58:23 pm
It's difficult, for me at least, to come to a balanced understanding of what's going in the USA right now.

We've always been considerably better at promoting human rights, than we've been at protecting them. But the torture talking point is frankly offensive when balanced against how we market ourselves.

Then again, there's the whole AGW political debate (science is clear at this point in my view), seems fairly clear that capitalism is on the way out, though it looks to go out with a fight so it may take awhile, but if average temps really rise 8 C in the next hundred years... well, how do you sustain economic growth when everything is dying?

So sometimes  it looks a lot to me like we need to rethink things or a whole big bunch of us are going to be lost.  You know like George Carlin and his conviction that we are circling the drain.

On the other hand, I just spent several months driving through the western half of the United States and it is really difficult to be pessimistic about our chances to overcome the hurdles we face when you are standing next to a man-made reservoir that is a couple of hundred miles long.

It does seem that we have a lot of problems that arise from our fundamental way of doing things.  So it's likely we are going through some sort of defining moment. 

We are living in interesting times. 

Bad karma I guess.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on December 28, 2012, 04:53:30 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on December 28, 2012, 02:22:44 pm
Re: Death taxes.

What's stopping these rich people from just handing their kids all their money in a truckload of large briefcases before they die?

In most countries, there's taxes if you give too much money at once (there's often a limit on the amount of money you can give without tax to someone for x years).
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on December 28, 2012, 07:16:34 pm
Quote from: flameaway on December 28, 2012, 03:58:23 pm
Then again, there's the whole AGW political debate (science is clear at this point in my view), seems fairly clear that capitalism is on the way out, though it looks to go out with a fight so it may take awhile, but if average temps really rise 8 C in the next hundred years... well, how do you sustain economic growth when everything is dying?
This sorta points out how much people tend to think iinside the box when regarding the future. Someone somewhere will figure it out. And he'll make a fortune.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on December 29, 2012, 12:35:36 am
Quote from: misko27 on December 28, 2012, 07:16:34 pm
Quote from: flameaway on December 28, 2012, 03:58:23 pm
Then again, there's the whole AGW political debate (science is clear at this point in my view), seems fairly clear that capitalism is on the way out, though it looks to go out with a fight so it may take awhile, but if average temps really rise 8 C in the next hundred years... well, how do you sustain economic growth when everything is dying?
This sorta points out how much people tend to think iinside the box when regarding the future. Someone somewhere will figure it out. And he'll make a fortune.
They'll make a what from ousting capitalism?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on December 29, 2012, 01:06:26 am
that's the joke, PNX.

Perhaps he should have put it in quotes.

This sorta points out how much people tend to think iinside the box when regarding the future. "Someone somewhere will figure it out. And he'll make a fortune."
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 29, 2012, 10:15:14 am
Or he's a realist.  :P
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on December 30, 2012, 11:32:33 am
I know this is going back a bit, but family/holidays and stuff.

Does anyone else find those Westboro petitions a little offensive? I mean, they are asking things that are impossible while trying to deny a small group constitutional rights (freedom of association has long been read from the First Ammendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association#United_States_Constitution)) purely by a majority (or simply larger group) expressing their displeasure with their actions. I know far too many other minority groups I like and support who garner similar disgust from the general population to think this is a good idea, even in extreme cases.

Note that the USA doesn't define or list hate groups. The Southern Poverty Law Center (http://www.splcenter.org/) does, and already list the WBC. Their list has no force of law and is simply a list of groups made by a private organisation for the information of other citizens and organisations. It would be impossible for the USA to give such a list force of law without drastically reducing minority protections for all groups, making them provisional on fitting some narrower category of socially acceptable.

As for their tax exempt status, it's worth remembering that Phelps was a lawyer with a great deal of experience (mostly in protecting civil rights of racial minorities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps#Civil_rights_cases)). The question of tax exemption is a simple question of law; if the church is run as a non-profit abiding by IRS regulations for a 501(c)(3) organisation (or at least those provisions as enforced; currently the provision banning political campaigning by churches isn't being enforced while new guidelines are drawn up, IIRC) then there is no legal way to deny them that status. While other charlatans like Kent Hovind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind) have messed up the legal side to the tune of jail time, nothing I've seen suggests that Phelps ever breaks any laws or regulations, preferring to tempt those protesting him into doing so themselves.

Again, ignoring or changing current law to deny them such status by little more than popular opinion, executive fiat or any other arbitrary standard is likely to catch a whole mess of other minority non-profits who happen to fall out of favour with the majority or current administration.

On the tax exemption note, there are a few cases currently on the books from American Atheists and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2012/12/two-suits-challenge-tax-code-favoritism.html) challenging 501(c)(3) provisions that advantage religious organisations over other non-profits, as well as the current lack of enforcement of any standards at all when it comes to electioneering. I'd say that direct support to one of those two groups would be infinitely more beneficial than signing a petition, the only result of which is to make the administration look bad when they don't take the impossible/wrong-headed actions called for.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on December 30, 2012, 12:04:12 pm
It's... yeah, unintentional consequences may be an issue, but WBC itself is kinda', well. I don't think anyone has sympathy for those folks. They're bastards that are intentionally exploiting the limits of legality and targeting the emotionally distraught for more or less the sole purpose of being able to throw lawsuits at people. We have and do legally censor similar types of behavior (it's along the conceptual lines of fraud, I'd say). The petitions themselves are obviously not well thought out, yes, but finding some way to prevent the WBC from doing what it does would kinda' be a serious improvement, all around.

And... I don't actually know of any group I've heard of that garners similar disgust to what the WBC garners. They're a particular breed I don't exactly see much elsewhere, and the disgust aimed at them seems to be a bit different from what you get directed at most other "socially unacceptable" behaviors.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on December 30, 2012, 12:34:18 pm
There have been attempts to limit their protests before. All of them have been struck down, and a lot of them were facially horrible laws. Any attempts to limit politically what people may protest is a flat out bad idea. I don't really see any legal approach to shutting them down that isn't worse than them existing. As for emotional damages, Snyder v. Phelps (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps) mostly blocked that path.

As for similar disgust, no-one garners such universal disgust, but that's a very recent thing. Only since they started protesting soldiers funerals post-9/11. When they focused on protesting against AIDS victims during the 90's they weren't really that far outside the mainstream. It's only when they tie other, popular groups and American institutions into their anti-gay rhetoric that they get mainstream pushback. You don't have to go back far to see a time when their targets were viewed in a similar light as WBC are today by a large percentage of the population.

Not to mention that that disgust means that they are the absolute worst group to use to make any sort of policy. Extreme cases make bad law. It's always tempting to use the law to reflect what all 'right thinking' persons know, especially when there is such widespread agreement, but giving any credence to that sort of call to ban Bad Thing Of The Day is a far worse idea.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 30, 2012, 01:27:02 pm
On the bright side, they've probably helped gay rights in trying to hurt it. When they protest the funerals of both soldiers and homosexuals with such vitriol, it opens the door for those who like soldiers but are prejudiced against homosexuals to re-examine exactly who's side they're on.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on December 30, 2012, 03:29:22 pm
Yeah. Too bad that doesn't actually happen.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 30, 2012, 03:35:32 pm
It does in limited amounts. This sort of protests polarizes the population, forcing everyone to take up an opinion and destroying the middle ground.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 02, 2013, 03:53:29 pm
Moderate wealth is opium for the masses! Decrease the average worker's standard of living and heighten the inequality to make the proletariat realize the true nature of the class struggle! Oppress them to bring about - the revolution!

Kidding, kidding. But in this case I guess it's a good thing: Th ones on the wrong side of polarization will become old (and irrelevant) within the next thirty years.
Oh wait, there's still 4chan. Damn...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2013, 09:20:30 pm
California judges overturn rape conviction based on 19th century law that does not protect unmarried women. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/california-appeals-court-_n_2406167.html?&icid=maing-grid7|aim|dl2|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D252597) The only upside is that it was remanded for a retrial rather than dismissed, and that the judges in question appear to be using this as a way to raise public awareness that this is on the books.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 04, 2013, 09:29:56 pm
 IMF admits that their austerity recommendations were a fubar. (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/04/imf_economists_apologize_for_austerity_forecasts/) OOPS!
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on January 04, 2013, 10:46:06 pm
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on January 04, 2013, 09:29:56 pm
IMF admits that their austerity recommendations were a fubar. (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/04/imf_economists_apologize_for_austerity_forecasts/) OOPS!
Oh yeah. We needed something as terrifically stupid as this to get the message clear "Austerity, really, really bad"
 
I wonder how the peopel who've staked their political reputation on Austerity in Europe will handle it?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 05, 2013, 03:47:16 am
Pretend nothing happen. I was reading this week's Economist, and they're totally oblivious to it. They're praising Ireland as an exemple that austerity works, and urging the Brits to continue, despite the fact that their economy is still not growing, and budget deficit -both real and structural- are higher than when that government started. and the Tories are siad to prepare to blame the LibDem in the next campaign for stalling the economy by opposing yet more budget cuts.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 05, 2013, 05:57:48 am
The thing is in the media here we hear nothing about Ireland compared to Greece, Spain and Portugal, and we have propped up Irelands economy to the tune of billions. Hell, there are ghost towns there that were built on my tax cash (ok, so not literally) that nobody lives in. I suspect that this is partly as our deeply unpopular government doesnt want us plebs to hear about how much ash it can afford to fling at other EU states while restriciting how much of its cash is spent within the UK. What really annoys those of us in the UK with a socialist mind is how taxation in a number of forms seems to keep rising, and government spending in the public sector keeps being cut. This seems like the crudest method possible to save cash, and it doesnt seem to be working in any way to stimulate our economy, for fairly plain reasons. Now we have 3 deeply unpopular mainstream political parties and a number of extreme right/left wing nutcase parties, the next election will be a mess.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 05, 2013, 06:46:38 am
That cash is mostly under the form of loans though. Ireland's problem is that it's extremely dependent on the international market, as it acts as a kind of tax shelter for corporations that want acces to the EU market. Any drop in international demand will send their economy in recession again.

Also, their tax burden is slowly but surely getting out of control. Debt rose by nearly 100% of GDP since the crisis, and while they like to crow about how they beat deficit reduction target, it's still over 8% of GDP. In the event of a Greek default for exemple, it's pretty easy to imagine the yield on their debt skyrocket.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on January 05, 2013, 10:59:44 am
The strangely underreported decline in the incarceration rate. (http://www.samefacts.com/2013/01/crime-control/the-strangely-underreported-decline-in-the-incarceration-rate/)
Quote
At the time of President Obama’s inauguration, the incarceration rate in the United States had been rising every single year since the mid 1970s. The relentless growth in the proportion of Americans behind bars had persisted through good economic times and bad, Republican and Democratic Presidents, and countless changes in state and local politics around the country.

If a public policy trend with that much momentum had even slowed significantly, it would have been merited attention, but something far more remarkable occurred: The incarceration rate and the number of people under correctional supervision (i.e., including people on probation/parole) declined for three years in a row. At the end of 2011, the proportion of people under correctional supervision returned to a level not seen since the end of the Clinton Administration.
Some good news, but interesting political dynamic where no-one wants to even acknowledge the good news for various reasons.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 05, 2013, 11:26:35 am
Here's hoping the trend continues.

Any idea what's causing it, though? Linked article didn't seem to suggest much along those lines.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on January 05, 2013, 11:46:37 am
Quote from: Frumple on January 05, 2013, 11:26:35 am
Here's hoping the trend continues.

Any idea what's causing it, though? Linked article didn't seem to suggest much along those lines.
A combination of cost cutting (notably in California (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/04/california-prisons-unveil-plan-downsize.html)) forcing a smaller prison population at the state level and the fact that Obama is pushing more treatment and prevention for first time non-violent drug offenders. More people go to rehab, fewer end up on probation. The politifact article linked (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/414/send-first-time-nonviolent-drug-offenders-to-rehab/) goes into some detail on that point.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 05, 2013, 12:27:35 pm
Yeah, noticed those. Off the cuff it didn't seem like that'd be enough to get a three year dropping streak, but maybe the gains aren't terribly large or somethin'. Judging by the BLS site, though, it looks like that latter change may be doing most of it. To wit:
Quote
The majority (83%) of the decline in the correctional population during the year was attributed to the decrease in the probation population (down 81,800 offenders).
for the 2011 period. Though I don't know if the rehab thing is what caused that or if it's something else.

We've still got a flipping ridiculous incarcerated population, of course, but... gains are gains.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on January 05, 2013, 02:03:06 pm
Well a very large portion of incarcerations are drug related, so it makes sense that a rehab focused drug policy would cause a large drop.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 05, 2013, 05:12:24 pm
Any sign of the demographic imbalance in the prosion population approaching more expected levels in that data?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on January 05, 2013, 09:01:16 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on January 05, 2013, 05:12:24 pm
Any sign of the demographic imbalance in the prosion population approaching more expected levels in that data?
Didn't see anything about that in the parts linked. Would probably have to dig out the original surveys to see if they include demographic information.

The only thing I can think of that ought to affect such imbalance would be the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act), which reduced the crack/coke penalty disparity from 100:1 to 18:1. So that's something...
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on January 07, 2013, 03:57:50 pm
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/01/07/1920204/americas-real-criminal-element-lead

Interesting. It lead contamination and its reduction is strongly correlated with violent crime rates worldwide.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on January 07, 2013, 04:18:19 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on January 07, 2013, 03:57:50 pm
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/01/07/1920204/americas-real-criminal-element-lead

Interesting. It lead contamination and its reduction is strongly correlated with violent crime rates worldwide.
Less lead in people resulted in...well, people shooting less lead at other people?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on January 07, 2013, 04:25:32 pm
Quote from: RedKing on January 07, 2013, 04:18:19 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on January 07, 2013, 03:57:50 pm
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/01/07/1920204/americas-real-criminal-element-lead

Interesting. It lead contamination and its reduction is strongly correlated with violent crime rates worldwide.
Less lead in people resulted in...well, people shooting less lead at other people?
yep
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 07, 2013, 05:13:10 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on January 07, 2013, 04:25:32 pm
Quote from: RedKing on January 07, 2013, 04:18:19 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on January 07, 2013, 03:57:50 pm
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/01/07/1920204/americas-real-criminal-element-lead

Interesting. It lead contamination and its reduction is strongly correlated with violent crime rates worldwide.
Less lead in people resulted in...well, people shooting less lead at other people?
yep
They say it's because of leaded gasoline.

Seems weird, could be true though. Heavy metals are funky like that.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on January 07, 2013, 05:28:22 pm
Why does it seem weird?
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on January 07, 2013, 05:37:36 pm
From the article:
Quote
if you overlay a map showing areas with higher incidence of violent crime with one showing lead contamination, there's a strikingly high correlation

.. which is interesting but not really surprising because:
1.) if you overlay a map showing areas with higher incidence of violent crime with one showing low income areas, there's a strikingly high correlation
2.) if you overlay a map showing areas with low income with one showing lead contamination, there's a strikingly high correlation

So I'd say it may boil down to: being affected by lead contamination is a sign of low socio-economic status (SES) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_status) which leads to more violent crime. Basically you could as well match poor grades in math with high violence (low education->low SES)
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 07, 2013, 05:41:15 pm
Yeah, it's one of those cases where the correlation seems plausible enough to make you think, but the use of statistics to support it isn't very well executed.  Statistical correlation can be shown for all kinds of ridiculous things.  Often it just points to another thing that relates to both subjects in the correlation.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 07, 2013, 06:43:12 pm
While it's true for the map, they did account for income in their other model.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on January 07, 2013, 08:33:15 pm
I think it's possible there are factors that make you more likely to be poisoned by lead that are the same as factors for gun violence. It's not necessarily causation.
Title: Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on January 08, 2013, 01:14:59 am

Like being drenched in leaded gasoline ?

Lead is knows for health issues, especially with kids. Saying that lead contamined children are more prone to criminality is far fetched.

I call BS on this, because it's just linking some statistics for no reason whatsoever. Some statistics can even be considered false, compared to other statistics (what I mean is, you can't prove a theory just by showing some statistics). I'm even impressed that they are trying to link crime per capita to demographic growth (when they are trying to show that crimes went down even with population increasing, although that has nothing to do with lead).

It also doesn't explain the growth of criminality, it would have meant a plateau, not a constant increase/decrease.

And, it's strictly USA, there is some countries with a higher rate of lead in blood than America, and still a lower criminality. There is places with different situations (about lead and criminality). Reading the original study (2007, but the original idea was from 200), it also dismissed NY and some other state.
(And I'm talking about the industrialized countries that had this increase of criminality in the 1950s).


At best, as misko said, there are some factors that are the same for lead contamination and criminality (which is much more close to what's said in the studies rather than the "news").
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 08, 2013, 01:41:19 am
I've updated the OP so it's more helpful to people first encountering it, messed with the rules a bit, and took my name out of the thread title since I don't think it's necessary anymore. I was considering changing the rest of the name, but "Halcyon and Harmonious Humanist Harangue Haven" wasn't quite as clear as the current title.

Spoiler: old OP, archived (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 08, 2013, 07:44:18 am
Actually, here is a lengthier article (https://www.evernote.com/shard/s113/sh/233eec7b-4f66-4f66-8401-e502afd72f90/b975ab2b1b4fed43029a8dc872784798) about the same studie, where they seems to address most of your concerns.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on January 08, 2013, 09:01:57 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 08, 2013, 07:44:18 am
Actually, here is a lengthier article (https://www.evernote.com/shard/s113/sh/233eec7b-4f66-4f66-8401-e502afd72f90/b975ab2b1b4fed43029a8dc872784798) about the same studie, where they seems to address most of your concerns.
I already read it, and nope, nothing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DrPoo on January 08, 2013, 09:11:49 am
Alright time for me to think about things for once.. not that i do this al the time, but in a serious fashion.

It feels like democracy is having its retreat, and that corperations are given more and more pwoer each day.

Another thing i have been pondering about is where the hell is all the money going? Why is US in debt?
I know, war, and war. But still, it cant all be war. Where the fuck is the economy going?

Bah.. and what will happen once economy goes completely to shit and the world market crashes?
WHAT WILL HAPPEN
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 08, 2013, 10:44:25 am
You mean like in 2007? We bail out the banks and impose austerity.

Re: lead, they do say they ran the test in other countries. They're also not claiming that lead is the sole cause of criminality, but one explaining factors among many. As for the growth, apparently leaded gasoline used grew constantly until it was banned then fell down, so it explain the raise in criminality as well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on January 08, 2013, 10:53:41 am
I would note that lead is a toxin that manifests several symptoms that can lead to an increased propensity for crime. Some of the the side effects of lead poisoning include an increase in aggression and impaired judgement.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on January 08, 2013, 12:33:55 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 08, 2013, 10:44:25 am
Re: lead, they do say they ran the test in other countries. They're also not claiming that lead is the sole cause of criminality, but one explaining factors among many. As for the growth, apparently leaded gasoline used grew constantly until it was banned then fell down, so it explain the raise in criminality as well.

That's still doesn't fit the datas about other countries. Also some countries with a current higher rate of lead still have a lower criminality. Just look a China, which has a desastrous politics in terms of lead, and still one of the lower criminality of the world.
The studies are ok, but the articles out of this are completely bs. With the same kind of reasoning, you could say : "Violence lead to higher rate of lead in blood" (I'm talking about the reasoning here, before anyone else says "But the datas ...").

Quote from: Nadaka on January 08, 2013, 10:53:41 am
I would note that lead is a toxin that manifests several symptoms that can lead to an increased propensity for crime. Some of the the side effects of lead poisoning include an increase in aggression and impaired judgement.
From a statistics study ?
Also, "increased propensity for crime" isn't scientific. You want to say "increased aggressiveness" (and it's what they say). But there still is no proof. It's an hypothesis, with a correlation. If you want a proper reasoning, get some groups of white mouse (or others, rats may be good), and test their aggressiveness with differents exposure to lead.

The average blood lead level in rich countries is higher than the WHO limits. I guess we're all contamined with aggressiveness then.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on January 08, 2013, 12:39:42 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on January 08, 2013, 01:41:19 am
[...] and took my name out of the thread title [...]

Maybe you could somehow get (at least) the word "penguin" back into it? I liked the old title.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on January 08, 2013, 12:50:52 pm
There can be no proof in sociology. Everything is a statistical analysis of a complex real world system because it is impossible to isolate societies or other factors within a society for the purpose of experimentation without fundamentally altering their nature even if you ignore the moral issues with attempting to experiment on human societies.

I did say increased aggressiveness. Aggression is one (of many) factors contributing to violent crime.

The experiments and observations of the effects of lead poisoning on an individual have already happened. But the individual is not the collective. One might propose that the individual symptoms might translate to some effect on society. But you don't have any evidence until you do a statistical analysis. And that is exactly what this is.

I think you are just fundamentally misunderstanding what the research is about.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on January 08, 2013, 12:56:30 pm
Calm and Cool Penguin Discussion Thread.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 08, 2013, 01:42:15 pm
I was under the impression that , like abortion bans, lead mostly conspires to increase the risk of criminal activity in already at-risk groups. So even if lead was an equally problematic issue for every population, the populations that already had the highest rates of criminality (and likely the most people on the verge) would have the greatest instance of additional folk crossing the line.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 08, 2013, 02:25:55 pm
Quote from: Descan on January 08, 2013, 12:56:30 pm
Calm and Cool Penguin Discussion Thread.
While I'm all for talking about antarctic flightless birds, I'd rather have the discussion stay as it is now :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 08, 2013, 04:14:21 pm
I'd just like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that the greatest political cartoon ever has been created.
Spoiler: Al Gorzeera (click to show/hide)
As far as I can tell this is completely serious and not a parody.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 08, 2013, 04:17:28 pm
Considering that it is being funded by Americans for Limited Government, I'm going to have to agree that it is serious.

I think they may have mixed up that "al-" is Arabic for "the", not "kill America and freedom, praise Allah". Easy mistake.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on January 08, 2013, 04:18:27 pm
Wow....that's on par with the cartoonist the Onion uses.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 08, 2013, 04:21:40 pm
Any scientists here, by the way? I'd love to know how their community perceives current politics.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 08, 2013, 04:30:52 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 08, 2013, 04:17:28 pm
Considering that it is being funded by Americans for Limited Government, I'm going to have to agree that it is serious.

I think they may have mixed up that "al-" is Arabic for "the", not "kill America and freedom, praise Allah". Easy mistake.
At least they nailed Glenn Beck's political viewpoints.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 08, 2013, 04:36:42 pm
The Source:
http://netrightdaily.com/2013/01/al-gorzeera/

It's got a whopping one comment, hah.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 08, 2013, 04:50:02 pm
Quote from: lorb on January 08, 2013, 12:39:42 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on January 08, 2013, 01:41:19 am
[...] and took my name out of the thread title [...]

Maybe you could somehow get (at least) the word "penguin" back into it? I liked the old title.

I guess I could? I just didn't feel like I needed to declare my ownership after almost a year. It was originally intended as the equivalent of an "under new management" sign.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 08, 2013, 06:38:22 pm
Quote from: Novel on January 08, 2013, 04:21:40 pm
Any scientists here, by the way? I'd love to know how their community perceives current politics.
From what I get from my dad, theoretical physicists hate the republicans, like Obama, are worried about the Euro crisis and generally agree that something fundamental has to change.
Liberals, the lo of 'em.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on January 08, 2013, 08:43:30 pm
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/rescued-bailout-g-may-sue-033020853.html

So we bailed out the insurance companies who were incredibly irresponsible, but we should've given them even more at better terms.... The shareholders were "deprived" of profits... from a company that was going rather bankrupt and we had to save in order to keep it from bankruptcy.... So even when the overt greed, and stupid pursuit of profit drive a company to bankruptcy, the people buying the stock should still make money....

I have no words....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 08, 2013, 08:46:06 pm
I've been deprived of profit my whole life.  Where's my free stuff?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on January 08, 2013, 09:16:34 pm
I'm running a net loss, I DEMAND money! *checks food stamps balance* Not good enough.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on January 09, 2013, 06:53:19 am
Quote from: Truean on January 08, 2013, 08:43:30 pm
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/rescued-bailout-g-may-sue-033020853.html

So we bailed out the insurance companies who were incredibly irresponsible, but we should've given them even more at better terms.... The shareholders were "deprived" of profits... from a company that was going rather bankrupt and we had to save in order to keep it from bankruptcy.... So even when the overt greed, and stupid pursuit of profit drive a company to bankruptcy, the people buying the stock should still make money....

I have no words....

I have words related to this, but I'm certainly not going to speak them in polite company.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on January 09, 2013, 12:51:29 pm
Do they really have a chance in court? There are laws that make this a real possibility?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 09, 2013, 01:04:17 pm
Just and justice are two different things - if they had no chance, they wouldn't be spending money on lawyers.

BTW, have you heard about the ruling in the case of that Texan girl? Judge said it was alright for her to be suspended from school.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 09, 2013, 01:08:00 pm
My understanding is that the Judge said if she wanted to attend the school she had to comply with its policies (this particular one designed to drive up attendance in order to prevent the school losing funding - which seems an odd way to fund a school if you ask me), but that she was free to seek another if she so wished. Of course, the policy stinks of "Automatically Guilty in my Eyes Syndrome", but still...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on January 09, 2013, 05:00:00 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/aig-says-not-join-lawsuit-against-u-government-201052589--finance.html

Better.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on January 09, 2013, 05:03:11 pm
Wow, that was quick.

Who says hate never solves anything?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 10, 2013, 04:08:55 am
What was that Texan case?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Trollheiming on January 10, 2013, 08:55:37 am
Quote from: Helgoland on January 09, 2013, 01:04:17 pm
Just and justice are two different things - if they had no chance, they wouldn't be spending money on lawyers.

The principle difference is that one word is a noun and the other is an adjective; other than that, they ought to be the same. The problem is when you allow a government system to hijack a word for its own legitimacy. I'm careful to refer to the legal system as such, not the "justice" system.

Quote from: PanH on January 08, 2013, 12:33:55 pm
Also some countries with a current higher rate of lead still have a lower criminality. Just look a China, which has a desastrous politics in terms of lead, and still one of the lower criminality of the world.

Don't belief any stats from China, including such frequent citations as GDP growth, unemployment, national debt, or crime rates. You can't know anything about China from the outside.

Crime is bad in China. Coworker robbed two weeks ago, wife almost robbed a few days ago, dragged 20 fucking feet by a punk on a motorbike before my eyes. Everyone I talk to says crime is bad. They don't get asked by officials making the data. Pickpockets thick as fleas on the buses. My own wallet lifted twice. 

China executes 10,000 people a year for various offenses. That's a good way to keep violent crime down, but the incidents of non-capital offense are pretty ubiquitous. Murders aren't that rare, either.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on January 11, 2013, 03:25:39 pm
And now schools are pushing the liberal agenda on children (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/10/eric-bolling-schools-pushing-the-liberal-agenda-by-teaching-algebra/) by teaching algebra.  I don't even... I don't even... augh.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on January 11, 2013, 03:53:39 pm
Quote from: Euld on January 11, 2013, 03:25:39 pm
And now schools are pushing the liberal agenda on children (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/10/eric-bolling-schools-pushing-the-liberal-agenda-by-teaching-algebra/) by teaching algebra.  I don't even... I don't even... augh.

Algebra? Sounds like Al'Queda to me!

And the end of that article is priceless, the 2 examples they gave as liberal indoctrination in school was a disregard for climate change denialism and the idea that no weapons of mass destruction were found in the iraq war.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on January 11, 2013, 04:04:51 pm
Quote from: Euld on January 11, 2013, 03:25:39 pm
And now schools are pushing the liberal agenda on children (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/10/eric-bolling-schools-pushing-the-liberal-agenda-by-teaching-algebra/) by teaching algebra.  I don't even... I don't even... augh.
FOX is the WWE of news networks. In that their biggest fans are much the same demographic, and mostly because that demographic actually believes what they're watching.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 11, 2013, 04:06:53 pm
I don't think most pro wrestling fans actually believe it's real. That hasn't been the case for almost 30 years now. It is just an entertaining performance, not unlike classical theater.

Yes, I just compared pro wrestling to classical theater.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 11, 2013, 04:10:51 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 11, 2013, 04:06:53 pm
I don't think most pro wrestling fans actually believe it's real. That hasn't been the case for almost 30 years now. It is just an entertaining performance, not unlike classical theater.

Yes, I just compared pro wrestling to classical theater.

With less elbow drops.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 11, 2013, 04:12:40 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on January 11, 2013, 04:10:51 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 11, 2013, 04:06:53 pm
I don't think most pro wrestling fans actually believe it's real. That hasn't been the case for almost 30 years now. It is just an entertaining performance, not unlike classical theater.

Yes, I just compared pro wrestling to classical theater.

With less elbow drops.
Less violence in general. Unless it's Shakespeare, in which case murder and debauchery are in every other line.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on January 11, 2013, 04:18:51 pm
I think I may have seen a performance of a Shakespeare play in a wrestling ring at some point, but i may be blocking that memory for some reason.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 11, 2013, 04:21:30 pm
Aannnndddd now I'm thinking of a homoerotic Romeo and Juliet done inside a wrestling ring with the entire (all male) cast being the wrestlers. There would be elbow drops and junk (heeheehee).

Considering they used to do the whole all-male casts anyway, it's not as much of a stretch (ahahahahahahahahahaha) as it might be.

Really though, a lot of classical theatre was pretty damn violent. Shakespeare didn't even remotely have a monopoly on that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 11, 2013, 04:23:18 pm
Yes, but I think he holds the record. Hamlet only has two living named characters at the end, one of whom only has a couple of lines in the entire play.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on January 11, 2013, 04:26:26 pm
Speaking of things that aren't real... apparently a lot of debate on the internet:
http://consciouslifenews.com/paid-internet-shill-shadowy-groups-manipulate-internet-opinion-debate/1147073/

We saw one on the election megathread promoting Mitt awhile back, so shouldn't come as a surprise.  Now I just need to figure out how to get paid to be a super-liberal shill...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 11, 2013, 04:27:11 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 11, 2013, 04:23:18 pm
Yes, but I think he holds the record. Hamlet only has two living named characters at the end, one of whom only has a couple of lines in the entire play.
Naah, there's got to be a few that had total party wipes by the end of it. Comedies or parodies if nothing else. Mind you, I can't remember any because it's been a while since I've interacted with theater in any way (and wasn't exactly invested even then), but I'd be really surprised if they weren't out there. Lot of those old plays were pretty hardcore, honestly. The entertainment biz hasn't changed all that much over the centuries, in some ways.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on January 11, 2013, 04:32:17 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on January 11, 2013, 04:18:51 pm
I think I may have seen a performance of a Shakespeare play in a wrestling ring at some point, but i may be blocking that memory for some reason.
It's part of the opening act of "As You Like It" the male lead wins a wrestling competition which leads to him seeing this girl that he experience love at first sight for. Which leads to a bunch of positively ridiculous antics.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on January 11, 2013, 04:39:50 pm
Shakespeare should have added sections in-between acts where major characters come up and monologue some smack about how the other person is totally going down next week at the Globe, in ye olde no-holds-barred matche of yon cages.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on January 11, 2013, 04:44:10 pm
Quote from: Pnx on January 11, 2013, 04:32:17 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on January 11, 2013, 04:18:51 pm
I think I may have seen a performance of a Shakespeare play in a wrestling ring at some point, but i may be blocking that memory for some reason.
It's part of the opening act of "As You Like It" the male lead wins a wrestling competition which leads to him seeing this girl that he experience love at first sight for. Which leads to a bunch of positively ridiculous antics.
Saw that one on a cool summers night in the park.

God, I need to go back there again.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on January 11, 2013, 05:20:10 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 11, 2013, 04:23:18 pm
Yes, but I think he holds the record. Hamlet only has two living named characters at the end, one of whom only has a couple of lines in the entire play.

I dunno, in terms of actual deaths, Titus Andronicus might be able to give Hamlet a run for its money.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 11, 2013, 06:10:19 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on January 11, 2013, 04:26:26 pm
We saw one on the election megathread promoting Mitt awhile back, so shouldn't come as a surprise.  Now I just need to figure out how to get paid to be a super-liberal shill...
Ugh, did I forget to send you the memo?

Some of these groups operate pretty openly, in particular the pro-Israel ones.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 11, 2013, 06:47:04 pm
Are we sure this guy was paid to promote Mitt or is this just a way to dismiss people who disagree with you?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on January 11, 2013, 08:07:30 pm
Well, it was this dude: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?action=profile;u=83703
His one post unfortunately has been removed so I cannot point to the obviousness of it, other than perhaps his name. See from http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=98262.msg3620592#msg3620592


Edit: wait... along these same lines, if wrestling is fake for entertainment, and classical theatre is fake for entertainment, and online discussions are all fake... does this mean that a majority of fans of the Wrestling Super Classical Theatre Extravaganza (the only way people would consume classical literature) would all be hired shills to further promote the characters and go 'omgz its realz' ?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 11, 2013, 08:14:16 pm
Man that was a really great time for the election thread.  There are still some fragments of what he said left in other people's quotes - he was mainly talking about all the polls being skewed iirc.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on January 11, 2013, 08:15:15 pm
That whole thread was glorious. This is the first primary I've ever really watched...are they always this fun?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on January 11, 2013, 09:47:23 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on January 11, 2013, 04:26:26 pm
Speaking of things that aren't real... apparently a lot of debate on the internet:
http://consciouslifenews.com/paid-internet-shill-shadowy-groups-manipulate-internet-opinion-debate/1147073/

We saw one on the election megathread promoting Mitt awhile back, so shouldn't come as a surprise.  Now I just need to figure out how to get paid to be a super-liberal shill...
Meh, that's boring stuff. If they are smart, they employ a few AI programmers, put them on the task to create an army of shill-bots.

Speaking of army, here's the system the US Army uses: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

I would bet the US Government have fully automated systems either already deployed or at the very least well into its development phases. Because, quite frankly, the job that guy described can be done by a decent AI program at almost the same level of competence.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on January 11, 2013, 10:35:47 pm
The White House responds to the Death Star petition (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition-response-youre-looking) with a surprising way.  I admit I'm quite impressed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on January 11, 2013, 11:04:40 pm
Quote
Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?
Flawless argument.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 11, 2013, 11:14:50 pm
Quote
The Adminstration does not support blowing up planets.
Barrack HUSSEIN OBAMA ACCUSES REPUBLICANS OF TRYING TO BLOW UP GOD'S GREEN EARTH!

go to dubya dubya dybya dot RON PAUL dot COM to learn more


(850 Quadrillion Dollars is only 12 times the global GDP, why does Obama not care about the safety of our children?)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on January 11, 2013, 11:58:09 pm
Quote from: Euld on January 11, 2013, 10:35:47 pm
The White House responds to the Death Star petition (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition-response-youre-looking) with a surprising way.  I admit I'm quite impressed.
I officially forgive anything the U.S. administration has ever done wrong.
(not really, but this is hilarious and awesome)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 12, 2013, 12:04:32 am
Quote from: Sirus on January 11, 2013, 11:58:09 pm
I officially forgive anything the U.S. administration has ever done wrong.
(not really, but this is hilarious and awesome)
Key point with the response probably being more who wrote it (and what they're part of) than anything else. I don't think the "Science and Space Branch at the White House Office of Management and Budget" has done anything particularly odious, uh. I won't go so far as to say ever, but if our non-military research has been doing stuff notably immoral it's been at a much lower frequency than most of the rest of th'government.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on January 12, 2013, 12:30:07 am
Obama is definitely trying hard to win over the nerds and the younger generation.  Of course, the republicans are practically handing over that demographic as hard as they possibly can.  We shouldn't forget what Obama has tried to get away with, and we're still hoping he's going to help pull the country out of this economic blah.  Only reason we all voted him back in was because the Republicans wanted to bring another plutocrat back in to screw things up harder.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 12, 2013, 01:35:24 am
I'm a bit late with this comment, but my respect for professional wrestling shot through the roof when I read up on kayfabe/etc. It really isn't any different than live theatre except the content. Yes, it's all an act, but that's the point. Suspend your disbelief like you would for anything else and enjoy the show.

Back to your regularly scheduled Death Star discussion.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 12, 2013, 04:12:57 am
Well, didn't he got the nerd vote when he decided to personnaly lead an army of robotic killers to dispose with anyone that look remotely like a terrorrist? You must admit it's a rad way to be a murderous asshole.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 12, 2013, 08:36:13 am
I had no idea about the solar probe.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 12, 2013, 07:30:08 pm
The co-founder of Reddit has committed suicide. http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-aaron-swartz-cofounder-of-reddit-and-online-activist--dies-20130112,0,6773249.story. One way or another, that will matter.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 12, 2013, 07:39:32 pm
I won't lie, it is pretty tempting to see this as a covered-up murder. But being tempting does not necessarily have anything to do with the reality of the situation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 12, 2013, 07:56:57 pm
He'd struggled with depression for a while, and from what I understand the years of hounding by the prosecution not only worked hard to destroy some of his personal relationships, but left him in large part unable to be productive in the ways he was before.

A bit on the court case, on the guy, and on his death
http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bully

He was a pretty amazing person, by all accounts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on January 13, 2013, 07:25:27 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 12, 2013, 07:39:32 pm
I won't lie, it is pretty tempting to see this as a covered-up murder. But being tempting does not necessarily have anything to do with the reality of the situation.

If you read some of his blog posts it's not too surprising:
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/verysick (http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/verysick)

He even mentioned having suicide thoughts at a talk. It's sad that he apparently couldn't open up to other people and ask them for help while the people around him knew he is depressed but failed to recognize the severity of it. (At least that's the impression I have.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 13, 2013, 09:20:27 pm
Why bother with the messy business of murder when you can completely shut a person down with legal harassment and generally making their life a living hell?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on January 13, 2013, 11:41:53 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 13, 2013, 09:20:27 pm
Why bother with the messy business of murder when you can completely shut a person down with legal harassment and generally making their life a living hell?
until they have no hope left and commit suicide.

The man was hounded and driven until he couldn't take it any more.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: da_nang on January 14, 2013, 05:13:01 am
This showed up in my newsbox today: TPB AFK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCAGb7oSwDs)

Interesting...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on January 14, 2013, 02:58:52 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/boy-found-responsible-murdering-father-174217511.html

Kid is horribly abused by his father his whole life. And at 10, shoots the scum dead. They are going to hold the kid responsible for premeditated murder.

I am suffering from eye twitchy syndrome from reading this. That could have been me if shit went on a few years longer.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 14, 2013, 03:03:53 pm
Follow the money or the military?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 14, 2013, 03:06:58 pm
They still have to convince a jury. Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 14, 2013, 03:42:10 pm
Well, he did kill his father. You kinda expect the prosecution to press murder charges in those case.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on January 14, 2013, 03:54:27 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 14, 2013, 03:42:10 pm
Well, he did kill his father. You kinda expect the prosecution to press murder charges in those case.

You grow up in a sufficiently abusive household and you know nothing but fear, pain and anger where your abuser has absolute control. Its a compromised mental state combined with ample justification. Even premeditated action is still a response to a persistent threat of harm and is still self defense.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on January 14, 2013, 04:02:20 pm
I'm sympathetic (god KNOWS I'm sympathetic), but it is still murder. Not that I didn't fantasize about doing the same to my stepfather. In excruciating detail. At the age of 6.

But ultimately, it's an issue of personal responsibility. Abuse is a mitigating factor, not an excuse.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 14, 2013, 04:03:15 pm
Is justifiable homicide a real thing or has TV been lying to me?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on January 14, 2013, 04:03:34 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on January 14, 2013, 04:03:15 pm
Is justifiable homicide a real thing or has TV been lying to me?
Yes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 14, 2013, 04:06:05 pm
Quote from: Darvi on January 14, 2013, 04:03:34 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on January 14, 2013, 04:03:15 pm
Is justifiable homicide a real thing or has TV been lying to me?
Yes.

So I assume the defense will be aiming at that then, correct?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 14, 2013, 04:06:28 pm
My questions are:

Did he have any other recourse available to him, and if so, why didn't he take them?

I'll accept some sort of self defense if the kid really had no other way out. Otherwise...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on January 14, 2013, 04:07:38 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on January 14, 2013, 04:03:15 pm
Is justifiable homicide a real thing or has TV been lying to me?
Depends who you ask really. The state generally seems to think so under certain circumstances... such as if you're a soldier and they're an enemy combatant, or if they're a clear threat to your life... or if they happen to be black and look suspicious.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 14, 2013, 04:09:56 pm
He's too young to be fully responsible for his actions, really (an abusive upbringing which taught him it was ok to kill doesn't help).  What he needs is serious psychological help.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 14, 2013, 04:10:59 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on January 14, 2013, 04:09:56 pm
He's too young to be fully responsible for his actions, really (an abusive upbringing which taught him it was ok to kill doesn't help).  What he needs is serious psychological help.
This I will agree with fully. 'Cause damn.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 14, 2013, 04:11:59 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on January 14, 2013, 04:06:28 pm
My questions are:

Did he have any other recourse available to him, and if so, why didn't he take them?
Victim blaming, are we?

I don't know extensively about this case since it isn't described, but from what we know so far the Nazi had it coming.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 14, 2013, 04:13:27 pm
MSH: Given that the Nazi was murdered, that kid is not only a victim.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 14, 2013, 04:17:15 pm
The Nazi instigated this entire ten-year horror show. In my eyes he is the cause of and is responsible for the kid opting to murder him. I certainly can't place any blame on the kid, since while I cannot know for certain what my mental state would be in his situation, I think I probably would have taken the same actions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on January 14, 2013, 04:23:39 pm
Yes it is a real thing. And it exists for cases where for instance a child has been beaten and tortured his entire life, knowing nothing but violence and suffering, and then shoots his NAZI father in order to end his agony.

This kind of thing doesn't end without someone being killed or nearly so. The violence only escalates. Typically the abuser goes to far and kills his kid/wife or does enough damage that even the victims denials are ignored by the authorities. Or the victim kills themselves through suicide or reckless action. And sometimes you are not the only victim, and killing yourself would be a selfish act that would leave the rest of your family to suffer.

As a kid who grew up in that kind of environment, there are no good options. None. I do know what the mental state would be in this case, because the first 6 years of my life were very similar if you file off the word "nazi" and replace it with "fundamentalist christian cult". To this day, my older brother who lived through it 10 years longer than I did will sometimes say that his greatest regret was that he never had the strength to kill our father and protect the rest of us from him.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 14, 2013, 04:25:18 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 14, 2013, 04:11:59 pm
Victim blaming, are we?
Please point out where I said or even implied that the kid deserved any of the things that happened to him.


Also: Irony. Bringing up victim blaming and glorifying vengeance in the same sentence?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on January 14, 2013, 04:26:04 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on January 14, 2013, 04:25:18 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 14, 2013, 04:11:59 pm
Victim blaming, are we?
Please point out where I said or even implied that the kid deserved any of the things that happened to him.


Also: Irony. Bringing up victim blaming and glorifying vengeance in the same sentence?

Not vengeance. defense against a persistent threat of violence and death.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 14, 2013, 04:28:32 pm
MSH's comment read to me as glorification of it, not self defense. Apologies if I misinterpreted.

Anyway, my original question was whether there were any options available to the kid that would result in his safety without someone dying. I'd ask similar questions for, say, someone shooting a home invader. It's possible it's the best decision available; possibly not.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 14, 2013, 04:35:56 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on January 14, 2013, 04:25:18 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 14, 2013, 04:11:59 pm
Victim blaming, are we?
Please point out where I said or even implied that the kid deserved any of the things that happened to him.
Quote from: kaijyuu on January 14, 2013, 04:06:28 pm
Did he have any other recourse available to him, and if so, why didn't he take them?
Your question implies such skepticism at the boy's situation. You placed the emphasis of proactive action upon him for being abused by a Nazi. In my book, that counts as victim blaming.
Quote
Also: Irony. Bringing up victim blaming and glorifying vengeance in the same sentence?
The kid was protecting his life in killing the guy, but you're probably asking for too much if you're wanting to see an abuse victim defend themselves against their abuser without enjoying it. Maybe the kid is happy he killed his father and maybe he is not, but it does not change anything.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 14, 2013, 04:36:47 pm
Generally, in cases like this?

There's plenty, and the abuser is going to make sure the victim doesn't know about, believe in, or trust the likelihood of any of them.

There were dozens of other possibilities, all of which I'm sure the kid knew about, but only one I can see that actually had a good chance of success, with success being "stop this man from hurting me anymore".

And that's me, with the benefit of years of wisdom, a good upbringing, good socialization and a good education. I've seen stuff like this happen, and this? Sadly, the way our society is structured, this is honestly the best course course of action for someone in this kids situation, as best I can tell.

Also, where the hell did he glorify vengeance?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Twi on January 14, 2013, 04:38:32 pm
If we want to argue about who's at fault... Well, as people have pointed out, victim blaming is a bad habit to get into, but they're both victims at the hand of the other: the father abused the son, the son shoots the father.

That said, I think I can safely say that the father's abusive behavior definitely didn't help, and in that situation, I don't know if the kid would be rational, responsible, and/or informed enough to seek safer options. Assuming he hadn't already done so and failed or simply not found any at all.

Long story short: two wrongs don't make anyone right, but if you wrong someone enough, it seems a tad unreasonable to blame them for wronging you back.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 14, 2013, 05:02:42 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on January 14, 2013, 04:28:32 pm
MSH's comment read to me as glorification of it, not self defense. Apologies if I misinterpreted.

Anyway, my original question was whether there were any options available to the kid that would result in his safety without someone dying. I'd ask similar questions for, say, someone shooting a home invader. It's possible it's the best decision available; possibly not.
I might say something similar for an adult with a decent upbringing and a sound mind, but this is a 10 year old with a horrific upbringing and likely a whole host of issues.  He really can't have been expected to make the better decision even if there were one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 14, 2013, 05:14:40 pm
There were things I could have done to change the abuses I experienced at school.  Even simple alterations to my own behavior would have gone a long way.  Too bad I didn't know about these things until I was well into adulthood.  Kids just don't understand enough of the world to pull a wide range of options from it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 14, 2013, 05:38:15 pm
Yeah, actually, what the law regarding minors there in the state? Are they considered responsible of their acts?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on January 14, 2013, 05:49:12 pm
btw, are we discussing the morality or the legality of the boys actions?

for the second: you can either argue that he acted out of self defence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense) or was not capable of mentally grasping the consequences of his actions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminished_responsibility)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nilik on January 14, 2013, 06:11:47 pm
Quote from: lorb on January 14, 2013, 05:49:12 pm
btw, are we discussing the morality or the legality of the boys actions?

for the second: you can either argue that he acted out of self defence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense) or was not capable of mentally grasping the consequences of his actions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminished_responsibility)

I think I'd argue both, to be honest. I hope that kid gets a good lawyer  :(
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jerick on January 14, 2013, 07:09:43 pm
Quote from: lorb on January 14, 2013, 05:49:12 pm
btw, are we discussing the morality or the legality of the boys actions?

for the second: you can either argue that he acted out of self defence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense) or was not capable of mentally grasping the consequences of his actions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminished_responsibility)
The first argument doesn't actualy apply. It must be a credible immediate threat of equal level to the force applied in defense to justify self defense. It's not legaly self defense in a situation where someone made it clear they where going to try and kill you in the next month and you kill them first. Nor is it self defense for say an abused wife who rightly fears her husband will kill her to act first, unless there is an immediate credible threat. The self defense argument actualy applies in much fewer situations than people think it does.

Diminished responsibility is exactly the right defense here however. The kid is young inexpirenced in the world and pretty much only seen the ways of violence used as a problem solver.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 14, 2013, 07:16:09 pm
Does that mean if someone kidnapped and was, say, keeping you locked up in his basement, killing him to escape would NOT count as self-defense?

Surely there's got to be some legal escape clause for that sort of situation?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jerick on January 14, 2013, 07:29:41 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 14, 2013, 07:16:09 pm
Does that mean if someone kidnapped and was, say, keeping you locked up in his basement, killing him to escape would NOT count as self-defense?

Surely there's got to be some legal escape clause for that sort of situation?

Necessity is a tough legal doctrine to get in your favour, but it would clearly apply here.
No it wouldn't, unless he starts torturing you or a reasonable person would assume he's about to torture you then the immediate threat is esclated to the level where killing would be considered self defense. Killing someone to escape just false imprisionment would be ilegal, but assualt would be considered on the same level so self defense would apply if you attack or injure him. In other words it's okay to fight your way out of false imprisionment unless the conditions could be considered torture or you're about to be tortured then it's okay to kill to escape.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on January 14, 2013, 08:07:04 pm
most kidnappings end in death.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on January 14, 2013, 11:12:11 pm
Quote from: Jerick on January 14, 2013, 07:29:41 pm
No it wouldn't, unless he starts torturing you or a reasonable person would assume he's about to torture you then the immediate threat is esclated to the level where killing would be considered self defense. Killing someone to escape just false imprisionment would be ilegal, but assualt would be considered on the same level so self defense would apply if you attack or injure him. In other words it's okay to fight your way out of false imprisionment unless the conditions could be considered torture or you're about to be tortured then it's okay to kill to escape.

Which means if I'm kidnapped (and following your reasoning, anything shorter than murder or attempt, and injuries), I shouldn't do anything that could threaten the live of my aggressor ? That's pretty twisted.
What kind of countries has this sort of laws ?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 14, 2013, 11:21:52 pm
Like with robbery and rape, the frequency of murder in kidnappings makes it a plausible and unknown threat against your life, justifying the preemptive use of lethal force.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 15, 2013, 07:02:56 am
Quote from: PanH on January 14, 2013, 11:12:11 pm
Which means if I'm kidnapped (and following your reasoning, anything shorter than murder or attempt, and injuries), I shouldn't do anything that could threaten the live of my aggressor ? That's pretty twisted.
What kind of countries has this sort of laws ?
You're changing what he said in a weird way.  What he's actually saying is that you shouldn't intentionally kill them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jerick on January 15, 2013, 09:40:48 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on January 15, 2013, 07:02:56 am
Quote from: PanH on January 14, 2013, 11:12:11 pm
Which means if I'm kidnapped (and following your reasoning, anything shorter than murder or attempt, and injuries), I shouldn't do anything that could threaten the live of my aggressor ? That's pretty twisted.
What kind of countries has this sort of laws ?
You're changing what he said in a weird way.  What he's actually saying is that you shouldn't intentionally kill them.
Bingo
Also if any reasonable person would assume that their captor is very shortly about to attempt murder or serious harm on them then that too allows for killing in self defense. Technicaly speaking the false imprisionment doesn't let you kill your captor but;
Quote
the frequency of murder in kidnappings makes it a plausible and unknown threat against your life
does allow the self defense doctrine to apply. Why would they lock you in basement if they weren't about to do something horrible to you?

Two further things; The self defense argument only applies if there is no other reasonable way a reasonable person could escape death or serious harm they believe is about to occour (note that this means that killing in self defense when other options where avaiable but never considered due to upbringing or mental health issues don't count, though there are seperate defenses for those situations namely the aforementioned diminsihed resposibility)

And lastly you'll note I use the term false imprisionment rather than kidnapping. Legaly speaking the only difference between some store security gaurds holding you longer than they're supposed without informing the police and a kidnapper locking you in his basement is the threat of immediate harm that getting locked in a basement carries with it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 15, 2013, 10:01:12 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 14, 2013, 11:21:52 pm
Like with robbery and rape, the frequency of murder in kidnappings makes it a plausible and unknown threat against your life, justifying the preemptive use of lethal force.

IF this stands, then I think there's no question of abuse situation being valid as self-defense. There is a clear plausible and unknown threat against your life and of bodily harm, and even though it is not "imminent" it could happen at any moment and is both inevitable and unavoidable in most situations

Quote from: Jerick on January 15, 2013, 09:40:48 am
And lastly you'll note I use the term false imprisionment rather than kidnapping. Legaly speaking the only difference between some store security gaurds holding you longer than they're supposed without informing the police and a kidnapper locking you in his basement is the threat of immediate harm that getting locked in a basement carries with it.
If that is enough of a justification for a "threat of immediate harm", I don't see why this wouldn't be. We all know the outcome is going to be at best significant physical emotional damage and is all too likely to result in death. Picked my example because it was actually analogous - because I wanted to know whether the fact that pain or death will obviously be coming at /some/ point, and there's no other way out, would that be enough justification for self defense even if the threat isn't /immediate/ but could happen days or weeks from now. There's an implicit (if not explicit) promise of harm in the detention.

If it's obvious that they are not only making it so you can't escape, but ARE going to inflict gross physical harm on you at some point in the future, would self-defense apply, even if we don't know exactly when the physical harm would come?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on January 15, 2013, 10:14:27 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 15, 2013, 10:01:12 am
If it's obvious that they are not only making it so you can't escape, but ARE going to inflict gross physical harm on you at some point in the future, would self-defense apply, even if we don't know exactly when the physical harm would come?

You can't know for sure there won't be a chance to escape (without killing) prior to the  "gross physical harm", and if such a chance does not arise you can still self-defend when the threat is imminent.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jerick on January 15, 2013, 01:04:49 pm
Quote
If it's obvious that they are not only making it so you can't escape, but ARE going to inflict gross physical harm on you at some point in the future, would self-defense apply, even if we don't know exactly when the physical harm would come?
The law in most countries is very specific on this issue and case law backs it up. No the harm has to be immient or you have to suspect with reasonable cause that the harm is immient. Locking someone in a basement is a clear sign of intent to do serious harm and it is reasonable to assume that the very next time you see your captor they may be delivering such harm. Thus it can be said to be an immediate threat. This is not true for abusive husbands, fathers or family members as the courts have ruled many times in many different countries where the abused have killed the abuser. The point of self defense laws are that there is absolutely no other option which is why the law requires you to wait until you are pretty much certain it's going to happen and have no other way out than using force. Killing because someone may kill you in the nebaulous future is not covered by the self defense doctrine you have to wait till it's clear it's going to happen soon because if "do nothing for now" is still a viable (though unpleasant) option then there is still an option other than killing. For self defense to apply you can't be able to wait any longer and need to act to prevent harm. Going back to the kidnapping self defense applies there because most people would think that any chance to attack their kidnapper may be their last chance to prevent the kidnapper visiting serious harm upon them.

In short by immediate I mean it is likely going to happen if you don't do something right then and there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 15, 2013, 08:14:20 pm
Has anyone seen the Suzanne Moore transphobia story?  It's not a happy one.

It started with Suzanne Moore writing an otherwise fairly decent and progressive article, but including the line  "We are angry with ourselves for not being happier, not being loved properly and not having the ideal body shape – that of a Brazilian transsexual."  But of course she apologized immediately and everything was fi

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Yeah, she doubled down and started saying all kinds of ridiculous things on Twitter (http://storify.com/leftytgirl/suzanne-moore-timeline-of-trans-misogynistic-twitt).

Anyway, the punchline: Julie Burchill, a writer for the generally liberal Guardian/Observer (the paper I generally read) comes out with a staggeringly hateful piece in defense of Moore.  It's been taken off the website now but it can be viewed here
http://blue-burmese.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/transsexuals-should-cut-it-out.html
This is honestly worse than anything I've ever read in the Daily Mail.  The sheer lack of editorial judgment shown in allowing this to be published means I'll probably never buy the Guardian again (not sure what alternatives there are though).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 15, 2013, 09:45:23 pm
Quote
the stand-off with the trannies. (I know that's a wrong word, but having recently discovered that their lot describe born women as 'Cis' – sounds like syph, cyst, cistern; all nasty stuff – they're lucky I'm not calling them shemales. Or shims.)

oh my god (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cis?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic)

I think this sums up the entire article perfectly, to be honest. "I have no clue what those trans people are talking about because I haven't attempted to learn anything about them, but I'm going to use my ignorance as a basis to be very angry at them."

Quote
We know that everything we have we got for ourselves. We have no family money, no safety net. And we are damned if we are going to be accused of being privileged by a bunch of bed-wetters in bad wigs.

actually no I think this sums it up better

It's like the white guy getting called out for being sexist, and he goes "What, male privilege? I don't feel privileged. I'm just a hardworking middle class white dude. If I was actually privileged I'd clearly be better off than this."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on January 15, 2013, 10:29:03 pm
Eh... yeah, in the deeper end of feminists there is honestly no short of crazy people... Unfortunately the crazier ones also seem to be the most vocal ones, which I think is what has given feminism a bit of a bad name.

As for the whole issue of poor journalistic standards in print media... yeah, that's also a thing, especially in the UK, there's a running theory that it's caused by the internet out competing the papers, which leads to papers trying to make themselves more sensationalist so that they catch eyes better at the news stands.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 16, 2013, 04:24:20 am
That would explain the (i hope) now dipping standards of the bbc.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 16, 2013, 09:01:29 am
While that answer is shocking and transphobic, can someone help me with pointing what's wrong with the original article? Implying that transsexual Brazilian look good? I'm just really not sure what the problem is.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 16, 2013, 10:19:53 am
Well I think it started by questioning what the reference was for all at all, I guess. It was the response to the response that actually upset people?

But I'll be honest, I have trouble understanding these sorts of people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 16, 2013, 10:46:03 am
It's a weird generalization and seems to imply she has scorn for them.  It's a really minor thing and no-one was particularly annoyed about it until the really terrible Twitter response.

e: Also Brazil is the world capital of transphobic murders so it's in kindof poor taste
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 16, 2013, 11:12:47 am
Actually, reading on some FB page, it seems like it's mostly that other article that made it worse.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 16, 2013, 11:44:31 am
Basically every newspaper in the UK is pretty heavily biased nowadays, probably as a result of the increased competition with websites as you guys have suggested. I've noticed it mostly since the independence debate started in Scotland two years ago - the Scotsman, a fairly decent newspaper that was about as unbiased as "The Independent" is today, shifted radically towards being one of the most biased broadsheet newspapers in the country (specifically a Unionist-centre-right bias, perhaps because of its ties to the powerful Edinburgh establishment). It's basically the Daily Telegraph now but slightly less up-front with its agendas. I think it's their new editor, who mysteriously won "editor of the year 2012" despite ruining the paper's credibility for people like myself and shifting the newspaper towards reporting with an agenda rather than just reporting. If I want full coverage on a story, I just compare the versions among several newspapers. I can wax lyrically on that subject but it would lead on and on, and probably draw us away from the Guardian controversy.

The Guardian is still a reasonably good newspaper, despite some pretty bad columnists. I wouldn't stop reading it if I were you, Leafsnail.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 16, 2013, 11:49:43 am
Yeah, and I guess it's actually the Observer editor who made the call on that one (I never read the Observer anyway).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on January 16, 2013, 01:33:26 pm
Quote from: Novel on January 16, 2013, 04:24:20 am
That would explain the (i hope) now dipping standards of the bbc.
This one might be more a part of the change in the style of leadership, sometime around when the board of trust took over for the board of governors there was a change in the style of leadership away from being something of a not for profit towards trying to make larger profits. At least that's the rumour I heard, not sure how true it is.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on January 16, 2013, 04:30:43 pm
More of the same I guess....

It seems no matter what, never good enough/as good as....

I've often found "ists" and "isms" don't get it. Seems feminism is no exception.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 16, 2013, 10:05:13 pm
In everything there are extremist nutcases with fringe views. I myself have several views that people here have vigorously disagreed with me.

"Feminism" as a whole is pretty much an awesome thing (my only complaint is the name; should be "gender egalitarianism" or somesuch), but that doesn't mean any particular feminist is. And on top of that, someone can have great ideas/views in one category and horrible ideas/views in another. The latter does not discredit the former, so in this case, the original article is a-ok minus that little bit of transphobia.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 17, 2013, 12:17:53 am
I think feminism should be egalitarianism just as much as black rights or gay rights should. Not at all. Why has it become acceptable to criticize feminism for not including men when it's still considered ridiculous to try and say the same thing about white people or straight people?

I guess people attempt to undermine every movement in different ways.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 17, 2013, 12:20:19 am
I'd say that feminism is a subset of egalitarianism, which is in turn a subset of equality.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 17, 2013, 12:36:52 am
I understand that goal. But there's saying feminism is part of egalitarianism, which sounds like it's working towards the ultimate goal of equality, which I believe is true. And then there's saying feminism should call itself egalitarianism, which sounds like feminism is flawed and should change its focus if it wants to achieve real equality.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 17, 2013, 12:53:07 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on January 17, 2013, 12:17:53 am
I think feminism should be egalitarianism just as much as black rights or gay rights should. Not at all. Why has it become acceptable to criticize feminism for not including men when it's still considered ridiculous to try and say the same thing about white people or straight people?

The homosexual movement was strongly criticized (and rightly so, in my opinion) for quite a while for not extending their fight to cover bisexuals, and often trivializing their issues. Over time, as the movement has gained success, it has grown, and has become the LGBT movement.

This is a good thing, a normal thing. Without this, the incentives for those within the movement are only aligned with failures (successful movements persevere, this is their core attribute, and true success is destructive for it's participants unless the movement is able to evolve).

For feminism... one, women aren't a minority. Two, there is another group with very similar problems, i.e. serious fucking gender discrimination, that is a potential ally. Three, they are having lots and lots of success (though, as always, things take time, but their progress is steady). Finally, they can't actually succeed at their own goal until they DO join with this other group for a more general purpose, and building up resentment by maintaining a narrow focus is detrimental to their own cause.

Gay rights is the perfect example here, I think. It started out as just that, but criticism and success have led them to expand to "sexuality egalitarianism" in the form of the LGBT movement.

I don't think it's too much to ask that feminism grow up a little bit and become part of a larger, more inclusive gender egalitarianism movement.

And as these different groups succeed, and gain power, I think it should be expected they would merge again, until there is no more movement, there is only "the way things are".

To cling to a narrow definition of "feminism", to let feminism be the end, instead of just the beginning, is to doom it to failure right out the gate, in my opinion. If that's the case, it IS flawed, because you've created a movement and organization that in serving it's own best interest will insure that feminism's goals will never actually succeed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 17, 2013, 01:41:50 am
Gay rights isn't a perfect example. They've taken other minorities and oppressed groups under their umbrella, whether it's bisexuals or transgendered people or anything else in the general queer category. But they haven't focused on straight people, and with good reason: that'd be absurd.

Gays accepting bisexuals is like blacks accepting latino/as. They're another oppressed group. You'd never expect blacks to fight for white rights, you'd never expect gays to fight for straight rights, yet everyone expects women to fight for men's rights. I understand they're not necessarily a minority, but being a privileged group consists of far more than having a greater population.

There's a difference between accepting men as allies to feminism and fighting for men's rights. Feminism has gladly accepted the former, just as many other movements have accepted their allies. But to ask them to fight for men's rights is asking them to do something other movements haven't done. It's asking them to do something other movements haven't needed to do and haven't wanted to do. But the popular "feminists hate men" rhetoric will only be satisfied when they have done this. And when they have, they'll have diluted their movement in a way no other movement has.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 17, 2013, 02:01:21 am
It would be absurd because straight people are not a group with limited rights, they are not, as a group, oppressed or discriminated against structurally or personally as a regular occurrence.

Straight men who /are/, however, are more than welcomed in the LGBT. Bisexuals were considered "straight", and were welcomed. Those pushing the limits of genderqueerness were often technically straight, but they were welcomed. This is the future of the movement, a breaking down of the exclusionary walls that many in the early movement built around themselves, and it's a good thing. These are often straight people discriminated against for not acting "straight" enough despite that. There's was a time when folks went "their fight is not our fight, they do not suffer the way we suffer to the extent that we suffer, they were never as disadvantaged as us or, if they were, they were that way by choice, and our movement should not cover them." Those people were thankfully given a smack down, and the movement went on.

Men ARE oppressed. This is a simple truth. They are discriminated against, their actions limited, their options dwindled, because of their gender. Not in the same way or to the same extent women have been and are, but oppression of the same kind, nonetheless. It is exactly the case with gays and "straights" in the form of bisexuals, genderqueer, and today transexuals (and the hatred of transexuals is not an uncommon thing in the community). They did not say "No, our movement is just for gay men". They expanded it, and said "Our movement is for anyone who suffers under the yoke of expression because they do not conform to societal expectations of sexuality."

This is what women need to do. They do not need to represent "all men". But they DO need to start representing those men that are oppressed because of their gender. They've certainly never bothered to try and represent "all women", so I don't think this is beyond the pale. And unlike with the gay movement, this isn't even merely an act of doing the right thing - this is necessity. If they don't do this, the goal? Equality for women? It is impossible.

Of course, for some feminists, this is NOT the goal, and I never expect them to accept "outsiders" into their ideology. They want strict superiority. And those sorts of folks? They can go fuck themselves.

Most feminists want equality, and that will never, ever happen until they tackle the causes of the diseases, the roots that afflict both women and men. To exclude men is not just selfishness, it is prideful, and self-defeating. The right thing to do is to accept them into the greater movement, not as allies, but as fellow victims of cultural oppression, victims of tightly choreographed gender roles that will never allow the genders to play on equal footing.

But it's not surprising - feminism is full of plenty of absolutely terrible people, many of whom believe that simply because they are women, they cannot be privileged, many of whom are in leadership positions and who claim to speak for the movement as whole. There is a reason feminism is constantly taking heat - from black women, whom it excludes because "race isn't a feminist issue", from the genderqueer and transgendered, who they accuse of being infiltrators or traitors, from men who suffer at the hands of a society that expects them to conform just as it expects women to conform. And while it does not overwhelm the movement, there does not seem to be any cohesive resistance against these people, because to do so, to be more inclusive, would somehow "weaken feminism", as I've heard it described.

It is absurd.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 17, 2013, 04:24:05 am
GlyphGryph, I'm saving everything you just said in my "Ready-made argument" folder. Never seen sucha  clear and concise explaination of that problem of feminism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: fqllve on January 17, 2013, 06:06:51 am
The problem isn't just on the feminist side though. A large number of Men's Rights people I've seen take a clearly anti-feminist stance which isn't really the solution to the problem. Both sides need to realize that they are working towards a common goal, equality for the sexes. For my part I consider myself to be a feminist but I believe that clearly includes fighting sexism against men, because sexism, wherever it occurs, locks both sides into predefined roles. And I think this idea is gaining more traction with feminists.

I don't think it's fair to lay the blame solely on feminists though, and I don't think it's fair to say that feminism isn't concerned with the plight of all women. Mainstream feminism may not be, but it's a diverse movement and there are people within it advocating groups generally overlooked by the mainstream.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on January 17, 2013, 07:41:35 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 17, 2013, 04:24:05 am
GlyphGryph, I'm saving everything you just said in my "Ready-made argument" folder. Never seen sucha  clear and concise explaination of that problem of feminism.
Plagiarism, burn (s)he!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 17, 2013, 12:15:20 pm
Quote from: fqllve on January 17, 2013, 06:06:51 am
The problem isn't just on the feminist side though. A large number of Men's Rights people I've seen take a clearly anti-feminist stance which isn't really the solution to the problem.
Mens Rights people are incredibly reactionary in most instances, and tend to be cut from the same cloth as the worst feminists. The idea should be pretty dumb, anyway - as dumb as starting a "bisexual rights movement" would have been. The fact that feminism

Quote
Both sides need to realize that they are working towards a common goal, equality for the sexes. For my part I consider myself to be a feminist but I believe that clearly includes fighting sexism against men, because sexism, wherever it occurs, locks both sides into predefined roles. And I think this idea is gaining more traction with feminists.
There are no sides. And as long as the Feminist movement insists on exclusionary language and labels, fighting the true fight is going to be difficult. But yeah, there are many people in the movement that can see this is the way forward, and I'm hoping that is where things will end up.

Quote
I don't think it's fair to lay the blame solely on feminists though, and I don't think it's fair to say that feminism isn't concerned with the plight of all women.
I don't. And while they claim to, traditionally feminism has NOT been concerned with the plight of all women. Many second wave feminists pushed for brand new forms of oppression and forced conformance, and many women are opposed to the feminist movement as a whole threatening to disrupt the life they live. I think the feminists are still in the right, at least overall, but there will always be people that feel that they lose when others benefit, or who have desired positions that they lose when the ground shifts under their feet.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: fqllve on January 17, 2013, 04:41:31 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 17, 2013, 12:15:20 pm
Mens Rights people are incredibly reactionary in most instances, and tend to be cut from the same cloth as the worst feminists. The idea should be pretty dumb, anyway - as dumb as starting a "bisexual rights movement" would have been. The fact that feminism
Basically, but I didn't want to say it while defending feminism because that would look a bit biased. Obviously, as a man, I have a vested interest in Men's Rights issues, but the fact that so often one of their core positions is that feminism has overshot its goals is while I call myself a feminist and not a Men's Rights Activist, even though properly they are one in the same.

Quote
There are no sides. And as long as the Feminist movement insists on exclusionary language and labels, fighting the true fight is going to be difficult. But yeah, there are many people in the movement that can see this is the way forward, and I'm hoping that is where things will end up.
You're right, but the issue has been stratified so that it appears that there are sides, or possibly that there actually are sides working at cross purposes to the same ultimate goals. And feminists can be exclusionary, I've had a few women (and even one man) tell me that I shouldn't call myself a feminist. I understand their concerns, but I find the prospect more than a bit sexist. It's true that I'll never understand a woman's perspective, but feminism needs perspectives from both sides of the aisle if it's going to accomplish anything.

I do think it is the way the movement will end though, because it's so self-evidently the actual solution.

I don't see anything wrong with calling it feminism though. I believe Vector once said that fighting sexism against women, which is far more rampant and needs more urgently to be addressed, is the solution to achieving equality for men. Of course, that's not true for everything, and there are plenty of men's issues that would need to be addressed separately, but on the whole I rather like that idea. As long as we approach the issue as striving for actual equality then true equality for one sex should mean true equality for the other.

Quote
I don't. And while they claim to, traditionally feminism has NOT been concerned with the plight of all women. Many second wave feminists pushed for brand new forms of oppression and forced conformance, and many women are opposed to the feminist movement as a whole threatening to disrupt the life they live. I think the feminists are still in the right, at least overall, but there will always be people that feel that they lose when others benefit, or who have desired positions that they lose when the ground shifts under their feet.
Second-wave feminism was full of a number of problems, I think, most obviously, installing women into the systems of oppression rather than dismantling or reforming them. It's also responsible for a number of styles of thought that influence public perception of feminism today. I think they accomplished some important things, but you're right, they also had a very narrow definition of femininity and a very narrow set of goals and I think in a lot of ways feminism of the last twenty years has been a reaction to that. And if you mean women who prefer the way things are now, yeah, second-wave feminism was strongly against them, but I don't see modern feminism as really all that upsetting to the status quo, and personally, I would like to see room for all people to live how they want. If someone wants to conform to older models of femininity they should be able to, be they male or female, as long as it's a genuine choice and society is able to recognize that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 17, 2013, 04:45:17 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 17, 2013, 02:01:21 am
It would be absurd because straight people are not a group with limited rights, they are not, as a group, oppressed or discriminated against structurally or personally as a regular occurrence.

Neither are are men. To say that both men and women are oppressed is silly, because that's everyone. Oppression requires an oppressor. If everyone is in the same situation, then what they're going through isn't oppression. I hate to try and argue definitions, but i think this is a little too fundamental. It's an ordering of society with a top and a bottom, not even sides.

I won't argue that men don't suffer because of their sex, but that's not oppression. We've gotten to a point in history where a straight person can be disadvantaged because they're straight. Have you ever heard a straight person complaining that people don't like it when they hang out in a gay bar? Men go through the same thing.

You know your feminism. You've got legitimate criticisms, the same sort of stuff that I've seen in serious modern feminist circles. But then there's pseudo-MRA stuff like this:
Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 17, 2013, 02:01:21 am
Of course, for some feminists, this is NOT the goal, and I never expect them to accept "outsiders" into their ideology. They want strict superiority. And those sorts of folks? They can go fuck themselves.
You can beat down the straw feminists as much as you want. That won't make them any closer to existing. I mean, you might find some radfem blogs, but in the big feminist groups like V Day, these people aren't relevant.

I don't know if you're living in 1970 or what. I've never seen a man excluded from a feminist space. I've seen them treated as allies in exactly the same way straight people are treated in LGBT groups. That's how they should be treated. Straight people don't need "straight" added to the LGBT acronym (although "ally" has been, notably), they don't need the LGBT movement to rename itself as egalitarianism to avoid giving people the impression that they want gay superiority. Once again, that's ridiculous.

I don't want to go through the whole "feminism fights for men in ways like reducing the stigmatization of feminine roles that men are ridiculed for trying to fill" spiel because I highly doubt you haven't heard that before. I just feel like you're fighting against feminists that don't exist. The moderation you're looking for is present in modern feminism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: fqllve on January 17, 2013, 04:59:30 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on January 17, 2013, 04:45:17 pm
Neither are are men. To say that both men and women are oppressed is silly, because that's everyone. Oppression requires an oppressor. If everyone is in the same situation, then what they're going through isn't oppression. I hate to try and argue definitions, but i think this is a little too fundamental. It's an ordering of society with a top and a bottom, not even sides.
Why? Not all men are part of the systems in place that oppress women, and those are the very things that force men into their own set of gender stereotypes. I mean, I can tell you recognize this, so I don't know what the problem with calling it oppression is. Anyone who wants something other than what society deems appropriate is oppressed by it, no matter what their sexual identity.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 17, 2013, 05:08:41 pm
I don't understand the necessity of calling it that. If people aren't taking men's problems seriously because they're not oppressed, that's dumb. It's just a label. And I don't think we need to expand the labels to appeal to that mindset, because that reinforces the idea that you need to be oppressed for your problems to be worth solving.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: fqllve on January 17, 2013, 05:16:16 pm
Well there's no necessity, and I generally refrain from saying stuff like "Men are oppressed," just because of the implications a statement like that has, but saying things like "Society oppresses anyone who doesn't wish to conform," just seems true to me. There's no agenda behind it, and if there were, it'd be dumb like you say, it just accurately describes the situation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 17, 2013, 05:25:24 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on January 17, 2013, 04:45:17 pm
Neither are are men. To say that both men and women are oppressed is silly, because that's everyone. Oppression requires an oppressor. If everyone is in the same situation, then what they're going through isn't oppression. I hate to try and argue definitions, but i think this is a little too fundamental. It's an ordering of society with a top and a bottom, not even sides.
Does oppression require an oppressor to be a member of an out-group, though? Of course not. Anyone who tries to render something as complex as society as having a "top" and a "bottom" and all men are magically on top by virtue of being men is living in a fantasy land.

Some men oppress women and other men. Fewer women do, because fewer women get to fill the role of oppressor, but female sexism AGAINST FEMALES is a very real thing, and not a rare thing, that discrimination is not less important because it's a woman doing it, and oppression against women is still just that regardless of who instigates it. Oppression is something society does to individuals, and to cast someone as immune to oppression simply because they share a single label with those who head that society is... it's fucked up, man. It's seriously fucked up.

Of course men and women can both be oppressed. Because oppression happens to people, not to labels. And because society operates with different rules at different levels and for different people. And if there are people suffering the same sort of oppression, they should be welcomed as fellows, because the cause should be to stop gender based oppression on all fronts, not just when it negatively effects women. Men can be oppressed, as a group, by virtue of their existing men who surpass that group and don't have to follow the rules they make, no? Or do exceptions that escape the oppression mean the oppression isn't really that at all?

And yes, I know that one line I had saying "I don't care about this particular group so fuck em" is not large, though they definitely exist and are not as rare as you make them out to be. I know "moderates" as you describe them exist (though I don't see it as the moderate position, I see it as the radically correct position). But labels matter. Language matters. Messages matter, and rhetoric matters.

And your language and message here, alone, trivializes hardships others face. The fact that you call oppression "just a label" as you defend against what you believe to be it's misuse is telling.

When a transwoman is told she is not welcome except as an ally, because she "is not a real woman" and, as a man, she hasn't suffered the way a real woman has suffered, this is "just a label", but it is also damaging to everything that mainline feminists claim to stand for. And it's something that's going to continue to fester if their language doesn't change.

LGBT didn't change from gay rights movement to the LGBT movement on a whim - they did it in large part to open that umbrella and (at least for some of those involved in the push) to take away the excuses it's members had for continuing to discriminate against those who should be more than just "allies", but are in fact brothers and sisters in the cause of equal rights. Because they realized 'this stuff affects you too'.

Even the term ally in this context is demeaning and insulting. You're setting yourself up as a gatekeeper of who deserves to benefit from the movements actions and who gets to be "really" part of the movement. And that sort of language is a bad thing, in my opinion.

Also, I feel like I'm going a good deal more into this than I wanted, and our only point of contention is based in large part around language and message and the value thereof and could very well be the case that I've not been involved with feminism proper in several and things have since vastly improved that I simply don't know about. So I'm probably going to let the matter drop after this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 17, 2013, 06:10:24 pm
How about we establish a brand-spanking-new way of talking about oppression in a politically correct manner?

"Men who have sex with oppress men" etc.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 17, 2013, 06:37:57 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 17, 2013, 06:10:24 pm
How about we establish a brand-spanking-new way of talking about oppression in a politically correct manner?
I think "double standard" encompasses most everything we're talking about here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 17, 2013, 06:45:42 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 17, 2013, 05:25:24 pm
And your language and message here, alone, trivializes hardships others face. The fact that you call oppression "just a label" as you defend against what you believe to be it's misuse is telling.

I won't continue the argument, but I do want to clarify this. I meant "just a label" purely in the context of whether someone's troubles are worth helping. I just meant that suffering is suffering, no matter what it's called, and I do think there are a lot of people with the attitude of "Oh, boo hoo, you're privileged. Why do we care about your little problems?"

I don't see that attitude as justified, and was just trying to address that specific mindset rather than speak about its use in general.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 18, 2013, 08:37:28 pm
TSA to phase out backscatter scanners with less intrusive millimeter wave scanners. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/18/travel/tsa-body-scanners/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

Victory, I guess?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 18, 2013, 08:58:51 pm
... good gods, could have have chosen a worse named company to manufacture highly intrusive scanners? That's like... I can't see how that's anything but a PR nightmare. One easily shifted syllable...

Anyway, less cancer-inducing voyeur machines in use is a good thing, I guess.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 18, 2013, 09:36:22 pm
Is Rapiscan also producing the new machines? Because it'll be awfully convenient if they get paid twice for this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on January 19, 2013, 02:31:14 pm
Wait. What? Rapiscan and TSA? Rape-scan and TnA?

Please tell me Rapiscan is a joke. Please. Pleeeeease. It's like a bad porno movie come to life. :I
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on January 19, 2013, 02:34:58 pm
No, Rape-scan really is the name of the porno viewer used on children in every airport.

But don't worry, if you don't like it they will allow you to choose a full body grope down with minimal cavity penetration.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 21, 2013, 11:54:54 pm
A sort of response to the Suzanne Moore deal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/19/feminism-trans-women-female-enough), only really that notable for being published in the Guardian. I guess that says something about the Guardian's editing, though whether they're realizing they made a mistake, presenting both sides of the issue, or trying to save face, I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on January 22, 2013, 05:53:53 am
By my reading it is quite a fine article. I do think it is very sensitive of her to compare the surgery trans woman undergo to the surgery women with breast cancer sometimes undergo to have breasts again.
qft:
Quote
Trans women, like so many women who have had breast cancer, sometimes need the help of surgeons, because it is helpful for one's social body to support and confirm one's biological identity, not contradict it.

That's why it's so awful to talk of trans women as men who have been castrated. Such people are women who have had the biological misfortune to have been born with bodies that are out of kilter with the much more complex biology of their female minds. That too, is why the trans community prefers people not to talk of being biologically or born female as opposed to trans female. Trans people are biologically or born female, but with detail of the flesh that traduces their ability to be physically and socially accepted for what they are.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 22, 2013, 06:47:15 am
Yeah, it's definitely a good article and I enjoyed it. I was mostly just posting it because people were questioning the Guardian's editing quality a couple pages back.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 09:21:27 am
I'm sorry for changing the subject here quite radically, but have you gentlemen heard from that American professor who is rather keen on cloning a Neanderthal baby?

http://www.themarysue.com/neanderthal-baby-surrogate/ (http://www.themarysue.com/neanderthal-baby-surrogate/)

I'm actually very excited about this, even though he isn't actually working on it just now. It's just "possible". We should definitely take decades to plan it if it can actually be done, but I think we have the opportunity to reinvent mankind. It's just such a shame we don't really have artificial wombs; the woman in question would probably die from a baby with a head that size coming out sideways. It would probably be a guaranteed caesarean.

Problems I've heard being referred to are things like lack of disease resistance, lack of development in the left side of the brain, badly developed larynx, possibly dying after birth and so forth. Maybe we can overcome these.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2013, 10:03:34 am
Interesting but ethically dangerous. We don't know much of anything about Neanderthals compared to Sapiens, socially speaking. The doctor in question's belief in a Neanderthal culture is pretty unlikely. Firstly, we'd have to have thousands of Neanderthal surrogate births to even have an independent group that wouldn't immediately drift apart and breed with the much larger Sapiens population instead. Secondly, an independent culture would take at least a generation to form (almost certainly more), as the first revived Neanderthals would necessarily have to be raised by Sapiens and thus pick up the culture of whomever is raising them.

I don't even want to think about how religious groups would react to this. I can see it all now: "Neanderthals don't have souls, so it's OK to enslave them, they're only animals!"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on January 22, 2013, 10:07:48 am
I personally feel like this definitely ventures into the territory of Things Man Was Not Meant to Do.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 10:13:35 am
I don't think man is "meant" to do anything beyond procreation, which isn't exactly governed by an external force other than instinct. Morality, ethics, it's all a human construction that is ultimately superficial. That isn't to say however that we should abandon the majority of our current morals; I wouldn't want to live in a society where it was considered "ok" to kill another human being because they have something that you want, or hurt people for fun and so forth.

One "Moral" that I think we should abandon though is the prejudice against playing god. I believe that there is no god; we are the closest things to god, possibly in the universe if there are no other sentient beings. If we don't play god to better ourselves and the world around us, nothing else will and we'll never really reach our full potential. There's no gods, no masters, only imaginary ones that we've created over time because we just don't understand the full extent of our power and are fearful of it; fearful of the mistakes we might make. I say that's nonsense; man, with extreme care and planning, can accomplish truly great things.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 22, 2013, 10:14:55 am
Only thing man was not meant to do is what man can't.  Or possibly what man decides not to do. Only thing dictating mankind's actions is the laws of physics and our own bloody selves.

As for the cloning... be neat if it works. Doubtful it'll go anywhere or if there's any general benefit from having the lesser sophant around again (for either group, because if there's anything our innate xenophobia wants to have around it's an actual other species ::)), but hey, one way to find out! The eternal experimental endeavor: Poke it with a stick and see what happens.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on January 22, 2013, 10:21:06 am
I'd repost the Caveman Science-Fiction comic, but that would be strangely meta in this case.

I'm not real comfortable with the idea either. As MSH said, because this would in fact be a different species from us, I think there would be a lot of impetus to see them as "sub-human" (literally) and thus not given the rights of humans.

One potential ethical quandry: medical testing. "Hey, these guys are 99.99% a genetic match for us! They'll be an even better subject for modelling experiments than pigs or lab rats or even chimps!"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 10:22:14 am
Quote from: Frumple on January 22, 2013, 10:14:55 am
Only thing man was not meant to do is what man can't.  Or possibly what man decides not to do. Only thing dictating mankind's actions is the laws of physics and our own bloody selves.

As for the cloning... be neat if it works. Doubtful it'll go anywhere or if there's any general benefit from having the lesser sophant around again (for either group, because if there's anything our innate xenophobia wants to have around it's an actual other species ::)), but hey, one way to find out! The eternal experimental endeavor: Poke it with a stick and see what happens.

Man can do almost anything with science. We just need to find out how.

I also think if this is handled correctly our innate xenophobia wouldn't be a problem. Maybe I'm optimistic, but I foresee a world with a minority that consider the neanderthals monsters and a majority who accept them warmly. The real test will be to see how sentient they are; if they're walking, talking creatures (which may not be the case) then I think it will dispel a lot of the "monster" accusations. I wouldn't recommend making a lot of them anyway, preferably create them in a lab somewhere out in a military base in an extremely secret location, but heavily televised to ensure the military don't make them into super soldiers or something, and the world can keep track of how they're doing - and more importantly what the respective government is doing. Perhaps don't even tell the neanderthals we're watching them; just give them a degree of privacy so they don't get embarassed when they find out.

Quote from: RedKing on January 22, 2013, 10:21:06 am
I'd repost the Caveman Science-Fiction comic, but that would be strangely meta in this case.

I'm not real comfortable with the idea either. As MSH said, because this would in fact be a different species from us, I think there would be a lot of impetus to see them as "sub-human" (literally) and thus not given the rights of humans.

One potential ethical quandry: medical testing. "Hey, these guys are 99.99% a genetic match for us! They'll be an even better subject for modelling experiments than pigs or lab rats or even chimps!"

I believe that could be solved if we could create mindless bags of flesh that could be subjected to experiments as an alternative. It would be unspeakably expensive (presumably) to grow loads and loads of neanderthals for medical research anyway, or breed them. This wouldn't be a problem if we kept the number very low - i.e. about 10.

The sub human problem could be solved through public information campaigns, amendments to various documents at the UN to make sure that neanderthals are considered members of humanity for all intents and purposes (crimes against neanderthals are crimes against humanity). I have faith in the new, tolerant (when compared with 100 years ago) developed world that we would not be the bane of their existence.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2013, 10:27:05 am
Quote from: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 10:13:35 am
I don't think man is "meant" to do anything beyond procreation, which isn't exactly governed by an external force other than instinct. Morality, ethics, it's all a human construction that is ultimately superficial. That isn't to say however that we should abandon the majority of our current morals; I wouldn't want to live in a society where it was considered "ok" to kill another human being because they have something that you want, or hurt people for fun and so forth.
Some ideas of what are moral are social constructions, but not all. Evolution instills certain moral values as a matter of course. A species that kills its own members under too wide of circumstances will collapse in population and not survive. A social species where theft is acceptable will fail to develop even the most basic barter economy.
Quote from: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 10:22:14 am
The real test will be to see how sentient they are; if they're walking, talking creatures (which may not be the case) then I think it will dispel a lot of the "monster" accusations.
We don't know quite everything about Neanderthals, but I assure you that we know they had thought and language. At the end of the day, we just ended up being the more adaptable species. They can't be all that different from us, because remnants Neanderthal DNA is found all throughout Sapiens DNA, and there's no cognitive difference between those with and those without. Plus, species capable of fertile interbreeding must by definition be very similar.
Quote
I wouldn't recommend making a lot of them anyway, preferably create them in a lab somewhere out in a military base in an extremely secret location, but heavily televised to ensure the military don't make them into super soldiers or something, and the world can keep track of how they're doing. Perhaps don't even tell them we're watching them.
You're talking about not discriminating against them, and then saying we should keep them locked up?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 10:31:59 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2013, 10:27:05 am
You're talking about not discriminating against them, and then saying we should keep them locked up?

Yep. Locked up and safe until we understand them better and can figure out how to introduce them into society, or maybe create a society for them. They'd have the same human rights as we do of course; if they really wanted out we should let them out. Hopefully though they'd understand that the world isn't ready for them yet, a bit like the wild boar and beavers and wolves that we have in specially created areas in the Scottish wilderness - they aren't ready to be reintroduced yet, so we keep them "locked up". Neanderthal towns could even be a possibility. By all means, they should definitely be able to enter our society when they learn about it and understand it, but that'll be a long way away.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on January 22, 2013, 10:41:24 am
You realize you're justifying this by making analogies between them and wild animals, right?  :-\
And the argument of "we're keeping them locked up in heavily-guarded camps for their own good" is the same thing the US government said to justify Japanese-American internment camps (with a measure of truth to it, but still...)

I'm not saying your intent isn't good, just that maybe you haven't thought this through as much as you think you're thought.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 10:46:32 am
Quote from: RedKing on January 22, 2013, 10:41:24 am
You realize you're justifying this by making analogies between them and wild animals, right?  :-\
And the argument of "we're keeping them locked up in heavily-guarded camps for their own good" is the same thing the US government said to justify Japanese-American internment camps (with a measure of truth to it, but still...)

I'm not saying your intent isn't good, just that maybe you haven't thought this through as much as you think you're thought.

Yep. We are wild animals and so will be the neanderthals - why shouldn't we make analogies between ourselves and our animal cousins? The neanderthals are a bit better off though than Scottish wild boar in that they will hopefully have the ability to ask to be let out and understand their situation - in which case we really ought to, it wouldn't be right to keep them in against their will. Hopefully though we can convince them not to leave.

Don't worry, I've been thinking on my feet since I made my first post on this subject here, so it's not like you're going to crush deep-seated beliefs or whatever if you dismantle my arguments.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 22, 2013, 10:51:45 am
Why would you want a society for Neanderthals? Or have them in our society?
I understand wanting to clone because Science, but the above kinda puzzles me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 10:54:20 am
Quote from: Dutchling on January 22, 2013, 10:51:45 am
Why would you want a society for Neanderthals? Or have them in our society?
I understand wanting to clone because Science, but the above kinda puzzles me.

Neanderthals had different brains to us; they may have different perspectives on the issues we face today that could be valuable. They may have other physical skills they can provide us with. It's also an opportunity to start afresh and build societies free of the vices we know.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 22, 2013, 10:56:42 am
Unusual cognitive processes can often benefit many lines of study. Fresh mind, subtly different set of physiological cognitive underpinnings, etc., so forth, so on. All things being equal, having another sentient that genuinely thinks (in a neurophysical sense, i.e. the wiring is actually different) differently brings with it the potential to benefit many endeavors. No guarantee, of course, but the possibility's there.

Annd somewhat ninja'd.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 22, 2013, 10:59:00 am
Makes sense I suppose. Would you still want them if they are inferior in any way to humans, except for really basic skills that you have machines and poor Chinese kids for anyway?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 22, 2013, 11:00:50 am
What's the point of having Neanderthals around anyway? Morally speaking, having our specie being the only left of our genus is awfully convenient, why would you want to change that?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 11:04:20 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 22, 2013, 11:00:50 am
What's the point of having Neanderthals around anyway? Morally speaking, having our specie being the only left of our genus is awfully convenient, why would you want to change that?

Frumple and I have given two sets of reasons for why we believe they could be beneficial to mankind and the world.

Quote from: Dutchling on January 22, 2013, 10:59:00 am
Makes sense I suppose. Would you still want them if they are inferior in any way to humans, except for really basic skills that you have machines and poor Chinese kids for anyway?

Good question. I'd still want them, but we could let them die out again naturally (i.e. old age) and keep their sperm/eggs in case we need to ressurect them again.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 22, 2013, 11:17:11 am
Oh, somehow missed them, sorry.

I must say I don't think they're a good idea. I mean, creating new breeds of humans for science? (Or recreating old ones) Sure, it'd be interesting, but the moral implications...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 11:24:52 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 22, 2013, 11:17:11 am
Oh, somehow missed them, sorry.

I must say I don't think they're a good idea. I mean, creating new breeds of humans for science? (Or recreating old ones) Sure, it'd be interesting, but the moral implications...

I don't believe the moral implications matter at all as long as they've got the same rights as we do, aren't hurt or mistreated in any way or held against their will.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 22, 2013, 11:31:13 am
Quote from: lorb on January 22, 2013, 05:53:53 am
By my reading it is quite a fine article. I do think it is very sensitive of her to compare the surgery trans woman undergo to the surgery women with breast cancer sometimes undergo to have breasts again.
qft:
Quote
Trans women, like so many women who have had breast cancer, sometimes need the help of surgeons, because it is helpful for one's social body to support and confirm one's biological identity, not contradict it.

That's why it's so awful to talk of trans women as men who have been castrated. Such people are women who have had the biological misfortune to have been born with bodies that are out of kilter with the much more complex biology of their female minds. That too, is why the trans community prefers people not to talk of being biologically or born female as opposed to trans female. Trans people are biologically or born female, but with detail of the flesh that traduces their ability to be physically and socially accepted for what they are.

I can understand why she's saying it, but strictly speaking i doubt that barely anyone born with every other characteristic of a gender is born with a female mind.

As for the Neanderthals, I'd expect them to be on a at least damn near even keel with us. Their tools at least were equal to ours, and as far as we know i think their culture. It's still an open question as to why we out-competed them. I think cloning should be done, but not now. It's either isolation as Owlbread has suggested, or bastards killing them. We are certainly not far enough, and i have my doubts about the tech as well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on January 22, 2013, 11:38:10 am
Granted, bringing back Neanderthals would be a good dry run for how we'd deal with contacting sapient life elsewhere in the universe. Might be best to do it now, so if we screw up horribly we can burn the bodies and hide the evidence before the whole galaxy knows we're assholes.

I dunno....the !!SCIENCE!! part of me is excited at the prospect. The part of me that's been around 37 years and has no faith remaining in humanity is dismayed at the thoughts of what we might do to them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 11:39:34 am
Quote from: greatorder on January 22, 2013, 11:33:03 am
You fail to realise there are people who would view something like bringing back an extinct species to live amongst others of a different species as cruel.

No, I don't understand it either.

I do realise that, but I think they're wrong. Cruelty would only come if the Neanderthals were upset about their position in the world as freaks/relics or if they were harmed by man, both of which could be avoided through education and protection.

Firstly, I think it is unwise to assume that the Neanderthals would be so different from us that they would face such discrimination and isolation that it would make their existence cruel to them; we know too little about them to make that kind of a judgement.

Secondly, the goal would simply be to bring them back and provide them with safe places to live - that may be a neanderthal village/town/lab or whatever. If they choose to come into our society with a full understanding of it - that's their choice, so it isn't cruel in that respect. They would be the architects of their own fates.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 22, 2013, 11:44:06 am
You were the one defending creating "improved" races of humans created to be good at some specific tasks, right? I can see why you don't see a problem, but frankly I don't agree with you.

Also, we have the general problem that any trial could go wrong and you could create Neanderthals that have a host of development problem or something.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 11:46:52 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 22, 2013, 11:44:06 am
You were the one defending creating "improved" races of humans created to be good at some specific tasks, right? I can see why you don't see a problem, but frankly I don't agree with you.

Also, we have the general problem that any trial could go wrong and you could create Neanderthals that have a host of development problem or something.

Perhaps you should consider whether you are disagreeing with me on the basis of logic or emotion/instinctive revulsion.

In which case the project would be a failure and would be abandoned, but we could then use the knowledge we gained from that in the future.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 22, 2013, 11:47:57 am
Oh hey there was someone else supporting the creation of improved human races? Neat.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on January 22, 2013, 11:52:52 am
Quote from: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 11:46:52 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 22, 2013, 11:44:06 am
You were the one defending creating "improved" races of humans created to be good at some specific tasks, right? I can see why you don't see a problem, but frankly I don't agree with you.

Also, we have the general problem that any trial could go wrong and you could create Neanderthals that have a host of development problem or something.

Perhaps you should consider whether you are disagreeing with me on the basis of logic or emotion/instinctive revulsion.

In which case the project would be a failure and would be abandoned, but we could then use the knowledge we gained from that in the future.
But here's the thing...you're talking about "abandoning the project", which is a very clinical, bloodless term for "bringing sapient semi-human beings into existence, then killing them/leaving them to die when it doesn't work out how we intended". It's the kind of thing you find as a cliche in video games, for god's sake.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 11:55:25 am
Quote from: greatorder on January 22, 2013, 11:54:20 am
You realise I wasn't supporting the point?

You may have accidentally strawmanned. I was saying that I don't understand how it is viewed as cruel.

Oh I see, I apologise, I thought you were saying you didn't understand why we should bring them back.

Quote from: RedKing on January 22, 2013, 11:52:52 am

But here's the thing...you're talking about "abandoning the project", which is a very clinical, bloodless term for "bringing sapient semi-human beings into existence, then killing them/leaving them to die when it doesn't work out how we intended". It's the kind of thing you find as a cliche in video games, for god's sake.

It is a very clinical term, yes, I am sorry. I should know better - I loathe euphamisms like that. I had originally meant that we would stop working on it then and there if they had lots of health problems/developmental problems and go back to the drawing board, we wouldn't necessarily gas them all because it's not what we intended or something - only euthanise them if we had to (if they were suffering from painful terminal cancers for example) then accept the ramifactions of our actions; make public apologies, build a memorial to them and so on.

You must understand though that we would have done decades of research into this to make sure that that kind of thing would not happen, or would be as unlikely to happen as possible. It's not like we'd do it tomorrow just to see what happens. As you've shown - these would be real human lives that we would be dealing with, not a new shampoo product or something. We should be very aware of that and always keeping the welfare of the neanderthals as our primary concern.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 22, 2013, 12:11:51 pm
On the very next day...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 22, 2013, 12:18:17 pm
I'm not sure you can really bring logic into moral arguments. But if I had to try to, i'd go along those lines.

1) Any creation of Neanderthals is bound to imply risks. Maybe there is some DNA that's missing and the poor creature die much earlier. Maybe it's nervous system get detroyed by the mom's immune system. I don't think you have the right to take that risk.

2) Humans should not be used without their consents. This include creating humans for SCIENCE! Humans should be a end, never only a mean.

3) There is also a form of ethical laziness here. Right now, our ethical code is largely based on the fact that there is a clear distinction between humans and non-humans, due to the fact that our whole genus died off. This make it rather convenient to have a moral code, for exemple mentally disbabled people are still worthy of being treated as human and we won't use them in medical experiment. I'm wary of blurry this distinction.

I'm aware point 3 is rather weak, but it's also the less important of the three.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 22, 2013, 12:19:45 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 11:24:52 am
I don't believe the moral implications matter at all as long as they've got the same rights as we do, aren't hurt or mistreated in any way or held against their will.

...He said, just after stating how they should be kept in concentration camps "for their own safety".


Quote from: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 11:46:52 am
Perhaps you should consider whether you are disagreeing with me on the basis of logic or emotion/instinctive revulsion.

Perhaps you should consider whether you are disagreeing with them on the basis of logic or emotion/instinctive fascination.
 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 22, 2013, 12:23:15 pm
Sheb, children are always created and "used" (for whatever satisfaction people get from having children) without their consent.

You seem to be arguing against something in totality, a part of which is very much core to human nature and society.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 22, 2013, 12:26:34 pm
Yeah, there is no absolutely perfect moral laws, hence my reluctance to try to ge tlogic in there. However, I guess most of us would oppose creating new strains of children for scientific purpose, wouldn't we? Why should it be different for Neanderthals?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 22, 2013, 12:30:21 pm
If any of you are familiar with I fucking love science on Facebook, the knee-jerk reactions are not promising. Amongst other things, people are referencing a movie where they were being used by the army or some such. What irritated me far more was the (from the ones i saw) mass of such idiocy present.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 12:30:27 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 22, 2013, 12:18:17 pm
I'm not sure you can really bring logic into moral arguments. But if I had to try to, i'd go along those lines.

1) Any creation of Neanderthals is bound to imply risks. Maybe there is some DNA that's missing and the poor creature die much earlier. Maybe it's nervous system get detroyed by the mom's immune system. I don't think you have the right to take that risk.

2) Humans should not be used without their consents. This include creating humans for SCIENCE! Humans should be a end, never only a mean.

3) There is also a form of ethical laziness here. Right now, our ethical code is largely based on the fact that there is a clear distinction between humans and non-humans, due to the fact that our whole genus died off. This make it rather convenient to have a moral code, for exemple mentally disbabled people are still worthy of being treated as human and we won't use them in medical experiment. I'm wary of blurry this distinction.

I'm aware point 3 is rather weak, but it's also the less important of the three.

1. I think we do have the right provided we do our very best to reduce the risks as far as we can, but if "as far as we can" means there is still a huge risk that they might be born into a life of suffering we just shouldn't take it.

2. The Neanderthals would only be used with their consent, provided they are indeed sentient.

3. Some would also argue with you on point 3 on the fact that other animals suffer from that ethical code greatly, so maybe it's time we had a shakeup.

Quote from: scriver on January 22, 2013, 12:19:45 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 11:24:52 am
I don't believe the moral implications matter at all as long as they've got the same rights as we do, aren't hurt or mistreated in any way or held against their will.

...He said, just after stating how they should be kept in concentration camps "for their own safety".


Quote from: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 11:46:52 am
Perhaps you should consider whether you are disagreeing with me on the basis of logic or emotion/instinctive revulsion.

Perhaps you should consider whether you are disagreeing with them on the basis of logic or emotion/instinctive fascination.

They would have the choice to leave the camps/lab/barracks (wherever they will stay), provided they understood what they were going into.

I already know I disagree with him on the basis of both logic and emotion/instinctive fascination. You don't need to remind me, although it's a kind thought.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 22, 2013, 12:38:57 pm
Owlbread, you need better statements. They will be sentient, and only wouldn't be if we fucked up utterly, and would arguably not be Neanderthals if so. It might be time we have a shakeup, but that was never the point of the experiment was it? I doubt the Neanderthal would survive a shakeup, and this is not a good way of causing people to treat animals better. The idea is not to equate neanderthals with non-sentient animals is it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 12:43:20 pm
Quote from: Novel on January 22, 2013, 12:38:57 pm
Owlbread, you need better statements. They will be sentient, and only wouldn't be if we fucked up utterly, and would arguably not be Neanderthals if so. It might be time we have a shakeup, but that was never the point of the experiment was it? I doubt the Neanderthal would survive a shakeup, and this is not a good way of causing people to treat animals better. The idea is not to equate neanderthals with non-sentient animals is it?

Actually I did exactly that on the previous page. I think we should equate non-sentient animals with human beings on issues like this because we're all wild animals, be they homo sapiens sapiens or homo sapiens neanderthalis. Indeed, it was never the point of the experiment to have a shakeup, but if that's an unintentional consequence it doesn't look like it could harm us (or them) very much. Also, what makes you say the Neanderthal would not survive such a shakeup?

I'm just trying to cover my bases here - I think Neanderthals would be sentient, but exactly how sentient is rather unclear to me. By "sentient" I was meaning that they would be self aware. I do indeed need better statements though, I've been thinking on my feet about this for basically the whole time. They need to be organized.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 22, 2013, 12:52:25 pm
I said equate them with non-sapient animals. A shakeup is unlikely to happen for anything that's not sapient. Edit: Sorry, i should be saying sapient.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 22, 2013, 12:54:49 pm
They might survive, but ostracized from society, not living a full life.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 22, 2013, 01:08:50 pm
Bringing back any long extinct species would have incredible scientific value.  To bring back a species that was probably among our ancestors would be even better.

It's not likely there'd be an "underclass" or anything like that, to be honest.  You'd probably have just a few of them treated very well (due to the huge expense taken to clone them) in a scientific facility.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 22, 2013, 01:11:56 pm
You mistake me. That's in the case of a shakeup, which i view as unlikely. Nevertheless, I'd rather not have them kept in a facility, and i dont think it's safe to do otherwise at present. Therefore, wait.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 22, 2013, 01:13:18 pm
It's not going to happen soon anyway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 01:14:49 pm
Quote from: Novel on January 22, 2013, 01:11:56 pm
You mistake me. That's in the case of a shakeup, which i view as unlikely. Nevertheless, I'd rather not have them kept in a facility, and i dont think it's safe to do otherwise at present. Therefore, wait.

Why shouldn't they live in a facility where they can be safe and studied? Provided we have their consent, of course. As a point of interest, perhaps we could run agreements with the Russian government to set up Neanderthal settlements in areas in Siberia that are uninhabited. Another possibility could be the North American and European boreal forests.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 22, 2013, 01:22:32 pm
Yeah, it has the potential to go horribly wrong.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 01:24:19 pm
Quote from: greatorder on January 22, 2013, 01:19:02 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 01:14:49 pm
Quote from: Novel on January 22, 2013, 01:11:56 pm
You mistake me. That's in the case of a shakeup, which i view as unlikely. Nevertheless, I'd rather not have them kept in a facility, and i dont think it's safe to do otherwise at present. Therefore, wait.

Why shouldn't they live in a facility where they can be safe and studied? Provided we have their consent, of course. As a point of interest, perhaps we could run agreements with the Russian government to set up Neanderthal settlements in areas in Siberia that are uninhabited. Another possibility could be the North American and European boreal forests.
I can imagine David Attenborough...

'And here, we see the neanderthal in its natural habitat...'

Except it might also go like this:

'And here, we see the neanderthal man in his natural habitat... as his children attend the village school, he breeds reindeer here in the Taiga of the Sakha Republic to provide food for them. As part of a shared agreement with the Yakut tribesmen, he has been taught the skills necessary for survival here, and will soon demonstrate his tracking abilities for the camera."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 22, 2013, 01:30:27 pm
That still creeps me out to be honest.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lemon10 on January 22, 2013, 01:31:23 pm
I imagine there would be quite bad discrimination against neanderthal's, since we have been discriminating against regular humans with slight visual differences for all of human history, I don't think that it would be odd for there to be large discrimination against non-homo sapiens, who would actually be different from humans.

And that's assuming that they were given full human rights (and there would probably be countries where they wouldn't and would be viewed as abominations against god), and those that created them worked very hard to give the first few equal footing and opportunities to regular humans.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 01:33:45 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on January 22, 2013, 01:30:27 pm
That still creeps me out to be honest.

We already do that kind of thing with African/Amazonian/Russian/Native American tribesemen anyway, so I don't see why it's so creepy if that tribesman happens to be a neanderthal.

I think though that a lot of you may be surprised at how accepting people might be of the Neanderthals. After the 20th century I think we may have accelerated the process that originally took hundreds of years for us. Obviously you'd have to deal with particularly religious countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Ireland, but I honestly think that Neanderthals would be ok. Plus - they're white Europeans. If they were black I'm sure that they would have a considerably harder time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 22, 2013, 01:37:38 pm
lemon10 got a point. It'll probably be impossible to fight specisism. After all, Neanderthal may very well proove to be more stupid/brutal/hatever than we Sapiens. How will you prevent people from discriminating against them?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 22, 2013, 01:38:14 pm
We clone Native Americans and put them in camps in which they are part of some sort of reality tv* for the rest of their lives?

*would there honestly be any potential scientific use for observing Neanderthals living alongside a bunch of Siberians folks? I understand cloning, but apart from that...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on January 22, 2013, 01:40:05 pm
Oh hey, missing the neanderthal discussion.

Anyway, real experiment: create the baby, give him/her/it to a family, tell no one else but a single lab backup partner, and see if society can even figure it out itself that the child is a different human instead of a 'different' human.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 22, 2013, 01:40:45 pm
That would be an experiment I would support.

edit: Actually, I'm pretty sure the UN / FBI / KGB / whatever is already doing that. EVERYONE IS PATHOS NEANDERTHALER!

(It does explain that the high amount of ugly people these days, jeez)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 22, 2013, 01:42:12 pm
There's also the nurture versus nature point.

A Neanderthal raised by humans will be probably be no more than a severly disadvantaged/different looking human.
A Neaderthal raised in the wild, will be a feral child at best, and will most likely die.

Really, humans raised in the wilds don't suddenly develop culture/language/whatever on their own. Your cloned Neanderthaler will be no better than a rather smart petmonkey.
Asides from their biology, there's nothing to learn from cloning.

Quote from: Moghjubar on January 22, 2013, 01:40:05 pm
Oh hey, missing the neanderthal discussion.

Anyway, real experiment: create the baby, give him/her/it to a family, tell no one else but a single lab backup partner, and see if society can even figure it out itself that the child is a different human instead of a 'different' human.

Almost immediatly actually. At the first signs of serious differences, people will contact a doctor, which will eventually do a Dna test to try and find out what's wrong. He might not recognize it as a Neanderthaler, but he'll know it's not a human.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 01:42:20 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on January 22, 2013, 01:38:14 pm
We clone Native Americans and put them in camps in which they are part of some sort of reality tv* for the rest of their lives?

*would there honestly be any potential scientific use for observing Neanderthals living alongside a bunch of Siberians folks? I understand cloning, but apart from that...

No, if you'd been reading what we were saying earlier on carefully you'd know that the Neanderthals would not be held anywhere against their will, or used for things against their will.

I honestly don't know. We could learn a lot about the development of our species, the interactions we had with neanderthals, the development of language, first contact, all that stuff. Hopefully the Neanderthals would develop technologically/mentally gradually to the point that we would be able to use their skills (with their consent damnit) to benefit us and the world - provided they have unique skills.

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on January 22, 2013, 01:42:12 pm
There's also the nurture versus nature point.

A Neanderthal raised by humans will be probably be no more than a severly disadvantaged/different looking human.
A Neaderthal raised in the wild, will be a feral child at best, and will most likely die.

Really, humans raised in the wilds don't suddenly develop culture/language/whatever on their own. Your cloned Neanderthaler will be no better than a rather smart petmonkey.
Asides from their biology, there's nothing to learn from cloning.

I would recommend raising the Neanderthaler ourselves.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 22, 2013, 01:44:51 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 01:42:20 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on January 22, 2013, 01:38:14 pm
We clone Native Americans and put them in camps in which they are part of some sort of reality tv* for the rest of their lives?

*would there honestly be any potential scientific use for observing Neanderthals living alongside a bunch of Siberians folks? I understand cloning, but apart from that...

No, if you'd been reading what we were saying earlier on carefully you'd know that the Neanderthals would not be held anywhere against their will, or used for things against their will.

Then you would either not tell them anything about the outside world (that or blatant propaganda) or the experiment will fail pretty soon. You really think they are gonna stay in friggin' Siberia without their family / cultural values/ whatever holding them there?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 01:47:42 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on January 22, 2013, 01:44:51 pm
Then you would either not tell them anything about the outside world (that or blatant propaganda) or the experiment will fail pretty soon. You really think they are gonna stay in friggin' Siberia without their family / cultural values/ whatever holding them there?

Oh but we would tell them everything, provided they could understand us. The experiment would actually continue if they entered our society. It would just go in a different direction. The thing is though that the Neanderthalers really need to understand exactly what they're going into before they make that decision; they're the architects of their own destiny.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 22, 2013, 01:48:52 pm
What if they don't want to continue the experiment?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 01:50:28 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on January 22, 2013, 01:48:52 pm
What if they don't want to continue the experiment?

The experiment would involve monitoring them to see how they do in our society/trying to help them integrate etc. If they don't want to continue the experiment (I presume you mean cutting off contact with us and not being studied anymore) then that's fine, that's their choice and they have a right to it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 22, 2013, 01:51:24 pm
Sounds like a failed experiment to me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 01:56:02 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on January 22, 2013, 01:51:24 pm
Sounds like a failed experiment to me.

The experiment would only fail if we didn't learn anything; believe me, we would.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on January 22, 2013, 01:57:24 pm

Just a few things about Neanderthal :

Neanderthal are not Homo Sapiens. They are an independant (the only reason they can be considered Homo Sapiens is interbreeding, which is an hypothesis). In fact, they evolved from a way earlier Homo (which is unknown). Neanderthals are not our ancestors (except a bit due to interbreeding). However, we have common ancestors with them.
In terms of brain size, they are considered more intelligent than Homo Sapiens, from 1500 to 1750cm3 against an average of 1300cm3. They also have some primates characteristics, which would make them extremely recognizable (notably the face).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 22, 2013, 01:58:41 pm
I'd probably support this anyway because of 1) Cloning and 2) bringing an extinct species back to life.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on January 22, 2013, 02:01:26 pm
One of the things I keep seeing is "with their consent". How are you going to ascertain that consent, especially if they prove incapable of learning language?

If one wanders out of the facility, how do you distinguish between exploratory wandering and a desire to leave?
I mean, children are just naturally going to want to go places they're not supposed to and in that case it's ethical to confine them without consent. Does that mean we hold them regardless of what they want until they're 18 (or whatever we determine to be "age of consent" for Neanderthals?)

You mention their "tracking skills". You have to remember that this isn't going to be like pulling a small tribe of Neanderthals through a time portal. They're going to have literally NO culture other than what we teach them. They'll be no better at tracking caribou than I am. They might learn some from these hypothetical Yakuts, but that brings up another interesting quandry -- what happens when a Yakut and a Neanderthal eventually mate? There is a good bit of evidence that Homo sapiens neandertal could successfully interbreed with Homo sapiens sapiens. What do you call the offspring? What legal rights does he/she have? Does it become part of your "program" group, or part of the Yakut tribe?



EDIT: Note that larger brain doesn't necessarily equate to higher intelligence.  Sperm whales have a 7kg brain, the largest in the animal kingdom.
Shrews have the largest brain as a ratio-to-mass, nearly 10% of their body weight.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 22, 2013, 02:02:08 pm
Brain size doesn't determine intelligence. There are serious difference between homo sapiens and homo Neanderthalis brain layout. For example, as deducted from skull layout, the homo Neanderthalis has only a very limited capability for abstract thinking. (Assuming their brain fuctions are in the same place as ours).

However, keep in mind that we can never have a pure Homo neanderthallis. Whatever we clone will most likely be some sort of hybrid, because we will need to use human Dna (maybe even ape Dna, if laws involving human cloning interfere) to patch their Dna up.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2013, 02:11:30 pm
We have a complete Neanderthal genome, ebbor. There have been bones found with (relatively) undamaged marrow. Neanderthal lived close enough to our time that some of the DNA has not been degraded.

In any case: if, if, we chose to do this, it has to be done without segregation from the start. No facilities, no camps, no reservations. They're either with our society or we leave them dead. Nothing else is morally acceptable.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on January 22, 2013, 02:13:11 pm
Frog DNA shall be used, of course. Useful for everything!  Why stop at Neanderthals when you can make Neaderfrogs!

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 22, 2013, 02:18:29 pm
Quote
On the question of potentially cloning a Neanderthal, Pääbo commented, "Starting from the DNA extracted from a fossil, it is and will remain impossible."

That's from the guy who leads the analysing team. While we do have the entire/ most of the genome,  we don't have any completely intact pieces. We just have a lot of fairly small fragments, which we have managed to put together a bit. But in essence, it's a puzzle. Or more accuratly, a thousand similair puzzels thrown together, with several pieces damaged or missing, and only a very vague idea of the cover phote.

And really, Neaderthalers won't be able to fit in. As said before, stuff hints that they aren't really capable of abstract thought. Meaning that anything from simple mathematics, to the understanding of our entire societal system, to a large part of communication will be entirely impossible for them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on January 22, 2013, 02:20:32 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on January 22, 2013, 02:02:08 pm
Brain size doesn't determine intelligence.
It's still the only measure that can be used.
Either you define intelligence as something abstract, and then you have no means of comparing (and then no brain layout either), either you measure it scientifically, with brain size.
While "intelligence" isn't maybe the good word (or the opposite), that's how you measure it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2013, 02:23:17 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on January 22, 2013, 02:18:29 pm
And really, Neaderthalers won't be able to fit in. As said before, stuff hints that they aren't really capable of abstract thought. Meaning that anything from simple mathematics, to the understanding of our entire societal system, to a large part of communication will be entirely impossible for them.
Stuff doesn't hint at shit. We don't know anything about the actual thought process of Neanderthals. Skull shape is irrelevant. We can barely discern how our own brains work through stuff, and that's with billions of case studies all around us. Intellect is impossible to measure without having a living member of the species, especially with an unambiguously sapient species like the Neanderthals.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 22, 2013, 02:23:36 pm
There's really only one way to find out, though. Surely with the number of people we create every day for no particular reason at all who don't fit in, one who's sure to have institutional support to make up for any shortcomings doesn't seem THAT unlikely to be in a worse way than normal, and there is quite a bit of potential to learn, to really discover new things here. I support the idea, but on a very trial basis at first - small numbers, which means we'll probably have twenty to thirty years before we have enough data to even consider more than that, if we find any reason to do so. We should be responsible where possible, but we shouldn't let the potential for things to maybe go wrong in some way that doesn't really do all that much harm comparatively (normal science kills people pretty regularly after all, the key is reasonable precaution).

Also, PanH, your logic is terrible. You go with something because it actually mirrors, or at least correlates with, what you are trying to measure, not simply because it's "easy". Thats bullshit reasoning. Simply measuring intelligence with "brain size" is the exact opposite of science.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on January 22, 2013, 02:31:04 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 22, 2013, 02:23:36 pm
Also, PanH, your logic is terrible. You go with something because it actually mirrors, or at least correlates with, what you are trying to measure, not simply because it's "easy". Thats bullshit reasoning. Simply measuring intelligence with "brain size" is the exact opposite of science.
Right, because that's not what I said.
You want to know something, but you can't. You take the closest thing that is related and measurable. And when you talk about the intelligence of a specie, it is brain size.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 22, 2013, 02:31:57 pm
Quote from: PanH on January 22, 2013, 02:20:32 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on January 22, 2013, 02:02:08 pm
Brain size doesn't determine intelligence.
It's still the only measure that can be used.
Either you define intelligence as something abstract, and then you have no means of comparing (and then no brain layout either), either you measure it scientifically, with brain size.
While "intelligence" isn't maybe the good word (or the opposite), that's how you measure it.
A completely nonsensical measurement, sadly. Or it would mean that males on average are like 5-10% smarter than females. (Brain weight comparison, ie density of cells). Also, whales would be true masterminds.

It would be saying the same thing as saying that counting the amount of capital letters per post would allow you to measure the usefullness of said post.

The way you really measure "intelligence" is by the average amount of neural cell connections and their activity, not by weighting it, or looking at it's size.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2013, 02:23:17 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on January 22, 2013, 02:18:29 pm
And really, Neaderthalers won't be able to fit in. As said before, stuff hints that they aren't really capable of abstract thought. Meaning that anything from simple mathematics, to the understanding of our entire societal system, to a large part of communication will be entirely impossible for them.
Stuff doesn't hint at shit. We don't know anything about the actual thought process of Neanderthals. Skull shape is irrelevant. We can barely discern how our own brains work through stuff, and that's with billions of case studies all around us. Intellect is impossible to measure without having a living member of the species, especially with an unambiguously sapient species like the Neanderthals.
It's not. I believe it was the frontal lobe that was important for this kind of abstract though. Amongst other stuff. Since our brain layout is rather similair amongst all ape species(maybe even all mammals), we can probably estimate that it would be the same for the Neanderthal. Since the skull of the Neanderthall only allows for a smaller frontal lobe, it's logic to estimate that their frontal lobe is indeed smaller.

Pre post edit: Just a note, but it appears that this point is based on currently outdated science. Human frontal lobes are not significantly larger than other ape/ humanoid species at time. Still, skull layout--> vague brain shape--> vague hint of  intellectual capabilities is still kinda valid reasoning.

Quote from: PanH on January 22, 2013, 02:31:04 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 22, 2013, 02:23:36 pm
Also, PanH, your logic is terrible. You go with something because it actually mirrors, or at least correlates with, what you are trying to measure, not simply because it's "easy". Thats bullshit reasoning. Simply measuring intelligence with "brain size" is the exact opposite of science.
Right, because that's not what I said.
You want to know something, but you can't. You take the closest thing that is related and measurable. And when you talk about the intelligence of a specie, it is brain size.

Unfortunately, brain size is not related to intelligence. Not directly. As said before : Whales.
Average amount of neural Connections and layout is what matters.
Just because there's a vacuum of good information doesn't mean that you can just fill the gap and support your reasoning by what is avaible.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 02:54:41 pm
Ceann mor air duine glic, ceann crion air amadan.

A large head on a wise man, a little head on a fool.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 22, 2013, 02:57:39 pm
Actually, while sheer brain size ain't a good indicator of intelligence, the brain size/body size ration isn't too bad.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on January 22, 2013, 02:59:36 pm
Humans have also done some pretty crazy head modifications via skull shaping to try and (at least what I'm guessing) enhance the brain size/power.  At least, unless they thought they were thinking thru their livers and the head was just some kinda balancing thing.

It actually gets pretty complicated, because there's formation of neural pathways, presence or absence of hormones/materials thru development, things like where a large portion of a brain can be removed and the other side can compensate if its done early enough, pollutant/foreign materials that can affect development, etc.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 22, 2013, 02:59:51 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 22, 2013, 02:57:39 pm
Actually, while sheer brain size ain't a good indicator of intelligence, the brain size/body size ration isn't too bad.
Not enough proof/reason to make any assumptions about the Neanderthaler though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 22, 2013, 03:12:20 pm
Probably not, while it's a good indicator across vertebrate species, us and Neanderthal are to near that you can tell much. We also both very much the outliers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on January 22, 2013, 05:25:04 pm
There are perfectly healthy and normal homo sapiens with an IQ of 75 and some with an IQ of 125 and there is not much physiological difference in their brain.
If minuscule differences in our brains make huge differences there really isn't much basis to make predictions on a vague knowledge of volume and/or shape. Could be anything from superhumanly gifted to dwarven stupidity.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 22, 2013, 05:29:43 pm
You could discuss the useability of IQ tests though.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 22, 2013, 05:34:53 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on January 22, 2013, 05:29:43 pm
You could discuss the useability of IQ tests though.

Try discussing it with someone with an IQ of 50.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 22, 2013, 05:50:16 pm
I'd like to point out to all those going "look at whales" that whales are pretty damn intelligent critters. Relatively speaking. Also look at crow birds, and the magpie in particular. It's widely considered the most intelligent bird, outsmarting most mammals by lengths, and they also have the biggest brain-to-body ratio. Likewise, our bigger brains seem to have developed at the same time as our intelligence.

So yeah. Brain size doesn't directly correlate to intelligence, but it's a pretty good place to start. I doubt we could make any assumptions based on neanderthal versus human brain sizes, though. Were a little to closely related anyway. All their brain size tell us is that yeah, they were very likely intelligent. Not to what exact extent.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on January 22, 2013, 06:16:44 pm

You have to correlate both brain size and brain to body size, as a bigger body necessarily requires a bigger brain.

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on January 22, 2013, 05:29:43 pm
You could discuss the useability of IQ tests though.
IQ isn't meant to be used alone, and even less as a universal indicator.

Quote from: lorb on January 22, 2013, 05:25:04 pm
If minuscule differences in our brains make huge differences there really isn't much basis to make predictions on a vague knowledge of volume and/or shape. Could be anything from superhumanly gifted to dwarven stupidity.
I was talking about the intelligence of a specie, not an individual.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 22, 2013, 06:27:45 pm
Quote from: PanH on January 22, 2013, 06:16:44 pm
You have to correlate both brain size and brain to body size, as a bigger body necessarily requires a bigger brain.
... does it? Didn't some of the largest land based creatures our world has seen have rather impressively small brains?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 22, 2013, 06:33:40 pm
Quote from: scriver on January 22, 2013, 05:50:16 pm
I'd like to point out to all those going "look at whales" that whales are pretty damn intelligent critters. Relatively speaking. Also look at crow birds, and the magpie in particular. It's widely considered the most intelligent bird, outsmarting most mammals by lengths, and they also have the biggest brain-to-body ratio. Likewise, our bigger brains seem to have developed at the same time as our intelligence.
Pigs are supposed to be pretty intelligent too.
I tried to find a way, but apparently it is virtually impossible to keep a pig in a dorm. Meh, it'll just have to wait until I'm done studying.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on January 22, 2013, 06:38:17 pm
Quote from: Frumple on January 22, 2013, 06:27:45 pm
Quote from: PanH on January 22, 2013, 06:16:44 pm
You have to correlate both brain size and brain to body size, as a bigger body necessarily requires a bigger brain.
... does it? Didn't some of the largest land based creatures our world has seen have rather impressively small brains?
Elephants have a 4-6kg brain (human 1.3kg) but they have the smallest brain/body ratio for mammals (with mouses the highest).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 22, 2013, 06:41:10 pm
Elephants are still very intelligent though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on January 23, 2013, 12:21:09 am
Mmm.... robo-burgers: http://singularityhub.com/2013/01/22/robot-serves-up-340-hamburgers-per-hour/

I guess there goes Neanderbaby's employment chances.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on January 23, 2013, 12:38:00 am
One every ten seconds. Awesome.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on January 23, 2013, 12:41:13 am
That's pretty cool~
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 23, 2013, 04:05:45 am
Yeah, the point is that inter-specific intelligence difference are much bigger than intra-specific difference. A guy with an IQ of 75 may be damn dumb, but he's still going to outsmart them magpie any time of the day.

While brain-to-body-size ratio tell us that Neanderthals were pretty smart by animal standard (they used advanced tools, that kind of stuff), my guess is that they'd still be pretty dumb by human standard. What you're going to do is create a whole new species of retards. (It's not insulting if the guys' been dead for over 40,000 years, right?)

They're either going to end up in specialized institutions, or in a brand new Neanderthal Reservations somewhere where they'll enjoy all the benefits of alcoholism.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 23, 2013, 05:32:46 am
Quote from: Moghjubar on January 23, 2013, 12:21:09 am
Mmm.... robo-burgers: http://singularityhub.com/2013/01/22/robot-serves-up-340-hamburgers-per-hour/

I guess there goes Neanderbaby's employment chances.

So... we need to get on this thing where we figure out how a person can justify their own survival without a job.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on January 23, 2013, 05:43:49 am
Quote from: Dutchling on January 22, 2013, 05:34:53 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on January 22, 2013, 05:29:43 pm
You could discuss the useability of IQ tests though.

Try discussing it with someone with an IQ of 50.

Someone with an IQ of 50 would be pretty hard.

Though to my knowledge Neanderthals are still smarter then IQ 50. Heck APES are smarter then 50 IQ and Neanderthals are supposed to be smarter then even that (heck some scientists say they didn't EXACTLY die out but rather they bred with us to extinction).

Quote
As said before, stuff hints that they aren't really capable of abstract thought

That sounds incredibly made up. Not by you mind you, but by a scientist.

We lacked several very basic concepts back then too.

Even Gorillas have abstract thought.

Honestly it sounds like someone out there is making things up about Neanderthals JUST to make humans seem "special".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on January 23, 2013, 06:04:25 am
I'm highly skeptical of the "Neanderthal's were stoopid!" arguments, because they've been around so long (over 100 years), and as one line of argument is debunked, they come up with another incompatible line of argument try to try and 'prove' the same argument.

Basically there's an agenda to prove we won solely because we were smarter, and I've seen them constantly recreating the same argument with totally different lines of reasoning, as each previous argument was defeated - almost never backed up by any observational evidence. In this case, the thing they're trying to prove clearly predates any actual evidence, and seems to be unfalsifiable, because it gets recreated with a new theory every time it gets debunked.

Interestingly enough, most of the arguments I've heard about neanderthals being unintelligent sub-human are extremely similar to the 19th century arguments that said the Australian Aboriginals were unintelligent sub-humans. The same evolutionary superiority was touted as the reason the English settled and dominated over the Australian native population.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 23, 2013, 06:14:48 am
Well, I believe in the Great Leap forward theory, that around 50,000 thousands years ago, something put us on a road of incredibly fast technologic progression. That's when we invented the boat, the net, the handle, the needle and pretty much everything more complicated than a sharp rock. Whatever it was that made us progress, Neanderthal don't seem to have it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on January 23, 2013, 06:15:51 am
If you want to be technical Sheb we have Neanderthal DNA in us.

So whatever intelligence sucking effect it had, it obviously didn't have enough of it.

Quote
most of the arguments I've heard about neanderthals being unintelligent sub-human are extremely similar to the 19th century arguments that said the Australian Aboriginals were unintelligent sub-humans.

that would explain why their depiction is VERY close to the depiction of them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on January 23, 2013, 06:18:54 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 23, 2013, 06:14:48 am
Well, I believe in the Great Leap forward theory, that around 50,000 thousands years ago, something put us on a road of incredibly fast technologic progression. That's when we invented the boat, the net, the handle, the needle and pretty much everything more complicated than a sharp rock. Whatever it was that made us progress, Neanderthal don't seem to have it.

I was hoping you'd come up with something better than that. This is the exact argument of why the "white man" is racially superior to all other races. Clearly we were racially superior to the africans and aboriginals, right? Same technological argument.

Technological advancement is the colonial superiority argument.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on January 23, 2013, 06:26:31 am
It could have just been coincidence and that the Neanderthals that didn't breed with humans (and become what we call humans) died out the same way people die out.

That our survival was much more fragile then we thought and Neanderthals just didn't win the survival lottery.

OR that eventually they bred with us to extinction.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on January 23, 2013, 06:29:44 am
There is actually one big difference between Neanderthals and Humans that is actually based in evidence. Bone analysis shows that Neanderthals were pretty much carnivores (99% meat diet, although new evidence shows they cooked vegetables, the bone studies still suggest they mainly ate meat) whilst Cro-Magnon man was an omnivore (50% meat, 50% plants).

This leads to a possible theory that Cro-Magnons out-bred the Neanderthals due to exploiting more resources from the same area of land. Nothing to do with intelligence, and everything to do with lifestyle.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on January 23, 2013, 06:33:10 am
Yep being a Carnivour would actually do it.

Omnivour, along with humans MANY other advantages over ordinary animals that people forget, allowed us to increase the variety of foods we could eat by vast amounts.

Actually who the heck propagated the idea that humans are the most pathetic animal in all of nature and we ONLY survive because of our intelligence because otherwise we are too weak and pathetic to do anything? It is actually REALLY untrue.

If I had to name the Human being's one major physical advantage over most animals it would be! Stamina. We are absolutely built for stamina.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 23, 2013, 06:40:59 am
Quote from: Neonivek on January 23, 2013, 06:33:10 am
Yep being a Carnivour would actually do it.

Omnivour, along with humans MANY other advantages over ordinary animals that people forget, allowed us to increase the variety of foods we could eat by vast amounts.

Actually who the heck propagated the idea that humans are the most pathetic animal in all of nature and we ONLY survive because of our intelligence because otherwise we are too weak and pathetic to do anything? It is actually REALLY untrue.

If I had to name the Human being's one major physical advantage over most animals it would be! Stamina. We are absolutely built for stamina.

Yeah, we're actually pretty hardcore.  We're not the strongest or fastest creatures, but our adaptability is ridiculous and not just intelligence-based.  Plus stamina.  Supposedly the most ancient form hunting is to chase prey until it dies of heat exhaustion, because we could just do that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 23, 2013, 06:42:07 am
Yup Reelya, the problem is that since you can't have a Neanderthal pass an IQ test, you have to use the best proxies you get. Which aren't great, but hey.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on January 23, 2013, 06:43:05 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 23, 2013, 06:42:07 am
Yup Reelya, the problem is that since you can't have a Neanderthal pass an IQ test, you have to use the best proxies you get. Which aren't great, but hey.

What proxy? We don't even have the next best Proxy for humans.

Is it humans? because we would be the closest proxy. You have to go through soo many animals before you even get to another animal that still exists.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 23, 2013, 06:53:04 am
Well, let's put it this way: even a dumb human is much smarter than a chimp for exemple. The difference between species tends to be so large, that it'd be really surprising if they were exactly as smart as we are.

And I don't care if I sound like prehistoric Hitler.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on January 23, 2013, 06:57:02 am
Well to my knowledge Neanderthals are only 2 deviations from us (less if you consider our breeding together).

The differences between Neanderthals and humans could, in the end, be more comparible to the differences between Cayotees and Wolves then that between a person and a chimp.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on January 23, 2013, 07:04:49 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 23, 2013, 06:53:04 am
Well, let's put it this way: even a dumb human is much smarter than a chimp for exemple. The difference between species tends to be so large, that it'd be really surprising if they were exactly as smart as we are.

It's not even clear that they are in fact a different species. They are often classified as a subspecies of homo sapiens. You could have a baby with a neanderthal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on January 23, 2013, 07:06:16 am
Quote from: lorb on January 23, 2013, 07:04:49 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 23, 2013, 06:53:04 am
Well, let's put it this way: even a dumb human is much smarter than a chimp for exemple. The difference between species tends to be so large, that it'd be really surprising if they were exactly as smart as we are.

It's not even clear that they are in fact a different species. They are often classified as a subspecies of homo sapiens. You could have a baby with a neanderthal.

and unlike a Horse and a Donkey your baby would be fully capable of reproduction.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 23, 2013, 07:19:23 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 23, 2013, 06:53:04 am
Well, let's put it this way: even a dumb human is much smarter than a chimp for exemple. The difference between species tends to be so large, that it'd be really surprising if they were exactly as smart as we are.
Exactly as smart? Definitely not. Close to our level? Quite possible: Just compare two species of monkeys that are as far from each other as the Neanderthals and us.
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 23, 2013, 06:40:59 am
Quote from: Neonivek on January 23, 2013, 06:33:10 am
Yep being a Carnivour would actually do it.

Omnivour, along with humans MANY other advantages over ordinary animals that people forget, allowed us to increase the variety of foods we could eat by vast amounts.

Actually who the heck propagated the idea that humans are the most pathetic animal in all of nature and we ONLY survive because of our intelligence because otherwise we are too weak and pathetic to do anything? It is actually REALLY untrue.

If I had to name the Human being's one major physical advantage over most animals it would be! Stamina. We are absolutely built for stamina.

Yeah, we're actually pretty hardcore.  We're not the strongest or fastest creatures, but our adaptability is ridiculous and not just intelligence-based.  Plus stamina.  Supposedly the most ancient form hunting is to chase prey until it dies of heat exhaustion, because we could just do that.
Humans are like cockroaches: Easily squished, but we tend to stick around, come what may. We just don't give up - on several occasions ridiculous amounts of people were killed, and still we - as a species or population - survived.
Just look at the concentration camps, or China during the Great Leap, or the Thirty Year's war. We're one tough breed, that's for sure.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 23, 2013, 08:00:52 am
Quote from: Neonivek on January 23, 2013, 05:43:49 am
Quote
As said before, stuff hints that they aren't really capable of abstract thought

That sounds incredibly made up. Not by you mind you, but by a scientist.

We lacked several very basic concepts back then too.

Even Gorillas have abstract thought.

Honestly it sounds like someone out there is making things up about Neanderthals JUST to make humans seem "special".

Yeah, just a note about that. I adressed that statement in previous posts, and supported it, but as I tried to mention before, it's outdated. Turns out the premise (Ie, there being significant differences in the size of frontal lobes) from which operated was false because the sample it was based on was to small or something.

Quote from: Neonivek on January 23, 2013, 06:15:51 am
If you want to be technical Sheb we have Neanderthal DNA in us.

So whatever intelligence sucking effect it had, it obviously didn't have enough of it.
This is actually quite questionable. Some research seems to show that modern humans and Neanderthaler interbred, but archeological evidence shows that Neanderthaler and humans weren't in close enough proximity at that moment.

Quote from: Sheb on January 23, 2013, 06:53:04 am
Well, let's put it this way: even a dumb human is much smarter than a chimp for exemple. The difference between species tends to be so large, that it'd be really surprising if they were exactly as smart as we are.

And I don't care if I sound like prehistoric Hitler.
Chimps are about as smart (at some points even better) than human children. Their intelligence just focusses at other points.

Quote from: Helgoland on January 23, 2013, 07:19:23 am
Humans are like cockroaches: Easily squished, but we tend to stick around, come what may. We just don't give up - on several occasions ridiculous amounts of people were killed, and still we - as a species or population - survived.
Just look at the concentration camps, or China during the Great Leap, or the Thirty Year's war. We're one tough breed, that's for sure.
While those aren't maybe the best examples, another example is that genetic research shows that (proto)humanity at one point has been reduced to about a thousand-2000 specimens, maybe even less.
Oh, and for human advantages, bipedality is a huge one. Higher vantage point, speed (humans are rather good in a sprint), endurance, ability to hold stuff.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on January 23, 2013, 08:06:01 am
Quote from: Neonivek on January 23, 2013, 06:33:10 am
Actually who the heck propagated the idea that humans are the most pathetic animal in all of nature and we ONLY survive because of our intelligence because otherwise we are too weak and pathetic to do anything? It is actually REALLY untrue.

That would have been a man named Arnold Gehlen. He coined the german term "Mängelwesen" which roughly translates as "deficient being" as a description of humans. But he did not propagate the idea that we only survive because of our intelligence. He taught that we only survive because we are social beings. For example the human newborn needs an incredibly long time (years!) of being taken care of before it can survive on it's own while many other mammals can walk minutes to hours after birth.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on January 23, 2013, 08:08:00 am
Quote
for human advantages, bipedality is a huge one. Higher vantage point, speed (humans are rather good in a sprint), endurance, ability to hold stuff

Let me see... Omnivourious diet that focuses on a wide variety of food

Quote from: lorb on January 23, 2013, 08:06:01 am
Quote from: Neonivek on January 23, 2013, 06:33:10 am
Actually who the heck propagated the idea that humans are the most pathetic animal in all of nature and we ONLY survive because of our intelligence because otherwise we are too weak and pathetic to do anything? It is actually REALLY untrue.

That would have been a man named Arnold Gehlen. He coined the german term "Mängelwesen" which roughly translates as "deficient being" as a description of humans. But he did not propagate the idea that we only survive because of our intelligence. He taught that we only survive because we are social beings. For example the human newborn needs an incredibly long time (years!) of being taken care of before it can survive on it's own while many other mammals can walk minutes to hours after birth.

But... that only occurs because we are social beings.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 23, 2013, 08:09:07 am
Well, it co-evolved with sociality, so both are part causes and part consequences.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 23, 2013, 08:14:21 am
Quote from: Neonivek on January 23, 2013, 08:08:00 am
Quote
for human advantages, bipedality is a huge one. Higher vantage point, speed (humans are rather good in a sprint), endurance, ability to hold stuff

Let me see... Omnivourious diet that focuses on a wide variety of food
That one isn't a result of bipedality though. Most apes have it. (Also, omnivoriousness comes at the cost of general inefficiency when eating stuff).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on January 23, 2013, 08:15:51 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on January 23, 2013, 08:14:21 am
Quote from: Neonivek on January 23, 2013, 08:08:00 am
Quote
for human advantages, bipedality is a huge one. Higher vantage point, speed (humans are rather good in a sprint), endurance, ability to hold stuff

Let me see... Omnivourious diet that focuses on a wide variety of food
That one isn't a result of bipedality though. Most apes have it. (Also, omnivoriousness comes at the cost of general inefficiency when eating stuff).

I was listing human advantages. I had to state though what kind of Omnivour we are. Since a few Carnivours are in fact Omnivours in a limited sense... like Wolves (Omnivourious opportunists)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 23, 2013, 08:19:35 am
I have heard that human beings can actually outrun any animal on the planet, even a cheetah if we were chasing them down over a period of time. Other animals can run much faster than we can but we (I think) can beat them in a battle of attrition, hence why the bushmen of the Kalahari hunt by just chasing their prey until the animal collapses with exhaustion.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 23, 2013, 08:25:11 am
If we could not call people retards, Sheb.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 23, 2013, 08:27:26 am
Well, I usually don't, but I make an exception for extinct species.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 23, 2013, 08:27:49 am
No exceptions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 23, 2013, 08:29:24 am
Neanderthals were people too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 23, 2013, 08:36:01 am
Depend on your definition of people. And given that neither you nor I ever met one (except for the 3% of their DNA that's lurking in my mitochondrias), we don't know. Maybe they were smart as us, and just lost out by sheer luck or inneficient metabolism. Or maybe they were really inferior if only technologically and got stomped out of Europe by a more versatile and intelligent species. We don't know.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 23, 2013, 08:41:02 am
Why exactly are we not calling people retards anyway?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 23, 2013, 08:45:16 am
Retard is actually a highly offensive word in the UK, believe it or not. Or at least it was until it gained traction in social media.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 23, 2013, 08:47:13 am
Apparently to the point that 50,000 years is still too soon to call people (or non-people) retards.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 23, 2013, 08:52:45 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 23, 2013, 08:47:13 am
Apparently to the point that 50,000 years is still too soon to call people (or non-people) retards.

For some people (myself not included) it's a slur. I mean, granted, their cognitive ability would be "retarded" by their lack of development when compared with modern humans.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 23, 2013, 09:02:59 am
Oh, feel free to replace retard by a more politically correct alternative. It's true that not bein a native speaker myself, I sometime don't realize thr loaded meaning of some words.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 23, 2013, 09:03:42 am
*
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 23, 2013, 09:06:46 am
In the context of mentally ill people it's really offensive.

In the context of neanderthals it makes no sense at all because they don't have any kind of developmental disorder.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 23, 2013, 09:06:58 am
Yes, it's a slur. Not exactly one against a dominant group, either. This is not 4chan, and though it shouldn't matter, some here will have had family been affected by it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 23, 2013, 09:09:16 am
Well, I apologize if I've hurt anyone, this was not my intention.

Anyway, have you noticed that Obama again spoke about gays during the inauguration speech? I feel like the US really passed that turning point where being pro-gay is more or less the normal thing to do. I'm sure than in a decade or so homophobia will be considered as racism is now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 23, 2013, 09:15:22 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 23, 2013, 09:09:16 am
I'm sure than in a decade or so homophobia will be considered as racism is now.
I sure hope not. Homophobia being considered bad? Yes please. Homophobia being considered equal to Joseph Mengele and Ubisoft eating mentally disabled babies of impoverished minority families? No thanks.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 23, 2013, 09:22:32 am
Quote from: Dutchling on January 23, 2013, 09:15:22 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 23, 2013, 09:09:16 am
I'm sure than in a decade or so homophobia will be considered as racism is now.
I sure hope not. Homophobia being considered bad? Yes please. Homophobia being considered equal to Joseph Mengele and Ubisoft eating mentally disabled babies of impoverished minority families? No thanks.

Or, you know, if you maybe tone it down a bit, how's about calling a gay man a "f*ggot" being considered as bad as calling a black man the N word. That makes sense to me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 23, 2013, 09:25:36 am
I am okay with that.

As long as the street gays can still call each other faggots in their operas.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 23, 2013, 09:45:25 am
Quote from: Dutchling on January 23, 2013, 09:15:22 am
I sure hope not. Homophobia being considered bad? Yes please. Homophobia being considered equal to Joseph Mengele and Ubisoft eating mentally disabled babies of impoverished minority families? No thanks.
You sure owned that strawman!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 23, 2013, 09:46:43 am
I did, didn't I? :)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 23, 2013, 09:47:46 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on January 23, 2013, 09:45:25 am
Quote from: Dutchling on January 23, 2013, 09:15:22 am
I sure hope not. Homophobia being considered bad? Yes please. Homophobia being considered equal to Joseph Mengele and Ubisoft eating mentally disabled babies of impoverished minority families? No thanks.
You sure owned that strawman!

The British English expression for a "strawman" is an Aunt Sally.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on January 23, 2013, 05:12:59 pm
Interesting article: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/holy-hal-robot-stole-my-job-1B8057232
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 23, 2013, 05:22:04 pm
Quote from: alway on January 23, 2013, 05:12:59 pm
Interesting article: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/holy-hal-robot-stole-my-job-1B8057232
All hail our robots overlords.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 23, 2013, 05:24:19 pm
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/leon-panetta-lifts-ban-on-women-serving-in-combat-86624.html

Seems like women may be allowed into combat roles soon.  This seems pretty surprising, I hadn't heard anything about it before now.

Quote from: alway on January 23, 2013, 05:12:59 pm
Interesting article: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/holy-hal-robot-stole-my-job-1B8057232
We need to change our economic model, really.  The creation of more wealth really doesn't have to be a bad thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 23, 2013, 05:30:25 pm
It's quite ridiculous that women aren't allowed into combat roles yet. The Soviets were doing it over half a century ago, I don't see why the US armed forces shouldn't have women in combat roles.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 23, 2013, 05:37:23 pm
AFAIK during WWII they were only doing non-combat stuff, like relaying messages - but there were exceptions, sure. If they can do the job, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

Quote from: Leafsnail on January 23, 2013, 05:24:19 pm
Quote from: alway on January 23, 2013, 05:12:59 pm
Interesting article: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/holy-hal-robot-stole-my-job-1B8057232
We need to change our economic model, really.  The creation of more wealth really doesn't have to be a bad thing.
I never quite got why people think the destruction of jobs via increased productivity is a bad thing. A way around it could be the (gradual) reduction of working hours to distribute the weight on more shoulders, so to speak.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 23, 2013, 05:41:22 pm
Well it's clear why it's a bad thing under the current system - the workers who relied on that money lose it, and it instead gets swallowed up by the rich.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 23, 2013, 05:46:46 pm
Large businesses should definitely be hiring more people to work less hours for more pay.  It's a fucking crime that isn't happening.  Instead they're continuing to place more expectations on less people.  In fact, I don't believe there's any excuse for full-time schedules to exist anymore, except for high demand specializations like doctors.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on January 23, 2013, 05:54:05 pm
Yep, we really could be on a 32 hour work week by now. It would reduce unemployment, and could give people more time for leisure and family, making them healthier and happier.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 23, 2013, 05:59:21 pm
The Working Time Directive puts the maximum at 48 hours here, which is a start I guess.  I think that only really affected junior doctors though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 23, 2013, 06:01:16 pm
I think we could do better than that by far, actually, if we put some effort into cutting out a lot of superfluous bullshit work (like my job).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on January 23, 2013, 06:05:25 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/23/1483131/house-republicans-to-scotus-gay-people-are-too-powerful-to-give-them-equal-rights/?mobile=nc

So.... I'm not sure what makes my jaw drop more.

1.)  The American Taxpayer has paid $3,000,000 (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/01/15/1452801/boehner-secretly-agrees-to-now-pay-3-million-defending-marriage-discrimination-law/) (roughly) for this GOP lawyer at $500/hour or so over the last couple decades to defend "traditional marriage." Meanwhile public defenders and appointed counsel, the most notoriously underpaid type of lawyers who do actual work that is incredibly hard for some of the most difficult to represent clients, get but a meager fraction of that from taxpayers and the state only pays it reluctantly, late, and often after cutting off a portion of the tragically low fee for the PD as "too much." It's good to know the justice system's priorities are.

Defending real live people accused of crimes? Meh, we'll toss the absolute bare minimum coin we can get away with for that one.
Defending a political idea discriminating against a minority, we'll fund the daylights out of that one....

 ???

2.) We're talking about government budget problems, because a democrat is in office (but Bush never had "budget problems"). I see something that could be cut.... I'm pretty sure they could find a lawyer to do this for far less than $500/hour or so....


3.) The substance of the message itself.  (http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/BLAG-merits-brief-1-22-131.pdf)Basically, the brief says the Supreme Court should not intervene or judicially grant gay people rights, because they are "well funded, and powerful."

By that proposed standard the existence of the NAACP would preclude SCOTUS from having anything to do with regulating racial discrimination at all.... Likewise, the existence of League of Women Voters and any other group focusing on females would preclude the Supreme Court from having anything to do with gender discrimination.

Your tax dollars at work folks....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kidhedera on January 23, 2013, 06:05:56 pm
Those discussing possible changes to work culture might find this article of interest:

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/apple-google-facebook-and-amazon-are-worth-1-trillion-but-only-15000-jobs-its-time-to-reexamine-the-future-of-work
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on January 23, 2013, 06:11:52 pm
Quote from: Truean on January 23, 2013, 06:05:25 pm
[snip]
Hey, I'm all for it if they can at least be consistent and take away megacorporations' rights as people and stuff. Way too powerful for equal rights, them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 23, 2013, 08:32:47 pm
Quote from: kidhedera on January 23, 2013, 06:05:56 pm
Those discussing possible changes to work culture might find this article of interest:

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/apple-google-facebook-and-amazon-are-worth-1-trillion-but-only-15000-jobs-its-time-to-reexamine-the-future-of-work

Dear god the comments.

"BUT... BUT... LAZY PEOPLE DESERVE TO DIE!!!"

The world is truly going insane.  Between this and environmental collapse, we're all quite fucked.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on January 23, 2013, 08:43:21 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 23, 2013, 08:32:47 pm
Dear god the comments.

"BUT... BUT... LAZY PEOPLE DESERVE TO DIE!!!"
I've seen a ton of people on the internet with that sort of reaction : "You're poor and you don't have a job ? God, you suck, and deserve to be poor (or worse)". Doesn't make any sense.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 23, 2013, 09:59:40 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on January 23, 2013, 05:54:05 pm
Yep, we really could be on a 32 hour work week by now. It would reduce unemployment, and could give people more time for leisure and family, making them healthier and happier.

Where would the money come from, though?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 23, 2013, 10:29:23 pm
Quote from: scriver on January 23, 2013, 09:59:40 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on January 23, 2013, 05:54:05 pm
Yep, we really could be on a 32 hour work week by now. It would reduce unemployment, and could give people more time for leisure and family, making them healthier and happier.

Where would the money come from, though?

This is sarcasm, right?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on January 24, 2013, 12:25:39 am
Quote from: scriver on January 23, 2013, 09:59:40 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on January 23, 2013, 05:54:05 pm
Yep, we really could be on a 32 hour work week by now. It would reduce unemployment, and could give people more time for leisure and family, making them healthier and happier.

Where would the money come from, though?

It would come from the record high profit margins of corporate excess. Really, redistribution of wealth from the working classes to the plutocrats is at an all time high.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on January 24, 2013, 01:08:14 am
It would come from robots, actually.  Robots do all the work, robots print the money, etc.

Robots also spend the money. They eat the food too.  The robots also sit on the robo-computers and play robo-video-games.  They have also replaced all the politicians and clergy.  Now man can finally be -Nothing-.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 24, 2013, 06:07:15 am
Quote from: Moghjubar on January 24, 2013, 01:08:14 am
It would come from robots, actually.  Robots do all the work, robots print the money, etc.

Robots also spend the money. They eat the food too.  The robots also sit on the robo-computers and play robo-video-games.  They have also replaced all the politicians and clergy.  Now man can finally be -Nothing-.
Aaaand you have my vision of Utopia.
Probably wouldn't work, though: Most if not all people won't work on their own without an incentive, but you can't be truly happy without having some sort of productive occupation. Hooray for Marxist thoughts in the context of modern capitalism!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 24, 2013, 08:20:14 am
I feel that I can be truly happy if left to play the computer for hours and hours on end. I would much rather not work at all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 24, 2013, 08:28:21 am
I find that most people who talk about how naturally lazy they are and how much they'd love to just do nothing for the rest of their lives are just backlashing against the frustration of being so fucking busy all the time.  After a while, they'd get bored, some idea would capture their interest, and they'd actually do something.  I know at this point in my life, I feel like I need a vacation lasting months... but definitely not forever.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 24, 2013, 08:38:05 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 24, 2013, 08:28:21 am
I find that most people who talk about how naturally lazy they are and how much they'd love to just do nothing for the rest of their lives are just backlashing against the frustration of being so fucking busy all the time.  After a while, they'd get bored, some idea would capture their interest, and they'd actually do something.  I know at this point in my life, I feel like I need a vacation lasting months... but definitely not forever.

Knowing myself, I believe I could spend months and months doing no actual productive work and I would be extremely content.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 24, 2013, 09:02:46 am
Oh... so could I.  But it's because my life has been imbalanced towards constant business for so long.  You pull the rubber band so far in one direction, it will snap back that much harder when finally given the opportunity.  Doesn't mean I'd never be productive.  I want to do things with my life, but I also want balance.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on January 24, 2013, 09:10:17 am
I'd prefer to be like one of those Victorian-era Englilsh gentry that piddled around with half a dozen different scientific fields or travelled the world and wrote about it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on January 24, 2013, 09:19:32 am
Quote from: Owlbread on January 24, 2013, 08:38:05 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 24, 2013, 08:28:21 am
I find that most people who talk about how naturally lazy they are and how much they'd love to just do nothing for the rest of their lives are just backlashing against the frustration of being so fucking busy all the time.  After a while, they'd get bored, some idea would capture their interest, and they'd actually do something.  I know at this point in my life, I feel like I need a vacation lasting months... but definitely not forever.

Knowing myself, I believe I could spend months and months doing no actual productive work and I would be extremely content.

Knowing myself, I believe that I couldn't spend more than a week doing nothing. Given whole days to do stuff, I would start coding projects for fun. Besides that, not many people would want the subsistence level of survival. People The vast majority would be willing to work, at least a bit, for their luxuries and conveniences.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 24, 2013, 09:22:05 am
If you gave me 24 months to do my own thing, I'd have learned how to play the bagpipes, have biceps the size of watermelons, a beard down to my chest and possibly a novel written. There's a good chance I'd have completed many of my games several times over and explored the countryside.

I don't really consider those things work, though. I suppose they are in a way.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 24, 2013, 09:57:18 am
I have trouble going more than a day or two without doing something "productive". I enjoy projects. Not having to work, oddly enough, would probably not reduce the amount of time I spent working - it would just result in most of my work being done on the many individual projects I involve myself with.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 24, 2013, 10:28:57 am
Also, it is totally possible to redistribute wealth while keeping incentives to work. Just give everyone a flat amount of cash, in addition to anything they earn. Sure, you'd need to jack taxes up, but not by that much, since such an allocation would replace unemployment compensation, child support and most of welfare, including Social Security.

I'm pretty sure it would be easier politically than just increasing welfare for the now unemployed as well, since everybody would profit from it.


Iirc, some think-tank did the math, and scrapping all welfare would allow every belgian a 700 euros monthly allocation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 24, 2013, 10:34:07 am
The idea circulates in Germany under the name "Bürgergehalt" - citizen's wage. It's mostly seen as a leftist idea, but I guess it would allow us to cut down on the bureaucracy surrounding unemployment benefits.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on January 24, 2013, 11:31:10 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 24, 2013, 10:28:57 am
Also, it is totally possible to redistribute wealth while keeping incentives to work. Just give everyone a flat amount of cash, in addition to anything they earn. Sure, you'd need to jack taxes up, but not by that much, since such an allocation would replace unemployment compensation, child support and most of welfare, including Social Security.

I'm pretty sure it would be easier politically than just increasing welfare for the now unemployed as well, since everybody would profit from it.


Iirc, some think-tank did the math, and scrapping all welfare would allow every belgian a 700 euros monthly allocation.

I did the back of the napkin math for that using this (http://xkcd.com/980/) as a basic reference.
A 50% flat tax on personal income in the US could allow:
0% corporate taxes
fully paying the entire federal budget
A stipend equal to the poverty line income for every household in America.

Note that I am not really advocating a flat tax, but its the only that can be used with any accuracy without a much more detailed breakdown.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 24, 2013, 12:17:43 pm
Imo, flat taxes are perfectly fine when combined with a guaranteed minimum income, which is in and of itself highly progressive. It pretty effectively emulates a strongly progressive tax structure without any of the overhead and much simpler logistics.

I doubt government would ever want to give up its tax-based attempts at societal control though, or its loopholes for the wealthy.

It's also the position I've been pushing on the board for the last... 3, 4 years?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on January 24, 2013, 12:36:26 pm
Yeah, I've had that idea since my first civics class, back in... '06? Or so.

The idea that working is something I -could- do, to make money to better my life, rather than working is something I NEED to do, so that I don't starve or die from exposure, is very appealing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 24, 2013, 12:40:33 pm
Quote from: Descan on January 24, 2013, 12:36:26 pm
The idea that working is something I -could- do, to make money to better my life, rather than working is something I NEED to do, so that I don't starve or die from exposure, is very appealing.
Come to Europe - it's like that over here! Mostly, at least.
Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 24, 2013, 12:17:43 pm
Imo, flat taxes are perfectly fine when combined with a guaranteed minimum income, which is in and of itself highly progressive. It pretty effectively emulates a strongly progressive tax structure without any of the overhead and much simpler logistics.
I come from a family that is by no means poor, and I believe my parents are in the highest or second-highest tax bracket; they can very well afford to pay that much. Some friends of mine (who are also well above the poverty/government assistance line) couldn't, though.
Even with a minimum income, a flat tax rate would be a great injustice.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 24, 2013, 12:43:27 pm
Yeah... it's honestly kind of idyllic, to me. Give me a guaranteed source of food and shelter (internet would be nice, too) without the spectre of homelessness and starvation looming, and I'd spend somewhere between half and a third of my time volunteering, helping around the community. 'Cause I could afford to sink the time into it and wouldn't be distracted by trying to find a way to feed myself.

Totally love to be able to walk up to a research lab or something and just say, "Hey, fuck pay, there anything I can do to help out around here?" too. Stuff like that.

There anywhere out there that's, like, tried it, so far?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on January 24, 2013, 01:12:34 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 24, 2013, 12:40:33 pm
Quote from: Descan on January 24, 2013, 12:36:26 pm
The idea that working is something I -could- do, to make money to better my life, rather than working is something I NEED to do, so that I don't starve or die from exposure, is very appealing.
Come to Europe - it's like that over here! Mostly, at least.
Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 24, 2013, 12:17:43 pm
Imo, flat taxes are perfectly fine when combined with a guaranteed minimum income, which is in and of itself highly progressive. It pretty effectively emulates a strongly progressive tax structure without any of the overhead and much simpler logistics.
I come from a family that is by no means poor, and I believe my parents are in the highest or second-highest tax bracket; they can very well afford to pay that much. Some friends of mine (who are also well above the poverty/government assistance line) couldn't, though.
Even with a minimum income, a flat tax rate would be a great injustice.
It's wrong to automatically assume that the flat-tax rate in such a situation will be the current lower tax rates. That's the goal of the conservative version of the flat tax rate, but it's not the only way to implement it.

The sustainable idea is to set the flat tax rate at a fairly high rate (around what your parents are paying), and give equal payments to everyone. This emulates a lower tax-rate on the less affluent, and the existing high tax rate on the rich, but it does not require tax returns, asset testing, auditing. You could also bundle payments for family benefits into this system (which would increase to the adult level, and go into personal accounts when you hit 18).

e.g. the flat-tax rate could be 40% of income, but everyone gets, say, $10000 per annum, which effectively replaces welfare payments for the very poor, and tax returns/progressive tax breaks for the middle class. You can look at existing tax figures and work out what level to set everything at.

Effectively it would "end" welfare by paying the same cheque to everyone in the community, and since you can't be "kicked off" the base payments for working, there's no disincentive to take a job, or "bracket creep".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 24, 2013, 02:01:09 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 24, 2013, 12:40:33 pm
I come from a family that is by no means poor, and I believe my parents are in the highest or second-highest tax bracket; they can very well afford to pay that much. Some friends of mine (who are also well above the poverty/government assistance line) couldn't, though.
Even with a minimum income, a flat tax rate would be a great injustice.
I'm not sure you're following the idea. Assume guaranteed income is 15k. Assume your friends make 20k. This means that after this plan was instituted, their total income would be...

25k. A strict step up. That doesn't seem like much of an injustice to me, and I don't see how they'd be unable to afford it if they can afford to live now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 24, 2013, 02:10:08 pm
Problem for something like that is that you need to do it globally. After all, as soon as you institute it the majority of the rich/high income people are going to leave. This hollows out the Upper and higher middle class, and can eventually cause a collapse of the entire social service.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on January 24, 2013, 02:14:17 pm
You're missing the point that the tax burden on those rich people hasn't increased at all under this proposal. What it does, is to massively reduce government overheads, whilst ensuring nobody is broke.

say the top tax rate is 40% now. The rich aren't running away yet, right? The flat tax would be 40%, and everyone, including the rich get their $15,000. Why would they run away when there's no actual increase in the taxes for the rich? If they're running away from 40% taxes, then they already left, so that point is moot.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 24, 2013, 02:16:39 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 24, 2013, 02:01:09 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 24, 2013, 12:40:33 pm
I come from a family that is by no means poor, and I believe my parents are in the highest or second-highest tax bracket; they can very well afford to pay that much. Some friends of mine (who are also well above the poverty/government assistance line) couldn't, though.
Even with a minimum income, a flat tax rate would be a great injustice.
I'm not sure you're following the idea. Assume guaranteed income is 15k. Assume your friends make 20k. This means that after this plan was instituted, their total income would be...

25k. A strict step up. That doesn't seem like much of an injustice to me, and I don't see how they'd be unable to afford it if they can afford to live now.
My point is that there'll be people stuck in the middle; midle-middle class people like that friend of mine, not poor, not rich.
Does anyone have an estimate of how much the bureaucracy for (simple) progressive taxation costs as opposed to that needed for a flat tax?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 24, 2013, 02:31:17 pm
Quote from: Reelya on January 24, 2013, 02:14:17 pm
You're missing the point that the tax burden on those rich people hasn't increased at all under this proposal. What it does, is to massively reduce government overheads, whilst ensuring nobody is broke.

say the top tax rate is 40% now. The rich aren't running away yet, right? The flat tax would be 40%, and everyone, including the rich get their $15,000. Why would they run away when there's no actual increase in the taxes for the rich?
You're not going to make it with 40% though. Also, a flat tax vs a bracket tax to 40% is still a serious difference, as it's 40% of the whole stack rather than 40% of the entirity.

In order to ensure living for everyone, you will need to pay everyone minimum wage, right? However, in many countries, minimum wage is defined as something like 75% of average wages. Meaning that you'll have to increase taxes to at least 75% to have the system pay for itself.

((Btw, realistic number is about 20k per year per person, minimum wage. At least for Belgium, that is. ))
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on January 24, 2013, 02:34:46 pm
I don't think that 75% thing makes mathematical sense, though. You want 75% of the base wage, not 75% of the average income. No capitalist country has a minumum wage of 75% of average income :P

The idea is that if you sit on your ass rather than working, the base payment would replace the welfare system, and if you work it replaces progressive taxation. So there's no need to have it at 75% of average wage, or even 75 of median wage. It's not intended to even replace "minimum wage", which is the amount you would get for working 40 hours.

how much does welfare pay for a single person in Belgium? That would be a good starting point.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on January 24, 2013, 02:36:17 pm
Quote from: Frumple on January 24, 2013, 12:43:27 pm
Totally love to be able to walk up to a research lab or something and just say, "Hey, fuck pay, there anything I can do to help out around here?"
I picture this as the Aperture Science model of scientific research.

"Umm...sure! Here, drink this and tell me if you feel anything weird. For science. Oh, and before you drink it, could you go stand over behind that lead shield? It's for safety. Oh, and probably your safety too."

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 24, 2013, 02:41:41 pm
Quote from: Reelya on January 24, 2013, 02:34:46 pm
I don't think that 75% thing makes mathematical sense, though. You want 75% of the base wage, not 75% of the average income. No capitalist country has a minumum wage of 75% of average income :P
Yeah sorry, made a large miscalculation there. Was about 50-60%. Still, it's far larger than your 40%, and would count for your entire income, rather than a select part.

Besides, it's not exactly fair to use minimum wage and scrap all other welfare, because it's by far not enough to cover certain health costs and such without governement interference.
In the end, by the very design of your system it will end up with both the very poor* and the rich falling out of the boat in favour of the lower-middle class.

*Read that as people that would be dependent on wealthfare for more than their minimum loan, like chronical sic and such

Edit: Your minimum stuff should be enough to life from, hence, more or like equal to minimum wage. Right? You could further lower it to the minimum allowance ensured by wealthfare, but then you're really harming the poor, rather than aiding them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on January 24, 2013, 02:54:24 pm
Why would the rich or the poor "fall out of the boat"?

The top tax rate would remain the same, and the living allowance would replace welfare payments. Those two groups would be almost entirely unaffected, by the very design of the system.

If the living allowance is equal to current welfare, and the working poor are also entitle to it, that means the currently unemployed are no worse off, and it's NO MORE burden on the state than the current arrangement - disproving that taxes would have to massively rise.

Since everyone would be eligible, the state wouldn't have to investigate welfare recipients to check they aren't working - it's these regulatory system that would be obsolete where the true savings occur.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 24, 2013, 02:59:14 pm
Quote from: Reelya on January 24, 2013, 02:54:24 pm
Why would the rich or the poor "fall out of the boat"?

The top tax rate would remain the same, and the living allowance would replace welfare payments. Those two groups would be almost entirely unaffected, by the very design of the system.

Since everyone's arguments against the proposal are contradictory, I'll wait until you guys have done some actual maths.
I did some actual calculations. You just rejected them for no reason.

Let's just use logic.

In order to completely replace welfare, the allowance you get would need to be as high as the amount of money the poorest person gets, you said so yourself. You simply can't pay that to everyone without exorbitant taxes. Point this, that in any case somebody is going to have to pay. You can't just simply scale up the aid +-15% of the population* recieves to everyone and expect to finance all that with just increased bureaucratic efficiency. The governement isn't doing that bad.

*People below poverty line
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 24, 2013, 03:04:57 pm
Working is fucking expensive. If you don't have to work to get your money, you can get by with a lot less of it. working a job costs the average lower-income person several hundred dollars a month, which amounts to several thousand a year. Even beyond that, a base income gives a lot more flexibility to spend that money in more efficient ways.

Our current mode of living is remarkably inefficient, and by necessity - the realities of the modern work environment require that inefficiency in order to have even the possibility of income. Without that pressure, costs would be much lower.

As for medical costs, a system like this would obviously work much better with some sort of nationalized healthcare.

Quote from: Helgoland on January 24, 2013, 02:16:39 pm
My point is that there'll be people stuck in the middle; midle-middle class people like that friend of mine, not poor, not rich.
I still don't understand this. Who? How? Even if the middle middle class ends up taking a slight paycut, the safety net and greatly increased mobility it provides should work rather effectively to assist them in balancing that out.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DrPoo on January 24, 2013, 04:36:59 pm
I argue against affimative action for people who like red sausages.
Not really.

Actually i am wondering. Will there ever be a perfect system?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 24, 2013, 04:48:09 pm
Yes, but then someone will fuck it up.

GG, why not simply have a progressive tax on all income and a fixed citizen's income for everyone provided by the state that covers basic expenses? The real bureaucratic costs don't occur in determining who has to pay how much, as far as I know.

I'm all for radical tax reform, though: Why do we even have stuff like deductions?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on January 24, 2013, 04:48:43 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 24, 2013, 04:48:09 pm
Yes, but then someone will fuck it up.
Not if there's nobody around to fuck it up.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 24, 2013, 04:50:08 pm
Quote from: Darvi on January 24, 2013, 04:48:43 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 24, 2013, 04:48:09 pm
Yes, but then someone will fuck it up.
Not if there's nobody around to fuck it up.
As I have recently posted elsewhere:
Relevant? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F21aifX0lZY)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on January 24, 2013, 04:51:25 pm
... I'll take the fifth.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on January 24, 2013, 05:09:26 pm
Quote from: Darvi on January 24, 2013, 04:51:25 pm
... I'll take the fifth.

I'll take the 4th
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 24, 2013, 07:53:20 pm
Fuck you.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 25, 2013, 07:00:19 am
Touche.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 25, 2013, 07:12:50 am
Quote from: Novel on January 25, 2013, 07:00:19 am
Touche.
[shameless promotion]
Hehe (http://www.dead-philosophers.com/?p=70)
[/shameless promotion]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nivim on January 28, 2013, 09:49:57 am
When it comes to all the major employment, economy, and pointlessly concentrated wealth problems, has anyone thought about sitting down and thinking about them for at least five minutes? Not solutions; the problems, and by a clock, natch.

Too many post here in the last 30 pages seem hasty and reactionary.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on January 28, 2013, 04:34:16 pm
http://cnnradio.cnn.com/2013/01/28/nyc-budget-cuts-cause-homeless-crisis/?hpt=hp_t4
Quote
(CNN) – New York City is experiencing its largest wave of homelessness since the Great Depression.

The spike started following cuts to a government rent subsidy program. Ironically, the impact of having to provide shelter to more than 20,000 homeless children each night is costing the city more money than the cost of the subsidies.

[3:37] “It costs $36,000 a year to shelter a homeless family in New York City. In comparison, a rental voucher is $10,000 a year. So it’s more than three times more expensive to have that family in shelter than it is to give that family permanent housing,” said Patrick Markee, a policy analyst at the non-profit Coalition for the Homeless.


Esther Fuchs teaches Public Policy and Political Science at Columbia University. She says it’s a prime example of how seeking short term solutions to budget problems can result in more tax dollars being spent down the road.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on January 29, 2013, 12:37:53 am
Man, the comments on that story ;_;, knee-jerk anti-poor reaction, not addressing the issue. Apparently providing homeless shelters is an example of liberal madness.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 29, 2013, 04:07:39 am
This hatred of the poor/sympathy for the rich thing is pretty insane, especially since many of the people I've witnessed first-hand expressing those sentiments are lower class themselves.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on January 29, 2013, 10:14:28 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 29, 2013, 04:07:39 am
This hatred of the poor/sympathy for the rich thing is pretty insane, especially since many of the people I've witnessed first-hand expressing those sentiments are lower class themselves.
You know how 80% of people are in the top 50% of drivers?

Most poor people don't consider themselves that poor. And/or if they do, it's only because the gubmint done took their money to pay for all those lazy poor people.

It's also a lingering cultural effect of the Calvinist notion of preterition: if you're a sinful, unclean person, God already knows you're going to burn in Hell from before you're even born, and therefore He's not going to see fit to give you any rewards -- you will be born poor and die poor. Likewise, those who are predestined for salvation will be showered with bounty. This then morphed into the idea that you could discern what someone's ultimate fate would be by observing what happened to them. If they're unfortunate and poor, they were obviously on God's naughty list. If they were fortunate and wealthy, they were obviously blessed by God and destined for Heaven. Poor people, evil. Rich people, good.

That kind of thinking came over with the Pilgrims, submerged for a while in the face of the "rags-to-riches" American Dream, and now has resurfaced in a new form in the "Prosperity Gospel" -- the idea that righteousness = wealth, and conversely wealth = righteousness.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 29, 2013, 11:36:28 am
Quote from: RedKing on January 29, 2013, 10:14:28 am
It's also a lingering cultural effect of the Calvinist notion of preterition: if you're a sinful, unclean person, God already knows you're going to burn in Hell from before you're even born, and therefore He's not going to see fit to give you any rewards -- you will be born poor and die poor. Likewise, those who are predestined for salvation will be showered with bounty. This then morphed into the idea that you could discern what someone's ultimate fate would be by observing what happened to them. If they're unfortunate and poor, they were obviously on God's naughty list. If they were fortunate and wealthy, they were obviously blessed by God and destined for Heaven. Poor people, evil. Rich people, good.

That kind of thinking came over with the Pilgrims, submerged for a while in the face of the "rags-to-riches" American Dream, and now has resurfaced in a new form in the "Prosperity Gospel" -- the idea that righteousness = wealth, and conversely wealth = righteousness.

I'd actually never heard of this style of thinking before.  It explains a lot, but it's hard for me to imagine anyway actually thinking that way.  I can see it being a subconscious notion that drives class prejudice, but not someone consciously thinking "They never had a chance, so they must not have deserved a chance."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on January 29, 2013, 11:51:05 am
It's called the Just World fallacy, which can be summed up as "If you're doing well you must have done good and if you're doing poorly you must have done something bad". It's about as one dimensional a view as "the rich are clearly all evil and the poor are all poor because of evil rich people".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on January 29, 2013, 12:34:20 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 29, 2013, 11:36:28 am
Quote from: RedKing on January 29, 2013, 10:14:28 am
It's also a lingering cultural effect of the Calvinist notion of preterition: if you're a sinful, unclean person, God already knows you're going to burn in Hell from before you're even born, and therefore He's not going to see fit to give you any rewards -- you will be born poor and die poor. Likewise, those who are predestined for salvation will be showered with bounty. This then morphed into the idea that you could discern what someone's ultimate fate would be by observing what happened to them. If they're unfortunate and poor, they were obviously on God's naughty list. If they were fortunate and wealthy, they were obviously blessed by God and destined for Heaven. Poor people, evil. Rich people, good.

That kind of thinking came over with the Pilgrims, submerged for a while in the face of the "rags-to-riches" American Dream, and now has resurfaced in a new form in the "Prosperity Gospel" -- the idea that righteousness = wealth, and conversely wealth = righteousness.

I'd actually never heard of this style of thinking before.  It explains a lot, but it's hard for me to imagine anyway actually thinking that way.  I can see it being a subconscious notion that drives class prejudice, but not someone consciously thinking "They never had a chance, so they must not have deserved a chance."
It was fairly popular in America up until the Revolution. It continued in certain religious traditions in the US (notably groups like the Dutch Reformed Church and some strains of Baptist), but was mostly discarded by Americans in favor of more....shall we say, democratic denominations that rejected predestination and allowed one to "earn" salvation through faith and/or good works. It resurfaced to a degree in the 1950's tent revivals, but really came back with a vengeance in the 1980's with televangelism. Now it's melded with some odd syncretic stuff into the Prosperity Gospel, which honestly is more like serious old-school theism: Praise God, and God will bless your crops/factory/salary/etc and rain down curses on your enemies. Oh, and you need the shaman high priest well-dressed man with the perfectly coiffed hair and a series of best-selling books to act as your intercessor with the Divine.

Quote from: GreatJustice on January 29, 2013, 11:51:05 am
It's called the Just World fallacy, which can be summed up as "If you're doing well you must have done good and if you're doing poorly you must have done something bad". It's about as one dimensional a view as "the rich are clearly all evil and the poor are all poor because of evil rich people".
Just because it's simplistic and fallacious doesn't mean that it doesn't have quite a following. Just like the latter statement you offered.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on January 29, 2013, 01:08:14 pm
I've met very, very few people who really held either view, and not much evidence that either is especially commonly held. Anecdotally speaking, I knew one person like that who's family was from Eastern Europe, and they particularly disliked welfare because it annoyed them that working hard on their end didn't give them significantly better results than doing nothing, though that's not quite the JWF.

There's also quite a bit more to it than just religion. For example, the Objectivists of the 1960s and 70s were atheistic, tended towards being immigrants, and held views pretty close to the JWF, so clearly they weren't influenced by Calvinism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on January 29, 2013, 01:14:28 pm
I'm not saying you can't arrive at the same thought without religion, just that there are schools of religious thought that encourage that way of thinking. And that one of those schools (English Puritanism) was kind of influential in shaping "American values".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on January 29, 2013, 01:17:03 pm
Quote from: RedKing on January 29, 2013, 01:14:28 pm
I'm not saying you can't arrive at the same thought without religion, just that there are schools of religious thought that encourage that way of thinking. And that one of those schools (English Puritanism) was kind of influential in shaping "American values".

Okay, I'd agree with you there then.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on January 29, 2013, 03:01:49 pm
You know, GreatJustice, for someone who screams "Strawman!" every time someone disagrees with you, you sure love to utilize that particular fallacy to help your own arguments.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 29, 2013, 08:12:46 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on January 29, 2013, 11:51:05 am
It's called the Just World fallacy, which can be summed up as "If you're doing well you must have done good and if you're doing poorly you must have done something bad".

Yeah, I'm well aware of this one, but I'd never heard of it being taken as far as "If you're doing poorly, it must have been determined before you were even born didn't deserve any better, so that's why you were never given the chance."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 29, 2013, 08:18:52 pm
That's pretty much Calvinist thought in a nutshell. Even further is Hypercalvinism, which argues that god intentionally creates evil people to torment them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 29, 2013, 08:34:05 pm
Now what I really don't understand is how anybody can conclude that such an entity is worthy of their support  ::)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 29, 2013, 08:36:53 pm
Well, Calvin himself started out with the ever popular "believe what I say or burn as a heretic" method of member gathering. These days it is inertia and childhood indoctrination.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 30, 2013, 04:32:39 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 29, 2013, 04:07:39 am
This hatred of the poor/sympathy for the rich thing is pretty insane, especially since many of the people I've witnessed first-hand expressing those sentiments are lower class themselves.

Later, I'll find a quote, but for now, I'll leave it at crab bucket. Unseen Academicals had that down perfectly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on January 30, 2013, 07:52:55 am
Quote from: Jervill on January 29, 2013, 03:01:49 pm
You know, GreatJustice, for someone who screams "Strawman!" every time someone disagrees with you, you sure love to utilize that particular fallacy to help your own arguments.

That wasn't an argument, though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on January 30, 2013, 09:50:42 am
For some reason the Just World fallacy is really common where I live. Must be because of how Asians are prone to believe in "what goes around comes around", though.

I believed in this myself until one day I realized that no good deed goes unpunished.

Also, on an unrelated note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott

Everyone should be loving her right now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 30, 2013, 10:06:20 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 29, 2013, 08:34:05 pm
Now what I really don't understand is how anybody can conclude that such an entity is worthy of their support  ::)
It's easy to believe in such an entity if you you're on top of the ladder, since it gives you a good reason not to help the poor.

It even works for the poor if you mingle it with the American dream a bit. (God is testing me now, but soon the test will be over and I'll be rich, hence, no rich taxing to aid poor).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on January 30, 2013, 02:58:35 pm
Quote from: justinlee999 on January 30, 2013, 09:50:42 am
Also, on an unrelated note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott

Everyone should be loving her right now.
It's really too bad that doing that now would get you sued so, so fast.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 30, 2013, 03:10:47 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on January 30, 2013, 02:58:35 pm
Quote from: justinlee999 on January 30, 2013, 09:50:42 am
Also, on an unrelated note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott

Everyone should be loving her right now.
It's really too bad that doing that now would get you sued so, so fast.
Uh, no, that's a pretty good thing. There are other ways to teach children that bigotry is bad other than subjecting them to it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 30, 2013, 04:43:57 pm
Sure, you can teach them sympathy, if they're open to it. But you can't teach them understanding.

I, for one, think understanding is valuable. Being hurt, esp. in ways that are temporary (and the reconciliation that often seems to come at the end of the exercise seems indicative of that) is how we grow as people.

As they say, there's no substitute for experience. A brief dip won't leave you much worse for wear, and while it won't sink in the magnitude by itself, it can at least help you understand the concept. Without that core to work from, it's hard to academically arrive at the goal of learning, that being true understanding.

You might be able to play on already existing injuries the children have suffered to bring the point home, of course, but I feel like that would be far more dangerous than a two-day experiment with a prescribed end and a culture that will quickly erase the damage done by refusing to reinforce the division.

I don't think the goal was to teach "bigotry is bad", but rather to teach "this is what bigotry is like".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 30, 2013, 04:51:49 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 30, 2013, 03:10:47 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on January 30, 2013, 02:58:35 pm
Quote from: justinlee999 on January 30, 2013, 09:50:42 am
Also, on an unrelated note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott

Everyone should be loving her right now.
It's really too bad that doing that now would get you sued so, so fast.
Uh, no, that's a pretty good thing. There are other ways to teach children that bigotry is bad other than subjecting them to it.
Yeah, there're quite a few of these social experiments that went wrong, and [almost] ended up reinforcing the system.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 30, 2013, 05:11:53 pm
Examples of "these types" of experiment going wrong and reinforcing the system?

/me is legitimately interested in such stories.

(but don't even think about bringing up the Milligram experiments, which were absolutely nothing like this in any meaningful way as they weren't even in the same CLASS, being research experiments rather than educational ones, and ALSO weren't really any thing like what pop culture describes)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on January 30, 2013, 07:00:55 pm
I'd also like to see examples of these sorts of experiments going out of control.

The point of the blue eye/brown eye experiment was to illustrate how arbitrary discrimination based on some superficial characteristic was, and to give a first-hand experience of being on the receiving end of that discrimination. The experiment was actually a great way to enlighten the subjects to how things work in reality, with zero chance of going "out of control" because eye-color based discrimination isn't a real-world thing it had no chance of spreading. And it definitely didn't "popularize" discrimination.

If you read the description of the original experiment, afterwards the teacher switched the dominance around, and allowed the brown-eyes to "get their own back", but their "revenge" was a lot less intense than the original blue-eyes discrimination. This indicates to me that the experiment was successful in building empathy for those discriminated against.

===

If you want to talk about experiments that went out of control, I would argue that the 2 best candidates were the Third Wave and Stanford Prison experiment. But I'd strongly contend that neither of these "reinforced the system". The subjects in the Stanford Prison Experiment were not actual guards or prisoners, so whatever experiences they had couldn't possibly reinforce anything.

I'm also not buying that the Third Wave experiment lead to an increase in Hilter-Youth-style organizations in the USA. The teacher created a cult of personality around himself as an authoritarian figure with strong group discipline, this "movement" couldn't possibly survive "in the wild" and you can get that any participants came out of it more skeptical than before.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 30, 2013, 07:11:35 pm
We had the eye color thing in my elementary school for a day. Not quite to that extent, though. Nobody got sued.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on January 30, 2013, 08:59:27 pm
I am of the opnion people tend to be massive assholes unless they can associate with the problem.Hence, gay marriage spread to people often when they know a gay individual, and this is effective.
 
I think. I have no clue what anyone is talking about, but I have a clue. This was a demonstration of how people with only a clue can seem to legitamately contribute to the conversation. Although I know about the stamford prison experiment.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on January 31, 2013, 05:55:38 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 30, 2013, 05:11:53 pm
Examples of "these types" of experiment going wrong and reinforcing the system?
Quote from: Reelya on January 30, 2013, 07:00:55 pm
I'd also like to see examples of these sorts of experiments going out of control.
[...]
If you want to talk about experiments that went out of control, I would argue that the 2 best candidates were the Third Wave and Stanford Prison experiment. But I'd strongly contend that neither of these "reinforced the system". The subjects in the Stanford Prison Experiment were not actual guards or prisoners, so whatever experiences they had couldn't possibly reinforce anything.

It is by definition that those experiments can't "survive in the wild". An experiment is a methodical controlled procedure. If it gets out of control the setting either collapses or becomes part of society, both of which end it as an experiment. Now if you want an example of the latter I'd argue that IQ-Tests are such a thing. They are known to be culturally biased but are used to create a kind of intellectual hierarchy. It's a vicious circle as well. If you are black/other minority you are likely to score lower on an IQ-Test and in consequence are less supported in your intellectual growth. And if you are arguing that this is not because the tests themselves are biased but society is and creates and environment in which minorities score lower on perfectly fine tests even the American Psychological Association stated that the tests they use contain cultural influence and are not a pure measurement of cognitive ability.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on January 31, 2013, 09:58:52 am
Quote from: lorb on January 31, 2013, 05:55:38 am
It is by definition that those experiments can't "survive in the wild". An experiment is a methodical controlled procedure. If it gets out of control the setting either collapses or becomes part of society, both of which end it as an experiment.
What? That's a weird argument. If it "becomes part of society" then it logically is "surviving in the wild". "The wild" is the area outside the experiment. I was clearly talking about the semantic content of the experiment, not the experimental framework itself magically spreading. If the blue eye/brown eye thing had persisted afterwards as a cultural artifact, that's the type of thing I meant as "surviving in the wild". I'm honestly amazed that this is something needing clarification.

Now, can you answer the actual question and give examples where that's happened - it "becomes part of society" as you phrased it AKA "surviving in the wild" the way I phrased it.

Quote from: lorb on January 31, 2013, 05:55:38 am
And if you are arguing that this is not because the tests themselves are biased

Woah, woah! nobodies arguing that! you're heading straight into pure strawman territory when you create your own scenario and then say "if you are arguing XYZ" without giving anyone a chance to even comment on the topic you raised in that post. This also seems unnecessarily argumentative in tone, since nobody was discussing IQ tests at all.

I'd argue that IQ tests don't construe sociological experiments in the same sense as Milligram, Stanford prison experiment, the blue eye/brown eye thing, and so forth.  IQ testing has more in common with standardized school testing than with any sort of sociological experiment. You might as well talk about the biasing effect of the S.A.T tests on minority students (the issues are the same as with I.Q. tests, and S.A.T's are widely used whilst I.Q tests are not widely used anymore). I can make the exact same argument you made for IQ tests related to those.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on January 31, 2013, 11:12:57 am
Quote from: Reelya on January 31, 2013, 09:58:52 am
Quote from: lorb on January 31, 2013, 05:55:38 am
It is by definition that those experiments can't "survive in the wild". An experiment is a methodical controlled procedure. If it gets out of control the setting either collapses or becomes part of society, both of which end it as an experiment.
What? That's a weird argument. If it "becomes part of society" then it logically is "surviving in the wild". "The wild" is the area outside the experiment. I was clearly talking about the semantic content of the experiment, not the experimental framework itself magically spreading. If the blue eye/brown eye thing had persisted afterwards as a cultural artifact, that's the type of thing I meant as "surviving in the wild". I'm honestly amazed that this is something needing clarification.

Now, can you answer the actual question and give examples where that's happened - it "becomes part of society" as you phrased it AKA "surviving in the wild" the way I phrased it.

Sorry. I did not express myself well enough. You are correct: "becomes part of society" and "surviving in the wild" are in my eyes the same thing, but if that happens it ceases to be an experiment, not just on the semantic level, but people will stop to recognize it as an experiment. If the blue-eyes thing had spread you wouldn't be thinking about it in terms of an experiment gone wild but as just something that happens to exist as it is.

Quote from: Reelya on January 31, 2013, 09:58:52 am
Quote from: lorb on January 31, 2013, 05:55:38 am
And if you are arguing that this is not because the tests themselves are biased

Woah, woah! nobodies arguing that! you're heading straight into pure strawman territory when you create your own scenario and then say "if you are arguing XYZ" without giving anyone a chance to even comment on the topic you raised in that post. This also seems unnecessarily argumentative in tone, since nobody was discussing IQ tests at all.


Sorry. It's just not the first time I am having this discussion (work related) and people _always_ argue that. In part because it actually is true. It just does not mean that the tests are culture-free.

Quote from: Reelya on January 31, 2013, 09:58:52 am
I'd argue that IQ tests don't construe sociological experiments in the same sense as Milligram, Stanford prison experiment, the blue eye/brown eye thing, and so forth.  IQ testing has more in common with standardized school testing than with any sort of sociological experiment. You might as well talk about the biasing effect of the S.A.T tests on minority students (the issues are the same as with I.Q. tests, and S.A.T's are widely used whilst I.Q tests are not widely used anymore). I can make the exact same argument you made for IQ tests related to those.

Yes. You are correct. IQ tests don't construe sociological experiments in the same sense as Milligram etc. do. My point is that any such experiment that "survives in the world" stops to be discernible as such, so there are none we can point a finger at, but there are things that might be thought of as such experiments if they had no foothold in society, like standardised testing. If standardised testing did not exist it would be very experimental to do such a thing in a school/a class and afterwards continue in the manner that jane elliot did with the kids segregating the high scoring ones from the others and so on, which is what actually happens ... but because it happens on a society wide scale we don't see it as an experiment.

Again, I am sorry if I expressed my thoughts badly. I am after all not a native speaker to english. The basic concept underlying my argument is explained way better than I can here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructivism)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 31, 2013, 11:38:58 am
Anyways, I wanted an example from the same class of experiment. i.e. experiments with the goal of providing understanding and education to the participants.

IQ tests certainly don't qualify, if they ever could have been considered experiments at all. And you're surviving in the wild interpretation thing is just really weird and pointless sounding, so... yeah. It's perfectly possible for the effects of an experiment to continue on with it being abundantly clear to everyone that there's some fucked up shit right here as the result of that damned experiment, including the participants.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on January 31, 2013, 11:48:59 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 31, 2013, 11:38:58 am
It's perfectly possible for the effects of an experiment to continue on with it being abundantly clear to everyone that there's some fucked up shit right here as the result of that damned experiment, including the participants.

Yes? Example?

edit: Obviously cases like the one of Tony Lamadrid are going to fit that description, but I think we are looking for cases where the effects of the experiment had an impact on people not directly involved?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 31, 2013, 12:19:07 pm
No, directly involved would be fine. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what people were asking for.

Anyways, since I wanted in class examples, but don't have any, the most I can provide is out-of-class examples. Medical studies, obviously - experimental psychological treatments like, say, electroshock, can have all sorts of negative long-term consequences.

The La Trobe replication of the Milligram Shock Experiments ended... quite poorly, for many of the participants. Milligram's volunteers did pretty well, but the La Trobe replication sort of forget to do that part where you tell the person after the experiment that they didn't really kill a guy. It... did not end well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 31, 2013, 12:32:26 pm
Electroshock's experimental?

Anyways, I was going to argue that any sort of activity, experimental or not, can have unforeseen consequences. Even when you do your best to take precautions. Yet sometimes nonetheless it turns out that the antiemetic drug you were testing turns out to make children be born with missing limbs, or maybe the technical staff at your brand new nuclear plant decides to ignore the operational manual you provided and manage to circumveit every safety measure you installed and blow it up. The takehome message is that sometimes shit happens, and that you should try to prevent it insofar as it's possible, but not to the extent to walk out of your home covered in bubblewrap.


What I find disturbing about these "psychosocial experiments" is that they either walk the line of informed consent, when they don't ignore it altogether.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 31, 2013, 12:35:11 pm
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on January 31, 2013, 12:32:26 pm
Electroshock's experimental?
Well obviously not so much NOW, but it was! I mean it's still bad now, but I am pretty sure it used to be even worse.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on January 31, 2013, 01:39:15 pm
Apparently corporations want to control the world's water? (http://www.alternet.org/water/corporate-land-grabs-reveal-hidden-agenda-controlling-water?akid=9993.82752.1pTfPE&rd=1&src=newsletter786843&t=18)  And even get into recursive activities where they pollute the oceans then get paid to clean it up again?  Dunno how true that's supposed to be, but sharing anyway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 01, 2013, 02:18:58 am
If there were some way to limit access to air or sunlight, someone would do it.  I know there have been cases in South America where corporations have claimed ownership of the water supply that local villages depend on to survive, and demanded people pay for the right to walk down to the bank of a river for a drink.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 01, 2013, 03:59:39 pm
Welcome to Black History Month, also known as White People Ask About White History Month Month (http://www.mediaite.com/online/conservative-former-snl-star-victoria-jackson-deletes-white-history-month-article/).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 01, 2013, 04:02:40 pm
Hurray! Though it should only be a stopgap, not a solution.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on February 01, 2013, 11:13:45 pm
I would put this in the American Politics Thread, but it's currently closed.

Rethinking Red states and Blue states (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/01/rethinking-red-states-and-blue-states-in-one-heat-map/).

Based on polling of the states on how many self identify as "Liberal", "Moderate", and "Conservative" mapped by state.  It's interesting, if not all that surprising overall.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on February 02, 2013, 03:03:31 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on February 01, 2013, 03:59:39 pm
Welcome to Black History Month, also known as White People Ask About White History Month Month (http://www.mediaite.com/online/conservative-former-snl-star-victoria-jackson-deletes-white-history-month-article/).
Why is there no White History Month?  Because we have 11 months of White History Months and have to remind ourselves at least once a year that people who are slightly different from the White Aged Bald Conservative Religious Males have been useful now and then.

i'm being sarcastic or something i dunno don't hurt me
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on February 02, 2013, 05:49:29 am
Quote from: Euld on February 02, 2013, 03:03:31 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on February 01, 2013, 03:59:39 pm
Welcome to Black History Month, also known as White People Ask About White History Month Month (http://www.mediaite.com/online/conservative-former-snl-star-victoria-jackson-deletes-white-history-month-article/).
Why is there no White History Month?  Because we have 11 months of White History Months and have to remind ourselves at least once a year that people who are slightly different from the White Aged Bald Straight Conservative Religious Country-Music-Loving Males have been useful now and then.
FTFY
Quote
i'm being sarcastic or something i dunno don't hurt me
*Beats Euld for under-use of adjectives*
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 02, 2013, 05:53:01 am
Hey now, that sort of person can be many things, but it's a little harsh to say that all of them like country music.  :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: fqllve on February 02, 2013, 05:54:15 am
I think the idea you can study European history (aka white history) as separate from African history, American history, and Asian history is pretty ridiculous in the first place.

It's obvious why we need a Black History month, but I think a better solution would be to further integrate it into the teaching of history throughout the rest of the year. Black History Month kind of gives people an excuse not to do that, which is disappointing, because it should be a means through which that's accomplished.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on February 02, 2013, 08:42:21 am
This takes "say the opposite of what the opposing party says" to a whole new level. (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/339003/president-obama-commemorates-senseless-holocaust-eliana-johnson)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on February 02, 2013, 08:56:29 am
The comments on the National Review article are priceless, actually xD They're really ripping into the article.

Apparently it's very similar to something that other commie Ronald Reagan said about the holocaust:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/01/1183861/-National-Review-outraged-that-Obama-called-Holocaust-senseless-violence
Quote
"Those who perished as a result of Nazi terror, millions of individual men and women and children whose lives were taken so senselessly, must never be forgotten." —Ronald Reagan, February 2, 1983
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 02, 2013, 03:12:29 pm
Quote from: justinlee999 on February 02, 2013, 08:42:21 am
This takes "say the opposite of what the opposing party says" to a whole new level. (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/339003/president-obama-commemorates-senseless-holocaust-eliana-johnson)

God, that takes meaningless partisan bullshit to a new level. It's admirable, honestly. If I was talking just to be an argumentative prick and to hear myself speak, I wish I could be that inventive.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 02, 2013, 04:47:42 pm
It's a willful misinterpretation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ancre on February 03, 2013, 04:45:42 am
In France, gay marriage is slowly being approved. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21305150)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on February 03, 2013, 05:00:49 am
Quote
In September last year, Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Lyon, argued that plans to redefine the concept of marriage would open the door to incest and polygamy.
o_O  Also, surprised France didn't have gay marriage sooner?  Always thought France was a big fan of that sort of thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ancre on February 03, 2013, 05:10:18 am
France's current president is progressive (on the "left" side of politics). Sarkozy and Chirac, the two presidents before him, were conservatives. We just had the PACS, a civil union that is not marriage and that homosexual people can do.

And yeah, the opposition's arguments are a bit crazy sometimes. There was a huge manifestation against gay marriage not long ago, organized mainly by conservative catholics.

It's interesting to see that young people are overwhelmingly for gay marriage in France, and that this is much less true for their parents and grandparents. There's a generation change, which may also explain why that law wasn't done earlier. (Source, in French) (http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/63-francais-favorables-au-mariage-homosexuel-49-adoption-legere-remontee-opinion-sujet-jerome-fourquet-618315.html?page=0,2)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: justinlee999 on February 03, 2013, 07:11:01 am
Also there is a huge disparity in religiousness between the young and the old there, with an overwhelming majority of young French having no religion.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 03, 2013, 07:38:54 am
That is trend that is pretty consistent over the whole of western Europe.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 03, 2013, 08:20:53 am
With healthcare advances, we're going to have to put up with it for far too long as well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 03, 2013, 08:34:22 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on February 03, 2013, 07:38:54 am
That is trend that is pretty consistent over the whole of western Europe.

It is very evident in Scotland. When I was growing up all the people in their 50s-60s were going to church, even younger people as a matter of course. I even went to church as a little boy and my family wasn't particularly religious. I was baptised because that's just what people did. Primary schools were still tied to churches fairly closely. As time went on though and I got older I saw the number of people in the churches dwindling, ageing. They became meeting places for older people and places to go at Christmas time, even then only certain people would bother going.

Now in 2013 I look at the congregations that are almost unrecognisable and think on how important the kirk was to our identity after the act of union took our statehood away; religious activism and radicalism was what played a huge part in defining us in the late 1600s and throughout the centuries thereafter. The dawn of Calvinism also changed our Highland and Lowland societies very radically, even to the point that it's hard to imagine a Scotland without that in its history. Calvinism is about as important to the history of Scotland as Nazism to Germany or Communism to Russia. As we are losing what, in the words of a Gaelic poet, took the fire from our floors and put the fire in our hearts I wonder what will take its place. What will define our new identity for this millennium?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on February 03, 2013, 09:21:03 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on February 03, 2013, 07:38:54 am
That is trend that is pretty consistent over the whole of western Europe.

Among european nations france has a particularly strong separation of church and state which helps the trend. (See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9))
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 03, 2013, 09:28:50 am
Quote from: lorb on February 03, 2013, 09:21:03 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on February 03, 2013, 07:38:54 am
That is trend that is pretty consistent over the whole of western Europe.

Among european nations france has a particularly strong separation of church and state which helps the trend. (See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9))

Although in the UK our head of state is also the head of the church of England. Not the head of the church of Scotland but down south they have a stronger link. A number of Bishops also sit in the house of lords and play a role in the governance of the country.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 03, 2013, 01:37:44 pm
Quote from: Ancre on February 03, 2013, 04:45:42 am
In France, gay marriage is slowly being approved. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21305150)
Quote
UMP MP Philippe Gosselin said the legislation was only the beginning of a trend that the French people did not want.

"Today it is marriage and adoption. Tomorrow it will be medically assisted conception and surrogate mothers."
I....don't see the problem here?
Quote
It is expected that the legislation will reach the statute books by the middle of the year, AFP reports.
Shit, SCOTUS better hurry the hell up. I am not going to watch France out-freedom America on this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on February 03, 2013, 01:47:42 pm
Yeah, those guys doesn't even have Freedom Fries :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on February 03, 2013, 01:58:23 pm
I wonder, if China and Russia suddenly allow gay marriage... would the US enter a freedom's race of sorts?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 03, 2013, 02:10:20 pm
Quote from: Euld on February 03, 2013, 01:58:23 pm
I wonder, if China and Russia suddenly allow gay marriage... would the US enter a freedom's race of sorts?

We're also going to get gay marriage in Scotland quite soon. I think the English and Welsh (maybe) are pushing for it too, although less enthusiastically. Now that means that there'll be gay marriage in the very country that the Americans broke free from.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on February 03, 2013, 02:14:46 pm
Quote from: Euld on February 03, 2013, 05:00:49 am
Quote
In September last year, Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Lyon, argued that plans to redefine the concept of marriage would open the door to incest and polygamy.
o_O
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 03, 2013, 01:37:44 pm
Quote
UMP MP Philippe Gosselin said the legislation was only the beginning of a trend that the French people did not want.

"Today it is marriage and adoption. Tomorrow it will be medically assisted conception and surrogate mothers."
I....don't see the problem here?
Yeah, the slippery slope arguments that the opposition is pulling out are slopes I actually hope they fall down. I don't see a problem with any of those things they're warning about.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on February 03, 2013, 02:45:28 pm
Quote from: Euld on February 03, 2013, 01:58:23 pm
I wonder, if China and Russia suddenly allow gay marriage... would the US enter a freedom's race of sorts?

I know it's not a completely serious question, but there's no chance in hell Russia ever allows gay marriage. The place is more conservative than the US. They've passed laws forbidding people from "spreading gay propaganda" (which basically amounts to doing anything remotely gay in public) and such over there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 03, 2013, 02:55:26 pm
It's not completely impossible for China, though. It all depends on how their politics swing. If the CCP gets more people who are a certain kind of communist/socialist they might see it as making people more equal, but more likely they'll reject it on the basis of being "un-Chinese".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 03, 2013, 03:01:15 pm
It's irritating coming from other minority's, to be honest. You'd think they'd be pragmatic and perhaps think that not cultivating an inhuman label which they could be easily shoved into might be in their best interests.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on February 03, 2013, 03:14:33 pm
I don't think the Chinese are a minority in China, Novel.
 O_o;
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 03, 2013, 03:21:06 pm
Quote from: Sirus on February 03, 2013, 03:14:33 pm
I don't think the Chinese are a minority in China, Novel.
 O_o;

Or globally, taken as a proportion of world population.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 03, 2013, 03:34:34 pm
I'm speaking of cases where minority's generally speaking are advocating such in the west.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on February 03, 2013, 03:40:23 pm
Ok i'm lost XD  Could you rephrase that, Novel?  'Cause I didn't understand a word of that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on February 03, 2013, 03:44:11 pm
Quote from: Sirus on February 03, 2013, 03:14:33 pm
I don't think the Chinese are a minority in China, Novel.
 O_o;
I... kinda' gather that there are, in fact, chinese groups that are minorities in china. The native chinese are not exactly one monolithic ethnic group (and I do believe that's notably understating things, actually), from what I understand.

Quote from: Euld on February 03, 2013, 03:40:23 pm
Ok i'm lost XD  Could you rephrase that, Novel?  'Cause I didn't understand a word of that.
There's plenty of minority groups that shit on other minority groups, Euld, even when what would benefit the others would benefit them. You see it a lot in the states with LGBT stuff, where minority ethnic groups (usually immigrants) will be quite homophobic, or LGBT folks infighting or whatever. Good example I've personally experienced was with Florida's Amendment 7 a bit back, that had heterosexual couples campaigning for it on anti-homosexual grounds, despite the fact that the amendment hit them harder than it hit the homosexuals.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 03, 2013, 03:49:08 pm
Quote from: Frumple on February 03, 2013, 03:44:11 pm
Quote from: Sirus on February 03, 2013, 03:14:33 pm
I don't think the Chinese are a minority in China, Novel.
 O_o;
I... kinda' gather that there are, in fact, chinese groups that are minorities in china. The native chinese are not exactly one monolithic ethnic group (and I do believe that's notably understating things, actually), from what I understand.

China is an incredibly diverse country with 56 ethnic groups and 292 living languages, spanning across 9 language families. The Han Chinese make up 92% of the country's population and are the Chinese people we are most familiar with (they are also the most populous ethnic group in the entire world) but even they have their own dialects and regional identities.

I mean, come on. Even if you don't go into the more obscure ethnic groups you've got to know the Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongols, Koreans etc. Once you get past them you've got the Hui, Dongxiang, Manchus...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on February 03, 2013, 04:40:49 pm
Hm... sort of like how the US has say, Hawaiians, Alaskans, then among the lower 48 you can divide the country between westerners, easterners, and southerners, and then it divides further?  Granted, probably not quite the same.  But when someone moves from one extreme part of the country to the other, they tend to stick out.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 03, 2013, 04:57:40 pm
Not really, Euld. The boundaries you describe are cultural, the boundaries in China are physical. You can become American, you can never become Han Chinese if you aren't born that way.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 03, 2013, 05:52:10 pm
Quote from: Euld on February 03, 2013, 04:40:49 pm
Hm... sort of like how the US has say, Hawaiians, Alaskans, then among the lower 48 you can divide the country between westerners, easterners, and southerners, and then it divides further?  Granted, probably not quite the same.  But when someone moves from one extreme part of the country to the other, they tend to stick out.

Much deeper. More like between native americans, black people and white people. Times that by 18 and you get the picture.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on February 03, 2013, 06:10:57 pm
Quote from: scriver on February 03, 2013, 02:45:28 pm
Quote from: Euld on February 03, 2013, 01:58:23 pm
I wonder, if China and Russia suddenly allow gay marriage... would the US enter a freedom's race of sorts?

I know it's not a completely serious question, but there's no chance in hell Russia ever allows gay marriage. The place is more conservative than the US. They've passed laws forbidding people from "spreading gay propaganda" (which basically amounts to doing anything remotely gay in public) and such over there.

In some cities, yes. On the national level: not yet. The law passed the first hurdle (with the whole duma approving except 1 abstention) and has to pass duma two more times after which it will be signed into law by mr. putin. But maybe if you write a nice letter telling him it's not okay to oppress homosexuals he won't sign?

Relevant Link (http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news-item/russia-s-anti-gay-%E2%80%98propaganda-law-assault-on-freedom-of-expression)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nilik on February 04, 2013, 01:14:05 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 03, 2013, 02:55:26 pm
It's not completely impossible for China, though. It all depends on how their politics swing. If the CCP gets more people who are a certain kind of communist/socialist they might see it as making people more equal, but more likely they'll reject it on the basis of being "un-Chinese".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you be executed for homosexuality in China?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 04, 2013, 01:33:29 am
Quote from: Nilik on February 04, 2013, 01:14:05 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 03, 2013, 02:55:26 pm
It's not completely impossible for China, though. It all depends on how their politics swing. If the CCP gets more people who are a certain kind of communist/socialist they might see it as making people more equal, but more likely they'll reject it on the basis of being "un-Chinese".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you be executed for homosexuality in China?
No. Legalized in 1997, removed from mental disorder list in 2001, no history of executions about it specifically but there isn't much data. Current government policy towards homosexuals and same-sex marriage is 不支持, 不反对, 不提倡, which translates to: no approval, no disapproval, and no promotion. Like many things, China appears to be trying to ignore it until people approve of it, at which point they will grant it and portray themselves as amazing leaders for doing so.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on February 04, 2013, 01:35:09 am
Kinda like the U.S. military with their now-defunct "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rule?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 04, 2013, 01:39:28 am
Not exactly. Clinton signed DADT despite his liberal attitude because the population was firmly against homosexuals serving in the millitary (weird how much opinions can change in 15 years, eh?), but it did one very important thing: You still couldn't serve if you were a homosexual, which appeased the conservatives, but....it made a de jure (if sometimes ignored) ban on investigating members of the military for homosexuality, which (slightly) appeased the liberals. Thus, the rickety bipartisan USS DADT was launched and promptly hit an iceberg as homosexuality became culturally accepted over the next decade.

You know, it almost makes me wonder.......

Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act too.... And now its going to the Supreme Court..... And it's so blatently in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.....


.....that tricky fucking bastard. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt4329_W_s0&feature=player_embedded)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on February 04, 2013, 01:43:46 am
Kinda what I meant. They instituted DADT as a way to kinda sweep the issue under the rug (which appeased no side but at least stopped them from bickering too much), and over the years it became more and more accepted. Finally, DADT was overruled and it's perfectly fine.

In a similar way:
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 04, 2013, 01:33:29 am
Like many things, China appears to be trying to ignore it until people approve of it, at which point they will grant it and portray themselves as amazing leaders for doing so.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 04, 2013, 01:48:43 am
Well, DADT is less sweeping under the rug than it was a minor reform. US conservatives would have been fine keeping the ban and continuing to allow investigation of suspected homosexuals. China is ignoring the issue right out, as an official government policy that says "we're choosing to ignore this".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 04, 2013, 12:10:04 pm
Which kind of make sense from their point of view. Don't do anything that might anger anyone.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on February 04, 2013, 12:23:53 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 04, 2013, 01:33:29 am
Quote from: Nilik on February 04, 2013, 01:14:05 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 03, 2013, 02:55:26 pm
It's not completely impossible for China, though. It all depends on how their politics swing. If the CCP gets more people who are a certain kind of communist/socialist they might see it as making people more equal, but more likely they'll reject it on the basis of being "un-Chinese".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you be executed for homosexuality in China?
No. Legalized in 1997, removed from mental disorder list in 2001, no history of executions about it specifically but there isn't much data. Current government policy towards homosexuals and same-sex marriage is 不支持, 不反对, 不提倡, which translates to: no approval, no disapproval, and no promotion. Like many things, China appears to be trying to ignore it until people approve of it, at which point they will grant it and portray themselves as amazing leaders for doing so.
That's pretty much accurate. If there's any repression of homosexuality in China, it's cultural rather than legal. It's no big deal in the major coastal cities (there are blatant gay bars in Beijing, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Tianjin, etc.) but it would be a much tougher thing for an LGBT Chinese in a rural village. You gotta figure...it's a 5000-year old culture, it's not like homosexuality is a modern invention. So it's recognized even in classical literature, and not all that negatively. But at the same time, you have this weird thing where the court eunuchs became villainized and homosexuality and transvestitism are associated with black magic. You still see that today in Chinese (and Thai and Korean and Japanese) film, where bad guys often have high-pitched giggly voices (or in the case of Tony Jaa's Tom yum goong was a transvestite played by an actual transvestite.)

There's actual some sociological work predicting that homosexuality may increase in China over the near-future simply because of the male-female ratio imbalance. The thought is that too many guys who simply can't find a date might cause some of them to broaden their selection pool.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on February 04, 2013, 12:44:06 pm
Quote from: RedKing on February 04, 2013, 12:23:53 pm
The thought is that too many guys who simply can't find a date might cause some of them to broaden their selection pool.

Kind of like situational homosexuality (http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/situational_homosexuality.html) that can often be observed in prisons.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 04, 2013, 01:22:07 pm
Quote from: RedKing on February 04, 2013, 12:23:53 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 04, 2013, 01:33:29 am
Quote from: Nilik on February 04, 2013, 01:14:05 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 03, 2013, 02:55:26 pm
It's not completely impossible for China, though. It all depends on how their politics swing. If the CCP gets more people who are a certain kind of communist/socialist they might see it as making people more equal, but more likely they'll reject it on the basis of being "un-Chinese".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you be executed for homosexuality in China?
No. Legalized in 1997, removed from mental disorder list in 2001, no history of executions about it specifically but there isn't much data. Current government policy towards homosexuals and same-sex marriage is 不支持, 不反对, 不提倡, which translates to: no approval, no disapproval, and no promotion. Like many things, China appears to be trying to ignore it until people approve of it, at which point they will grant it and portray themselves as amazing leaders for doing so.
That's pretty much accurate. If there's any repression of homosexuality in China, it's cultural rather than legal. It's no big deal in the major coastal cities (there are blatant gay bars in Beijing, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Tianjin, etc.) but it would be a much tougher thing for an LGBT Chinese in a rural village. You gotta figure...it's a 5000-year old culture, it's not like homosexuality is a modern invention. So it's recognized even in classical literature, and not all that negatively. But at the same time, you have this weird thing where the court eunuchs became villainized and homosexuality and transvestitism are associated with black magic. You still see that today in Chinese (and Thai and Korean and Japanese) film, where bad guys often have high-pitched giggly voices (or in the case of Tony Jaa's Tom yum goong was a transvestite played by an actual transvestite.)

There's actual some sociological work predicting that homosexuality may increase in China over the near-future simply because of the male-female ratio imbalance. The thought is that too many guys who simply can't find a date might cause some of them to broaden their selection pool.

Much like witch burning, one only wishes this worked in a "better lord of hell" way. If they can do black magic, then why are you fucking about with pitchforks?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 04, 2013, 01:23:28 pm
Black magic is overrated anyway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on February 04, 2013, 01:32:58 pm
~~!!~~!!~~ PINK MAGIC IS FOR THE FABULOUS WIN ~~!!~~!!~~
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 04, 2013, 01:35:37 pm
Quote from: lorb on February 04, 2013, 12:44:06 pm
Quote from: RedKing on February 04, 2013, 12:23:53 pm
The thought is that too many guys who simply can't find a date might cause some of them to broaden their selection pool.
Kind of like situational homosexuality (http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/situational_homosexuality.html) that can often be observed in prisons.
Yep. Turns out a lot of people are a lot more interested in non-specified "sex" than they are in "sex with most preferred gender" and certainly more than "avoiding sex with people of the non-preferred gender". While they'll sure take both if they can get them, if they can't, well... the first alone is better than nothing, after all. If you offer a starving man dinner, he'll probably be more than willing to eat foods he wouldn't consider in a time of plenty, and hey... he might find out he likes the taste after all...

It's certainly not surprising.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 04, 2013, 01:37:51 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 04, 2013, 01:35:37 pm
Quote from: lorb on February 04, 2013, 12:44:06 pm
Quote from: RedKing on February 04, 2013, 12:23:53 pm
The thought is that too many guys who simply can't find a date might cause some of them to broaden their selection pool.
Kind of like situational homosexuality (http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/situational_homosexuality.html) that can often be observed in prisons.
Yep. Turns out a lot of people are a lot more interested in non-specified "sex" than they are in "sex with most preferred gender" and certainly more than "avoiding sex with people of the non-preferred gender". While they'll sure take both if they can get them, if they can't, well... the first alone is better than nothing, after all. If you offer a starving man dinner, he'll probably be more than willing to eat foods he wouldn't consider in a time of plenty, and hey... he might find out he likes the taste after all...

It's certainly not surprising.

In the words of my brother, "Its all just a tube of muscle anyway!"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 04, 2013, 01:42:33 pm
And thus, in the arms of his lover, Sir Buzzkillington found his heir.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on February 04, 2013, 02:24:09 pm
What the fuck am I reading?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on February 04, 2013, 06:10:58 pm
Quote from: Descan on February 04, 2013, 02:24:09 pm
What the fuck am I reading?

They're saying you're only gay because there are cute boys available :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on February 04, 2013, 06:20:44 pm
... I can get behind that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on February 04, 2013, 07:27:13 pm
I had to do it.  I had to do it.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 05, 2013, 04:50:40 pm
Getting back on topic, the UK's same-sex marriage bill has passed the House of Commons 400-175. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/05/world/europe/uk-gay-marriage-vote/index.html?hpt=hp_t2) Now it has to pass the House of Lords and.....the House of Commons again.....for some reason.

The Church of England is very, very angry about all of this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 05, 2013, 04:54:36 pm
It probably wont get through the Lords, be re-written, pass in the Commons, be knocked back by the Lords (who incidentally count a signifigant number of CofE bishops amongst thier number) and so on for a while yet. Cameron is alienating a large number of his party and traditional voter base with this without really attracting support away from more liberal parties. Whilst the end outcome is laudible, it stinks badly of a "please like me" popularity grab.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on February 05, 2013, 04:56:40 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 05, 2013, 04:50:40 pm
Getting back on topic, the UK's same-sex marriage bill has passed the House of Commons 400-175. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/05/world/europe/uk-gay-marriage-vote/index.html?hpt=hp_t2) Now it has to pass the House of Lords and.....the House of Commons again.....for some reason.

The Church of England is very, very angry about all of this.
For some reason, when I read that I pictured the Archbishop of Canterbury responding in Marvin the Martian's voice (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlVoD17y5y4).

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 05, 2013, 05:27:05 pm
Scotland passed same sex marriage a while ago. The English and Welsh should just belt up and embrace the future.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 05, 2013, 05:30:54 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on February 05, 2013, 05:27:05 pm
Scotland passed same sex marriage a while ago.
No it didn't. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Scotland)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on February 05, 2013, 05:33:51 pm
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16855539-judge-jury-and-executioner-legal-experts-fear-implications-of-white-house-drone-memo?lite
So there's recently been talk about the previously secret memo regarding drone killings of american citizens.
Here's the recently released memo itself: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 05, 2013, 05:38:34 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 05, 2013, 05:30:54 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on February 05, 2013, 05:27:05 pm
Scotland passed same sex marriage a while ago.
No it didn't. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Scotland)

I thought we'd already passed that. I can't find any decent news sources on it because it's all swamped with English stuff. I suppose we're on par with the southern folk in that case. At least we passed minimum alcohol pricing before they did.... they just copy us anyway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 05, 2013, 05:42:59 pm
Is it really likely to fail in the Lords?  The Conservatives will be trying to whip as many of theirs to vote in favour as possible, and the other two parties are both support the proposal (weirdly Labour still has more peers than the Conservatives do).  There are some bishops there but it shouldn't be enough to derail the legislation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 05, 2013, 05:44:41 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 05, 2013, 04:50:40 pm
Getting back on topic, the UK's same-sex marriage bill has passed the House of Commons 400-175. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/05/world/europe/uk-gay-marriage-vote/index.html?hpt=hp_t2) Now it has to pass the House of Lords and.....the House of Commons again.....for some reason.

The Church of England is very, very angry about all of this.

The church showing passion? Actual fervor? What a change! They'll lose the people pissed about women's bishops even faster!

If that's what the conservatives are trying, who in the hell knows what the liberal democrats will go for. On the other hand, Labor doesn't exactly win by default either.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 05, 2013, 05:44:55 pm
Quote from: greatorder on February 05, 2013, 05:40:08 pm
Do you want me to pull a Frankie Boyle on you?

I would be impressed if you could.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 05, 2013, 05:50:09 pm
Quote from: greatorder on February 05, 2013, 05:47:23 pm
Come to think of it, I can remember one of the royalty asking a driving instructor 'how you keep the locals off the booze for long enough'

I'm not offended by that though. Alcoholism is a massive problem in Scotland and it destroys families/strong men and women/puts young people in danger. It's one of the main social issues we need to sort out in this country besides sectarianism, a bit like the USA has to deal with gang culture/gun crime.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Naryar on February 05, 2013, 05:51:12 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 05, 2013, 04:50:40 pm
Getting back on topic, the UK's same-sex marriage bill has passed the House of Commons 400-175. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/05/world/europe/uk-gay-marriage-vote/index.html?hpt=hp_t2) Now it has to pass the House of Lords and.....the House of Commons again.....for some reason.

The Church of England is very, very angry about all of this.

We have had a bill passed in France like this as well. although I am not sure if the law has passed already.

Pointless drama, if you ask me. We have better things to do in times of economical recession.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 05, 2013, 05:52:42 pm
Quote from: greatorder on February 05, 2013, 05:51:00 pm
How about the deep fried mars bars?

They are actually very tasty indeed. Barely anyone I know has eaten one but I like them. Deep fried pizzas too, and deep fried bounties, twixes, snickers... black pudding, fruit pudding, haggis, sausage. Mock chop suppers too. But yeah obesity is also a large problem here, as are heart conditions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Naryar on February 05, 2013, 05:53:45 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on February 05, 2013, 05:52:42 pm
Quote from: greatorder on February 05, 2013, 05:51:00 pm
How about the deep fried mars bars?

They are actually very tasty indeed.

must be absurdly high on fat.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 05, 2013, 05:54:08 pm
Quote from: Naryar on February 05, 2013, 05:53:45 pm
must be absurdly high on fat.

Oh god yes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 05, 2013, 05:55:43 pm
Quote from: Naryar on February 05, 2013, 05:51:12 pm
Pointless drama, if you ask me. We have better things to do in times of economical recession.
Considering its the Conservative Party I'd have to disagree.  Any time they don't spend trying to "fix" the recession is good time, especially if it's for a worthy goal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 05, 2013, 06:11:47 pm
Quote from: alway on February 05, 2013, 05:33:51 pm
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16855539-judge-jury-and-executioner-legal-experts-fear-implications-of-white-house-drone-memo?lite
So there's recently been talk about the previously secret memo regarding drone killings of american citizens.
Here's the recently released memo itself: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
While I certainly don't approve of why they are doing, people are making statements about this memo that aren't realistic. Firstly, this is a memo, written by Obama's lawyers, trying to justify drone striking the guys in Yemen. The memo itself only refers to Americans who are confirmed members of al-Qaeda or splinter groups actively plotting against the US and are in a position that precludes capturing them for trial (hence, this can never be used as justification for strikes anywhere in the Americas, Europe, or even a good deal of the Middle East itself).

I still don't think they should have done what they did, but this is not the start of some plan to suppress Americans by declaring any dissent terrorism and drone striking them. Anybody who suggests something like that is either making wild accusations, trying to get attention, or both.
Quote from: Leafsnail on February 05, 2013, 05:42:59 pm
Is it really likely to fail in the Lords?  The Conservatives will be trying to whip as many of theirs to vote in favour as possible, and the other two parties are both support the proposal (weirdly Labour still has more peers than the Conservatives do).  There are some bishops there but it shouldn't be enough to derail the legislation.
Well, let's see:

We will assume that all 26 members of the Lords Spiritual will vote against the proposal, as they represent the Church of England, who viciously opposes this in official policy.

The 3 members of the UK Independence Party are all but certain to vote against it, given that they are right-wing populists who officially oppose it.

The 4 members of the Democratic Unionist Party will likely vote against, as their counterparts in the House of Commons did. I assume the 3 members of the Ulster Unionist Party will take a similar stance, given the nature of the two parties.

The 2 Plaid Cymru should vote for, following their HoC bretheren's lead.

20% of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons voted against it or abstained, and a similar percentage in the House of Lords means 18 against/abstained, 72 for.

15% of the Labor Party in the House of Commons voted against it or abstained, and a similar percentage in the House of Lords means 37 against/abstained, 207 for.

58% of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons voted against it or abstained, and a similar percentage in the House of Lords means 100 against/abstained, 73 for.

At this point, we're at 191 against or abstained, and 356 for. Now I just need a way to count the 175 Crossbenchers and 20 non-affiliated (though I notice a disturbing number of them are in prison).

That said, almost all of them would have to oppose it to overcome my estimated for votes, so I'd say it is fairly safe.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on February 05, 2013, 06:38:29 pm
What is the church doing in your parliament o_O?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 05, 2013, 06:43:37 pm
The crossbenchers are mostly fairly liberal (more liberal than Conservatives at least) and the majority of them have voted in favour of gay rights in the past.  It's likely that more Conservative peers will rebel than MPs did (the party has less control over the peers and they're more likely to be traditionalist) but they're so swamped by liberals that they'll probably still lose.

The church is there because the House of Lords is weird and it's really difficult to reform the House of Lords without being defeated by the House of Lords.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 05, 2013, 07:00:28 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on February 05, 2013, 06:38:29 pm
What is the church doing in your parliament o_O?

The queen is both head of state and head of the church of england. This is britain we're talking about here. There's so much shit like this I just want to tear it all down and start over, which is one of the reasons why I support Scottish independence from the UK. I would settle for federalism but nobody is pushing for that anymore. Lib Dems paid lip service to it but they shat on full fiscal autonomy proposals like nobody's business.

I would support a federal republic of britain, composed of constituent countries with equal devolved powers and an elected upper house and head of state. The monarchy would no longer play any role other than as a sort of impotent, cultural level of government that generate tourism and act in ceremonies. You know, keep celebrating royal weddings but auld lizzie doesn't act as head of state.

I hope I don't open a can of worms by posting that but it's just how I feel about this sort of thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 05, 2013, 07:05:04 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on February 05, 2013, 06:38:29 pm
What is the church doing in your parliament o_O?
Welcome to what happens when a 1000 year old absolute monarchy, claiming a divine right, that set up its own Not-The-Catholic-Church so that the monarch would never have any problems divorcing and/or killing his wives, decides it wants to become a representative democracy in which the monarch has become a one-person corporation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on February 05, 2013, 09:50:24 pm
Yeah, the house of lords and the way they're picked out (or rather, not picked out) has been a lot of people's biggest gripe about the current British government since... well since the current British government came about.

Heck Gilbert and Sullivan basically wrote an entire musical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iolanthe) making fun of the issue ~130 years ago that manages to still be fairly relevant today.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 05, 2013, 10:17:31 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 05, 2013, 07:05:04 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on February 05, 2013, 06:38:29 pm
What is the church doing in your parliament o_O?
Welcome to what happens when a 1000 year old absolute monarchy, claiming a divine right, that set up its own Not-The-Catholic-Church so that the monarch would never have any problems divorcing and/or killing his wives, decides it wants to become a representative democracy in which the monarch has become a one-person corporation.

Actually there are one or two small factual issues with that. The way that's written suggests the current monarchs go back to the year 1000 or so, directly, and shares direct continuity with henry VIII. In fact the current royal family is very different indeed and before them they were governed by the stuarts, which ties in with Scottish history, not just English. If we apply the same principle to the Stuarts that you have done to the Windsors then the british monarchy goes back well over 1000 years to 843 AD.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 05, 2013, 10:25:48 pm
1000 years is just a generalization. The family is irrelevant compared to the institution that is the Kingdom of England.

Before you bite my head off, yes, England. It was the primary initiator of the United Kingdom and thus is what I'm counting.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 05, 2013, 10:30:33 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 05, 2013, 10:25:48 pm
1000 years is just a generalization. The family is irrelevant compared to the institution that is the Kingdom of England.

Before you bite my head off, yes, England. It was the primary initiator of the United Kingdom and thus is what I'm counting.

I am sorry, but I will still bite your head off. There is no escape from the chip on a Scotsman's shoulder. There was no single primary initiator of the uk, rather it was the english and scottish parliaments and the english\scottish monarchy. Scotland and England (if the Welsh and Northern Irish were still in a rather Cornish position) would be the two equal successor states. The reason why our national parliament ended up down south was because london was bigger, richer, the english were more powerful and our queen was born and raised in england.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 05, 2013, 10:32:40 pm
Scotland was the one in a tight spot. England could have not unified and been just fine. If you need more proof, London is still the political center of the UK and was originally the absolute political center of it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on February 05, 2013, 10:44:53 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 05, 2013, 10:32:40 pm
Scotland was the one in a tight spot. England could have not unified and been just fine. If you need more proof, London is still the political center of the UK and was originally the absolute political center of it.

Exactly. Most of the common people in Scotland were against the against the idea of union, seeing how the two countries were at loggerheads for most of the medieval period. But many of the members of the Scottish Parliament had lost fortunes in the Darien Scheme, and so were easily bribed into supporting the union. As an indication to how lopsided the union was, the original flag design had St. George's Cross with St. Andrew's cross in the top-left corner. But obviously the Scottish MPs weren't going to take such an obvious insult to their country, no matter how much money was involved, and so the flag's design was eventually changed to the union flag. As an additional sign of the lopsidedness of the union, the English MPs significantly outnumbered the Scottish ones in both houses. As far as I know the Scottish MPs didn't argue about that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 05, 2013, 10:46:23 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 05, 2013, 10:32:40 pm
Scotland was the one in a tight spot. England could have not unified and been just fine. If you need more proof, London is still the political center of the UK and was originally the absolute political center of it.

The Union was (and is) one sided, yes, but we were still both initiators (initiator being the key word, we weren't equal after we joined certainly) of equal standing and created a country that obliterated the independence of both our nations. It also required consent from both parliaments, ours needed a fair bit of bribery because we were vehemently opposed to union in 1705. This obliteration can be seen even today; England doesn't even have a parliament. It isn't really England anymore, just "Britain".

Scotland also had other less attractive choices, tight though the situation was. The majority of our MPs apparently supported such unattractive proposals initially.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 05, 2013, 10:57:10 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on February 05, 2013, 10:46:23 pm
This obliteration can be seen even today; England doesn't even have a parliament. It isn't really England anymore, just "Britain".
That's only because you're seeing it from the perspective of the modern day, with the devolved parliaments of the rest of the UK. England does have a parliament: THE Parliament of the United Kingdom. It represented England's dominance of the UK, but eventually times changed and such displays of power faded in impressiveness, thus the establishment of the devolved parliaments.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 05, 2013, 11:04:19 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 05, 2013, 10:57:10 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on February 05, 2013, 10:46:23 pm
This obliteration can be seen even today; England doesn't even have a parliament. It isn't really England anymore, just "Britain".
That's only because you're seeing it from the perspective of the modern day, with the devolved parliaments of the rest of the UK. England does have a parliament: THE Parliament of the United Kingdom. It represented England's dominance of the UK, but eventually times changed and such displays of power faded in impressiveness, thus the establishment of the devolved parliaments.

England's dominance within the Union does not equate with them being the primary initiator, nor does it suggest that we wouldn't both be equal successor (accessor?) states. If our parliament had not given consent, no UK. Don't get me wrong - I know England did best out of the Union and all that, I'm just saying that the monarchy of Great Britain splits in at least two paths, one older than the other. Remember, at the time of the union the royal family was scottish.

Yeah I know, but if you lived here and felt the vibes you'dget the impression that despite appearances the parliament of the UK isn't really English anymore. Not in the modern sense, like you said. It's something else altogether that doesn't really represent the nation of england in the modern sense, which is what I am going by. Indeed, until recently it represented the welsh in lawmaking too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on February 05, 2013, 11:29:02 pm
Quote from: Naryar on February 05, 2013, 05:51:12 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 05, 2013, 04:50:40 pm
Getting back on topic, the UK's same-sex marriage bill has passed the House of Commons 400-175. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/05/world/europe/uk-gay-marriage-vote/index.html?hpt=hp_t2) Now it has to pass the House of Lords and.....the House of Commons again.....for some reason.

The Church of England is very, very angry about all of this.

We have had a bill passed in France like this as well. although I am not sure if the law has passed already.

Pointless drama, if you ask me. We have better things to do in times of economical recession.
If you wait until the economy is good in order to focus on social issues, you have a loooooong wait ahead of you. On the order of never, in fact.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on February 05, 2013, 11:47:39 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on February 05, 2013, 11:04:19 pm
nor does it suggest that we wouldn't both be equal successor (accessor?) states.

I'm pretty sure that nobody is arguing against this point. Or at the very least, I'm not. But we're not talking about the English-Scottish relationship now, we're talking about it back in the 1700s, when the two countries merged. As you've mentioned before, the UK parliament isn't English any more, but back in the 1700s it certainly was, given the dominance of the English MPs compared to the Scottish ones.

Quote from: Owlbread on February 05, 2013, 11:04:19 pm
England's dominance within the Union does not equate with them being the primary initiator

I suppose not, but I still feel that England was the primary initiator of the union. Only by England's actions (ie. bribery) did the Scottish parliament accept the union. Scotland by itself would have never accepted the union, or at least union in 1707.

Quote from: Owlbread on February 05, 2013, 11:04:19 pm
Remember, at the time of the union the royal family was scottish.

Only in hereditary only, I'm afraid. After King James the VI/I, the royal family quickly became estranged with Scotland (mostly over religious issues, as far as I can tell)  and enamoured of England. Charles I was born in the Scotland, but his coronation in 1633 was his first visit to the country. The monarchs after him were pretty much all born in London, which I doubt helped with their identities as Scotsmen. Of course this is all tangential to the discussion about the Scottish/English Union, but I love blabbing about history, so eh.

Anyways I probably should get some sleep, so I'll just quit right here. We're pretty much just talking across each other at this point anyway, so I doubt that further discussion would be very profitable. Good night everyone.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on February 09, 2013, 01:23:42 pm
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/miami-judge-allows-3-names-birth-certificate-190350985--abc-news-topstories.html

Interesting, A gay man and two lesbians conceived a child. They originally agreed that he would have a role in his childs life, but soon asked him to sign papers designating him as a sperm donor, wich would mean he has no rights to the child. After a few years of legal action, they came to an agreement, and the judge allowed all 3 to be legally named as the childs parents.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on February 09, 2013, 01:28:30 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on February 09, 2013, 01:23:42 pm
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/miami-judge-allows-3-names-birth-certificate-190350985--abc-news-topstories.html

Interesting, A gay man and two lesbians conceived a child. They originally agreed that he would have a role in his childs life, but soon asked him to sign papers designating him as a sperm donor, wich would mean he has no rights to the child. After a few years of legal action, they came to an agreement, and the judge allowed all 3 to be legally named as the childs parents.
Oh good lord, I can't wait to see the bigoted reactions this is gonna get :D
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on February 09, 2013, 01:57:49 pm
Believe me, the comments section there is ridiculously hostile.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on February 09, 2013, 02:02:39 pm
Well, it IS Yahoo!, so...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 09, 2013, 02:04:01 pm
I swear, Yahoo has a higher concentration of Christian apocalypse seekers than anyplace else on the internet, even sites specifically for them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 09, 2013, 02:34:08 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on February 09, 2013, 02:46:11 pm
I want to take that, clean it up a little, take it to a little out-of-the-way poetry club, and recite it to the beat of a drum.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on February 09, 2013, 02:56:40 pm
Should not have looked at the comments.

I expected hate and vitriol. Instead I got bizarre insanity.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on February 09, 2013, 02:57:32 pm
I think the sheer outrage broke their minds :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 09, 2013, 03:42:37 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 09, 2013, 03:48:58 pm
Obama literally has no relation to these events!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on February 09, 2013, 06:06:15 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 09, 2013, 03:48:58 pm
Obama literally has no relation to these events!

It doesn't matter. Obama is the embodiment of all conservative nightmares made manifest in human flesh. Therefore, he must be responsible! ;)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 13, 2013, 04:33:58 pm
Anyway

Apparantly the middle East is in for some more problems. (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02/12/nasa-finds-parts-middle-east-have-seen-alarming-rate-water-loss-in-7-years/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Karlito on February 14, 2013, 12:19:41 am
Quote
A NASA study found that an amount of freshwater almost the size of the Dead Sea has been lost in parts of the Middle East due to poor management

I get what's being said here, but that seems like the wrong comparison to use.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on February 14, 2013, 12:24:26 am
Quote from: Karlito on February 14, 2013, 12:19:41 am
Quote
A NASA study found that an amount of freshwater almost the size of the Dead Sea has been lost in parts of the Middle East due to poor management

I get what's being said here, but that seems like the wrong comparison to use.
Indeed. Especially with Dead sea being so dead. Crazy salinity.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on February 14, 2013, 01:04:34 am
Quote from: Karlito on February 14, 2013, 12:19:41 am
Quote
A NASA study found that an amount of freshwater almost the size of the Dead Sea has been lost in parts of the Middle East due to poor management

I get what's being said here, but that seems like the wrong comparison to use.
I'm more curious exactly how you lose water, m'self. Where did it go? Do we have more hydrogen and/or oxygen in the air or something? Bind with something else and stuck somewhere unusable? Howzzat work, exactly?

And I now have this odd image of a several hundred mile line of slowly traveling monkeys with little tiny monkey cups full of water, carrying the Middle East's water supplies off to Africa. They get a fez hat when they receive their cup full of water, so you've got this long line of hatless monkeys with empty cups and then this other long line of fez-hat monkeys with full cups going in the other direction. Abu has formed a monkeymafia and stolen Agreba's water.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 14, 2013, 02:32:59 am
It evaporate away or go into the sea. Or get full of salt. We're talking about freshwater loss, not water loss.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on February 14, 2013, 03:33:09 am
Or full of sewage or other contaminants which render it unusable.

Though typically, a lot of water loss is due to agricultural-related mismanagement. Open canals lose vast quantities to evaporation, as does overwatering plants.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 14, 2013, 07:39:07 am
Well this is genius.  Not only are states beginning to pass laws making it illegal to film police, but now they want to make it illegal to film a business operation without its approval (http://www.indystar.com/article/20130212/NEWS05/130212009/Bill-takes-aim-undercover-videos-farm-conditions?nclick_check=1).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on February 14, 2013, 08:37:47 am
Odd. I could have sworn they'd managed to skulk their way into that a long time ago. Vaguely remember one of the hyper-record (or cyborg enthusiast or something like that) folks getting kicked out of some large store because he had a camera hat or somethin'. I guess it wasn't illegal, but it was legal to forcibly escort the guy off the premise for doing it?

As for the article itself, I can apparently only get the first page to load (Does that damn thing require goddamn plugins active to go to page two? Because if so it can kindly bugger itself :-\), but that first one was pretty... yeah. S'like, I'm sorry farmer dude, but if you're doing something that, were your customers aware, they'd leave, it doesn't frakking matter if it'd devastate your business. Not your fucking choice who shops at your joint, and you've got no right to exist outside the customer whims. If you're doing something that'd make them want to stop being your customer, they've probably got a right to know regardless of how damaging that's going to be for you.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: fqllve on February 14, 2013, 10:53:00 am
Quote from: Frumple on February 14, 2013, 08:37:47 am
As for the article itself, I can apparently only get the first page to load
I had to switch to Chrome to get the link to work. Couldn't tell you why, but as an Opera user I'm used to weird things not working. Not really missing out on anything important.

Anyway, while I pretty much agree with you, I imagine their point is threefold. 1) most of these videos are going to be posted on the internet, where there is little oversight for libel, 2) a large part of any business is lying to your customers, because the way things actually work and the way people expect them to rarely line up, 3) when you have people skulking around it's possible for them to cause situations that will look bad and then film them. And if you're being libeled once the public hears about it it's going to be hard to undo the damage.

All that said, customers do have a right to know, and if any of this was a problem the solution is not putting the decision into the hands of a business but some kind of oversight body. I'm not sure that libel is a serious problem for these businesses though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 14, 2013, 12:03:31 pm
I'm pretty sure video can never be libel. Obviously the commentary on it can. So I guess your argument is that the videos might be used to garner attention for libel?

And Frumple, any business can ask you to leave their property for any non-protected reason at any time, and escort you off if you refuse. It's private property, and they don't have to let you on it if they don't want to. This seems like it would make it a crime, meaning fines and potentially jailtime. Very very different.

In my opinion, the rules on recording should be pretty simple. If you're allowed to see it, you should be allowed to record it, because anything else is basically in stark opposition to physical reality and would make us all criminals through no fault of our own. The question is whether or not we should be able to share those recordings, and I think the standard there should be pretty straightforward as well - if it's alright to tell people about what you saw, it should be alright to show them.

Of course, since I have full intent of getting built in recording hardware at some point for a whole bevy of perfectly reasonable purposes, these sorts of laws kind of rub me the wrong way.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on February 14, 2013, 01:28:50 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 14, 2013, 12:03:31 pm
Of course, since I have full intent of getting built in recording hardware at some point for a whole bevy of perfectly reasonable purposes, these sorts of laws kind of rub me the wrong way.

Porn?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: fqllve on February 14, 2013, 01:45:16 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 14, 2013, 12:03:31 pm
I'm pretty sure video can never be libel. Obviously the commentary on it can. So I guess your argument is that the videos might be used to garner attention for libel?
Yes that, and that the situations can be fabricated. You'd also be surprised what the power of editing can do.

I don't think any that justifies this though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 14, 2013, 01:53:56 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 14, 2013, 12:03:31 pm
I'm pretty sure video can never be libel. Obviously the commentary on it can.
Commentary would be slander. But slander convictions are nearly impossible. As long as you can claim you believe what you're saying with any level of believability, or have any kind of proof of what you're saying, no matter how unreasonable, conviction for slander is nigh-impossible. Even without any of that, blocking someone's speech is hard to sell to a jury.

Anyway, the courts won't uphold these kinds of bills. The only reason SCOTUS hasn't done it already is that the cop-related ones haven't reached them yet.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 14, 2013, 02:00:36 pm
Is it libel if the commentary is text-based? Because that's the sort I was thinking of. Let's just call it defamation.

Quote from: fqllve on February 14, 2013, 01:45:16 pm
Yes that, and that the situations can be fabricated. You'd also be surprised what the power of editing can do.
If they are just going to fabricate things, well, they don't really need to make an actual recording of inside the plant, right? And there are already laws against that? This law seems to explicitly target those who AREN'T engaged in fabrication.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 16, 2013, 03:54:55 am
Autistic kid arrested for jokingly attempting to sell a sugar packet at school as his "secret sugar rush concoction" due to zero-tolerance substance abuse policy. (http://abc22now.com/shared/news/top-stories/stories/wkef_vid_11366.shtml)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on February 17, 2013, 01:47:42 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on February 16, 2013, 03:54:55 am
Autistic kid arrested for jokingly attempting to sell a sugar packet at school as his "secret sugar rush concoction" due to zero-tolerance substance abuse policy. (http://abc22now.com/shared/news/top-stories/stories/wkef_vid_11366.shtml)
HRRRRGH. I seriously HATE zero-tolerance. Idiotic.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 18, 2013, 03:49:09 pm
Zero tolerance just means you're too weak to give quarter where it's due. That would require a level of thought that you're too disorganised to manage.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on February 18, 2013, 04:54:37 pm
I'm not really a sports person, but whenever I find a positive story about women in sports, I try to share it here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/sports/autoracing/danica-patrick-earns-pole-for-daytona-500.html?ref=sports

What this means is that she is the first woman to win the fastest lap during the qualifying round of the NASCAR Sprint Cup series. This is her second year at this race and she out drove several well known and highly regarded drivers to win that position.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on February 18, 2013, 11:35:16 pm
Unfortunately not everyone can or wants to climb over the paywall the nytimes has put in place. (Although imho it definitely is the best newspaper around and I can recommend subscribing it.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 19, 2013, 12:05:46 am
... paywall?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on February 19, 2013, 12:18:27 am
Quote from: lorb on February 18, 2013, 11:35:16 pm
Unfortunately not everyone can or wants to climb over the paywall the nytimes has put in place. (Although imho it definitely is the best newspaper around and I can recommend subscribing it.)

They're still highly corporate and biased in favor of "American (corporate) Interests". e.g. their total lack of coverage of Latin American trade blocs like UNASUR and CELAC (US corporate media as a whole seems to have a permanent news blackout on any positive developments from South America which the USA doesn't dominate, but will cover anything negative, no matter how petty and irrelevant).

e.g:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Latin_American_and_Caribbean_States

Potentially the biggest economic/political event in the hemisphere, yet not a SINGLE searchable reference to this in nytimes online. (google "nytimes celac". The closest nytimes comes to mentioning this is "Celiac disease")

The same with the Union  of South American Nations(UNASUR) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_South_American_Nations), but "slightly" better. This political/economic union of the entirety of South America (including an overarching parliament, military alliance etc and working on a single currency), seems to have been mentioned exactly once in nytimes.

One relevant detail, is that Venezuela was a key player in setting up these (and other regional alliances), which, if the American public were to become aware of, would undermine the rhetoric about Venezuela being politically isolated in South America (in fact, that's projection/propaganda, as it is US allies such as Colombia and the coup leaders in Honduras who are politically isolated).

basically, if they can't keep you informed on actually important affairs in your hemisphere, they're nothing but a rag (if a slightly more liberal rag than NY post). Googling "bbc celac" or "bbc unasur" gives plenty of relevant hits, for comparison. Fuck american media, watch the BBC, they actually give better news about what's happening in America's backyard. BBC aren't perfect but they're a darn sight less blinkered than any American press (except many PBS / NPR)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 19, 2013, 02:07:15 am
I hadn't even heard about any of that stuff.  All I've been hearing for the past couple years out of South America is how U.S. corporate mining and logging projects keep murdering protesters.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 19, 2013, 04:09:19 am
Or rather than watching the BBC which is pretty shit, watch Al Jazeera, the BBC, France 24 and something like CNN so you can get the full picture from a variety of sources.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 19, 2013, 04:58:00 am
And RT for the laughs.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 19, 2013, 05:02:01 am
Quote from: Sheb on February 19, 2013, 04:58:00 am
And RT for the laughs.

Indeed, can't forget RT and their shennanigans.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 19, 2013, 05:18:44 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on February 19, 2013, 02:07:15 am
I hadn't even heard about any of that stuff.  All I've been hearing for the past couple years out of South America is how U.S. corporate mining and logging projects keep murdering protesters.

And sure enough, here's today's story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/brazil/9005835/Loggers-burned-Amazon-tribe-girl-alive.html).  Seeing stuff like this constantly.  Except usually the victims are protesting, and the names of businesses associated with the act are known (and trace directly back to the U.S.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 19, 2013, 03:10:22 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on February 19, 2013, 04:09:19 am
Or rather than watching the BBC which is pretty shit, watch Al Jazeera, the BBC, France 24 and something like CNN so you can get the full picture from a variety of sources.

Agreed. There's been a sharp drop in quality, at least in England and most likely Britain.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 19, 2013, 04:29:29 pm
Quote from: Novel on February 19, 2013, 03:10:22 pm
Agreed. There's been a sharp drop in quality, at least in England and most likely Britain.

BBC Scotland is a very sorry excuse for a national broadcaster. They make an effort with what they have but it's just another little example of poor quality services that we put up with as Scots when we could be demanding so much better to befit a nation like us.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 19, 2013, 04:35:51 pm
BBC Wales tries very hard, but there simply isnt anything worth reporting on, really.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 19, 2013, 05:38:49 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on February 19, 2013, 04:35:51 pm
BBC Wales tries very hard, but there simply isnt anything worth reporting on, really.

I'd say though that in Scotland there's a lot to report on that gets ignored and left to local newspapers. Instead we get the ubiquitous reporting of someone who was stabbed or hit by a car or something in a big city like Aberdeen or Glasgow, something silly, a bit of politics (probably about the referendum or Labour criticising the SNP for not looking at the "real" social issues - yeah, like putting tuition fees back in?), something cultural like a big fashion show or museum exhibition. There is so much more to us than that, and I'm sure it's the same in Wales.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 20, 2013, 02:27:27 am
Looks like the U.S. will be getting its first tar sands oil refining operation. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-26/first-u-s-oil-sands-mine-proceeds-without-pollution-permit.html)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on February 21, 2013, 12:37:33 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gay-marriage-mississippi-newspaper-owner-140311568.html

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on February 21, 2013, 02:07:19 pm
"Felony Cookie Theft".  Something I never imagined I would hear.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/21/walmart-pressing-felony-charges-against-employee-who-ate-multiple-oreo-cookies/
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 21, 2013, 03:25:23 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on February 21, 2013, 12:37:33 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gay-marriage-mississippi-newspaper-owner-140311568.html
I love the owner's comments.

Quote
The holocaust, bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Black Sox scandal are all historic. I'm in no way comparing the downtown wedding of two females to any of those events (even though some of you made it quite clear that you think gay marriage is much worse).

We have stories about child molesters, murders and all kinds of vicious, barbaric acts of evil committed by heinous criminals on our front page and yet we never receive a call from anyone saying 'I don't need my children reading this.' Never. Ever. However, a story about two women exchanging marriage vows and we get swamped with people worried about their children.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on February 21, 2013, 04:36:12 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 21, 2013, 03:25:23 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on February 21, 2013, 12:37:33 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gay-marriage-mississippi-newspaper-owner-140311568.html
I love the owner's comments.

Quote
The holocaust, bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Black Sox scandal are all historic. I'm in no way comparing the downtown wedding of two females to any of those events (even though some of you made it quite clear that you think gay marriage is much worse).

We have stories about child molesters, murders and all kinds of vicious, barbaric acts of evil committed by heinous criminals on our front page and yet we never receive a call from anyone saying 'I don't need my children reading this.' Never. Ever. However, a story about two women exchanging marriage vows and we get swamped with people worried about their children.
Newspaper is a pretty cool guy, he reports lesbian marriages and doesn't afraid of asshats.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 21, 2013, 05:49:42 pm
The NC House Rules Committee killed the state's medical marijuana bill because "legislators were being harassed by phonecalls and emails on the topic".  (http://www.wral.com/house-committee-kills-medical-marijuana-bill/12131140/)

These motherfuckers are openly not doing their jobs anymore.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 21, 2013, 05:56:24 pm
No. Those motherfuckers understand, quite clearly, what their jobs are, and they simply don't feel the need to hide it anymore.

They know who pays their bills and who they work for, and it's not the public.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 21, 2013, 10:49:04 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on February 21, 2013, 02:07:19 pm
"Felony Cookie Theft".  Something I never imagined I would hear.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/21/walmart-pressing-felony-charges-against-employee-who-ate-multiple-oreo-cookies/

Sociopaths.


Police officers being silenced for communicating with the public online in both the U.S. and UK. (http://www.occupypolice.org/2013/02/21/police-who-try-and-make-a-difference-silenced-in-toronto-and-london-in-the-wake-of-christopher-dorner/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 22, 2013, 04:32:47 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 21, 2013, 05:56:24 pm
No. Those motherfuckers understand, quite clearly, what their jobs are, and they simply don't feel the need to hide it anymore.

They know who pays their bills and who they work for, and it's not the public.

Don't worry guys, it's not as if word will get around! And even if it does, no one will care enough to look.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 22, 2013, 04:21:45 pm
Most importantly: Even if they care enough to look, what are they gonna do about it?

The defining feature of a lot of people in power, and that article made it clear, is simple - contempt for those they don't perceive as holding power. If you're not powerful yourself, you aren't important, and if you're not important, they don't want to be "annoyed" by you.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on February 22, 2013, 04:47:08 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 21, 2013, 05:49:42 pm
The NC House Rules Committee killed the state's medical marijuana bill because "legislators were being harassed by phonecalls and emails on the topic".  (http://www.wral.com/house-committee-kills-medical-marijuana-bill/12131140/)

These motherfuckers are openly not doing their jobs anymore.
That is probably #4,276th on my list of "Reasons Why I Want A Russian Meteor To Land On The NC State Capitol". Seriously....this is penny ante bullshit compared to gutting unemployment benefits or MANDATING that the state government ignore climate change science.

Cackalackistan be trippin', yo.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 22, 2013, 04:54:12 pm
To be honest, i get the feeling that might be it. If things continue as they are, and no one does any more then they have to, and not even then, for the rest of the world, combined with climate change causing damage which can't be repaired, the two towers will have been a light pat and generations not responsible for it will have to clean up the mess.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: fqllve on February 22, 2013, 05:18:25 pm
Quote from: RedKing on February 22, 2013, 04:47:08 pm
That is probably #4,276th on my list of "Reasons Why I Want A Russian Meteor To Land On The NC State Capitol". Seriously....this is penny ante bullshit compared to gutting unemployment benefits or MANDATING that the state government ignore climate change science.

Cackalackistan be trippin', yo.
I'm still angry about the secret midnight session last year. I don't care if I agree with the politics or not, when you promise transparency and then do something like that it's clear you've got an agenda to push and this just further confirms on top of that they don't have any concern for what their constituents want. The worst part is the House went even further Red in the last election.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 22, 2013, 05:31:10 pm
This is rather bizarre (http://macwright.org/2013/02/20/you-cannot-have-the-code.html)

The code of law in DC can't be freely distributed to anybody because it's copyrighted and managed by a private contractor?  Am I reading this right?  Is it true?  The only source offered by the article is this court case (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/West_Publishing_Co._v._Mead_Data_Central,_Inc.), which I'm not going to read right now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on February 22, 2013, 05:33:11 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on February 22, 2013, 05:31:10 pm
This is rather bizarre (http://macwright.org/2013/02/20/you-cannot-have-the-code.html)

The code of law in DC can't be freely distributed to anybody because it's copyrighted and managed by a private contractor?  Am I reading this right?  Is it true?  The only source offered by the article is this court case (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/West_Publishing_Co._v._Mead_Data_Central,_Inc.), which I'm not going to read right now.
If that is true, just.... urgh.

My god that is moronic.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: fqllve on February 22, 2013, 05:39:11 pm
That case linked has nothing to do with what the article claims. The case is that one company publishes court decisions, does a lot of work to organize them and format them. Another company publishes them online and include a note for the location of the first page of the decision in the first company's books. That is ok, and is not what is under question. Later the second company added a service that gave page numbers for citations. The first company claimed this was infringing because then people would be able to cite their publications without ever actually having to handle the publication itself.

So I dunno if that article is right. Either they misread that case or I misread that case.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on February 23, 2013, 07:49:52 pm
Why am I not watching this thread?

No matter, I am now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 23, 2013, 11:19:09 pm
STOP THE KILLER ROBOTS

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/feb/23/stop-killer-robots
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on February 23, 2013, 11:51:50 pm
Ok, so despite them picking a really, really, horrible name for their lobby group, and that they seem to come off as being a little bit too reactionary, I think this is a pretty serious and interesting issue.

I don't actually think this is something that's going to be stopped, there are just far too many people that want gun toting machines running around battlefields, and I can see why, but I think it is a sort of morally interesting issue. I'm wondering how this is going to effect the wars of the future.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 24, 2013, 06:16:52 am
Officer receives his department's "Officer of the Year" award for shooting at two people (killing one) huddled in a corner during a no-knock raid that lasted 16 seconds. (http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Towns-to-pay-3-5M-in-deadly-cop-raid-4290145.php#photo-4217611)

The reason for the shooting was finally determined to be debri from the explosion of his own flash grenade hit him in the chest, leading him to believe shots had been fired at him.  Of course, they had to deconstruct a bunch of lies first about the suspects resisting.  At least that's how I'm reading it.  The structure of the article isn't the clearest.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 24, 2013, 06:40:15 am
I want gun toting machines running around battlefields for the simple reason that one day we could have armies composed of robots fighting other robots and no people would have to waste their lives. They could also be programmed to never shoot civilians, to speak the native language of the country they're in, they would never use ethnic slurs or show resentment to the populace (unlike our brave boys)... yeah they're just about better in any way than our failed, rural high school students who're good at sports and love computer games. Only problem is if their respective government programs them to commit war crimes but I think humans can hide stuff like that better than a robot could.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 24, 2013, 07:49:10 am
Quote from: Owlbread on February 24, 2013, 06:40:15 am
I want gun toting machines running around battlefields for the simple reason that one day we could have armies composed of robots fighting other robots and no people would have to waste their lives.
I think the problem is that you fail to grasp the core purpose of war.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on February 24, 2013, 08:44:03 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on February 23, 2013, 11:19:09 pm
STOP THE KILLER ROBOTS

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/feb/23/stop-killer-robots
OK, so that lost absolutely all of the nuance of the original discussion, but there has been a fantastic debate leading up to this public petition. Easily the highlight. (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/01/tom-malinowski-ups-the-game-in-lawfares-discussion-of-killer-robots/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Delta Foxtrot on February 24, 2013, 09:52:38 am
Quote from: Owlbread on February 24, 2013, 06:40:15 am
I want gun toting machines running around battlefields for the simple reason that one day we could have armies composed of robots fighting other robots and no people would have to waste their lives. They could also be programmed to never shoot civilians, to speak the native language of the country they're in, they would never use ethnic slurs or show resentment to the populace (unlike our brave boys)... yeah they're just about better in any way than our failed, rural high school students who're good at sports and love computer games. Only problem is if their respective government programs them to commit war crimes but I think humans can hide stuff like that better than a robot could.

The problem is, battles aren't fought only in the designated battle site #358608-1C, they're fought in and around places with significant civilian populations. Just because the two sides would be fighting solely with machines (something probably only a few nations could even afford) wouldn't remove human presence from the battlefield. A pair of boots and a rifle is just too cheap to ever go out of style. And while "never shoot civilians" sounds nice, how do you manage that? How will the machine tell a difference between a soldier and a civilian? The blog palsch linked to had a few very realistic examples of what could go wrong with giving a machine full autonomy in deciding whether a human target is lawful or not.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on February 24, 2013, 10:51:08 am
Just make all the killbots Lawful Good. Nothing can go wrong.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on February 24, 2013, 12:12:42 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on February 24, 2013, 06:16:52 am
Officer receives his department's "Officer of the Year" award for shooting at two people (killing one) huddled in a corner during a no-knock raid that lasted 16 seconds. (http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Towns-to-pay-3-5M-in-deadly-cop-raid-4290145.php#photo-4217611)

The reason for the shooting was finally determined to be debri from the explosion of his own flash grenade hit him in the chest, leading him to believe shots had been fired at him.  Of course, they had to deconstruct a bunch of lies first about the suspects resisting.  At least that's how I'm reading it.  The structure of the article isn't the clearest.

This is just so depressing I don't know what to say.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on February 24, 2013, 12:34:19 pm
Quote from: scriver on February 24, 2013, 12:12:42 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on February 24, 2013, 06:16:52 am
Officer receives his department's "Officer of the Year" award for shooting at two people (killing one) huddled in a corner during a no-knock raid that lasted 16 seconds. (http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Towns-to-pay-3-5M-in-deadly-cop-raid-4290145.php#photo-4217611)

The reason for the shooting was finally determined to be debri from the explosion of his own flash grenade hit him in the chest, leading him to believe shots had been fired at him.  Of course, they had to deconstruct a bunch of lies first about the suspects resisting.  At least that's how I'm reading it.  The structure of the article isn't the clearest.

This is just so depressing I don't know what to say.
Look on the bright side, maybe he won officer of the year award because while he cocked things up, his colleagues all performed bigger and uglier cock-ups...

Or wait, was I trying to cheer you up or make you more depressed? Eh, never mind.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 24, 2013, 01:19:27 pm
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on February 24, 2013, 07:49:10 am
Quote from: Owlbread on February 24, 2013, 06:40:15 am
I want gun toting machines running around battlefields for the simple reason that one day we could have armies composed of robots fighting other robots and no people would have to waste their lives.
I think the problem is that you fail to grasp the core purpose of war.

Surely the core purpose of war is to accomplish objectives. The methods by which that is achieved is usually violence and results in a lot of people getting killed. No country goes to war with the express purpose of killing as many of the other country's people as they can, and if they do they're killing those people for a specific reason. The killing is not the end in itself.

Quote from: Delta Foxtrot on February 24, 2013, 09:52:38 am
The problem is, battles aren't fought only in the designated battle site #358608-1C, they're fought in and around places with significant civilian populations. Just because the two sides would be fighting solely with machines (something probably only a few nations could even afford) wouldn't remove human presence from the battlefield. A pair of boots and a rifle is just too cheap to ever go out of style. And while "never shoot civilians" sounds nice, how do you manage that? How will the machine tell a difference between a soldier and a civilian? The blog palsch linked to had a few very realistic examples of what could go wrong with giving a machine full autonomy in deciding whether a human target is lawful or not.

I have no idea how these machines would tell the difference between soldiers and civilians, who is lawful and who is not, even what the machines would look like. None of us do, and we can't until we do research into it. That's why it's silly to make calls to pull the plug on research like this.

And yet I would still rather give sufficient autonomy to a machine to decide whether or not a human target was lawful rather than give it to a human. They're just governed by code, that's all. Code is reliable if it's correct.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on February 24, 2013, 01:56:15 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on February 24, 2013, 01:19:27 pm
Surely the core purpose of war is to accomplish objectives. The methods by which that is achieved is usually violence and results in a lot of people getting killed. No country goes to war with the express purpose of killing as many of the other country's people as they can, and if they do they're killing those people for a specific reason. The killing is not the end in itself.

A war is only fought with two sides who're willing to die for a cause and when the non-sapient weapons are destroyed people will still fight unless their spirit is completely crushed. That is an advantage that could arise from AI/drones fighting all crucial battles, since if one side wins enough the other can possibly be driven to give up before too many actual lives are put on the table, though it won't mean a deathless war. It could also have the opposite effect and lead to more conflicts if people aren't scared of war because they can send in the robot armies while they sit back in relative safety.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 24, 2013, 02:04:43 pm
Quote from: Glowcat on February 24, 2013, 01:56:15 pm
It could also have the opposite effect and lead to more conflicts if people aren't scared of war because they can send in the robot armies while they sit back in relative safety.

This is what I would worry about.  I can see the average U.S. citizen having a much more careless attitude towards war.  As it is, it still seems like the majority of people don't even care about innocent people dying "over there".  They only care about home team casualties and economic costs.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 24, 2013, 02:36:15 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on February 24, 2013, 02:04:43 pm
This is what I would worry about.  I can see the average U.S. citizen having a much more careless attitude towards war.  As it is, it still seems like the majority of people don't even care about innocent people dying "over there".  They only care about home team casualties and economic costs.

President Obama cried (understandably so) over the deaths of children at Sandy Hook but has not shed tears in the same way for the far greater number of innocent children killed as collateral damage in drone attacks. Given that nearly everything Obama does is politically motivated, as is the case with most successful politicians, that tells us a lot about the American public.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 24, 2013, 03:57:32 pm
Removing humans removes the human element.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 24, 2013, 04:33:28 pm
Quote from: Delta Foxtrot on February 24, 2013, 09:52:38 am
Quote from: Owlbread on February 24, 2013, 06:40:15 am
I want gun toting machines running around battlefields for the simple reason that one day we could have armies composed of robots fighting other robots and no people would have to waste their lives. They could also be programmed to never shoot civilians, to speak the native language of the country they're in, they would never use ethnic slurs or show resentment to the populace (unlike our brave boys)... yeah they're just about better in any way than our failed, rural high school students who're good at sports and love computer games. Only problem is if their respective government programs them to commit war crimes but I think humans can hide stuff like that better than a robot could.

The problem is, battles aren't fought only in the designated battle site #358608-1C, they're fought in and around places with significant civilian populations. Just because the two sides would be fighting solely with machines (something probably only a few nations could even afford) wouldn't remove human presence from the battlefield. A pair of boots and a rifle is just too cheap to ever go out of style. And while "never shoot civilians" sounds nice, how do you manage that? How will the machine tell a difference between a soldier and a civilian? The blog palsch linked to had a few very realistic examples of what could go wrong with giving a machine full autonomy in deciding whether a human target is lawful or not.

The question is not wherether the computer has optimal judgement, it's wherether it's better than humans. And with smart programming, it certainly will be. A robot is always objective and always follows it's orders.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 24, 2013, 04:38:33 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on February 24, 2013, 04:33:28 pm
Quote from: Delta Foxtrot on February 24, 2013, 09:52:38 am
Quote from: Owlbread on February 24, 2013, 06:40:15 am
I want gun toting machines running around battlefields for the simple reason that one day we could have armies composed of robots fighting other robots and no people would have to waste their lives. They could also be programmed to never shoot civilians, to speak the native language of the country they're in, they would never use ethnic slurs or show resentment to the populace (unlike our brave boys)... yeah they're just about better in any way than our failed, rural high school students who're good at sports and love computer games. Only problem is if their respective government programs them to commit war crimes but I think humans can hide stuff like that better than a robot could.

The problem is, battles aren't fought only in the designated battle site #358608-1C, they're fought in and around places with significant civilian populations. Just because the two sides would be fighting solely with machines (something probably only a few nations could even afford) wouldn't remove human presence from the battlefield. A pair of boots and a rifle is just too cheap to ever go out of style. And while "never shoot civilians" sounds nice, how do you manage that? How will the machine tell a difference between a soldier and a civilian? The blog palsch linked to had a few very realistic examples of what could go wrong with giving a machine full autonomy in deciding whether a human target is lawful or not.

The question is not wherether the computer has optimal judgement, it's wherether it's better than humans. And with smart programming, it certainly will be. A robot is always objective and always follows it's orders.

Works both ways.  They will follow both ethical and unethical programming without hesitation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on February 24, 2013, 04:47:11 pm
Well unethical orders occur with human soldiers as well, except when robots are caught the authorities can't blame it on the robots "acting on their own volition."

Basically unethical programming is far easier to trace back to the true source than unethical military orders.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 24, 2013, 04:48:51 pm
Heh.... "open source" order code in accordance with the Geneva convention?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 24, 2013, 04:52:34 pm
"It was a bug"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 24, 2013, 04:54:18 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on February 24, 2013, 04:52:34 pm
"It was a feature"

FTFY
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 24, 2013, 05:44:39 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on February 24, 2013, 02:04:43 pm
Quote from: Glowcat on February 24, 2013, 01:56:15 pm
It could also have the opposite effect and lead to more conflicts if people aren't scared of war because they can send in the robot armies while they sit back in relative safety.

This is what I would worry about.  I can see the average U.S. citizen having a much more careless attitude towards war.  As it is, it still seems like the majority of people don't even care about innocent people dying "over there".  They only care about home team casualties and economic costs.

Hadn't thought about it, far too troubling.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on February 24, 2013, 08:54:02 pm

"The robots of Eastasia attacked us last night, but we won the battle by eliminating them without any loss."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on February 24, 2013, 09:11:59 pm
Quote from: PanH on February 24, 2013, 08:54:02 pm

"The robots of Eastasia attacked us last night, but we won the battle by eliminating them without any loss."
Don't be silly, we've never been at war with Eastasia.

The Middle East, on the other hand... We've been at war with them forever. After all, if we weren't at war with them, there would be mushroom clouds here, or so I was told; war means peace.
It's an expensive war, sure, but according to the news, production figures are up again this year.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on February 24, 2013, 10:08:13 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on February 24, 2013, 06:40:15 am
I want gun toting machines running around battlefields for the simple reason that one day we could have armies composed of robots fighting other robots and no people would have to waste their lives. They could also be programmed to never shoot civilians, to speak the native language of the country they're in, they would never use ethnic slurs or show resentment to the populace (unlike our brave boys)... yeah they're just about better in any way than our failed, rural high school students who're good at sports and love computer games. Only problem is if their respective government programs them to commit war crimes but I think humans can hide stuff like that better than a robot could.

while a lofty goal, this misses the mark as it misses the point of what a war is "for". Wars aren't like a sport with designated battles. Wars are about achieving goals, and they're almost always lop-sided affairs with a relative superpower lording it over some ill-equipped smaller force.

What you're missing about our "brave boys" (lol propaganda) is that the carnage to civilians, rape and looting is official policy, but with plausible deniability - this is the army, they could control that behavior if desired. The Mai Lai Massacre was merely one of 100's or 1000's of similar genocides in Vietnam, but when it exploded into public consciousness, they pinpointed it as a rogue operation (which is definitely was not - it was official strategy on how to demoralize the countryside population).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The same thing for Abu Graib and Guantanamo. Notice how damn similar the Abu Graib treatment was to Guantanamo? Not a coincidence (which it would have to be if it was just some low-ranking soldiers inventing stuff themselves), it was all official interrogation policy, but had to be denied for political purposes.

If they built robot soldiers, they'd end up adding rape / genocide / decapitate-your-children-in-front-of-you functions into them. That's how they really control captive populations.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 25, 2013, 01:24:05 pm
Quote from: Reelya on February 24, 2013, 10:08:13 pm
What you're missing about our "brave boys" (lol propaganda)

I do hope you realise I was being sarcastic. I was comparing robots to a hyper-generalised, exaggerated image of "our brave" boys i.e. failed, rural high school students who're good at sports, love computer games and use ethnic slurs and show resentment to the populace.

Quote from: MonkeyHead on February 24, 2013, 03:57:32 pm
Removing humans removes the human element.

I see that as a good thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 25, 2013, 01:46:08 pm
When the human element involves not shooting someone who has surrendured, or disobeying an order you know to be wrong, or commanders being casualty averse as lives matter more than spare parts, It could quite easily be seen as a bad thing.

Or course, this isnt to say that humans might not follow the good choices in the 3 breif scenarios outlined above, as we all know.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nilik on February 25, 2013, 07:52:27 pm
I seem to remember that there was a law passed recently that all un-manned drones, even those capable of acting independently, must always have a human operator at the controls, at least in a supervisory role. That way, if the robot does something it isn't supposed to, there is always a human being at fault, who can be punished appropriately.

Of course this raises the question of what happens if the operator loses their connection to the drone and THEN it goes on a killing spree "off-camera"...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on February 25, 2013, 07:55:30 pm
Quote from: Nilik on February 25, 2013, 07:52:27 pm
Of course this raises the question of what happens if the operator loses their connection to the drone and THEN it goes on a killing spree "off-camera"...

That would take some DAMN stupid error-handling code.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on February 25, 2013, 07:56:40 pm
Sounds like some low-ranking grunt takes the fall for the robot's programming, if you ask me. Just another way to deflect blame onto some wage-monkey. "Hey our $1 billion dollar super-robot ran amok", "It's bob the janitor's fault he was looking at the monitor while it occurred - sack him".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 26, 2013, 10:17:00 am
http://boingboing.net/2013/02/26/firearms-science-and-the-mis.html#more-215080

Why we aren't going to get anywhere, anytime soon, with obtaining actually meaningful statistics about guns.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on February 26, 2013, 12:12:27 pm

Aren't doctors required to report gun related wounds ?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on February 28, 2013, 11:59:18 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/man-charged-killing-gay-mississippi-mayoral-candidate-230033109.html

Yea... what are the odds that out of 2 democrat mayoral candidates in the same town, one is robbed at gun point and the other is murdered during the same campaign.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on March 01, 2013, 12:31:25 am
Quote from: Nadaka on February 28, 2013, 11:59:18 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/man-charged-killing-gay-mississippi-mayoral-candidate-230033109.html

Yea... what are the odds that out of 2 democrat mayoral candidates in the same town, one is robbed at gun point and the other is murdered during the same campaign.
Considering the town has crime stats several times higher than the national average, pretty good apparently.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on March 01, 2013, 12:49:48 pm
Two outrages and one awesome Supreme Court justice. (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/02/racial-prejudice-at-trial-sorry-cant-help-says-supreme-court/273509/)

The first outrage; a prosecutor who thought this was a good thing to say during a trial;
Quote
"You've got African Americans, you've got Hispanics, you've got a bag full of money. Does that tell you -- a light bulb doesn't go off in your head and say, This is a drug deal?"
The second outrage; the defendant's lawyer didn't object or appeal correctly, so there is absolutely no way for him to get any kind of relief.

The awesome; despite Sotomayor not having grounds to grant cert in the case, she did decide to write a full smackdown of exactly why the prosecutor was full of shit. No legal force, but being essentially called out on your racism by a Supreme Court justice has to sting a little.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 01, 2013, 01:18:20 pm
... I can't help but wonder what outcome he thought he'd get from going racist on hispanics in a trial presided by a hispanic judge.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 01, 2013, 01:46:35 pm
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on March 01, 2013, 01:18:20 pm
... I can't help but wonder what outcome he thought he'd get from going racist on hispanics in a trial presided by a hispanic judge.
Knowing America, I'm pretty sure one could manage to get the hispanic judge from the trial on grounds of not being able of taking in a neutral position.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 04, 2013, 08:42:09 am
Newest trend in overwhelming police surveillance.  Police vehicles are being mounted with gadgets that photograph passing license plates (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/02/ark-police-photograph-license-plates/1958819/), stamped with a record of the time and location the photograph was taken.  It helps them find stolen vehicles and people who have warrants out for them.  It's also one more way that they're able to know where anyone is or has been at any given time.  But don't worry.  Just like the Patriot Act was only about fighting terrorism, this should only concern you if you're a criminal... right?  Nevermind also that the information collected by these devices is public record, and can be legally viewed by anyone.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 04, 2013, 09:00:41 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 04, 2013, 08:42:09 am
Nevermind also that the information collected by these devices is public record, and can be legally viewed by anyone.
Oh... hey. That's. Just great. Guess what I should do is go around town writing down license plate numbers, then keep an eye on those records until the plate shows up in another state. Depending on if it's an automated process or not, might even be able to set up a bot program to do the work for me. Just have 'em track the system for a month or so and then notify me which ones are few hundred miles out of place. Would make casing a joint really easy! Could probably find out where people I want to stalk/steal from/violently-murder-for-no-reason/inundate-with-in-person-advertising/whatever live and work the same way.

Collecting the information like that is bad enough, but making it public record is just massively goddamn stupid. What jack-idiot thought that was a good idea?

E
Quote
"Should that potential of misuse therefore eliminate the capacity of law enforcement to collect data which has a legitimate purpose for the safety of our officers or the appropriateness of enforcement actions? I don't think so," he said.
Oh hell, seriously? Are you sure you're a cop, dude? Aren't you aware of the amount of generally-much-worse crime something like this could enable?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 04, 2013, 11:39:05 am
ANPR systems? Shit guys, we have had those for ages in the UK and they have only had a positive effect as far as I can tell. Then agian, Our police and legal system are far less of a joke.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 04, 2013, 11:46:41 am
Doesn't the UK like lead the first world in instances of burglary or something crazy like that? (Could be misremembering, but I know their crime rates are pretty bad)

How would you even tell if this was contributing factor?

That said, I would much prefer something like this be a matter of public record than an additional secret being kept by the police.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 04, 2013, 11:59:52 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 04, 2013, 11:46:41 am
Doesn't the UK like lead the first world in instances of burglary or something crazy like that? (Could be misremembering, but I know their crime rates are pretty bad)

How would you even tell if this was contributing factor?

That said, I would much prefer something like this be a matter of public record than an additional secret being kept by the police.
I'm pretty sure that isn't the case. After all, consitent with pretty much the entirety of Europe, crime is at it's lowest point in 30 years. They're having some problems with guncrime raising and stuff, but those seem to lessen too.

I'd go for a public record, but not with automated acces. Ie, you have to do some effort to get the information, making datamining impossible.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 04, 2013, 12:00:59 pm
The use of ANPR in the UK. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police-enforced_ANPR_in_the_UK) No mention of any high profile misuse of the system, though this doesnt mean that there have not been any... the section on the impact they have had on crime detection and arrest is interesting - ten times the national average is a big plus.

As for burgulary, nah, we are at about 800 per 100,000 inhabitants, with the US on about 750. Israel, Australia and NZ have staggeringly high rates (data from nationmaster.com). Of course, crime data is hard to compare seeing as nations record and classify things so very differently.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 04, 2013, 12:15:43 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on March 04, 2013, 11:59:52 am
I'm pretty sure that isn't the case. After all, consitent with pretty much the entirety of Europe, crime is at it's lowest point in 30 years. They're having some problems with guncrime raising and stuff, but those seem to lessen too.
Even if it did nothing but terrible stuff, I doubt it would make a dent in THAT trend. It's not a particularly useful metric, comparing it to thirty years ago - too many conflating variables. If its true that other fairly similar countries like NZ have much higher rates, it's certainly pretty interesting though. I didn't realize it was actually bad there.

Quote
I'd go for a public record, but not with automated access. Ie, you have to do some effort to get the information, making datamining impossible.
This seems reasonable to me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on March 04, 2013, 12:17:12 pm
Yeah, but the problem is, it costs 3.50 to buy 1000 Captcha solves at current prices. It's usually real people solving them, too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 04, 2013, 12:25:53 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on March 04, 2013, 12:17:12 pm
Yeah, but the problem is, it costs 3.50 to buy 1000 Captcha solves at current prices. It's usually real people solving them, too.
I wasn't talking about Captcha protection. Talking about the good old European way.

Ie, overcomplicated bureaucracy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on March 04, 2013, 12:27:39 pm
Well, that works too. :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 04, 2013, 12:33:19 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on March 04, 2013, 11:39:05 am
ANPR systems? Shit guys, we have had those for ages in the UK and they have only had a positive effect as far as I can tell. Then agian, Our police and legal system are far less of a joke.

Of course, "less of a joke" is the key expression there. Our judicial system is a joke.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 04, 2013, 12:37:30 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on March 04, 2013, 12:33:19 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on March 04, 2013, 11:39:05 am
ANPR systems? Shit guys, we have had those for ages in the UK and they have only had a positive effect as far as I can tell. Then agian, Our police and legal system are far less of a joke.

Of course, "less of a joke" is the key expression there. Our judicial system is a joke.

To be fair, are there any nations with a decently working legal system.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on March 04, 2013, 12:59:44 pm
Out of curiosity, did news like this get around in thee pre-2001 internet?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 04, 2013, 01:20:53 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on March 04, 2013, 12:37:30 pm
To be fair, are there any nations with a decently working legal system.

That still doesn't make it any better though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 04, 2013, 01:21:05 pm
Quote from: Novel on March 04, 2013, 12:59:44 pm
Out of curiosity, did news like this get around in thee pre-2001 internet?
I suppose yes. Though I can't say for sure, as I wasn't on the internet at that time.

((Also, what makes 2001 the decisive date?))
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 04, 2013, 01:22:26 pm
We had internet in our family back in 2001 but everything was dial-up. My brother tried to play rogue spear online once and it was a catastrophe.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 04, 2013, 02:18:42 pm
I remember the Dark Age of Dial-Up. Luckily, we live in better times now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 04, 2013, 02:33:18 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 04, 2013, 02:18:42 pm
I remember the Dark Age of Dial-Up. Luckily, we live in better times now.

Some don't. People in glens near me still use dial-up. In my particular glen we only have 1 internet service provider, British Telecom, who do not allow us to upgrade our internet connection beyond about... well, my download speed on steam is usually about 60-150 kb/s. Let's put it that way. Friends of mine in the big cities get upwards of 100 mb/s. BT hold the monopoly over us and there is nothing we can do. I think the Scottish government should have a renationalised telecommunications company that gives a certain level of broadband to everyone throughout the country, forcing BT to compete with it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 04, 2013, 02:51:28 pm
So I take it you're waiting for Google Fiber.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 04, 2013, 02:52:56 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 04, 2013, 02:51:28 pm
So I take it you're waiting for Google Fiber.

Yes. I doubt it will come to us though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nilik on March 04, 2013, 05:57:38 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on March 04, 2013, 12:25:53 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on March 04, 2013, 12:17:12 pm
Yeah, but the problem is, it costs 3.50 to buy 1000 Captcha solves at current prices. It's usually real people solving them, too.
I wasn't talking about Captcha protection. Talking about the good old European way.

Ie, overcomplicated bureaucracy.

Yeah, just send in form 491A, and form 491B, and 49Ic (which is totally different from 491C) remembering to include two forms of ID which both include a passport-standard photo of you and your current address, and a police background check form, and we'll have your information in 20-30 working days.

Ahh, that's good bureaucratic!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 05, 2013, 04:18:04 pm
Or, even better, submit your own data in order to access other data.

"Want access to someone elses sensetive and personal data? Fine. Hand over your own..."

EDIT: Hugo Chavez dead (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21679053) - wasnt quite sure what topic to post that in to be fair.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 05, 2013, 05:38:04 pm
No telling what's going to happen with Venezuela without Chavez.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on March 05, 2013, 06:10:59 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 05, 2013, 05:38:04 pm
No telling what's going to happen with Venezuela without Chavez.

I doubt any of it will be very good though. Or I'm wrong. I'm probably wrong >.>
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 05, 2013, 06:12:39 pm
Don't know what to make of Chavez' death. He's the man who called Carlos the Jackal a freedom fighter, not a terrorist, but his career is basically what would have happened if Tommy Sheridan or George Galloway was a South American politician. There's a huge void left now for a radical left-wing figure to act as a thorn in the side of liberal world governments.

I would much rather he hadn't died.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 05, 2013, 06:38:24 pm
Clearly we need to go out and buy some more trendy t-shirts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on March 05, 2013, 06:42:12 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 05, 2013, 06:38:24 pm
Clearly we need to go out and buy some more trendy t-shirts.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Onlyhestands on March 05, 2013, 06:51:48 pm
Peronally I'd glad to see Chávez gone, although I'm still pessimistic about Venezuela's future. The man was a demagogue, corrupt as all hell, who ruined what used to be one of the richest and best-off South American nations, despite sitting on tons of oil. His replacement will likely be more of the same. Nonetheless, I'm seeing a lot of happy posts on facebook from friends I made while studying abroad in South America.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on March 05, 2013, 09:20:25 pm
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/05/17197906-holder-no-drone-strikes-in-us-except-in-extraordinary-circumstance?lite
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/05/holder-drone-strike-against-americans-in-the-u-s-possible/?hpt=hp_t2
Drone strikes in US not ruled out.

And news of worsening conditions at Gitmo:
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/05/17199352-lawyers-for-gitmo-prisoners-decry-alarming-conditions-at-camp?lite
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on March 06, 2013, 03:31:47 am
This story is pretty absurd. (http://lifeinc.today.com/_news/2013/02/28/17106895-christian-school-fires-pregnant-woman-over-premarital-sex?lite)

It's illegal to fire someone for being pregnant, so the school was careful in saying they fired her for having premarital sex. They then offered the job to the man who got her pregnant. Because that makes sense.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on March 06, 2013, 07:42:06 am
Quote from: palsch on March 06, 2013, 03:31:47 am
so the school was careful in saying they fired her for having premarital sex
What. Why is that not illegal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 06, 2013, 07:46:34 am
Apparently 'cause they signed a contract related to such things in order to be hired. Whether the contract itself is legal, hell if I know. Don't think it's illegal yet for private schools/private business in general, but I know similar such things have been knocked down over the years (used to be something like that for public school teachers, ferex, which I think was busted at some point.). It probably varies from state to state.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 06, 2013, 08:03:47 am
Quote from: palsch on March 06, 2013, 03:31:47 am
They then offered the job to the man who got her pregnant.

This makes me want to make THESE fuckers lose their jobs. Privileged hypocrits. I can understand maintaining your ideals in a faith based school. But this makes it clear this wasn't an issue about that, it was just an attempt to fuck some poor woman over, a blatant show of contempt and vileness in the part of the authorities responsible. They aren't even trying to hide the fact.

/me simmers angrily
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 06, 2013, 08:33:12 am
There are some states where you can just fire someone arbitrarily ("right to work" states), and in those any kind of anti-discrimination in the workplace laws would be meaningless.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 06, 2013, 08:58:23 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on March 06, 2013, 08:33:12 am
There are some states where you can just fire someone arbitrarily ("right to work" states), and in those any kind of anti-discrimination in the workplace laws would be meaningless.

Yeah, I live in one of those :(

As far as I'm aware, FMLA is literally the only right I have as a worker here.  And if they ever get sick of me making use of that supposed right, they can just fire me without even having to provide an excuse.  I know multiple people who have been fired just for getting sick a single time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 06, 2013, 09:45:25 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on March 06, 2013, 08:33:12 am
There are some states where you can just fire someone arbitrarily ("right to work" states), and in those any kind of anti-discrimination in the workplace laws would be meaningless.
Right to Work states are ones that prevent union security agreements. You're thinking of at-will employment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 06, 2013, 09:49:34 am
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I've heard the two used interchangeably though
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 06, 2013, 12:01:26 pm
Quote from: Onlyhestands on March 05, 2013, 06:51:48 pm
Peronally I'd glad to see Chávez gone, although I'm still pessimistic about Venezuela's future. The man was a demagogue, corrupt as all hell, who ruined what used to be one of the richest and best-off South American nations, despite sitting on tons of oil. His replacement will likely be more of the same. Nonetheless, I'm seeing a lot of happy posts on facebook from friends I made while studying abroad in South America.

WTF? He multiplied the GDP by about 4 times, whilst bringing inflation below 30% for the first time in decades (it averaged 52% in the 1990s). They had year-on-year growth rivalling China during 2004-2008.

Yeah, he ruined it into becoming one of the fastest-growing countries in Latin America, whilst lowering infant mortality and bringing rampant income inequality to near-western European levels, and giving them one of the highest minimum wages in South America (with unemployment actually lower than the USA).

Meanwhile, inequality in neighboring countries like Colombia has increased even further during the period of Chavez's governance.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 06, 2013, 12:05:45 pm
Hey, Reelya, what's your response to these charges against Chavez? (http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-937093?hpt=hp_c2)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 06, 2013, 12:08:57 pm
Quote
I did not support you because you had led a coup against president Carlos Andres Pérez. I didn't like Pérez, but he was elected by our people and attempting to overthrow him was proof that you did not respect the will of Venezuelans.

1. President Perez was a mass-murderer, and Chavez's coup against him actually is what made him popular in the first place. The army coup leaders in 1992 were opposed to the current government because that government was ordering troops to fire on peaceful demonstrators. A little context is always nice ;D :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracazo

The lack of context given about this basic fact pretty much discredits the writer, as a whole.

Quote
I knew that the Cuban doctors in the slums were unprepared and unequipped
Bullshit, Cuban doctors are some of the best-trained in Latin America, if not the best outside advanced-nations. They brought the infant-mortality rate way down. Very nit-picking tone, and sounds like playing on xeno-phobia. The cuban doctors program multiplied the total number of medical professionals in Venezuela by about 12 times, according to Mark Weisbrot of the CEPR.

Also, the "in the slums" line suggests the writer is biased against the poor people who make up a large segment of the Venezuelan citizenry. Those people got exactly ZERO health-care coverage before 1999.

Quote
2. Your disrespect for the rule of law and your contribution to a climate of impunity in Venezuela. In 1999, you re-wrote the Constitution to fit your needs,

factually incorrect, they had a referendum on constitutional change, which passed. then an election of delegates to a constitutional convention, who drafted the new constitution, THEN another referendum at which the public voted on the new constitution.

Plus, the new 1999 constitution actually wrote that further constitutiuonal changes require a referendum. Previous to this, the constitution could be changed by a decree of congress without a public vote. You won't find ANY reference to a referendum before Chavez came into office, because they were 100% initiated by Chavez. Also, the 1999 constitution is what created "recall elections" for the president and other officials. e.g. look up the recall election in 2006 which tried to oust Chavez. That wouldn't have been possible AT ALL before the 1999 constitution.

So, the constitutional changes actually limited the powers of the government and gave more say to the people in how future laws are formed.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/indicators/2009

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Quote
Your hypocrisy on democracy. Your favorite insult for the opposition parties in Venezuela was "coupists",
Well, you will get that insult when you actually lead a coup, then the same names are the leaders in the opposition parties after the coup as the guys who signed the coup-declaration...

Quote
And yet you decided to throw it away on corruption and buying elections and weapons.

^ This is where you really know the guy is full of shit. Arms spending actually fell as a percentage of GDP since Chavez came to power.

Quote
If you had used these resources well, 10.7% of Venezuelans would not be in extreme poverty.

Hmmm. what about the 25+% lving in extreme poverty BEFORE Chavez came to power?

Quote
you denied access to foreign currency for newspapers to buy printing paper (regular citizens can't access foreign currency unless you authorize it),
This is complete bullshit. You can buy as much foreign money as you like on the unregulated market. But the exchange-rate is subsidized if you go to the government-run market, e.g. you get better than market rate worth of US Dollars for your Venezuelan money. Like about 5-times higher Because of this, people were scamming the system by exchanging all the bolivars to dollars, selling the dollars on the black market then buying more dollars. So they put a "per person" quota on how much you can exchange per year like this. So the exchange rate is subsidized, but there's a quota per person (the system would break without the quota due to scamming).

Go look up the articles, people bitching about the subsidized rates existing, then bitching that they can't get more of the subsidized dollars.


Quote
You shut down more than 30 radio and television stations

Well, a little context again:

Quote
The head of Venezuela's Conatel telecommunications agency, Diosdado Cabello, said the radio broadcasters were among a group of 240 stations that recently failed to update their registrations, let their concessions expire or possessed licenses that had been granted to an individual who is now deceased.

Plus, the only TV channel named in the news reports is RCTV who openly coordinated the 2002 coup (in which opposition supporters were quite clearly shot and killed by their own side to justify the coup - the coup generals pre-recorded their outrage to the shootings several hours before it occured). It's discussed on this video from SBS News Australia, 5 minutes in (watch at least 1 minute):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2Uqx_mkhPs
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 06, 2013, 12:53:50 pm
Yeah, Chavez wasn't exactly perfect, but I don't think any national leader ever was. It's hard to argue that he didn't introduce a ton of positive changes to Venezuela, and from everything I've read he was way better than the other options available and that's why he got re-elected. Most of the bad things I've heard and read about him later turned out to be entirely bereft of context or completely made up.

He was given a tough situation and did really well with it and made it work, and it's unsurprising he was as popular as he was. Maybe he should have retired instead of considering running forever, but hey, FDR is still seen pretty favorably, isn't he?

I just hope the country can continue doing even better moving forward. Chavez seems to have given them a much needed and strong foundation to work from, despite his various flaws.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 06, 2013, 12:57:18 pm
the problem is that sources like the one that MetalSlimeHunt linked, just aren't credible, if i can find 10+ things wrong (backing up my stuff with citations) with his "10 reasons to hate chavez", then it really casts doubt on the stuff i don't have time to look into. Certainly there are some legitimate criticisms, but there's clearly a massive smear-campaign on top of that making rational discussion of Chavez's shortcomings almost impossible to conduct.

e.g. Did ya hear about Chavez's "motorbiker army" that was supposedly going to turn Venezuela into Zimbabwe or something?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

here's an example of media-bias against Venezuela via "The Guardian", showing it's been greenlighted to present a completely nonsensical set of "facts" totally at odds with public record, as long as those facts are negative.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

BTW funny how they like to make a big deal out of Chavez having trade links with Russia and China. Doesn't everyone including the USA have massive trade links with them? Also, Venezuela has signed trade deals with dozens of other countries, too. Why single them out? Baseless muck-raking.

also, just about everyone in South America is supportive of Cuba (I think Brazil actually gives them more aid that Venezuela, at least they did for a while), so yet again it's just grandstanding to single out that relationship.

EDIT: Oh this is a "gem" I missed from MetalSlimeHunt's link :D :

Quote
When the opposition won the referendum that would have allowed you to change the Constitution in 2007, you disavowed the results and you figured out a way to change the articles and allow yourself to be reelected as many times as you wanted

How he "figured out a way to change the articles" after the first referendum failing is the sneaky method of rewriting the proposals and having ... another referendum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum,_2009). (Like if you didn't get elected the first time, you came up with the "sneaky" method of revising your platform and running again in the next election. how undemocratic) Which you're clearly not meant to check for yourself.

BTW Chavez wouldn't have needed any referendum under the old rules from before he was elected...

Clearly the whole article relies on the reader being ill-informed of dates and events.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 06, 2013, 10:15:57 pm
HEY EUROUNIONFORUMITES, YOUR SOCIALIST TRASH SUPRANATIONAL PARLIAMENT IS GOING TO BAN ALL PORNOGRAPHY NEXT TUESDAY! (http://falkvinge.net/2013/03/06/next-tuesday-the-european-parliament-votes-to-ban-all-your-porn-yes-really-take-immediate-action/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 06, 2013, 10:29:25 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 06, 2013, 10:15:57 pm
HEY EUROUNIONFORUMITES, YOUR SOCIALIST TRASH SUPRANATIONAL PARLIAMENT IS GOING TO BAN ALL PORNOGRAPHY NEXT TUESDAY! (http://falkvinge.net/2013/03/06/next-tuesday-the-european-parliament-votes-to-ban-all-your-porn-yes-really-take-immediate-action/)

The horror...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 06, 2013, 10:31:03 pm
It's nothing of the sort really.  It's just a report that reminds the EU it voted yes on a porn ban resolution back in 1997.

The fact that that resolution has been sitting around for 16 years with no action taken should be some indication of how likely this is to actually become legislation.  I think "We need to ban pornography" is like the EU equivalent of "We need to stop Israel from building any more settlements on the west bank"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 06, 2013, 10:51:26 pm
It's still some bullshit, though. What happened to you, Europe? You were supposed to be the land of rampant sexuality and social permissiveness, but now you look positively puritan next to the US.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on March 07, 2013, 12:27:45 am
A resolution is legal act by the EU parliament that is non-binding. The details are complicated but everything the european parliament does is either:

1.) a regulation = a law that is immediately effective in all member states
2.) a directive = not a law but the member states are legally obligated to create national laws according to whatever the directive descripes
3.) a decision = only affects a certain person or entity
4.) everything else is just the parliamant saying: "it would be nice if you did that but we really don't care"

minor nitpick on Metalslimehunts link title: the euro union (better known as eurozone) is not the same thing as the european union
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 07, 2013, 12:39:55 am
Quote from: lorb on March 07, 2013, 12:27:45 am
minor nitpick on Metalslimehunts link title: the euro union (better known as eurozone) is not the same thing as the european union
That's not what I was talking about. Eurounionforumites is shorthand for European Union Forumites, since if I just say Euroforumites I'm sure the non-union Euroforumites will bitch at me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 07, 2013, 12:53:19 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 06, 2013, 10:15:57 pm
HEY EUROUNIONFORUMITES, YOUR SOCIALIST TRASH SUPRANATIONAL PARLIAMENT IS GOING TO BAN ALL PORNOGRAPHY NEXT TUESDAY! (http://falkvinge.net/2013/03/06/next-tuesday-the-european-parliament-votes-to-ban-all-your-porn-yes-really-take-immediate-action/)

The EU are capitalists. Public service provision =/= socialism. Private money controls politics in the EU, just the same as in the United States.

Signapore and Hong Kong have good public health and education systems, and they are quintessential capitalists.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 07, 2013, 12:58:11 am
I'm fairly certain that MSH was joking...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 07, 2013, 01:08:09 am
Yeah, I always call you guys socialist trash. I'm pretty sure most forum searches for that term would lead to my posts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 07, 2013, 01:13:17 am
Close, but you only have 50% of the results for socialist trash. Though I believe the other two posts are discussing garbage as an example of public services in a discussion of socialism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on March 07, 2013, 01:16:13 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 07, 2013, 01:08:09 am
Yeah, I always call you guys socialist trash. I'm pretty sure most forum searches for that term would lead to my posts.

All of them except ones quoting you saying it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 07, 2013, 01:17:48 am
I think I've also used Eurotrash and Communists, it can be hard to remember with 15000 posts. I know this isn't the first time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on March 07, 2013, 02:48:58 am
Generally don't refer to you guys, It's assumed my audience is either international or american, never had to refer.
 
I suppose I'll go with a Romance "Y'all". Europe is now officially "Y'all fancy folks wit dem britches", or "dem euros" for short.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on March 07, 2013, 06:03:36 am
I'm still surprise this porn stuff is going on. I'd love to see the exact wording, but since it basically a useless resolution made by a toothless body, I won't bother looking it up.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 07, 2013, 06:31:27 am
Quote
17. Calls on the EU and its Member States to take concrete action on its resolution of 16 September 1997 on discrimination against women in advertising, which called for a ban on all forms of pornography in the media and on the advertising of sex tourism;
"You know that useless resolution you passed 16 years ago without reading?  Please do something about it."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on March 07, 2013, 07:06:26 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on March 07, 2013, 06:31:27 am
Quote
17. Calls on the EU and its Member States to take concrete action on its resolution of 16 September 1997 on discrimination against women in advertising, which called for a ban on all forms of pornography in the media and on the advertising of sex tourism;
"You know that useless resolution you passed 16 years ago without reading?  Please do something about it."
I read that as: "the only good porn is gay porn. Less titties, more hot man luvin' "
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 07, 2013, 11:48:32 am
The recent anti-porn bill scare has completely proven that people on the internet don't pay any attention to bills besides "Oh no, will it hurt my internets? Government is trying to kill freedom of speech! Bring out the Orwell references!"

I mean, I was pretty sure they were mindless single-issue people just like everyone they ridicule, but I thought there was a small chance that the people crusading for freedom of information would occasionally make an effort to use that freedom.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on March 07, 2013, 12:29:41 pm
You don't use freedom Penguin. First you demand it, then you have it.

No using. That's not what freedom is for.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on March 07, 2013, 01:04:51 pm
What's funny is that the article right next to it is : "Convictions for file-sharing violates human rights" (http://falkvinge.net/2013/02/07/court-of-human-rights-convictions-for-file-sharing-violates-human-rights/) by the European Convention. Which is again not exactly what was said.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 07, 2013, 02:28:56 pm
Just this one time, I don't have something bad to say about Texas.

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/a-texas-cell-phone-bill-would-bar-warrantless-location-data
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on March 07, 2013, 08:12:24 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/07/justice/new-mexico-inmate-settlement/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Man in New Mexico jailed for 22 months w/o trial, then put in solitary confinement and basically ignored.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 07, 2013, 10:25:29 pm
Quote from: alway on March 07, 2013, 08:12:24 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/07/justice/new-mexico-inmate-settlement/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Man in New Mexico jailed for 22 months w/o trial, then put in solitary confinement and basically ignored.

Saw that story on my feed today.  Haven't actually read it yet.  There's been a significant spike in horrific police stories over the last week or so.  Another one I saw today was a man beaten nearly to death on the side of the road for refusing a warrantless vehicle search by Denver police.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 09, 2013, 06:11:50 am
School boards to be allowed to let school staff carry guns in schools in South Dakota. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21722377) WHAT THE FUCK? How will allowing more guns into a school make a school shooting less probable in any way, shape or form? I dispair, I really do.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 09, 2013, 06:48:46 am
Well, the presumption is that teachers will be able to shoot perps. I think the NRA or whatever talked about the headmistress of that school in Sandy Hook and how she may have been able to stop things if she had been armed.

Plus, I'm sure most teachers won't bring in guns. It'll probably be one or two in the whole school.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on March 09, 2013, 06:51:07 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on March 09, 2013, 06:11:50 am
School boards to be allowed to let school staff carry guns in schools in South Dakota. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21722377) WHAT THE FUCK? How will allowing more guns into a school make a school shooting less probable in any way, shape or form? I dispair, I really do.
If there is a problem, you need to add more guns until the problem is solved. Obviously.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on March 09, 2013, 06:53:49 am
The theory goes like this: You pull the trigger on a machine gun until the whole world turns into blood, and it is awesome. You can't argue with that; that's science. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoreDakka)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 10, 2013, 12:03:55 am
Maybe someone could jog my memory... I think it was in this thread.

There was a popular conservative idiom mentioned that's used quite a bit nowadays, along with the obvious explanation of how it means the exact opposite of what people use it for. But I can't remember anything more than that! Can anyone help?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 10, 2013, 12:14:59 am
There are a lot of nonfunctional conservative idioms. Any idea what issue it was related to?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on March 10, 2013, 12:19:13 am
The only one I know of is 'Two Wongs don't make a White'. Although the guy who said it was actually left wing so...
Also it is as racist as it sounds.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 10, 2013, 12:19:39 am
Something economic, I believe. Ugh, it was like in the last week and a half. It's so frustrating.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 10, 2013, 12:23:25 am
You Have To Spend Money To Make Money, in regards to why we should cut the budget and lower taxes?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 10, 2013, 01:05:14 am
The rich/businesses as job makers? Dunno if that was this thread or another one but it came up. And yeah, th'concept is so backassward it's almost surprising it gained traction. Consumers (/demand) are what causes an increase in employment, and despite having an overwhelming amount of the resources th'high wealth folks don't increase demand nearly proportionally to what they take in/hoard (surprise surprise, money stagnating in a bank or tied up in land is bad for the economy!). Regarding businesses, they only hire more folks if they've got more business than they can handle, not just 'cause they're making more money.

Was a canceled TED talk that put the concept more elegantly. Though that's definitely not something that came up in the last week and a half. Might be a bit iffy on the exact opposite bit, too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Boea on March 10, 2013, 02:50:03 am
I'm just going to put out an old idiom.

"A rolling stone doesn't gather moss."
Nowadays, it's attributed to rogues, and mavericks, and rebels, in a sort of exalting way.
Back then, about the time of its creation, it was about how useless, and unsupportive a person is if they don't settle down, and do responsible things.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 10, 2013, 05:09:03 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 10, 2013, 12:23:25 am
You Have To Spend Money To Make Money, in regards to why we should cut the budget and lower taxes?

That's Keynesianism, isn't it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 10, 2013, 05:17:28 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on March 10, 2013, 05:09:03 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 10, 2013, 12:23:25 am
You Have To Spend Money To Make Money, in regards to why we should cut the budget and lower taxes?

That's Keynesianism, isn't it?
Not if you're trying to eliminate the deficit with it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 11, 2013, 03:43:22 pm
Women In New York Are Getting Arrested For Carrying Condoms (http://www.businessinsider.com/police-arrest-women-for-carrying-condoms-2013-3)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on March 11, 2013, 04:09:22 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 11, 2013, 03:43:22 pm
Women In New York Are Getting Arrested For Carrying Condoms (http://www.businessinsider.com/police-arrest-women-for-carrying-condoms-2013-3)
...

I'm aware a lot of people think persecuting prostitutes is helpful, but could they please get it through their heads that it really isn't?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 11, 2013, 04:16:07 pm
I don't see why it should be a crime. I can understand laws concerning brothels and such but prostitution should be legal everywhere, it's your choice to do what you want with your body for money.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on March 11, 2013, 04:19:37 pm
You mean prostitution or carrying a condom?
Prostitution I'm sure you could make some sort of argument for keeping illegal. Not sure how it would go and I'm not going to try but I'm willing to concede a debate still exists there.
Carrying a condom? The idea that carrying one of these things should land you in trouble is offensive. Fuck you New York Police, you guys suck.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 11, 2013, 04:32:13 pm
Quote from: Max White on March 11, 2013, 04:19:37 pm
You mean prostitution or carrying a condom?
Prostitution I'm sure you could make some sort of argument for keeping illegal. Not sure how it would go and I'm not going to try but I'm willing to concede a debate still exists there.
Carrying a condom? The idea that carrying one of these things should land you in trouble is offensive. Fuck you New York Police, you guys suck.

I'm referring to prostitution, I should have made that clearer. Sorry.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Boea on March 11, 2013, 04:35:05 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on March 11, 2013, 04:16:07 pm
I don't see why it should be a crime. I can understand laws concerning brothels and such but prostitution should be legal everywhere, it's your choice to do what you want with your body for money.

There's a difference between Prostitution by choice, by necessity, and straight on slavery/extortion.
I love how these large, and amazing laws are comparable to carpet bombings.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on March 11, 2013, 04:36:39 pm
Even in well-regulated place like Holland, it's estimated 50% of sex workers are forced into prostitution. The whole trade brings a lot of unpleasantness that apparently can't be regulated away, so it might be better to outlaw it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 11, 2013, 04:44:05 pm
But where would they be if they were not forced into legal prostitution? Wouldn't they just become illegal prostitutes and run afoul of the law? In any country, developed or undeveloped, there are going to be some women (and perhaps men) who find that there is nothing they can do to support themselves/their family adequately enough without selling their bodies. That's an ugly truth and governments should accomodate it, otherwise you're just making life harder for them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on March 11, 2013, 04:44:48 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on March 11, 2013, 04:44:05 pm
But where would they be if they were not forced into legal prostitution? Wouldn't they just become illegal prostitutes and run afoul of the law?

...forced meaning they wouldn't be a prostitute at all if they weren't, you know, forced to.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 11, 2013, 04:47:08 pm
Quote from: Putnam on March 11, 2013, 04:44:48 pm
...forced meaning they wouldn't be a prostitute at all if they weren't, you know, forced to.

But I was taking the word "forced" as referring to becoming a prostitute out of necessity, not at gunpoint. That kind of thing is something that can be regulated, or should be by Law Enforcement services.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on March 11, 2013, 04:48:31 pm
I think he just said it confusingly.

Whether the trade is legal or illegal, they would still be prostitutes. But an illegal trade makes their lives harder than it has to be, when it's already rather rough by whatever circumstances are forcing them, while a legal trade could instead let people go after the things forcing them into it. Pimps, poverty, that kind of thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 11, 2013, 04:48:56 pm
Quote from: Sheb on March 11, 2013, 04:36:39 pm
Even in well-regulated place like Holland, it's estimated 50% of sex workers are forced into prostitution. The whole trade brings a lot of unpleasantness that apparently can't be regulated away, so it might be better to outlaw it.
Except what exactly is outlawing it going to do? Stop the trade, or punish people potentially in an already dire straight that's committing an act that, in itself, is victim-less (the extortion and situations surrounding it definitely less so, of course). Something else?

Outlawing it really damn obviously doesn't work to prevent the practice and very much obviously makes it so the surrounding environs are necessarily more toxic for the prostitute as well as everyone else involved. If outlawing prostitution is doing less harm than good, I'd probably be pretty damned surprised, y'know?

Now, something along the lines of support networks, resources to help sex workers find other employment, should they desire it, and a system that provides means to prevent the negative aspects that seem to inevitably surround the trade, yes. Those are good ideas. Criminalizing the act, however, on the face of it provides precisely zero bloody benefit and inflicts an unnecessary and likely useless amount of suffering on people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 11, 2013, 04:50:13 pm
Quote from: Descan on March 11, 2013, 04:48:31 pm
I think he just said it confusingly.

Whether the trade is legal or illegal, they would still be prostitutes. But an illegal trade makes their lives harder than it has to be, when it's already rather rough by whatever circumstances are forcing them, while a legal trade could instead let people go after the things forcing them into it. Pimps, poverty, that kind of thing.

Rather like outlawing alcohol and drugs completely, outlawing prostitution is going to make an ugly reality uglier than it needs to be.

Quote from: Frumple on March 11, 2013, 04:48:56 pm
Quote from: Sheb on March 11, 2013, 04:36:39 pm
Even in well-regulated place like Holland, it's estimated 50% of sex workers are forced into prostitution. The whole trade brings a lot of unpleasantness that apparently can't be regulated away, so it might be better to outlaw it.
Except what exactly is outlawing it going to do? Stop the trade, or punish people potentially in an already dire straight that's committing an act that, in itself, is victim-less (the extortion and situations surrounding it definitely less so, of course). Something else?

Outlawing it really damn obviously doesn't work to prevent the practice and very much obviously makes it so the surrounding environs are necessarily more toxic for the prostitute as well as everyone else involved. If outlawing prostitution is doing less harm than good, I'd probably be pretty damned surprised, y'know?

Now, something along the lines of support networks, resources to help sex workers find other employment, should they desire it, and a system that provides means to prevent the negative aspects that seem to inevitably surround the trade, yes. Those are good ideas. Criminalizing the act, however, on the face of it provides precisely zero bloody benefit and inflicts an unnecessary and likely useless amount of suffering on people.

I concur 100%.

I don't know about you chaps but I actually see sex work in general as a respectable profession. If you're good at something and people could use your services, why not make a career out of it? Or rather, use it to supplement your income from your day job for as long as it remains viable for you.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 11, 2013, 05:02:37 pm
From what I understand, The Netherlands have significant problems with enforcing their existing prostitution laws because of the way it's treated despite being legal.

Despite 80% of Amsterdam prostitutes being illegally trafficked, local authorities have referred to it as "not their problem".

I think they generally have the right laws, but if it isn't an enforcement priority you're not going to wind up with good results. Prison sentences generally range from measly 1-2 months in prison for each person illegally and personally trafficked into the country to serve as prostitutes or servants. If you violently abuse and traffic hundreds of women, why, you could get anywhere from 8 months to 7 years.

Normal Amsterdam policy to evidence of abuse, violence, and trafficking isn't to arrest people, but simply to close the shop - the people involved simply move elsewhere and re-open.

It's pretty problematic. It's DEFINITELY not what I would call "well regulated".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on March 11, 2013, 05:14:25 pm
What Glyph said... It's honestly not as well regulated as it could be. If they were stricter about enforcing the licensing laws a lot of trouble could be avoided.

It's also worth noting that Amsterdam is one of, if not the biggest hotspot in the world for sex tourism. This means that prostitution there is a lot more lucrative and in demand than it typically would be in many other places.

EDIT:
Quote from: Boea on March 11, 2013, 05:13:57 pm
Quote from: Jervill on March 11, 2013, 05:12:10 pm
Boea, are you a Jeopardy contestant or something?
Consider it salt, just consider the question.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Did someone ask a question that I didn't notice?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on March 11, 2013, 05:49:00 pm
The only reasonable thing is neither to legalize prostitution or to criminalize it. It's to do what Sweden did; Decriminalize selling sex, illegalise buying it. It's the only way to get at the core of the issue, and it doesn't cause more hindrance or threat towards the people who need help from the law than they're already under.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 11, 2013, 07:09:17 pm
I'm fine with prostitution, provided lots of steps are taken to avoid spreading STDs, along with making sure the... service providers are safe.

I haven't really thought about it before, but my current thoughts are along the lines of licencing both buyers AND sellers, requiring regular checkups for STDs to keep one's privilege to do either.

Regardless, I don't find anything inherently wrong with the practice, except it being incredibly risky.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on March 12, 2013, 02:51:21 am
(Actually, I was trying to be the Devil's advocate here)

Well, I didn't know enforcement was so lax in the Netherlands. In a case like Amsterdam, outlawing prostitution should lower overall demand, reducing the total amount of abused women (It's hard to imagine it staying the world sex capital with illegal prostitution). Legal prostitution seems to be one of these things that sound nice in theory, but keep getting nasty when you try to implement it.

My favorite way would be to punish the clients and pimps, and offer health service to the prostitutes. Try to diminish the trade as much as possible why keeping it as safe as possible. Seems like this general approach works for a lot of things, like "hard" drugs, were more and more countries offer needles and "shooting facilities" while still going after the drug traffickers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 12, 2013, 05:23:07 am
Quote from: Sheb on March 11, 2013, 04:36:39 pm
Even in well-regulated place like Holland, it's estimated 50% of sex workers are forced into prostitution. The whole trade brings a lot of unpleasantness that apparently can't be regulated away, so it might be better to outlaw it.
Yeah, lets make 100% of the prostitutes illegals, that's going to help :/ (it'll be one more hold the pimp has over his whores, that they'll go to jail too)

There's not a lick of evidence that outlawing it reduces prostitution. It's the same as the drugs laws: It only exacerbates the problems by forcing those women to never approach social services at all out of fear of arrest. This thing with New York basically forcing prostitutes not to use condoms is such a "win" scenario, especially with a country that also outlaws efforts to provide clean needles for drug addicts ( big cross over with the prostitutes i bet). I read once that 60% of needle users in NYC had HepC as compared to 5% of needle users in Australia, due to our efforts to ensure clean needles were available.

Hello AIDS and Hep-C epidemics. (this is already happening amongst US drug/sex subcultures due to the "zero tolerance" approach). The condom thing is going to accelerate the trend.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 12, 2013, 12:25:04 pm
Homeless man ticketed for scavenging for food in a trash can in Houston, where it is also illegal to offer food to the homeless (without multiple permits, training, schedules, and permissions). (http://news92fm.com/335204/houston-feeding-ordinance-homeless-man-ticketed-for-dumpster-diving/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on March 12, 2013, 12:49:41 pm
In Vienna you have a system where prostitution is kind-of allowed: You may do it but not commercially, where commercially means someone else than the one doing the service gets any money for it. If it's the same person it is seen as a private transaction. Besides that there are bi-weekly tests for STDs which are not compulsory but if a sex-worker does not go to them they do not get a stamp in their "Deckel" and only a few people want to have sex with someone who can't show you their up-to-date "Deckel". It is actually working quiet good if you only look at prostitution. Associated crimes like human-trafficking obviously still exist but people actually do get arrested and prosecuted for it. Also for procuration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procuring_%28prostitution%29) which is illegal, which I think helps a lot in reducing the associated crimes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on March 12, 2013, 12:52:34 pm
Procuration... like, pimping? "Taking care" of prostitutes?

Or like, it's illegal to be the John?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on March 12, 2013, 01:00:07 pm
The former. My dictionary gives it to me as the translation of the legal term for pimping. See: Wikipedia on Procuring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procuring_%28prostitution%29)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on March 12, 2013, 07:20:57 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/12/judge-approves-truth-serum-james-holmes

Something or other about the right to remain silent...?

Brought to you by the Big Pharma Lobby, "we have a pill for everything and you'll be having them all shoved down your throat soon enough."

People are insane if they stand for this. Gitmo without a fair trial or any trial. Warrant-less wiretapping.... Then people get upset when they can't get out of jail quickly for what they deem to be "all wrong," or otherwise "a mistake the system made." Also, your public defender / appointed counsel is paid horridly by the state and not reimbursed for the many $10 per up to 5 minute phone calls from inside the jail that are recorded and listened to by the prosecution so no, they aren't going to answer when you call, because if they did, then they'd have a $600/month phone bill and everything said would be used against you....

You are the "criminals" people, yes you. Don't think I don't know you probably don't have a criminal record; this applies to you. It will determine how and if the government can do things to you even and especially when you don't want it to.

I cannot tell you how many times I hear, "They can't do that!!!" Yup.... They're gonna.

I hope this gets kicked in the teeth on appeal, I really do.

In the meantime, keep demanding politicians get "tough on crime," and wonder why everything keeps getting worse. [sigh]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 12, 2013, 07:31:18 pm
We don't have a truth serum.  The narcotic interrogation could maybe help determine whether someone is insane or not now, but there is no medical evidence to suggest it would actually help extract the truth from people.  It may get you a confession, but that's because the drugs make you more impressionable.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 13, 2013, 01:34:34 am
It wouldn't help with that either because what someone says under the influence is not really vinculating. At the ER when someone comes with an overdose or an overdose attempt psychiatrists wait until the dude comes down to make a through evaluation
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 13, 2013, 03:56:08 am
Quote from: Truean on March 12, 2013, 07:20:57 pm
In the meantime, keep demanding politicians get "tough on crime," and wonder why everything keeps getting worse. [sigh]

This is one thing that really, really infuriates me about people.  When it comes to crime, it seems like so many people want everyone else who is ever accused of anything to burn.  I, unfortunately, got involved in a discussion at work last week with a couple people who honestly believed we should force criminals into gladiator games, because 'it's the only contribution they're capable of making to society'.  When I brought up a host of factors explaining why most criminals don't deserve anything like that, their stonewall response was "NOPE.  DON'T CARE WHAT THE EXCUSE IS.  YOU ALWAYS HAVE A CHOICE NOT TO COMMIT A CRIME.  THEY'RE JUST PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO RAPE AND MURDER."

What astounds me is at other times I've had conversations with both of the main proponents of this thing about their friends and family who were getting screwed by the brokenness of the justice system, so they should understand how misguided such an extreme of vindictiveness is.  It seems to me like as soon as most people hear the word "criminal" and it doesn't refer to somebody they know, they go retarded with bloodthirsty insanity.  Their grip on reality gets displaced by every stereotype of pure evil they've ever been exposed to.

In general, I'm realizing more and more lately that people always assume the worst possible thing about strangers by default, and I'm beginning to think this is one of the biggest problems with the world.  There could be a dozen excusable explanations as to someone else's behavior, but most people will zero in on the one explanation that makes the other an asshole deserving of retribution.  They'll then set about enacting retribution, usually in passive aggressive ways that make everyone's life a daily hell and create a cycle of cultural self-reinforcement of this negative world view.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on March 13, 2013, 04:04:04 am
Criminal, terrorist, communist, witch. People loose their ability to think rationally once you are accused of a crime.

I think it is an evolutionary response. When we are so willing to condemn anybody who doesn't fit into a very specific stereotype, it quickly culls out minorities, leaving only the homogeneous mass. The more open minded get killed off by the close minded leading to a drift towards fear and paranoia.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 13, 2013, 04:15:26 am
That last bit's actually a known phenomena in the field of sociology (and probably psych, too), though I forget exactly what it's called. Or if it has a particular name or something... probably, but eh. But yeah, folks tend to single-dimensionalize, if you will, people that aren't them or theirs. Naturally, if it happens to them or people they're close to, the tune changes and it's a complicated situation and there's lots of reasons for X or Y to happen and etc., so forth, so on. It just seems like it's rather difficult for a lot of people to make the connection that there's that sort of complicated situation for... well, pretty much everyone.

It's a tendency that's possible to break, but it takes training of some sort for most people. S'one of the reasons teaching psych/sociology (and quite possibly the mechanical aspects of philosophy -- rhetoric, logic, analysis) to folks is generally a pretty good idea, though the general youth of the former fields makes anything systematic still difficult to implement.

On the personal level, something in me's broke and I've never really been capable of feeling anything positive from that sort of spite. Other folks seem to get some kind of charge from certain negative emotions or demonizing other people and I just... don't. Haven't been able to. Don't exactly miss the capability but it makes comprehension hard at times :-\
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on March 13, 2013, 04:21:25 am
I would hazard a guess that it relates to empathy.
Too little and your society falls apart, but too much and they become unwilling to attack the tribe next door and benefit as a result. The ideal level is where you care about people you know, but will demonize people in general... We are still hard wired for a time when communities worked on a local scale and you knew everybody that could benefit you, rather than the global mesh we have today where we depend on strangers that we will never meet to live our lives. Most people don't care about these strangers, but they should, it works better these days.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 13, 2013, 01:32:26 pm
In the UK we are polarised in an unpleasant way - on one end you've got people demanding that we bring back the hangman's noose (honestly) and on the other you've got people who want to give prisoners the vote. Personally I am in favour of giving prisoners the vote because... well, you know. What happens when political prisoners end up in prison?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on March 13, 2013, 05:07:15 pm
Quote from: Frumple on March 13, 2013, 04:15:26 am
That last bit's actually a known phenomena in the field of sociology (and probably psych, too), though I forget exactly what it's called. Or if it has a particular name or something... probably, but eh.

I am a sociologist so I should know but I am not sure what you refer to. Maybe In-group favoritism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism) ?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 14, 2013, 02:38:21 pm
Oh, justice.  You so crazy. (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2012/12/20/indicted-drug-analyst-annie-dookhan-mails-reveal-her-close-personal-ties-prosecutors/A37GaatHLKfW1kphDjxLXJ/story.html)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on March 14, 2013, 03:25:08 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 14, 2013, 03:37:45 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 14, 2013, 02:38:21 pm
Oh, justice.  You so crazy. (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2012/12/20/indicted-drug-analyst-annie-dookhan-mails-reveal-her-close-personal-ties-prosecutors/A37GaatHLKfW1kphDjxLXJ/story.html)
"Ooh baby, I love it when you tamper with my evidence."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 14, 2013, 03:43:58 pm
Who doesn't love a little report falsification on the low-down? No one, that's who. Barring everyone worth a shit, anyway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 14, 2013, 10:56:18 pm
Don't know if this has been brought up but people bringing up crime rings rather hollow on statistics.
Which show that crime has been going steadily down.
For 20+ years.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 15, 2013, 03:08:23 am
As far as the pornography => rape crimes link goes, i read that since ~1995 when the net was effectively launched for the general public, rape reports in the United States have dropped 44%, and it's also probable that the reporting rate for rape has actually improved in the last 20 years, so the true rape amounts are probably down by quite a bit more than the 44%

And that's all since pornography basically became universally free and accessible.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 15, 2013, 03:14:19 am
Izzat counting the prison ones that were basically lied about for a while, too? From what I remember, while there has been gains in that area in the states, it's not nearly as large as people were crowing about for a while, because the rape statistics in relation to the penal system were being ignored/massively underreported.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on March 15, 2013, 03:45:13 am
Also, there has been a general decrease in crime rate for some more or less unknown reason. If rape fell by less than other crime (I don't know if it did), maybe it's because while some unknown cause were bringing all the crimes down, porn gave a bump to rape.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on March 15, 2013, 03:57:36 am
While there is no proof that access to pornography can decrease rape metaanalyses have shown that most studies that tried to link consumption of pornography with a sex-violence-supportive attitude failed. So science can at least confidently say that pornography does not directly increase rapes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on March 15, 2013, 04:03:39 am
With p<0.05
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 15, 2013, 04:13:55 am
A single data point or study might have 95% confidence, but a meta-study would have much more certainty (much greater sample size)

Anyway, you have no more evidence linking rapes to porn than to eating burgers made of pink slime, for instance.

http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/
Quote
The most reliable measure of violent crime is the homicide rate. Americans kill one another at a much higher rate – double, quadruple, or more – than do residents of comparable western European nations. This gap persists despite a roughly 40 percent drop in our homicide rate in the last 15 years or so.

Which would have the reported rape statistics decreasing as fast or faster than homicides in the same period. Again, i'd note that reporting rates for rape have most likely improved in the 20 years, whereas homicides are always fairly steadily reported (a missing person or dead body makes it clear something happened that needs to be investigated).

Anyway people have crunched the numbers, for each of the 50 states of the USA:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/10/how_the_web_prevents_rape.html
Quote
First, porn. What happens when more people view more of it? The rise of the Internet offers a gigantic natural experiment. Better yet, because Internet usage caught on at different times in different states, it offers 50 natural experiments.

The bottom line on these experiments is, "More Net access, less rape." A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And, according to Clemson professor Todd Kendall, the effects remain even after you control for all of the obvious confounding variables, such as alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty and unemployment rates, population density, and so forth.

OK, so we can at least tentatively conclude that Net access reduces rape. But that's a far cry from proving that porn access reduces rape. Maybe rape is down because the rapists are all indoors reading Slate or vandalizing Wikipedia. But professor Kendall points out that there is no similar effect of Internet access on homicide. It's hard to see how Wikipedia can deter rape without deterring other violent crimes at the same time. On the other hand, it's easy to imagine how porn might serve as a substitute for rape.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on March 15, 2013, 04:37:08 am
Quote from: Reelya on March 15, 2013, 04:13:55 am
A single data point or study might have 95% confidence, but a meta-study would have much more certainty (much greater sample size)
That's just not true. Publication bias features very heavily in any meta analysis of high-stakes research. It's something which comes up frequently in things like ESP meta-analysis. Journals don't want to waste everyone's time with 'and this month, 19 new studies found no evidence for ESP.' The 1 new study which does show evidence for ESP (95% confidence = 1 in 20 are false positives) is the one people want to read about/publish. And so if 99% of these false-positives are published while only 2% of the 'no data found' studies are published, you end up with meta-analyses stating things to the effect of 'using a random sample of 30 papers on ESP research, we aggregated the data from each paper and can now say with a very high confidence that ESP exists.'

For things like new, basic research, this is less of a problem because A: the topic is relatively unknown/new and B: finding no evidence may itself be a highly important event in a relatively obscure/unknown problem. But for things where there is a large body of research about which there is a certain expected conclusion, the publication bias will strongly favor certain outcomes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on March 15, 2013, 05:34:14 am
Neat. I wonder if rape rate would increase after the porn ban in Iceland (if they implement it). It'd be another great natural experiment.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on March 15, 2013, 06:41:32 am
Quote from: Sheb on March 15, 2013, 05:34:14 am
Neat. I wonder if rape rate would increase after the porn ban in Iceland (if they implement it). It'd be another great natural experiment.

All the women in Iceland: "You know, I think I'm just gonna hop on a boat and hang out in the UK for a little bit."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 15, 2013, 07:44:51 am
Quote from: Sheb on March 15, 2013, 05:34:14 am
Neat. I wonder if rape rate would increase after the porn ban in Iceland (if they implement it). It'd be another great natural experiment.

Someone mentioned that Iceland already banned print pornography a while ago, which was followed by 2 trends:

1. An increase in downloading of internet porn in Iceland.
2. A rape epidemic in Iceland.

Naturally, the anti-porn activists have cited this correlation as causative, and proof that porn was the culprit, all along.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on March 15, 2013, 09:55:07 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on March 15, 2013, 04:40:36 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 13, 2013, 03:56:08 am
Quote from: Truean on March 12, 2013, 07:20:57 pm
In the meantime, keep demanding politicians get "tough on crime," and wonder why everything keeps getting worse. [sigh]

This is one thing that really, really infuriates me about people.  When it comes to crime, it seems like so many people want everyone else who is ever accused of anything to burn.  I, unfortunately, got involved in a discussion at work last week with a couple people who honestly believed we should force criminals into gladiator games, because 'it's the only contribution they're capable of making to society'.  When I brought up a host of factors explaining why most criminals don't deserve anything like that, their stonewall response was "NOPE.  DON'T CARE WHAT THE EXCUSE IS.  YOU ALWAYS HAVE A CHOICE NOT TO COMMIT A CRIME.  THEY'RE JUST PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO RAPE AND MURDER."

What astounds me is at other times I've had conversations with both of the main proponents of this thing about their friends and family who were getting screwed by the brokenness of the justice system, so they should understand how misguided such an extreme of vindictiveness is.  It seems to me like as soon as most people hear the word "criminal" and it doesn't refer to somebody they know, they go retarded with bloodthirsty insanity.  Their grip on reality gets displaced by every stereotype of pure evil they've ever been exposed to.

In general, I'm realizing more and more lately that people always assume the worst possible thing about strangers by default, and I'm beginning to think this is one of the biggest problems with the world.  There could be a dozen excusable explanations as to someone else's behavior, but most people will zero in on the one explanation that makes the other an asshole deserving of retribution.  They'll then set about enacting retribution, usually in passive aggressive ways that make everyone's life a daily hell and create a cycle of cultural self-reinforcement of this negative world view.

And then you end up assuming that everyone else is said idiots, with close to the same effect.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 15, 2013, 05:01:11 pm
http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/03/15/2116249/national-security-letters-ruled-unconstitutional-banned

hurray for liberty!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 15, 2013, 06:16:14 pm
Don't confuse causation and correlation!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 16, 2013, 09:46:41 am
Quote from: Nadaka on March 15, 2013, 05:01:11 pm
http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/03/15/2116249/national-security-letters-ruled-unconstitutional-banned

hurray for liberty!
JUSTICE
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 17, 2013, 11:45:46 am
For the first time in 3 years, we have an opportunity to hear Bradley Manning speak on his own behalf, even though we're still not supposed to. (http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/12/daniel_ellsberg_in_hearing_bradley_manning)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on March 20, 2013, 02:21:05 am
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/02/201322510446268971.html
Interesting piece on the Chinese hackers hullabaloo.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on March 20, 2013, 05:24:50 pm
Didn't check it's sauce or anything, but what (http://imgur.com/gallery/JMURn).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on March 21, 2013, 10:17:29 am
I don't know about that specific case, but there are about 4 exonerations from death penalty per year in the US. And that's just those for who it is not too late already. If you start to look for them you will find that there is a lot of wrongful convictions that can easily be seen as wrong shortly afterwards but still take years to be recognized as such by the courts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on March 22, 2013, 12:20:55 pm
Lucy Meadows, a transgender teacher who had been monstered by the British tabloids, was found dead at her home earlier in the week.

This is the best collection of articles and commentary around the story. (http://jackofkent.com/resource-pages/lucy-meadows/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 22, 2013, 01:05:17 pm
I just read the article from Richard Littlejohn. I wouldn't say he monstered her, even though he's been targeted more than anyone else. Don't get me wrong, I deeply dislike the man, I just think it's exaggeration and he's a bit of an easy target. He was out of line with his comments in my opinion (which basically consisted of calling her selfish), but he's entitled to them as much as you or I am.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: comham on March 22, 2013, 01:16:20 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on March 22, 2013, 01:05:17 pm
I just read the article from Richard Littlejohn. I wouldn't say he monstered her, even though he's been targeted more than anyone else. Don't get me wrong, I deeply dislike the man, I just think it's exaggeration and he's a bit of an easy target. He was out of line with his comments in my opinion (which basically consisted of calling her selfish), but he's entitled to them as much as you or I am.
He's not entitled to publish them in one of the most read papers/websites in britain though. That's an abuse of platform.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 22, 2013, 01:18:11 pm
Quote from: comham on March 22, 2013, 01:16:20 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on March 22, 2013, 01:05:17 pm
I just read the article from Richard Littlejohn. I wouldn't say he monstered her, even though he's been targeted more than anyone else. Don't get me wrong, I deeply dislike the man, I just think it's exaggeration and he's a bit of an easy target. He was out of line with his comments in my opinion (which basically consisted of calling her selfish), but he's entitled to them as much as you or I am.
He's not entitled to publish them in one of the most read papers/websites in britain though. That's an abuse of platform.
If it's an opinion piece, he kinda is. I haven't read the article, but as long as he doesn't say anything that's a blatant lie, or actively (attempts to) hurt the person, it's allowed.

Oh, and calling someone selfish doesn't fall under either of those.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on March 22, 2013, 01:19:25 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on March 22, 2013, 01:05:17 pm
I just read the article from Richard Littlejohn. I wouldn't say he monstered her, even though he's been targeted more than anyone else. Don't get me wrong, I deeply dislike the man, I just think it's exaggeration and he's a bit of an easy target. He was out of line with his comments in my opinion (which basically consisted of calling her selfish), but he's entitled to them as much as you or I am.
Well if you only read one article then it probably doesn't look like ongoing harassment...

I'd recommend this post. (http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/03/press-regulation-freedom-speech-and-death-lucy-meadows)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 22, 2013, 01:33:49 pm
I don't doubt that the tabloids have done a lot of damage to Ms. Meadows, I'm just saying it's wrong for the media to cannibalise Mr. Littlejohn just because he's such an easy target. It will distract us from the really horrible guys like the newspaper editors and men in suits with unvoiced opinions who run the show.

I can't believe I'm actually defending Richard Littlejohn. He's a guy who should have been turned into a harmonica-playing goomba a long time ago.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on March 22, 2013, 01:40:27 pm
With respect to Littlejohn, if this is the straw that finally breaks the camel's back I won't be shedding a tear. He's been a toxic voice in the British media for decades, and if making an example of him will show that this kind of action is unacceptable then all the better.

It's not that he is the only one at fault, but I don't think there is a damned thing to be said in his defence here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 22, 2013, 02:01:02 pm
Quote from: palsch on March 22, 2013, 01:40:27 pm
With respect to Littlejohn, if this is the straw that finally breaks the camel's back I won't be shedding a tear. He's been a toxic voice in the British media for decades, and if making an example of him will show that this kind of action is unacceptable then all the better.

It's not that he is the only one at fault, but I don't think there is a damned thing to be said in his defence here.

Other than in that particular article he just came across as a bit ignorant. It's not like he accused her of eating babies or something.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 22, 2013, 07:41:03 pm
It is extremely important that journalists (and 'journalists') are free to publish articles containing viewpoints that I despise.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 22, 2013, 08:02:35 pm
Evelyn Beatrice Hall: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 22, 2013, 08:03:12 pm
Wow, all of this discussion sure is calm, cool, and progressive!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on March 22, 2013, 08:20:35 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on March 22, 2013, 08:25:46 pm
There are exceptions to free speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions), some of which nearly everyone agrees are sensible and necessary. (Incitement, child pornography ...)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 22, 2013, 08:32:49 pm
True liberty is simply a state of anarchy, and that is just impractical and not realistic.
If the one rule is no rules, how are you going to enforce it?
But that is a whole other can of worms. Restrictions on free speech outlined above make perfect sense.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on March 22, 2013, 08:40:41 pm
I don't think he or anyone in the same position should be arrested for his speech and/or press (I.E. government action), but I think he should be at least able to be sued by a private citizen if they feel he caused distress... Or, you know, drove someone to suicide. >_>

Though, of course, lawsuits are settled in public court... I.E. government decision.

(It feels WEIRD to be on the side of "Get the government out" (or at least, "Keep the government out.")
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 22, 2013, 08:48:53 pm
Yeah I don't think any government action should be taken against him but he deserves to lose his job for being generally terrible.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 22, 2013, 08:55:54 pm
As I said, turn him into a harmonica playing goomba.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on March 22, 2013, 10:06:54 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on March 22, 2013, 08:55:54 pm
As I said, turn him into a harmonica playing goomba.

We would but since devolution doesn't exist we can't go Super Mario movie on him. We can only burn him as a witch.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Boea on March 23, 2013, 03:22:04 am
Quote from: Glowcat on March 22, 2013, 10:06:54 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on March 22, 2013, 08:55:54 pm
As I said, turn him into a harmonica playing goomba.

We would but since devolution doesn't exist we can't go Super Mario movie on him. We can only burn him as a witch.
Depends on the context, and the perspective. I think a goomba used to be a flunkie rogue from the speakeasy days, so that's probably as far as you are going to get with him being a goomba.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 23, 2013, 09:24:06 am
Quote from: Glowcat on March 22, 2013, 10:06:54 pm
We would but since devolution doesn't exist we can't go Super Mario movie on him. We can only burn him as a witch.

If we can devolve a parliament and two national assemblies we can devolve a shite journalist, I say.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on March 23, 2013, 07:50:17 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 22, 2013, 08:32:49 pm
True liberty is simply a state of anarchy, and that is just impractical and not realistic.
If the one rule is no rules, how are you going to enforce it?
But that is a whole other can of worms. Restrictions on free speech outlined above make perfect sense.

True anarchy is total democracy. Total democracy mirrors the cultural ideas of the people better than any other form of government could.
True anarchy is not chaos, but a lack of rules impeding an individual's liberty to do as he pleases without harming others.
True anarchy lacks a powerful governing body that can be bribed and controlled by the rich, and is only as corrupt as the entire population of the anarchist state.

Unfortunately, true anarchy is generally unattainable on Earth due to the lust for power of a small percentage of the population.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 23, 2013, 07:53:42 pm
I think we are mixing terms. TRUE anarchy is NO rules.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 23, 2013, 07:57:40 pm
That is inaccurate. Anarchy is no government, not no rules.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 23, 2013, 07:59:45 pm
Government is a collections of rules, and people enforcing them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 23, 2013, 08:03:45 pm
Problem with no enforcement: might as well be no rules at all. Therefore, no rules.

True anarchy IS attainable, just not sustainable. Instead of trying to bribe and control the powerful governing body, the rich BECOME the powerful governing body, bribing people instead.

Also, no rules makes this part
Quote
without harming others.
disappear.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on March 23, 2013, 08:14:37 pm
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on March 23, 2013, 08:03:45 pm
Problem with no enforcement: might as well be no rules at all. Therefore, no rules.

True anarchy IS attainable, just not sustainable. Instead of trying to bribe and control the powerful governing body, the rich BECOME the powerful governing body, bribing people instead.

Also, no rules makes this part
Quote
without harming others.
disappear.

As MSH said: "Anarchy is no government, not no rules." There is no government that requires me to say "thank you" when people are nice to me but the "rule" or better call it "norm" to do so still exists. The absence of a body of people whose sole job is to enforce rules does not mean that there are no rules and no enforcement at all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 23, 2013, 08:17:28 pm
I don't really have the will to explain anarchy in full since I don't even believe in it myself, but there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia showing the whole thing.

The only thing I shall say further is that while governments are one source of rules, that does not make them the only possible source of rules.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 23, 2013, 08:20:24 pm
Quote from: lorb on March 23, 2013, 08:14:37 pm
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on March 23, 2013, 08:03:45 pm
Problem with no enforcement: might as well be no rules at all. Therefore, no rules.

True anarchy IS attainable, just not sustainable. Instead of trying to bribe and control the powerful governing body, the rich BECOME the powerful governing body, bribing people instead.

Also, no rules makes this part
Quote
without harming others.
disappear.

As MSH said: "Anarchy is no government, not no rules." There is no government that requires me to say "thank you" when people are nice to me but the "rule" or better call it "norm" to do so still exists. The absence of a body of people whose sole job is to enforce rules does not mean that there are no rules and no enforcement at all.
Or, more likely, the unjustly rich will have people on their payroll to protect their goods. Except in an anarchy they won't have any restrictions on how they protect the goods.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 23, 2013, 08:25:46 pm
Again, this seems to be an argument over the defination of a word.
I understand that in the USA anarchy means "No rules, or rules are not being enforced", but in other places it means a different thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 23, 2013, 08:29:23 pm
Quote from: Morrigi on March 23, 2013, 07:50:17 pm
True anarchy is not chaos, but a lack of rules impeding an individual's liberty to do as he pleases without harming others.

A lack of certain rules or all rules? Without any rules why would I not harm others and what would be done if I did, and with some rules, what is to enforce them?

Quote from: lorb on March 23, 2013, 08:14:37 pm
The absence of a body of people whose sole job is to enforce rules does not mean that there are no rules and no enforcement at all.

Well, people would have to effectively enforce the rules somehow if they exist. And it would seem the most effective way to do that would be to form an organisation for managing and enforcing the rules. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government) So I dont see how Anarchy wouldn't just collapse back into a government.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 23, 2013, 08:31:30 pm
Quote from: alexandertnt on March 23, 2013, 08:29:23 pm
Well, people would have to effectively enforce the rules somehow if they exist. And it would seem the most effective way to do that would be to form an organisation for managing and enforcing the rules. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government) So I dont see how Anarchy wouldn't just collapse back into a government.
This is why anarchists seem silly to me. Alex said this more eloquently then I possible could.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 08:32:01 pm
Anarchy literally means "No Rulers".  It does NOT mean "No Rules".  This has many ramifications.

It can mean rules, so long as they're not enforced onto an unwilling population by a ruling minority.  In essence, enforcement of a rule is primarily in the interest of a community managing its own well-being, than it can be compatible with anarchy.  If enforcement of a rule is primarily for the benefit of one section of the community at the cost of another, it most likely represents a form of rulership, and is incompatible with anarchy.

It can mean government, so long as that government is strictly organizational, and not authoritative.  When the government enforces rules that are negotiated and agreed to by all effected parties, it is compatible with anarchy.  When the government creates rules and then enforces them, and those effected by them have little to no say, it is incompatible with anarchy.  It is rulership.

Yes, the above leaves plenty of room for grey areas.  Such is life.  The very nature of an ideal is that it isn't obtainable.  Everyone has their ideologies, and all ideologies are based on ideals, hence the very root of the word.  The most common response to a post like this is "Such a utopian ideal is so naive!", but I could say that about literally every political stance ever.

The very concept of a person being rich is incompatible with anarchy.  Wealth is a form of authority that is unavoidably hierarchical and generally not mutually agreed upon by the whole community that is effected by this distribution.  So no.  If there are rich people to bribe and force their way into a position of rulership, then there was no anarchy in the first place.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 23, 2013, 08:35:00 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 08:32:01 pm
The very concept of a person being rich is incompatible with anarchy.
*cough* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 23, 2013, 08:35:50 pm
Who makes the rules if there are no rulers?
I'm not stating this in a smartass way, I'm honestly asking.
Every group has to have some kind of director, or at least a spokesman.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 08:36:20 pm
Yeah, and only anarcho-capitalists actually believe they're anarchists.  Everyone else sees the word as an oxymoron.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 08:40:37 pm
Edit:  aahhh sorry I didn't mean to double post...

Quote from: alexandertnt on March 23, 2013, 08:29:23 pm
Without any rules why would I not harm others and what would be done if I did, and with some rules, what is to enforce them?

And the nature of rules written and enforced by a ruler only allows for a limited class of people to harm others with no recourse for their victims.  Without rulers one who harms another has no structure to shield themselves from reprisal.

Quote from: Devling on March 23, 2013, 08:35:50 pm
Who makes the rules if there are no rulers?
I'm not stating this in a smartass way, I'm honestly asking.
Every group has to have some kind of director, or at least a spokesman.

Everyone does.  And why do directors or spokesmen have to be rulers?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 23, 2013, 08:42:54 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 08:40:37 pm
Everyone does.  And why do directors or spokesmen have to be rulers?
They wield power over other people, that is pretty much the definition of ruler.
I don't have monarchical king, but I deal with rulers all the time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on March 23, 2013, 08:44:06 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 23, 2013, 08:35:50 pm
Who makes the rules if there are no rulers?
I'm not stating this in a smartass way, I'm honestly asking.
Every group has to have some kind of director, or at least a spokesman.
Um, Occupy doesn't seem to need one...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 08:45:49 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 23, 2013, 08:42:54 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 08:40:37 pm
Everyone does.  And why do directors or spokesmen have to be rulers?
They wield power over other people, that is pretty much the definition of ruler.
I don't have monarchical king, but I deal with rulers all the time.

Why does a spokesman for a group have to wield power over the group?  Why does one who facilitates organization of a group have to wield power over a group?  They may occupy a position that they can use to some self-advantage, but that is definitely not equivalent to rulership.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 23, 2013, 08:48:39 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 08:45:49 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 23, 2013, 08:42:54 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 08:40:37 pm
Everyone does.  And why do directors or spokesmen have to be rulers?
They wield power over other people, that is pretty much the definition of ruler.
I don't have monarchical king, but I deal with rulers all the time.
Why does a spokesman for a group have to wield power over the group?  Why does one who facilitates organization of a group have to wield power over a group?  They may occupy a position that they can use to some self-advantage, but that is definitely not equivalent to rulership.
They can make people do things. They have power over other people. They are rulers. Or leaders, but that means the same thing. It's just softer language.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 08:52:32 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 23, 2013, 08:48:39 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 08:45:49 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 23, 2013, 08:42:54 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 08:40:37 pm
Everyone does.  And why do directors or spokesmen have to be rulers?
They wield power over other people, that is pretty much the definition of ruler.
I don't have monarchical king, but I deal with rulers all the time.
Why does a spokesman for a group have to wield power over the group?  Why does one who facilitates organization of a group have to wield power over a group?  They may occupy a position that they can use to some self-advantage, but that is definitely not equivalent to rulership.
They can make people do things. They have power over other people. They are rulers. Or leaders, but that means the same thing. It's just softer language.

Why do they need the ability to make people do things?  Just because that's how things tend to operate in the world today doesn't mean that's how things must necessarily be.  A person can organize a group because they actually want to work together, not because they're being made to by threat of consequence, and in that situation the organizer is not a ruler.  They're just a person with a job like everyone else.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 23, 2013, 08:55:53 pm
So a person organized other people, causing them to do something that they wouldn't normally do.
Like a ruler/leader/whatever.
It's part of the language, there has never been and probably never will be a group of people completely without leaders.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 23, 2013, 08:57:12 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 08:40:37 pm
And the nature of rules written and enforced by a ruler only allows for a limited class of people to harm others with no recourse for their victims.  Without rulers one who harms another has no structure to shield themselves from reprisal.

We have the courts to provide recourse for their victims. They do to in a way that adheres to a structure instead of "whatever the victim feels like". What would this reprisal be? Revenge killing from a family member? Which could create an endless loop of payback crimes. It seems that such a system would be very vunerable to strong, irrational emotional.

Here is another scenario. What if I diddnt do anything wrong but the "victim" is convinced otherwise. what shields me from the "victims" recourse here?


Also what would happen in the scenario where 2 nearly equal groups of people have a strong but opposite opinion on a rule/enforcing a rule?


Quote from: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 08:52:32 pm
Why do they need the ability to make people do things?  Just because that's how things tend to operate in the world today doesn't mean that's how things must necessarily be.  A person can organize a group because they actually want to work together, not because they're being made to by threat of consequence, and in that situation the organizer is not a ruler.  They're just a person with a job like everyone else.

What if some people of that group disagree with others?

Besides, what you are saying sounds more like communism (the original definition, not the red-scare definition).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 08:57:28 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 23, 2013, 08:55:53 pm
So a person organized other people, causing them to do something that they wouldn't normally do.
Like a ruler/leader/whatever.
It's part of the language, there has never been and probably never will be a group of people completely without leaders.

Or a group of people organized themselves on the basis that they wanted to work together to do something, and one among them was appointed to the purpose of helping them work together effectively.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 23, 2013, 09:00:38 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 08:57:28 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 23, 2013, 08:55:53 pm
So a person organized other people, causing them to do something that they wouldn't normally do.
Like a ruler/leader/whatever.
It's part of the language, there has never been and probably never will be a group of people completely without leaders.

Or a group of people organized themselves on the basis that they wanted to work together to do something, and one among them was appointed to the purpose of helping them work together effectively.
So a person.
Who leads them.
Like a leader.
We are going in circles, and it is not productive.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 09:06:36 pm
Quote from: alexandertnt on March 23, 2013, 08:57:12 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 08:40:37 pm
And the nature of rules written and enforced by a ruler only allows for a limited class of people to harm others with no recourse for their victims.  Without rulers one who harms another has no structure to shield themselves from reprisal.

We have the courts to provide recourse for their victims.

We have courts to enforce the law.  If the law itself is what creates a victim, then the victim has no recourse.

Quote from: alexandertnt on March 23, 2013, 08:57:12 pm
They do to in a way that adheres to a structure instead of "whatever the victim feels like". What would this reprisal be? Revenge killing from a family member? Which could create an endless loop of payback crimes. It seems that such a system would be very vunerable to strong, irrational emotional.

Here is another scenario. What if I diddnt do anything wrong but the "victim" is convinced otherwise. what shields me from the "victims" recourse here?

This isn't really relevant, because I was only demonstrating that the existence of rules, especially as created and enforced by a ruler, doesn't necessarily deter acts of harm.  The natural fact that people have a tendency to form communities and look out for each other deters the acts of harm that people are most concerned with just as effectively and more equally.  For every "what if" you can throw at me about people acting like manipulative or deluded assholes and potentially getting away with it in the absence of rules, I can point to 5 examples of this happening in the real world today with the blessing of law.

Quote from: alexandertnt on March 23, 2013, 08:57:12 pm
Also what would happen in the scenario where 2 nearly equal groups of people have a strong but opposite opinion on a rule/enforcing a rule?

Ideally, these groups would come to an agreement and/or break off association.

Quote from: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 08:52:32 pm
Besides, what you are saying sounds more like communism (the original definition, not the red-scare definition).

Stateless communism is a form of anarchy.

Quote from: Devling on March 23, 2013, 09:00:38 pm
So a person.
Who leads them.
Like a leader.
We are going in circles, and it is not productive.

A leader can be many things.  It doesn't have to be a ruler.  That's my point.  A leader is not a ruler unless they force people to do things against their will by threat of consequence.  I call it Coercive Authority.  Anarchy only has a problem with rulers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 23, 2013, 09:28:58 pm
And that leader would have more power than the average worker. It would seem that work groups with leaders that are more knowledgable than the average worker would outperform leaderless groups, so they would become the norm.

How to choose the leader?

Maby we could vote for a leader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy)
Maby the leader had more friends and influence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship)
Maby they were the son of the previous leader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_monarchies)

This is why I dont see anarchy as being sustainable. It all seems to lead back to a leader, or someone with power somehow.

Quote from: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 09:06:36 pm
We have courts to enforce the law.  If the law itself is what creates a victim, then the victim has no recourse.

What? Yes they do. The offender can be thrown in jail, sued for compensation etc as determined by the courts. If someone stole $5000 dollars form you and you sued sucessfully for $5000, is that not recourse? Wouldn't people find it preferable to have some organisation manage this instead of stealing back the $5000 themselves?


Quote
This isn't really relevant, because I was only demonstrating that the existence of rules, especially as created and enforced by a ruler, doesn't necessarily deter acts of harm.  The natural fact that people have a tendency to form communities and look out for each other deters the acts of harm that people are most concerned with just as effectively and more equally.  For every "what if" you can throw at me about people acting like manipulative or deluded assholes and potentially getting away with it in the absence of rules, I can point to 5 examples of this happening in the real world today with the blessing of law.

My point is to show that anarchy would just collapse back into a system of government, due to the what-if's that I was bringing up. So rules do need some form of governence, or else they either become ineffective and poorly defined so as to not function effectively, or end up encouraging a form of government to come into existance. It was most certainly not laws not being manipulatable (which they are) nor was it even to show that anarchy may be worse than government/rulers etc.

Quote from: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 09:06:36 pm
Ideally, these groups would come to an agreement and/or break off association.

And if not? If it were significant enough (eg food distribution) it seems like they would from groups to represent themselves. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government)

This is the reason I dont see the sustainability of anarchy. Many common situations people find themselves in seem to lead to some form of governence.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 23, 2013, 09:38:31 pm
Not every form of governance needs to be coercive. Look at Anarcho-Syndicalism as practices in 1930's Spain, or at the management policies of the company Semco in Brazil. Semco is a paeticularly strong example of distributed decision making. The only management structure of the company is a forum of worker's delegates, and each work group elects those delegates on an ad-hoc basis, so if they start becoming authoritarian, then they just get booted back to the rank and file, and another guy is picked. Also, all workers jointly interview and vote on new hires for their work groups, so there is no power concentration with the delegates. The delegates mainly coordinate already-decided matters and facilitate communication between teams. All important / policy matters are voted on by the workers.

With this power structure, the company's annual turnover grew from $4 million per annum, up to $200 million per annum, which proves it works, and it's pretty much a text-book application of Anarcho-Syndicalist ideas. Plus, before the current CEO took over, the previous style of the company was extremely hierarchical, and run almost like a Gulag, where armed guards searched everyone leaving for the day, to check they didn't steal anything. By using generous profit-sharing, they aligned the worker's interests with the company (and if you steal, you're stealing from yourself and your friends, not just "the company"), and could do away with the elaborate security (showing how a liberal society with equitable economics doesn't need the massive surveillance).

Another thing to remember is that Anarchists promote voluntary membership associations. Don't like the rules the group voted on? Leave and go solo or make your own group. You forgo the benefits and services that group provides, but you're free to go it alone. Current governments do not let you leave (or at least, they own you, as a logical outcome of you being in their turf).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 09:47:09 pm
Quote from: alexandertnt on March 23, 2013, 09:28:58 pm
And that leader would have more power than the average worker.

Quote from: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 08:45:49 pm
They may occupy a position that they can use to some self-advantage, but that is definitely not equivalent to rulership.

And in an anarchy, there is nothing preventing people from simply ignoring someone who goes too far in making themselves out to be a ruler.

Quote from: alexandertnt on March 23, 2013, 09:28:58 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 09:06:36 pm
We have courts to enforce the law.  If the law itself is what creates a victim, then the victim has no recourse.

What? Yes they do. The offender can be thrown in jail, sued for compensation etc as determined by the courts. If someone stole $5000 dollars form you and you sued sucessfully for $5000, is that not recourse? Wouldn't people find it preferable to have some organisation manage this instead of stealing back the $5000 themselves?

I think you're drastically missing my point, and I'm not sure how to state it any clearer without putting a bunch of effort into detailing specific examples, which will just spiral off into elaborate derails.  Let me put it this way:  go talk to a political prisoner.

Quote from: alexandertnt on March 23, 2013, 09:28:58 pm
My point is to show that anarchy would just collapse back into a system of government, due to the what-if's that I was bringing up. So rules do need some form of governence, or else they either become ineffective and poorly defined so as to not function effectively, or end up encouraging a form of government to come into existance. It was most certainly not laws not being manipulatable (which they are) nor was it even to show that anarchy may be worse than government/rulers etc.

Quote from: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 08:32:01 pm
Yes, the above leaves plenty of room for grey areas.  Such is life.  The very nature of an ideal is that it isn't obtainable.  Everyone has their ideologies, and all ideologies are based on ideals, hence the very root of the word.  The most common response to a post like this is "Such a utopian ideal is so naive!", but I could say that about literally every political stance ever.

Until you put forth your preferred political ideology so that I can pick apart its theoretical flaws, and it will surely have many, this will be a very one-sided debate.

Quote from: alexandertnt on March 23, 2013, 09:28:58 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 09:06:36 pm
Ideally, these groups would come to an agreement and/or break off association.

And if not? If it were significant enough (eg food distribution) it seems like they would from groups to represent themselves. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government)

This flat out doesn't make sense to me.

"My group disagrees with that other group, so my group is going to start calling ourselves a government so that other group will do what we say."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 23, 2013, 09:57:41 pm
Anarchy, even if it just means "No government", is still ridiculous and in no way practical.
There is a reason people have governments, they are extremely practical.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 23, 2013, 10:01:27 pm
"No rulers" not "No government". Don't straw-man as an argument. Almost all anarchists except extreme individualists and anarcho-capitalists (both groups are right-wingers generally) advocate structures to avoid power imbalances from developing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 10:02:38 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 23, 2013, 09:57:41 pm
Anarchy, even if it just means "No government", is still ridiculous and in no way practical.
There is a reason people have governments, they are extremely practical.

Except that's not what it means, as I have explained.  Otherwise, ok whatever.  Not like I can respond to a statement that's presented as "This is what I believe because it's true.  Period."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 23, 2013, 10:04:35 pm
Well, we don't really have an instance of "no rulers" in history, so it's kinda hard to talk about it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 23, 2013, 10:08:17 pm
Spain in the 1930's is the example you want. The CNT communes. They were extremely successful economically and politically, but not militarily. E.g., when the National Army stomps you with aid from NAZI Germany, that failure can hardly be blamed on your economic/political system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederaci%C3%B3n_Nacional_del_Trabajo
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 23, 2013, 10:12:50 pm
Alright, let me dine on my words.

So the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo is a labor organization?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on March 23, 2013, 10:16:20 pm
It means  "national confederation of the work(er)", so that's what it sounds like.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 10:17:12 pm
We also have plenty of information on the lifestyles of indigenous cultures, which tend not to have rulers in any capacity resembling what we have in modernity.  This is likely similar to how all of humanity lived for about 98% of its history, until the establishment of the first cities.  In the remaining 2%, we've already managed to push the entire planet to the brink of total ecological collapse.  I'm not a primitivist, but it's something to think about.  For all of the flaws you could point out about anarchy, unsustainability is demonstrably not one of them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 23, 2013, 10:19:08 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 23, 2013, 10:12:50 pm
Alright, let me dine on my words.

So the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo is a labor organization?

Effectively, they ran half the production in the country, but with a non-heirarchical direct democratic system. It's a form known as Anarcho-Syndicalism if you want to look up the theory. It's not just a labor advocacy thing like the ball-less union leaders you're used to (most of whom are in the pocket of the company management / state structures), these guys knew how to efficiently organize entire industries using participatory models, without any "bosses".

You should really learn about the Spanish Civil War, it's something everyone should really know about.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on March 23, 2013, 10:23:33 pm
There's also la Commune de Paris, which didn't lasted long, but is considered as communist/anarchist (and caused the differences between those 2 ideologies).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on March 23, 2013, 11:11:39 pm
Ugh. Making such a stupid distinction between leader or government and ruler is completely semantic and pointless. Not only is it completely arbitrary, but the whole concept hangs on the notion that for some reason "ruling" means "forcing others against their will", which in itself is completely disregarding the fact that forcing others to do or not do things is not inherently bad. Do I need to bring up how "rulers" have forced people to stop keeping slaves, to make their children go to school, to treat the person from the next tribe, country, culture, and region over as an equal, none of which would have happened unless somebody stood up and said "no, you're going to do it this way".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 11:35:04 pm
Well, sure.  Just like monarchy isn't inherently bad, because it's possible for there to be good monarchs who care about their people, yet we can probably both agree that's no reason to go back to monarchy rule. 

The whole thing about political ideologies is they're all perfect in theory if everyone participates in good faith, when in reality they're all a collection of positives and negatives.  The reason people disagree (besides being misinformed) is we weigh those pros and cons differently.

As an anarchist, my response to you is that slavery is incompatible with anarchy, so having a ruler to enforce an end to that wouldn't be necessary.  School isn't inherently a good thing, and can be enforced for the wrong reasons.  Rulers encourage prejudice more often than not.  My personal weighing of the pros and cons is that, despite the potential for rulers to enable good things, the sociological dynamics that determine who becomes a ruler and why tends more towards the negatives, and the taller the hierarchy of authority grows, the more broad and dire the potential consequences become.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 23, 2013, 11:39:30 pm
I think that assuming that anarchy is better then more organized government is also over looking the fact that people don't always act in good faith.
If the position of power is not filled, someone will fill it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 23, 2013, 11:42:29 pm
Quote
Until you put forth your preferred political ideology so that I can pick apart its theoretical flaws, and it will surely have many, this will be a very one-sided debate.

My point is not that anarchy is somehow inferior per se, but that it flat out could not exist for any long period of time, and will deconstruct itself into a more traditional form of rulership. Many of the ideas (such as not being pushed around by people, no corruption) are all good ideas. I acknowledge that anarchy, like most other political ideals had good intentions.

My belief in a social-democratic style government etc etc does indeed have flaws (it would be silly to claim otherwise), but it at least has more capability of sustaining its own existance, or breaking down into another form of governence. Or at the very worse, turning into anarchy for some period of time then another form of governence rising from that.

Quote from: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 11:35:04 pm
As an anarchist, my response to you is that slavery is incompatible with anarchy

And for a group of anarchists that saw the slaves not has human (and thus have no problem exerting force over them)?

Spoiler: Thought experiment (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 23, 2013, 11:48:58 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 23, 2013, 11:39:30 pm
I think that assuming that anarchy is better then more organized government is also over looking the fact that people don't always act in good faith.
If the position of power is not filled, someone will fill it.

There's an assumption that "the position of power is not filled" because we have a decentralized communal system? I'd argue that the direct democracy advocated by anarchists replaces the power structure with another structure. (local voluntary-membership democratic institutions formed into regional councils which represent their member's interests). You really like pushing this "anarchy means every man for himself" line, which is 180% opposite of most anarchist thought.

This conversation is kind of like an atheist saying to a Christian "there is no god" and the Christian responding " who do you think created the universe then, Zeus??". Just not getting it. Theists hold it has to be one god or another, Statists hold it has to be an Elected Strongman or a Dictatorial Strongman.

"Consider a group of anarchists who use slaves and another group of anarchists that do not approve of that and have the resources/manpower to stop it. "

Hmm weird. A group of anarcho-fascists? There is no such thing. That's like asking for Atheist Christians or something, so the entire conversation is void.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 23, 2013, 11:52:25 pm
Your analogies don't make a lick of sense to me, Reelya.


Anyway, I don't really want to participate much in this discussion, but I will ask some questions out of curiosity:
Quote
There's an assumption that "the position of power is not filled" because we have a decentralized communal system? I'd argue that the direct democracy advocated by anarchists replaces the power structure with another structure. (local democratic institutions
I've always understood anarchy to be "no rulers," and local democratic institutions would still qualify as having ruler(s) in my mind. At which point am I misunderstanding?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 23, 2013, 11:53:26 pm
Quote from: Reelya on March 23, 2013, 11:48:58 pm
Hmm weird. A group of anarcho-fascists? There is no such thing. That's like asking for Atheist Christians or something, so the entire conversation is void.
Really?
Anarchists generally aren't against the use of animals right?
So if some anarchists believe that people aren't people, and rather animals, how is that any different.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 24, 2013, 12:00:40 am
Quote from: alexandertnt on March 23, 2013, 11:42:29 pm
Spoiler: Thought experiment (click to show/hide)

By existing peacefully within society today can I call myself anarchic?  We simply do what we can, and absolutes will always at some point be incompatible with a situation faced in reality.

Quote from: Devling on March 23, 2013, 11:39:30 pm
I think that assuming that anarchy is better then more organized government is also over looking the fact that people don't always act in good faith.
If the position of power is not filled, someone will fill it.

Conversely, I would rather not any ruler be given power over me, precisely because they are a person, and will not always act in good faith.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 24, 2013, 12:07:47 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 24, 2013, 12:00:40 am
Quote from: Devling on March 23, 2013, 11:39:30 pm
I think that assuming that anarchy is better then more organized government is also over looking the fact that people don't always act in good faith.
If the position of power is not filled, someone will fill it.

Conversely, I would rather not any ruler be given power over me, precisely because they are a person, and will not always act in good faith.
Fair enough.

The biggest problem I see in this kind of government is war.
First, you're going to have to have a volunteer army, unless you wanted  to draft people which seems to fly in the face of all the ideals. Second, how are you going to organize the command structure?
You can argue a civilian government run with no leaders, but I fail to see how a military with no leaders would work effectively. I suppose that they would be an effective independent guerrilla force...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 24, 2013, 12:10:54 am
Quote from: Devling on March 23, 2013, 11:53:26 pm
Quote from: Reelya on March 23, 2013, 11:48:58 pm
Hmm weird. A group of anarcho-fascists? There is no such thing. That's like asking for Atheist Christians or something, so the entire conversation is void.
Really?
Anarchists generally aren't against the use of animals right?
So if some anarchists believe that people aren't people, and rather animals, how is that any different.

Actually, most leftist anarchists (which covers most besides anarcho-capitalists and strict individualists) are really big on animal rights, often to a more radical extent than I care for. 

The situation is conceivable, but impossible to give a straight answer with just that information.  I think the main crux would be how badly the slaves are treated.

Quote from: kaijyuu on March 23, 2013, 11:52:25 pm
Anyway, I don't really want to participate much in this discussion, but I will ask some questions out of curiosity:
Quote
There's an assumption that "the position of power is not filled" because we have a decentralized communal system? I'd argue that the direct democracy advocated by anarchists replaces the power structure with another structure. (local democratic institutions
I've always understood anarchy to be "no rulers," and local democratic institutions would still qualify as having ruler(s) in my mind. At which point am I misunderstanding?

Probably different definitions of what constitutes a ruler.  Anarcho-syndicalist structures are mostly made up of groups that conduct themselves entirely through consensus decision-making processes (otherwise known as direct democracy), and then elect representatives that rotate very frequently and can be dropped at a moments notice to communicate and negotiate on behalf of those decisions with other groups.  From our perspective, there is no ruler in this situation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 24, 2013, 12:21:42 am
Deviling (and friends):

Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism) (General)

Schools of thought in Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_schools_of_thought) (You'll find the variants listed here.)

Issues in Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_anarchism) ("What do anarchists think about X?")

Anarchist Economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_economics) (Answers to how we can do business without a state.)

 History of Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchism)

Anarchist Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anarchist_theory) (The ideas in and of anarchism.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 24, 2013, 12:23:35 am
Quote from: Reelya on March 23, 2013, 11:48:58 pm
Hmm weird. A group of anarcho-fascists? There is no such thing. That's like asking for Atheist Christians or something, so the entire conversation is void.

No its not, that doesnt make any sense. And yes there is such thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-fascist).

Those slavers are not taking away any persons rights or freedoms, why are they not anarchists? After all, there is no direct contradiction with anarchy, is there?

But thats besides the point, the thought experement works regardless of whether the slavers are anarchists or not, because that is not the point of the thought experement. The experement asks what you would do if you were in the anarchist group opposed to the slavery?

Quote from: SalmonGod on March 24, 2013, 12:00:40 am
By existing peacefully within society today can I call myself anarchic?  We simply do what we can, and absolutes will always at some point be incompatible with a situation faced in reality.

I suppose part of my argument is against the concept of a political ideal itself. While I believe generally in a social-democracy, I don't like to call myself a "social democrat" directly (to avoid someone thinking I believe in concepts that I may or may not actually believe in) and instead advocate elements of politics I think are best (most, but not all, of which are generally from the concept of a social democracy).

Quote
Conversely, I would rather not any ruler be given power over me, precisely because they are a person, and will not always act in good faith.

Fair enough, I do understand what you mean. Personally though I think allowing people to elect someone and grant them power allows them to generally stop the abuse of powers others may try to exert over me. I prefer to reject rulership based on a per-case bases rather than overall, hopefully leading to rulers that have a positive effect.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 24, 2013, 12:37:48 am
Quote from: alexandertnt on March 24, 2013, 12:23:35 am
Quote
Conversely, I would rather not any ruler be given power over me, precisely because they are a person, and will not always act in good faith.

Fair enough, I do understand what you mean. Personally though I think allowing people to elect someone and grant them power allows them to generally stop the abuse of powers others may try to exert over me. I prefer to reject rulership based on a per-case bases rather than overall, hopefully leading to rulers that have a positive effect.

Yeah... it just gets... hairy... hairy as all hell.  To the point that I believe the process very rarely works out to a net positive.

My first problem:  Anybody who offers themselves up for election is automatically disqualified in my book.  I don't think the problem is that power corrupts.  I think it's that only the corrupt desire power in the first place.  Desiring power implies an agenda.  An agenda implies their main interest will not be serving the will of the people who elected them.

My second problem:  Power consolidates -- otherwise known as corruption.  This once again isn't the fact that power corrupts.  It's that once a corrupt person has obtained power, they gain access to options for increasing that power.  Gradually, public will becomes distorted and lost, and all that's left is the rulership.  This is what I've been meaning to point out in response to your points about the sustainability of anarchy, but couldn't find an elegant way to wedge it in.  A statist democracy may be able to sustain its form, but I believe it's doomed to lose its purpose and benefits all the same.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 24, 2013, 12:51:33 am
Too many isms.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 24, 2013, 12:55:46 am
I wouldnt think anyone who offers themselves up for elections is necessarily after the power for negative reasons. Consider someone wanting to change laws for <insert something universally positive here>, I would think anyone who wants to do positive would actively be driven to put themselves up for election.

That doesnt mean everyone offering themselves for election is good (oh my no), just that in a proper election people are at least supposed to weed out the bad people. A form of allowing society some choice in who gets power.

It is also why I believe that it is important that a government structure does not consolidate power too heavily in one position. A President's (or Prime Minister for me) power should be dependent on "the people" and the rest of the government structure should not be allowed to function completely independently. The idea being that if you get elected, your powers are limited and not absolute.

I understand what you mean in your second point and mostly agree. Governence changes over time for better or for worse this is a given. And any good government is bound to fall eventually, I just think that anarchy would be one of the more unstable forms of politics.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 24, 2013, 01:18:51 am
Interesting thing is that SG didn't necessarily say that the agenda the people in question have is bad... just that they have one, and because of that aren't going to be primarily representing the will of the people. Even if the axe they seek to grind is overall beneficial, they've still got that as a primary goal instead of what they're ostensibly supposed to be doing. That's not really democracy, perhaps. Representative democracy at best, but that's a notably different beast compared to direct.

It's actually a bit of a viewpoint I hadn't thought of before, that corruption doesn't necessarily entail "negative corruption", if you will. Just that the power in question is being used for reasons beyond serving the people (organizing and enacting their will).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 24, 2013, 01:22:52 am
Personally, I disagree with the notion that elected officials have to do what the will of their electors desires and nothing more. We (ideally) select elected officials based off the capacity that they prove exemplary amongst the populace in wise leadership and intelligent decision making, so that should be what they should be judged off of.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 24, 2013, 02:00:45 am
Quote from: Frumple on March 24, 2013, 01:18:51 am
Interesting thing is that SG didn't necessarily say that the agenda the people in question have is bad... just that they have one, and because of that aren't going to be primarily representing the will of the people. Even if the axe they seek to grind is overall beneficial, they've still got that as a primary goal instead of what they're ostensibly supposed to be doing. That's not really democracy, perhaps. Representative democracy at best, but that's a notably different beast compared to direct.

It's actually a bit of a viewpoint I hadn't thought of before, that corruption doesn't necessarily entail "negative corruption", if you will. Just that the power in question is being used for reasons beyond serving the people (organizing and enacting their will).

You got it.  I also look at it this way.  The mentality behind even a benevolent agenda can be summarized as "I am so sure that I know what is best for people, that I want access to the privilege of this establishment to use force to make it happen."

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 24, 2013, 01:22:52 am
Personally, I disagree with the notion that elected officials have to do what the will of their electors desires and nothing more. We (ideally) select elected officials based off the capacity that they prove exemplary amongst the populace in wise leadership and intelligent decision making, so that should be what they should be judged off of.

I have very mixed feelings about this.  I share a strong natural desire to see virtuous leadership... but then those ideal leadership virtues are so difficult to identify.  It's only natural for a person to see wisdom as what they agree with, so selecting for virtue or agenda ends up the same either way.  Plus, history shows that meritocracy seems to naturally devolve into oligarchy.  And finally even in the best case scenario, I'm uncomfortable with an official forcing an unpopular decision on the public solely on the basis that they're wiser and know what's best.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 24, 2013, 02:15:44 am
I have never really thought that anyone with power is trying to do bad per se, and I also see it as someone doing what they think is best. Thats why we have protests, when people disagree with the people in power that what they are doing is good.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 24, 2013, 01:22:52 am
Personally, I disagree with the notion that elected officials have to do what the will of their electors desires and nothing more. We (ideally) select elected officials based off the capacity that they prove exemplary amongst the populace in wise leadership and intelligent decision making, so that should be what they should be judged off of.

This is how our democracies are supposed to work, since they are representative democracies. We elect someone who we believe can make wise decisions. If they start to screw up and everyone disagrees, then protests start, everyone hates them, and they lose the next election.

Their power is still limited though, we don't elect kings. They generally have to go through popular referendums to change their level of power.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on March 24, 2013, 02:17:36 am
What if it was a case of a Friendly AI enforcing decisions through linked robots? This being an AI with the best interests of humanity in mind, a mind of it's own that isn't any more locked to it's programming than a human, though like a human would not desire to change it's programming to become more murderous, and understands and acknowledge human diversity, desire for autonomy and individualism, and to be useful.

That wasn't an attempt to guide you to the "correct" answer, that was me defining what I would consider a Friendly AI to be. Anything else would either not be an AI, or not be Friendly...


In case it wasn't clear, this was to Salmon God re: a ruler that he might be willing to accept?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 24, 2013, 02:20:58 am
Madre de dios... alex, to that first one, I'm guessing you mean in conceptual space? Because we have plenty of examples of folks gunning for and getting leadership positions in the states and otherwise explicitly to do stuff even they recognize is morally bankrupt and/or illegal. We definitely have people in power trying to do bad per se. And that's not even considering the ones that are simply giving the short shift to anyone not of their own in-group!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 24, 2013, 03:01:06 am
Quote from: alexandertnt on March 24, 2013, 02:15:44 am
Their power is still limited though, we don't elect kings. They generally have to go through popular referendums to change their level of power.

Nah... it creeps in in subtle ways over long periods of time.  Like the law Obama pushed through that allows government agencies to not only deny a Freedom of Information Act request, but to deny the existence of the documents in question when doing so.  Or laws are written for one purpose, but vague terminology is left in to make them available for another purpose.  After that other purpose is deemed legal thanks to vague terminology, it gets its own law to solidify it.  Things like that accumulate over time.  Precedents build up as powerful people get away with more blatantly illegal things.  People grow accustomed to news of people locked up for obviously political reasons.

And then we get to the point we're at today, which in my opinion is a cyberpunk dystopia without the special effects.

Quote from: Descan on March 24, 2013, 02:17:36 am
What if it was a case of a Friendly AI enforcing decisions through linked robots? This being an AI with the best interests of humanity in mind, a mind of it's own that isn't any more locked to it's programming than a human, though like a human would not desire to change it's programming to become more murderous, and understands and acknowledge human diversity, desire for autonomy and individualism, and to be useful.

That wasn't an attempt to guide you to the "correct" answer, that was me defining what I would consider a Friendly AI to be. Anything else would either not be an AI, or not be Friendly...


In case it wasn't clear, this was to Salmon God re: a ruler that he might be willing to accept?

I'd have to see an AI that's truly capable of empathizing with human experience, or else it won't really understand what's beneficial for us.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 24, 2013, 03:06:02 am
Allow me to type on my magic writing machine, and talk to you across miles and terrain.
With the energy I got from all this abundant food, which includes fruits and vegetables at any time of the year.
While listen to jesters at my beck and call, dancing in the background while I take the time to type this message.

Oh yeah, totally a cyberpunk dystopia.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 24, 2013, 03:59:54 am
And governments and corporations are hardly distinguishable from each other, fighting wars for commercial interests where few of the slain (mostly civilians) ever get the chance to see their enemy because they're miles away with a headset and controller.  Where everyday life is drenched in surveillance for normal citizens dragnetting for excuses to criminalize every person should it ever be convenient for someone in power, but information about the activities of powerful people relevant to billions of lives is often only gained through hacker activists who have to aggressively protect their identities lest they be locked away indefinitely without charge as a terrorist.  Where the global ecosystem teeters on the verge of such a thorough collapse that it threatens to wipe out civilization in a future near enough that most alive today could see it happen, but billions are spent on misinformation and distraction campaigns to keep the populace unconcerned.  Where public protest about any of these things is so commonly met with brutality that nobody even has the energy to care anymore.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 24, 2013, 07:28:13 am
I dont possibly see how we live in a dystopia at all. Quality of life is higher than it has ever been, you have access to free education regardless of your economic status, same with health (at least here in Australia. Also most of Europe, and a bunch of other countries). Technology is constantly improving, doing things from sending people to the moon right through to curing deseases that previously ravaged mankind. Hell, we can have this conversation due to the technological marvel that is the internet. It is basically changing the way the world works, and has been a platform for sucessful protests as well.

I am saying this as as someone who is far from wealthy.

It's hardly perfect, and why I continue to support changes to improve it. Some people get unlucky (and this needs to be fixed), parts of the world are in (relatively) pretty bad shape. Obesity is a problem (ironically due to the over availability food). But it seems pretty damn good in comparison to basically any other point in human history, and seems to be continuing to improve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human_Development_Index_trends.svg).

Things like the nasty laws you mentioned also get strucken down over time, even in unexpected, highly autocratic countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasnost). Its not just always bad ontop of bad.

Also in an anarchist society, what is to stop your neighbour from burning large quantities of coal? How do you address such an issue? Unfortunetely there is a non-insignificant number of people who do not believe that the ecosystem is vunerable. Want to stop ecological destruction? They don't, and they have people fully willing to work for them as their own choice that dont either.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 24, 2013, 07:43:14 am
Yeah, the problem with an anarchistic society is that it can't take on any medium-longterm largescale problems. Especially if those require a small sacrifice upfront to prevent a larger problem later on.

It's the traditionall prisoner dillema all over again.

Don't worry though, nature suffers from the same problem.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 24, 2013, 02:37:03 pm
Often times leaders enact plans that are unpopular with the majority, even though it will be beneficial in the future.
After all, it doesn't help me now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on March 24, 2013, 02:55:19 pm
alex : dystopia has nothing to do about quality of life. It's more about oppression, freedom, etc (look at Brave New World). You can also look at some middle east countries which are autoritarian and use the oil money as a way to bribe the population.

Quote from: alexandertnt on March 24, 2013, 07:28:13 am
Also in an anarchist society, what is to stop your neighbour from burning large quantities of coal? How do you address such an issue? Unfortunetely there is a non-insignificant number of people who do not believe that the ecosystem is vunerable. Want to stop ecological destruction? They don't, and they have people fully willing to work for them as their own choice that dont either.
The same as today ? Nothing ??

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on March 24, 2013, 07:43:14 am
Yeah, the problem with an anarchistic society is that it can't take on any medium-longterm largescale problems. Especially if those require a small sacrifice upfront to prevent a larger problem later on.

It's the traditionall prisoner dillema all over again.

Don't worry though, nature suffers from the same problem.
This issue is already here, with politicians not wanting to take long term decisions that could hurt their popularity, and thus their chance of being reelected.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 24, 2013, 03:02:31 pm
There ARE laws protecting the environment.
They might not be many, or effective, and that's a whole other thing, but they exist.
Quality of life can also easily be tied to freedom or lack of oppression.
My quality of life would be shittier if I couldn't view what I want, or say what I want (within reason).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on March 24, 2013, 04:25:33 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 24, 2013, 03:59:54 am
And governments and corporations are hardly distinguishable from each other, fighting wars for commercial interests where few of the slain (mostly civilians) ever get the chance to see their enemy because they're miles away with a headset and controller.  Where everyday life is drenched in surveillance for normal citizens dragnetting for excuses to criminalize every person should it ever be convenient for someone in power, but information about the activities of powerful people relevant to billions of lives is often only gained through hacker activists who have to aggressively protect their identities lest they be locked away indefinitely without charge as a terrorist.  Where the global ecosystem teeters on the verge of such a thorough collapse that it threatens to wipe out civilization in a future near enough that most alive today could see it happen, but billions are spent on misinformation and distraction campaigns to keep the populace unconcerned.  Where public protest about any of these things is so commonly met with brutality that nobody even has the energy to care anymore.
Quoting and reposting because I'm not quite sure if anyone read this.  Like actually read this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 24, 2013, 04:27:05 pm
Quote from: PanH on March 24, 2013, 02:55:19 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on March 24, 2013, 07:43:14 am
Yeah, the problem with an anarchistic society is that it can't take on any medium-longterm largescale problems. Especially if those require a small sacrifice upfront to prevent a larger problem later on.

It's the traditionall prisoner dillema all over again.

Don't worry though, nature suffers from the same problem.
This issue is already here, with politicians not wanting to take long term decisions that could hurt their popularity, and thus their chance of being reelected.
The advantage of Today's system is that you only need to get more than 50% of the population to support one descision, rather than all of them*, which you would need to do in anarchaica.

*Okay, what's one coal burner going to do. Well, point is that people are less prone to undertake action when their neighbour doesn't do it either.

Quote from: Euld on March 24, 2013, 04:25:33 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 24, 2013, 03:59:54 am
And governments and corporations are hardly distinguishable from each other, fighting wars for commercial interests where few of the slain (mostly civilians) ever get the chance to see their enemy because they're miles away with a headset and controller.  Where everyday life is drenched in surveillance for normal citizens dragnetting for excuses to criminalize every person should it ever be convenient for someone in power, but information about the activities of powerful people relevant to billions of lives is often only gained through hacker activists who have to aggressively protect their identities lest they be locked away indefinitely without charge as a terrorist.  Where the global ecosystem teeters on the verge of such a thorough collapse that it threatens to wipe out civilization in a future near enough that most alive today could see it happen, but billions are spent on misinformation and distraction campaigns to keep the populace unconcerned.  Where public protest about any of these things is so commonly met with brutality that nobody even has the energy to care anymore.
Quoting and reposting because I'm not quite sure if anyone read this.  Like actually read this.
That's just the USA though. Rest of the world's a far nicer place.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on March 24, 2013, 04:47:52 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on March 24, 2013, 04:27:05 pm
Quote from: Euld on March 24, 2013, 04:25:33 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 24, 2013, 03:59:54 am
And governments and corporations are hardly distinguishable from each other, fighting wars for commercial interests where few of the slain (mostly civilians) ever get the chance to see their enemy because they're miles away with a headset and controller.  Where everyday life is drenched in surveillance for normal citizens dragnetting for excuses to criminalize every person should it ever be convenient for someone in power, but information about the activities of powerful people relevant to billions of lives is often only gained through hacker activists who have to aggressively protect their identities lest they be locked away indefinitely without charge as a terrorist.  Where the global ecosystem teeters on the verge of such a thorough collapse that it threatens to wipe out civilization in a future near enough that most alive today could see it happen, but billions are spent on misinformation and distraction campaigns to keep the populace unconcerned.  Where public protest about any of these things is so commonly met with brutality that nobody even has the energy to care anymore.
Quoting and reposting because I'm not quite sure if anyone read this.  Like actually read this.
That's just the USA though. Rest of the world's a far nicer place.
It exists also in Europe. It's maybe less spread, but it definitively exists.

Quote from: Devling on March 24, 2013, 03:02:31 pm
Quality of life can also easily be tied to freedom or lack of oppression.
My quality of life would be shittier if I couldn't view what I want, or say what I want (within reason).
If you consider that your freedom is limited by your possibilites (quality of life, propriety), then the major part of Earth is indeed a dystopia, and only rich people are free.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on March 24, 2013, 04:55:09 pm
Quote from: PanH on March 24, 2013, 04:47:52 pm
It exists also in Europe. It's maybe less spread, but it definitively exists.

And from what I've heard, it's worse in Japan.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 24, 2013, 05:06:13 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 24, 2013, 03:02:31 pm
My quality of life would be shittier if I couldn't view what I want, or say what I want (within reason).

And you may be legally guaranteed to view or say whatever you want.  That doesn't mean some person in a position of authority whose name you may never know can't punish you anyway with some completely unrelated laws that are left intentionally vague for that purpose, with the aid of a surveillance state that is guaranteed to have something on you even if you're a saint.  Take an honest look at information activism, and what people dedicated to that cause who operate in the open have to put up with.

As for the rest of the "do we live in cyberpunk" debate, I'll just leave this here (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/wikileaks-was-just-a-preview-were-headed-for-an-even-bigger-showdown-over-secrets-20130322).  If this state of things doesn't drip with all of the political themes classically present in cyberpunk literature... well... you've obviously never read Gibson.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 24, 2013, 05:09:51 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on March 24, 2013, 04:27:05 pm
The advantage of Today's system is that you only need to get more than 50% of the population to support one descision, rather than all of them*, which you would need to do in anarchaica.
Far less than 50% and far less than the population, actually. At least in the states, and presumably elsewhere. Generally you only need a winning population of voters to get something done. Not a majority, just more than the rest. And that number often isn't a population majority by any stretch of the imagination. It's particularly bad in the states where something like 1 in every 100 people, or thereabouts, have had their right to vote stripped from them. Nevermind the voter turnout that's often less than a 2/3rds majority (and sometimes not even a 50% majority) and often highly polarized. You've got plenty of cases where less than a quarter of the population is making decisions for the other 75+%.

Which may or may not be a boon for shoving environmental protection down people's throats. It's generally a pretty damn bad thing overall, though. A system where half or less than half of the people involved can more or less unilaterally decide things for the other half is a sword that cuts both ways, and very deeply.

Quote
That's just the USA though. Rest of the world's a far nicer place.
Well, no. Unless you're defining "rest of the world" as "post-industrial nations" (hint: This is still not a majority). Parts of Europe may be. And I guess the rare bastion in other places. I won't say most, but there's at least something approaching a plurality that's frankly worse. This isn't a thumbs up for the states, mind. Better doesn't mean good.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on March 24, 2013, 05:25:04 pm
Canada was pretty good before we got Harper...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on March 24, 2013, 05:30:34 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/education/2013/03/22/1762921/senate-republicans-unanimously-support-repeal-of-student-loan-reform-law/




.... I'm not gonna even say anything.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 24, 2013, 07:12:36 pm
Quote from: PanH on March 24, 2013, 02:55:19 pm
The same as today ? Nothing ??

Wait what? Nothing? To Google you go. However the point is that there is nothing to stop people polluting in an anarchist society, and that a structured government at the least allows for the ability to regulate this by placing restrictions on peoples freedom.

Its another one of those scenario's where in either case, some group of people are going to lose their freedom. How do you decide which and enforce the decision (most likely against the will of the restricted group)?


Sometimes passing/enforcing some rule is necessary, even against the will of the people (which would require power). Sometimes it does require an individual or minority to exert power over the majority. After all, the people are not always right... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)


Quote from: Truean on March 24, 2013, 05:30:34 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/education/2013/03/22/1762921/senate-republicans-unanimously-support-repeal-of-student-loan-reform-law/

Wait, US Federal loans have interest? Silly strange America.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on March 24, 2013, 07:30:24 pm
Quote from: alexandertnt on March 24, 2013, 07:12:36 pm
Quote from: PanH on March 24, 2013, 02:55:19 pm
The same as today ? Nothing ??

However the point is that there is nothing to stop people polluting in an anarchist society, and that a structured government at the least allows for the ability to regulate this by placing restrictions on peoples freedom.

Its another one of those scenario's where in either case, some group of people are going to lose their freedom. How do you decide which and enforce the decision (most likely against the will of the restricted group)?
[...]
I present to you the Twin Oaks Community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Oaks_Community,_Virginia) which is very close to anarchy. There are rules but there isn't a government and no law enforcement. The ecological footprint of an average twin-oak member is about a quarter of that of an average US citizen. Not much burning coal. Not much of an argument, but a counter example that shows it's at least possible.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on March 24, 2013, 07:30:49 pm
Quote from: alexandertnt on March 24, 2013, 07:12:36 pm
Wait, US Federal loans have interest? Silly strange America.
Why do you think we're in so much debt?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 24, 2013, 08:00:46 pm
The thing about pollution is it's primarily driven by commercial interests.  Business priority is profit, above all other considerations.  People are manipulated to buy large quantities of stuff they often find out afterwards they didn't even really want to drive consumerism, wasting resources and draining the environment.  Stuff is designed to have a limited lifespan so it has to be bought repeatedly, wasting resources and draining the environment.  The costs of environmental damage are offloaded to employees by reduced wages, consumers by increased prices, taxpayers by a large variety of means, or nobody by simply avoiding blame and responsibility and ignoring the problem.  Governments are bribed into leaving loopholes in regulations, or making penalties miniscule.  Money is spent on making the populace ignorant of environmental issues so there is no pressure for regulation.  Environmental activists are regularly murdered and no one is held responsible.  Maybe not in the U.S., but U.S. based corporations employ deadly terror operations to force through their environmental destruction in other countries with regularity.

Remove the profit motive, as required by the majority of anarchist schools of thought, and the driving factors behind all of the above disappear along with it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 24, 2013, 09:09:46 pm
How do you remove the profit motive? It seems pretty deeply embedded in people. Hell, I want to make profit when exchanging goods or services, and petroleum based products are often the cheapest option, leading to me outselling my non-polluting competitor. (I am assuming that in an anarchic society, people will be allowed to pursue profits and wealth, and thus commercial interests would still exist).

It would seem that anarchy would require a large shift in the way people think, and more to the point, to maintain that new way of thinking.

Quote from: Putnam on March 24, 2013, 07:30:49 pm
Quote from: alexandertnt on March 24, 2013, 07:12:36 pm
Wait, US Federal loans have interest? Silly strange America.
Why do you think we're in so much debt?

I always assumed it was from private loans. Whats the point of setting up a government loan system that just functions the same as a private loan system (to the point of even being for-profit)?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 24, 2013, 10:15:46 pm
Quote from: alexandertnt on March 24, 2013, 09:09:46 pm
How do you remove the profit motive? It seems pretty deeply embedded in people. Hell, I want to make profit when exchanging goods or services, and petroleum based products are often the cheapest option, leading to me outselling my non-polluting competitor. (I am assuming that in an anarchic society, people will be allowed to pursue profits and wealth, and thus commercial interests would still exist).

It would seem that anarchy would require a large shift in the way people think, and more to the point, to maintain that new way of thinking.

We're starting to go deep on this to the point where there are many various schools of thought in anarchy that would answer this question differently.

I am somewhere in the area of an anarcho-syndicalist/social libertarian.  I see the concept of property as the root as most of our problems.  To understand this, you have to understand a very important distinction between property and possession.  A possession is something you claim ownership and control of that you personally relate to in your life.  Something that you actually use and depend on or have an emotional connection with first-hand.  Property something you claim ownership or control over that you do not have such a connection with.  Something that is owned by one and rented by another would be considered the property of the person who owns it, but the possession or the person who lives in it.

I believe that society can function on possession alone, and that property is unnecessary and damaging to human relations.  Without property there is no means by which a person can accumulate more than they need, and the concept of profit becomes meaningless.

Yes, it requires a huge shift in the way people think.  Any form of anarchy requires a major cultural revolution.  However, such revolutions have happened before.  It happened when human beings discovered the secrets of agriculture and developed sedentary lifestyles, which further led into population centers, specialization, and so on into modernity.  The way we live today is really completely UNnatural, as we have plenty of anthropological proof that the conceptual foundations that civilization functions on, such as property, are completely alien to indigenous ways of life, which as I mentioned before is how the first 98% of human history was lived.  Civilization developed in certain ways according to changes in circumstances, not according to some fact of human nature.

And I believe we're in the midst of a drastic change in circumstances right now that may be as deeply uprooting as the drift away from hunter-gatherer life.  I think it's all about communication.  Our methods of social organization have always been limited by available forms and speed of communication.  The advent of written language had drastic effects on the functioning of society, then again the printing press, and until a little over 100 years ago, written word on physical media was the pinnacle of our capability for distributing information.  Civilization developed to process on functions of centralization because of these limitations.  Information and decision-making ability was consolidated into hierarchies of authority, because limiting the flow of communication to strict social channels was the most efficient way we had to keep things organized and operating.  Natural, memetic dispersion of information was incredibly slow and unreliable.  All of the political and economic systems we've seen through history were algorithms for different styles of centralization.

Modern mass communications has rendered those previous limitations obsolete, and thus gives us the opportunity to completely reverse our organizational paradigms.  Natural, memetic dispersion of information is near-instantaneous.  Anything can be communicated to anyone anwhere, selectively or en-masse, at any moment.  Infrastructure that filters information to the people who would find it most relevant and that helps people to make constructive social connections is becoming ever more sophisticated.  Because of all this, de-centralized organizational structures are now more resilient and powerful than centralized ones.

Think of civilization as a computer, communications capability as the hardware, and socio-economic structures as operating systems.  Our operating systems are all designed for hardware that is outdated.  We have a supercomputer, but we're running Windows 3.1.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 24, 2013, 10:41:10 pm
I'd like to point out hardware and software aren't as interchangeable as your metaphor suggests- without that paradigm shift in how people think, trying to maintain that supercomputer infrastructure just wouldn't work- who would maintain it? How would it filter information? Who makes sure no funny business happens?
Because metaphors are fun, that supercomputer was designed by windows 3 for windows 3.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 24, 2013, 11:54:11 pm
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on March 24, 2013, 10:41:10 pm
I'd like to point out hardware and software aren't as interchangeable as your metaphor suggests- without that paradigm shift in how people think, trying to maintain that supercomputer infrastructure just wouldn't work- who would maintain it? How would it filter information? Who makes sure no funny business happens?
Because metaphors are fun, that supercomputer was designed by windows 3 for windows 3.

Who maintains Wikipedia?  Who filters its information?  Who makes sure no one defaces it?  There's no direct answer to that, except everyone does.  And it works.

Culture and society do form positive feedback loops that make change difficult, but they still have to interface with reality.  We're seeing a rise in tensions right now as obsolete structures are increasingly incapable of managing the realities of the world today.  Today's most heated global conflict is over freedom of information.  People are trying to freely distribute information that used to be centrally controlled as it wasn't possible to be any other way, and old infrastructures that used to take that control for granted are now having to fight viciously for it.  So we have conflict raging on many levels over intellectual property, privacy, whistleblowing, education, etc.  The fact that this conflict is happening shows that the potential for paradigm shift is on the table right now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 24, 2013, 11:58:07 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 24, 2013, 11:54:11 pm
Who maintains Wikipedia?  Who filters its information?  Who makes sure no one defaces it?  There's no direct answer to that, except everyone does.  And it works.
Actually... Admins.
Literally people who's express purpose is to maintain wikipedia, filter out BS, and make sure no one defaces it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on March 25, 2013, 12:00:39 am
Quote from: Putnam on March 24, 2013, 04:55:09 pm
Quote from: PanH on March 24, 2013, 04:47:52 pm
It exists also in Europe. It's maybe less spread, but it definitively exists.
And from what I've heard, it's worse in Japan.
Yes, Japan is quite strictly regulated. There's quite a bit of propaganda there.

Quote from: alexandertnt on March 24, 2013, 07:12:36 pm
Quote from: PanH on March 24, 2013, 02:55:19 pm
The same as today ? Nothing ??
Wait what? Nothing? To Google you go. However the point is that there is nothing to stop people polluting in an anarchist society, and that a structured government at the least allows for the ability to regulate this by placing restrictions on peoples freedom.
There's not much. Environnemental laws are often ineffective, and concerns mostly companies, and not really individuals. So no, nothing prevents me from burning coal. A good chunck of today's energy come from coal.

Quote from: SalmonGod on March 24, 2013, 11:54:11 pm
Who maintains Wikipedia?  Who filters its information?  Who makes sure no one defaces it?  There's no direct answer to that, except everyone does.  And it works.
There is actually a bit of organization for Wikipedia.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 25, 2013, 12:19:21 am
Quote from: Devling on March 24, 2013, 11:58:07 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 24, 2013, 11:54:11 pm
Who maintains Wikipedia?  Who filters its information?  Who makes sure no one defaces it?  There's no direct answer to that, except everyone does.  And it works.
Actually... Admins.
Literally people who's express purpose is to maintain wikipedia, filter out BS, and make sure no one defaces it

Yes, those people exist, but a huge portion of the work is done by what's referred to as "the long tail".  There's a handful of people who are dedicated and contribute/monitor a lot, and then there's a massive number of people whose contributions are very small.  That latter portion is so much larger that their cumulative effect is much larger than the dedicated crowd, and Wikipedia wouldn't be able to be what it is without that.

There was a TED talk about exactly this and its implications for the evolution of organizational structures in the modern communications era.  Glancing at it right now, it looks like Wikipedia has tightened up a bit in the last couple years, but my point still stands.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 25, 2013, 12:20:52 am
Okay but the metaphor is still flawed.

Also, you mean to say that while a cast of people contribute a lot to a thing, but that the overall quality of the thing is determined by many people?
So like a country or government?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 25, 2013, 12:26:46 am
Our own forum is somewhat anarchistic. Toady is admin, but he doesn't do that much in overall policing or rule-making. This place only stays standing because we are stable on our own merits. It brings up a good point about anarchist philosophy, in that normal, adjusted people do not wake up in the morning thinking about who they could fuck over today.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on March 25, 2013, 12:32:08 am
Quote from: PanH on March 25, 2013, 12:00:39 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 24, 2013, 11:54:11 pm
Who maintains Wikipedia?  Who filters its information?  Who makes sure no one defaces it?  There's no direct answer to that, except everyone does.  And it works.
There is actually a bit of organization for Wikipedia.
So much so that I wrote a lengthy post about it:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 25, 2013, 12:37:13 am
But most people (in modern countries) don't wake up in the morning wondering where they'll get food, if their possessions are safe, whether or not they'll be attacked by other people needing wanting these things more desperately than they.
Using an online forum as an analogy for human interaction & government isn't very valuable because resources & survival don't even come into the picture. Woo ecological approach.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 25, 2013, 12:40:17 am
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on March 25, 2013, 12:37:13 am
But most people (in modern countries) don't wake up in the morning wondering where they'll get food, if their possessions are safe, whether or not they'll be attacked by other people needing wanting these things more desperately than they.
Using an online forum as an analogy for human interaction & government isn't very valuable because resources & survival don't even come into the picture. Woo ecological approach.
Yes, and that is the point. What I am trying to present is that people are not naturally adversarial towards one another. These behaviors are a learned product of one's environment, not a normal state.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 25, 2013, 12:42:56 am
This, oddly enough, reminds me of some stuff in The Prince.

People are fine when they are content. Food, shelter, friends.

But when they lack that, they will try to get those things. Often at any price.

Point is, the natural state of humans is scrabbling to get out of it.
Our environment serves to pacify us.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 25, 2013, 12:51:43 am
People aren't naturally adversarial towards each other only in an environment of limitless or unimportant resources, (unless, you know, grudges..). This is the case in online forums, where only abstracts like ego and community standing are at risk.

When you're in an environment that takes more concrete concerns into consideration...well, behaviors are a product of one's environment.
One can't simply whisk away these things, things that are still around and prominent in the minds of many across the world. (things being want of nutrition, safety etc)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 25, 2013, 12:59:45 am
How we enter this world is indicative of how we act in it.
Only by are environment do we learn the skills necessary to placate our most basic instincts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 25, 2013, 01:00:18 am
Quote from: Devling on March 25, 2013, 12:42:56 am
This, oddly enough, reminds me of some stuff in The Prince.

People are fine when they are content. Food, shelter, friends.

But when they lack that, they will try to get those things. Often at any price.

Point is, the natural state of humans is scrabbling to get out of it.
Our environment serves to pacify us.
The Prince is not necessarily an honest book. One must always keep in mind that it was written so that Machiavelli could get in good with the Cesare family. The whole thing is him sucking up to them and is in contrast with almost everything else he wrote.

It also helps that there are sections in The Prince that work perfectly when read in an angry, sarcastic tone.
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on March 25, 2013, 12:51:43 am
When you're in an environment that takes more concrete concerns into consideration...well, behaviors are a product of one's environment.
One can't simply whisk away these things, things that are still around and prominent in the minds of many across the world. (things being want of nutrition, safety etc)
We can't? I think that we can. We need only the technology, the will, and the action to functionally eliminate hardships. We are entering an age where our advancement can put the problems we suffered for...well, ever, behind us. I suppose you could counter with pictures of all the Smallpox-laden children of this generation, but you might find that problematic.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 25, 2013, 01:04:45 am
Even if Machiavelli meant it in an insincere way, I don't see how that effects me or my reading of the book.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 25, 2013, 01:06:45 am
The lessons you learn from it may be fallacious if you are taking a work of stealthy satire seriously.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 25, 2013, 01:08:06 am
We aren't there, yet. But within the next couple of centuries, if we can survive as a species and don't fall into the trap of stagnation, we could very well come to a world where it's unnecessary for people to do work they don't want to in order to survive. But we need, right now, to get started on modifying our society so that we can get there. Already, we're coming up against a barrier where solving problems and making a job more efficient can hurt as many people as it helps by "destroying jobs". If we're to continue, the least we need to do is shift away from the paradigm that makes a job, any job, a good thing. If we don't, those advances can never be allowed because they'll annihilate the economy, instead of enhancing it as they would in any sensible world.

Relevant to current discussion only in that economics and politics are intrinsically connected.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on March 25, 2013, 01:08:07 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 25, 2013, 12:26:46 am
Our own forum is somewhat anarchistic. Toady is admin, but he doesn't do that much in overall policing or rule-making. This place only stays standing because we are stable on our own merits. It brings up a good point about anarchist philosophy, in that normal, adjusted people do not wake up in the morning thinking about who they could fuck over today.
Actually, according to him when I asked him about what he thinks causes our fairly well-balanced board culture, he said he thinks that it's because him and Zach are on the ball when it comes to muting and banning the more scummy people. The example he gave is that he'll be quick to ban someone if they say "N****R" or "F*****T".

His guess is that the forum would turn into another Internet suburb within a month if they stopped, and that terribleness is the natural setting of the internet.

Just so I don't misrepresent him, here's the full quote:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 25, 2013, 01:12:20 am
Toady is of course entitled to his thoughts like anybody else, but I'm on here a lot and I just don't see that at all. We don't get that kind of stuff very often (I am speaking only of the lower forum of course, upper forum is a hive of scum and villainy).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 25, 2013, 01:15:21 am
That is terrible.

"I disagree with this person, I don't see it!"

and then,

"But yeah it totally happens, where I don't see it."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 25, 2013, 01:19:10 am
It is perhaps my fault in that I did not make the distinction from the beginning, but when I'm talking about the forum I am almost always talking exclusively about the Lower Forum. Upper Forum and Lower Forum are effectively two different communities.

I post in the Upper Forums maybe once every four or five months.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 25, 2013, 01:21:38 am
Well let's give toady the benefit of the doubt and say he spends more time policing the forum which requires more policing.  :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on March 25, 2013, 01:21:47 am
I also mentioned that to him, the two different communities. Didn't think it was important to the current discussion, so I didn't bring it up.

Also, considering that a lot of our members are trickle-downs from the Upper Forum, anything that lessens the bigotry and scumminess of the Upper Forum also affects the Lower Forum.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: freeformschooler on March 25, 2013, 01:22:52 am
I haven't seen a "hive of scum and villainy" anywhere on the forums. Upper Forum has people making sarcastic quips about a DF review they don't like written by a girl. Lower Forum has people making sarcastic quips about a Kickstarter about video games they don't like written by a girl.

Yes, the gender distinction became partly the topic in both.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 25, 2013, 01:24:36 am
Quote from: Devling on March 25, 2013, 12:20:52 am
Also, you mean to say that while a cast of people contribute a lot to a thing, but that the overall quality of the thing is determined by many people?
So like a country or government?

Yes, and recall the part where I said that government-like organization is not incompatible with anarchy.


Quote from: Devling on March 25, 2013, 12:42:56 am
This, oddly enough, reminds me of some stuff in The Prince.

People are fine when they are content. Food, shelter, friends.

But when they lack that, they will try to get those things. Often at any price.

Point is, the natural state of humans is scrabbling to get out of it.
Our environment serves to pacify us.

The ironic thing is most essential things in the world today are scarce because our societal structure forces them to be.  There are several empty homes for every homeless person in America.  We produce enough food that no one should be hungry.  We have the infrastructure to freely educate the world, but we know what happened to Aaron Schwartz when he tried to download an academic database for free distribution.

If you believe what you've said, then you agree that we should work vigorously to tear down any institution that works deliberately to deny people those essentials.


Two Communities:  I find the upper forum to be less intellectual and mature, but haven't seen much to suggest that it's significantly less friendly than the lower forum.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 25, 2013, 01:48:22 am
Quote
Only by are environment do we learn the skills necessary to placate our most basic instincts.
Humans don't have instincts dude. Choice invalidates them.

Quote
We can't? I think that we can. We need only the technology, the will, and the action to functionally eliminate hardships. We are entering an age where our advancement can put the problems we suffered for...well, ever, behind us. I suppose you could counter with pictures of all the Smallpox-laden children of this generation, but you might find that problematic.
Pretty much what bauglir said- we aren't there yet. And IMO it's doubtful we ever will be- finite earth = finite resources. Give it 30 years and we'll be completely out helium, swimming in some kinda fun nosocomial megabug and these oh so convenient long-chain hydrocarbons will be looking for an opportunity to strap a JATO rocket to thair peaked-and-declining-ass.

Quote
That is terrible.
thought he was making a joke..
Quote
I post in the Upper Forums maybe once every four or five months.
nope he's just a racist
Quote
I haven't seen a "hive of scum and villainy" anywhere on the forums.
This guy knows where it's at.

Quote
Yes, and recall the part where I said that government-like organization is not incompatible with anarchy.
My lazy self didn't check around enough to read that. Gotta say though, whut?

Mmm, sharing with the world sounds like a perfectly reasonable, just, and fair kind of thing at first. Then you remember the rest of the world has some pretty loopy people in it.
Point: Do we want to share nuclear power tech with north korea? No? What about all the tech leading up to but not including building the reactor? Or perhaps aeronautics? That'll save them 50+ years on their way to a weapon. Where would you draw the line in what we give to whom?

-edit
Quote
I find the upper forum to be less intellectual and mature,
It's like the forum's a fruit tree.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 25, 2013, 02:02:11 am
Quote
Humans don't have instincts dude. Choice invalidates them.

I'm unsure if you are making a joke, do to the use of dude.
If you aren't joking then:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: freeformschooler on March 25, 2013, 02:05:35 am
Quote from: Devling on March 25, 2013, 02:02:11 am
Quote
Humans don't have instincts dude. Choice invalidates them.

I'm unsure if you are making a joke, do to the use of dude.
If you aren't joking then:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Reflex vs. Instinct (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_humans_have_instincts_or_is_everything_a_result_of_our_environment)

Though there are arguments that we have instincts passed down from our ancestors that are not reflexive, just stunted. (http://drbeetle.homestead.com/mindrules.html)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 25, 2013, 02:08:07 am
Okay, other sources?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 25, 2013, 02:12:39 am
Quote
I'm unsure if you are making a joke, do to the use of dude.
Nope, just friendly.

Definition I was taught of an instinct is: A complex behavior which is innate and must, under normal circumstances, be repeatable with any normal member of the species.

complex behavior- not blinking or eating
innate- unlearned, something we are born with
repeated by any normal member of the species under identical circumstances- yeah
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 25, 2013, 02:15:25 am
Quote
The way we live today is really completely UNnatural, as we have plenty of anthropological proof that the conceptual foundations that civilization functions on, such as property, are completely alien to indigenous ways of life, which as I mentioned before is how the first 98% of human history was lived.  Civilization developed in certain ways according to changes in circumstances, not according to some fact of human nature.

This is simply not true. Many animals form "pacts" and attack other opposing pacts. These pacts are often dominated by an individual that has power over the rest. Birds construct nests which they claim as property and defend from other birds.

We are natural animals, and anything we do can be considered part of nature in the same way birds build nests. So our societies, cities etc are in no way contradictory to nature. Declaring anything to be unnatural is not an argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature).

Quote
but we know what happened to Aaron Schwartz when he tried to download an academic database for free distribution.

By freely distributing this information, you have possibly allowed another country to further increase their control and restrict your freedom. Whilst I believe in free speech etc, this is not such an unreasonable viewpoint to have, and it is not a one-sided debate.

So restrict Aaron Schwartz's freedom, or risk having your freedom diminished. Because external influences are something that any anarchy could not ignore.

For the record, I am trying to present situations where anarchy would not work. Where limiting someones freedom is simply not a choice and people will have to have their freedom limited in some form and someone is going to have to make that decision. There are quite a number of these situations.

Quote
Our own forum is somewhat anarchistic. Toady is admin, but he doesn't do that much in overall policing or rule-making.

The forum is basically an absolute autocratic dictatorship which just happens to have a really nice and lenient dictator. Toady has absolute power over the whole forum and can exercise it at his will. He permits you to post, you have no right to.

If everyone decided to do something with the forum, they could not without Toady.

Quote
Humans don't have instincts dude. Choice invalidates them.

Quote from: freeformschooler on March 25, 2013, 02:05:35 am
Reflex vs. Instinct (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_humans_have_instincts_or_is_everything_a_result_of_our_environment)

Quote from: Wikipedia
"Examples of instinctive behaviors in humans include many of the primitive reflexes, such as rooting and suckling, behaviors which are present in mammals." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct#Reflexes_and_instinct)


Quote
Then you remember the rest of the world has some pretty loopy people in it.

An interesting point. What would an anarchist society do when faced with a crazy dictator. This dictator has the advantage of allowing his soldiers no choice in what they are told to do, which results in a much more reliable and efficient millitary.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: freeformschooler on March 25, 2013, 02:16:56 am
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on March 25, 2013, 02:12:39 am
Definition I was taught of an instinct is: A complex behavior which is innate and must, under normal circumstances, be repeatable with any normal member of the species.

complex behavior- not blinking or eating
innate- unlearned, something we are born with
repeated by any normal member of the species under identical circumstances- yeah

Though, like in one article linked (and like alexandertnt points out above), there is a case to be made for Human babies. Why do they know before they're even able to comprehend their surroundings to breastfeed when given the opportunity? Wouldn't that be a complex behavior? All Human babies seem to do it.

Is that an instinct, or would it also fall under reflex (as they only do it in the presence of the appropriate stimuli)? I realize Wikipedia calls it a Primitive Reflex, but it seems to follow all the guidelines for being an instinct.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 25, 2013, 02:20:11 am
IIRC it's a reflex- put anything near their mouth and they'll latch the hell on.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 25, 2013, 02:21:40 am
Well, consider me properly chastised for my lack of vocabulary breadth.  :-[
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on March 25, 2013, 02:22:32 am
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on March 25, 2013, 02:12:39 am
complex behavior- not blinking or eating
Uh, that's instinct. Eating is a complex behavior (like breastfeed, most babies know how to do that, but some have to learn). Walking is an instinct in most animals (they know how to walk from birth, as opposed to human babies). I think you're mistaken in what a complex behavior is.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 25, 2013, 02:31:40 am
Human babies know how to move about in a very similar way to each other without external stimuli. Its not upright walking, but they know how to do it.

Humans, along with other animals (because humans are animals), have instincts. Here is a nice documentry on human instincts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q-m4lXNL2k)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 25, 2013, 02:34:44 am
HAHA, HAVE AT YE, DIRTY INSTINCT-LOVING HOOLIGANS!

Quote
but some have to learn
pointing out, you just shot yourself in the foot there.

Quote
Eating is a complex behavior
If working your gabbing muscles and swallowing is a complex unlearned behavior, you're still foiled by Gandhi.

Quote
they know how to walk from birth
I suspect they're built better for it than we are at the time.

Quote
as opposed to human babies
Who learn it..

Notice how 'human instincts' in the wiki page are actually under the page 'primitive reflexes'. Hmm.

Looking at documentary, but foreword: documentary doesn't mean 100% iron-clad sciency* truth.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 25, 2013, 02:35:26 am
The way some people talk about this forum in the Upper and Lower way makes us seem like Brittany or something.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 25, 2013, 02:36:48 am
What do you mean, SOME PEOPLE?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 25, 2013, 02:39:56 am
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on March 25, 2013, 02:36:48 am
What do you mean, SOME PEOPLE?

I never like to name names but Descan, SalmonGod, freeformschooler etc.

You know, some of your kind. God damned Lower Forum snobs. No respect for the first people. We aborigines get no respect.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 25, 2013, 02:42:00 am
Seriously, are we fucking reverse aristocrats?

(The upper forums refers to all the stuff dealing with DF right?)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 25, 2013, 02:42:43 am
Nor does it being an article on the Wikipedia.

Plus the article mixes the use of the word reflex and instinct. It makes me think that perhaps the two are similar enough to be interchangable. It would suggest that attempting to label behaviours that appear instinctive as only reflex behaviours is some sort of not true scotman, where its less about the actual behaviour and generally accepted scientific fact, and more about feeling squirmy about the idea of having instincts.

Quote from: Owlbread on March 25, 2013, 02:35:26 am
The way some people talk about this forum in the Upper and Lower way makes us seem like Brittany or something.

What is this Upper and Lower forum people speak of?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 25, 2013, 02:51:57 am
Quote
What is this Upper and Lower forum people speak of?
I think they mean the scrollbar

Quote
aborigine upstartiness
ha, I'm actually a rather recent trickle-down. So I'll just have to beg your pardon.

Wait, are we talking about the wiki article or not?
If so: notice the 'instincts' link to the reflexes page. First line of the reflex page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_reflex):
Quote
Primitive reflexes are reflex actions originating in the central nervous system that are exhibited by normal infants, but not neurologically intact adults, in response to particular stimuli

If not, which are we talking about? Just polished off that documentary..they including things like sense of taste & fight or flight as instincts. Those most certainly aren't complex behaviors.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 25, 2013, 02:54:18 am
Quote from: alexandertnt on March 25, 2013, 02:15:25 am
Quote
The way we live today is really completely UNnatural, as we have plenty of anthropological proof that the conceptual foundations that civilization functions on, such as property, are completely alien to indigenous ways of life, which as I mentioned before is how the first 98% of human history was lived.  Civilization developed in certain ways according to changes in circumstances, not according to some fact of human nature.

This is simply not true. Many animals form "pacts" and attack other opposing pacts. These pacts are often dominated by an individual that has power over the rest. Birds construct nests which they claim as property and defend from other birds.

We are natural animals, and anything we do can be considered part of nature in the same way birds build nests. So our societies, cities etc are in no way contradictory to nature. Declaring anything to be unnatural is not an argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature).

A bird's nest is not property, it's possession.  There are plenty of animals that recognize possession, but I've never heard a case for any that recognizes property. 

Also, though it's not exactly relevant to the point you're contesting, it's arguable whether animals with social hierarchies express their authority in ways that are analogous to human society.  "I eat first and get first choice of mates" is a pretty far cry from "I bomb you anonymously from hundreds of miles away because your appearance and location indicates you may hold thoughts I disagree with."

And I wasn't making an appeal to nature.  I was heading off the argument that gets brought up every time that civilization as we know it is a product of human nature.

Quote from: alexandertnt on March 25, 2013, 02:15:25 am
Quote
but we know what happened to Aaron Schwartz when he tried to download an academic database for free distribution.

By freely distributing this information, you have possibly allowed another country to further increase their control and restrict your freedom. Whilst I believe in free speech etc, this is not such an unreasonable viewpoint to have, and it is not a one-sided debate.

So restrict Aaron Schwartz's freedom, or risk having your freedom diminished. Because external influences are something that any anarchy could not ignore.

For the record, I am trying to present situations where anarchy would not work. Where limiting someones freedom is simply not a choice and people will have to have their freedom limited in some form and someone is going to have to make that decision. There are quite a number of these situations.

On the other hand, a more educated populace is more resistant to propaganda and less likely to behave irrationally, so less likely to be dangerous.  It doesn't seem to me like academia recognizes borders much these days anyway.  International teams of scientists from all developed countries routinely collaborate on research, and students travel to different countries to study all the time.


Breastfeeding:  Lots of babies are really, really bad at it.  Like it can take half an hour to get them to latch on for the first couple weeks bad at it.  It's really common.

And I am not one of those people who is elitist towards the upper forums.  I think they're fine.  They're definitely a separate thing from the lower forums.  There's just some behavior up there that wouldn't survive down here because it would be seen as childish or bad taste, and serious discussions that do pop up tend to be less well-reasoned and moderate in tone.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 25, 2013, 02:58:02 am
Quote
On the other hand, a more educated populace is more resistant to propaganda and less likely to behave irrationally, so less likely to be dangerous

"Lie my teacher told me" would disagree.
Educated people tend to favor which ever action the goverment is currently taking, mostly because education is propaganda.
Whether this is intentional, and to what degree, is up for debate.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 25, 2013, 03:04:08 am
I acknowledged this much earlier in the discussion.

Quote from: SalmonGod on March 23, 2013, 11:35:04 pm
School isn't inherently a good thing, and can be enforced for the wrong reasons.

And anyway, I meant educated in pretty much the exact opposite way that you're describing.  Educated can just mean "knowledgeable", without having to mean "has a government issued diploma."  I made a pin back when I was trapped in a horrible school system and wore it around on my backpack that said "School sucks, Education rules".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 25, 2013, 03:05:20 am
Quote from: Devling on March 25, 2013, 02:58:02 am
Quote
On the other hand, a more educated populace is more resistant to propaganda and less likely to behave irrationally, so less likely to be dangerous

"Lie my teacher told me" would disagree.
Educated people tend to favor which ever action the goverment is currently taking, mostly because education is propaganda.
Whether this is intentional, and to what degree, is up for debate.

This is why students are never involved in any form of protest.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 25, 2013, 03:44:52 am
@salmon

I'm likely losing focus due to the time here, but I'm starting to feel like I'm countering points without a coherent message. Fyi.

Quote
without having to mean "has a government issued diploma."
But why was a formal education system put in place? Why do we have diplomas?
These are there to protect people from fraud- snakeoil salesmen that rob the gullible or trusting of their savings, claiming false wisdom and backing it up with believable confidence & showmanship.
You said (I assume when met with an inescapable weakness of 'true anarchy') you don't think anarchy is inherently opposed to a government-like organization, so I've gotta ask...in pm. Woo calm & cool thread.


I'm tired and rambling, think I'll call this post a night.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 25, 2013, 03:59:07 am
The problem with that idea that SalmonGod got flustered because he was confronted with your "true anarchy", is that this "true anarchy" is something YOU made up, not a part of what's called "Anarchist political theory".

So any weakness with "true anarchy", which is something only you defined, is a straw-man argument.

I'm guessing this "true anarchy" is defined as people running around like headless chickens, going crazy and shit.

I could make the same anti-Christian argument by painting "true Christians" as WBC-type people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 25, 2013, 04:23:58 am
Quote from: Reelya on March 25, 2013, 03:59:07 am
I'm guessing this "true anarchy" is defined as people running around like headless chickens, going crazy and shit.

Sadly, this is the average person's immediate mental image upon hearing the word anarchy.  It's rare to have a conversation on the subject that doesn't spend the first half explaining "Would you behave like that?  Yes?  What's wrong with you?  No?  Then why do you believe everyone else would?"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 25, 2013, 04:39:36 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 25, 2013, 04:23:58 am
Quote from: Reelya on March 25, 2013, 03:59:07 am
I'm guessing this "true anarchy" is defined as people running around like headless chickens, going crazy and shit.

Sadly, this is the average person's immediate mental image upon hearing the word anarchy.  It's rare to have a conversation on the subject that doesn't spend the first half explaining "Would you behave like that?  Yes?  What's wrong with you?  No?  Then why do you believe everyone else would?"

I hope I have not sounded like that... (I am viewing anarchy as something where people function independently, and do not force each other to do anything, and everything else is up in the air)

Quote from: Reelya on March 25, 2013, 03:59:07 am
The problem with that idea that SalmonGod got flustered because he was confronted with your "true anarchy", is that this "true anarchy" is something YOU made up, not a part of what's called "Anarchist political theory".

I believe that true anarchy was used here to highlight that some of SalmonGod's ideas are infact not part of whats called the "Anarchist political theory" and concepts are being added ad-hoc (If that is actually true or not, I am not going to comment on). In reality advocating a singular political theory is silly for this reason - people will just redefine it to suit them (hence why the definitions of these theories is in constant flux).

Quote
And anyway, I meant educated in pretty much the exact opposite way that you're describing.  Educated can just mean "knowledgeable", without having to mean "has a government issued diploma."  I made a pin back when I was trapped in a horrible school system and wore it around on my backpack that said "School sucks, Education rules".

Teach yourself? Be taught by a non-accredited person? If you did that it is unlikely anyone would trust you to be able to do your job though (a fair heuristic to apply, given that someone with a trusted diploma can probably do the job better than someone who just claims they can).

Quote
"I eat first and get first choice of mates" is a pretty far cry from "I bomb you anonymously from hundreds of miles away because your appearance and location indicates you may hold thoughts I disagree with."

What of the situation where the bombing took place in order to prevent a mass supression of freedom (say, that persons thoughts were of invading your country and enslaving everyone, and they potentially had the resources to do it)? War is far more complicated than you make it out to be, more than "I disagree with you".

Quote
Breastfeeding:  Lots of babies are really, really bad at it.  Like it can take half an hour to get them to latch on for the first couple weeks bad at it.  It's really common.

Have you seen a new-born lamb try to walk :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 25, 2013, 05:10:47 am
Quote from: alexandertnt on March 25, 2013, 04:39:36 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 25, 2013, 04:23:58 am
Quote from: Reelya on March 25, 2013, 03:59:07 am
I'm guessing this "true anarchy" is defined as people running around like headless chickens, going crazy and shit.

Sadly, this is the average person's immediate mental image upon hearing the word anarchy.  It's rare to have a conversation on the subject that doesn't spend the first half explaining "Would you behave like that?  Yes?  What's wrong with you?  No?  Then why do you believe everyone else would?"

I hope I have not sounded like that... (I am viewing anarchy as something where people function independently, and do not force each other to do anything, and everything else is up in the air)

To be honest, I think you have a bit at times, but this whole thing has also been rather muddled, having been drawn out over a couple days and involving various people joining in and dropping out.  So it's likely I've mixed sentiments from other people in with yours.

Quote from: alexandertnt on March 25, 2013, 04:39:36 am
Quote from: Reelya on March 25, 2013, 03:59:07 am
The problem with that idea that SalmonGod got flustered because he was confronted with your "true anarchy", is that this "true anarchy" is something YOU made up, not a part of what's called "Anarchist political theory".

I believe that true anarchy was used here to highlight that some of SalmonGod's ideas are infact not part of whats called the "Anarchist political theory" and concepts are being added ad-hoc (If that is actually true or not, I am not going to comment on). In reality advocating a singular political theory is silly for this reason - people will just redefine it to suit them (hence why the definitions of these theories is in constant flux).

I am a self-styled anarchist.  I've considered myself an anarchist and been reading and having conversations like these on the subject frequently for about 15 years.   I'm not deeply read into any specific school of thought, but have a basic grasp of what each of the major ones is about.  I've taken care to identify what ideas I've presented that may be up to variability across different anarchist schools, and what are my own thoughts.

Quote from: alexandertnt on March 25, 2013, 04:39:36 am
Quote
And anyway, I meant educated in pretty much the exact opposite way that you're describing.  Educated can just mean "knowledgeable", without having to mean "has a government issued diploma."  I made a pin back when I was trapped in a horrible school system and wore it around on my backpack that said "School sucks, Education rules".

Teach yourself? Be taught by a non-accredited person? If you did that it is unlikely anyone would trust you to be able to do your job though (a fair heuristic to apply, given that someone with a trusted diploma can probably do the job better than someone who just claims they can).

I don't mean educated into a specific career field, either.  I mean simply having a well-rounded base of personal knowledge and developed critical thinking skills.  You sound as if your notion of education is churning out cogs for a machine.  That is one of the major failings of our education system, and just one example of how such a thing can be forced for the wrong reasons.

Quote from: alexandertnt on March 25, 2013, 04:39:36 am
Quote
"I eat first and get first choice of mates" is a pretty far cry from "I bomb you anonymously from hundreds of miles away because your appearance and location indicates you may hold thoughts I disagree with."

What of the situation where the bombing took place in order to prevent a mass supression of freedom (say, that persons thoughts were of invading your country and enslaving everyone, and they potentially had the resources to do it)? War is far more complicated than you make it out to be, more than "I disagree with you".

You're wildly tangenting off to something completely unrelated to the thing my quote was in response to... which is funny because in that quote, I am responding to a previous wild tangent.



Anyway, I just found this little essay (http://occupywallst.org/forum/david-graeber-some-remarks-consensus/) by David Graeber, a rather distinguished anthropologist who taught at Yale.  It's a very unstructured commentary on common misconceptions about consensus decision-making.  Might be useful to some people here, if nothing else to show that the concept is functional, and has been subject to plenty of academic study and historical precedent.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 25, 2013, 05:27:44 am
Quote
You sound as if your notion of education is churning out cogs for a machine.  That is one of the major failings of our education system, and just one example of how such a thing can be forced for the wrong reasons.

I would like to point out that I abhor the notion that the education system should be to educate for the purpose of fulfilling some role, and fully support education solely for non-economic personal reasons.

However, If someone is going to monitor that nuclear power reactor (ie generic-its-in-our-best-interest-to-take-no-risks thing), it's less risky to choose someone who has got a degree in cog churning from Government University than someone who has pursued cog churning privately for personal reasons. So a rigid, not-personal education system has its uses.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 25, 2013, 08:07:32 am
Just to weigh in on the bit I actually care about:

Crying for attention is an instinct. Humans are not taught to cry (far from it) and it is far from a simple behavior. Humans actually have a few instincts based around communication, by most reasonable definitions of instinct.

The only people who think humans don't have instincts are the one's who define instinct explicitly as "that thing that humans don't have". Which is pretty dishonest approach at best, and practically enlightening. It's generally a point of view taken by ideologues and populists rather than those with legitimate interests in science or communication. *cough*fuckyouMaslowyou'reahack*cough*

But seriously, we're talking about semantics of psychology. Find someone who's using the definition you want is pretty trivial. This conversation probably can't go anywhere productive thanks to that. But being reasonable, if one uses Maslow's definition of "instinct", most animals don't have any - at the very least, instincts seem to be completely foreign to mammals, by his definition. So if you're okay with that, sure, humans don't have instincts - but I think it's a weird place to work from.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 25, 2013, 01:25:21 pm
It's the attack of the walls of text!

Anyways, this may be a bit late, but if "Anarchy" is a bad word, maybe you should come up with a better word.
Instead of trying to convince people it's not a bad word.
Like how comics had to be called Graphic Novels before they got taken seriously.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 25, 2013, 01:37:44 pm
An alternative would be to work aggressively to change opinions on the word. Rehabilitate it, if you will. Anarchy is used rather commonly as a synonym for "chaos" after all.

I don't think we should abandon symbols because of popular opinion - words included. Examples of symbols that should be rehabilitated (in my opinion) rather than abandoned are the swastika, the confederate flags and the hammer and sickle.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 25, 2013, 01:40:32 pm
Unless you literally erase history I see no time in the future where any of those symbols would be "rehabilitated".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 25, 2013, 01:51:38 pm
Have I ranted recently about the war on language, the meaning of words, and by extension the assault on the fundamental foundation of all human thought in order to remove our capacity to discuss and eventually think about specific political concepts that threaten established power structures?

Yea. Anarchy is one of those words.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 25, 2013, 01:52:44 pm
Right, because this thread need more rants.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on March 25, 2013, 02:03:20 pm
Getting the first few points of interest from the Prop 8 and DOMA cases at the Supreme Court.

Robert's gay cousin will be in attendance with her partner. (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/prop-8-hearing-roberts-cousin-89271.html?hp=r3)

For those interested, there is a 'plain English' outline of the legal arguments and issues in the Prop 8 case on SCOTUSblog (http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/court-to-tackle-californias-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-in-plain-english/).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 25, 2013, 02:04:38 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on March 25, 2013, 01:51:38 pm
Have I ranted recently about the war on language, the meaning of words, and by extension the assault on the fundamental foundation of all human thought in order to remove our capacity to discuss and eventually think about specific political concepts that threaten established power structures?

Yea. Anarchy is one of those words.

I'm not sure if this sounds more like 1984 or Dr. Strangelove.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 25, 2013, 07:24:40 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 25, 2013, 01:25:21 pm
Like how comics had to be called Graphic Novels before they got taken seriously.

It had the opposite effect on me.  Graphic novel = picture book.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on March 25, 2013, 07:30:33 pm
I own one graphic novel.

It has boobies.

I take it very seriously.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on March 25, 2013, 08:15:16 pm
Speaking of boobies... (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-19-why-publishers-refuse-games-such-as-remember-me-because-of-their-female-protagonists)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 25, 2013, 09:09:01 pm
Quote from: Max White on March 25, 2013, 08:15:16 pm
Speaking of boobies... (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-19-why-publishers-refuse-games-such-as-remember-me-because-of-their-female-protagonists)
Wow. What the hell, publishers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 25, 2013, 09:13:22 pm
I can understand why games with guy protagonists get more sales.
If the main character is a guy, both men and women feel comfortable playing.
If the main character is a women, that can throw off guys.
Of course, it could be that games featuring women as main characters are smaller projects, and don't sell as well do to factors like that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 25, 2013, 09:14:38 pm
Metroid series?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 25, 2013, 09:16:48 pm
That is an exception, mostly due to people getting suckered in with the first game without realizing "OMG SAMUS IS A GIRL".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on March 25, 2013, 09:22:11 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 25, 2013, 09:14:38 pm
Metroid series?
I think part of the point was having female protagonists that aren't just eye candy, but rather real people who can have their own relationships.
Samus being a girl wasn't meant to be 'Oh yea, and Samus is a girl, guess that fucked up your perception of this bad ass space marine. How sexist of you!', but rather 'Ok you beat our game, enjoy some fan service of a girl in a skimpy outfit' and has just followed since then. She hasn't truly evolved as a female in any meaningful way, with the exception of the end of Metroid II, an ending that some people think of as a sign of feminine weakness beause instead of doing the 'manly' thing and blasting the critter away, she actually showed some fucking emotion.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on March 25, 2013, 09:24:34 pm
That emotion was fine until Other M turned it into... that.

That game literally her thanking a man for shooting her in the back because she's apparently too rash to make decisions on her own.

This takes place after Super Metroid.

dumb dumb dumb
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 25, 2013, 09:24:46 pm
Quote from: Max White on March 25, 2013, 09:22:11 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 25, 2013, 09:14:38 pm
Metroid series?
I think part of the point was having female protagonists that aren't just eye candy, but rather real people who can have their own relationships.
Samus being a girl wasn't meant to be 'Oh yea, and Samus is a girl, guess that fucked up your perception of this bad ass space marine. How sexist of you!', but rather 'Ok you beat our game, enjoy some fan service of a girl in a skimpy outfit' and has just followed since then. She hasn't truly evolved as a female in any meaningful way, with the exception of the end of Metroid II, an ending that some people think of as a sign of feminine weakness beause instead of doing the 'manly' thing and blasting the critter away, she actually showed some fucking emotion.
But then you get to Super Metroid, the end of which left more than one macho-manly gamer crying a river. Funny how that works, eh?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on March 25, 2013, 09:28:21 pm
Quote from: Sirus on March 25, 2013, 09:24:46 pm
But then you get to Super Metroid, the end of which left more than one macho-manly gamer crying a river. Funny how that works, eh?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 25, 2013, 09:30:07 pm
I was referring to the "feminine weakness" thing, but touche :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Hiiri on March 26, 2013, 02:14:27 am
Quote from: Sirus on March 25, 2013, 09:09:01 pm
Quote from: Max White on March 25, 2013, 08:15:16 pm
Speaking of boobies... (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-19-why-publishers-refuse-games-such-as-remember-me-because-of-their-female-protagonists)
Wow. What the hell, publishers.

Romance novels tend to have female protagonists. Gee, I wonder why.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on March 26, 2013, 02:22:27 am
True, but if you go to a book publisher and say you are writing a romance novel with a male protagonist, they would tell you to come back when it is done so they can at least see if they can generate some interest from it.
Apparently publishers won't work with female protagonists in video games out of hand.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MrWillsauce on March 26, 2013, 02:39:54 am
Speaking of boobies... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boobies)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 26, 2013, 02:41:59 am
I was waiting for someone to make the joke.
Classic.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MrWillsauce on March 26, 2013, 02:42:52 am
Quote from: Devling on March 26, 2013, 02:41:59 am
I was waiting for someone to make the joke.
Classic.
I'm happy to oblige.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Hiiri on March 26, 2013, 02:51:59 am
Boobs (http://iopscience.iop.org/0305-4470/22/17/002)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 26, 2013, 08:52:35 am
Quote from: Max White on March 26, 2013, 02:22:27 am
True, but if you go to a book publisher and say you are writing a romance novel with a male protagonist, they would tell you to come back when it is done so they can at least see if they can generate some interest from it.
If you go to a book publisher and say you are writing any kind of book they will tell you to come back when you've finished.  The business model is completely different.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 26, 2013, 12:33:16 pm
Quote from: Hiiri on March 26, 2013, 02:14:27 am
Romance novels tend to have female protagonists. Gee, I wonder why.

Romance novels are not comparable to video games as a whole. Romance novels are a small, incredibly homogeneous genre with a very specific audience. Video games are not.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 26, 2013, 12:38:43 pm
Point is, like novels, video games are divided into multiple genre. So I wonder wherether this male protaginist = more sales* isn't to be linked to a specific gamegenre, rather than the entire videogame culture. While there's a problem, it's a bit strange to place all videogames on one line.



*Which in the article is already explained because of the link male protagonist=> more budget => more sales. Hence, the male domminance is just a self repeating phenomenon.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 26, 2013, 12:42:39 pm
And I think "Portal", which didn't even have any male characters or marketing budget, puts a lie to the fact that gamers won't play with female protagonists.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on March 26, 2013, 12:48:04 pm
Were you also a woman in Portal 1? I remember being a little surprised when I found out I was one in Portal 2.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MrWillsauce on March 26, 2013, 12:51:02 pm
Yes, you are the same character. Femininity is a strong theme in both games.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on March 26, 2013, 12:51:16 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on March 26, 2013, 12:48:04 pm
Were you also a woman in Portal 1? I remember being a little surprised when I found out I was one in Portal 2.
Yep.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 26, 2013, 12:59:48 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on March 26, 2013, 12:48:04 pm
Were you also a woman in Portal 1? I remember being a little surprised when I found out I was one in Portal 2.
You didn't ever look through a portal at yourself?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 26, 2013, 01:00:22 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on March 26, 2013, 12:51:16 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on March 26, 2013, 12:48:04 pm
Were you also a woman in Portal 1? I remember being a little surprised when I found out I was one in Portal 2.
Yep.
How did you miss that? You were forced to look into a Portal mirror in the first minute of the game.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 26, 2013, 12:42:39 pm
And I think "Portal", which didn't even have any male characters or marketing budget, puts a lie to the fact that gamers won't play with female protagonists.
Technically, the rat was a male character, but you didn't see him either.

Oh, and this is another note of what I said above. Game genres matter. Portal (I) is a puzzle game, and in fact closer to an Indie game than a mainstream one. You won't be able to do the same thing with Generic shooter III : Extra Lensflare deluxe.

Note: Speaking on nongeneric shooters, TF2 doesn't have any female characters either.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on March 26, 2013, 01:02:09 pm
Quote from: MrWillsauce on March 26, 2013, 12:51:02 pm
Yes, you are the same character. Femininity is a strong theme in both games.
What. The only time my character seemed to play a role in the game was when that British bot-chap tried insulting me by calling me fat.

Quote from: Devling on March 26, 2013, 12:59:48 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on March 26, 2013, 12:48:04 pm
Were you also a woman in Portal 1? I remember being a little surprised when I found out I was one in Portal 2.
You didn't ever look through a portal at yourself?
I think I did. But considering that is how I found out I was a girl in Portal 2 I guess I didn't actually did it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 26, 2013, 01:03:22 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on March 26, 2013, 01:02:09 pm
Quote from: MrWillsauce on March 26, 2013, 12:51:02 pm
Yes, you are the same character. Femininity is a strong theme in both games.
What. The only time my character seemed to play a role in the game was when that British bot-chap tried insulting me by calling me fat.
You missed a significant part of the plot. Which isn't weird, considering the effort Valve did to hide it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on March 26, 2013, 01:04:44 pm
D-D-D-DERAIL! Unless boobs and video games are part of Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 26, 2013, 01:06:44 pm
Quote from: Morrigi on March 26, 2013, 01:04:44 pm
D-D-D-DERAIL! Unless boobs and video games are part of Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion.
They kinda are. We're having a calm discussion which is quite probably progressive, about the presence of male/female protagonists in games.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on March 26, 2013, 01:08:40 pm
What was that subplot?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 26, 2013, 01:10:12 pm
Quote from: Morrigi on March 26, 2013, 01:04:44 pm
D-D-D-DERAIL! Unless boobs and video games are part of Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion.

We should rename this to: Calm and Cool Progressive Derails Thread.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MrWillsauce on March 26, 2013, 01:23:30 pm
I think the amount of boobs that can be readily appreciated in video games is a good marker of progress. And coolness.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on March 26, 2013, 01:50:15 pm
So the Prop 8 arguments happened. Early thoughts.

There are quite a few possible outcomes possible from this case. After oral arguments some of them seem much less likely. Note I'm going on very limited information as I haven't had time to read or listen to the full arguments yet.

1) Prop 8 upheld.
This seems extremely unlikely now. You definitely have two to four of the conservative justices taking this position, but it looks unlikely that they could get 5 votes. Kennedy all but ruled it out. I'd be shocked if this happened.

2) The court finds finds that those defending Prop 8 don't have standing and the case is thrown out.
This would have similar effects to 3 except removing adding a reset button to the legal process. Prop 8 would remain gone, but it would be possible for someone who did have standing to bring a new case in the future. The suggested example would be a state employee refusing to recognise same-sex marriage in their work. This seemed to be Robert's strategy, but looks near impossible now as both Kennedy and Alito argued strongly that the defendants did have standing otherwise unpopular ballot initiatives could never be defended in court. About as likely as an upholding now.

3) The court explicitly upholds the Californian ruling.
The ruling out of the District Court was a strange one. They essentially ruled that Prop 8 was illegal because it removed a right that had previously been granted. It didn't say that there is an inherent right to gay marriage in the constitution, just that once such a right has been extended to a group it can't be removed again. At least in part it looked like a strategic option to allow the Supreme Court to strike down Prop 8 without expanding gay marriage to all states. In my opinion the legal side was a stretch (is stripping a right briefly granted really that different from denying it outright?) and it almost looked too strategic and targeted towards Kennedy, who openly attacked it during arguments. I very much doubt this will happen. Even if it did, it wouldn't have much legal effect elsewhere, beyond making it impossible for states to remove gay marriage once granted.

4) The court dismisses the case entirely.
This seems entirely possible now given Kennedy's words. The effect would be pretty much identical to 3, except that the Californian ruling would have no legitimacy outside California, meaning that other states that tried to repeal a gay marriage law wouldn't be blocked by that ruling. Not that that is ever likely to matter. Right now this is where the smart money is going.

5) The court strike down gay marriage based on the administration's logic.
Essentially the administration argued that having 'separate but equal' civil unions is unlawful, and any state that discriminates in that way must allow gay marriage. Essentially all civil union states become gay marriage states, but those states without such unions can keep gay marriage illegal. The lack of any recognition of gay couples would become a matter for future cases. I don't think anyone was buying this, ever.

6) Prop 8 struck down because gay marriage is found to be a right.
This means gay marriage becomes legal in all states. Always seemed a little unlikely to me. The liberal justices definitely indicated they support this, with all four making comments in this direction. Kennedy made some statements that have been taken as opposition to this, but the quoted ones are not definitive and who knows what will happen. I still think it's a long shot.

As far as outcomes go, 1 would be the bad end. 2 is the good end but with a hint the end boss isn't truly dead. 3 and 4 are the good end. 5 is the surreal good ending you have to work hard for, is a lot of fun to watch but leaves half the people who get it incredibly confused. 6 is the rainbows and unicorns, we're all Californians now party time ending. Again, right now the smart money is on 4, but things aren't set in stone until the ruling is handed down.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on March 26, 2013, 01:58:59 pm
When will we have the ruling?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on March 26, 2013, 02:04:36 pm
Quote from: Sheb on March 26, 2013, 01:58:59 pm
When will we have the ruling?
Most likely June. However, tomorrow is the DOMA arguments and that may shed some more light on how things are going. Although most likely not.

SCOTUSblog's argument recap. (http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/argument-recap-on-marriage-kennedy-in-control/) Their plain English summary with greatest picture ever. (http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/what-will-the-court-do-with-proposition-8-todays-oral-argument-in-plain-english/) Trust them more than me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 26, 2013, 02:28:09 pm
DOMA is pretty much a done deal. It is a law that is "unequal on its face" and thus by definition violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 26, 2013, 05:05:24 pm
Attorney client privilege under attack:

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-manson-disciple-cant-keep-tapes-lapd-162821672.html
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 26, 2013, 11:10:55 pm
Quote
JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Because that’s the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don’t help us serve the Government’s interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples — both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional -

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE KAGAN: No, really, because if the couple — I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on March 26, 2013, 11:19:44 pm
I like the way that Justice is thinking.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 26, 2013, 11:28:53 pm
I like the hole that Mr Cooper was digging.  They should have let him finish his sentence and dig it deeper.  The traditional what now?  Only one party to the marriage becomes infertile?  So were you going to say it's traditional for the male to begin cheating with younger women when his spouse is past a certain age?  Is that your sanctity of marriage?  That was really a priceless exchange.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 26, 2013, 11:54:42 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 26, 2013, 11:28:53 pm
I like the hole that Mr Cooper was digging.  They should have let him finish his sentence and dig it deeper.  The traditional what now?  Only one party to the marriage becomes infertile?  So were you going to say it's traditional for the male to begin cheating with younger women when his spouse is past a certain age?  Is that your sanctity of marriage?  That was really a priceless exchange.
Funnily enough, there is actually theological justification for that very thing. In the Bible, Jacob has sex with his wives' female slaves to increase the odds of children. Margaret Atwood used this as the basis for the titular societal role in The Handmaid's Tale, in which this is done verbatim because a good deal of the Gileadian population has been rendered infertile by radiological contamination and a mutant strain of syphilis.

I recommend that book to all of you, by the way. Definitely one of the better dystopic novels out there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 26, 2013, 11:57:20 pm
Oh, I'm aware such stuff is in the bible.  Getting them to actually state something like that directly on a major public platform would just be amazing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 27, 2013, 12:07:33 am
I've been meaning to read that. I love dystopias and I like Atwood.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 27, 2013, 09:25:43 am
If only one person in the marriage has to be able to procreate surely that would make same-sex marriage ok, providing it isn't between two women who are past child-bearing age?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 27, 2013, 09:35:10 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on March 27, 2013, 09:25:43 am
If only one person in the marriage has to be able to procreate surely that would make same-sex marriage ok, providing it isn't between two women who are past child-bearing age?
Solution: Same-sex marriage is legal if it's a three-way marriage that includes a fertile female. Giggity.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 27, 2013, 10:19:37 am
http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/03/27/0240241/usps-discriminates-against-atheist-merchandise

The United States Postal Service is discriminating against "atheist packages". Packages marked with "atheist" are 10 times more likely to get lost and when they do arrive, they arrive an average of 3 days later compared to identical packages without markings. This study was accompanied by trial groups in Europe where no such discrepancy was noted.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 27, 2013, 10:27:04 am
That's only 1 out of 2 possible conclusions.

The other one is that post arriving on time literally is a miracle.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on March 27, 2013, 10:38:40 am
Interesting...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mech#4 on March 27, 2013, 10:40:39 am
Heh heh, later they decide that "to curb the issue of discrimination of athiest mail not being delivered, all mail labled as such will be delivered on time with a free bible attached". :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 27, 2013, 10:42:26 am
I could certainly believe that this is intentional. There are a shocking number of people who feel the need to "save" atheists (or worse "teach them a lesson") by doing ridiculous shit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: freeformschooler on March 27, 2013, 10:53:19 am
Athiest packages. What.

I'm not sure I understand the implication here. USPS drivers are looking at packages labeled "Athiest" and eating them instead of delivering them?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 27, 2013, 10:57:56 am
The people handling the packages are losing or stealing them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on March 27, 2013, 10:59:39 am
If I had the choice betweens tealing Atheists stuff and Christian stuff, I'd go for the Atheist any day. Who need another bible?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lemon10 on March 27, 2013, 11:27:02 am
You can never have too many bibles.
For instance you could make a fort out of bibles, so you are protected by the power of the lord while cowering within.
Or you could make a bible gun, which shoots bibles at non-believers.
Really, the possibilities are endless.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on March 27, 2013, 11:44:42 am
Quote from: lemon10 on March 27, 2013, 11:27:02 am
You can never have too many bibles.
For instance you could make a fort out of bibles, so you are protected by the power of the lord while cowering within.
Or you could make a bible gun, which shoots bibles at non-believers.
Really, the possibilities are endless.
Funnily enough, a armor suit of bibles would work fairly well at stopping small arms fire, though it would weigh a ton.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 27, 2013, 12:31:05 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on March 27, 2013, 10:27:04 am
post arriving on time literally is a miracle.
I'm partial to this theory.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MrWillsauce on March 27, 2013, 01:12:08 pm
Quote from: Sheb on March 27, 2013, 10:59:39 am
If I had the choice betweens tealing Atheists stuff and Christian stuff, I'd go for the Atheist any day. Who need another bible?
You stay away from my shrine to Richard Dawkins!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 27, 2013, 01:31:06 pm

Some strange train of thought led me to remember this quote...
Quote
This is the temple of intellect, and I am its high priest. You are profaning its sacred domain. You will win, because you have enough brute force. But you will not convince . In order to convince it is necessary to persuade, and to persuade you will need something that you lack: reason and right in the struggle
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 27, 2013, 02:39:51 pm
Quote from: lemon10 on March 27, 2013, 11:27:02 am
You can never have too many bibles.
For instance you could make a fort out of bibles, so you are protected by the power of the lord while cowering within.
Or you could make a bible gun, which shoots bibles at non-believers.
Really, the possibilities are endless.
Remember the phone book trick.

Bet it works with bibles too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 27, 2013, 05:14:25 pm
Can you eat bibles?

Actually, going by how unsucessful Christian missionaries have been "helping" with famine in certain parts of Africa, I doubt it.

[/going to hell]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 27, 2013, 05:50:31 pm
Now, to be fair, many missionaires do exemplary cooperation work and respect that facet of their work. Even though I find their insistence in converting people to their cult annoyingly presumptuous.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on March 27, 2013, 05:50:33 pm
Why in the wield would any package ever be marked atheist, or ant other religious marking for that matter?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 27, 2013, 05:57:24 pm
Quote from: scriver on March 27, 2013, 05:50:33 pm
Why in the wield would any package ever be marked atheist, or ant other religious marking for that matter?

Packages are often marked with the name of the organization sending them. For instance, newegg, amazon or in this particular case Atheist Shoes...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 27, 2013, 06:26:12 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on March 27, 2013, 05:57:24 pm
Quote from: scriver on March 27, 2013, 05:50:33 pm
Why in the wield would any package ever be marked atheist, or ant other religious marking for that matter?

Packages are often marked with the name of the organization sending them. For instance, newegg, amazon or in this particular case Atheist Shoes...

Atheist shoes are useless as they have no sole... [/rimshot]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 27, 2013, 06:27:34 pm
Quote from: scriver on March 27, 2013, 05:50:33 pm
Why in the wield would any package ever be marked atheist, or ant other religious marking for that matter?
MetalSlimeHunt:
-You know how people are, they want everyone to know how important the stuff they're sending is.
-Does it really matter? People are being discriminated against, their reasons why aren't important.
-[Force Persuade] You think this is a great moral outrage.
-Probably the emerging and annoying "Atheist chic" fashion.
-[LIE] The US Postal Service requires that all packages clearly mark the religious beliefs of the sender and receiver.
-[Remain Silent]
-[Attack] Stop asking questions!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 27, 2013, 06:27:57 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on March 27, 2013, 06:26:12 pm

Atheist shoes are useless as they have no sole... [/rimshot]

I heard a ghost story from Trinidad and Tobago or somewhere in the carribean about how a man sold his soul to the devil. He gave him the sole of his shoe and the devil got very angry and burned a hand print into it or something and flew into the earth.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on March 27, 2013, 07:10:59 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 27, 2013, 06:27:34 pm
Quote from: scriver on March 27, 2013, 05:50:33 pm
Why in the wield would any package ever be marked atheist, or ant other religious marking for that matter?
MetalSlimeHunt:
-You know how people are, they want everyone to know how important the stuff they're sending is.
-Does it really matter? People are being discriminated against, their reasons why aren't important.
-[Force Persuade] You think this is a great moral outrage.
-Probably the emerging and annoying "Atheist chic" fashion.
-[LIE] The US Postal Service requires that all packages clearly mark the religious beliefs of the sender and receiver.
-[Remain Silent]
-[Attack] Stop asking questions!

Minor derail, MSH, but more posts should take the form of dialogue trees. Heck, we should have a whole Forum Games thread devoted to normal conversations that proceed like some kind of Bioware game, where the next person gets to choose the response that continues the conversation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 27, 2013, 07:27:02 pm
... so like a smaller scale addventure*? I could dig it. Probably not participate, but it'd be interesting to watch :P

Spoiler: * (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on March 28, 2013, 02:15:27 am
Quote from: Nadaka on March 27, 2013, 05:57:24 pm
Quote from: scriver on March 27, 2013, 05:50:33 pm
Why in the wield would any package ever be marked atheist, or ant other religious marking for that matter?

Packages are often marked with the name of the organization sending them. For instance, newegg, amazon or in this particular case Atheist Shoes...

Ah, yeah, that makes sense. I didn't read the link, so o didn't know it was in the company name. I thought it was like some thing that when private persons sent, say, a package containing birthday presents, or anything really, they marked it with religion for some reason. With made no sense.

Now I just have too look up what kind of stupid company "Atheist Shoes" is and what makes their shoes so "atheist".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on March 28, 2013, 02:18:18 am
Quote from: scriver on March 28, 2013, 02:15:27 am
Now I just have too look up what kind of stupid company "Atheist Shoes" is and what makes their shoes so "atheist".
Their shes have no soles.  :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Realmfighter on March 28, 2013, 02:36:49 am
Quote from: Max White on March 28, 2013, 02:18:18 am
Quote from: scriver on March 28, 2013, 02:15:27 am
Now I just have too look up what kind of stupid company "Atheist Shoes" is and what makes their shoes so "atheist".
Their shes have no soles.  :P

I feel like we've been over this specific point before.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on March 28, 2013, 02:44:29 am
Well, I read up on them and their shoes do look good if extremely unpractical. Seriously, flat undersides? I wouldn't even be able to walk down the dewy hillside after watching the sunrise with a cute hipster girl without falling. Don't you want to be able to to that, hipster, huh, don't you?

Also I would be interested in seeing their sales numbers. It seems like something that's extremely aimed towards an American market and that little "culture war" you have over there. The fact that they actually look very nice in their own right makes it a bit harder to draw any conclusions though, I guess.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on March 28, 2013, 02:51:10 am
Si it's Hipster Atheists Shoes?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on March 28, 2013, 02:53:25 am
Quote from: scriver on March 28, 2013, 02:44:29 am
Well, I read up on them and their shoes do look good if extremely unpractical. Seriously, flat undersides? I wouldn't even be able to walk down the dewy hillside after watching the sunrise with a cute hipster girl without falling. Don't you want to be able to to that, hipster, huh, don't you?
They are for wearing around the home. Kind of like slippers... They are actually some what comfortable.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on March 28, 2013, 02:55:20 am
You got Atheist Shoes MAx White?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on March 28, 2013, 03:05:34 am
You don't wear shoes inside. That's ridiculous.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on March 28, 2013, 03:09:39 am
Depends on the country scriver. My place got really cold floor, and we don't all have slippers.

Plus, you can decide to use hsoes a sslippers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 28, 2013, 03:09:41 am
Quote from: scriver on March 28, 2013, 03:05:34 am
You don't wear shoes inside. That's ridiculous.

I do!

But then I've never in my entire life lived in a home without small children.  They have a tendency to leave messes or pointy objects about.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 28, 2013, 03:12:35 am
Quote from: scriver on March 28, 2013, 03:05:34 am
You don't wear shoes inside. That's ridiculous.
Yes.
If you must wear something because you have cold floors wear thick socks!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on March 28, 2013, 03:13:53 am
Socks destroy themselves quickly if you walk in them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on March 28, 2013, 03:23:35 am
...What kind of lousy socks are you wearing? Are you sure your floor isn't made out of some cloth-devouring floor monster from the first edition Monster Manual? :P

I hearby declare only upper class snobs wear shoes inside. Slippers do not count, but shoes can never be slippers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 28, 2013, 03:26:27 am
What about these?

(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/KEEN-KREEK-SANDALS-BLACK-DARK-SHADOW-MENS-10-5-NEW-/00/s/NzUzWDEwMDA=/$T2eC16dHJG8E9nyfpnP-BQUi)KW6fg~~60_35.JPG)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 28, 2013, 03:27:51 am
Aren't those like hiking shoes?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 28, 2013, 03:30:09 am
I dunno.  They're what I wear all the time... except when hiking.  Then I wear these:

(http://www.kirainet.com/images/2010/vibram.JPEG)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on March 28, 2013, 03:31:17 am
Those are hiking sandals. Also, we do not have the secret of adamantine socks yet.

Actually, I walk barefoot most of the time. Inside our outside.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on March 28, 2013, 04:06:55 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 28, 2013, 03:26:27 am
What about these?

(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/KEEN-KREEK-SANDALS-BLACK-DARK-SHADOW-MENS-10-5-NEW-/00/s/NzUzWDEwMDA=/$T2eC16dHJG8E9nyfpnP-BQUi)KW6fg~~60_35.JPG)

Sandals, subtype of Shoe. For wearing outside when it's too hot for other shoes. If you can't slip inside them, it's no slipper ;)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 28, 2013, 04:14:31 am
Quote from: scriver on March 28, 2013, 04:06:55 am
Sandals, subtype of Shoe. For wearing outside when it's too hot for other shoes. If you can't slip inside them, it's no slipper ;)

But half the reason I wear them is because they're easy to slip on and off :P

And I wear them in all temperatures, so long as there's no snow or large puddles.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on March 28, 2013, 04:16:01 am
Isn't this supposed to be a porgressive thread? Scriver, get your bigoted support for "Traditional shoes usage" out of there! We don't want you restricting the freedoms of indoors shoe users.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on March 28, 2013, 04:29:00 am
I'm thinking of changing my name to The Shoe Nazi and add as personal text "Not shoes for you!" :P

Personally I am a man of Feet Liberation, though, and walk barefeet as often as I can.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 28, 2013, 06:17:59 am
To walk barefoot is disagreeable simply because your feet will get dirty. Wear socks, you troglodytes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on March 28, 2013, 06:39:48 am
Your sock-based logic fails! Socks also get dirty, and both can be washed clean! Troglodyte Master Race wins again.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 28, 2013, 06:48:26 am
Quote from: scriver on March 28, 2013, 06:39:48 am
Your sock-based logic fails! Socks also get dirty, and both can be washed clean! Troglodyte Master Race wins again.

But if you have dirty socks that generally means your feet are not as dirty as the socks.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 28, 2013, 06:51:41 am
Quote from: Owlbread on March 28, 2013, 06:48:26 am
But if you have dirty socks that generally means your feet are not as dirty as the socks.

But having your feet in dirty socks can be very unpleasent nonetheless.

Socks are also harder to clean.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 28, 2013, 06:53:27 am
Quote from: alexandertnt on March 28, 2013, 06:51:41 am

But having your feet in dirty socks can be very unpleasent nonetheless.

Socks are also harder to clean.

But having dirty socks is surely preferrable to having dirty feet in that no sacrilege would be committed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 28, 2013, 07:01:51 am
This is why I wear shoes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 28, 2013, 07:10:17 am
Quote from: Owlbread on March 28, 2013, 06:53:27 am
But having dirty socks is surely preferrable to having dirty feet in that no sacrilege would be committed.

But having dirty socks (especially muddy socks) is more unpleasent due to the ability of the sock to absorb and store moisture, wheras moisture can dry and come off the bare foot much faster.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 28, 2013, 07:12:07 am
Quote from: alexandertnt on March 28, 2013, 07:10:17 am
But having dirty socks (especially muddy socks) is more unpleasent due to the ability of the sock to absorb and store moisture, wheras moisture can dry and come off the bare foot much faster.

Good lord man, what kind of a house do you live in?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 28, 2013, 07:24:29 am
Quote from: alexandertnt on March 28, 2013, 07:10:17 am
Quote from: Owlbread on March 28, 2013, 06:53:27 am
But having dirty socks is surely preferrable to having dirty feet in that no sacrilege would be committed.

But having dirty socks (especially muddy socks) is more unpleasent due to the ability of the sock to absorb and store moisture, wheras moisture can dry and come off the bare foot much faster.
Precisedly! It's basically a micro-sandwich — a high-efficiency filter and heat-exchange system. The skin-contact layer's porous. Perspiration passes through it, having cooled the body ... near-normal evaporation process. The next two layers . . . include heat exchange filaments and salt precipitators. Salt's reclaimed. Motions of the body, especially breathing and some osmotic action provide the pumping force. Reclaimed water circulates to catchpockets from which you draw it through this tube in the clip at your neck... Urine and feces are processed in the thigh pads. In the open desert, you wear this filter across your face, this tube in the nostrils with these plugs to ensure a tight fit. Breathe in through the mouth filter, out through the nose tube. With a decent sock in good working order, you won't lose more than a thimbleful of moisture a day
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 28, 2013, 07:29:07 am
Quote from: Owlbread on March 28, 2013, 07:12:07 am
Good lord man, what kind of a house do you live in?

Well, erm, a water pipe broke, clearly making socks the inferior choice for general day to day use in the house.

Occupy Socks.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 28, 2013, 07:30:15 am
Quote from: alexandertnt on March 28, 2013, 07:29:07 am
Well, erm, a water pipe broke, clearly making socks the inferior choice for general day to day use in the house.

Occupy Socks.

I hope you wore shoes and not your bare feet like a barbarian.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 28, 2013, 08:33:12 am
My house is clean therefore my feet stay clean.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 28, 2013, 09:21:34 am
Atheist shoes is definitely a pretty silly idea for a company but they shouldn't be having their mail lost or destroyed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on March 28, 2013, 10:13:16 am
It does make me wonder if the Christian Shoes niche us filled yet though
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on March 28, 2013, 10:29:11 am
Quote from: scriver on March 28, 2013, 10:13:16 am
It does make me wonder if the Christian Shoes niche us filled yet though
That was easy. (http://www.christianshoes.com/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on March 28, 2013, 11:44:31 am
Quote from: RedKing on March 28, 2013, 10:29:11 am
Quote from: scriver on March 28, 2013, 10:13:16 am
It does make me wonder if the Christian Shoes niche us filled yet though
That was easy. (http://www.christianshoes.com/)
But can you walk on water with it ?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 28, 2013, 12:39:31 pm
Quote from: PanH on March 28, 2013, 11:44:31 am
Quote from: RedKing on March 28, 2013, 10:29:11 am
Quote from: scriver on March 28, 2013, 10:13:16 am
It does make me wonder if the Christian Shoes niche us filled yet though
That was easy. (http://www.christianshoes.com/)
But can you walk on water with it ?

Only in winter.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ameablable on March 28, 2013, 01:35:14 pm
Quote from: lordcooper on March 28, 2013, 12:39:31 pm
Quote from: PanH on March 28, 2013, 11:44:31 am
Quote from: RedKing on March 28, 2013, 10:29:11 am
Quote from: scriver on March 28, 2013, 10:13:16 am
It does make me wonder if the Christian Shoes niche us filled yet though
That was easy. (http://www.christianshoes.com/)
But can you walk on water with it ?

Only in winter.
in cold countries.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on March 28, 2013, 01:58:41 pm
Path of this thread:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 28, 2013, 02:15:30 pm
Dude, there never was a rail. This is the derail thread.
We say what we want, in a calm, cool, and progressive manner.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ameablable on March 28, 2013, 02:16:37 pm
i thought he meant we were headed for texas. as thats where the picture is taken....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 28, 2013, 05:09:18 pm
Quote from: Morrigi on March 28, 2013, 01:58:41 pm
Path of this thread:
Well we've tried being nice and you haven't got the message, so I'll say it.  Get out unless you have something meaningful to say.  This isn't even a derail because it's related to progressive politics.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on March 28, 2013, 05:30:21 pm
I'm pretty certain he's referring to the whole Shoeless Master Race sillyness. Which, as much as I enjoyed it, was definitely a derail from the Atheist Shoes discussion.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 28, 2013, 11:10:35 pm
Quote from: Ameablable on March 28, 2013, 02:16:37 pm
i thought he meant we were headed for texas. as thats where the picture is taken....

If that train was heading towards texas (an unprogressive state), and it is now stopped...

progress?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ameablable on March 29, 2013, 06:34:17 am
Quote from: alexandertnt on March 28, 2013, 11:10:35 pm
Quote from: Ameablable on March 28, 2013, 02:16:37 pm
i thought he meant we were headed for texas. as thats where the picture is taken....

If that train was heading towards texas (an unprogressive state), and it is now stopped...

progress?
Precisely
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 29, 2013, 09:42:48 am
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gop-lawmaker-calls-hispanic-workers-wetbacks-124131854--politics.html

Yea
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on March 29, 2013, 12:34:13 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on March 29, 2013, 09:42:48 am
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gop-lawmaker-calls-hispanic-workers-wetbacks-124131854--politics.html

Yea
What a dick.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 29, 2013, 12:37:02 pm
Yeah. I wish that immigration laws get a little softer. Seeing as this is a lefty thread I'll assume most people agree with me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on March 29, 2013, 12:38:44 pm
Immigration is the reason the U.S. exists, we'd be fools to shun it now. And I'm not even on the left.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 29, 2013, 12:49:26 pm
Eh, I find it possible that the dude's telling the truth about why he used that word and that he meant no offense. I grew up thinking "gypped" was just another synonym for "ripped off," not a racial slur; something similar could've happened to him, thinking "wetback" as just synonymous to "immigrant worker."

Personally I'd never heard the term "wetback" before.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 29, 2013, 12:52:23 pm
I've heard it, but it isn't widely used where I am. I think it is a Southwestern thing.

There is also a point to be made that the offensiveness of euphemisms is fluid and can change rapidly throughout time.

That said, no, I'm pretty sure this guy is just another racist Republican.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on March 29, 2013, 12:54:19 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on March 29, 2013, 12:49:26 pm
Personally I'd never heard the term "wetback" before.
I hear it fairly often as a derogatory term where I am, and yeah, it's a Southwestern thing (since it applies specifically to the Rio Grande River). It comes from the idea that the Mexican immigrant's backs are still wet from crossing the Rio Grande river as they illegally sneak into the United States.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 29, 2013, 12:55:21 pm
I thought it was from the image of immigrants working in a field and thus getting wet backs from sweat.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on March 29, 2013, 12:57:44 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 29, 2013, 12:55:21 pm
I thought it was from the image of immigrants working in a field and thus getting wet backs from sweat.
Nope! (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetback_(slur)) agrees with me as well. :P)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 29, 2013, 01:43:50 pm
They terk er jerbs!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on March 29, 2013, 01:56:51 pm
All the jobs that white people don't want, funnily enough
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ameablable on March 29, 2013, 02:08:55 pm
I live in canada and where i am the majority of the immagrants come from eastern europe

Edit: my fathers side is right from poland. So dont think that im complaining. Im not. Just stating a point
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 29, 2013, 02:13:30 pm
Quote from: Ameablable on March 29, 2013, 02:08:55 pm
I live in canada and where i am the majority of the immagrants come from eastern europe

Edit: my fathers side is right from poland. So dont think that im complaining. Im not. Just stating a point

The UK is the same. Soon we will have many Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants, although I'm not complaining. I've always wanted to learn Bulgarian.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ameablable on March 29, 2013, 02:17:36 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on March 29, 2013, 02:13:30 pm
Quote from: Ameablable on March 29, 2013, 02:08:55 pm
I live in canada and where i am the majority of the immagrants come from eastern europe

Edit: my fathers side is right from poland. So dont think that im complaining. Im not. Just stating a point

The UK is the same. Soon we will have many Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants, although I'm not complaining. I've always wanted to learn Bulgarian.
Speaking of the UK my grandma who has been living here for 50 years never got her Canadian citezenship. She has her British citezenship still. Shes what they call a "permanant immagrant" so she can do everything except vote.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 29, 2013, 05:13:22 pm
Quote from: Ameablable on March 29, 2013, 02:17:36 pm
Speaking of the UK my grandma who has been living here for 50 years never got her Canadian citezenship. She has her British citezenship still. Shes what they call a "permanant immagrant" so she can do everything except vote.

Where in the UK was she from?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ameablable on March 29, 2013, 05:24:25 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on March 29, 2013, 05:13:22 pm
Where in the UK was she from?
Nottingham.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 30, 2013, 07:51:03 am
Dying US veteran writes open letter to Bush. (http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/the_last_letter_20130318) Now all we need to do is teach Bush to read.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 30, 2013, 08:12:17 am
That's a hard one, it's quite wordy. Remember, Bush was just reading "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" at the age of 23 (http://www.lettuce.org/scut1116.htm).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 30, 2013, 08:46:48 am
The lesson:  stop fucking participating in the bullshit.  You join the military, you are signing up to be used as a pawn for the personal agendas of the rich and powerful.  We have thousands of years of history to prove that's what happens to soldiers.  Stop granting them your willing participation.  If you think you're serving a noble cause, the suicide rate of those who have done so before you under the same pretenses should tell you that it's not.  People don't kill themselves because they're proud of what they've done, and this guilt is not unique to the Iraq War.

I know plenty here will disagree, but that's my honest belief.  I do not understand what people are thinking when they offer themselves up to become the next Tomas Young.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 30, 2013, 08:55:57 am
Oh, I have little sympathy with the individual soldiers who end up shot/blown up etc. as the risk of such happening to you in any conflict are clear, and you sign up knowing the risks (though I do feel very sorry for the families that suffer loss). The letter is just one of many examples that people were/are pissed off that the Iraq war was carried out, using peoples fears following 9/11 to hide the truth. Whilst the invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable from both a security and humanitarian standpoint (YMMV here), IMHO the Iraq was was perpretrated on a lie formulated by the acitons Bush and followed up on by others, Blair included. I honestly beleive that people would have left Iraq well alone if there had been no invasion of Afgahnistan.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 30, 2013, 09:05:35 am
I'm not even talking about the physical risks.  I'm talking about the spiritual risks.  Even if you walk away from the experience physically intact, the chances that you're going to do so with pride in your actions are minimal.  Most likely you're going to be made to do things that will haunt you forever only for the sake of someone's greed.  Our heads are filled with patriotic bullshit as children, but the suicide rates of veterans should be an overriding deterrent to anyone.  This isn't just about the Iraq War.  This has been the nature of military and its use by political powers forever.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 30, 2013, 10:12:32 am
As much as I think it's horrible that young men would be injured or crippled by bombs or IEDs, and as much as I admire their efforts to rebuild their lives, when I see British charities like "Help for Heroes" I start to get a bit... well, annoyed. Why is it that I can join the army, step on a mine on my first day and get called a hero, yet when someone cares for their spouse all the way through the gruelling disease that is alzheimers they don't get so much as a mention in a newspaper beyond an obituary when they die?

When your leg gets blown off, that's a terrible tragedy. You didn't save the world. Your life is just going to be much harder from now on.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 30, 2013, 10:26:27 am
Quote from: Owlbread on March 30, 2013, 10:12:32 am
As much as I think it's horrible that young men would be injured or crippled by bombs or IEDs, and as much as I admire their efforts to rebuild their lives, when I see British charities like "Help for Heroes" I start to get a bit... well, annoyed. Why is it that I can join the army, step on a mine on my first day and get called a hero, yet when someone cares for their spouse all the way through the gruelling disease that is alzheimers they don't get so much as a mention in a newspaper beyond an obituary when they die?

When your leg gets blown off, that's a terrible tragedy. You didn't save the world. Your life is just going to be much harder from now on.

Agreed.  A guy I was pretty close to in school got himself killed in Afghanistan and everybody has been calling him a hero since.  He wasn't, he was just a nice dude who couldn't see  any other way to make a living.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 30, 2013, 10:29:56 am
http://news.yahoo.com/kansas-couple-indoor-gardening-prompted-pot-raid-182449463.html

The government is conducting drug raids with NO probable cause. In this instance they went after a couple who were retired from the CIA and were using indoor gardening supplies to start an early vegetable garden.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 30, 2013, 10:34:07 am
Probably cause doesn't even seem to be a thing at all anymore.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on March 30, 2013, 11:02:42 am
I don't know... Retired from the CIA? Seems pretty shady.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 30, 2013, 11:32:25 am
2 stoned out twentysomthing hippies buying fertilizer and hydroponics gear? Fair enough. 2 pensioners? Whoops.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on March 30, 2013, 12:05:06 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on March 30, 2013, 11:32:25 am
2 stoned out twentysomthing hippies buying fertilizer and hydroponics gear? Fair enough. 2 pensioners? Whoops.
Er, hippies are pensioners these days. :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 30, 2013, 02:38:45 pm
This isn't actually all that amazing...
Seriously, it's not like a SWAT team kicked down the couples door and started tearing apart the house.
While it was probably foolish to have assumed people buying hydroponics are growing weed, it's also a bit silly to look at this story and start acting like the government is super fucked up, or that the justice system is going down the toilet.

Quote from: Nadaka on March 30, 2013, 10:29:56 am
The government is conducting drug raids with NO probable cause.
I assume you mean the federal government when you say "The government" so I'm just going to point out that the Feds had nothing to do with this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 30, 2013, 02:42:21 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 30, 2013, 02:38:45 pm
While it was probably foolish to have assumed people buying hydroponics are growing weed, it's also a bit silly to look at this story and start acting like the government is super fucked up, or that the justice system is going down the toilet.
Indeed. That IS silly.

The government has been super fucked up, and the justice system down the toilet, for quite some time now. It's not a new phenomena.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on March 30, 2013, 02:50:27 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 30, 2013, 02:38:45 pm
This isn't actually all that amazing...
Seriously, it's not like a SWAT team kicked down the couples door and started tearing apart the house.
While it was probably foolish to have assumed people buying hydroponics are growing weed, it's also a bit silly to look at this story and start acting like the government is super fucked up, or that the justice system is going down the toilet.

Quote from: Nadaka on March 30, 2013, 10:29:56 am
The government is conducting drug raids with NO probable cause.
I assume you mean the federal government when you say "The government" so I'm just going to point out that the Feds had nothing to do with this.

Your assumption is entirely wrong.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on March 30, 2013, 03:12:22 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 30, 2013, 02:38:45 pm
This isn't actually all that amazing...
Seriously, it's not like a SWAT team kicked down the couples door and started tearing apart the house.
... They were armed with body armour and assault rifles. They might not have broken in, but if nobody had answered the door I'm pretty sure they would have. It might not have been a SWAT team, but honestly there doesn't seem that much difference to me.

When they didn't find any drugs or anything they implied their son might be using narcotics (which is something that has happened to me in the past, officers will sometimes say stuff along the lines of "His eyes are looking pretty red, has he been taking drugs?"), then they pulled in some sniffer dogs... This sounds like a pretty thorough search to me, and honestly when they realised the hydroponics gear wasn't being used to grow Marijuana they probably should have just dropped the issue.

The thing is that this was all just a very shakey pretext to go raiding some houses. The police in this country are very fond of the "shake the tree and see what falls out" strategy of finding narcotics.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on March 30, 2013, 08:12:55 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/no-loo-arizona-readies-itself-pass-anti-trans-214837875.html

Priorities....

Whatever happened to all those "jobs bills" you pas [abrupt interruption]

"Never you mind.... Go pick on the gays, or at least the ones in dresses or something. Screw it I'm offended by everything and I'm gonna pick on somebody damn it." ~The Arizona Legislature, pretty much.

O, and they actually wanted to make it a criminal offense.... Economy? What economy?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 30, 2013, 08:36:55 pm
/me froths with rage.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 30, 2013, 08:39:29 pm
"The impetus for SB1045 seems to come from conservative views that the trans community poses a threat to kids."

My brain shuts down every time I THINK OF THE CHILDREN
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MrWillsauce on March 30, 2013, 08:42:40 pm
What about the transsexual children?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 30, 2013, 08:46:04 pm
Depending on the Proposition 8 ruling, this one might end up dead before it even comes into effect.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on March 30, 2013, 10:31:33 pm
I have an idea.  I sure wish I had the power/authority to make it happen.  People should go to Arizona in same sex pairs, find a bathroom of the opposite sex, then do a Gangam style elevator scene in that bathroom (the bathroom door swings open to reveal the two people), and I guess submit thousands of DVDs and photos to the Arizona congress to point out how silly the entire issue is.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 30, 2013, 10:55:21 pm
Why don't we just make unisex bathrooms again already? FFS, don't fix what's not broken.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 31, 2013, 05:23:46 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on March 30, 2013, 10:55:21 pm
Why don't we just make unisex bathrooms again already? FFS, don't fix what's not broken.

Careful, that sort of talk will summon one of those right wing nutcase "femenazis". :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on March 31, 2013, 05:33:32 am
Can we not do unisex toilets? I'm shy enough with just men in there.
Thinking about it, if a male born female transsexual entered the male toilets, I wouldn't feel that uncomfortable around him, at least not any more than any other guy. If a female born male entered, I would feel somewhat uneasy, as much as any other female. Wouldn't people feel more comfortable with their assumed gender, rather than genetic one? With that in mind, boys go in boys toilets, and girls in girls.

Am I getting my terms the right way around? Where as male born female would genetically have an XX chromosome, but a male personality? If I'm actually getting it backwards the above statement is incredibly offensive and I apologize.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 31, 2013, 05:36:07 am
Meh, its the only really practical way for everyone to be treated equally (badly).

(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/c92.0.403.403/p403x403/582082_10150976057472005_711256282_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on March 31, 2013, 05:41:54 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 31, 2013, 06:11:59 am
You're going to see yourself as a roughed-up jewish shark person with a strange line of neck hairs?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on March 31, 2013, 06:24:03 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on March 31, 2013, 06:26:38 am
I'm guessing it would make sense for people who have watched the episode?
Does the character attempt some sort of transgender surgery and end up as a deformed shark person and that is the 'joke'? I mean I have heard people say south park is pretty left wing but evidently not.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 31, 2013, 06:31:20 am
Quote from: Ogdibus on March 31, 2013, 06:24:03 am
Do you really not understand, or are you just trying to take the edge off?

I understood what you were saying, but not why.  My guess is the context of the image is mocking the average person's ridiculous level of misunderstanding of the issue, and I'm not sure why that would have an effect on your self-image.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 31, 2013, 06:34:38 am
Quote from: Max White on March 31, 2013, 06:26:38 am
I'm guessing it would make sense for people who have watched the episode?
Does the character attempt some sort of transgender surgery and end up as a deformed shark person and that is the 'joke'? I mean I have heard people say south park is pretty left wing but evidently not.

South Park mocks everyone and everything without any leeway given to any political ideology.  It's rather good.

And no, he is turned into a dolphin because that is the way he feels on the inside.  He's always just known he was a dolphin, just like his son knew he was a black basketball player.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on March 31, 2013, 06:38:37 am
That is pretty fucking offensive.
I actually feel bad right now for Ogdibus. I mean we had a nice little forum where a surprising number of people could be open about their sexuality where other places on the internet would chastise them and then BAM right in the humanity! Well it was nice while it lasted.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on March 31, 2013, 06:41:28 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on March 31, 2013, 06:51:22 am
Well... I think it is important to be able to laugh at ones self, but there is a difference between a joke and demonizing somebody.
People should be allowed to be sensitive to that sort of treatment, instead of this idea of an emotionless society where anything we don't like we just have to 'suck it up and deal with it', that sort of attitude can't be healthy, surly?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 31, 2013, 06:53:21 am
Nothing is sacred in comedy, either everything is fair game or nothing is.  There have been more than a few South Park episodes ripping in to groups I belong to, which is fine.  I'd also disagree that they demonised anyone in that particular episode.  Presenting a controversial viewpoint (which they may not even share, it isn't unknown for Matt and Trey to rip in to opposing sides of an issue) is a bit different to outright condemning people, and South Park always has it's tongue planted firmly in it's cheek.

To be completely honest, I find the very concept of transexuality really weird.  But I recognise that my finding it weird would be an absolutely terrible reason to discriminate or judge people, so I don't.  Many people find bisexuality and polyamory weird, so I'd have to be an utter hypocrite to expect people to accept my abnormalities while looking down upon other for theirs.  I can still find it weird though, that's not really something an individual can choose to stop.

Quote from: Ogdibus on March 31, 2013, 06:41:28 am
They make fun of everyone that isn't them.  Two guys with no problems make fun of everyone else's problems.

They make fun of themselves an awful lot too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on March 31, 2013, 06:58:21 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 31, 2013, 07:01:30 am
Quote from: Ogdibus on March 31, 2013, 06:58:21 am
It's different when your "group" has no voice, no power, and no unity, and when the majority of people think you're a monstrosity/rapist, possibly including yourself.

If we're still talking solely about comedy/satire then I disagree.  Also I really don't think that the majority of people think all transfolk are rapists.  Where's that coming from?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 31, 2013, 07:06:31 am
Whoa, hold on guys...

I only posted the image to show how unworkable it would be to have a bathroom for all identities, assuming most people would have seen that episode. No offence meant.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on March 31, 2013, 07:10:06 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 31, 2013, 07:25:00 am
I don't think you should interpret the contents of South Park as representing anyone's honest viewpoint, especially the writers.  Most often they're satirizing other people's viewpoints.  I haven't seen the episode, but in this case I'm pretty sure they're parodying how much the average person exaggerates in their perception of transexuality.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 31, 2013, 07:27:39 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on March 31, 2013, 07:06:31 am
Whoa, hold on guys...

I only posted the image to show how unworkable it would be to have a bathroom for all identities, assuming most people would have seen that episode. No offence meant.
Stop dividing. Start uniting. Unisex.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on March 31, 2013, 07:31:09 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 31, 2013, 07:37:43 am
Quote from: Ogdibus on March 31, 2013, 07:31:09 am
I like the unisex bathroom idea.  It would take some getting used to, but the places where it's done seem to be getting good results.

No argument there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 31, 2013, 07:40:31 am
Quote from: Ogdibus on March 31, 2013, 07:31:09 am
The episode reinforces a typical person's ignorance.
If someone bases their prejudice upon South Park, they cannot physically sink any lower.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on March 31, 2013, 07:49:17 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on March 31, 2013, 07:40:31 am
If someone bases their prejudice upon South Park, they cannot physically sink any lower.
It's not basing their prejudice on it, it's seeing that these highly respected comedians think that mocking trans* people is funny and acceptable.

It's the general reason why comedians should punch up rather than punching down. The latter ends up just being socially acceptable bullying.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on March 31, 2013, 07:59:45 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on March 31, 2013, 08:10:53 am
Meh. I never watch Fmiliy Guy. Sometimes the episodes are funny, but most of the time it's just puking, shitting, and ejaculating.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on March 31, 2013, 08:13:45 am
Quote from: Ogdibus on March 31, 2013, 07:59:45 am
Speaking of punching down: (http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2013/02/quvenzhane-wallis-white-feminism/)
Actually a really good example.

The Onion is usually seen as being on 'our side' ('our' being generally well educated progressives of all stripes) due to the types of humour they do, so they tend to get defended when they do problematic shit just from the general desire to defend our side from outside attack. Even when that attack isn't from outside. Add into that the inherent difficulties with criticising comedy (how many times do you hear, "it was just a joke," "it was ironic," "why are you taking them so seriously?") and even the people who do find it problematic are less likely to call them out.

I'd say that South Park is even harder to call out or criticise, because they have an even larger body of people on their side and those people are more used to having to defend the show from outside criticism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 31, 2013, 08:15:07 am
That article is really bad.  Instead of making any kind of actual argument it just makes repeated assertions, attacks anyone who disagrees with it and strawmans relentlessly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on March 31, 2013, 08:15:13 am
Quote from: Ogdibus on March 31, 2013, 07:59:45 am
I think the show is reflecting the thoughts of society rather than society getting it's opinions from the show.

Both. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_reproduction)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 31, 2013, 08:22:35 am
Quote from: palsch on March 31, 2013, 07:49:17 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on March 31, 2013, 07:40:31 am
If someone bases their prejudice upon South Park, they cannot physically sink any lower.
It's not basing their prejudice on it, it's seeing that these highly respected comedians think that mocking trans* people is funny and acceptable.
-Matt Stone & Trey Parker
-Respectable

Pick one.

In any case these are a list of some of the people they've made fun of:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It's apolitical and amoral. My only criticism of it is that often times it resorted to stereotyping and crude sexual innuendo or language to get across humour. Sometimes they're well written, other times it's almost like watching cardboard family guy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on March 31, 2013, 08:26:40 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on March 31, 2013, 08:29:29 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on March 31, 2013, 08:22:35 am
-Matt Stone & Trey Parker
-Respectable
Respected.

Respectable or not (whatever the fuck that means these days) a lot of people pay attention to them. Their comedy has been influential to a whole mess of new comedians and their views are often parroted online and (in my experience) real life. Those groups they mock? More likely to be mocked with the examples and terms they used in the show than they were before Matt and Trey targeted them.

Like it or not, they have no small power. And using that to beat up on those without power isn't cool.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on March 31, 2013, 08:42:37 am
It could be quite easily sorted in the USA if it was written into federal law that transsexuals should have access to the bathrooms of their chosen sex. Unisex bathrooms aren't necessary, although they are more convenient.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Gervassen on March 31, 2013, 12:27:24 pm
Good news, it seems. A new Economist  (http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions)article reports that the global climate may be much less sensitive to change than previously thought, with wide-ranging implication for social policy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 31, 2013, 12:36:22 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on March 31, 2013, 08:42:37 am
It could be quite easily sorted in the USA if it was written into federal law that transsexuals should have access to the bathrooms of their chosen sex. Unisex bathrooms aren't necessary, although they are more convenient.
This is not going to be considered a federal issue, as it has barely even started up.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on March 31, 2013, 12:57:40 pm
Basically, here's the problem: Society and law are really slow to change and don't know how to adapt well to much of anything. Also the backlash to any change is huge, and, though people often forget this, the desire to stay the same is often just as big as the desire to change....

Tragically, there are people who would abuse this whole situation. There are people who are perverts and who do stupid and wrong things (I've had the displeasure of representing some of them and the disgust won't wash off). There is a reason the sex offender registries in the US are huge.... :(

That said, there's a legitimate group of people being harmed by the sweeping efforts of combating those other people.... The sweeping generalization that gays = pedophiles is unfortunately alive and well in the US. It has been since before I was a kid and it will tragically be around for several more decades. I predict it will take 30 or 40 years minimum for this notion to significantly fade out of the U.S. Population. You can point all you want to the strides GLBT rights have made recently. Think of every person you know who was alive before 1972 when homosexuality was no longer considered a mental disease or disorder, and realize that tons of those people are still alive, part of an aging population and the bastards vote.... There is significant opposition to GLBT rights in the US even today. Read the comments section of any pro gay article on the yahoo and google and you'll have a harder time arguing with me, because the bigots have a field day there....

Now, we transgendered people have not come nearly as far as gay people in the US (who still have a ways to go themselves).

The whole public restrooms thing comes down to one thing: people actually accepting transgendered individuals as people.... Not a disease, not a perversion, not something else, just people.... The main obstacle here is people actually having to associate be in the same space, however briefly with such an individual as an equal when they very much don't wanna.... Yes, there are terrible people out there doing terrible things: different gender bathrooms aren't stopping them, never have, never will. People like to think they live in a safe world and that there are things they can do to prevent or discourage people from doing bad things in it: they can't. "Deterrence" (harsher sentences to show other criminals not to do a certain crime) doesn't work. Also, we can't prevent these crimes. People have been killing each other since the dawn of time (or Cain and Able if you're religious) and we've dealt out the worst punishments we can think up for murder for thousands of years.... Still happens....

What people don't know or don't want to acknowledge is that "separate bathrooms" is a tragically laughable prevention mechanism for some of the most terrible crimes you can think of. Misidentifying transgender people as the perpetrators of these crimes is just ... incorrect.

The following things would have to happen for the whole stupid misguided transgender bathroom situation to resolve with society as a whole or at least a real super-majority of it:

1.) People need to stop thinking GBLT = criminals and/or likely to molest them/their kids.
2.) People need to actually just chill the hell out about the differences between gay and straight.
3.) People would need to actually stop looking down their nose at GLBT people.

Until then.... Yeah, there's a reason I'm closeted.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 31, 2013, 01:14:28 pm
The above wall of text contains lots of good points.
I have one point. Misidentifying a transgender person thinking that they are in the wrong bathroom is awkward for everyone. I guess it's unreasonable to ask transgender people to do something that is wrong to them.

(Unisex bathrooms continue to be terrible ideas, mostly because people are immature and shit. School with a unisex student bathroom? Yeah, no.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 31, 2013, 01:35:08 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 31, 2013, 01:14:28 pm
(Unisex bathrooms continue to be terrible ideas, mostly because people are immature and shit. School with a unisex student bathroom? Yeah, no.)
Believing this sort of thing is what perpetuates its existence.

If we had unisex bathrooms for the entirety of the school system, such wouldn't happen. The process of segregating them is what makes people act immature.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 31, 2013, 01:41:00 pm
As part of my research work I have been into many highschools. A small but signifigant number of these have unisex toilet areas. I make a point of asking about the implementation of such a thing (as in why, what resistance and from who, and what problems and benefits). The general trend seems to be that seperate gender bathrooms were linked with antisocial and criminal behaviours (normally bullying, vandalism, drinking/smoking/drugs or even sexual activity). The main resistance comes from parents, not pupils. Benefits include a drop to near zero incidences of antisocial or criminal behaviour. Problems asscoited with them - normally complaints from self concious laddy boys who dont like the idea of sharing space with girls, and girls complaining that boys arent tidy/clean enough. Seems like quite small potatoes for the benefits.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on March 31, 2013, 01:48:37 pm
So basically, if I was five seconds from pissing myself and the door to the men's room was locked (likely because some mafia story event inside or something) and I rushed into the ladies', I would risk court. Can't they see how this proposition is stupid on every level, from the moral and equality issues straight down to the common sense and practicality stuff? Aren't these the people who are supposed to be the small government? I'm pretty sure "don't make laws about what toilets people can use" is a cornerstone of that position.


Quote from: kaijyuu on March 31, 2013, 01:35:08 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 31, 2013, 01:14:28 pm
(Unisex bathrooms continue to be terrible ideas, mostly because people are immature and shit. School with a unisex student bathroom? Yeah, no.)
Believing this sort of thing is what perpetuates its existence.

If we had unisex bathrooms for the entirety of the school system, such wouldn't happen. The process of segregating them is what makes people act immature.

I had unisex toilets ky whole schoollife. There never were much trouble with those. Then again, they were all single rooms, or clusters of rooms, rather than booths.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 31, 2013, 01:49:45 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on March 31, 2013, 01:41:00 pm
As part of my research work I have been into many highschools. A small but signifigant number of these have unisex toilet areas. I make a point of asking about the implementation of such a thing (as in why, what resistance and from who, and what problems and benefits). The general trend seems to be that seperate gender bathrooms were linked with antisocial and criminal behaviours (normally bullying, vandalism, drinking/smoking/drugs or even sexual activity). The main resistance comes from parents, not pupils. Benefits include a drop to near zero incidences of antisocial or criminal behaviour. Problems asscoited with them - normally complaints from self concious laddy boys who dont like the idea of sharing space with girls, and girls complaining that boys arent tidy/clean enough. Seems like quite small potatoes for the benefits.

Probably worth bearing in mind that attitudes towards this kind of thing are likely far different over yon watery expanse.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on March 31, 2013, 01:50:19 pm
I regularly attend events at a bar that has unisex bathrooms on one floor. It's just two separate large cubicle rooms, similar to a disabled toilet.

The only issue I can imagine coming from having these instead of regular bathrooms is if you need more toilets, given they do take up slightly more space for each loo than regular communal toilets. Other than that I've never noticed any problems, and they are a great boost for GLBT events held at the bar.

Not to mention there are lots of places that have a single publicly accessible toilet that everyone uses in turn. Not advertised as unisex, but unisex in practice.

Most of the complaints I see online (never actually heard people complain in real life...) are from people who have never used them. Or at least not noticed them. So they centre around imagined problems like young girls having to walk past a busy row of urinals.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 31, 2013, 02:17:09 pm
Quote from: lordcooper on March 31, 2013, 01:49:45 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on March 31, 2013, 01:41:00 pm
As part of my research work I have been into many highschools. A small but signifigant number of these have unisex toilet areas. I make a point of asking about the implementation of such a thing (as in why, what resistance and from who, and what problems and benefits). The general trend seems to be that seperate gender bathrooms were linked with antisocial and criminal behaviours (normally bullying, vandalism, drinking/smoking/drugs or even sexual activity). The main resistance comes from parents, not pupils. Benefits include a drop to near zero incidences of antisocial or criminal behaviour. Problems asscoited with them - normally complaints from self concious laddy boys who dont like the idea of sharing space with girls, and girls complaining that boys arent tidy/clean enough. Seems like quite small potatoes for the benefits.

Probably worth bearing in mind that attitudes towards this kind of thing are likely far different over yon watery expanse.
I think that might be the point, even. That the attitudes are the only problem, not anything that would actually happen.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on March 31, 2013, 07:41:56 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/us/osha-emphasizes-safety-health-risks-fester.html?ref=health&_r=0

"The free market would never willfully kill or cripple people...." ~Libertarians....

Asbestos, the exploding pinto, and now factory glue fumes. I'm not joking.

"Company officials were told to ventilate to the outside. They bought pedestal fans instead, and when OSHA inspectors returned, they found the fans turned off or malfunctioning. OSHA demanded respirators that would have cost the company $18. Managers instead handed out 90-cent dust masks — the type inspectors had told them were useless in blocking vapors. "

" ... the OSHA official wrote at the time, adding that the agency could not levy fines or mandate respirators because there was no federal safety standard involving nPB. "

" “If the cost of compliance to our rules outweighs the penalties for breaking them, companies just take a ‘catch me if you can’ approach to worker safety and health,” he said. And serious violations of the rules should not be misdemeanors, he said, but felonies, much like insider trading, tax crimes and antitrust violations.

But Jeff Ruch, the director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a public health advocacy organization, said that, on average, OSHA now conducts health inspections and collects air samples less than half as often as it did under the Reagan administration.

“You can’t hit someone with a fine,” Mr. Ruch said, “if you aren’t on site looking to find the violations.” "

As the women stood up to leave, several grabbed the wall for balance. Ms. Farley added a parting thought.
“And all the while everyone thinks you’re just faking,” she said. The women agree that this is the worst part.

Respectuflly no, I think this is the worst part: " As fast as workers were getting sick, managers found replacements.

“Folks was limping in and getting worse,” said Dewaun Teague, a former Royale manager. “Then they would be let go, and we would hire more.”

Mr. Teague said Royale was a good company to work for in many ways. The owner, Clyde Goble, looked you in the eye when he shook your hand and remembered your children’s birthdays, Mr. Teague said, adding, “This was family.”

I don't recall poisoning my family with glue for profit and threatening to plunge them into poverty/leave for another country's labor over an $18 a pop air mask....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 31, 2013, 08:10:33 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 31, 2013, 07:41:56 pm
"The free market would never willfully kill or cripple people...." ~Libertarians....

What drives me crazy is I'm the one who's called naive for my political beliefs, when mine are centered on the idea that if you provide people the motive (the imperative, even) and the means by which to abuse each other for personal gain, there are people who will and people who won't... meanwhile, the normal belief is that everyone is at their worst when they're not provided those motive and means to abuse each other (what?) and that we can trust people who successfully competitor-stomp their way into positions of power to then be responsible with them.   ::)

We're told that these problems can resolved with diligence and care with our votes/dollars.  What the fuck good is that when every single option is the same, because any that chooses not to be corrupt and exploitative can't survive against the ones that are...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on March 31, 2013, 08:19:16 pm
Of course the free market would never willfully kill someone. That would be murder, and you need limbs to murder, and as everyone knows the free market doesn't have any limbs at all. [/insanity]

The fact that they were willing to buy masks that they wer told would not work is just mind boggling

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 31, 2013, 08:23:12 pm
Quote
"The free market would never willfully kill or cripple people...." ~Libertarians....

Strawman is best politician.

Also, this example doesn't prove the statment wrong. This isn't "willful", it is more akin to neglect. Well, it is neglect.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on March 31, 2013, 08:30:54 pm
What about using white phosphorus in matches, knowingly exposing hundreds of factory workers to an extremely toxic substance to save money? That's borderline evil.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 31, 2013, 08:32:42 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 31, 2013, 08:23:12 pm
Quote
"The free market would never willfully kill or cripple people...." ~Libertarians....

Strawman is best politician.

Except that this is in essence what libertarians actually preach.  It's somewhat simplified, but the gist of it is that government influence inevitably favors certain competitors and distorts market competition.  That distortion is what allows companies to become abusive, because otherwise consumer choice would punish them for their abuses.  When the government's involved, their influence becomes more important than consumer choice, so consumers can no longer punish them for abuse.  A "free" market is one where the government has absolutely zero influence over business practices and the economy.  If any person criticizes a business practice, a libertarian will point out that it's because the market isn't free, and if it was that wouldn't happen, regardless of whether that abuse directly correlates with a reduction in government influence.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 31, 2013, 08:34:06 pm
Quote from: Putnam on March 31, 2013, 08:30:54 pm
What about using white phosphorus in matches, knowingly exposing hundreds of factory workers to an extremely toxic substance to save money? That's borderline evil.
Also, this example doesn't prove the statment wrong. This isn't "willful", it is more akin to neglect. Well, it is neglect.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 31, 2013, 08:37:22 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 31, 2013, 08:34:06 pm
Quote from: Putnam on March 31, 2013, 08:30:54 pm
What about using white phosphorus in matches, knowingly exposing hundreds of factory workers to an extremely toxic substance to save money? That's borderline evil.
Also, this example doesn't prove the statment wrong. This isn't "willful", it is more akin to neglect. Well, it is neglect.

Neglect is failing to recognize the plight of another for whom you're responsible.

Willful is knowing that plight exists as a result of your actions and continuing to do it anyway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on March 31, 2013, 08:39:11 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 31, 2013, 08:37:22 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 31, 2013, 08:34:06 pm
Quote from: Putnam on March 31, 2013, 08:30:54 pm
What about using white phosphorus in matches, knowingly exposing hundreds of factory workers to an extremely toxic substance to save money? That's borderline evil.
Also, this example doesn't prove the statment wrong. This isn't "willful", it is more akin to neglect. Well, it is neglect.

Neglect is failing to recognize the plight of another for whom you're responsible.

Willful is knowing that plight exists as a result of your actions and continuing to do it anyway.
You can argue the semantics of the word, I was just highlighting what I said to better bring in to focus what I had said.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 31, 2013, 08:43:56 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 31, 2013, 08:39:11 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on March 31, 2013, 08:37:22 pm
Quote from: Devling on March 31, 2013, 08:34:06 pm
Quote from: Putnam on March 31, 2013, 08:30:54 pm
What about using white phosphorus in matches, knowingly exposing hundreds of factory workers to an extremely toxic substance to save money? That's borderline evil.
Also, this example doesn't prove the statment wrong. This isn't "willful", it is more akin to neglect. Well, it is neglect.

Neglect is failing to recognize the plight of another for whom you're responsible.

Willful is knowing that plight exists as a result of your actions and continuing to do it anyway.
You can argue the semantics of the word, I was just highlighting what I said to better bring in to focus what I had said.

...

And what you said was arguing semantics, trying to reduce the moral weight of the company's behavior by claiming that the word "willful" shouldn't be applied.  You're hand-waving a counter to your argument on the basis that the nature of the counter matches the nature of your argument.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on March 31, 2013, 08:45:34 pm
@ SalmonGod

Yeah.

The problem is business today revolves around the idea of being the cheapest to drive your competition out of business. That is, until you have no more competition and you can feel free to jack your prices into the stratosphere.... The big box store comes in, drives out all the smaller places and suddenly has a local monopoly.... Same deal with production facilities, except the logistics are a little different. Don't think ordering over the internet is any better, because those companies employ sweatshop labor in shipping warehouses.... How can you be ethical when the ethical choices are becoming extinct in the race to the bottom?

Used to be, you built up a loyal customer base that would do sustained, repeated business transactions with you. And yes, it did used to be that way, even today professionals (doctors, lawyers, accountants) still often try to be the "family [insert profession here]" and yes, store owners and craftsmen used to do the same thing (they'd even give you credit on tabs and that was often a workable practice). The money was kept in the community, the state, or at least the country most of the time. Today, all the money leaves the area (if not the country), never to return.... Great Britain fell in a similar fashion.... 

Sure, the old way was "more expensive" than the new way, but it didn't matter, because people had jobs that paid and could afford it....

So in that race to the bottom, what remedy do these people have? Not much of anything. Due to "tort reform" (laws that make it harder to sue when somebody injures YOU) it is a giant pain to do the type of class action lawsuit it would take to even sue that company, assuming these people can't get workman's comp, or something (which is harder than you think). People complain about "the lawyers (plaintiff or your lawyer) getting 30% or 40%, but again, it didn't used to matter under the pre tort reform system. These new damages caps (caps on money give to severely injured plaintiffs) hurt you and help companies like these glue poisoning companies. It's not the PI plaintiff's lawyers messing things up, it's the insurance companies and businesses who don't wanna pay for the people's lives they ruined or in many cases, ended....

The truth of the matter concerning libertarianism is that it would absolutely work in a perfect society and a perfect world.... Everybody would work for their own gain and pay their own way without hurting other people, etc etc. We don't live in that perfect society or a perfect world, and libertarianism simply can't work.... It's really the same thing as communism and how that would work in a perfect world. The only difference is who takes care of people, themselves or the government.... Neither source works in all scenarios, because people will abuse other people and that's just a total truism throughout history, whether they are talking about one person abusing other people or a group of people abusing other people (the government OR a corporation), it still holds true.
__________________________

Quote from: Devling on March 31, 2013, 08:23:12 pm
Quote
"The free market would never willfully kill or cripple people...." ~Libertarians....

Strawman is best politician.

Also, this example doesn't prove the statment wrong. This isn't "willful", it is more akin to neglect. Well, it is neglect.

Fullstop. No. It is willful.  Read the article. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/us/osha-emphasizes-safety-health-risks-fester.html?ref=health&_r=0)

The companies systematically engage in a cost/benefit calculation and determine it is cheaper to hurt people:
"“If the cost of compliance to our rules outweighs the penalties for breaking them, companies just take a ‘catch me if you can’ approach to worker safety and health,” he said. And serious violations of the rules should not be misdemeanors, he said, but felonies, much like insider trading, tax crimes and antitrust violations. "

Moreover the companies are actually not caring and just view people as replaceable when they are hurt:
"“There are people lined up out there for jobs,” said John Lyles, a vice president at Franklin, according to testimony by a plant manager in a successful lawsuit in Mississippi brought by four cushion workers who suffered severe nerve damage from the glue. “If they start dropping like flies, or something in that order, we can replace them today.” "

Then the company tried to hide it by shifting around sick employees:
"For its part, the company shuffled workers among its three plants in the frustrated hope that one of the sites might have better air flow. But the constant movement of these workers from plant to plant also made repeat problems look to regulators like isolated cases." You know when you engage in a coverup? When you know you're doing something wrong....

OHSA has been after these people for over 10 years now and they have done next to nothing.

Negligence is having a duty, breaching that duty, and as a result of that breach, damaging somebody. Willful is knowingly doing something. OSHA has been on these people for 10 years. They knew. They didn't care. These are not semantics. It's the difference between intentionally and unintentionally doing something.

Lawsuits like this one and asbestos claims are the paragon of willful bad behavior by companies. They really need to teach this kinda stuff in schools, because this, asbestos and exploding cars are all examples of a company cost averaging out somebody's life or health.  The company does a calculation of whether or not it is cheaper to do the thing that will prevent you from being harmed, or to take its chances with you suing it later.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Fuel_tank_defect)

In re: The Pinto Problem
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 31, 2013, 09:07:48 pm
There's an especially long history of research before any company admitted any problem with asbestos, for example: after the numbers came in, insurance companies jacked up the life insurance premiums on anyone who worked with asbestos, in the early 1920's. Doctors in the 1890's were talking about a disease which we now call asbestosis.

Yet, you'll still find people adamantly claiming "nobody knew it was dangerous" until the 1960's. Conveniently, the companies claim they knew nothing until the very moment they were forced to close down these mines and factories. The big western Australian blue asbestos mine at Wittenoom, was opened well after medical reports were available, they even sacked doctors who raised concerns. To cement the idea that there was no danger, they didn't inform the workers or provide breathing protection (that would be admitting it's dangerous, see), which was already recommended elsewhere and could hardly be unknown to the corporation involved. Estimates are that about 700 people (10% of everyone who ever worked in the mine) are dead or dying from the cancer mesothelioma from just workers at that one mine, and countless others with asbestosis. Conveniently, they dismissed the problem (for 20 years) whilst the mine was making money. Then, when profitability dropped, they closed the mine and expect a slap on the back for caring about health concerns.

Now, the entire town has been declared so toxic, that it's been closed off completely and taken off the maps. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittenoom,_Western_Australia)

Quote
In 1948, Dr Eric Saint, a Government Medical Officer, wrote to the head of the Health Department of Western Australia. He warned of the dust levels in the mine and mill, the lack of extractors and the dangers of asbestos and risk of asbestosis, and advised that the mine would produce the greatest crop of asbestosis the world has ever seen. He also advised the Wittenoom Mine Management that asbestos is extremely dangerous and that men exposed would contract chest disease inside six months.

^ They kept running the mine, denying any knowledge of asbestosis, for another 18 years after that report. Yet, many people here believe the "we didn't know until the 1960's!" line the companies push.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 31, 2013, 10:47:30 pm
Quote from: Truean on March 31, 2013, 08:45:34 pm
The truth of the matter concerning libertarianism is that it would absolutely work in a perfect society and a perfect world....

I think this is true of every political ideology, really.  Any single political/economic structure ever conceived would be great if everyone acted on good faith.  But the best system is the one that provides the most incentive to act on good faith, while minimizing the damage that can be done by those who don't.
Title: Re: Food Thread: Elephant Meat
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 01, 2013, 12:50:45 am
Spoiler: happy april fool's day (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Food Thread: Elephant Meat
Post by: Ogdibus on April 01, 2013, 12:59:15 am
.
Title: Re: Food Thread: Elephant Meat
Post by: Neonivek on April 01, 2013, 01:00:27 am
Quote from: Ogdibus on April 01, 2013, 12:59:15 am
x3  Now I get it.

Yeah! That Rubber Chicken was clearly undercooked!
Title: Re: Food Thread: Elephant Meat
Post by: SalmonGod on April 01, 2013, 01:00:30 am
That really weirded me out for a few minutes.
Title: Re: Food Thread: Elephant Meat
Post by: Sheb on April 01, 2013, 05:55:13 am
Me too.

Also, Truean, not sur I dig your protectonist feel here. While we can blame corps all we like, outsourcing has actually been a great boon, reducing inequality worldwide. Sure, it sucks to be on the receiving end of the global economic recalibration, but IMHO the loss of jobs in the West were more than worth it given all the Indians, Chinese etc etc etc we got out of poverty.
Title: Re: Food Thread: Elephant Meat
Post by: SalmonGod on April 01, 2013, 06:49:49 am
Quote from: Sheb on April 01, 2013, 05:55:13 am
Me too.

Also, Truean, not sur I dig your protectonist feel here. While we can blame corps all we like, outsourcing has actually been a great boon, reducing inequality worldwide. Sure, it sucks to be on the receiving end of the global economic recalibration, but IMHO the loss of jobs in the West were more than worth it given all the Indians, Chinese etc etc etc we got out of poverty.

Somewhat...  Some have been elevated from poverty.  Others have simply found themselves spending their entire waking lives in an assembly line and still barely surviving.  The corporate perspective is this "Why pay these people who actually have some standard of life quality, while these people over here will work themselves to death within 20 years in return for a meal a day?"

I don't think anybody was talking about outsourcing to begin with, though.  It was about the way companies treat their employees.  Workplace safety, and such.  Cutting corners that they know will get people killed just to save a few dollars here and there.
Title: Re: Food Thread: Elephant Meat
Post by: Sheb on April 01, 2013, 10:57:40 am
"Some" is quite the understatement. We're talking about hundreds of millions here. And slaving away in an assembly line might not be fun, but it's better than starving on the farm. Plus, now that most of the reserve workers pool has been used up (in no small part because China's new middle class need a lot of these workers to satisfy its need), wages are rising (http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/new-economy/2012/0510/As-Chinese-wages-rise-US-manufacturers-head-back-home). Fast. We're talking about wages doubling every 4 years here.

Actually, wages are raising so fast that Chinese companies are now outsourcing, either taking factories back to the West, or opening factories in Africa, which will hopefully help those guys get out of poverty too.
Title: Re: Food Thread: Elephant Meat
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 01, 2013, 10:59:55 am
I've heard it said more than once that once we run out of people to unintentionally enrich through corporate oppression, we'll ironically have reached World Communism (as Marx saw it, that is).
Title: Re: Food Thread: Elephant Meat
Post by: Neonivek on April 01, 2013, 11:00:37 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 01, 2013, 10:59:55 am
I've heard it said more than once that once we run out of people to unintentionally enrich through corporate oppression, we'll ironically have reached World Communism (as Marx saw it, that is).

Talk about a Corperate Pizza: APRIL FOOLS! There is no such thing!
Title: Re: Food Thread: Elephant Meat
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 01, 2013, 11:01:41 am
We get it Neonivek, you hate April Fools. Message well received. Posting it in every thread is not necessary.
Title: Re: Food Thread: Elephant Meat
Post by: Neonivek on April 01, 2013, 11:19:31 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 01, 2013, 11:01:41 am
We get it Neonivek, you hate April Fools. Message well received. Posting it in every thread is not necessary.

What? No, I was genuinly trying to be funny :D

So I guess the real fool was you... an April fool that is!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 02, 2013, 01:12:26 pm
Shenanigans are over, I guess.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on April 02, 2013, 02:47:37 pm
Shame, too. I was really wondering what elephant meat tastes like.
Title: Re: Food Thread: Elephant Meat
Post by: Truean on April 02, 2013, 03:06:37 pm
Quote from: Sheb on April 01, 2013, 10:57:40 am
"Some" is quite the understatement. We're talking about hundreds of millions here. And slaving away in an assembly line might not be fun, but it's better than starving on the farm. Plus, now that most of the reserve workers pool has been used up (in no small part because China's new middle class need a lot of these workers to satisfy its need), wages are rising (http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/new-economy/2012/0510/As-Chinese-wages-rise-US-manufacturers-head-back-home). Fast. We're talking about wages doubling every 4 years here.

Actually, wages are raising so fast that Chinese companies are now outsourcing, either taking factories back to the West, or opening factories in Africa, which will hopefully help those guys get out of poverty too.

I am very protectionist. Moreso than you can imagine.

You're assuming it isn't cyclical, but rather a progressive good thing with wages rising....

What if, instead of eventually "running out of people to lowball on wages" the corporations simply rotate who they employ and who they don't (who they starve)? Let's see... we'll move all our factories to China for 20 years, then to Pakistan, then to Africa, then Korea, finally we'll ship some to the US now that we've killed their wage bargaining power..... Do you see how they can boycott round labor?

Your assumption of a constantly rising standard for the future being spread around the world is the opposite of what corporations want. They LIKE cheap as hell labor and they will screw you to get it.

I know all about international economics and Ricardian and Smithian views. That's fine but the problem is that trade needs to be reciprocal. Trade with China could've gone VERY differently where both sides would've gained something, instead of just them gaining a ton of our IOUs / us becoming heavily indebted to them.... The problem with trade to the developing world, is that it is always asymmetrical in practice. It needs to be heavily regulated so as not to exploit the crap out of both sides. So far trade with China has been a lose lose endeavor for the peoples of both countries (not the politicians or companies). The Chinese are now overworked, underpaid and unsafe with 0 worker safety. The Americans are now unemployed and broke. Though China overall came out on top (new society and social infrastrcuture buildings, compared to the decaying ruins of Detroit and the entire "rust belt"...).

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on April 02, 2013, 03:29:21 pm
I'm guessing Truean isn't exactly a fan of Thomas Friedman.  :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 02, 2013, 03:40:34 pm
Quote from: RedKing on April 02, 2013, 03:29:21 pm
I'm guessing Truean isn't exactly a fan of Thomas Friedman.  :P

 Nope. I especially don't like when he talks. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman#China)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 02, 2013, 03:43:22 pm
This is my pet idea. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee)

Well, not really MY pet idea, obviously. But it's the one that I'm most "We need this" about.

Just wondering what y'all think about it. Either in Europe, North America, or elsewhere, the feasibility of it. (Personally I would do away with most if not all welfare and just use this. People are smart enough to spend their money wisely, in terms of "rent, food, energy first", you don't need the government telling you how to use it. And if they aren't smart enough, well... There's no helping them.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 02, 2013, 04:05:15 pm
The basic income is definitely something I would like to see. (Not to be confused with the 'minimum guaranteed income' which I find pretty terrible, but most people seem to conflate and treat as if they are in any way similar)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 02, 2013, 04:21:10 pm
A minimum guaranteed income sounds like it would pretty much null any savings from lessened bureacracy from changing state-welfare to basic-income. :/ And the whole transition stage between "eligible" and "non-eligible", with people getting lost in the gap.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 02, 2013, 04:28:24 pm
I will be easier to get people to accept universal welfare in this country than basic income. And even that won't happen unless there is a massive political and social shakeup first.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 02, 2013, 04:34:15 pm
Universal Welfare, as commonly talked about, is a trap, in much the same way most welfare is nowadays. It exists primarily as a means of social control and is intended to keep the poor down while robbing them of justifications for social unrest. Welfare, as commonly implemented, is frankly disgusting and terrible.

Bad welfare is obviously better than no welfare and people dying in the streets (arguably, when considering externalities), but it's pretty sad that people would reject a more fair and equitable system in favour of giving the government a tool to control peoples personal and social lives (which is almost always the obvious desire for those who support such systems over the alternatives).

Note: This isn't to say ALL welfare programs are bad, either. Just... most of them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 02, 2013, 04:38:58 pm
Not to derail the current topic but: http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/open-relationships-teach-us-fidelity-180200424.html

I was shocked to see this article on yahoo, discussing poly relationships in a fair, respectful and even manner.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 02, 2013, 04:59:31 pm
Wow. Pretty nice.

(Just don't read the comments, obviously. Standard Yahoo disclaimer.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on April 02, 2013, 05:05:10 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 02, 2013, 04:59:31 pm
Wow. Pretty nice.

(Just don't read the comments, obviously. Standard Yahoo disclaimer.)

The comments are the only thing I read in a Yahoo article. They are hilarious.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 02, 2013, 05:13:10 pm
Here's the problem with the US currently.

Many people want ALL welfare done away with. Why? Expectations.

Expectations control a world you don't experience directly, people hold conflicting views of things because their ideas of things are out of whack with the real world.

"Mixing up concepts"
People often don't like "welfare," but don't want to have single mothers and their children do without....  ::) How do they not get that one accomplishes the other much of the time?

"It doesn't apply to me"
People want "criminals" punished harshly, but the moment they, a relative, or a friend are arrested, they immediately want leniency and start saying things like "THEY CAN'T DO THAT!" .... In case the prison garb wasn't a clue, yes, yes they can. They forget that these rules apply not to some comic book villain class of people but to them and the people they know/are related to.

"Circular Traps"
People don't like the idea of "welfare fraud/abuse" and they don't like "people getting it who could work." Yet, they seem to support the idea of people "bettering themselves...." So, let's see, how would one "better" one's self? Starting a business? Going back to school? Learning a trade? But people don't like the ideas of assistance for small businesses (especially sole proprietors) or free money for students (loans though at compounded daily interest....) and they don't like people to be "working" while they have welfare (I've seen them and even judges question people about "having a job" while on welfare when this includes being a mechanic's apprentice to learn how to fix cars..... See how that's a circular trap based upon the crazy expectations?

Quote from: Dutchling on April 02, 2013, 05:05:10 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 02, 2013, 04:59:31 pm
Wow. Pretty nice.

(Just don't read the comments, obviously. Standard Yahoo disclaimer.)

The comments are the only thing I read in a Yahoo article. They are hilarious.

Tragically, most of those people are being serious. :(
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaenneth on April 02, 2013, 05:55:55 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 02, 2013, 05:13:10 pm
Tragically, most of those people are being serious. :(

No, that's what makes it really funny.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 02, 2013, 08:56:15 pm
Yep, Truean, you've basically got it. It's madness. People WANT a broken welfare system. It essentially blows my mind.

They don't want a good welfare system. They don't want a real, effective social safety net that gives people opportunities. They want... bullshit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 02, 2013, 09:33:42 pm
Yeah, messed up huh?

People in a democrazy LOVE the illusion that they have control. They'll get into fights with you over it and call you an unpatriotic bastard among other things if you don't at least pretend to buy into this 110%. Everybody wants to be in control and have an impact on pretty much everything or at least a significant number of things. That's not remotely possible and it amazes me that they somehow don't automatically know this....

So every government program that doesn't benefit me* is wasteful spending..... Here "me" means anybody saying this.

This applies to welfare, social security, agriculture etc. EVERYTHING. The problem being that even though I don't benefit at all from things like ... I dunno ... subsidies to the airline industry ... that industry employs an absolute crapton of people and makes mass transit over long distances possible. I hate flying, haven't done it in years and hope I never have to ever again. I think airlines are terrible things. I'm not gonna go around saying they should be abolished or have their funding cut though, because I get that even though I hate them, I get that they are needed.... Most people you talk to could not say what I just did about several programs. It appears Obama wants to spend $100 Million on mapping the human brain. I have no idea what the hell he hopes to accomplish in this area, but I know I'm not a neuroscientist and thus am not qualified to make that call. Granted, it would be nice if somebody would be so kind as to explain it to me sometime, but whatever. I get that it's needed.

Contrast this to the attitude today of fatal cheapness. We wonder why shit isn't getting done.... Perhaps it has something to do how we won't pay for shit?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 02, 2013, 09:36:59 pm
Mapping the human brain (more extensively) would be an excellent tool for diagnosing and treating mental illnesses and physical brain-based illnesses, as we would be able to view directly what neuron clusters are involved and what they are doing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 02, 2013, 09:45:09 pm
And, for my pet project of SCIENCEing the human brain, knowing how the brain works makes it easier to make the brain better. Without fucking it up, I mean.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 03, 2013, 02:52:34 am
If he manages to fund a project that successfully maps the human brain in ways we haven't already, I would actually consider that the best thing he did while in office.  That's a big step towards major medical breakthroughs in the future.  Thorough understanding of the brain, as far as I'm aware, is the largest obstacle between transhumanist ideas straight out of sci-fi and reality.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on April 03, 2013, 03:37:23 am
Isn't the EU doing something similar as well?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on April 03, 2013, 05:05:40 am
It's going to be something akin to the Human Genome Project, so it'll involve Europeans universities as well.

Also, it'll make though-reading more of a possibility, which given Obama's record gives me the creep.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 03, 2013, 06:03:03 am
Quote from: Sheb on April 03, 2013, 05:05:40 am
It's going to be something akin to the Human Genome Project, so it'll involve Europeans universities as well.

Also, it'll make though-reading more of a possibility, which given Obama's record gives me the creep.

I realized this as well... but I can't help my optimism at the potential benefits of the knowledge.



Some British soldiers have recently begun to speak out about a secret detention facility in Iraq, Camp Nama. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/01/camp-nama-iraq-human-rights-abuses?CMP=twt_gu)  Apparently it's one of the most hushed operations of the war.  No photographs of the place exist.  This place likely housed the torture of thousands of people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on April 03, 2013, 12:37:37 pm
North Carolina Republican lawmakers (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/north-carolina-religion-bill_n_3003401.html) introduced a bill to create a state-wide religion.  The lawmakers argue that federal laws concerning religion only affect the federal government o_O  lulwat.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 03, 2013, 12:50:00 pm
SalmonGod, I really would like to see a shitload of people brought up on warcrimes trials for things like that. But it will never happen, because we are the victor.

Euld, this surprises you? Its well known that the GOP doesn't believe in the constitution.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 03, 2013, 12:53:51 pm
Quote from: Euld on April 03, 2013, 12:37:37 pm
North Carolina Republican lawmakers (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/north-carolina-religion-bill_n_3003401.html) introduced a bill to create a state-wide religion.  The lawmakers argue that federal laws concerning religion only affect the federal government o_O  lulwat.
Gaaaaaaahhhh! I am *squeezing* the *juice*!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on April 03, 2013, 01:09:56 pm
I know the Republicans are a little fruity sometimes and certainly try to push religion into government, but I honestly don't expect them to outright ignore the Constitution while saying all the time that they believe in the Constitution and then essentially promoting treason that echos the rhetoric of the Civil War.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 03, 2013, 01:10:10 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 03, 2013, 12:53:51 pm
Quote from: Euld on April 03, 2013, 12:37:37 pm
North Carolina Republican lawmakers (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/north-carolina-religion-bill_n_3003401.html) introduced a bill to create a state-wide religion.  The lawmakers argue that federal laws concerning religion only affect the federal government o_O  lulwat.
Gaaaaaaahhhh! I am *squeezing* the *juice*!
The constitution: Rip, tear, burn.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 03, 2013, 01:16:53 pm
Quote from: Euld on April 03, 2013, 01:09:56 pm
I know the Republicans are a little fruity sometimes and certainly try to push religion into government, but I honestly don't expect them to outright ignore the Constitution while saying all the time that they believe in the Constitution and then essentially promoting treason that echos the rhetoric of the Civil War.

This does not surprise me at all. At least half of their platform is about saying one thing and meaning or doing the exact opposite. Religious freedom? Tax Reform? Right to work? Economic liberty? Job Creator? These all mean the exact opposite of any rational definition when said by a republican.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on April 03, 2013, 01:26:07 pm
I don't know. Trying to distort what the constitution says ("freedom of religions are just for Christian religions") is one thing, but actually attempting to create a state religion? Pretty surprising to me. You'd think that with America's history that would put the warning bells on EXTREME HIGH ALERT WHAT IS THIS to even the most stereotyped republican.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 03, 2013, 01:27:44 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on April 03, 2013, 12:50:00 pm
SalmonGod, I really would like to see a shitload of people brought up on warcrimes trials for things like that. But it will never happen, because we are the victor.

Yeah.  I don't really know how to express how much this bothers me.  It's a failure on every level of international law and every noble principle society is supposed to stand for that nothing will ever be done about this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on April 03, 2013, 01:28:08 pm
Going back to the good old American days of freedom and liberty and awesomesauce.

Yay Puritans!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 03, 2013, 01:31:25 pm
Quote from: scriver on April 03, 2013, 01:26:07 pm
I don't know. Trying to distort what the constitution says ("freedom of religions are just for Christian religions") is one thing, but actually attempting to create a state religion? Pretty surprising to me. You'd think that with America's history that would put the warning bells on EXTREME HIGH ALERT WHAT IS THIS to even the most stereotyped republican.
Truth be told, this probably isn't going to go anywhere and is just a result of the NC government's Republican supermajority thinking they can do whatever they want.

Still makes me want a vote of no confidence, though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 03, 2013, 01:35:13 pm
Quote from: scriver on April 03, 2013, 01:26:07 pm
I don't know. Trying to distort what the constitution says ("freedom of religions are just for Christian religions") is one thing, but actually attempting to create a state religion? Pretty surprising to me. You'd think that with America's history that would put the warning bells on EXTREME HIGH ALERT WHAT IS THIS to even the most stereotyped republican.

Unless they really don't give a shit about anything but pushing their own agenda, and have no respect for anything that doesn't further that agenda.  Then it's not very surprising at all.  I think their leadership is pretty well aware of when they're distorting the meaning of things and sound stupid for doing it, but it's strategically better to sound stupid than to sound like you're actively interested in subverting the founding values of your country.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Timeless Bob on April 03, 2013, 02:24:14 pm
Warning: Conservative's opinion!

I wonder if this bill is set up as a foil to the one that prohibits any use of religious sentiments in the political process?  Perhaps the idea is to make it sound so far-fetched that it will never survive, then use that lack of survival to point out the all-encompassing nature of the ban on religious sentiments that is being proposed (the striking of all references to a deific blessing on proceedings, for instance).  Taking the above as a viable hypothesis, I'd wonder if there weren't a deeper strategy to cause some reference to religion to stay in political rhetoric because it is such a viable technique to sway large numbers of voters one way or the other when any other options are less agreeable?  "First and last, grab em by their emotions!"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on April 04, 2013, 06:45:55 am
Quote from: Timeless Bob on April 03, 2013, 02:24:14 pm
I wonder if this bill is set up as a foil to the one that prohibits any use of religious sentiments in the political process? 

Eh? Do you mean the first amendment as read under current federal case law?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 04, 2013, 07:11:29 am
Yup, that other "bill" is called the Constitution of the United States Of America.

This is in response, not to a bill or a "new" law, but to a lawsuit being pursued on Constitutional grounds. That's just as legally legit as e.g. prosecuting a murderer for breaking the existing law against murder.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on April 04, 2013, 07:16:18 am
Every part of me being wants for somebody to introduce the exact same bill with 'Christian' replaced with 'Muslim' and watch the mushroom clouds of pure rage blot out the sky.

And they wouldn't even notice the irony...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on April 04, 2013, 07:46:43 am
Greater Manchester Police will be recording attacks on members of subcultures as hatecrimes. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-22018888)

This doesn't change the legal definition of hatecrime in the UK ("offences against race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity") or how the police treat such crimes, just that the statistics will be recorded.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on April 04, 2013, 08:09:55 am
Quote from: palsch on April 04, 2013, 07:46:43 am
Greater Manchester Police will be recording attacks on members of subcultures as hatecrimes. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-22018888)

This doesn't change the legal definition of hatecrime in the UK ("offences against race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity") or how the police treat such crimes, just that the statistics will be recorded.

Hatecrime legislation is silly.  A stabbing is a stabbing, regardless of who stabbed who.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on April 04, 2013, 08:14:57 am
Quote from: lordcooper on April 04, 2013, 08:09:55 am
Hatecrime legislation is silly.  A stabbing is a stabbing, regardless of who stabbed who.
We recognised different types of stabbings independently of hatecrime legislation though. We prosecute people differently based on their intent and motivations simply as a part of general law. This makes sense. Different motivations require different remedies. If someone commits a crime of passion the right punishment will be different to someone who carries out a premeditated attack.

Recognising that certain types of attack require certain types of cultural recognition and attention is just an extra layer.

Note that this is focusing on the UK; in the US federal hate crime laws have the added bonus of bringing attention to crimes that state or local police might not be interested in prosecuting.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 04, 2013, 08:23:34 am
Well, that's good. I don't know if I'm a fan of hate-crime prosecution (A crime is a crime, hate-crimes carrying a higher punishment just feels like thought-police to me. Better would be to have mandatory tolerance stuffs as a requirement for their parole, or something. Not a longer sentence. I'm tired so if this doesn't make sense or is hypocritical, fuck you <3) but if they have to have it, any crime that could be motivated by hate should be recorded, and sub-cultures are quite open to that. "You're different! *punch*", yanno?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 04, 2013, 09:29:06 am
Descan: You're thinking about it through a lense of "the law is only there to provide punishment".  If you think about rehabilitation, deterrence or protection of the public it quickly becomes clear why the intent behind a crime matters.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 04, 2013, 09:32:21 am
Huh, I guess I wrote a post and then... forgot to post it.

A Hate Crime doesn't actually have anything to do with "hate". It's really a pretty big misnomer. It does have to do with intent, though.

If you are attempting to injure a group through assault on it's members, that's the sort of things hate crimes are trying to respond to. Because in a hate crime, say, a murder, the intended (and likely actual) damage is actually significantly more than the death of the victim. It's intended not just as an attack not just against them, but against everyone who shares the association or identity being targeted.

To that end, it makes more sense that it would be considered an additional thing on top of plain old murder.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on April 04, 2013, 09:37:58 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 04, 2013, 09:29:06 am
Descan: You're thinking about it through a lense of "the law is only there to provide punishment".  If you think about rehabilitation, deterrence or protection of the public it quickly becomes clear why the intent behind a crime matters.

The police in the UK exist to deal with a crime after it happens. Accordingly, laws treat the "symptoms" of a problem, not the source of the problem itself. A bit like doctors and vets and so forth.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 04, 2013, 10:08:08 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 04, 2013, 09:29:06 am
Descan: You're thinking about it through a lense of "the law is only there to provide punishment".  If you think about rehabilitation, deterrence or protection of the public it quickly becomes clear why the intent behind a crime matters.
If you'll notice what I actually wrote, I wrote in "mandatory tolerance courses necessary for parole" I.E. rehabilitation, of a sort. At least the only sort that can be relatively easily accomplished.

I just don't agree with longer sentences for hate-crime.

I'm all for rehabilitation, I'd much prefer the Norway model were deployed everywhere.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 04, 2013, 10:16:01 am
But there's the fact that a person who has committed a hate crime is a huge danger to the public unless they can be rehabilitated.  If they killed one guy for being black there's no reason to think they won't kill another guy for being black when they are released (compare to the majority of murder cases where someone has killed someone close to them for personal reasons - as bad as this is, statistically they're very unlikely to kill again).  Thus as they're a greater danger and would need more rehabilitation it makes sense to give them a longer sentence.

Quote from: Owlbread on April 04, 2013, 09:37:58 am
The police in the UK exist to deal with a crime after it happens. Accordingly, laws treat the "symptoms" of a problem, not the source of the problem itself. A bit like doctors and vets and so forth.
Huh?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 04, 2013, 10:28:34 am
Maybe I'm misstating. Or maybe I don't understand parole.

What I'm TRYING to say is "needs to demonstrate they are, if not enthusiastic supporters, at least tolerant of the subject of their hate-crime, and indeed any other minority or sub-group to be released".

While the end result might be that they don't get released until after their sentence is supposed to end (is that possible?), I don't think just saying "A murder is 15 years, a hate-crime murder is 30, obviously the extra 15 years will make the offender feel remorse that he otherwise wouldn't" is sound logic.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 04, 2013, 10:35:02 am
That's pretty much what happens.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on April 04, 2013, 10:50:22 am
The way it works in practice is that it's considered during sentencing. A crime being motivated by hatred towards a group is considered an aggravation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggravation_%28legal_concept%29) along the lines of using a weapon in an assault. In the case of murder, hate crime type murders are considered on the same level as murders with using guns or for personal gain. This changes the starting point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_English_law#Criminal_Justice_Act_2003) from which the judge will consider the sentence. They can then consider other aggravating and mitigating factors and alter the sentence as they see fit.

In an ideal world where you could trust the entire justice system to view crimes against minority groups as serious you wouldn't need this at all. In a world where judges may not view such motivations as aggravations at all (or, in not so distant history, consider them mitigations) it's nice to have pushes in the right direction.

I strongly agree that sentences should be based on rehabilitation over other considerations, but I also feel that recognising hate crimes on a societal and even legal level is a worthwhile step. It's why I don't mind that this recent step by the GMP doesn't change any laws or sentencing, but just recognises crimes against subcultural groups as hate crimes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 04, 2013, 10:57:50 am
I guess I was swinging at phantoms, then.

Point me in the right direction, and I'll keep swinging!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 04, 2013, 01:55:28 pm
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/macabre-manslaughter-case-stokes-debate-welfare-reform-170836906.html#G0N4zUs

A UK man kills 6 kids in a fire... So the conservatives in his country decide its time to shut down the welfare system?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on April 04, 2013, 02:17:18 pm
A man had porridge for breakfast... So the conservatives decide its time to shut down the welfare system.
It's a bit rainy today... So the conservatives decide its time to shut down the welfare system.
Someone fell over... So the conservatives decide its time to shut down the welfare system.
Our atmosphere contains oxygen... So the conservatives decide its time to shut down the welfare system.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on April 04, 2013, 05:18:16 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on April 04, 2013, 01:55:28 pm
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/macabre-manslaughter-case-stokes-debate-welfare-reform-170836906.html#G0N4zUs

A UK man kills 6 kids in a fire... So the conservatives in his country decide its time to shut down the welfare system?

The more conservative aspects of our media are trying to label the fact he was on multiple benefits and in social housing as a cause of the horrific events, when in realitiy they are more a symptom of the sort of person the man in question was.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on April 04, 2013, 06:12:38 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on April 04, 2013, 05:18:16 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on April 04, 2013, 01:55:28 pm
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/macabre-manslaughter-case-stokes-debate-welfare-reform-170836906.html#G0N4zUs

A UK man kills 6 kids in a fire... So the conservatives in his country decide its time to shut down the welfare system?

The more conservative aspects of our media are trying to label the fact he was on multiple benefits and in social housing as a cause of the horrific events, when in realitiy they are more a symptom of the sort of person the man in question was.
It's vaguely similar to the whole "Violent media causes violent people argument". Or atleast a flaw in it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on April 04, 2013, 09:41:46 pm
Republican outreach to those under 30 years old. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/31/1198282/-Republicans-want-to-know-what-people-under-the-age-of-30-think-of-them)

Oh my. I took it; not sure if they understand the word "communication", since they don't include face-to-face or... internet forums.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 04, 2013, 09:58:36 pm
I created a petition. I don't think its perfect, but I figured it would make me feel better.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/revoke-egregious-violation-american-civil-liberties-known-patriot-act-and-disband-dhs/9s4Y2y0M
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on April 04, 2013, 10:23:40 pm
Quote from: Putnam on April 04, 2013, 09:41:46 pm
Republican outreach to those under 30 years old. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/31/1198282/-Republicans-want-to-know-what-people-under-the-age-of-30-think-of-them)

Oh my. I took it; not sure if they understand the word "communication", since they don't include face-to-face or... internet forums.
Quote from: What is your sexual orientation?
Gay
Straight
In the closet
Bisexual
Don't know
Apparently the closet is now it's own orientation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 04, 2013, 10:26:06 pm
Relevant Colbert. (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/425047/april-03-2013/rnc-young-voters-survey)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 04, 2013, 10:48:39 pm
Quote from: Putnam on April 04, 2013, 09:41:46 pm
Republican outreach to those under 30 years old. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/31/1198282/-Republicans-want-to-know-what-people-under-the-age-of-30-think-of-them)

Oh my. I took it; not sure if they understand the word "communication", since they don't include face-to-face or... internet forums.

Oh... I took this survey. And believe me, I wrote in some answers. Of course, that just means it will get tossed out, but oh well. It was fun.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on April 05, 2013, 03:58:10 am
Aw. It's already closed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 05, 2013, 12:12:42 pm
Really debated between posting this here or in the rage thread...

Police pepper spray an entire family, including three children aged 4 years to 5 months old, because they noticed the mother pushing a stroller through a service entrance instead of a turnstile. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/01/new-york-police-sued-for-pepper-spraying-5-month-old-baby/)

It may be wrong and I'm sure I'll catch flak for saying it, but you have no idea how much I'd like to see a trend develop where any crowd that witnesses police behaving like this simply descends on them in united anger.  The law obviously isn't going to defend us from itself.  It drives me insane how they're able to terrorize people with impunity, without any fear of consequence.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on April 05, 2013, 12:19:41 pm
Oh, don't worry. They'll be forced to go on a paid holiday soon.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 05, 2013, 04:03:39 pm
http://games.slashdot.org/story/13/04/05/2034253/senator-feinstein-we-need-video-game-control

yea.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 05, 2013, 04:08:00 pm
Don't care, Supreme Court already put video games under the First Amendment in the same category as books and movies. They can't do anything that wouldn't be struck down.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Toady One on April 06, 2013, 01:15:40 am
I removed an entire line of discussion that went reasonably foul.  Please exercise sense.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 06, 2013, 09:41:18 pm
The Nazca Lines have been destroyed by a quarry company. (http://www.peruthisweek.com/news-3743-peru-heavy-machinery-destroys-nazca-lines/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on April 07, 2013, 08:23:04 am
When equipped with a camera that records everything they do police officers use force 60% less. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/business/wearable-video-cameras-for-police-officers.html) Sounds to me like most of they time when they are not under surveillance they use force although they know it's questionable.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on April 07, 2013, 08:36:20 am
I do wonder about CCTV. I've got a feeling if I had the chance I'd scrap it altogether for the same of personal privacy - the right for people not to be recorded constantly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22058455

Up to 12 civilians have been killed in a NATO air strike in eastern Afghanistan.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lordcooper on April 07, 2013, 08:40:22 am
I've never quite been able to work out how I feel about CCTV.  Beyond abstract concepts I don't see what negative effect it could possibly have on me, yet my gut instinct is that they're a bit bad.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 07, 2013, 08:57:42 am
Quote from: lordcooper on April 07, 2013, 08:40:22 am
I've never quite been able to work out how I feel about CCTV.  Beyond abstract concepts I don't see what negative effect it could possibly have on me, yet my gut instinct is that they're a bit bad.

Because the average person does plenty of things that could be nitpicked on, legally or otherwise, but aren't actually bad in context.  Just like almost anyone who uses the internet could be criminally charged for something, just because of the way that area of law is designed.  Constant surveillance does help to catch legitimate crime that deserves to be punished, but it far more often serves to aid over-extension of the law.

And then there's conflicts of interest.  When the human being behind that surveillance has some reason to be especially concerned with your behavior, it gets really bad.  Political/prejudiced persecution through selective enforcement is the worst and most obvious problem, but there are more subtle and pervasive ones.  I'm sure you don't work at 100% full-sprint capacity every single second you're on the clock at your job, right?  Your bosses don't really care, either, so long as they don't notice you slacking off overly much and the work gets done at a reasonable pace, right?  Now imagine your boss actually spends his entire day just standing right next to you watching you work without even blinking the entire time you're on the clock.  The dynamic changes.  His attention is on your every action, and you can no longer relax and behave as a natural human being without worrying about when he's going to choose to get on your case for it.  Electronic surveillance is essentially no different, and that's the reason it naturally makes you uncomfortable.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on April 07, 2013, 09:57:36 am
Constant recording does not equal constant surveillance, even if there's a security guard manning the monitors, most of the time he's just day dreaming or reading or something, and looks up to make sure nothing obvious seems to be going wrong at the time. Most of the time the footage isn't even reviewed unless there's a break in or something.

In a similar sense if your boss did have cameras in your workplace, would they really have the time to carefully review footage for slacking behaviour? And what's their actual gain to be had from doing this? An intelligent boss would know that people need a bit of slacking time to keep their motivation up. I do know some bosses really are that inane, but honestly how much worse would they be with surveillance equipment?


I have heard of cases of people abusing security cameras and such, but in all honesty cases where they're abused seem very rare as the potential for abuse is less than you'd think (especially when the usage of these records itself is monitored). Meanwhile their actual ability to improve safety in an area and "prevent" crimes from happening (by which I mean cause them to happen somewhere else) is very real and common.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 07, 2013, 10:16:22 am
Quote from: Pnx on April 07, 2013, 09:57:36 am
Constant recording does not equal constant surveillance, even if there's a security guard manning the monitors, most of the time he's just day dreaming or reading or something, and looks up to make sure nothing obvious seems to be going wrong at the time. Most of the time the footage isn't even reviewed unless there's a break in or something.

In a similar sense if your boss did have cameras in your workplace, would they really have the time to carefully review footage for slacking behaviour? And what's their actual gain to be had from doing this? An intelligent boss would know that people need a bit of slacking time to keep their motivation up. I do know some bosses really are that inane, but honestly how much worse would they be with surveillance equipment?


I have heard of cases of people abusing security cameras and such, but in all honesty cases where they're abused seem very rare as the potential for abuse is less than you'd think (especially when the usage of these records itself is monitored). Meanwhile their actual ability to improve safety in an area and "prevent" crimes from happening (by which I mean cause them to happen somewhere else) is very real and common.

Are you talking about surveillance of the general public? You are assuming that the manpower requirements to monitor virtually everything will prevent virtually every monitoring. That is not the case. A computer can do the initial monitoring and flag suspicious activity, for human oversight, dramatically reducing the amount of manpower required to monitor.

Or are you talking about surveillance of the police as they do their job as a public servant? I am all for it. They need accountability.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Gukag on April 07, 2013, 10:35:24 am
Agreed. To paraphrase, with great power comes great accountability. Sadly there has been a militarization of the police in many areas...they are literally trained to see the people they are supposed to protect as enemies on a battlefield.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 07, 2013, 10:44:07 am
Quote from: Pnx on April 07, 2013, 09:57:36 am
Constant recording does not equal constant surveillance, even if there's a security guard manning the monitors, most of the time he's just day dreaming or reading or something, and looks up to make sure nothing obvious seems to be going wrong at the time. Most of the time the footage isn't even reviewed unless there's a break in or something.

This is another issue where selectively comes into serious play.  Boss or security person may be day dreaming most of the time... then a subject of their prejudice or personal dislike steps on screen.  I've dealt with this first-hand in my workplace.

Things weren't nearly so horrible when I first started working there.  Then my manager ran into a personal conflict with someone.  Our team lead told a family member to apply to work with us, and our manager decided not to hire them after an interview.  That employee retaliated by accusing my manager of favoritism in the hiring process, claiming that he hired mostly personal friends onto the shift.  So this brought the majority of our shift under our senior manager's watchful gaze.  We had been the most productive team in the office by far for over a year, when suddenly we all found ourselves getting in trouble for inane crap.  We were expected to account for every single minute of our time on the clock, and that's not an exaggeration.  A couple of us literally received warnings for taking one minute longer on a shipment than she thought we should have.  Every rule in the book was weighed against us full force and we had to be constantly perfect.  We could plainly see that these expectations weren't weighed against others, and didn't really understand.  I found out years later that she decided she didn't like a handful of us purely on the basis of strong personality/culture clash, and actively tried to get us to quit or be fired.  She simply wasn't watching everybody else the way she was watching us.  This went on for a couple years.  It sort of died down, but if any of us give her a reason, she directs her gaze on us and we go through the same thing again for a few months.

Wouldn't have been nearly the same situation without all that surveillance.

Edit:  I should add that police are known to harass people in much the same way.  Besides the obvious issue of profiling, there have also been frequent cases of a civilian filing an abuse claim against an officer and then the department responding by abusing surveillance against that person the same way my senior manager did against me and my co-workers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on April 07, 2013, 12:00:56 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on April 07, 2013, 10:16:22 am
Are you talking about surveillance of the general public? You are assuming that the manpower requirements to monitor virtually everything will prevent virtually every monitoring. That is not the case. A computer can do the initial monitoring and flag suspicious activity, for human oversight, dramatically reducing the amount of manpower required to monitor.
You seem to be expecting a computer to do something that is far beyond what we can actually do with computers at the current time. You can cut down on the amount of manpower you need to monitor a large group of people, but it comes at the cost of making said monitoring more unreliable, and still involves a heck of a lot of work to do. Because of the sea of information we all exist in surveillance is something that can only be used selectively. For good or for ill. When there's a CCTV camera around, you're not being watched, you're being recorded, and if there is one thing that I've learnt from my observations of the world it's that good records are absolutely key if you want to keep any semblance of a functional justice system going.

Quote from: SalmonGod on April 07, 2013, 10:44:07 am
<snip>
This ties in with the other point I wanted to make. You say it wouldn't have been as bad without the surveillance but would this have prevented hazed?

Same goes for the police abuse, I've definitely known the police to harass people, and I can definitely see how CCTV and the like could be abuse to do so, but without it they seem to be perfectly capable of harassing people. It doesn't seem to make the issue substantially worse. What's more it seems to have the potential to prevent a heck of a lot of abuse. A police officer is fully capable of lying, his dash cam, not so much (you can digitally edit it, but that's nowhere near as easy as some people make it out to be).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 07, 2013, 12:21:39 pm
Quote from: Pnx on April 07, 2013, 12:00:56 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on April 07, 2013, 10:16:22 am
Are you talking about surveillance of the general public? You are assuming that the manpower requirements to monitor virtually everything will prevent virtually every monitoring. That is not the case. A computer can do the initial monitoring and flag suspicious activity, for human oversight, dramatically reducing the amount of manpower required to monitor.
You seem to be expecting a computer to do something that is far beyond what we can actually do with computers at the current time. You can cut down on the amount of manpower you need to monitor a large group of people, but it comes at the cost of making said monitoring more unreliable, and still involves a heck of a lot of work to do. Because of the sea of information we all exist in surveillance is something that can only be used selectively. For good or for ill. When there's a CCTV camera around, you're not being watched, you're being recorded, and if there is one thing that I've learnt from my observations of the world it's that good records are absolutely key if you want to keep any semblance of a functional justice system going.

Quote from: SalmonGod on April 07, 2013, 10:44:07 am
<snip>
This ties in with the other point I wanted to make. You say it wouldn't have been as bad without the surveillance but would this have prevented hazed?

Same goes for the police abuse, I've definitely known the police to harass people, and I can definitely see how CCTV and the like could be abuse to do so, but without it they seem to be perfectly capable of harassing people. It doesn't seem to make the issue substantially worse. What's more it seems to have the potential to prevent a heck of a lot of abuse. A police officer is fully capable of lying, his dash cam, not so much (you can digitally edit it, but that's nowhere near as easy as some people make it out to be).

I am aware of what computers are capable of doing right now. And this is one thing they can do. Every phone call in the US is recorded and analyzed in real time and keyword searched in over a dozen different languages. The analysis of video is no less possible, it would started by flagging streams with people, readable license plates or that contain certain audio/speech, license plate numbers would be checked against a database of suspicious persons to be flagged for surveillance. Streams with people might be filtered to streams containing combination of number or ethnicity, or based on gait characteristics. All those would be flagged for monitoring in real time, and one person could monitor a dozen or more of these priority streams. You don't need a perfect panopticon, to violate privacy and other freedoms, you just need one good enough that people have to second guess everything they say and do.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 07, 2013, 12:31:13 pm
Quote from: Pnx on April 07, 2013, 12:00:56 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 07, 2013, 10:44:07 am
<snip>
This ties in with the other point I wanted to make. You say it wouldn't have been as bad without the surveillance but would this have prevented hazed?

Same goes for the police abuse, I've definitely known the police to harass people, and I can definitely see how CCTV and the like could be abuse to do so, but without it they seem to be perfectly capable of harassing people. It doesn't seem to make the issue substantially worse. What's more it seems to have the potential to prevent a heck of a lot of abuse. A police officer is fully capable of lying, his dash cam, not so much (you can digitally edit it, but that's nowhere near as easy as some people make it out to be).

It makes it the harassment more thorough and easier to carry out.  Sticking with my personal experience example, the work myself and my targeted co-workers were doing was far above office standards.  Without the surveillance, the results of our work and the observations from an occasional stroll would have been all she had to work with.  She wouldn't have been able to construct a legitimate basis for her harassment.  She may not have even developed a personal distaste for us, because she wouldn't have learned nearly so much about us.  We would have simply been workers getting the job done, not young geeks with attitudes and interests completely opposed to hers.  With surveillance, she was able to scrutinize literally every minute of our time with very little effort, and bear down on us with maximum allowable penalty for every minor infraction.

And I have no problem with surveillance being pointed back the other direction.  I think that police being equipped with cameras is great.  Any person who wields disproportionate influence over the lives of others should have all exercise of that influence very closely monitored.  As that article clearly illustrated, what's at stake is frequent physical bullying and intimidation by police when they know they aren't being monitored.  What's at stake with your average person is not anything so important, but people will use those unimportant things anyway to exercise control.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on April 07, 2013, 01:09:25 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on April 07, 2013, 12:21:39 pm
I am aware of what computers are capable of doing right now. And this is one thing they can do. Every phone call in the US is recorded and analyzed in real time and keyword searched in over a dozen different languages. The analysis of video is no less possible, it would started by flagging streams with people, readable license plates or that contain certain audio/speech, license plate numbers would be checked against a database of suspicious persons to be flagged for surveillance. Streams with people might be filtered to streams containing combination of number or ethnicity, or based on gait characteristics. All those would be flagged for monitoring in real time, and one person could monitor a dozen or more of these priority streams. You don't need a perfect panopticon, to violate privacy and other freedoms, you just need one good enough that people have to second guess everything they say and do.
The whole keyword searching/speech to text thing is terrible. Nobody has ever built a speech to text program that reliably works for people that aren't speaking clearly, and when you throw in all the different dialects and accents out there you start to see a heck of a lot of conversations being recorded as gibberish. Keyword searches are also terrible, even if you did manage to get a clear text transcript of all the phone conversations in the US, then you'll be stuck with thousands of results of people who just happen to be talking about explosives, robbery, terrorism, or whatever. And then maybe one or two who are generally involved in it. You still run into the problem of it being a needle in a haystack. You've just used a method of trying to clear out some of the hay that has cost you a lot of your needles.

It's also worth pointing out that society is already an "imperfect panopticon" without any of this stuff. The world is full of people who can act as potential witnesses to your actions, who could be monitoring you...

Quote from: SalmonGod on April 07, 2013, 12:31:13 pm
It makes it the harassment more thorough and easier to carry out.  Sticking with my personal experience example, the work myself and my targeted co-workers were doing was far above office standards.  Without the surveillance, the results of our work and the observations from an occasional stroll would have been all she had to work with.  She wouldn't have been able to construct a legitimate basis for her harassment.  She may not have even developed a personal distaste for us, because she wouldn't have learned nearly so much about us.  We would have simply been workers getting the job done, not young geeks with attitudes and interests completely opposed to hers.  With surveillance, she was able to scrutinize literally every minute of our time with very little effort, and bear down on us with maximum allowable penalty for every minor infraction.
Isn't it sort of your managers job to know about you and what you're doing during work hours? It seems sort of odd to claim that without technology your manager wouldn't have been able to get to know you and decide she hated you. Plus as I said, if your manager really wanted to make your life hell, I'm pretty damn sure she would have found a way. But I think we've probably hit something of an impasse on this point.

I would however question how useful this surveillance even was for your company. I know a lot of companies do this sort of thing, but I'm honestly not sure how much this sort of thing actually helps productivity.

Quote from: SalmonGod on April 07, 2013, 12:31:13 pm
And I have no problem with surveillance being pointed back the other direction.  I think that police being equipped with cameras is great.  Any person who wields disproportionate influence over the lives of others should have all exercise of that influence very closely monitored.  As that article clearly illustrated, what's at stake is frequent physical bullying and intimidation by police when they know they aren't being monitored.  What's at stake with your average person is not anything so important, but people will use those unimportant things anyway to exercise control.
On this one I'm pretty sure we can agree, but it does seem a bit unfair that the police should be recorded, but everyone else, should not. I'm a pretty strong advocate that if you have public surveillance it should be more of a universal thing that is wielded for or against everyone equally.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 07, 2013, 01:15:11 pm
State of the art speech recognition is much better than you realize, and video analysis is not as difficult compared to that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on April 07, 2013, 02:11:18 pm
Quote from: Pnx on April 07, 2013, 01:09:25 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 07, 2013, 12:31:13 pm
And I have no problem with surveillance being pointed back the other direction.  I think that police being equipped with cameras is great.  Any person who wields disproportionate influence over the lives of others should have all exercise of that influence very closely monitored.  As that article clearly illustrated, what's at stake is frequent physical bullying and intimidation by police when they know they aren't being monitored.  What's at stake with your average person is not anything so important, but people will use those unimportant things anyway to exercise control.
On this one I'm pretty sure we can agree, but it does seem a bit unfair that the police should be recorded, but everyone else, should not. I'm a pretty strong advocate that if you have public surveillance it should be more of a universal thing that is wielded for or against everyone equally.

Now there is a difference between watching over the population as a whole or the citizenry watching the government, as is the case when just the police is recorded. As has been pointed out there is a huge imbalance of power. There should be checks in place to prevent abuse of that power.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 07, 2013, 02:20:20 pm
Quote from: Pnx on April 07, 2013, 01:09:25 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 07, 2013, 12:31:13 pm
It makes it the harassment more thorough and easier to carry out.  Sticking with my personal experience example, the work myself and my targeted co-workers were doing was far above office standards.  Without the surveillance, the results of our work and the observations from an occasional stroll would have been all she had to work with.  She wouldn't have been able to construct a legitimate basis for her harassment.  She may not have even developed a personal distaste for us, because she wouldn't have learned nearly so much about us.  We would have simply been workers getting the job done, not young geeks with attitudes and interests completely opposed to hers.  With surveillance, she was able to scrutinize literally every minute of our time with very little effort, and bear down on us with maximum allowable penalty for every minor infraction.
Isn't it sort of your managers job to know about you and what you're doing during work hours? It seems sort of odd to claim that without technology your manager wouldn't have been able to get to know you and decide she hated you. Plus as I said, if your manager really wanted to make your life hell, I'm pretty damn sure she would have found a way. But I think we've probably hit something of an impasse on this point.

I would however question how useful this surveillance even was for your company. I know a lot of companies do this sort of thing, but I'm honestly not sure how much this sort of thing actually helps productivity.

You're right.  I can't debate this without going way more in-depth on the specific situation than is warranted for the topic at hand.

And it isn't useful for the company.  My co-workers and I have presented hard statistical evidence about how her treatment of us has harmed the company.  Doesn't matter.  It's just a way for pathetic people to feel important and powerful.

Quote from: Pnx on April 07, 2013, 01:09:25 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 07, 2013, 12:31:13 pm
And I have no problem with surveillance being pointed back the other direction.  I think that police being equipped with cameras is great.  Any person who wields disproportionate influence over the lives of others should have all exercise of that influence very closely monitored.  As that article clearly illustrated, what's at stake is frequent physical bullying and intimidation by police when they know they aren't being monitored.  What's at stake with your average person is not anything so important, but people will use those unimportant things anyway to exercise control.
On this one I'm pretty sure we can agree, but it does seem a bit unfair that the police should be recorded, but everyone else, should not. I'm a pretty strong advocate that if you have public surveillance it should be more of a universal thing that is wielded for or against everyone equally.

Except my whole point is that equal application does not produce equal effect.

Quote from: Nadaka on April 07, 2013, 01:15:11 pm
State of the art speech recognition is much better than you realize, and video analysis is not as difficult compared to that.

Protesters have already found themselves placed on domestic terrorist watch lists because facial recognition software identified them at a protest, whether or not they broke the law.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on April 07, 2013, 02:41:08 pm
Man, I'm feeling kind of tired of arguing this stuff, but I will say in closing that I still feel that public surveillance can really do a lot to serve the common good. It can prove that you were at the scene of a crime, which may be something you consider good or bad, but it can also prove that your weren't at the scene of a crime, or tell you what exactly happened there. This sort of thing is what we usually use witnesses for, but my own experiences have told me that witnesses can be... ludicrously unreliable.

That said, I think in the model government I've been trying to put together in my head for a while now, I'd probably have some form of seperation of powers thing going on for any kind of public surveillance thing. So that the people responsible for the cameras, are different from the people responsible for arresting and charging people.

Also that guilt by association stuff is BS, and shouldn't fly cameras or no cameras.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on April 07, 2013, 04:01:38 pm
SalmonGod, it sounds like it's more of a dick boss issue, then a technology issue.
I can use fire to cook food, or I can use it burn shit. Doesn't make fire bad or good. If something causes more bad things to happen then good, you probably shouldn't use it. But it doesn't make the technology itself bad.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 07, 2013, 04:28:53 pm
Quote from: Devling on April 07, 2013, 04:01:38 pm
SalmonGod, it sounds like it's more of a dick boss issue, then a technology issue.
I can use fire to cook food, or I can use it burn shit. Doesn't make fire bad or good. If something causes more bad things to happen then good, you probably shouldn't use it. But it doesn't make the technology itself bad.

The technology (camera's) isn't bad. The use of camera's to create surveillance state and infringe on the privacy and freedom of expression of all people at all times IS a bad thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 07, 2013, 04:31:59 pm
Quote from: Devling on April 07, 2013, 04:01:38 pm
SalmonGod, it sounds like it's more of a dick boss issue, then a technology issue.
I can use fire to cook food, or I can use it burn shit. Doesn't make fire bad or good. If something causes more bad things to happen then good, you probably shouldn't use it. But it doesn't make the technology itself bad.

There's more to it than that.  It's a sociological structure issue.  It's a stanford prison experiment issue.  You can't give a person fire and the privilege to burn shit, and then expect them not to burn shit they don't like.

Tools are neutral and can be used for good or bad.  This is true.  But circumstances matter too.

A gun is also a neutral tool, but that doesn't mean all people should have access to them in all situations.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on April 07, 2013, 07:46:49 pm
Okay, so we are both an agreement? I guess? You guys are sounding kinda confrontational when I'm basically just agreeing with you. And throwing in my two cents.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 07, 2013, 07:48:53 pm
Personally I want Google Glass or something like it to become ubiquitous, sousveillance, WITH the cops filming too like in that news report.

EVERYONE IS ON FILM!

Privacy issues related to embarrassing moments might be an issue, though...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 07, 2013, 08:01:09 pm
There's already an app that records, and not only makes the recording, but sends it realtime to a location of your choosing. Combined with Google Glass, all smashing your camera will do is give you a video of a cop taking and smashing your camera.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on April 11, 2013, 01:49:10 am
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/10/17691775-social-conservatives-warn-priebus-they-could-abandon-gop?lite

Chickens, meet roost. I don't think anyone couldn't see this coming tbh. The GOP made a blood pact, tying their survival to a then-majority but ever-shrinking faction in exchange for their support, and now have no easy way of escaping.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on April 11, 2013, 02:04:07 am
Oh conservatives, you would legislate against your own mother if it bought a majority of votes...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaenneth on April 11, 2013, 02:33:43 am
True of anyone able to get elected sadly, that's how the system works.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 11, 2013, 10:25:05 am
Quote from: alway on April 11, 2013, 01:49:10 am
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/10/17691775-social-conservatives-warn-priebus-they-could-abandon-gop?lite

Chickens, meet roost. I don't think anyone couldn't see this coming tbh. The GOP made a blood pact, tying their survival to a then-majority but ever-shrinking faction in exchange for their support, and now have no easy way of escaping.

I don't think the GOP should back down on supporting better social issues because people further to the right don't like it. Just as the Democrats don't need to support radical-leftist issues to get the far left to vote for them instead of the GOP, the GOP can just say "so who you gonna vote for then, the Democrats??". The GOP will still be the "lesser of two evils" from the conservative point of view, and should sensibly bring their platform more towards the center to pick up more votes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on April 11, 2013, 11:03:26 pm
They're going to vote for the Constitution party, obviously.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on April 12, 2013, 03:55:39 am
Or more likely just not vote. American elections aren't about popularity so much as who can get more people to bother showing up.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on April 12, 2013, 04:01:09 am
Even so, just look at last year's Obama campaign. What he did was frightening people into voting by keep showing how bad romney was. The GOP can just do the same thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 12, 2013, 05:35:29 am
Quote from: Sheb on April 12, 2013, 04:01:09 am
Even so, just look at last year's Obama campaign. What he did was frightening people into voting by keep showing how bad romney was. The GOP can just do the same thing.

I actually think this is the only reason most people make the effort on either side.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on April 12, 2013, 07:37:47 am
Yeah, which mean any threat by the far-right/left to stay at home is mostly moot.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on April 12, 2013, 10:26:21 am
It's the crux of the issue with the two party system. You wind up with people voting less on who they feel would make the best leaders, and more on who they feel they are least opposed to as leaders.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on April 13, 2013, 03:13:16 am
Meh, well, it's kind of a logical endpoint. The two-party system came about because when there were 30+ candidates on the field, the winner would have only garnered 20% of the vote or so- 80% of the people would be unhappy with him...thus EVERYONE consolidated to get what they wanted in an act of what can only be called compromise. If we don't want a two-party system, we would have to make some pretty fundamental differences to our governmental structure, (think 'draw by lots' kind of thing).

As for the preaching to the extremes, they've only come to do that because of in-party candidate selection- caucuses or w/e. Who shows up for those? Extremists. Who do the extremists vote for? Extremist representatives. Who do the representatives pander to in order to just get on the ballot? Extremists.

-edit
ooh hoo, videos? I like videos.
Yep, explains it better than I.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on April 13, 2013, 03:14:57 am
I'm guessing we have all already seen this video? Yes? Good. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on April 13, 2013, 05:01:01 am
I just read this piece (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/04/gay-marriage), and it struck a chord. I know we've been pretending it's not, but gay marriage is changing the definition of marriage, and support for it is certainly correlated with wanting to destroy it (As shown by the large amount of people on this forum that would prefer ditching it in favor of civil unions for everyone, or replacing it with something more flexible).

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 13, 2013, 05:03:06 am
... that was sarcasm, right?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on April 13, 2013, 05:07:50 am
No, I'm fairly in accord with that guy (Less so with the ending of his piece about bigamy being good because it strengthen the state). Gay marriage do change the definition of marriage, and once you change it, it does kinda open a slippery slope argument toward polyamourous marriage.

Not that this is a bad thing of course.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on April 13, 2013, 05:48:06 am
Let me tell you a story Sheb.
In Australia, up until 1962, indigenous Australians needed government approval to get married. Many protested on the basis that it would change the nature of marriage. These days the idea that you shouldn't be allowed to get married based on the color of your skin is appalling. Until 1966, women were sacked from any public service after marriage. Now the idea that you can fire a woman just because she got married is a travesty! Until 1976, a man was allowed to rape his wife as long as they were married. This is clearly morally bankrupt.

We keep on changing the nature of marriage, and every time people protest. And every time we do, a few years later we realize just how bigoted these people were. Will it change the nature of marriage? Yes, and for the best.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 13, 2013, 09:59:15 am
Quote from: Sheb on April 13, 2013, 05:07:50 am
No, I'm fairly in accord with that guy (Less so with the ending of his piece about bigamy being good because it strengthen the state). Gay marriage do change the definition of marriage, and once you change it, it does kinda open a slippery slope argument toward polyamourous marriage.

Not that this is a bad thing of course.
Polyamory IS the traditional definition of marriage if you go back far enough. And besides that, the only thing that makes polygamy "bad" really is that it gives the ultra wealthy the opportunity to hoard yet another status symbol to the detriment of society. No offense intended to the women who would rather be a billionaires 300th wife than a poor mans first.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: freeformschooler on April 13, 2013, 10:08:32 am
Quote from: Max White on April 13, 2013, 05:48:06 am
Let me tell you a story Sheb.
In Australia, up until 1962, indigenous Australians needed government approval to get married. Many protested on the basis that it would change the nature of marriage. These days the idea that you shouldn't be allowed to get married based on the color of your skin is appalling. Until 1966, women were sacked from any public service after marriage. Now the idea that you can fire a woman just because she got married is a travesty! Until 1976, a man was allowed to rape his wife as long as they were married. This is clearly morally bankrupt.

We keep on changing the nature of marriage, and every time people protest. And every time we do, a few years later we realize just how bigoted these people were. Will it change the nature of marriage? Yes, and for the best.

Well said.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 13, 2013, 10:26:51 am
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on April 13, 2013, 03:13:16 am
Meh, well, it's kind of a logical endpoint. The two-party system came about because when there were 30+ candidates on the field, the winner would have only garnered 20% of the vote or so- 80% of the people would be unhappy with him...thus EVERYONE consolidated to get what they wanted in an act of what can only be called compromise. If we don't want a two-party system, we would have to make some pretty fundamental differences to our governmental structure, (think 'draw by lots' kind of thing).
Read. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on April 13, 2013, 10:34:11 am
To clarify, I'm not saying that changing the definition of marriage is a bad thing. I'm for it. I don't see why we should keep some old definition of anything if it makes people miserable.

My point (and the article I linked) was about the fact that there is some truth to the conservative  point that marriage is being changed and on a downward slope toward eventual destruction (at least the official, legal marriage, we're not talking about religious marriage here). Rather than dismiss it as conservative ranting, we should acknowledge it and embrace it. Yes we're changing marriage, yes we're wrecking the traditional version of marriage.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 13, 2013, 10:41:52 am
I'm of the opinion that there should be a number of representatives chosen from the general populace (akin to jury duty). They'd serve for periods of six months-one year and act as a curb to the ambitions of "professional" politicians.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on April 13, 2013, 11:35:23 am
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on April 13, 2013, 10:41:52 am
I'm of the opinion that there should be a number of representatives chosen from the general populace (akin to jury duty). They'd serve for periods of six months-one year and act as a curb to the ambitions of "professional" politicians.
Of course the one issue with that is that 1. you wind up with a lot of people who really don't want to do the job, and if you only pick the people that do want to do the job you haven't really improved on the system any except by making it extremely arbitrary (for example on social issues, you wind up with a government full of people that go one way for one term, then people that go the other way for the other term, your congress is now less reflective of the common ideologies of the people)

2. They're likely to go for very populist policies and unfortunately experience has told me what the majority of people think about how the government should be run, is actually a very bad idea when it comes to running a government. Most people just do not have any idea about how laws and policies are made, or how they should be made. This is already an issue with more classical democracy, the candidates voted into office are more likely to be "the one I wanted to have a beer with the most" rather than the one that would make the best statesman. But it would be very much worse in this system.

Professional statesmanship isn't a bad idea, you just to need to find ways to refine the selection process, breaking up the two party system would be a great start.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 13, 2013, 12:17:47 pm
Uruguay is now Uru-gay. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/11/uruguay-legalises-same-sex-marriage

...I'm sorry.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on April 13, 2013, 12:29:45 pm
The two party system is flawed, but in many cases better then the alternative.
If we had lots of parties, then no one would be able to convince a majority of the public to vote for them (Unless they were extremely good at what they do, but nobody is that good).
In the US at least, the situation of no majority would lead to the three candidates who got the most people to vote for them.
Then we would be in the same situation, or even worse one where the underdog in the election throws his support behind another candidate, for some position of power once the candidate is elected.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 13, 2013, 12:33:58 pm
Quote from: Pnx on April 13, 2013, 11:35:23 am
Professional statesmanship isn't a bad idea, you just to need to find ways to refine the selection process

Refining the selection process doesn't deal with the main problem with professional statesmanship:  it encourages corruption... for many reasons.  The least arguable reason is it creates a political class division, and an upper class, no matter what kind, will always act primarily in its own interests.  Someone who knows they're going to be permanently cycled out after a short term has much, much less incentive to needlessly increase the power of his position.  You also need to ensure there are ways to make career statesmen frequently answerable to the people who elected them.  When terms are too long and there's too much mobility (from congressman to lobbyist, for example), they tend to just do whatever they want after they've won the lying contest.  Being prone to deception is a problem with the selection process, but also the most unlikely angle of the issue to be successfully resolved.  It would be much more effective to deal with incentives to deceive or implement more reliable consequences.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 13, 2013, 12:38:26 pm
Quote from: Devling on April 13, 2013, 12:29:45 pm
The two party system is flawed, but in many cases better then the alternative.
If we had lots of parties, then no one would be able to convince a majority of the public to vote for them (Unless they were extremely good at what they do, but nobody is that good).
In the US at least, the situation of no majority would lead to the three candidates who got the most people to vote for them.
Then we would be in the same situation, or even worse one where the underdog in the election throws his support behind another candidate, for some position of power once the candidate is elected.
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 13, 2013, 10:26:51 am
Read. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on April 13, 2013, 12:44:57 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 13, 2013, 12:38:26 pm
Quote from: Devling on April 13, 2013, 12:29:45 pm
The two party system is flawed, but in many cases better then the alternative.
If we had lots of parties, then no one would be able to convince a majority of the public to vote for them (Unless they were extremely good at what they do, but nobody is that good).
In the US at least, the situation of no majority would lead to the three candidates who got the most people to vote for them.
Then we would be in the same situation, or even worse one where the underdog in the election throws his support behind another candidate, for some position of power once the candidate is elected.
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 13, 2013, 10:26:51 am
Read. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting)
Read-ed.

Okay, that could work. I was thinking in terms of the current US system of election, which really needs to be revised, but I like the idea of an instant runoff vote.
If the US started counting individual ballots, and we eliminated the Electoral College, and used runoff voting, I think the election would be a better system.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on April 13, 2013, 12:46:00 pm
Or there's systems where you have a "gold/silver/bronze" vote, the gold one being worth three points, the silver being worth two, the bronze three one. Then the person with the most points wins. I'm not sure how much I like this one, but almost anything other than this winner takes all stuff would be nice.

Then of course you can get rid of the candidates themselves in voting, and instead vote for the parties themselves then divide the seats in you congressional body based on how much of the popular vote they get.
Personally I'd like to see congress picked out like this, perhaps in combination with some kind of different voting scheme would be nice.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on April 13, 2013, 12:47:56 pm
Shouldn't bronze be worth 1 point?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on April 13, 2013, 12:48:30 pm
Quote
the bronze three

Is that a typo or a part of the idea?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on April 13, 2013, 12:48:55 pm
No it was a typo, whoops.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 13, 2013, 12:53:44 pm
Quote from: Pnx on April 13, 2013, 12:46:00 pm
Or there's systems where you have a "gold/silver/bronze" vote, the gold one being worth three points, the silver being worth two, the bronze three one. Then the person with the most points wins. I'm not sure how much I like this one, but almost anything other than this winner takes all stuff would be nice.
That would still be a first past the post system. You're just changing how much votes each person has, not how they are counted.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on April 13, 2013, 01:19:27 pm
Sort of yes, but it does allow more than two people to run competitively. I was basically just naming it as an example of how there are more than one way to run this sort of thing, I don't especially like that sort of system, however like I said, I'd take it over the simple one vote representation thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on April 13, 2013, 01:50:37 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on April 13, 2013, 12:17:47 pm
Uruguay is now Uru-gay. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/11/uruguay-legalises-same-sex-marriage

...I'm sorry.

It had to be done. We will remember your sacrifice always.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on April 13, 2013, 02:01:13 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on April 13, 2013, 12:17:47 pm
Uruguay is now Uru-gay. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/11/uruguay-legalises-same-sex-marriage

...I'm sorry.
Now watch as some anti-gay type uses that joke and thinks it's genuinely clever.
I got a chuckle out of it
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on April 13, 2013, 03:58:49 pm
Head of Google complains about civilian drone tech as an invasion of privacy. Irony level of 11 detected. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22134898)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on April 13, 2013, 04:16:50 pm
Ban RC planes equipped with cameras !
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on April 13, 2013, 05:52:37 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 13, 2013, 10:26:51 am
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on April 13, 2013, 03:13:16 am
Meh, well, it's kind of a logical endpoint. The two-party system came about because when there were 30+ candidates on the field, the winner would have only garnered 20% of the vote or so- 80% of the people would be unhappy with him...thus EVERYONE consolidated to get what they wanted in an act of what can only be called compromise. If we don't want a two-party system, we would have to make some pretty fundamental differences to our governmental structure, (think 'draw by lots' kind of thing).
Read. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting)


This guy has videos on that subject.
Quote from: Max White on April 13, 2013, 03:14:57 am
I'm guessing we have all already seen this video? Yes? Good. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)

It does seem a better system, but 3 things:
1. We'd have to implement this on all levels of legislative protocol, otherwise we'd see the same old behavior occurring on the senate floor, with the new mixed-representative voting body creating their very own two-party system in miniature.
2. Not even these alternatives would be impervious to meta-voting; trying to list people you don't want knocked out early as your first choice (or something of the like) might lead to unforeseen consequences.
3. How'ld we change the system? This would still require a constitutional convention-kind-of-deal, and jesus would that be hairy. Not to mention actually getting support for it, and convincing the reps it's a good idea etc.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 13, 2013, 06:02:43 pm
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on April 13, 2013, 05:52:37 pm
unforeseen consequences.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people make "unforeseen consequences" style points against things as if there aren't already-existing examples of them in other parts of the world that have been in effect for decades or more.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 13, 2013, 06:03:42 pm
It would just take an amendment, and the representatives could be convinced by the rationale that it gives them a better chance of success while also showing their constituents how pro-democracy they are.

Also, IRV has already been used in the United States. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting_in_the_United_States)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 13, 2013, 06:23:37 pm
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on April 13, 2013, 05:52:37 pm
2. Not even these alternatives would be impervious to meta-voting; trying to list people you don't want knocked out early as your first choice (or something of the like) might lead to unforeseen consequences.
It's definitely true that it isn't immune to meta-voting.  There's some really interesting mathematical work that proves that any electoral system with more than two candidates must be dictatorial (one voter decides the outcome), exclusive (a candidate or candidates can never win regardless of preference) or manipulable (you can get a better outcome from the election by not reporting your real preferences)*.  Out of these three I think it's fair to say the last is the most preferable, so it really becomes a matter of trying to minimize the potential for manipulation as much as possible.

I would say that in real life it's pretty unlikely that IRV could be manipulable.  That's because it being manipulated requires weird rock-paper-scissors type situations (people who like candidate A put candidate B as their second choice, people who like candidate B put candidate C as their second choice, people who like candidate C put candidate A as their second choice) and that just doesn't tend to happen.  Or at least it doesn't happen as often as the split-voting which happens in FPTP.

* http://www.math4realworld.com/?page_id=6 is the source I used here, the GIBBARD-SATTERTHWAITE THEOREM section specifically.  I'm not really enough of a mathematician to rigorously follow the proof, but I can understand the general argument.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on April 13, 2013, 06:29:06 pm
Trouble is it doesn't at least as far as most democrats and republicans are concerned, no matter how it turns out they're pretty much guaranteed to lose power. Making things a pure popular representation rather than the state representatives thing we have right now would also mean no more gerrymandering districts, since who's a part of what district would no longer matter.

This is something you'd really have to do as a grass roots movement, it might be better to try to convince the representatives at a state legislature to implement this first.

The biggest issue we've got right now preventing different forms of voting from being a thing, is that most people aren't even aware you can do this. Or they don't consider it a valid system. So your first step should be to raise awareness.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 13, 2013, 06:35:03 pm
Changing a voting system is always tough, but it's not impossible.  Personally I'm hoping the Tories are badly burnt by having their vote split with UKIP at the next election.  That'd probably cause them to see the upside to IRV/AV/whatever.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on April 13, 2013, 08:15:02 pm
Hm, well, you know what George F. Will said about pessimism. Sweet, I'll start pestering people about this when given the chance.

Quote from: SalmonGod on April 13, 2013, 06:02:43 pm
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on April 13, 2013, 05:52:37 pm
unforeseen consequences.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people make "unforeseen consequences" style points against things as if there aren't already-existing examples of them in other parts of the world that have been in effect for decades or more.
It's already a point I concede but,
It never ceases to amaze me how many people don't include a source for their claims mister.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 13, 2013, 08:25:33 pm
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on April 13, 2013, 08:15:02 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 13, 2013, 06:02:43 pm
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on April 13, 2013, 05:52:37 pm
unforeseen consequences.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people make "unforeseen consequences" style points against things as if there aren't already-existing examples of them in other parts of the world that have been in effect for decades or more.
It's already a point I concede but,
It never ceases to amaze me how many people don't include a source for their claims mister.

MSH has already posted two, one of which I thought you read.

Don't mean to get on your case about it, especially if you concede the point.  It's just a pet peeve of mine, because I encounter it soooo much.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on April 13, 2013, 09:11:18 pm
Hadn't read the wiki article, thought it was just to establish what AV (IRV) was. Have now, the contents of the article & this thread are most reassuring. :)

Did that advert get a lot of airtime? If so, lovely.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on April 13, 2013, 10:26:19 pm
There was a lot along those lines from what I hear, "it's too confusing!" was a big point in the campaign, and it didn't help that the "yes" side basically failed to pitch the system simply, but they also did some really dirty fighting against the issue. From what I hear they claimed that AV was inefficient, would cost ludicrous amounts of money, was confusing and would alienate voters that didn't understand it, would lead to wars that would kill British soldiers, would kill babies (seriously), and a lot of other stuff.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on April 14, 2013, 06:16:00 am
With some luck the US might see a big change in the voting system without even changing any laws: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on April 14, 2013, 06:16:20 am
My favourite part was when the no campaign said it would help the BNP, rather than letting anyone sane rank every party in the UK over any BNP candidates in their area.

But yeah, a lot of the yes campaign was an ugly mess. I was kinda involved in the early stages, up until the national campaign was going to take over, at which stage there seemed to be a complete disconnect with what groups had tried to create locally. There was also little to no party unity compared to the Tories' uniform opposition. Labour had dragged their feet for over a decade on voting reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkins_Commission_%28UK%29) and weren't much better at embracing AV. The Lib Dems were probably the strongest supporters, but had just signed onto the deal with the Tories and so were seen as toxic to actually put front and centre in the campaign. The Greens wanted to cut off our noses in the hope that we could somehow go straight to a fully proportional system instead.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 14, 2013, 09:31:28 am
The BNP was anti-AV anyway, that was a stupid argument.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on April 14, 2013, 05:18:54 pm
Sounds like something I'd be rather bitter about if I lived there.


Quote from: lorb on April 14, 2013, 06:16:00 am
With some luck the US might see a big change in the voting system without even changing any laws: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact)
:-\ that's still FPTP, and bound to raise opposition.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 14, 2013, 05:28:05 pm
I'd hesitate to call that "a big change". It's honestly pretty superficial.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on April 14, 2013, 05:34:40 pm
It would make a significant impact on the presidential elections, right now the electoral college system screws endlessly with the way it runs.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 14, 2013, 05:35:33 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 14, 2013, 05:28:05 pm
I'd hesitate to call that "a big change". It's honestly pretty superficial.
You call eliminating a 5% (as of the current number of presidential elections) failure rate insignificant?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on April 14, 2013, 05:45:14 pm
Not only that but by making the popular vote count, you influence the way the popular vote turns out. There are people in states that are heavily one way or the other that would vote the other way if they knew their vote counted, but since they're along side a whole bunch of people that vote the other way, they know it doesn't really matter.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 14, 2013, 06:36:53 pm
Plus, it'd get rid of battleground states, or at least open them up to all the states with a lot of people.

As it is, you have a few states that have an even split of votes AND a large number of electoral college votes, that the campaigns focus on. If you got rid of the electoral college, there'd be wider ranging campaigns going to states that are currently considered "in the bag", since a lot of those "in the bag" states are more 60/40 than 90/10, and would, in a straight popular vote, push the vote more one way or another.

I hope I made sense. >_>
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on April 15, 2013, 12:47:11 am
Living in eastern washington, where the majority of the population is republican, I understand.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on April 15, 2013, 07:48:33 am
I live in Oregon, where everyone is pretty much Democratic liberal!

Suckers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on April 15, 2013, 08:29:21 am
Quote from: Devling on April 15, 2013, 07:48:33 am
I live in Oregon, where everyone is pretty much Democratic liberal!

Suckers.

People say the same about Washington, if they live in the western area.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on April 15, 2013, 08:36:33 am
I live in Belgium, where we have more than 2 parties.

Suckers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 15, 2013, 10:25:43 am
I live in North Carolina.

Suckers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on April 15, 2013, 10:55:03 am
Here in the UK our multiple parties are all as shit as each other.

I am such a sucker.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 15, 2013, 10:59:34 am
Yea? Well my Governor committed MASSIVE medicare fraud, and is only not in jail because they could only legally convict his shell corporation... before he got elected, mostly due to the senior vote.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on April 15, 2013, 11:07:49 am
Heh, as Winston Churchill said, the biggest argument against democracy is a 5 min chat with the average voter.

Mind you, he also said that democracy was the worst form of government, apart from all those other ones that are tried from time to time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on April 15, 2013, 11:23:16 am
Incidentally, what do you people think about periods in office? The US has one to maximum two four-year periods, Korea has one five year period, and I'm sure some nation has longer, or more frequent periods.

Would the number of times you are in office significantly affect how you wield the power? In Korea, most presidents followed this course of action;

1. Diss what the previous president did (doesn't matter if said president is in your party / is your secod cousin)

2. Attempt and fail to fix what he did.

3. Make a bunch of half-hearted efforts at revolutionizing Korea.

4. ???

5. Just before your period ends, spring all your residents / party members who are in jail for crimes like bribery, touching taxpayer money, tax fraud, and other white-collar crimes, using your special presidential pardon.

6. After your period ends, go work at a big company, or live off all the money you stole and laundered in shell corporations.

It doesn't matter if you do the stealing money thing blatantly. The nation's media is usually on your side anyways, so all cries of foul play are swept away. >_>
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 15, 2013, 11:30:57 am
I think the US needs more term limits. The president is limited to eight years (technically ten, but this is unlikely to happen), but representatives and senators can serve as many terms as they like, and most of them do. I also think that Supreme Court Justices should serve a single 20 year term.

Term limits risk flippant behavior in office and can mean good leaders only have 15 minutes of fame, but that's better than the power consolidating mini-cults of personality that tend to happen without them. The US had less of a problem on this front, but that's only because nobody was willing to defy Washington's implicit orders not to for 160 years, and it resulted in a constitutional amendment once someone finally did.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Levi on April 15, 2013, 11:32:11 am
Quote from: Skyrunner on April 15, 2013, 11:23:16 am
Incidentally, what do you people think about periods in office?

That sounds awful.  I'm not sure longer or shorter periods would make a difference though.

This is why I like the idea of Demarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy).  Most people who get far enough in politics to make a difference don't get that far without being corrupt.  Under Demarchy you choose people at random as your leaders, so they wouldn't have had time to become corrupt.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 15, 2013, 11:37:23 am
Quote from: Levi on April 15, 2013, 11:32:11 am
Quote from: Skyrunner on April 15, 2013, 11:23:16 am
Incidentally, what do you people think about periods in office?

That sounds awful.  I'm not sure longer or shorter periods would make a difference though.

This is why I like the idea of Demarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy).  Most people who get far enough in politics to make a difference don't get that far without being corrupt.  Under Demarchy you choose people at random as your leaders, so they wouldn't have had time to become corrupt.
You hope. If people get the job that don't want it, they'll be very quick to make a profit out of it. In fact, you'll probably end up with a shadow governement that rules through these randomly elected people, who while greatly compensated, don't wield any power.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Levi on April 15, 2013, 11:42:06 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on April 15, 2013, 11:37:23 am
Quote from: Levi on April 15, 2013, 11:32:11 am
Quote from: Skyrunner on April 15, 2013, 11:23:16 am
Incidentally, what do you people think about periods in office?

That sounds awful.  I'm not sure longer or shorter periods would make a difference though.

This is why I like the idea of Demarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy).  Most people who get far enough in politics to make a difference don't get that far without being corrupt.  Under Demarchy you choose people at random as your leaders, so they wouldn't have had time to become corrupt.
You hope. If people get the job that don't want it, they'll be very quick to make a profit out of it. In fact, you'll probably end up with a shadow governement that rules through these randomly elected people, who while greatly compensated, don't wield any power.

That assumes most people are corrupt by default(which might be true).  I like to think if you choose 20 random people to lead your country, at least 15 of them won't be asshats.  :)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on April 15, 2013, 12:16:17 pm
No, but a lot of them would be uninformed (probably won't even know the intricacies of how the government work) and as such easily influenced.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 15, 2013, 12:19:55 pm
Well not asshats, but see it like this. Suddenly, wherether you want it or not*, you're being chosen to lead the country, a responsibility you didn't ask for nor know your way around with. Then, a "shady" bussinessman appears, offering you some nice advice, while also helping you out in some way or another. No reason to refuse that.


*Without this clause, you'd end up with a far larger clause of people who want to be in control, and hence are corrupted.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 15, 2013, 12:44:56 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on April 15, 2013, 10:59:34 am
Yea? Well my Governor committed MASSIVE medicare fraud, and is only not in jail because they could only legally convict his shell corporation... before he got elected, mostly due to the senior vote.

Well, my Mayor growing up got elected, got put in jail (felony conviction) for putting his cigarette out in a guy his goons were holding down and then beating him with a heavy ashtray and THEN a fireplace log , and when he got out of jail, got elected again, and then went to jail again (another felony conviction), this time for blatant racketeering, conspiracy, extortion, witness tampering, and mail fraud (only the racketeering charge stuck), and then he got OUT again, and now he's a popular and successful radio host! People generally still think positively of him.

Note that he was only removed from office in the first case because of a law he passed disallowing convicted felons from holding office while serving time, which he had passed explicitly so he could threaten politicians who disagreed with him or otherwise remove them from office. (It was pretty trivial to get a felony conviction on any of our politicians at the time if you wanted to, but before this law it wouldn't have stopped them from serving so there wasn't much point)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 15, 2013, 12:46:45 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 15, 2013, 12:44:56 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on April 15, 2013, 10:59:34 am
Yea? Well my Governor committed MASSIVE medicare fraud, and is only not in jail because they could only legally convict his shell corporation... before he got elected, mostly due to the senior vote.

Well, my Mayor growing up got elected, get put in jail (felony conviction) for putting his cigarette out in a guy his goons were holding down and then beating him with a heavy ashtray and THEN a fireplace log , and when he got out of jail, got elected again, and then went to jail again (another felony conviction), this time for blatant racketeering, conspiracy, extortion, witness tampering, and mail fraud, and then he got OUT again, and now he's a popular and successful radio host! People generally still think positively of him.

Note that he was only removed from office in the first case because of a law he passed disallowing convicted felons from holding office while serving time, which he had passed explicitly so he could threaten politicians who disagreed with him or otherwise remove them from office. (It was pretty trivial to get a felony conviction on any of our politicians at the time if you wanted to, but before this law it wouldn't have stopped them from serving so there wasn't much point)

Frightening, sad, and hilarious.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 15, 2013, 12:58:14 pm
He's considering running for the House of Reps in 2014, too!

Saddest part is that, objectively, he was pretty good by state politician standards.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 15, 2013, 01:06:34 pm
http://blog.al.com/live/2012/10/former_biloxi_mayor_pete_halat.html

One of my former mayors. Mayor of Biloxi MS, scam artist, conspirator in the brutal Sherry murders, high level member of the Dixie Mafia, AKA the cornbread cosa nostra. Sheriff George Payne in the town next door, Gulfport MS wasn't much better either, but he never managed to get convicted of anything serious despite torturing inmates.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on April 15, 2013, 07:29:52 pm
Quote from: Levi on April 15, 2013, 11:32:11 am
Quote from: Skyrunner on April 15, 2013, 11:23:16 am
Incidentally, what do you people think about periods in office?

That sounds awful.  I'm not sure longer or shorter periods would make a difference though.

This is why I like the idea of Demarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy).  Most people who get far enough in politics to make a difference don't get that far without being corrupt.  Under Demarchy you choose people at random as your leaders, so they wouldn't have had time to become corrupt.
90% of people aren't competent enough to be a mayor of a small town.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on April 15, 2013, 07:50:21 pm
I would take this opportunity to claim term limits only prevent people from keeping representatives they want, which is rather patronizing, but given the contents of this thread, (examples of HORRIBLE people that kept getting elected and this sentiment already being mentioned), I think I'll pass this principles fight.

-edit
btw devling, in a debate, you'd have to source that there claim.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 15, 2013, 08:31:03 pm
More importantly, I think you overestimate how much competence is required to be the mayor of a small town. One I was raised in had illiterates, alcoholics, and, more likely than not, illiterate alcoholics at some point or another.

Now, mayor in the sense of someone that actually does something constructive... maybe. But they make good figureheads, and you don't really need a brain for that so long as someone's got a gelding chain attracted to something important.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on April 15, 2013, 09:10:19 pm
Okay so at best we have a couple of idiot figureheads, with the smart people creating a shadow tyranny.
And by at best I mean at worst.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 15, 2013, 09:13:49 pm
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on April 15, 2013, 07:50:21 pm
I would take this opportunity to claim term limits only prevent people from keeping representatives they want, which is rather patronizing, but given the contents of this thread, (examples of HORRIBLE people that kept getting elected and this sentiment already being mentioned), I think I'll pass this principles fight.

Technically every restriction on elected officials only prevents people from electing representatives they want.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on April 15, 2013, 11:24:38 pm
Ha, good point.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 16, 2013, 06:48:23 am
Remember that girl who committed suicide after being bullied for years following her gang rape by four classmates?  Put the forum in rage mode for a couple days?

That case was under investigation for a year before it was dropped due to lack of evidence.  Anonymous pledged to take up the case themselves, and are now boasting that they solved it in less than 2 hours (http://www.policymic.com/articles/34491/rehtaeh-parsons-rape-case-solved-by-anonymous-in-less-than-2-hours-despite-no-evidence).  No hacking involved.  According to their account of how easily obtainable evidence was, it seems the investigators and the school system must have simply not tried.  At all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on April 16, 2013, 06:58:44 am
Ah, anonymous, the internet hate machine, powered by... People? Who would have thought?
I have come to conclude that forming an opinion of anonymous is like forming an opinion of the human race. No matter what, you will always be proven wrong.


Also, this might have been the only post in my all years here where I use an ellipsis properly, feels a bit strange, don't want to make a habit of it...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on April 16, 2013, 07:20:28 am
Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it.

Not the inability of the officials, just Anon "solving" it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 16, 2013, 10:00:08 am
Considering there was a video of it, I'm surprised it took them 2 hours.

They probably just ran the faces they saw and grabbed the ever-so-common-admissions-of-guilt-over-social-media, as well as the identity of the original uploader.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on April 16, 2013, 06:08:37 pm
But how much of it can stick? Do these alleged photos/videos show any faces? Just how different from circumstantial evidence is that exif data? Same with the social media- would that stick or could they claim they didn't type what they did? There's a difference between knowing who did it and being able to prove it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 16, 2013, 06:13:06 pm
From what I understand, the video was of the act and faces were clear, but I don't know for sure, having not sought it out myself.

Authorities claimed they couldn't act on it since they didn't know who was behind the camera.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on April 16, 2013, 06:13:31 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 16, 2013, 06:13:06 pm
From what I understand, the video was of the act and faces were clear, but I don't know for sure, having not sought it out myself.

Authorities claimed they couldn't act on it since they didn't know who was behind the camera.
...

THE. FUCK.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on April 16, 2013, 06:20:14 pm
Hmm, when did they make these statements? IF it was in her lifetime, she may not have wanted to prosecute- how much of that tape would have to be shown to the court?
No idea how the law works in canada- is there some reason they wouldn't be able to try the cameraman if they went after the others first?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on April 16, 2013, 07:02:20 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on April 16, 2013, 06:13:31 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 16, 2013, 06:13:06 pm
From what I understand, the video was of the act and faces were clear, but I don't know for sure, having not sought it out myself.

Authorities claimed they couldn't act on it since they didn't know who was behind the camera.
...

THE. FUCK.

Probably because they were only going to go after the kiddie porn conviction instead of rape/sexual assault.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 17, 2013, 01:57:57 am
Sealing the final holes in the blanket of the surveillance state. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/29/domestic-drones-unique-dangers)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on April 17, 2013, 02:37:35 am
That's scary.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on April 17, 2013, 02:55:30 am
Then make a donation to the ACLU- they're fighting it right now.
-edit
Assuming you're American..
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on April 17, 2013, 06:37:41 am
If anyone still gives a damn;

CISPA passed the House (https://www.opencongress.org/vote/2013/h/107). It was heavily watered down with from the original form (see this (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/04/new-draft-of-house-cispa-bill/) for a somewhat conservative take on some of the modifications) but there was still a presidential veto threat (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/113/saphr624r_20130416.pdf) issued.

Of course it's hard to say what the Senate are going to get up to in this area, let alone what (if any) bill will get to Obama. But still, that happened.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 17, 2013, 07:12:25 am
I actually don't have much of a problem with surveillance drones. While they certainly need regulation they undoubtedly do not have yet, I think the most thing here is equability. Like with any other surveillance, the real danger comes from the fact the imbalance of power they can generate.

I think it's incredibly important that we insure that the right of people, individuals, to own and operate their own drones, is paramount. For some strange reason, I don't expect the police drones to be looking when the police are fucking someone over, and I think the idea of having my own, personal drone, following me around 24/7 keeping an eye on me and extending my own opportunities to see and explore safely is pretty awesome and immensely valuable.

I'm just worried about surveillance becoming a privilege, not about it existing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on April 17, 2013, 07:56:15 am
Ha, the sponsor calls the veto threat "flabbergasting".

Eh, thing I heard was concerning 'airspace' 7' above someone's backyard. It isn't practical to hover a helicopter 3 feet away from a second-story window, but it is with a drone.

Private drone operation would require additional stuff though- licensing and zoning restrictions. We don't want 30 pound drones rocketing into roadways. Harassment would also become a problem.. if you want video of yourself when you go out and about just wear one o them small cameras we've got nowadays.

I for one would want a minimum elevation/operational floor where the things can't go, (500 feet arbitrarily, but would have to be based on something concrete and hard to change in the drone (sound? quiet drones get around that! Distracting drivers? Smaller drones!)) and ubiquitous electronic record keeping, (flight controls/instrument readouts etc).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 17, 2013, 07:59:54 am
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on April 17, 2013, 07:56:15 am
We don't want 30 pound drones rocketing into roadways. Harassment would also become a problem.. if you want video of yourself when you go out and about just wear one o them small cameras we've got nowadays.
I don't see how these problems would be solved by licensing or zoning, rather than good regulation (and licensing is NOT the same as regulation, esp. in this case). I do agree that laws against drone harassment are probably inevitable, and that's fine.

Finally, if you're wearing the camera you can not use it to take video of yourself... Unless you've got one of those crazy ass elevated harnesses, I suppose. Which let's be honest will get you kicked out of everywhere, while your drone could easily idle up in the sky outside.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 17, 2013, 08:02:30 am
The problem is surveillance grants more utility to authorities than it does to the public.

I've mentioned plenty often that it's easy to identify anyone as a criminal due to vaguely written laws and flexibility of interpretation.  A private person with their own drone may be able to protect themselves from false accusations, but they won't be able to protect themselves from easily abusable laws.  It also won't protect them from being placed on an FBI watchlist (which automatically results in compromised rights) for doing something perfectly legal, such as being identified on camera in proximity of a protest.  Surveillance greatly amplifies the power of authority figures by broadening their tactical knowledge and options.  Most importantly, it gives them the ability to easily pinpoint and target dissent.

A private person does not gain any comparable utility.  There is the ability to clear one's name of false accusations, but that is a very minor protection and not even a reliable one, since your footage can be confiscated "as evidence" and then conveniently lost.  Private surveillance can be turned back on authority, but this once again presupposes that punishment can be enacted against an agent of authority with the same ease and severity as an ordinary member of the public when caught doing wrong.  For example: police getting paid leaves for actions that would put anyone else in prison.

Not that I want to focus on police or the government, because corporations abuse surveillance as well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on April 17, 2013, 08:07:34 am
Gotta say, that begs the question: why do you want to run surveillance on yourself? The camera would do a better job on all fronts here- you could keep it on you everywhere.

Licensing & zoning are regs. Zoning as in you can't take it near parks, (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!), busy streets, indoors, public buildings etc etc; these were just examples. We'd actually need a plethora of laws and limitations, concerning things from time of operation to the specific makeup of the drone components. Point is, easier said than done. Also: pay off might be a little low for the effort, especially when we already have concealable cameras that would do the same job in a more discrete fashion- so long as that job is continual self-protection..where a drone would be useful, (offensively, though things like photography are special cases), would be HIGHLY regulated because those are where people get in trouble, (harassment/snooping/endangerment etc).

-edit incoming, getting this out before more posts.
Again, camera is still useful- upload to the cloud as you go, electronic copies are hard to 'lose'.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on April 17, 2013, 08:16:59 am
One thing that is interesting; there are already at least some regulations that cover drones.

When Lawfare decided to have a friendly drone smackdown (http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2012/09/24-drone-smackdown-wittes) - a national security geek version of Robot Wars in the air - the FAA got in touch to warn them they couldn't fly drones in the D.C. Flight Restricted Zone (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/09/smacked-down-by-the-faa/). They still held the competition by driving out to some undisclosed field outside the zone (which sadly prevented protesters from finding them, which would have been hilarious), but these things are on the regulatory radar.

Figuratively speaking at least.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on April 17, 2013, 09:32:58 am
Obviously we should all take notes from Lawfare, and instead of using them for surveillance use them for sick air battles.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 17, 2013, 10:52:45 am
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on April 17, 2013, 08:07:34 am
Licensing & zoning are regs.

Licensing serves one of three purposes: To insure operator skill (driving, doctoring, lawyering) so as to avoid damage to others through unskilled use, to serve as a protectionist method for increasing the power and benefit of those who can get a limited number of licenses as compared to others (barbering, fishing), or to serve as a tax on the activity and guarantee a revenue stream to the governing body, often ostensibly to offset costs.

I don't see how any of these would apply to successful drone regulations in a positive way.  The second subverts the whole reason I would want people to be able to use drones at all (power equalization), the first could certainly be applicable for dangerous drones but most civilian drones probably wouldn't be, and the last doesn't serve much of a purpose and is easily abused.

So yes, licensing can be regulation, but effective regulation does not necessarily involve licensing.

And the zoning rules you've claimed as a possibility (no drones in parks) are exactly the reason why I would oppose them outright. Some area limitations will probably be needed if only for airspace concerns (no drones flying around the runway, no dropping zones in people's backyards staring through their windows without permission) but even those would probably be better served by more focused regulation than the blunt tool that is zoning.


Also, reasons one might want to use a drone instead of a camera (though really for good coverage you'd probably want both, since cameras have perks over drones as well):
The drone is harder to confiscate or halt filming.
The camera can only see what you see (or only in one direction from your person), the drone can see things you cant.
For plenty of creative, media, reporting, and documentary purposes, a drone cam would be far more valuable.
A camera can't help you get a feel for your surroundings.


Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 17, 2013, 11:01:36 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 17, 2013, 08:02:30 am
The problem is surveillance grants more utility to authorities than it does to the public.

But it's going to happen, and we can't stop it. Every rule and regulation you put on private owners (which will be conveniently exempted for those in authority) serves only to widen that gap. Most of the issues you've described aren't even a problem of surveillance, and counter-surveillance offers the only real opportunity of popularizing and fighting against some of those injustices.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 17, 2013, 11:46:43 am
Yeah.  It is happening, and nothing's going to stop it.  I'm not arguing against private operation of drones, either.  I'm just giving in to my tendency to rant, and I like to hope that with some anticipation-building, people will notice and react more when they do go into full effect.  Maybe someday the will to take serious action against the nature of our hyper-authoritarian oligarchy will materialize.  I keep wondering just how close we have to get to a hollywood-perfect image of cyberpunk dystopia before something finally snaps.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 17, 2013, 12:04:04 pm
Here's a good idea for those who want to maintain their privacy. Invest in microwind energy

Turbine blade vs drone =
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on April 17, 2013, 12:15:27 pm
Oh Salmongod, with your zany predictions of a dark future/present!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 17, 2013, 01:00:11 pm
SalmonGod, you are forgetting something very important. While we are likely to see increased surveillance in the future, the nature of modern technology means that increases in surveillance will by definition increase sousveillance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance) as well. Since the beginning of the age of nations only governments have had the resources to commit to surveillance, but now this is no longer true. They may well gaze into the public, but now the public will gaze back into them.

This will not lead to dystopia. This will lead to a more realistic treatment of our laws and governments, when they can no longer be sure that the people are not watching.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 17, 2013, 01:19:13 pm
No, I'm not forgetting it.  I already addressed that.  Even if levels of surveillance rise equally in both directions, this doesn't mean both sides will equally benefit.  I still believe authoritarianism stands to gain much more.  Their surveillance will be more complete (did you read the part about the Gorgon Stare?), it is motivated by a pro-active agenda (consolidation of power) rather than a passive one (personal defense), as much of its records will be kept hidden from the public as possible (remember they can even lie about the existence of a record now when denying a freedom of information act request) while the public's records will be public, and not all of the public will be staring back.  We've gained access to massive floods of information about government/corporate activities over the last few years, but very little of that information reaches traditional outlets from which most people still get their information.  This is changing, but slowly.  Meanwhile, power grabs continue to accelerate while public awareness is not united enough to do anything about it, even though our return surveillance has put the information out there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 17, 2013, 01:29:34 pm
Authoritarianism doesn't have anything to gain. They already have the tools of surveillance, and have for centuries. "Traditional outlets" are not that traditional. Everything that holds that title is dying to the internet. TV, newspapers, all of it. The only thing that is even breaking even is radio.

Most of the abuses that are allowed only happen because the public is ignorant of them. Either they don't know at all, or they don't know enough to care, or they know but the reality of it cannot be conveyed through words. All of that is changing with increased sousveillance. That Wikipedia article I linked mentioned an experiment to see how law enforcement would be effected by giving them shoulder cameras they can't turn off while on duty, and found that it reduced both violence by police and complaints from the public. Cameras are in many ways a great equalizer, because they don't lie. No matter how much the public may trust the police, it would take some extreme fanaticism indeed to ignore the objective reality exposed and stored by cameras.

You are freaking out over the government getting a tech upgrade to something they already do while the public is getting ready to change the face of how the world operates.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on April 17, 2013, 01:44:51 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 17, 2013, 01:29:34 pm
Authoritarianism doesn't have anything to gain. They already have the tools of surveillance, and have for centuries. "Traditional outlets" are not that traditional. Everything that holds that title is dying to the internet. TV, newspapers, all of it. The only thing that is even breaking even is radio.
Even radio is losing, albeit slower then other methods. Almost all the buses at my campus and many of the newer cars all are equipped with pandora or other various online radio methods.

But I agree here. More surveillance works as an equalizer, and the government is going to be informed of most of what happens anyways. The only thing that will be changing is the ability to lie about what happens, and since this tactic seems to be used by governments more often then by civilians I'd say that more surveillance is a benefit to civilians more then one to a government.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on April 17, 2013, 02:49:35 pm
First of all, @salmon & gryph:
Just what kind of drones are we talking about here?! Are we talking about current technology, which would require actively piloting the freaking drone that's following you around? Or some futuristic space-tech that has yet to come into being?! I'm guessing the latter- it's silly to base our attitude towards current tech on these hypotheticals- at least in such specific terms.

On drones:
All drones would be inherently dangerous due to their nature: they're flying chunks of metal. Nowadays they're pretty big too- (when they say 'carried in a backpack' they mean 'carried on your back'). Plus they're manually-controlled- of course we would need licenses, especially if you're wanting to operate them in public areas.
Yeah, I was saying that it is a form of regulation.

We're examining the bluntness of a variable tool here. Zoning would be necessary because of their inherent danger & threats to privacy, like you mentioned. Zoning is a means to accomplish this regulation, and can be as blunt or fine as the regulators specify.

Not really- manual drones are pretty much dependent on your control. And anyway, playing keepaway can be obstruction of justice just as easily with a drone as with subpenaed corporate documents. 
Yes, Like spying on neighbors, trespassing and harassing others from range. Sure, useful if you're exploring a jungle where you want to see what's in a cave or something, but uses in urban environments? Limited, I contend.
Yep, filming & creativity would benefit.
Wouldn't one be getting a feel for your surroundings with one's own eyes though? Having a drone seems redundant.



Yeah, except we can stop it. Remember what happened with sopa/pipa? Sure, other legislation did go through...but those two bills which got the spotlight were shelved indefinitely.
Also, I doubt the police would be able to have unlicensed, inexperienced pilots fly chunks of deadly metal around the city.
'Counter-surveillance' by civilians, the dedicated watching of police using aerial drones, sounds like a very very hairy situation, filled with prejudice-inducing attitudes and rife with conflict. I am totally against this. Using hidden cameras and always-on video on one's person and those of the policemen, I can go for. Again, upload to the cloud via mobile 3g, and as someone said on this thread: a cop taking and/or smashing your camera will only accomplish giving you a video of a cop taking and/or smashing your camera.


Salmon is talking about more advanced tech and he is correct in saying government agencies and/or those with more resources will stand to benefit more from this surveillance technology, (since they'd be able to access it, and greater power to use it), but I still disagree with him on just how imminent this threat is.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 17, 2013, 03:09:27 pm
Civilian drones tend to be rather small and light, and look like this:
(http://media2.govtech.com/images/Drone_Aeryon.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/2_Parrot_AR.Drone_2.0_in_flight.jpg/800px-2_Parrot_AR.Drone_2.0_in_flight.jpg)

Definitely fitting in a backpack, and easily. And they are generally flying chunks of ultralight plastic rather than flying chunks of metal. (though there's still enough of it to cause injury if crashing into someones face, of course)

And automating this is easy and not uncommon, at least among groups who are into it and the researchers that seem to like them. Have you seen any of the swarm robotics demos, like the quadcopters playing games of catch or musical instruments? That stuff definitely isn't manual. Following around a person and avoiding obstacles is trivial stuff - I had robots a half dozen years ago that could do that just fine. this isn't futuristic space-tech - this is existing tech for which there currently isn't much of a market, beyond use in the military (which makes heavy use of autonomous drones already).

In all honesty, even hobbyist drones/aircraft are generally autonomous if they spend any time in the air (like the TAM-5), which flew across the Atlantic 10 years ago, with manual overrides.

Drones are already being used for reporting - Tim Poole used a Parrot AR.Drone to cover the occupy movement for a live feed. This is a popular drone model used today, and one that actually works fairly well autonomously (though I don't think Poole used an autonomous drone for his reporting).

This isn't science fiction. It's new, it's rare, but it is already here.

So far, the average civilian mostly seems to use them to play ARGs though, hah.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on April 17, 2013, 03:23:40 pm
Hmm, fair enough on the size bit, but it still poses a threat to traffic, and to a lesser degree the public. Also, given the tech I just looked at, it seems unfeasible to expect a personalized drone to avoid becoming confused about what it's following, and obstacle navigation would be iffy. Have any videos in particular?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 17, 2013, 03:36:04 pm
Civilian tech is generally a ways beyond military tech, since those interested tend to be mostly students, but there's a few (mostly with small quadrotors in indoor locations, admittedly) but they demonstrate it's object avoidance:

Thes are mostly a couple years old:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvRTALJp8DM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyGJBV1xnJI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmWD76jwjbQ

I think this from the last video is one of the coolest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QmWD76jwjbQ#t=84s

There's some more recent stuff around that is a bit harder to find, and the actively tracking people doesn't work ... that great, for civilian drones yet (esp. with wind thrown in the mix, or the need to navigate internal areas like hallways), but it's certainly possible to get something decent very quickly if there ends up being a demand for it at some point. The open source Parrot competitions have had some drones that can pretty effectively take off, locate their landing area, and fly through objects to to get there without impacting them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 21, 2013, 07:52:38 pm
So the trailer of this movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPwXA7bixfo) I'd never heard of before is making internet rounds now... from 1998.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 22, 2013, 01:49:12 am
A congressman from Colorado tried to add a last-minute amendment to CISPA that would ban employers from requiring employee's social media passwords as a condition of employment.  It was knocked down. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/21/cispa-amendment-facebook-passwords-blocked_n_3128507.html)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on April 22, 2013, 02:55:41 am
Wait. What. Did you write that correctly? Because. What the hell.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 22, 2013, 03:00:17 am
Oh good, I wouldn't want something smart like that tacked onto CISPA.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on April 22, 2013, 03:03:26 am
Quote from: scriver on April 22, 2013, 02:55:41 am
Wait. What. Did you write that correctly? Because. What the hell.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on April 22, 2013, 03:07:40 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 22, 2013, 01:49:12 am
A congressman from Colorado tried to add a last-minute amendment to CISPA that would ban employers from requiring employee's social media passwords as a condition of employment.  It was knocked down. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/21/cispa-amendment-facebook-passwords-blocked_n_3128507.html)

Oh my god =(
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 22, 2013, 03:45:29 am
In case you guys didn't know, employers have been doing this to people for at least 5-6 years.  It's not common, by my understanding, but it happens.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on April 22, 2013, 03:48:59 am
Can employers also demand a copy of your house keys as terms for employment?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on April 22, 2013, 03:52:57 am
No, I know.  I've heard people say it's necessary for security jobs, to which I always figured I'd say "I think that giving you my password would disqualify me for the position, personally."

But that would be too logical.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on April 22, 2013, 04:00:35 am
Ok, I was a little worried for a second. Well I still am worried, but at least employers aren't holding peoples homes hostage.
But seriously, this is bullshit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mech#4 on April 22, 2013, 04:16:22 am
When do you get to be "not at work"?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on April 22, 2013, 04:21:49 am
Quote from: Mech#4 on April 22, 2013, 04:16:22 am
When do you get to be "not at work"?
When you're on disability. :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 22, 2013, 04:33:12 am
Ask the company for the admin password to their server. Fair's fair, after all.

Quote from: alway on April 22, 2013, 04:21:49 am
Quote from: Mech#4 on April 22, 2013, 04:16:22 am
When do you get to be "not at work"?
When you're on disability. :P

Employers these days love to make you sign NDA's and agreements that on your own time you're still responsible to the company, even saying in some contracts that anything you create in your own time, is company property. But if you get injured or some other bad thing during your own time, good luck trying to get your company to help pay the medical bills.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on April 22, 2013, 04:45:30 am
Quote from: Reelya on April 22, 2013, 04:33:12 am
Quote from: alway on April 22, 2013, 04:21:49 am
Quote from: Mech#4 on April 22, 2013, 04:16:22 am
When do you get to be "not at work"?
When you're on disability. :P

Employers these days love to make you sign NDA's and agreements that on your own time you're still responsible to the company, even saying in some contracts that anything you create in your own time, is company property. But if you get injured or some other bad thing during your own time, good luck trying to get your company to help pay the medical bills.
Playing devil's advocate here, that actually makes sense for many companies given current copyright law. If a company's trade is IP, they need to make damn sure they've lawyered up, since any one of their employees could just as easily apply their IP without the development costs. Be it code, design ideas, ect.

So in that regard, it does make sense assuming you take current copyright law as being sensible. :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 22, 2013, 04:52:40 am
Not really.  It would be illegal for an employee to make personal use of a company's IP in the same way it would be for anybody else.  So they're not really covering anything there that isn't already.  All it allows them to do is prevent their employees from doing anything creative for fun or for their own personal benefit on their free time.  It can get really shitty, too.

Let's say you're an artist working for a company and you've signed one of these agreements.  You want to be independent, but you can't afford it.  So you work on your own projects in your free time while working for this company.  Eventually you finish your projects and think you can launch your independent career, so you quit your job and commercially release your own work that you made completely by yourself on your own time with resources you paid for.  If the company you worked for can provide evidence that you produced this work while you were employed with them, they can claim it as their intellectual property according to your contract.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: da_nang on April 22, 2013, 05:19:38 am
(http://i859.photobucket.com/albums/ab151/cbecker07/Facedesk.png)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on April 22, 2013, 05:25:33 am
Again, playing Devil's advocate, if someone is working in R&D for a company, what prevent them from patenting something they developed during office hours for themselves and claim the did it on their own time?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: da_nang on April 22, 2013, 05:32:42 am
The burden of proof would lie upon the company to prove that it wasn't developed during his own time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on April 22, 2013, 05:33:58 am
Most likely research logs. While I don't have any experience with of R&D's generally work, I would assume they keep those.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 22, 2013, 05:40:28 am
Yeah... the devil's advocate argument here is based on a form of punishment without proof of crime.

My friend bought a car after a visit to my house.  I should be able to take his car, because he might have stolen money from me when he visited to help him pay for that car.  No, I don't need to prove that this happened.  I just get the car.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 22, 2013, 05:43:09 am
Quote from: Sheb on April 22, 2013, 05:25:33 am
Again, playing Devil's advocate, if someone is working in R&D for a company, what prevent them from patenting something they developed during office hours for themselves and claim the did it on their own time?

That's only theft in the sense that watching cat videos during office hours is theft of company-paid time. You should just owe them the money back from the hours you were skiving off rather than doing productive work for the company, not the value of the thing you created in the wasted time.

The guy using office time to develop his own game, and an identical guy using the same time to browse cat videos on youtube, have cost the company the exact same money. The only reason you'd punish the game developer worse than the cat-video-surfer (by hitting the developer up for the additional value he created) is pure spite - the idea that nobody can get ahead on your time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on April 22, 2013, 05:54:03 am
The way game developers and similar usually deal with this is an expansive no-compete clause in the contract. Either the IP you develop in your own time is the companies property or it is a breach of your contract and you can be fired and sued. Whether such a clause would apply to non-commercial properties, or whether a property is commercial or not, is down to the lawyers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on April 22, 2013, 06:12:35 am
Reelya, I meant the case where the guy develop something for the company, say a game developer working as a developer and creating a game during office hours as he was supposed to, and then filing it as his own IP.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on April 22, 2013, 06:13:48 am
Quote from: Reelya on April 22, 2013, 05:43:09 am
Quote from: Sheb on April 22, 2013, 05:25:33 am
Again, playing Devil's advocate, if someone is working in R&D for a company, what prevent them from patenting something they developed during office hours for themselves and claim the did it on their own time?

That's only theft in the sense that watching cat videos during office hours is theft of company-paid time. You should just owe them the money back from the hours you were skiving off rather than doing productive work for the company, not the value of the thing you created in the wasted time.

The guy using office time to develop his own game, and an identical guy using the same time to browse cat videos on youtube, have cost the company the exact same money. The only reason you'd punish the game developer worse than the cat-video-surfer (by hitting the developer up for the additional value he created) is pure spite - the idea that nobody can get ahead on your time.

Not at all. The difference is that the company is paying you to use your time to create things for it to own. The video-waster is not creating anything and is as such just ineffective. The one who creates stuff during the time in which he receives pay for creating stuff for the company but claims it as his own is breaching contract. The only reason they pay you for your time is as compensation for them later owning the result. It's the same if I pay a carpenter to add a room to my house. That they built the room doesn't mean they own it, as I paid them to create it for me.

Finally, this isn't even in question. The issue we are discussing here is the company laying claim to what you created in the hours they didn't pay you to create for them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on April 22, 2013, 06:18:40 am
Well, a possible solution would be a kind of commission work. For any IP that you work on, you need to sign off on the commission for that specific project. Your boss asking you to help out on something you haven't signed off on? You don't touch it. Company wants to claim they own the rights to something you made? Where is the specific contract you signed for it?

Although this kind of accountability benefits the employee, not the employer, so nobody would go for it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 22, 2013, 06:29:30 am
Quote from: scriver on April 22, 2013, 06:13:48 am
Quote from: Reelya on April 22, 2013, 05:43:09 am
Quote from: Sheb on April 22, 2013, 05:25:33 am
Again, playing Devil's advocate, if someone is working in R&D for a company, what prevent them from patenting something they developed during office hours for themselves and claim the did it on their own time?

That's only theft in the sense that watching cat videos during office hours is theft of company-paid time. You should just owe them the money back from the hours you were skiving off rather than doing productive work for the company, not the value of the thing you created in the wasted time.

The guy using office time to develop his own game, and an identical guy using the same time to browse cat videos on youtube, have cost the company the exact same money. The only reason you'd punish the game developer worse than the cat-video-surfer (by hitting the developer up for the additional value he created) is pure spite - the idea that nobody can get ahead on your time.

Not at all. The difference is that the company is paying you to use your time to create things for it to own. The video-waster is not creating anything and is as such just ineffective. The one who creates stuff during the time in which he receives pay for creating stuff for the company but claims it as his own is breaching contract. The only reason they pay you for your time is as compensation for them later owning the result. It's the same if I pay a carpenter to add a room to my house. That they built the room doesn't mean they own it, as I paid them to create it for me.

Yeah, but if the carpenter wasn't working on your house during that time, but instead was making some knick-knack for himself, could you honestly say "hey i was paying for the time, that's my knick-knack now", or would you just ask for a refund for the time he didn't work on the thing you asked for? Both activities are "carpentry": the thing you're paying for, in the same sense that a person programming the program he's meant to make vs a person programming something in office hours the company never would have thought of in the first place.

Quote from: scriver on April 22, 2013, 06:13:48 am
Finally, this isn't even in question. The issue we are discussing here is the company laying claim to what you created in the hours they didn't pay you to create for them.

Well, i was responding specifically to the hypothetical scenario presented by Sheb of that very thing. Take that up with Sheb.

Quote from: Sheb on April 22, 2013, 06:12:35 am
Reelya, I meant the case where the guy develop something for the company, say a game developer working as a developer and creating a game during office hours as he was supposed to, and then filing it as his own IP.

Well then you've just moved the goalpost from what I was responding to, so my answer obviously can't encompass that. Anyway I hold to the fact that your own ideas are your own ideas. Most likely they're not going to be giving these low-level guys a lot of creative freedom anyway, they're going to give you very specific parameters to create the game they goddamn tell you to create ... they own the IP that you were meant to develop, and a reasonable effort on you part to follow the job instructions, not every single idea in your head. No more so than you'd own any and everything a carpenter decided to do on your time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 22, 2013, 06:36:43 am
Quote from: Max White on April 22, 2013, 06:18:40 am
Well, a possible solution would be a kind of commission work. For any IP that you work on, you need to sign off on the commission for that specific project. Your boss asking you to help out on something you haven't signed off on? You don't touch it. Company wants to claim they own the rights to something you made? Where is the specific contract you signed for it?

Although this kind of accountability benefits the employee, not the employer, so nobody would go for it.

This is actually the way things are increasingly going.  Employers prefer it, because contractors don't get benefits, overtime, or many other workers rights.  Outsourcing is a common form of this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on April 22, 2013, 06:43:37 am
Hmm, yeah. I wrote that over the twenty minutes it took for me to finish breakfast, go inside, take a dump and then finally crash into my couch. I guess I lost track of the premise over that time.

Regardless, the first and nonbolded part still applies. You need to understand that when a company pays you to do things for them, they are in fact buying the results of your time. If the results are naught, they can fire you. If you try to keep the results from them, they can sue you. Just like I own the results of the Carpenter's time when I pay him to add a room, the company own the result when they pay you to create stuff.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 22, 2013, 07:08:04 am
I guess they sortof treat it like a music contract - they're paying so that they can have exclusive access to your creative abilities.  I can see why the company would want that (if you did creative things on the side that could undermine their product) but it also blatantly stifles creativity, particularly in the music industry.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on April 22, 2013, 07:14:41 am
Well, in a lot of cases it is more like if you were in a company that made music for movies. They tell you about the movie and the tone they want, you compose the piece... Except there is also this clause in your contract that any other music you compose also belongs to the company, even if it wasn't composed with any movie in mind and was done in your own personal time using none of the company time or assets.

And that is why most music for movies is done on commission and nothing like what I described as above.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 22, 2013, 07:59:34 am
Yeah, we seem to be getting off on a tangent. The original point was that contracts say "ANYTHING YOU HAVE DONE BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1998 AND OCTOBER 2005 WE OWN"

24/7, 365 days a year.

And someone said going back to this was moving the goalposts? :I
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 22, 2013, 08:02:54 am
The original point was actually that the government thinks it's ok for employers to require employees give up their internet passwords as a condition of employment :P

It was a pretty severe tangent
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 22, 2013, 08:05:02 am
Oh damn, really?

Well...

I still say my point stands, because the "on your own time, WE OWN YOUR BRAIN" was apparently being done and talked about, while "On OUR time, we own your brain!" makes sense so I don't see why it needs to be discussed like a "OH NOES" style thingy doodad whatsit hoo-hah.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on April 22, 2013, 08:12:52 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 22, 2013, 08:02:54 am
The original point was actually that the government thinks it's ok for employers to require employees give up their internet passwords as a condition of employment :P
And yeah, to come back to this, I don't have much of a problem with them passing on that particular amendment for three reasons;

1) It was attaching something to an unrelated (or marginally related I guess) bill which is rarely good government.

2) It's not like US law authorises such practices. I'm pretty sure you can make a legal case against it although I'm not aware of any cases going through the courts yet. It would be nice to see Congress making a stand for employee privacy, but in some senses thinking that such obvious privacy violations are protected by default would be better.

3) The bill in question isn't going to be law anyway. It may have passed the House but Senate cybersecurity debates are going to be where the actual content is decided. Odds are without a drastic change in the Senate Obama would veto the House's version of CISPA, so what was passed last week is extremely unlikely to become law.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 22, 2013, 10:14:53 am
Note that Facebook has been throwing their extensive legal team around to..."inform" employers that asking for Facebook passwords is a violation of Facebook's TOS and a legal offense. Ironically, CISPA as it stands would give Facebook even more standing to sue people asking for passwords.

Don't worry too much. This password thing is not at all going to go anywhere, and if an employer asks you for your password you can freely inform them that they are asking you to help them break the law and your contract with the site in question. Whomever handles the litigation of the people who try to get employee's passwords would be throttling them if they knew.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on April 22, 2013, 12:11:34 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 22, 2013, 10:14:53 am
Ironically, CISPA as it stands would give Facebook even more standing to sue people asking for passwords.

I may not have read the entire bill as passed, but I don't quite get where this is coming from?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 22, 2013, 12:42:27 pm
Quote from: scriver on April 22, 2013, 06:43:37 am
Hmm, yeah. I wrote that over the twenty minutes it took for me to finish breakfast, go inside, take a dump and then finally crash into my couch. I guess I lost track of the premise over that time.

Regardless, the first and nonbolded part still applies. You need to understand that when a company pays you to do things for them, they are in fact buying the results of your time. If the results are naught, they can fire you. If you try to keep the results from them, they can sue you. Just like I own the results of the Carpenter's time when I pay him to add a room, the company own the result when they pay you to create stuff.

If the carpenter makes a cabinet during time he's meant to be working for you, that's not your cabinet. It's not what you ordered in the contract, so it's not yours. He owes you a refund, not the cabinet.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 22, 2013, 12:46:07 pm
Quote from: Descan on April 22, 2013, 07:59:34 am
Yeah, we seem to be getting off on a tangent. The original point was that contracts say "ANYTHING YOU HAVE DONE BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1998 AND OCTOBER 2005 WE OWN"

24/7, 365 days a year.

And someone said going back to this was moving the goalposts? :I

That's not what i was replying to, read my post and the posts i was replying to. The "moving the goalposts" comment was in response to Sheb. Scriver was the guy who had the "back on topic" comment. Both names begin with an "S" (like all philosophers) other than that, there's no connection. My comment to Scriver was to point out that he really shouldn't be criticizing me personally for diverting the conversation, when i was only replying to the diversion, myself.

What I referred to as "moving the goalposts" was that Sheb first brought up the hypothetical idea of someone doing their own work during the job (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg4195052#msg4195052), which is one thing, and then seemed to say "what i really meant was the worker was working on a company project then ran off and claimed it as their own IP" (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg4195094#msg4195094), which is something else entirely. Maybe he didn't intend it that way, but he seemed to be shifting from "doing your own work during work hours" to "stealing IP" as I presented counter-arguments to the first scenario, without actually addressing any of the points I rose. Which seemed awfully like moving goalposts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 22, 2013, 01:02:21 pm
Quote from: palsch on April 22, 2013, 12:11:34 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 22, 2013, 10:14:53 am
Ironically, CISPA as it stands would give Facebook even more standing to sue people asking for passwords.

I may not have read the entire bill as passed, but I don't quite get where this is coming from?
CISPA gives ToS agreements increased legal standing. Giving out your password to anybody violates most ToS agreements, and it definitely violates Facebook's.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on April 22, 2013, 01:25:35 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 22, 2013, 01:02:21 pm
CISPA gives ToS agreements increased legal standing.

No it doesn't. The only way it in any way effects ToS agreements is an exemption to privacy agreements, allowing companies to share your private information in certain situations (specifically to pursue cyber or national security threats or child porn).

I think you are confusing the overly broad reading of the CFAA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act), which is an existing law. In the Aaron Swartz case the prosecution was accused of basing their case on his breaking a ToS agreement rather than any actual fraud or theft. Note that this wasn't actually part of the charges (http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/18/no-aaron-swartz-was-not-charged-with-violating-jstors-terms-of-service/), just one of the popular memes surrounding the case. That said, the DoJ has pushed that angle in the past, so it's not a totally unreasonable fear. Congress, in proposing a revised CFAA, did put forwards explicit exemptions for breaking ToS agreements, but in doing so paradoxically made more ToS violations into crimes (http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/25/house-judiciary-committee-new-draft-bill-on-cybersecurity-is-mostly-dojs-proposed-language-from-2011/).

I'd recommend skimming this post. (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/01/cybersecurity-legislation-big-issues-at-the-10000-foot-level/) It outlines the three main prongs of cybersecurity legislation. The first - information sharing - is what CISPA is about. The second - infrastructure regulation - is mostly the concern of the Senate bill CISPA will be effectively replaced with, or at least merged with somehow. The third - criminality - is the domain of the CFAA and dealt with entirely independently of the actual CISPA/cybersecurity debate.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on April 23, 2013, 05:08:40 am
Sorry Reelya, I always meant the second one, and wasn't clear enough at first, so it does indeed looked like I was moving the goalposts. There is of course no reason for a company to own some IP made by an employee if said employee wasn't developing it for the company.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on April 23, 2013, 03:37:25 pm
Quote from: Sheb on April 23, 2013, 05:08:40 am
Sorry Reelya, I always meant the second one, and wasn't clear enough at first, so it does indeed looked like I was moving the goalposts. There is of course no reason for a company to own some IP made by an employee if said employee wasn't developing it for the company.
If, however, the IP made by the employee utilizes or is based on information or processes that the company owns/created (say you worked for a company making jets and you created a rocket car based on the engine designs for the jets) then the company could probably make a claim that your rocket car stole from them. It's the same reason why people who work in R&D aren't usually allowed to publish IP in the same field they work in for the company while they work for them and a certain amount of time afterwards, nor are R&D people allowed to work in a similar field for X many years after they leave the company (these are usually placed in the contracts for R&D people).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 23, 2013, 03:56:32 pm
...this came up during a chat concerning a goverment-sponsored biotech foundation in here. The workers at the institution retain IP rights, but the institution has the explotation rights. At least that was the short version. I expect there's a long legalese text somewhere specifying the details of every relationship of that sort.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: freeformschooler on April 23, 2013, 04:09:06 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It all makes sense now. Thanks Twitter.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 23, 2013, 04:15:33 pm
"Who needs oil, I'll ride the bus"?

Oh for fuck's sake. Last time I checked most buses need oil-derivatives to work.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: freeformschooler on April 23, 2013, 04:16:52 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 23, 2013, 04:15:33 pm
Oh for fuck's sake. Last time I checked most buses need oil-derivatives to work.

Whoosh.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 23, 2013, 04:18:27 pm
Quote from: freeformschooler on April 23, 2013, 04:16:52 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 23, 2013, 04:15:33 pm
Oh for fuck's sake. Last time I checked most buses need oil-derivatives to work.

Whoosh.
Not-woosh. I really doubt this thing is parody, I've seen people seriously advocate this sort of thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: freeformschooler on April 23, 2013, 04:23:00 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 23, 2013, 04:18:27 pm
Not-woosh. I really doubt this thing is parody, I've seen people seriously advocate this sort of thing.

No, it's not a parody. I said "Whoosh" because that was the point they were making, that the Strawman Liberal Teacher was dumb/a hypocrite for thinking things like buses don't use oil. Of course, I haven't met anyone who actually thinks that.

That said, railing on the idiocy of a characterization designed to be idiotic and blown out of proportion is kind of silly.

I like how the image is almost SBAHJ-esque in its level of jpeg artifacts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 23, 2013, 04:24:48 pm
Quote from: freeformschooler on April 23, 2013, 04:23:00 pm
No, it's not a parody. I said "Whoosh" because that was the point they were making, that the Strawman Liberal Teacher was dumb/a hypocrite for thinking things like buses don't use oil. Of course, I haven't met anyone who actually thinks that.
The point they're making is an opposition to the growth of public transportation. Your interpretation doesn't really fit with the rest of the joke, which is just "Look at all the things Liberals teach YOUR CHILDREN!"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: freeformschooler on April 23, 2013, 04:26:58 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 23, 2013, 04:24:48 pm
Quote from: freeformschooler on April 23, 2013, 04:23:00 pm
No, it's not a parody. I said "Whoosh" because that was the point they were making, that the Strawman Liberal Teacher was dumb/a hypocrite for thinking things like buses don't use oil. Of course, I haven't met anyone who actually thinks that.
The point they're making is an opposition to the growth of public transportation. Your interpretation doesn't really fit with the rest of the joke, which is just "Look at all the things Liberals teach YOUR CHILDREN!"

I don't see how it doesn't fit at all. I realize it's put there to make the guy seem like a liberal in opposition to public transportation, but they do it in a way that makes him look dumb. Which seems to be the point, just like Obama = Communism = Cool.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on April 23, 2013, 04:31:00 pm
Freeformschooler is right.

Also the public transport system is basically the leader of non-oil-driven vehicles getting over here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on April 23, 2013, 09:27:48 pm
Unless natural gas counts as oil-derivatives, all buses that are colored in solid blocks of color (which means highway buses an private buses are excluded: the buses are red, blue, green, or yellow) use natural gas o'er here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 23, 2013, 09:31:20 pm
Technically that's not an oil-derivative, but since the idea is fossil fuels in general, I'd say that counts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on April 23, 2013, 09:34:52 pm
Sadly you can't escape from fossil fuels. Ever. D:<

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 23, 2013, 09:36:02 pm
Sure you can. Hydrogen, biogas, battery motor...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 23, 2013, 09:36:30 pm
Yes you can.

Carbon-capture from the air, E. Coli derived bio-diesels. That's not even counting the traditional renewables.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on April 23, 2013, 09:41:12 pm
Same sex marriage update in the United States:
Civil Unions will become legal in Colorado starting May 1st (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/civil-unions-be-signed-law-colorado) if anyone missed it.

Same sex marriage is also a step closer (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/04/23/politics/swing-vote-senator-to-back-same-sex-marriage?refid=0&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MPR_Politics+%28Politics+from+Minnesota+Public+Radio%29) in Minnesota where one more rural Democratic state Senator has decided to support legalization.  Of course, the State House will be harder to get the bill passed but they may have the votes; although Democrats are notoriously spineless so I'm not certain.

Still waiting on the Illinois house to pass its same sex marriage bill; once that's done the Governor will sign it and it would be legal there (the bill passed the state senate in February.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on April 23, 2013, 11:08:50 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 23, 2013, 09:36:02 pm
Sure you can. Hydrogen, biogas, battery motor...

Well, the problem is you need to get that energy from somewhere. I don't know about the future, but at least half of our power comes from fossil fuels. Electric cars run on coal-produced electricity, and hydrogen has a 50% or lower efficiency: more energy lost.
If you mean the fuel produced from plants by biogas, that's even worse. You probably won't be getting reasonable output without using oil-derived products like pesticides. O.o

... hmm, I think it could be possible to get away from oil products in vehicles, but ironically at the cost of the environment.

Incidentally, I think nuclear power being attacked more viciously than fossil fuel plants is simply stupid.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 23, 2013, 11:21:21 pm
That somewhere is the sun, actually.

Either directly by solar power, or indirectly by wind, or tidal.

Then convert that energy into vehicle-usable gas VIA that british process or through that E. Coli that can create drop-in bio-diesel (as in, can be used as-is, without modifying gas tanks and engines), taking carbon out of the air, and bam. Renewable, carbon-neutral-or-negative fuel, air-friendly since it doesn't need to have additives, and compatible with the current infrastructure.

Then there's the earth-derived power, where the ultimate source is inside the earth and not from the sun. Nuclear and geo-thermal are those.

And if we get fusion, well... Well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 23, 2013, 11:31:48 pm
Quote from: Skyrunner on April 23, 2013, 11:08:50 pm
Well, the problem is you need to get that energy from somewhere. I don't know about the future, but at least half of our power comes from fossil fuels. Electric cars run on coal-produced electricity, and hydrogen has a 50% or lower efficiency: more energy lost.
My brain is stalling on the name of the concept that using electric cars just shifts the carbon burden, so I can't find the articles I remember debunking it. That said, it's false. Refining and moving all that fuel around for consumption produces emissions as well, but with electric vehicles you cut all that out. Thus, net reduction.

While our electric system does indeed produce a lot of carbon, it is rapidly improving. Coal is collapsing in favor of the much cleaner natural gas, and at least in the US non-hydro renewables doubled in the last four years and have not slowed. All and all, the global energy mix is abandoning both coal and oil at the moment. NG is the only growing fossil fuel, but a lot of the space that it would be filling is instead being occupied by renewables.


As for hydrogen, you're mostly right, but Virginia Tech may have solved that problem. (http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2013/04/040413-cals-hydrogen.html?utm_campaign=Argyle%2BSocial-2013-04&utm_content=shaybar&utm_medium=Argyle%2BSocial&utm_source=twitter&utm_term=2013-04-04-08-30-00) Also, hydrogen buses have been very successful in Iceland, which is presently serving as a "test site" for developing hydrogen economy.

Quote
If you mean the fuel produced from plants by biogas, that's even worse. You probably won't be getting reasonable output without using oil-derived products like pesticides. O.o
Pesticides do a lot less than you might imagine, especially for crops that you don't eat. Major yield increases are attributed to nitrogen enhancement and genetic modification.
Quote from: Descan on April 23, 2013, 11:21:21 pm
And if we get fusion, well... Well.
Good fucking luck. Fusion is the holy grail of energy production that is even remotely within our capabilities.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on April 24, 2013, 01:08:01 am
I hope we get something decent working soon. :c
Most renewable energy wrecks the environment (hydro, tidal, wave, biofuel) or has too low energy density (solar) or is way too expensive (geothemal).

I also hope more nuclear plants and depleted fuel storage sites are created despite environmental peoples' protesting and NIMBY effect. The short-term 'gain' from not building more nuclear fission plants without having acceptable alternatives is going to make us sorry when something happens. Modern nuclear power plants are extremely safe, but few are being built. :<
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on April 24, 2013, 01:22:33 am
That link you provided didn't give any concrete numbers. They said it gives a net energy gain 10 different ways, but didn't explain exactly how much, and also used a questionable definition of net energy- (compared to energy in xylose and H-splitting enzymes, not the energy that goes into creating those components as well).

Natural gas is yet another dead-end fossil fuel that wrecks the environment. It's nice that they aren't straight-up burning the stuff off when they tap wells, but we all know what fracking is.

Nuclear is good, (but here's something that blew my mind: peak oil? peak uranium. (peak everything)).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 24, 2013, 07:28:40 am
We aren't going to completely run out of uranium in any reasonable timeframe, but it will become harder and harder to extract so a "peak" situation is possible.  It's already effectively happened in some countries.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: AlmightyOne on April 24, 2013, 07:44:31 am
From wiki
Quote
Another alternative to fast breeders is thermal breeder reactors that use uranium-233 bred from thorium as fission fuel in the thorium fuel cycle. Thorium is about 3.5 times more common than uranium in the Earth's crust, and has different geographic characteristics. This would extend the total practical fissionable resource base by 450%.[96] Unlike the breeding of U-238 into plutonium, fast breeder reactors are not necessary — it can be performed satisfactorily in more conventional plants.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 24, 2013, 07:50:25 am
Thorium does have a lot of potential, my understanding was that it's less popular due to the fact you can't use it to make weapons.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 24, 2013, 08:03:00 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 24, 2013, 07:50:25 am
Thorium does have a lot of potential, my understanding was that it's less popular due to the fact you can't use it to make weapons.
It's also slightly corrosive and more expensive.

But yeah, Thorium is cool. Less radioactive*, zero meltdown chance**,  and less proliferation.

*Only 50-100 years
**Thorium has a higher melting point, which the reaction shouldn't be able to reach.

Quote from: Leafsnail on April 24, 2013, 07:28:40 am
We aren't going to completely run out of uranium in any reasonable timeframe, but it will become harder and harder to extract so a "peak" situation is possible.  It's already effectively happened in some countries.
Well, uranium production is rising at the moment, and I believe that by 2020 supply should meet demand*. (Information of the World Nuclear thingy.) However, the uranium price is only 10-20% of the maintenance cost of a reactor, so it doesn't matter much.

* There are shortages at the moment.

Quote from: Skyrunner on April 24, 2013, 01:08:01 am
I also hope more nuclear plants and depleted fuel storage sites are created despite environmental peoples' protesting and NIMBY effect. The short-term 'gain' from not building more nuclear fission plants without having acceptable alternatives is going to make us sorry when something happens. Modern nuclear power plants are extremely safe, but few are being built. :<

Problem in many countries is that either you see replacement of Nuclear by fossil fuels (Ie, coal)* or worse, they don't get replaced. So what you get is that the governements says they'll close the nuclear plants by 20XX (cancelling any serious maintenance of modernisation investements), then when the date comes around, notice that they still need the energy. So they postpone the dates, yet keep doing nothing. In the end you get an overrelience on an network of outdated and undermaintained reactors; all operating beyond their intended lifetime.

*Price for production coal is the only tech that even approaches nuclear.
As for that Virginia link. Nice. Combine it with Gmo algae fields and you get compact carbon to hydrogen systems.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: AlmightyOne on April 24, 2013, 08:08:16 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 24, 2013, 07:50:25 am
Thorium does have a lot of potential, my understanding was that it's less popular due to the fact you can't use it to make weapons.
Your evil :P
It's less popular because they haven't made many thorium only reactors so far, And from where I come from, we have abundant Th but less U.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on April 24, 2013, 08:51:18 am
The nuclear industry was kick-started by the US Navy that wanted nuclear reactors for their submarines. So we ended up with uranium reactors that are very good at running a submarine, but not the optimal choice for civilian power, and we kinda got stuck in that tech line.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 24, 2013, 10:29:22 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on April 24, 2013, 08:03:00 am
It's also slightly corrosive and more expensive.
Very corrosive, as far as it's usefulness goes. The corrosive properties of Thorium are the main obstacle in getting the fabled small-scale thorium reactor.
Quote
Problem in many countries is that either you see replacement of Nuclear by fossil fuels (Ie, coal)* or worse, they don't get replaced. So what you get is that the governements says they'll close the nuclear plants by 20XX (cancelling any serious maintenance of modernisation investements), then when the date comes around, notice that they still need the energy. So they postpone the dates, yet keep doing nothing. In the end you get an overrelience on an network of outdated and undermaintained reactors; all operating beyond their intended lifetime.
If by "many countries", you mean, "Germany". I know it pisses you off but that's pretty much the only place where that has happened. Won't last either, as the coal market is deeply in the red. Once China starts shunning it in favor of natural gas, that'll be the end of coal.

In any case, closing some of the plants isn't that big of a deal because the plants are mostly very old and beyond retrofitting. The "lifetime gap" caused by the crash in nuclear plant production in the 70's is responsible for this. As such, we're probably better off building fast breeder and thorium reactors anew and closing the old ones down.

Fortunately this is due to happen. Two new plants were chartered in the US just last year.

That said, nuclear does eventually need to be eliminated. With the coming energy crisis that's not an option in the immediate sense, but once the fossil fuels are gone nuclear reduction should be the next goal. While they are objectively very safe, the consequences of the failures that do happen can be extreme.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on April 24, 2013, 10:46:52 am
Germany is also the only country that gave up on a substantial nuclear capacity. Japan is also starting to import more coal, although it's mostly making its loss of power capacity up with natural gas. And coal is on the rise in Europe, I suggest reading this piece (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569039-europes-energy-policy-delivers-worst-all-possible-worlds-unwelcome-renaissance) about it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 24, 2013, 10:50:50 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 24, 2013, 10:29:22 am
Quote
Problem in many countries is that either you see replacement of Nuclear by fossil fuels (Ie, coal)* or worse, they don't get replaced. So what you get is that the governements says they'll close the nuclear plants by 20XX (cancelling any serious maintenance of modernisation investements), then when the date comes around, notice that they still need the energy. So they postpone the dates, yet keep doing nothing. In the end you get an overrelience on an network of outdated and undermaintained reactors; all operating beyond their intended lifetime.
If by "many countries", you mean, "Germany". I know it pisses you off but that's pretty much the only place where that has happened. Won't last either, as the coal market is deeply in the red. Once China starts shunning it in favor of natural gas, that'll be the end of coal.
Notice the "or". Besides, Germany's not the only country replacing Nuclear by fossil fuel.

Oh, and coal's doing great for the moment actually. Besides, China can't afford to replace such a large part of their energy infrastructure. I don't expect a decrease in coal usage in China for the next 10 years, barring a collapse/decrease in growth of their economy or a massive switch to nuclear.

Quote from: Sheb on April 24, 2013, 10:46:52 am
Germany is also the only country that gave up on a substantial nuclear capacity. Japan is also starting to import more coal, although it's mostly making its loss of power capacity up with natural gas. And coal is on the rise in Europe, I suggest reading this piece (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569039-europes-energy-policy-delivers-worst-all-possible-worlds-unwelcome-renaissance) about it.
Swiss banned nuclear to, but did the more sensible thing of closing the plants when their lifecycle runs out.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 24, 2013, 10:55:52 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on April 24, 2013, 10:50:50 am
Oh, and coal's doing great for the moment actually. Besides, China can't afford to replace such a large part of their energy infrastructure. I don't expect a decrease in coal usage in China for the next 10 years, barring a collapse/decrease in growth of their economy or a massive switch to nuclear.
It's not about replacement. China is growing by about one power plant a week right now. I don't think you quite get how majorly the natural gas market is taking over. Whether coal is doing great or not is a matter of perspective. Even if they are making money and growing plants, if they are losing market share and not getting renewed business because of natural gas, which is what is happening now, coal is doomed.

The US has lost almost 10% of it's coal usage in the last ten years and the drop is not stopping. It'll hit China, and soon. When it does, there will be no global viability for coal growth or even coal maintenance, ridiculous policies in Europe or no.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 24, 2013, 11:01:38 am
Quote from: Skyrunner on April 24, 2013, 01:08:01 am
I hope we get something decent working soon. :c
Most renewable energy wrecks the environment (hydro, tidal, wave, biofuel) or has too low energy density (solar) or is way too expensive (geothemal).
Direct solar energy, the traditional solar panels, kind of suck. And for the foreseeable future, will continue to suck.

What I like are the towers in deserts and other lots-of-sun areas, with mirrors point directly at a tower and that heating the steam that drives turbines. Only problem with it is transporting the energy, which if we convert the energy to fuel or some kind of really good battery, should be fixable. :3
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 24, 2013, 11:07:39 am
Quote from: World Coal association*
Earlier this year the Chinese government released its next five-year plan. Issued before the Japanese nuclear crisis, the plan projected a four-fold growth in nuclear power to 40GW along with 63GW of new hydroelectric capacity, a growth of 22GW in gas-fired generation and 48GW of new wind power to more than double current capacity. Solar capacity is expected to reach 5GW of electricity by 2015. However, in an economy expanding at a rate of at least 8% a year this increased capacity is expected to be dwarfed by an estimated additional 260GW of coal-fired power generation needed to fuel economic growth.
*Text might not be neutral

Forgive me, but I don't see this natural gas overtaking coal anywhere. Primary reason that gas overtakes coal in the US is fracking bringing down costs to historical lows. China is already exploiting shale and the like (largest producer in the world), but it appears to have no real effect on coal growth.

Quote from: Descan on April 24, 2013, 11:01:38 am
Quote from: Skyrunner on April 24, 2013, 01:08:01 am
I hope we get something decent working soon. :c
Most renewable energy wrecks the environment (hydro, tidal, wave, biofuel) or has too low energy density (solar) or is way too expensive (geothemal).
Direct solar energy, the traditional solar panels, kind of suck. And for the foreseeable future, will continue to suck.

What I like are the towers in deserts and other lots-of-sun areas, with mirrors point directly at a tower and that heating the steam that drives turbines. Only problem with it is transporting the energy, which if we convert the energy to fuel or some kind of really good battery, should be fixable. :3
Solar thermal has half the Co2 output of Solar PV, and 125% the carbon emmision of Nuclear (Second generation).

These ciphers vary wildly from source to source, but these are the most reliable ones.

Oh, and when converting you're looking at least 10% energy loss, up to 50% if you're going for hydrogen production.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 24, 2013, 11:14:04 am
Are the carbon emissions from construction or from use?

I'm not sure how carbon could be emitted from use but I'm open to the idea.

I wonder if that carbon could be captured and converted into hydrocarbons instead of being released.

And the efficiency... Does it really matter if there's a loss of energy from gathering to converting to fuel? As long as you don't use more fuel than you create, you should be fine. And since there isn't really any fuel used, just renewable energy from the sun...

Converting it to fuel is not about energy -production-, that's what the thermal tower is for. Conversion is for transportation and ease-of-use considering our current infrastructure.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on April 24, 2013, 11:17:47 am
Electricity isn't for everything, mostly because electricty has a terrible enegy density. You nee to convert it to, say, hydrogen fuel cells to use it in cars.
Efficiency is important because renewable energy isn't free—it costs the environment almost always. Better efficiency also means lower costs and thus more affordable plants.

Also,capturing carbons to convert to hydrocarbon isn't useful at all. If you're going to burn it anyways, why bother using expensive (energy-wise) processes for nothing, compared to getting your daily requirement of hydrocarbons from easier sources? O.o
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 24, 2013, 11:19:51 am
Lifetime carbon emissions cycle: Ie construction, use , fuel refinement, waste processing, all the stuff.

Capturing carbon emmissions only works with heavy polluters. Otherwise you're wasting more energy than doing good. Oh, and converting that back to hydrocarbons has been tested and works, but it's rather energy efficient.

The reason that conversion inefficiencies matter is that no energy source is carbon free. If you loose 50% of the energy, then you need to double production capacity, and as such also double emissions. At that point, Solar PV becomes a better alternative than Thermal solar.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 24, 2013, 11:28:07 am
Quote from: Skyrunner on April 24, 2013, 11:17:47 am
Electricity isn't for everything, mostly because electricty has a terrible enegy density. You nee to convert it to, say, hydrogen fuel cells to use it in cars.
Efficiency is important because renewable energy isn't free—it costs the environment almost always. Better efficiency also means lower costs and thus more affordable plants.

Also,capturing carbons to convert to hydrocarbon isn't useful at all. If you're going to burn it anyways, why bother using expensive (energy-wise) processes for nothing, compared to getting your daily requirement of hydrocarbons from easier sources? O.o
Because those easier sources are becoming less easy as they run out while the hydrocarbon creation is becoming easier every year. Because hydrocarbon creation from the air or from (hopefully scrap) biomass is carbon-neutral or negative, either not adding carbon to the atmosphere when burned, or by taking carbon -out- of the atmosphere.

@Ebbor: I can sort of see the fuel refinement being carbon-positive, depending on where we get the carbon FROM (if we get it from, say, Limestone, carbon that's been locked away from the carbon cycle for eons, then that would add to the carbon-count of the atmosphere), but I'm not sure how use adds atmospheric carbon if you're just shining mirrors on a pipe to heat water that drives a turbine. Or what waste management would need to be done. Construction, at least for the first few, would definitely add carbon, but it's a one-time cost and in the future we would probably get the energy required for construction from OTHER solar towers and their fuel creation. I.E. no carbon added to the atmosphere that wasn't already in the cycle.

And I might be wrong, but wouldn't getting the energy from towers in unpopulated areas -to- populated areas VIA power lines cause an energy loss? I mean getting power from, say, Nevada to New York, or from the deep sahara to Cairo or London, that sounds like it would lead to a lot of inefficiency. Even a 50% loss to convert it to easily-transportable fuel would probably save, not to mention the construction or maintenance of power lines.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 24, 2013, 11:36:34 am
Sorry for the double-post, I just wanted to make sure this was seen:

Just to be clear, here's how I picture it. Energy production from entirely renewables. Hydro, geothermal, solar, etc. That energy is usable, but we don't currently have the infrastructure for it. We'd need battery powered cars, and not everyone can afford to switch to them. That's where hydro-carbon creation comes in. We use the renewable-sourced electricity to create fuels we CAN use in our current cars and trucks and buses and industries. That fuel is created from carbon and water, preferably carbon sources that were in the carbon cycle recently, such as actual atmospheric carbon or lawn-cuttings, agricultural chaff, etc.

When burned, you're not -adding- to the carbon cycle. You're only putting carbon back that's been there recently. The carbon count stays level for the next hundred years, or thousand, or however long. We have a renewable source of energy, the Sun, however we extract the energy from the Sun, or from nuclear/geothermal, so it's not a closed system. There's no "infinite energy!" going on here. And we have usable, and more importantly renewable, carbon-neutral fuel source, that we can just drop into cars as-is.

And since it's cleaner than fossil fuels, as it's ONLY the artificial hydrocarbon, not any sulfur or other pollutants, the only products are carbon dioxide and water.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 24, 2013, 11:43:06 am
Quote from: Descan on April 24, 2013, 11:28:07 am
@Ebbor: I can sort of see the fuel refinement being carbon-positive, depending on where we get the carbon FROM (if we get it from, say, Limestone, carbon that's been locked away from the carbon cycle for eons, then that would add to the carbon-count of the atmosphere), but I'm not sure how use adds atmospheric carbon if you're just shining mirrors on a pipe to heat water that drives a turbine. Or what waste management would need to be done. Construction, at least for the first few, would definitely add carbon, but it's a one-time cost and in the future we would probably get the energy required for construction from OTHER solar towers and their fuel creation. I.E. no carbon added to the atmosphere that wasn't already in the cycle.
The cost is determined for today's situations. Ie construction costs and maintenance cost form the bulk of carbon emission for solar.  Still, you might go as energy green as you want, there's still a minimal carbon emmission due to the refining of the materials required to build the tower. Concrete is a big example of this.


Quote
And I might be wrong, but wouldn't getting the energy from towers in unpopulated areas -to- populated areas VIA power lines cause an energy loss? I mean getting power from, say, Nevada to New York, or from the deep sahara to Cairo or London, that sounds like it would lead to a lot of inefficiency. Even a 50% loss to convert it to easily-transportable fuel would probably save, not to mention the construction or maintenance of power lines.
Both would. However, it lowers the useability of the technology in favour of local power sources,.

Beside, if you transport it you need to maintain a fleet of ship's, or build pipelines. This also incurs energy losses, and in case of hydrogen, is quite dangerous. Meanwhile, progress is made on hyperconductive cabling.


Quote from: Descan on April 24, 2013, 11:36:34 am
Sorry for the double-post, I just wanted to make sure this was seen:

Just to be clear, here's how I picture it. Energy production from entirely renewables. Hydro, geothermal, solar, etc. That energy is usable, but we don't currently have the infrastructure for it. We'd need battery powered cars, and not everyone can afford to switch to them. That's where hydro-carbon creation comes in. We use the renewable-sourced electricity to create fuels we CAN use in our current cars and trucks and buses and industries. That fuel is created from carbon and water, preferably carbon sources that were in the carbon cycle recently, such as actual atmospheric carbon or lawn-cuttings, agricultural chaff, etc.

When burned, you're not -adding- to the carbon cycle. You're only putting carbon back that's been there recently. The carbon count stays level for the next hundred years, or thousand, or however long. We have a renewable source of energy, the Sun, however we extract the energy from the Sun, or from nuclear/geothermal, so it's not a closed system. There's no "infinite energy!" going on here. And we have usable, and more importantly renewable, carbon-neutral fuel source, that we can just drop into cars as-is.

And since it's cleaner than fossil fuels, as it's ONLY the artificial hydrocarbon, not any sulfur or other pollutants, the only products are carbon dioxide and water.
Sadly, we have neither the money, nor the resources, nor the political will to get both money and resources. We're quite some distance away from fully renewable energy, and actually, getting everyone to switch to electrical** is easier than replacing the production capacity of the whole world with renewable. ()

Also, rather than making hydrocarbons*, we can just use the hydrocarbons we have now, and capture some from the atmosphere. After all, stuffing things in the ground doesn't require 100% pure carbon dioxide.

*Which only works with a pure enough source of Co2 (Ie, fossil fuel or chemical plant)
**Not that it'd do us any good till we go full carbon neutral power, but anyway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 25, 2013, 01:04:39 am
I like Iceland more all the time. (http://rt.com/news/wikileaks-visa-iceland-valitor-346/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on April 25, 2013, 01:06:01 am
I am super sceptical about wikileaks in general.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: da_nang on April 25, 2013, 01:18:16 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 25, 2013, 01:04:39 am
I like Iceland more all the time. (http://rt.com/news/wikileaks-visa-iceland-valitor-346/)
Took them long enough.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 25, 2013, 01:21:28 am
Quote from: da_nang on April 25, 2013, 01:18:16 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 25, 2013, 01:04:39 am
I like Iceland more all the time. (http://rt.com/news/wikileaks-visa-iceland-valitor-346/)
Took them long enough.

Yet they're still miles ahead of the pack.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on April 25, 2013, 08:02:50 am
If you could wax eloquent SalmonGod?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on April 25, 2013, 08:08:14 am
Quote from: Novel on April 25, 2013, 08:02:50 am
If you could wax eloquent SalmonGod?
We're gonna wax SG? I'm in :D
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 26, 2013, 11:19:27 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on April 24, 2013, 11:43:06 am
**Not that it'd do us any good till we go full carbon neutral power, but anyway.

It would do us some good to switch away from gasoline-powered cars: A centralized coal plant is more efficient than many small gas engines (and not all electricity is generated by coal, so the average CO2 per KWh is a bit lower), and is much easier to regulate and filter, and there's also the fact that you won't be pumping toxic emissions including carcinogenic compounds out the back of every vehicle in a residential area.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on April 26, 2013, 11:41:37 pm
Quote from: Reelya on April 26, 2013, 11:19:27 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on April 24, 2013, 11:43:06 am
**Not that it'd do us any good till we go full carbon neutral power, but anyway.

It would do us some good to switch away from gasoline-powered cars: A centralized coal plant is more efficient than many small gas engines (and not all electricity is generated by coal, so the average CO2 per KWh is a bit lower), and is much easier to regulate and filter, and there's also the fact that you won't be pumping toxic emissions including carcinogenic compounds out the back of every vehicle in a residential area.
That's probably a very good point. :D

Also, centralized power means you can take advantage of things like nuclear energy, which are much less polluting in terms of carbon, and take up quite a fraction of energy supply. Though you get radioactive waste...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 26, 2013, 11:43:39 pm
Student wrongly tied to Boston bombings found dead (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/04/25/boston-bombing-social-media-student-brown-university-reddit/2112309/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 27, 2013, 12:22:14 am
Quote from: Reelya on April 26, 2013, 11:19:27 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on April 24, 2013, 11:43:06 am
**Not that it'd do us any good till we go full carbon neutral power, but anyway.

It would do us some good to switch away from gasoline-powered cars: A centralized coal plant is more efficient than many small gas engines (and not all electricity is generated by coal, so the average CO2 per KWh is a bit lower), and is much easier to regulate and filter, and there's also the fact that you won't be pumping toxic emissions including carcinogenic compounds out the back of every vehicle in a residential area.
Electric cars are however twice as polluting to produce. 40% of that is the battery but still. And depending on powerplant and engine design, gasoline might be better. No sense in switching to electric so you can keep 40 year old coal plants in operation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on April 27, 2013, 12:24:46 am
The pollution over a lifetime of a gasoline-run car would be much more than the production of an electric one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 27, 2013, 12:27:46 am
Quote from: Putnam on April 27, 2013, 12:24:46 am
The pollution over a lifetime of a gasoline-run car would be much more than the production of an electric one.
Maybe... (rare earths really are quite polluting).

However, would the pollution over a lifetime* of a gasoline-run car be lower than the pollution over the lifetime* of an electric car if it's energy is generated by fossil fuels. (In this example, coal)

*Including production
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on April 27, 2013, 02:24:59 am
Yes, since the fossil fuels will have been used and will pollute regardless of the cars that run on them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 27, 2013, 02:45:54 am
Domestic abuse victims face retaliation from police for seeking help. (http://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights-lgbt-rights-racial-justice-criminal-law-reform/shut-or-get-out-pa-city-punishes)

TLDR;  Police fine landlords or make them evict victims who call the police under public nuisance ordinances, so victims gets to choose between homelessness or abuse.

Quote
Norristown reports that domestic violence victims make up 20 percent of its homeless population.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on April 27, 2013, 03:04:33 am
Horrible. The whole system is just wrong, but to include domestic violence on such a list... I can't even begin to fathom what they were thinking.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 27, 2013, 03:47:00 am
Who would vote for an ordinance that penalizes you for getting the police to do their jobs? Jegus.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: sackhead on April 27, 2013, 06:47:44 am
their is probably a decent reason for this law, Say their is a house where the tenants regularly hassle the neighbors this gives the police the ability to remove them. However in this case it is abysmal how its been handled
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 27, 2013, 07:22:07 am
Quote from: Devling on April 25, 2013, 01:06:01 am
I am super sceptical about wikileaks in general.
They're clearly right in this case though

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on April 27, 2013, 12:27:46 am
However, would the pollution over a lifetime* of a gasoline-run car be lower than the pollution over the lifetime* of an electric car if it's energy is generated by fossil fuels. (In this example, coal)

*Including production
Two problems: firstly, burning coal does produce a lot less CO2 than gasoline for the same amount of energy (gasoline is the least efficient way to do it).  Secondly, not all electricity is produced from burning coal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 27, 2013, 07:35:02 am
Quote from: greatorder on April 27, 2013, 07:32:06 am
Quote from: scriver on April 27, 2013, 03:04:33 am
Horrible. The whole system is just wrong, but to include domestic violence on such a list... I can't even begin to fathom what they were thinking.
They were probably thinking 'Hurrrrr'

This made me laugh more than it should have.  Just wasn't expecting it :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on April 27, 2013, 08:46:01 am
This is pretty terrible. Especially since my and my mom would be affected by it, if we lived there/it was a law here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on April 29, 2013, 11:08:26 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22348158
Hunger strike at Gitmo still ongoing and getting bigger.

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/futureoftech/activists-un-put-killer-robots-crosshairs-6C9633925
And discussion is sorta beginning about fully autonomous killbots. As for this one, I'm kinda on the fence. For everything that can go wrong, there's also a great opportunity in that they may reduce accidents or incidents caused by human operators. Autonomous software would require much more thorough vetting and failsafes, and as a consequence may actually end up better.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 02, 2013, 06:49:04 am
Lawyer representing Guantanamo detainees commits suicide. (http://rt.com/usa/guantanamo-attorney-dead-suicide-699/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: freeformschooler on May 05, 2013, 03:31:08 pm
http://www.satanicverses.org/

Obviously my God-breath detector was miscalibrated.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 05, 2013, 03:43:51 pm
Quote from: freeformschooler on May 05, 2013, 03:31:08 pm
http://www.satanicverses.org/

Obviously my God-breath detector was miscalibrated.
Meh, that's just the background information. As is the entire Old testament.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 05, 2013, 05:03:23 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on May 05, 2013, 03:43:51 pm
Meh, that's just the background information. As is the entire Old testament.

Where exactly is the old testament defined at any time in the bible or similar as "background info"?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on May 05, 2013, 05:14:06 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on May 05, 2013, 03:43:51 pm
Quote from: freeformschooler on May 05, 2013, 03:31:08 pm
http://www.satanicverses.org/

Obviously my God-breath detector was miscalibrated.
Meh, that's just the background information. As is the entire Old testament.
Also, that's a naïve interpretation of 'lie/lay': in old texts that's a synonym for 'have sex with.' >_>
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 05, 2013, 05:17:41 pm
That was the exact interpretation that site was using, actually <_<

Why was that thing posted again, though? I mean, things would probably be going a bit better if more folks thought like that (certainly I tend to prefer to interpret the stuff egregiously counter-thematic to Christ's primary line of thinking as people using Jesus like Plato did Socrates [20 AD sockpuppet account, go!], except less skillfully and even less representative of the original.), but most of those religiously affiliated don't seem to. At the most, I've seen that stuff coming out of the more radical believers, not those cleaving closer to the primary veins of interpretation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on May 05, 2013, 05:22:06 pm
Is that the part where it says men cannot lie to their bros?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on May 06, 2013, 07:51:52 am
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-seeks-alternative-overtime-pay-074228556.html

The latest BS.

Businesses hate overtime and they should, because it is designed to be that way and this is a good thing.. We need it now more than ever. Overtime was designed to make businesses hire people rather than working their existing staff to death....

Now, we have another heaven's gate fallacy: You'll get rewarded.... "Later." Later never comes.

Let's see, if you get forced to put in a few 60 hour weeks or more and you end up wracking up a month's worth of time, does that mean you think your boss is going to hold your job open for you while you take a month off? Also you can forget about jobs that currently have sick days and paid vacations. Also, what happens if your boss decides to sell the place before you can collect any of this "paid time off" or the business closes? You're screwed, that's what.

Even if IF this would realistically be honored, the company would just be basically waiting until the last minute and then deciding to do the cheaper alternative. It isn't "your choice," and if anybody believes it is.... Well, really? It becomes an interest free loan to the company on money YOU EARNED when they decide that instead of giving you the hours off you worked for at full hourly rate, they then give you the .5 overtime several months if not years later.... Those plans you made, you're screwed. Also, again, you have no time off. Also, they'll fire you or invent a reason to....

Right now, overtime pay dodging is rampant because people are so hard up for any work that employers know they can get away with it. This will just give the boss ANOTHER thing to hold over your head and it WILL be abused all to hell.

This is total bullshit:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2013/03/19/u-s-companies-stashing-more-cash-abroad-as-stock-piles-hit-record-1-45t/
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article39963.html

Major businesses in the US are sitting on mountains of cash. They don't need anymore before they start investing to make money. Really, that second link actually has investors wondering when companies with stock will start paying dividends (money to investors) .... Hire people damn you.... There has to be SOMETHING you could have them do. What on earth are we trying to "encourage" these companies with. They already have cash.... [sigh]. They'd rather pay somebody $0.20 /hour than $20/hour even knowing it's slave labor abroad....

O come on.... How are people buying this?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 06, 2013, 09:14:40 am
Australian researchers work out how to make cheap shitty silicon create better solar-cells than the current top-grade expensive stuff (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/breakthrough-in-solar-efficiency-by-unsw-team-ahead-of-its-time-20130505-2j117.html).

This is going to radically drop the price of Photo voltaic solar energy. Current top-grade PV harvests 17-19% of the sun's energy and costs a packet, the new process patented by UNSW (University of NSW) uses cheap silicon and harvests 21-23%. Apparently the price of solar panels has fallen 65% in the last 2 years due to skyrocketing production in China. This new technology promises to drive the price of solar energy down even further.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 06, 2013, 09:24:07 am
Quote from: Reelya on May 06, 2013, 09:14:40 am
Australian researchers work out how to make cheap shitty silicon create better solar-cells than the current top-grade expensive stuff (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/breakthrough-in-solar-efficiency-by-unsw-team-ahead-of-its-time-20130505-2j117.html).

This is going to radically drop the price of Photo voltaic solar energy. Current top-grade PV harvests 17-19% of the sun's energy and costs a packet, the new process patented by UNSW (University of NSW) uses cheap silicon and harvests 21-23%. Apparently the price of solar panels has fallen 65% in the last 2 years due to skyrocketing production in China. This new technology promises to drive the price of solar energy down even further.

Fantastic news.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on May 06, 2013, 09:55:58 am
Quote from: Dutchling on May 05, 2013, 05:22:06 pm
Is that the part where it says men cannot lie to their bros?
The part where he said sheephearders can't go to heaven because God forbid men to lie with beasts.
I don't think sheephearders and sheep normally have intercourse, y'know... <_<

Quote from: SalmonGod on May 06, 2013, 09:24:07 am
Quote from: Reelya on May 06, 2013, 09:14:40 am
Australian researchers work out how to make cheap shitty silicon create better solar-cells than the current top-grade expensive stuff (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/breakthrough-in-solar-efficiency-by-unsw-team-ahead-of-its-time-20130505-2j117.html).

This is going to radically drop the price of Photo voltaic solar energy. Current top-grade PV harvests 17-19% of the sun's energy and costs a packet, the new process patented by UNSW (University of NSW) uses cheap silicon and harvests 21-23%. Apparently the price of solar panels has fallen 65% in the last 2 years due to skyrocketing production in China. This new technology promises to drive the price of solar energy down even further.

Fantastic news.
I've been waiting for it :D
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on May 06, 2013, 10:39:11 am
Quote from: Skyrunner on May 06, 2013, 09:55:58 am
Quote from: Dutchling on May 05, 2013, 05:22:06 pm
Is that the part where it says men cannot lie to their bros?
The part where he said sheephearders can't go to heaven because God forbid men to lie with beasts.
I don't think sheephearders and sheep normally have intercourse, y'know... <_<
You've never been to Wales, have you?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 06, 2013, 10:42:29 am
Quote from: Owlbread on May 05, 2013, 05:03:23 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on May 05, 2013, 03:43:51 pm
Meh, that's just the background information. As is the entire Old testament.
Where exactly is the old testament defined at any time in the bible or similar as "background info"?
Like 90% of the Christian traditian, it's never outright stated.
Have a wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typology_(theology))
Or two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_the_old_covenant)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 06, 2013, 10:47:00 am
Quote from: Descan on May 06, 2013, 10:39:11 am
Quote from: Skyrunner on May 06, 2013, 09:55:58 am
Quote from: Dutchling on May 05, 2013, 05:22:06 pm
Is that the part where it says men cannot lie to their bros?
The part where he said sheephearders can't go to heaven because God forbid men to lie with beasts.
I don't think sheephearders and sheep normally have intercourse, y'know... <_<
You've never been to Wales, have you?
Or Afghanistan.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 06, 2013, 10:51:56 am
Quote from: Descan on May 06, 2013, 10:39:11 am
You've never been to Wales, have you?

I was really surprised as a boy when I first heard the whole "Welsh sheepshagging" thing. To me that association was always with Aberdeenshire.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on May 06, 2013, 11:02:10 am
I'm pretty sure any place that has a strong animal farming tradition has a sheep-shagging reputation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 06, 2013, 11:12:24 am
Quote from: Descan on May 06, 2013, 11:02:10 am
I'm pretty sure any place that has a strong animal farming tradition has a sheep-shagging reputation.

Living in such a place as you describe I can tell you it isn't so far fetched.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 06, 2013, 11:19:55 am
Quote from: Owlbread on May 06, 2013, 11:12:24 am
Quote from: Descan on May 06, 2013, 11:02:10 am
I'm pretty sure any place that has a strong animal farming tradition has a sheep-shagging reputation.

Living in such a place as you describe I can tell you it isn't so far fetched.

It's not, sadly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on May 06, 2013, 12:42:47 pm
I can see how a farm-boy or farm-girls first love could be the family baa-baa.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 06, 2013, 12:47:10 pm
Quote from: Descan on May 06, 2013, 12:42:47 pm
I can see how a farm-boy or farm-girls first love could be the family baa-baa.

More like strange, strange grown men.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 06, 2013, 02:39:54 pm
Quote from: Reelya on May 06, 2013, 09:14:40 am
Australian researchers work out how to make cheap shitty silicon create better solar-cells than the current top-grade expensive stuff (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/breakthrough-in-solar-efficiency-by-unsw-team-ahead-of-its-time-20130505-2j117.html).

This is going to radically drop the price of Photo voltaic solar energy. Current top-grade PV harvests 17-19% of the sun's energy and costs a packet, the new process patented by UNSW (University of NSW) uses cheap silicon and harvests 21-23%. Apparently the price of solar panels has fallen 65% in the last 2 years due to skyrocketing production in China. This new technology promises to drive the price of solar energy down even further.
Told you so. Our future is in the power of the shining sun.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 06, 2013, 02:46:01 pm
Just as a note, current top grade PV reaches levels as high as 40%. Though that's lab quality, not the stuff you see sold commercially.

Though really, I read about a whole lot of these solar breakthroughs. Nothing ever seems to happen with them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 06, 2013, 02:51:36 pm
Are you watching for things happening with them? Because twice as much solar was installed in the US last year than the year before it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_States#Generation) Nor has that growth stopped. In fact, it has intensified.

I don't have the charts on hand and I'm too hungry to go looking for them right now, but wind is already on the exponential upcurve and solar is just about to hit it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 06, 2013, 02:59:51 pm
Those are all the standard technologies though. None of those new and improved solar pannel thingies.

On the other hard, rare earth prices should normalize in about 3 years, which will give a significant boost to these technologies.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 06, 2013, 03:00:29 pm
Carbon energy industries are still immensely powerful, and I imagine the most likely thing is they push their influence in the media to stay as silent as possible on solar.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 06, 2013, 03:13:56 pm
I can't even find anything about the new pannel technology on green websites. Probably still in testing phases.

Edit: On a sidenote, reports of the European commision are rather interesting things to read.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 06, 2013, 03:57:20 pm
And as far as I know, Solar thermal is still much better suited to large scale production, requiring no rare elements or problematic chemistry while being capable of producing power 24/7 without advances in battery tech and with efficiencies above 30%.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 07, 2013, 06:08:11 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on May 06, 2013, 03:13:56 pm
I can't even find anything about the new pannel technology on green websites. Probably still in testing phases.

Edit: On a sidenote, reports of the European commision are rather interesting things to read.

The development only hit the news in Australia on May 6th, so give it some time. BTW the research was heavily funded by Suntech, the world's largest panel manufacturer which is based in China, and has ties to UNSW, and they have a legal right to deploy the technology, whilst the university has the right to license the tech to third parties. Suntech is actually having financial difficulties now, which could be either good or bad for the rapid deployment of this technology, depends on how things go.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 07, 2013, 09:46:02 am
IT'S HAPPENING (http://www.debka.com/article/22957/)

SAVE US BASED PUTIN
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Guardian G.I. on May 07, 2013, 10:05:24 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on May 07, 2013, 09:46:02 am
IT'S HAPPENING (http://www.debka.com/article/22957/)

SAVE US BASED PUTIN
The Syrian civil war is slowly turning into a proxy war between Russia and the USA.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 07, 2013, 10:10:29 am
Not really. Russians have trouble understanding than since the end of the World War, the US (and the rest of the world in general) don't really care about them anymore. The US are in for a variety of reasons, none of which is fighting Russia.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 07, 2013, 10:45:26 am
Quote from: Reelya on May 07, 2013, 06:08:11 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on May 06, 2013, 03:13:56 pm
I can't even find anything about the new pannel technology on green websites. Probably still in testing phases.

Edit: On a sidenote, reports of the European commision are rather interesting things to read.

The development only hit the news in Australia on May 6th, so give it some time. BTW the research was heavily funded by Suntech, the world's largest panel manufacturer which is based in China, and has ties to UNSW, and they have a legal right to deploy the technology, whilst the university has the right to license the tech to third parties. Suntech is actually having financial difficulties now, which could be either good or bad for the rapid deployment of this technology, depends on how things go.

Similair breakthrough's are announced practically every year. Was talking about those more than this one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Guardian G.I. on May 07, 2013, 10:57:28 am
Quote from: Sheb on May 07, 2013, 10:10:29 am
Not really. Russians have trouble understanding than since the end of the World War, the US (and the rest of the world in general) don't really care about them anymore. The US are in for a variety of reasons, none of which is fighting Russia.
Russians have never trusted the Western world, and don't trust it now. Such distrust has deep historical and cultural roots.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on May 07, 2013, 12:34:15 pm
Quote from: Guardian G.I. on May 07, 2013, 10:57:28 am
Quote from: Sheb on May 07, 2013, 10:10:29 am
Not really. Russians have trouble understanding than since the end of the World War, the US (and the rest of the world in general) don't really care about them anymore. The US are in for a variety of reasons, none of which is fighting Russia.
Russians have never trusted the Western world, and don't trust it now. Such distrust has deep historical and cultural roots.

And your point is? I'm struggling to recall anyone who trusts the western world, including those who compose it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 07, 2013, 01:13:30 pm
Quote from: greatorder on May 07, 2013, 12:39:28 pm
Y'see, trust is relative...
Trust is absolute; trust is not mutual.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on May 07, 2013, 04:59:42 pm
Delaware became the 11th state to legalize same sex marriage (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/us/delaware-to-allow-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0). :)

The Minnesota state house has scheduled a vote on it Thursday, and the  MN state senate may vote on Saturday.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on May 07, 2013, 05:02:09 pm
Well done Delaware.
If we don't get gay marriage before September, not a great chance of it before 2016.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on May 07, 2013, 05:09:36 pm
I did not know Delaware was a state. If anything, it sounds like a company that specializes in those wall-mountable plates with proverbs on it.

Yay Delaware I guess.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 07, 2013, 05:13:29 pm
Delaware was the first state to join the Union.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on May 07, 2013, 05:15:50 pm
It's one of those small and heavily populated states that make up a lot of the east coast. You know, from when the US was a bunch of small and sparsely populated states under the domain of a bunch of aristocrats and such.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on May 07, 2013, 05:28:47 pm
According to this, Delaware is part of the North Florida / South Manhattan peninsula.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 07, 2013, 05:30:36 pm
That isn't a peninsula, Canada just isn't on the map.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on May 07, 2013, 05:34:33 pm
You are either unaware of the location of Canada, or unaware of the location of the NFSM Peninsula.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 07, 2013, 05:39:16 pm
Dude, just look at the damn map. (https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&q=canada&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x4b0d03d337cc6ad9:0x9968b72aa2438fa5,Canada&gl=us&ei=IYKJUdKsJoim9ASmrICAAw&ved=0CJ0BELYD) New England is not surrounded by large bodies of water on three sides, and is thus not a peninsula.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 07, 2013, 05:48:53 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 07, 2013, 05:39:16 pm
Dude, just look at the damn map. (https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&q=canada&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x4b0d03d337cc6ad9:0x9968b72aa2438fa5,Canada&gl=us&ei=IYKJUdKsJoim9ASmrICAAw&ved=0CJ0BELYD) New England is not surrounded by large bodies of water on three sides, and is thus not a peninsula.

It is surrounded by the Atlantic, North Atlantic and great lakes, which flow into the north Atlantic through the St Lawrence sea way.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 07, 2013, 05:53:29 pm
St Lawrence River is not anywhere near enough water to qualify as a peninsula.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on May 07, 2013, 05:53:49 pm
If rivers are sufficiently large bodies of water, it is a peninsula. If not, it isn't. That's pretty much what it comes down to. NOW LET US FIND AN EVEN SILLIER THING TO ARGUE ABOUT.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on May 07, 2013, 05:53:59 pm
Wikipedia says I'm right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delmarva_Peninsula)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 07, 2013, 05:57:25 pm
That's not even what I was talking about. I am referring to the whole of the Northeast, that's just the tiny thing Delaware is on.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on May 07, 2013, 05:58:51 pm
Why would anyone call that a peninsula? You know there's a thing called Canada right?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 07, 2013, 06:00:25 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on May 07, 2013, 05:58:51 pm
Why would anyone call that a peninsula? You know there's a thing called Canada right?
...
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 07, 2013, 05:30:36 pm
That isn't a peninsula, Canada just isn't on the map.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on May 07, 2013, 06:17:59 pm
No one knows about Canada.

It's how we like it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on May 07, 2013, 06:28:52 pm
Canada has a state called Yukon? How is that even pronounced?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on May 07, 2013, 06:31:28 pm
Well if "Yvonne of the Yukon" is a good source of education on these things (which I'm pretty sure it wasn't). Then it's pronounced "you-con".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on May 07, 2013, 06:32:30 pm
Quote from: Max White on May 07, 2013, 06:28:52 pm
Canada has a state called Yukon? How is that even pronounced?
It's pronounced "you con", after the famous words said by the first settlers when they discovered it was actually a hellish frozen wasteland instead of the Garden of Eden they had been promised.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 07, 2013, 06:35:53 pm
Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG3NxGh2sVg
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on May 07, 2013, 06:44:06 pm
Well... Apparently Canadians have tv shows.
Also, nobody lives in Greenland ??? It looks like such an awesome place.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on May 07, 2013, 06:50:48 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on May 07, 2013, 06:35:53 pm
Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG3NxGh2sVg
Ah yeah, that's the one. It's amazing the different types of cartoons I experienced on Dutch TV.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on May 08, 2013, 03:36:07 am
Quote from: Max White on May 07, 2013, 06:44:06 pm
Well... Apparently Canadians have tv shows.
Also, nobody lives in Greenland ??? It looks like such an awesome place.
Canadians have awesome tv shows. For example The Red Green Show and Stargate SG-1.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on May 08, 2013, 08:55:34 am
SG-1 was FILMED in Canada, Vancouver to be specific (the Hollywood of the North, it is, it is!) but I don't think it actually was Canadian. I might be wrong but I think most of the stars were American and the financing, producers, and directors were American workers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on May 08, 2013, 10:27:37 am
Dealing with a climate change denialist and want to save yourself an aneurysm? Pick the appropriate response from this list (http://www.skepticalscience.com/oneliners.php). Done.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 08, 2013, 11:44:17 am
Quote from: Max White on May 07, 2013, 06:28:52 pm
Canada has a state called Yukon? How is that even pronounced?

It's actually a territory of Canada rather than a state. A territory is like a province except less bro. Do Canadian provinces have more autonomy than US states?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 08, 2013, 12:31:59 pm
Quote from: Glowcat on May 08, 2013, 10:27:37 am
Dealing with a climate change denialist and want to save yourself an aneurysm? Pick the appropriate response from this list (http://www.skepticalscience.com/oneliners.php). Done.

None of those arguments work because it just means you are a part of the conspiracy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 08, 2013, 12:38:31 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on May 08, 2013, 12:31:59 pm
Quote from: Glowcat on May 08, 2013, 10:27:37 am
Dealing with a climate change denialist and want to save yourself an aneurysm? Pick the appropriate response from this list (http://www.skepticalscience.com/oneliners.php). Done.

None of those arguments work because it just means you are a part of the conspiracy.
Not to mention they mostly consist of direct rebuttals based on uncited "evidence", most of which will be rejected out of hand by your opponent.
It's like a recipe for the Argument Clinic sketch from Monty Python.

"Look, this isn't an argument!"
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't!"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on May 08, 2013, 01:06:30 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on May 08, 2013, 11:44:17 am
Quote from: Max White on May 07, 2013, 06:28:52 pm
Canada has a state called Yukon? How is that even pronounced?

It's actually a territory of Canada rather than a state. A territory is like a province except less bro. Do Canadian provinces have more autonomy than US states?
Territories have a "commissioner" and are basically federal areas, while provinces are more akin to States in that they have a more equal footing with the federal government. But the Feds over-rule provinces more-so than in the States.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on May 08, 2013, 01:15:52 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on May 08, 2013, 11:44:17 am
Quote from: Max White on May 07, 2013, 06:28:52 pm
Canada has a state called Yukon? How is that even pronounced?

It's actually a territory of Canada rather than a state. A territory is like a province except less bro. Do Canadian provinces have more autonomy than US states?
Originally, our Confederation was supposed to be the coming together of provinces (and territories) with a minimal Federal government to make sure that the whole thing kinda worked as a whole. Over time, more power has been centralized. The provinces still have a degree of autonomy within this structure, especially when it comes to how certain funds are allocated within the province. Provinces also have to sign off on any changes to the constitution.

Territories are regulated directly by the Federal government. The territories have minimal representation when compared to provinces such as Ontario, but they have a far greater representation per capita than any other populated area within Canada. Citizens of the territories have full citizenship rights. They are the least populated parts of Canada, with great expanses of land that is uninhabited, and difficult to cross.

There is a lot of resentment of the Federal government in "the West" that I've never personally seen up close because I'm on the much saner side of the country. Except now "the West" is in charge of the country, and they are --especially with Employment Insurance -- fundamentally misunderstanding how things work out here, and how they are destroying our provincial economy with their Federal changes.

Good times.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on May 08, 2013, 01:16:52 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on May 08, 2013, 12:31:59 pm
None of those arguments work because it just means you are a part of the conspiracy.

They don't have to work immediately. They're more fire and forget.

Quote from: RedKing on May 08, 2013, 12:38:31 pm
Not to mention they mostly consist of direct rebuttals based on uncited "evidence", most of which will be rejected out of hand by your opponent.

What? *looks again* I see citations in the links... unless this was a comment about the average climate deniers inability to understand how peer-reviewed evidence works? I'm confused.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 08, 2013, 01:19:29 pm
Quote from: Glowcat on May 08, 2013, 01:16:52 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on May 08, 2013, 12:31:59 pm
None of those arguments work because it just means you are a part of the conspiracy.

They don't have to work immediately. They're more fire and forget.
No, you see, environmentalists are all Christ-hating socialist murderers who want to kill your children, destroy America, and make us all live in eco-friendly tent cities. They worship their commie-lover spinster prophet, Rachel Carson.

Now, you think I'm joking, but I have seen some people who believe that wholeheartedly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 08, 2013, 02:09:12 pm
Quote from: Willfor on May 08, 2013, 01:15:52 pm

Originally, our Confederation was supposed to be the coming together of provinces (and territories) with a minimal Federal government to make sure that the whole thing kinda worked as a whole. Over time, more power has been centralized. The provinces still have a degree of autonomy within this structure, especially when it comes to how certain funds are allocated within the province. Provinces also have to sign off on any changes to the constitution.

Territories are regulated directly by the Federal government. The territories have minimal representation when compared to provinces such as Ontario, but they have a far greater representation per capita than any other populated area within Canada. Citizens of the territories have full citizenship rights. They are the least populated parts of Canada, with great expanses of land that is uninhabited, and difficult to cross.

There is a lot of resentment of the Federal government in "the West" that I've never personally seen up close because I'm on the much saner side of the country. Except now "the West" is in charge of the country, and they are --especially with Employment Insurance -- fundamentally misunderstanding how things work out here, and how they are destroying our provincial economy with their Federal changes.

Good times.

What kinds of powers have been centralised that were once provincial?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 08, 2013, 02:20:14 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on May 08, 2013, 02:09:12 pm
Quote from: Willfor on May 08, 2013, 01:15:52 pm

Originally, our Confederation was supposed to be the coming together of provinces (and territories) with a minimal Federal government to make sure that the whole thing kinda worked as a whole. Over time, more power has been centralized. The provinces still have a degree of autonomy within this structure, especially when it comes to how certain funds are allocated within the province. Provinces also have to sign off on any changes to the constitution.

Territories are regulated directly by the Federal government. The territories have minimal representation when compared to provinces such as Ontario, but they have a far greater representation per capita than any other populated area within Canada. Citizens of the territories have full citizenship rights. They are the least populated parts of Canada, with great expanses of land that is uninhabited, and difficult to cross.

There is a lot of resentment of the Federal government in "the West" that I've never personally seen up close because I'm on the much saner side of the country. Except now "the West" is in charge of the country, and they are --especially with Employment Insurance -- fundamentally misunderstanding how things work out here, and how they are destroying our provincial economy with their Federal changes.

Good times.

What kinds of powers have been centralised that were once provincial?
Moose wrangling. And of course, the National Maple Syrup Reserve.  :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 08, 2013, 02:22:56 pm
The STRATEGIC National Maple Syrup Reserve. Its a vital part of Canadian national interests.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nilik on May 09, 2013, 02:11:53 am
Quote from: Nadaka on May 08, 2013, 02:22:56 pm
The STRATEGIC National Maple Syrup Reserve. Its a vital part of Canadian national interests.

It took a long time, several sources and three Canadians to convince me the syrup reserve is actually a real thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on May 09, 2013, 02:37:06 am
Quote from: Owlbread on May 08, 2013, 11:44:17 am
It's actually a territory of Canada rather than a state. A territory is like a province except less bro. Do Canadian provinces have more autonomy than US states?
Well why doesn't it say on the can?
All the Australian territories have "Territory" in the name. All two of them, and there are no others. No sir.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on May 09, 2013, 02:47:07 am
I've decided the best argument to people who are saying Global Warming isn't man-made, or it's natural., or that it won't destroy the earth or kill so many species, or soemthing will adapt.


Very simple. Even if you are correct, even if I am totally wrong and it is, say, Bird-shit on Ticonderoga causing all of this, and All the animals adapt and are fine, we are still screwed. Important thing to note that the earth has been here long before you, and will be here long after your gone. 99.99% of all species that have ever been on this earth (even if you don;t believe in evolution, still a significant number of extinct species) are gone. Earth itself, life today? Totally fine, could not care less. Next disaster, most of them die, some won't and will start over. The Problem is we aren't taking no damned cosmic or long-term view. We aren't aliens to earth, whom pick and choose arbitrarily which species are should survive and which shouldn't. We are not, and can never be, unbiased parties to the earth. You can despise the environment all you want, but we are still dependent on it.


Summed up: Even if the rise of the oceans is natural, that won't stop us from drowning.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on May 09, 2013, 02:50:14 am
Quote from: Owlbread on May 08, 2013, 11:44:17 am
It's actually a territory of Canada rather than a state. A territory is like a province except less bro. Do Canadian provinces have more autonomy than US states?
US states do have a significant degree of Autonomy, capable of passing their own laws and regulations, with their own state trooper force, taxes, etc. hence gay marriage in 11 but not the rest.

EDIT: Damned double post
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 09, 2013, 02:54:42 am
Quote from: misko27 on May 09, 2013, 02:47:07 am
Summed up: Even if the rise of the oceans is natural, that won't stop us from drowning.
Their counter would be quite simple, actually. Remove all pollution restrictions ---> More Growth ---> More Money ---> More funds for countermeasures (dikes, disaster relief, ....)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 09, 2013, 04:17:34 am
There's a simpler way to go about this.

"Ok.  So global warming isn't man-made or isn't a real problem.  I'll just let that one go.  We don't need it.  What are your thoughts on rising ocean acidity levels?  Plastic particles in the water cycle?  Habitat destruction?  Endangerment of lynch pin species around the world, like amphibians or honeybees?  These problems are just as severe, and there's no way in hell you can argue mankind isn't the primary cause of them."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 09, 2013, 07:03:10 am
Quote from: Max White on May 09, 2013, 02:37:06 am
Well why doesn't it say on the can?
All the Australian territories have "Territory" in the name. All two of them, and there are no others. No sir.

Well one of the three Canadian territories is known as the "Northwest Territories", so that says it on the can. Yukon and Nunavut don't.

Quote from: misko27 on May 09, 2013, 02:50:14 am
US states do have a significant degree of Autonomy, capable of passing their own laws and regulations, with their own state trooper force, taxes, etc. hence gay marriage in 11 but not the rest.

EDIT: Damned double post

But do the US states have more autonomy than provinces?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on May 09, 2013, 07:05:13 am
Funnily one of ours is the 'Northern Territory"  :P Because why not be creative with the names.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 09, 2013, 07:10:23 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on May 09, 2013, 04:17:34 am
There's a simpler way to go about this.

"Ok.  So global warming isn't man-made or isn't a real problem.  I'll just let that one go.  We don't need it.  What are your thoughts on rising ocean acidity levels?  Plastic particles in the water cycle?  Habitat destruction?  Endangerment of lynch pin species around the world, like amphibians or honeybees?  These problems are just as severe, and there's no way in hell you can argue mankind isn't the primary cause of them."
Hell man, you don't even need that. The flat fact is that the stuff causing environmental damage is wasteful as a rule. Pollution and containments getting into the environment is a sign of inefficiency, both in the process producing it, in using the pollutants themselves, and in maintaining the environment in a state most capable of exploitation. You could give jack-all of a shit about the long term consequences and be in complete denial about the larger scale impact of humans on the environment and still be necessarily led to tenants of conservation and environmental protectionism that are flatly identical to measures based on a long-term view. That ideal isn't just a moral thing, it's also an engineering thing.

To a large extent, climate denial and a lot of the industrial-side shit related to it has nothing to do genuine belief, s'far as I can tell. What it really is, is some fuckers trying to make an excuse for being crap at their job and obfuscate the blatant goddamn stupidity and inefficiency of what they're doing. These are poor businessmen and industrialists trying to excuse their failings on one hand, and individuals doing frankly immoral things (being excessively wasteful) trying to hide or downplay their immorality/incapability (of figuring out a more efficient process/something to do with the waste materials) on the other.

It honestly gets kinda' frustrating. Climate change being false doesn't change the fact that many of the measures being suggested to fight it are the best choice anyway. Efficiency is one of the primary virtues. Waste, pollutants, environmental damage... those are all signs of inefficiency, of damaging that which you extract resources from to an excessive degree. Regardless as to the long term or wide scale effects, these are things you freaking fix, because it means you can improve your methodology and extend the degree of resource exploitation you're capable of. S'just... damnit, people. Damn it, and damn you. Stop being so terrible at actual exploitation, you weaksauce bastards! You're giving the word a bad name!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 09, 2013, 08:14:39 am
Oh... I agree... but you're talking about a message aimed at leaders.  They're the ones who push the denialist propapaganda without a care, because they believe that by the time the consequences of their short-sightedness have reached a point that the rich can't buy their way away from them, they'll long be dead.  Sadly, this is probably true. 

I'm talking about persuading your average Joe that there actually is a problem they should care about.  They buy the climate denial propaganda as a refutation of environmentalism in general, which saves them the trouble of having to care.  All they need is to be slapped in the face with a bunch of other reasons that, even if this one environmentalist issue is wrong, there are many others, and they can't afford to be willfully ignorant of them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on May 09, 2013, 08:29:40 am
Quote from: Max White on May 09, 2013, 07:05:13 am
Funnily one of ours is the 'Northern Territory"  :P Because why not be creative with the names.
We at least have an excuse. It's a rump-state, in the past it basically covered everything north and west of the Great Lakes (including Northern Quebec and Ontario)

Hence the name.

Over time, provinces and other territories (The latest in 1999, Nunavut, land to give the native Inuit more of a say) were chopped out of it.

We also had a place called "Rupert's Land"

The British were not very imaginative.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Blargityblarg on May 09, 2013, 08:33:00 am
Quote from: Descan on May 09, 2013, 08:29:40 am
Quote from: Max White on May 09, 2013, 07:05:13 am
Funnily one of ours is the 'Northern Territory"  :P Because why not be creative with the names.
We at least have an excuse. It's a rump-state, in the past it basically covered everything north and west of the Great Lakes (including Northern Quebec and Ontario)

Hence the name.

Over time, provinces and other territories (The latest in 1999, Nunavut, land to give the native Inuit more of a say) were chopped out of it.

We also had a place called "Rupert's Land"

The British were not very imaginative.

There was a place in it called 'Moose Factory' which I think makes up for it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on May 09, 2013, 08:39:03 am
Quote from: Max White on May 09, 2013, 07:05:13 am
Funnily one of ours is the 'Northern Territory"  :P Because why not be creative with the names.
Also known as "Where The Fuck Did All These Sand Flies Come From Territory" D:

I liked the NT, but that's because I generally respect places that are actively hostile to your continued existence. Especially when it goes from desert and salt pans to jungle and crocodiles with pretty much nothing in between.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 09, 2013, 11:19:32 am
My favourite is "Happy Valley-Goose Bay" in Labrador.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on May 09, 2013, 01:33:14 pm
Hey, Canada. What the fuck. You're supposed to be the good guys. (http://chrismilloy.ca/2013/05/u-s-genderqueer-denied-entry-to-visit-canadian-partner-officers-see-therapist-letter-question-mental-health/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 09, 2013, 01:38:33 pm
Quote from: Descan on May 09, 2013, 01:33:14 pm
Hey, Canada. What the fuck. You're supposed to be the good guys. (http://chrismilloy.ca/2013/05/u-s-genderqueer-denied-entry-to-visit-canadian-partner-officers-see-therapist-letter-question-mental-health/)
/me froths with rage.


Canada has gone rather crazy in recent years though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on May 09, 2013, 01:39:49 pm
Quote from: Descan on May 09, 2013, 01:33:14 pm
Hey, Canada. What the fuck. You're supposed to be the good guys. (http://chrismilloy.ca/2013/05/u-s-genderqueer-denied-entry-to-visit-canadian-partner-officers-see-therapist-letter-question-mental-health/)

You forgot the 'relatively' before good guys with an optional 'compared to the USA' after it. It's an easy mistake to make.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 09, 2013, 02:09:40 pm
This is the same canada that just sold 97% of their federally owned waterways, has been cracking down on victimless crimes, has been experiencing rapidly inflating cronyism and government corruption, has bent over backwards to pass copyright law dictated by the media industries, etc and so on?

Canada was great once, but they seem pretty dedicated, imo, to ridding themselves of that pesky label.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 09, 2013, 02:25:23 pm
Awww yeeeaahhh, time for the US and Canada to trade popularity on the world stage! Moving up in the world! Canadians will pretend to be American when they go to Europe! US politicians will deride loonybin Canadian politicians! Finally, America will be seen as the best North American nation!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 09, 2013, 02:38:14 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 09, 2013, 02:25:23 pm
Awww yeeeaahhh, time for the US and Canada to trade popularity on the world stage! Moving up in the world! Canadians will pretend to be American when they go to Europe! US politicians will deride loonybin Canadian politicians! Finally, America will be seen as the best North American nation!
Maryland already replaced both.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on May 09, 2013, 02:46:19 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 09, 2013, 02:25:23 pm
Awww yeeeaahhh, time for the US and Canada to trade popularity on the world stage! Moving up in the world! Canadians will pretend to be American when they go to Europe! US politicians will deride loonybin Canadian politicians! Finally, America will be seen as the best North American nation!
Is it wrong that I can't wait to see angry young Canadians repeatedly threatening to move to America?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 09, 2013, 02:52:36 pm
Quote from: Sirus on May 09, 2013, 02:46:19 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 09, 2013, 02:25:23 pm
Awww yeeeaahhh, time for the US and Canada to trade popularity on the world stage! Moving up in the world! Canadians will pretend to be American when they go to Europe! US politicians will deride loonybin Canadian politicians! Finally, America will be seen as the best North American nation!
Is it wrong that I can't wait to see angry young Canadians repeatedly threatening to move to America?
Go to British Columbia and you might see that right now. Mind you, this is more because of weed than anything else.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on May 09, 2013, 04:08:36 pm
Franky, given the US comparitive conservatism, I'm surprised there aren't more.

Also, now Canada can finally take it's place as USA Lite.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 09, 2013, 04:29:14 pm
I always saw Canada as USA Lite.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on May 14, 2013, 10:55:51 pm
Do people turn mean because they're helpless? (http://io9.com/do-people-turn-mean-because-theyre-helpless-500967592)

Interesting idea.  What do you guys think?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 14, 2013, 11:26:48 pm
Weird thing at the end of the article (Can it not be both?), but other than that... hell, hell if I know. From what I've seen, we do try to excuse our inability to help others. It's... I'unno, one of those deeply hypocritical aspects of most societies I'm familiar with, where, especially when young, we're taught that helping others and loving one's neighbor and etc., and so forth, and so on is all important and good and crap, but apparently when we hit the point that it turns out that, hey, it can be pretty hard to do that shit so we start trying to figure out ways to not. And then we notice the methods other people around us (in our peer group, or elders) are excusing betraying those early lessons and just kinda'... join in. S'very natural.

Devaluing others is just one of those methods, I guess? If you can't or don't want to help someone who needs help, despite being taught that you ought to, well, obviously the problem must be in the one that needs help, right? You, yourself, can't be a bad person, after all... right? If you were willfully refusing to or unable to figure out a way to do the right thing, then you'd be a bad or incapable person, but you're not, so there must be something about them that justifies not helping. Even if there isn't. And so it goes. Lot of times it seems like it's not even explicit like that, just a kinda' subconscious heuristic people run certain problems they encounter through. "The fault must not lie with me."

But yeah, people in desperate straights turning nasty is... pretty standard fare. For whatever reason, that's pretty normal psychology for us monkeys. Awareness of the behavior is the first step towards avoiding it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 14, 2013, 11:54:47 pm
Quote from: Vector on May 14, 2013, 10:55:51 pm
Do people turn mean because they're helpless? (http://io9.com/do-people-turn-mean-because-theyre-helpless-500967592)

Interesting idea.  What do you guys think?

Kinda like Frumple says, I think there is a lot of truth to it, but it's not the whole picture.

I think it's all about self-respect.  The one thing I have definitely learned about human psychology in my 30 years is that it's capable of incredible contortions for the sake of self-respect, which I consider to be a more basic human need than even material survival.  People can lie in incredible ways to themselves about their own nature and the nature of others if it allows them to feel good about themselves.  Everything else seems to be an extension of this, including the observations of Just World Theory.

The only thing I don't understand is how it's so easy to lie to oneself.  I try to claw out the roots of my own dishonesties whenever I can, but of course it would be lying to myself to believe that I'm completely successful.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on May 15, 2013, 12:40:51 am
I think it's also the case that humans are, well, contradictory creatures, very contradictory creatures. I grew up in the rural South, but most of my best friends are urban coastal liberal types, and often ask "So...why are people in the Heartland so good and decent...except to gays and blacks and at the voting booth?" The short answer is that they're being dishonest, but I don't think that's the whole story; rather, the human psyche is capable of extreme inconsistencies. It's not necessarily a case of them just being good but ignorant, although I think much more can be chalked up to ignorance than one would think. Inconsistency is the base state of the human psyche.

And that being said, we are all inconsistent, and in some ways it's humanity's great but essential flaw. As Whitman wrote: "Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. I am vast; I contain multitudes."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 15, 2013, 12:58:03 am
Doesn't explain the cause of inconsistency, though.  Such a quality existing on its own for no reason would be an easy problem to address with mere awareness.  People wouldn't bother to defend their inconsistencies if there were no reason for them.

In the case of prejudices such as racism, I once again see it as being about reinforcing self-respect by defining those different from oneself as being less genuinely human.  It allows for victimization of others for one's own benefit (or complacency) without loss of self-respect, and for generally thinking of oneself as better by comparison.  I don't think it's ignorance.  It's quite plain that human beings are human beings, period.  You can compare any two people on the planet, and they'll all be more alike than different.  Those differences are magnified by choice, even if a subconscious one.  It's just too psychologically convenient to do so.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on May 15, 2013, 08:50:35 am
This might have been said, but I'm pretty sure that racism and such exist because even the lowest guy on the totem pole can still say "At least I'm not black/white/gay/asian/a woman/a man." And without those being bad things, it doesn't really make sense for them to derive pride from it. So they make-up (or rather, use the cultural idea) that those types of people are lesser.

Without being "Better" than the blacks/the jews/the gays/women/whatever, they have nothing.

Doesn't really explain racism and such in the higher ranks, but I don't think there's a silver-bullet "This is Why for Everyone". There rarely is.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 15, 2013, 10:06:56 am
IMO it's the same psychologically as bullying is. Step on someone else to bring yourself up by comparison. It's easier than self improvement.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 15, 2013, 10:16:08 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on May 15, 2013, 10:06:56 am
IMO it's the same psychologically as bullying is. Step on someone else to bring yourself up by comparison. It's easier than self improvement.

Victim-blaming is also cleaner and with more varied benefits.  You're not responsible for making the victim, you absolve yourself from responsibility to help, and you make it clear that you're better than the victim, or else you would be one too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on May 15, 2013, 11:56:16 am
In the higher ranks, at least since the (counter) idea became widespread, i usually consider racism to be either a useful tool or a sign that they're the subject of manipulation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on May 15, 2013, 11:58:11 am
As for the "it's not my fault", rationalization seems to be the usual route. I need this, it's not hurting anyone, it's good for society, etc. These boards show many examples. Edit: needlessly bitter remark No x, filed under sleep deprived.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 16, 2013, 07:08:31 am
Rich people hiring handicapped tour guides so they can cut in line at Disney World. (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/disney_world_srich_kid_outrage_zTBA0xrvZRkIVc1zItXGDP)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on May 16, 2013, 08:02:36 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on May 16, 2013, 07:08:31 am
Rich people hiring handicapped tour guides so they can cut in line at Disney World. (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/disney_world_srich_kid_outrage_zTBA0xrvZRkIVc1zItXGDP)
That's both brilliant and disgusting.

mostly disgusting though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 16, 2013, 08:20:20 am
Quote
“My daughter waited one minute to get on ‘It’s a Small World’ — the other kids had to wait 2 1/2 hours,” crowed one mom, who hired a disabled guide through Dream Tours Florida.
This'll be the statement that sparks the revolution, mark my words.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 16, 2013, 08:47:40 am
On the one hand, this kind of thing strikes pretty fucking deep at any notion of human dignity.

On the other hand, there's a small part of me that thinks... good for the disabled person that's taking money from both rich patrons and a megacorp at the same time?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 16, 2013, 11:14:17 am
Partially related to the rage thread topic, but I'll post it here instead...

http://www.copblock.org/27067/police-have-no-duty-to-protect-you/
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on May 16, 2013, 11:31:19 am
Quote from: Nadaka on May 16, 2013, 11:14:17 am
Partially related to the rage thread topic, but I'll post it here instead...

http://www.copblock.org/27067/police-have-no-duty-to-protect-you/
Yeah, I think this is a better topic to discuss than the rage thread one. More chill.

I guess, well, I'm not sure how to feel about this. Sure, they may not be obligated but I do think that almost all police would respond, regardless of their lack of obligation. Maybe it is something to be changed, but it is a reason to CC at least.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on May 16, 2013, 11:49:28 am
Living in a nation where the police are signifigantly more effective, less inept, less corrupt and generally far more human than the examples from round the world I see on here makes me very greatful, and also alarmed that such things seem so "normal" in many states.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on May 16, 2013, 12:00:06 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on May 16, 2013, 11:49:28 am
Living in a nation where the police are signifigantly more effective, less inept, less corrupt and generally far more human than the examples from round the world I see on here makes me very greatful, and also alarmed that such things seem so "normal" in many states.
Do you live in the UK?

And I don't think that's normal for those states. It is pretty abhorrent that this stuff happens, and I don't think that the public stands for it. I myself living in Australia is great. My mum being a police officer has given me a huge insight on what police culture is actually like, and the police here are great, for the most part.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 16, 2013, 12:02:25 pm
Our police don't even carry guns. They are bro-tier. And they have giants.

Do your police have broants?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on May 16, 2013, 12:04:04 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on May 16, 2013, 12:02:25 pm
Our police don't even carry guns. They are bro-tier. And they have giants.

Do your police have broants?
No, we have badass horses.
And isn't it a little bit silly not to carry a gun?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 16, 2013, 12:06:06 pm
It is if your polices primary goal is shooting people.

Which it shouldn't be. People start shooting when they feel threatened. If the police doesn't have guns, they don't start shooting.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on May 16, 2013, 12:08:26 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on May 16, 2013, 12:04:04 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on May 16, 2013, 12:02:25 pm
Our police don't even carry guns. They are bro-tier. And they have giants.

Do your police have broants?
No, we have badass horses.
And isn't it a little bit silly not to carry a gun?

The beauty of it is that due to gun control/policing in the UK (other than special units), they don't need them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on May 16, 2013, 12:09:23 pm
Heard of that before. That's pretty damn awesome.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on May 16, 2013, 12:10:30 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on May 16, 2013, 12:08:26 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on May 16, 2013, 12:04:04 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on May 16, 2013, 12:02:25 pm
Our police don't even carry guns. They are bro-tier. And they have giants.

Do your police have broants?
No, we have badass horses.
And isn't it a little bit silly not to carry a gun?

The beauty of it is that due to gun control/policing in the UK (other than special units), they don't need them.
You have heard about the police in the UK massaging the statistics attempting to make it seem like the crime rate has gone down, right?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6736505/Police-force-tricks-to-fiddle-crime-figures.html
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on May 16, 2013, 12:12:13 pm
But kingfisher, you have no idea what kind of terrible things those police officers have to experience every day.

You can't possibly blame them for anything.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on May 16, 2013, 12:14:22 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on May 16, 2013, 12:12:13 pm
But kingfisher, you have no idea what kind of terrible things those police officers have to experience every day.

You can't possibly blame them for anything.
Lol, take my stuff out of context.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 16, 2013, 12:26:08 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on May 16, 2013, 12:10:30 pm
You have heard about the police in the UK massaging the statistics attempting to make it seem like the crime rate has gone down, right?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6736505/Police-force-tricks-to-fiddle-crime-figures.html
You are aware that 3rd parties have also seen lowering trends of crime today, and that half of violent crime in the UK does not end with any injury at all? 1 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22269161) 2 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275280)

Meanwhile (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-05/shooting-deaths-spark-call-for-mental-health-overhaul/3868754) in Australia (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/women-increasingly-target-of-police-action-20110224-1b6x2.html). Does anyone know where you can find the speech from the Vietnamese Buddhist monk about how people change when you put guns in their hands?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on May 16, 2013, 12:32:27 pm
Yeah, and I'll remind everyone that laws against domestic violence are still not being enforced in Topeka, Kansas.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on May 16, 2013, 12:40:43 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on May 16, 2013, 12:26:08 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on May 16, 2013, 12:10:30 pm
You have heard about the police in the UK massaging the statistics attempting to make it seem like the crime rate has gone down, right?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6736505/Police-force-tricks-to-fiddle-crime-figures.html
You are aware that 3rd parties have also seen lowering trends of crime today, and that half of violent crime in the UK does not end with any injury at all? 1 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22269161) 2 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275280)

Meanwhile (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-05/shooting-deaths-spark-call-for-mental-health-overhaul/3868754) in Australia (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/women-increasingly-target-of-police-action-20110224-1b6x2.html). Does anyone know where you can find the speech from the Vietnamese Buddhist monk about how people change when you put guns in their hands?
Oh (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7400372/True-scale-of-violent-crime-rise-revealed.html) really? (http://news.sky.com/story/1084860/no-charges-for-10000-serious-violent-crimes)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on May 16, 2013, 12:44:08 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on May 16, 2013, 12:40:43 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on May 16, 2013, 12:26:08 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on May 16, 2013, 12:10:30 pm
You have heard about the police in the UK massaging the statistics attempting to make it seem like the crime rate has gone down, right?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6736505/Police-force-tricks-to-fiddle-crime-figures.html
You are aware that 3rd parties have also seen lowering trends of crime today, and that half of violent crime in the UK does not end with any injury at all? 1 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22269161) 2 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275280)

Meanwhile (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-05/shooting-deaths-spark-call-for-mental-health-overhaul/3868754) in Australia (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/women-increasingly-target-of-police-action-20110224-1b6x2.html). Does anyone know where you can find the speech from the Vietnamese Buddhist monk about how people change when you put guns in their hands?
Oh (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7400372/True-scale-of-violent-crime-rise-revealed.html) really? (http://news.sky.com/story/1084860/no-charges-for-10000-serious-violent-crimes)

Just so you now, this article was a link on the bottom of the one you just posted... (http://news.sky.com/story/1082202/uk-peace-index-shows-fall-in-violent-crime)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 16, 2013, 12:52:01 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on May 16, 2013, 12:04:04 pm
No, we have badass horses.
And isn't it a little bit silly not to carry a gun?
Not when it leads to far more innocent people being shot than crimes prevented.

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on May 16, 2013, 12:04:04 pm
You have heard about the police in the UK massaging the statistics attempting to make it seem like the crime rate has gone down, right?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6736505/Police-force-tricks-to-fiddle-crime-figures.html
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on May 16, 2013, 12:40:43 pm
Oh (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7400372/True-scale-of-violent-crime-rise-revealed.html) really? (http://news.sky.com/story/1084860/no-charges-for-10000-serious-violent-crimes)
You're just quoting random news articles without actually attempting to form any kind of argument
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 16, 2013, 12:55:44 pm
Some of our fine polis do carry guns, you'll see them in airports carrying assault rifles and submachine guns. I don't know what position they have though or if they're MOD police. Indeed, in Northern Ireland the police are armed with glocks, introduced to replace the old ruger revolvers they carried. Concealed-carry of handguns for civilians is possible in Northern Ireland.

It's funny though, I actually trust my neighbours with guns more than I do any policeman. I get more nervous when I see Scotland's finest with a bloody huge G36 than when I see civilians with guns.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 16, 2013, 01:22:19 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on May 16, 2013, 12:44:08 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on May 16, 2013, 12:40:43 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on May 16, 2013, 12:26:08 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on May 16, 2013, 12:10:30 pm
You have heard about the police in the UK massaging the statistics attempting to make it seem like the crime rate has gone down, right?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6736505/Police-force-tricks-to-fiddle-crime-figures.html
You are aware that 3rd parties have also seen lowering trends of crime today, and that half of violent crime in the UK does not end with any injury at all? 1 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22269161) 2 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275280)

Meanwhile (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-05/shooting-deaths-spark-call-for-mental-health-overhaul/3868754) in Australia (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/women-increasingly-target-of-police-action-20110224-1b6x2.html). Does anyone know where you can find the speech from the Vietnamese Buddhist monk about how people change when you put guns in their hands?
Oh (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7400372/True-scale-of-violent-crime-rise-revealed.html) really? (http://news.sky.com/story/1084860/no-charges-for-10000-serious-violent-crimes)

Just so you now, this article was a link on the bottom of the one you just posted... (http://news.sky.com/story/1082202/uk-peace-index-shows-fall-in-violent-crime)

I'm going with this one as more credible, since it's kind of hard to "fake" the murder rate dropping in half, and that should be a reasonable indicator of violence rising or falling. What were Labour supposedly doing? Shoving bodies under the bed or something?

One one side you have this study, and the British Crime Survey which is run every year, both in agreement that violent crime has fallen (whether it's reported or not). On the other, you have some statistical wizardry and tabloid newspapers, which are using rising reporting rates to say that society is more violent - when it could easily be that violence isn't as tolerated / normalized as it used to be. It might occur to one that violent crime reporting rates could have increased in the 10 years (partly due to Britain having so many CCTV cameras).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 16, 2013, 02:15:16 pm
As far as I can tell they're comparing the actual rise in crime rate due to the reporting changes to the predicted rise which the Home Office initially gave.  All this does is demonstrate that the Home Office's predictions were totally wrong (and if you look at the crime survey you can see this).

Quote from: Owlbread on May 16, 2013, 12:55:44 pm
Some of our fine polis do carry guns, you'll see them in airports carrying assault rifles and submachine guns. I don't know what position they have though or if they're MOD police. Indeed, in Northern Ireland the police are armed with glocks, introduced to replace the old ruger revolvers they carried. Concealed-carry of handguns for civilians is possible in Northern Ireland.
Certain police do have guns - mainly the ones guarding vulnerable areas and armed response units.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 16, 2013, 02:18:37 pm
I'm still quite disconcerted by these AFOs with their enormous assault rifles on patrol. They seem a bit over-the-top, but I suppose they have to be to deter terrorists.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on May 16, 2013, 08:24:48 pm
I would rather have better trained cops then unarmed cops.
More training = Less possibility for a cop to freak out under pressure and shoot a guy
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 16, 2013, 08:27:15 pm
And I would rather we just use magic to make everybody get along in peace and harmony.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on May 16, 2013, 09:32:39 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on May 16, 2013, 08:27:15 pm
And I would rather we just use magic LOTS OF MARIJUANA   to make everybody get along in peace and harmony.

Fixed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 16, 2013, 09:44:44 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on May 16, 2013, 12:00:06 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on May 16, 2013, 11:49:28 am
Living in a nation where the police are signifigantly more effective, less inept, less corrupt and generally far more human than the examples from round the world I see on here makes me very greatful, and also alarmed that such things seem so "normal" in many states.
Do you live in the UK?

And I don't think that's normal for those states. It is pretty abhorrent that this stuff happens, and I don't think that the public stands for it. I myself living in Australia is great. My mum being a police officer has given me a huge insight on what police culture is actually like, and the police here are great, for the most part.

Yeah, I wondered if you were actually from the U.S.

The police are very much out of control here, and getting more so as time goes on.  Cold blooded murders in plain sight have become something that happens at least a couple times a year, and new cases of brutality, corruption, and blatant disregard for legality and protocol are revealed literally every single day.  I personally know at least twice as many people who have been victims of police misconduct or negligence as have been victims of crime.  I have one co-worker who lost a relative to police not too long ago, due to gross negligence of a medical condition while in their custody.  Officers that try to speak out about the corruption in their departments or who impede brutality in progress are promptly fired.  It's bad.  It's to the point that I will do my best to never get police involved in a situation unless certain death is the only alternative.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 16, 2013, 10:39:26 pm
It varies a lot by place, to be truly honest - the US is very large, and very regional in how it handles enforcement. There are some places where the police are little more than an armed gang, and others where they really are the civil servants they are supposed to be.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BinaryBeast1010011010 on May 17, 2013, 02:56:21 am
Just asking, what do you guys think about the retaliative actions taken against LEO such as opsec?
Even if I like neither the mob mentality surrounding anonymous nor the vigilante concept in its entirety I do believe that if it was not for the institutional shield protecting them LEO would not be so corrupt and violent.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 17, 2013, 03:15:31 am
Quote from: BinaryBeast1010011010 on May 17, 2013, 02:56:21 am
Just asking, what do you guys think about the retaliative actions taken against LEO such as opsec?
Almost non-existent.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on May 17, 2013, 07:30:13 am
LEO and opsec?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 17, 2013, 07:48:50 am
I don't know about opsec, but LEO stands for Law Enforcement Organization
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BinaryBeast1010011010 on May 17, 2013, 07:50:42 am
Opsec is a serie of hacks pulled against various peoples and places such as sheriff offices, individual cops and so on
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on May 17, 2013, 08:09:37 am
When and how? Also, does this sum up the average feeling toward the economics system in the general public? How much do you think people will tolerate? http://www.smbc-comics.com/?db=comics&id=2589#comic
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on May 17, 2013, 10:39:46 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on May 17, 2013, 07:48:50 am
I don't know about opsec, but LEO stands for Law Enforcement Organization
Huh. I was thinking it stood for Low Earth Orbit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on May 18, 2013, 12:01:04 am
Lethal Earth Orbitors.

Lazy Eating Oranges.

Long Ear Ostrich.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on May 18, 2013, 06:19:03 am
Lutchling Etchling Otchling.

Obviously.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 18, 2013, 11:06:38 am
All these things. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo)

Annoyingly, neither law enforcement organization or officer is in that list. It took google to figure out that was what was being talked about. Wikipedia hath failed me, once more.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MrSparky on May 18, 2013, 02:56:14 pm
Quote from: Frumple on May 18, 2013, 11:06:38 am
All these things. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo)

Annoyingly, neither law enforcement organization or officer is in that list. It took google to figure out that was what was being talked about. Wikipedia hath failed me, once more.

First section, tenth entry from top/fifth entry from bottom.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 18, 2013, 02:57:25 pm
Spot check failed, apparently. Eh.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 19, 2013, 12:54:20 pm
Just sighed as this. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/19/florida-parent-says-religious-zealots-got-teen-daughter-arrested-for-lesbian-relationship/) As far as i can work out, a 18 year old lesbian was dating a 15 year old (at the same school, so a senior and a junior), the parents of the younger girl objected, then the parents of the other girl realized they could get her expelled from highschool and charged under child sex offenses / statutory rape. Now she's having the book thrown at her by the justice system as a pedophile though she hasn't even graduated yet, and the couple are only two grades apart. Total insanity.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on May 19, 2013, 02:15:03 pm
Quote from: Reelya on May 19, 2013, 12:54:20 pm
Just sighed as this. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/19/florida-parent-says-religious-zealots-got-teen-daughter-arrested-for-lesbian-relationship/) As far as i can work out, a 18 year old lesbian was dating a 15 year old (at the same school, so a senior and a junior), the parents of the younger girl objected, then the parents of the other girl realized they could get her expelled from highschool and charged under child sex offenses / statutory rape. Now she's having the book thrown at her by the justice system as a pedophile though she hasn't even graduated yet, and the couple are only two grades apart. Total insanity.

Hey, the same thing happens all the time in hetero relationships... vengeful parents overprotecting thier child.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on May 19, 2013, 03:42:18 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on May 19, 2013, 02:15:03 pm
Quote from: Reelya on May 19, 2013, 12:54:20 pm
Just sighed as this. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/19/florida-parent-says-religious-zealots-got-teen-daughter-arrested-for-lesbian-relationship/) As far as i can work out, a 18 year old lesbian was dating a 15 year old (at the same school, so a senior and a junior), the parents of the younger girl objected, then the parents of the other girl realized they could get her expelled from highschool and charged under child sex offenses / statutory rape. Now she's having the book thrown at her by the justice system as a pedophile though she hasn't even graduated yet, and the couple are only two grades apart. Total insanity.

Hey, the same thing happens all the time in hetero relationships... vengeful parents overprotecting thier child.
Yeah... It happens a LOT.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 19, 2013, 05:38:26 pm
AoC laws are pretty crazy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on May 19, 2013, 05:43:50 pm
This may surprise you, but I'm very strongly for them as a general principle (though perhaps they might need to be fine-tuned a bit).  I realize that not everyone is like me, but I've had some very bad experiences dating across a four-year age gap--and I was fresh out of high school, a fully consenting adult!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 19, 2013, 06:08:16 pm
Fine tuned way more than a "bit", really. The laws related to statutory are pretty shitty in a lot of places in the states. Sometimes they work as intended, other times they completely ruin someone's life for no damn good reason. Usually see at least a couple cases a year where you've got what's by all indications a fairly stable and healthy relationship, and one of the participants ends up thrown in jail/on the sex offender's list for the rest of their life because they're a few years off from their partner and someone's parent threw a hissyfit.

And especially in the case of ending up on that list, in the states... stick a goddamn fork in you, you're done, that's it, you're screwed more or less permanently. Consenting, healthy relationship? No one being hurt? Everyone whose actual business it is, content? Doesn't bloody matter. End up on that list and you can kiss job prospects and a social life more or less goodbye. Doesn't matter why. Doesn't matter how long ago it was. Y'just flat buggered. A non-crime that bloody close to completely ruins you. S'damned sick, is what it is :-\

Conceptually, though... still pretty ham handed, really. Romeo and Juliet laws help a little in that regard, but... sometimes not enough. Think th'board's actually prodded this line of discussion a couple times, hrm.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on May 19, 2013, 10:03:53 pm
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/19/18322645-palestinian-kids-swept-up-in-wave-of-israeli-arrests?lite
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 19, 2013, 10:15:24 pm
Quote from: Vector on May 19, 2013, 05:43:50 pm
This may surprise you, but I'm very strongly for them as a general principle (though perhaps they might need to be fine-tuned a bit).  I realize that not everyone is like me, but I've had some very bad experiences dating across a four-year age gap--and I was fresh out of high school, a fully consenting adult!
I feel that there are lots of people under the age limit who have the ability and maturity to give consent, and plenty above the age limit who don't. This sort of thing isn't determined by the amount of revolutions you've had around the sun. I only accept hard age limits because it's impossible to test for this sort of thing, so it's the least impractical and ineffective solution out of a lot of ineffectual solutions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on May 19, 2013, 10:25:42 pm
Exactly.  That's how I feel about it, too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Onlyhestands on May 19, 2013, 11:07:44 pm
Quote from: Vector on May 19, 2013, 05:43:50 pm
This may surprise you, but I'm very strongly for them as a general principle (though perhaps they might need to be fine-tuned a bit).  I realize that not everyone is like me, but I've had some very bad experiences dating across a four-year age gap--and I was fresh out of high school, a fully consenting adult!
I dated a women 9 years older than me for a period, no real bad experience with her. I figure the two year leeway rule for people under 18 is good enough. I think an 18yr old with a 15yr old is a bit odd.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on May 19, 2013, 11:09:49 pm
Mine was 18 and 22; I'd just graduated from high school, he'd just graduated from college.  Didn't work out so well because I was a bit of a pushover and didn't have the critical thinking skills I needed to figure out what was going on.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 20, 2013, 12:09:42 am
I see it as such a grey area that I can't shake the feeling that trying to legislate it is overreaching and sort of lashing out uselessly at reality.

I mean... young people put themselves in social situations that they regret later.  This doesn't just apply to romantic relationships, but to every aspect of socialization and it happens to absolutely everybody.  It's not even always about being taken advantage of.  Often enough people hurt each other because they all have their own problems and misunderstandings, or just don't understand what they want.  Screwing up is part of figuring all that out.  I understand that the damage from being taken advantage of in a romantic relationship can run deep and there are real predatory people out there, which is why it's something I don't argue much.  I've never looked into how much variation there is in how different places handle it.  Maybe someplace has sensible laws in this area that wouldn't bother me.  As it stands, they usually seem to be incredibly black & white, which inevitably results in a bunch of collateral damage.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on May 20, 2013, 12:12:04 am
I think I'd feel better about it if part of our general coursework included discussion of consent.  I don't just mean sexually, I mean on all levels, like how prisoners cannot meaningfully consent to a lot of things.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 20, 2013, 12:17:48 am
Yeah.  I think we'd probably all agree that the real problem is we're instituting threat of punishment for behaviors that are the result of other failings in society.  Majority of parents don't get as much time with their kids as they really need for healthy parenting, and school does absolutely nothing to teach or encourage social awareness and responsibility (like teaching about consent).  And then there's so little support for people who become damaged as a result.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on May 20, 2013, 01:05:31 pm
Salmongod, to be honest I'm not sure if the parents would do a better job on that front if they could.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 20, 2013, 01:11:13 pm
My parents taught me quite well about stuff like consent and social awareness, responsibility etc. Much better than I ever got in school at any time of my education. I don't know why you suggest sweepingly that parents wouldn't do a better job on that front if they could, Novel.

Fake Edit: God damnit why do I have to be pageking after saying something that isn't very profound? I'm going to quote Salmongod instead.

Quote from: SalmonGod on May 20, 2013, 12:17:48 am
Yeah.  I think we'd probably all agree that the real problem is we're instituting threat of punishment for behaviors that are the result of other failings in society.  Majority of parents don't get as much time with their kids as they really need for healthy parenting, and school does absolutely nothing to teach or encourage social awareness and responsibility (like teaching about consent).  And then there's so little support for people who become damaged as a result.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on May 21, 2013, 06:54:00 am
There's a limit to how responsible i expect most adults, including parents, to be. Most do the bare minimum of family and (close) friends, and it is not enough. Tell me when they're acting any better then their children will.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 21, 2013, 08:14:24 am
I think we should always give parents a chance to raise their own kids. We should have faith in people. The same argument can be applied to age ratings and such on computer games/films etc. They should be guidelines to help parents understand what they're buying for their kids, not law.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on May 21, 2013, 08:48:18 am
It will help, yes. I just doubt enough.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 21, 2013, 09:06:04 am
Enough for what?  I don't really understand the point of what you're saying, in context.  Yeah, there are bad parents.  All I was saying is that it doesn't matter if a parent is good or bad if they aren't allowed time and energy to devote to parenting in the first place, and that they aren't is one factor in the overall point I was making.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on May 21, 2013, 09:28:32 am
I'm talking about social awareness and responsibility. Their kids may well be better then they were there, and I'm not particularly sure they'd be the ones I'd praise for it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on May 21, 2013, 02:53:46 pm
http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/illegal-gay-teen-florida-141300769.html
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on May 21, 2013, 02:56:47 pm
AKA: Don't ever have laws which you don't enforce 100%* of the time.
Justice can't be and shouldn't be arbitrary.

*or 0%, woohoo drug laws

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 21, 2013, 03:10:14 pm
Laws enforced 100% of the time tend to be equally if not more arbitrary.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on May 21, 2013, 03:18:38 pm
I'm not saying the law itself was a good one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 29, 2013, 01:01:13 am
Wondering what people think of this.  The Scottish government has launched a plan to assign every child a state guardian who monitors family life and parenting style. (http://www.scotsman.com/news/stuart-walton-care-plan-sees-dystopian-future-arriving-early-1-2922270)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2013, 01:05:01 am
Crazy, oppressive, and untenable? It's a rare day we see legislation that is so utterly foolish.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on May 29, 2013, 06:24:37 am
Seems a little ambitious to me. I mean, where are you going to get enough professionals to do this o.O?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 29, 2013, 06:50:00 am
I guess it really depends on how they implement it. Although I'm wary of the personnal thing, don't like state-sponsored godfathers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 29, 2013, 07:02:29 am
Quote from: Dutchling on May 29, 2013, 06:24:37 am
Seems a little ambitious to me. I mean, where are you going to get enough professionals to do this o.O?
Basically what they do with teachers in a lot of places. 20-30 families per professional and you're set. Maybe anywhere from sixty to ninety, depending on a staggered monthly schedule or somethin'. Though looking at that article that seems to suggest that each child gets a unique supervisor... hrm.

Sounds... kinda' interesting overall, if not necessarily appealing. Makes me wonder yet again why people seem intent on setting up half-assed creche systems, though. Why not go full monty? We've reached the point that we apparently don't trust parents to raise their kids (for reasons of varying coherence), so you'd think the thing to do at this point is set up a system that creates people we do trust for such an act, and then have them do it. Which is what the discussed thing is trying to go about, just via a massively inefficient method.

But overall, I'd say... hell, go for it. Don't let anyone else go that route for a few decades and let Scotland be the experiment. See how it turns out. They apparently want to have a go at it and it's a pretty massive change, so letting some empirical data spew out for a while before deciding how it went sounds like a good idea.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 29, 2013, 08:43:31 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on May 29, 2013, 01:01:13 am
Wondering what people think of this.  The Scottish government has launched a plan to assign every child a state guardian who monitors family life and parenting style. (http://www.scotsman.com/news/stuart-walton-care-plan-sees-dystopian-future-arriving-early-1-2922270)

I'm very surprised. I haven't heard anything about this at all. It sounds exactly like something the Scottish Labour party would implement, the kind of thing that makes my skin crawl, that's why I'm so surprised it would come from the SNP. The reason for going down this route must be because of Labour's push in recent months for greater attention to be given to child care, so the SNP apparently felt that they had to do something radical. They have missed the mark by a mile in this case, unfortunately.

I will say, however, that I struggle to find other articles on the subject beyond stuff from David Icke, nor do I find any statements from the SNP. That particular newspaper is very, very anti SNP and biased heavily against independence. They have published a negative article on the subject of independence in literally every single paper since roughly September 2011 when they got a new editor, I've been tracking them for nearly two years. A Centrist, pro-business newspaper that represents the views of the wealthy, conservative Edinburgh establishment. They are very prone to blowing small issues way out of proportion and giving negative interpretation on the behalf of "impartial pundits" like David Torrance. Most of their most prolific reporters are related in some way to the Labour Party or tied in with other Unionist groups.

I'm going to wait until I read some more articles on the subject from at least the BBC, the Independent and the Herald (the most neutral papers/news sources we have) and hear an official statement before I make up my mind.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 29, 2013, 08:46:11 am
Yeah, I knew nothing of the source.  Half the reason I had no opinion to go with the article when I posted it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on May 29, 2013, 08:56:33 am
The only sources I've seen on that were "See, this is why the SNP/liberals/gubment is bad! They're a nanny state!" articles. Not exactly unbiased.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 29, 2013, 09:55:00 am
I don't think it would be all that untenable though, I would imagine all you'd really need would be something like your child's GP becoming an appointed state guardian for that child until they reach a certain age. There's nothing to say that each guardian would have to look after 1 kid and 1 kid only.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 29, 2013, 11:11:14 am
Although, I think every family being assigned a resource of this sort would certainly be beneficial. I've known quite a few parents who'd kill for someone they could trust to ask some incredibly basic questions and get some incredibly basic answers, because everything they are told by everyone is often contradictory and clearly wrong. Of course, I've not seen an actual description of what this proposal will actually DO that holds it's own weight, so it honestly could be anything.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 29, 2013, 11:40:27 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 29, 2013, 11:11:14 am
Although, I think every family being assigned a resource of this sort would certainly be beneficial. I've known quite a few parents who'd kill for someone they could trust to ask some incredibly basic questions and get some incredibly basic answers, because everything they are told by everyone is often contradictory and clearly wrong. Of course, I've not seen an actual description of what this proposal will actually DO that holds it's own weight, so it honestly could be anything.

The highly sensationalist nature of that article doesn't really help either. I mean, prattling on for several paragraphs about the creation of a dystopia is a bit immature.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on May 29, 2013, 11:52:05 am
Sounds like a good idea to me. Not being able to catch bad parents until it is too late and the kid's psyche and life is permanently damaged has to be one of the main economic drains on society anyway, not to mention the spirality of this problem.

Completely unfeasable to actually implement in a quality-minded way and probably in great danger of corruption, though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 29, 2013, 12:21:24 pm
Yeah, the problem with that is we already HAVE that for the foster-care/adoption system... and it's fucking terrible. If this is the best they can do already, I'd hate to see what a huge increase in demand, like this, would accomplish. (Assuming "this" is anything like what is described)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 29, 2013, 12:57:04 pm
There are a lot of concerns with such an idea, and the one I'd like to bring up is the fact that the guardian is no more likely to be good for the child than the parents are.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 29, 2013, 06:22:23 pm
I know that if anything like this were tried in the U.S., I'd be scared out of my wits.  There would definitely be an agenda pushed by lobbies to look for any reason to ensure that kids are drugged and fed in certain ways, and there's no doubt in my mind it would be used to identify political dissent.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on May 29, 2013, 07:10:41 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on May 29, 2013, 12:57:04 pm
There are a lot of concerns with such an idea, and the one I'd like to bring up is the fact that the guardian is no more likely to be good for the child than the parents are.

Any sensible implementation of such an idea would require that the guardian be a trained person that has some kind of formal qualification, while anyone can have a kid.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 29, 2013, 07:16:37 pm
It'd be easier and more practical to just require such certification for parents.

There's no practical benefit to having a 1:1 child to guardian ratio. If we specialize them, there'd be far more kids than guardians, so it'd be more like 1:10 or 1:100, which would have the same problems that child services have today. If we don't specialize them, then they're no better than parents are.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on May 29, 2013, 07:31:54 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on May 29, 2013, 07:16:37 pm
It'd be easier and more practical to just require such certification for parents.

There's no practical benefit to having a 1:1 child to guardian ratio. If we specialize them, there'd be far more kids than guardians, so it'd be more like 1:10 or 1:100, which would have the same problems that child services have today. If we don't specialize them, then they're no better than parents are.
Difficulty here is parents are made from any one who can have sex, and it stands to reason many people will pass through the holes in such a system if it was  weak(or god forbid voluntary), or be a unreasonable amount of over-reach if it wasn't. Plus accidents happen, and then what? Should we just take a child away from any non-certified parent? That sounds pretty Orwellian, and would inspire mass rage.


Seems way too likely to result in a either useless or extreme system.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on May 29, 2013, 07:42:06 pm
I do think there ought to be more things for which Child Services should be called in for, at least smarter things. Giving your baby soda pop in a baby bottle, for example...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 29, 2013, 07:43:11 pm
Quote from: FearfulJesuit on May 29, 2013, 07:42:06 pm
I do think there ought to be more things for which Child Services should be called in for, at least smarter things. Giving your baby soda pop in a baby bottle, for example...
How despicable, not even fried soda?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on May 29, 2013, 07:43:39 pm
Quote from: FearfulJesuit on May 29, 2013, 07:42:06 pm
I do think there ought to be more things for which Child Services should be called in for, at least smarter things. Giving your baby soda pop in a baby bottle, for example...
...I fail to see the harm O_o
Then again, I'm probably not good parenting material.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on May 29, 2013, 07:46:47 pm
I am inclined to disagree. Frankly, it tends to lead to fewer people actually being taken away from bad situations as making regular people's lives harder.


I may be a bit biased though...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 29, 2013, 08:43:45 pm
Quote from: misko27 on May 29, 2013, 07:31:54 pm
Seems way too likely to result in a either useless or extreme system.
Yup. That's pretty much the lesson to be learned from this topic.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on May 29, 2013, 09:06:57 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on May 29, 2013, 08:43:45 pm
Quote from: misko27 on May 29, 2013, 07:31:54 pm
Seems way too likely to result in a either useless or extreme system.
Yup. That's pretty much my opinion on the topic.
FTFY
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 29, 2013, 09:12:59 pm
What's your opinion, then?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on May 29, 2013, 09:18:49 pm
Sounds probably good on paper, will probably not be good in real life.
It would add a bunch of bureaucracy, cost money, and hurt people who don't abuse their kids then actually catch people who do.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 29, 2013, 09:21:58 pm
That doesn't seem to disagree with anything I said :X
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on May 29, 2013, 09:31:21 pm
Calling it a lesson seemed a little conceited. Like the conclusion was obvious or something.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 30, 2013, 05:08:29 am
Well, this is so vague we really can't see anything. At minimum, it would entail expanding the work of social helpers to all family, which doesn't strike me as really bad. Of course, the UK do have a tendency to take the kids away fast it seems, so it could be a problem.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on May 30, 2013, 06:08:09 am
Something that could work better, though, if perhaps still a bit of a dream, is to give every child a "social contact" (for lackof better word). Now, these wouldn't be fullblown social workers/agents, but rather serve as a personal face and "middle-man", somebody the kids has interacted with and at least knows a little and hopefully trusts - it would be easier for kids to approach these people than strangers and it would lift some responsibility of the teachers shoulders as these practically has to serve this function already without getting any pay or gratitude for it (but plenty of blame when things go wrong). The "contact" could then approach the correct social agency or police if necessary. And it wouldn't just be about keeping check on children's family life, but about bullying, ostracisation, or abuse from teachers or other non-family authority figures in the kid's life.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 30, 2013, 06:15:54 am
Isn't that what the Scots are planning?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on May 30, 2013, 06:46:43 am
Dunno. Who ever knows what the Scots are planning?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 30, 2013, 10:25:14 am
Quote from: scriver on May 30, 2013, 06:46:43 am
Dunno. Who ever knows what the Scots are planning?

Not even us.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on May 30, 2013, 11:35:34 am
Nobody expects the Scottish Inquisition.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ameablable on May 30, 2013, 12:29:48 pm
[this post never happened]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on May 30, 2013, 02:12:40 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on May 29, 2013, 07:16:37 pm
It'd be easier and more practical to just require such certification for parents.

I think that's not as easy as it sounds. I wish there would be a nice way to do this. Having a kid sure requires more responsibility than driving a car and we require people to have a license for those. But how can you keep those without a parent-license from making a baby?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 31, 2013, 04:52:20 am
That's easy. At puberty, collect and freeze sperm from every male, then perform a forced vasectomy. they can now only have kids by using their state-controlled sperm supply.


Now, the real question is how can we do it without going into a dystopia.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on May 31, 2013, 04:59:14 am
...You call being able to have consequence-freer sex a dystopia? :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on May 31, 2013, 05:03:30 am
Quote from: Sheb on May 31, 2013, 04:52:20 am
That's easy. At puberty, collect and freeze sperm from every male, then perform a forced vasectomy. they can now only have kids by using their state-controlled sperm supply.
...
So when do you start taking applicants?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 31, 2013, 05:07:12 am
Yeah, I know lots of people at my college who would see that as less of a forced vasectomy than a free vasectomy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on May 31, 2013, 05:21:37 am
Not only that, they keep your sperm sample on ice so you can still have kids one day! Fucking win-win!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 31, 2013, 07:08:58 am
Am I alone in being unenthusiastic about neutering myself?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 31, 2013, 07:15:31 am
... you wouldn't be losing reproductive capability, just establishing more or less total control over it. Assuming implementation was properly done, anyway. What's to be unenthusiastic about? Sounds like an improvement from the normal state of things, t'me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 31, 2013, 07:20:35 am
Quote from: Frumple on May 31, 2013, 07:15:31 am
... you wouldn't be losing reproductive capability, just establishing more or less total control over it. Assuming implementation was properly done, anyway. What's to be unenthusiastic about? Sounds like an improvement from the normal state of things, t'me.

If I can't ejaculate and have to rely on a state controlled supply every time I want a wean then that is neutering myself. I can still have a baby, but I would be neutered. I would rather not submit to something like that for the same reason that women would rather not have their husbands control their wombs; I don't want someone else to control my body or force me to alter it in any way.

I think this would be far better as a voluntary program than something forced on people, otherwise I'm going to have to go Logan's Run and live in the jungle somewhere.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on May 31, 2013, 07:24:25 am
Well from my understanding there is no loss in sexual pleasure, so that isn't really an issue.
As for having kids when ever you want... Over population, potential for bad parenting, we can't all be parents and have it work out blah blah blah political idealism huge amount of faith in humanity what could go wrong?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 31, 2013, 07:26:11 am
Quote from: Max White on May 31, 2013, 07:24:25 am
Well from my understanding there is no loss in sexual pleasure, so that isn't really an issue.
As for having kids when ever you want... Over population, potential for bad parenting, we can't all be parents and have it work out blah blah blah political idealism huge amount of faith in humanity what could go wrong?

It's got nothing to do with sexual pleasure. I would rather have faith in humanity and suffer the effects of over population than submit to being neutered by the state. A voluntary program is preferable, in my opinion. If you guys want the state to provide you with an operation like that, by all means go for it. Maybe in the UK we could get the NHS to cover vastectomies.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on May 31, 2013, 07:29:20 am
No the subtle self aware point I was trying to make was that I was having an unfounded level of faith in humanity by assuming that such a program wouldn't eventually be used as a method of silent genocide against some genetic trait.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 31, 2013, 07:31:30 am
Okay, first bit: You can still ejaculate, you're just sterile. Your issue is obviously with the latter bit, but don't misrepresent the process in question while you're taking issue with it, yeah?

The bits after that... sure. Properly implemented, though, it wouldn't be state "controlled" in the way you're likely thinking... access and whatnot would be entirely in the hands of the individual -- no vetting process, whatever. By and large you'd have more control over your body than previously, really, because you'd have absolute control over the reproductive process instead of leaving that bit up to varying degrees of physiological chance. At least insofar as the separately stored reproductive material goes.

The actual surgery aspect, sure, be welcome to have issues with. I wouldn't exactly disagree. But state enabled vasectomy, with complementary sperm storage? Sign me the blazes up. That sure as hell isn't being neutered in my book.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 31, 2013, 08:01:11 am
Vasectomies can have nasty complications.  I thought about getting one for a while, but I found this rather intimidating. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-vasectomy_pain_syndrome)  The percentage may not look high, but I always look at these things in terms of a die roll.  It's almost the same as a 1 on a d20.  If this is something that were done to everybody, that would be millions of men subjected to a chronic pain condition, just in the U.S..

I'd also want my sperm stored in multiple locations and if I ever decide to make use of them, a dna test done to make sure there's no mix-ups before fertilization.

And yeah... it would be an enormous power granted to the government.  Should some prejudice ever get too popular, ensuring the destruction of a minority within a couple generations would be... disturbingly simple.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 31, 2013, 08:12:26 am
Interesting how most of the sources in that article are over a decade old, hrm (and a couple of the ones that aren't seem to be referencing cases where it was done years previous.). Wonder if the process has improved, or that bit of data re: control group has been collected yet. Know of any more recent studies, SG?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 31, 2013, 08:32:29 am
Nah... it was like 5 years ago when I looked into it, and I didn't dig that deep.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on May 31, 2013, 09:30:06 am
So this (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57586886/nigerian-lawmakers-pass-anti-gay-marriage-bill/) happened in Nigeria.

Quote
Lawmakers in Nigeria passed a bill Thursday banning gay marriage and outlawing anyone from forming organizations supporting gay rights, setting prison terms of up to 14 years for offenders.

While the USA slowly improves, somewhere else goes to... It's almost as if there was a cosmic law that good must be balanced out by bullshit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 31, 2013, 09:32:29 am
The situation in the US and Africa is actually linked: as the US turn more progressive, conservative gay-haters turn to Africa as the next battleground.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 31, 2013, 09:35:25 am
Africa has hardly been a gay friendly place for some time now. The continent is split between conservative Christian factions and Sunni Islam, possibly the most gay unfriendly peoples on Earth. South Africa is the one and only African nation with any legal recognition of gay couples, and that was from a deeply unpopular judicial ruling.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 31, 2013, 09:38:30 am
A lot of anti-gay laws are actually legacies of colonial rule.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on May 31, 2013, 09:57:22 am
There are a bunch of Nigerians working at my boarding school.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 31, 2013, 01:47:36 pm
In another part of the world, good things happened (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22731013), at least.

Australia is slightly less crazy than expected.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 31, 2013, 07:10:55 pm
There were Nigerian janitors working at my office for a while who said they don't listen to music because they think it's the devil.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on May 31, 2013, 08:44:18 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on May 31, 2013, 07:10:55 pm
There were Nigerian janitors working at my office for a while who said they don't listen to music because they think it's the devil.

I know this was meant harmlessly, but this kind of reminds me of those stories racist white people would tell.

"Look at these savages, think the aeroplane is a bird!"

No offence meant, not calling you a racist/a liar.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 31, 2013, 08:57:11 pm
Yeah, it wasn't meant to be racist.  The talk of Africa being extremely religious conservative just reminded me of that.  They actually seemed like really nice guys.  A lot of my co-workers chatted with them when they were around and they were really friendly.  They were always smiling.

But then one day the person sitting across from me asked "What kinda music do you guys listen to?" and that was the response.  There was no implied tone of "and we think you're going to hell" or anything like that.  They still maintained the same positive, friendly demeanor.  But we were all sort of stunned into silence for a while.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 31, 2013, 09:42:55 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on May 31, 2013, 07:10:55 pm
There were Nigerian janitors working at my office for a while who said they don't listen to music because they think it's the devil.
And suddenly the mind goes, "Now, you may not know it, but I'm a fiddle player, too..."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on May 31, 2013, 09:43:56 pm
A lot of people I know, including the few aforementioned Nigerian staff, listen to rap music. Which, if you're going to look at things from a religious, conservative viewpoint, is the most sinful music around.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on May 31, 2013, 09:53:43 pm
You kids and your ragtime! Get off my lawn!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 31, 2013, 10:02:28 pm
As we all know, Jay-Z worships the devil. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozgOaX7WBig)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 31, 2013, 10:05:46 pm
Quote from: Morrigi on May 31, 2013, 09:43:56 pm
A lot of people I know, including the few aforementioned Nigerian staff, listen to rap music. Which, if you're going to look at things from a religious, conservative viewpoint, is the most sinful music around.
You might be surprised... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_hip_hop)

... seriously though, rap actually has a fairly notable gospel influence, last time I bothered paying attention. Cribs a bit both from the american gospel tradition and some of the vocal stuff coming out of the more traditional european styles. It's also, uh. A lot closer to some of the religious "this is totally not music, see? No instruments, no vibrato!" thing than a lot of other styles.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 31, 2013, 10:17:08 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on May 31, 2013, 07:10:55 pm
There were Nigerian janitors working at my office for a while who said they don't listen to music because they think it's the devil.

If they were Nigerian Muslims they may just be very devout. It is quite common, there was a particular Ottoman Sultan I believe who loathed music for that very reason and would always walk around his palace in metal shoes (I think) that would be loud enough to let his servants know when he was coming and that they should stop whistling.

In Scotland we have a radical, Calvinist, Christian church called the Free Presbyterian Church (we call them the Wee Frees). They're mostly based in the Highlands, but they really, really had (not sure if they still do) it in for music because they considered it satanic. They would only sing psalms, that's it. There are stories of them burning their fiddles and bagpipes and stuff in piles as demonstrations. Obviously, you can imagine how damaging that would be to Highland culture if that church became dominant, as it did. As one poet put it, "they took the fire from our hearths and put searing bonfires in our hearts".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on May 31, 2013, 10:20:29 pm
Were the metal shoes a gift from his servants after he kept punishing them for whistling?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on May 31, 2013, 10:36:30 pm
Quote from: Max White on May 31, 2013, 10:20:29 pm
Were the metal shoes a gift from his servants after he kept punishing them for whistling?

Who knows? He was an eccentric fellow.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mech#4 on May 31, 2013, 11:08:56 pm
I wonder if he had a blue suit to go with the metal shoes. That way he could walk underwater. :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on May 31, 2013, 11:09:55 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 31, 2013, 09:35:25 am
Africa has hardly been a gay friendly place for some time now. The continent is split between conservative Christian factions and Sunni Islam, possibly the most gay unfriendly peoples on Earth. South Africa is the one and only African nation with any legal recognition of gay couples, and that was from a deeply unpopular judicial ruling.

Yeah, it's become common enough knowledge that certain places in Africa are trying to make being gay a capital, death penalty criminal offense. :( Uganda comes to mind.

Sadly, things are quite screwed up at the moment for those of us who are GLBT....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on May 31, 2013, 11:12:33 pm
Well lets just be happy the rest of the world is more understanding, right? Right?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 31, 2013, 11:22:11 pm
Quote from: Max White on May 31, 2013, 11:12:33 pm
Well lets just be happy the rest of the world is more understanding, right? Right?

Saw a related thing that made me happy today.

One of the admins for an Adventure Time fan group on Facebook that I follow casually mentioned being lesbian today.  Some one commented with something like "You're probably some teenage girl who pretends to be lesbian for attention."  The guy was immediately shit on by over 50 people, and was completely alone.  Made me happy to see such support on a major public internet space that's normally thought of as a breeding ground for raving intolerance.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 01, 2013, 08:06:19 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on May 31, 2013, 11:22:11 pm
Quote from: Max White on May 31, 2013, 11:12:33 pm
Well lets just be happy the rest of the world is more understanding, right? Right?

Saw a related thing that made me happy today.

One of the admins for an Adventure Time fan group on Facebook that I follow casually mentioned being lesbian today.  Some one commented with something like "You're probably some teenage girl who pretends to be lesbian for attention."  The guy was immediately shit on by over 50 people, and was completely alone.  Made me happy to see such support on a major public internet space that's normally thought of as a breeding ground for raving intolerance.

I think its fair to say that I have observed people in the generation younger than mine (Me being 31... so anyone up to about the age of 21?) being far more accepting of all sexual orientations. Probably something to do with greater connectivity or ability to communicate with a wider range of people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 01, 2013, 10:26:15 am
Kind of a virtuous circle: as society become more accepting, more people come out, so more people actually know LGTB people, so they're more accepting...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on June 01, 2013, 11:30:19 am
Makes plenty of sense from my perspective.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on June 01, 2013, 12:31:45 pm
There's a whole bunch of factors that all have positive feedback relationships with each other.  There's been great activism and cultural effort for more tolerance and understanding in general, but especially targeting deep prejudices such as what's direct at LGBTs.  Those efforts have been riding strongly on the rise of the information era.  The information era has also been damaging the strict influence that religion has had on people's lives, making them more receptive.  As people open up to each other, the barriers just keep weakening and progress accelerating.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on June 02, 2013, 02:49:48 pm
Certainly doesn't mean that everything is good.

After all, the internet allows people that hate others to have an easy and anonymous way to commit hate speech, and to talk with other people that hate the same kind of people they do.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on June 02, 2013, 03:49:21 pm
Be sure to listen to this week's This American Life episode. It's part 2 of that great episode on the clusterfuck which is the software patent system.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on June 02, 2013, 07:56:32 pm
Link please.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on June 04, 2013, 07:23:37 pm
Yeah, it takes a couple days after it airs before the podcast version goes up; but it's up now:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/when-patents-attack-part-two
Part 1, from 2 years ago, can be found here:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack


Also, a related story: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/obama-administration-comes-out-swinging-against-patent-trolls/
There's some pretty strong motion in Congress and the White House to push against this stuff now! Huzzah!
And Vermont is fighting back against one of the companies mentioned towards the end of the episode; the one extorting money from small businesses and non-profit charities: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/patent-troll-that-wants-1000-per-worker-gets-sued-by-vermont-a-g/
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on June 05, 2013, 05:00:02 am
Thank you very much alway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 06, 2013, 09:25:06 am
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cheerios-stands-tv-ad-showing-151048704.html

Cherio's had an ad with a little mixed race girl, a black dad and a white mom eating and talking about cereal. THE HORROR! This makes it controversial somehow. The yahoo articles comment section is disabled.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2013, 09:29:16 am
I bet it's all part of Cheerios' campaign, to create the impression they're standing up against outrage and cast them as the good guys.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2013, 09:30:52 am
Ah, yes, the EA Oppression Gambit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2013, 10:15:30 am
I don't know of that one?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2013, 10:17:05 am
EA was having some scandal (there have been so many I don't actually remember what it was), and they tried to deflect it by saying that the critics were all homophobes who hated EA for their LGBT friendliness.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 06, 2013, 10:22:48 am
In this case, Cherio's really was getting attacked by racist in their youtube channel.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2013, 10:24:22 am
Sure, I mean, you know Youtube, there probably was some dumb racists making racists comment. It's Youtube! But I'm pretty sure they blew that out of proportion to grab more attention. How else would journalists even know the comment had been disabled if they had not communicated about it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 06, 2013, 10:25:01 am
It is pretty shocking how recently miscegenation was regarded as unacceptable by the majority of people in the US (1990s, I think).  That said I don't think the fact that there are dumb racists on youtube (probably linked to that video by their dumb racist websites) is news.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 06, 2013, 10:32:04 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2013, 10:17:05 am
EA was having some scandal (there have been so many I don't actually remember what it was), and they tried to deflect it by saying that the critics were all homophobes who hated EA for their LGBT friendliness.
Wasn't it the Mass effect thingy, where they set up a poll to support EA for their brave descisions, and then used bots because nobody was voting.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2013, 10:35:22 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on June 06, 2013, 10:25:01 am
It is pretty shocking how recently miscegenation was regarded as unacceptable by the majority of people in the US (1990s, I think).
Not exactly. I'm guessing the study you're thinking of is this one (http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-white-marriages.aspx) (though it is technically only counting miscegenation between black and white people). Approval only became a majority in 1997, but it exceeded disapproval in 1983.

The trend is not very surprising. This was the period of time where the majority of the Greatest Generation died off. Baby Boomers and later spent most of their lives in a more racially friendly environment, causing the massive spike in approval.
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on June 06, 2013, 10:32:04 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2013, 10:17:05 am
EA was having some scandal (there have been so many I don't actually remember what it was), and they tried to deflect it by saying that the critics were all homophobes who hated EA for their LGBT friendliness.
Wasn't it the Mass effect thingy, where they set up a poll to support EA for their brave descisions, and then used bots because nobody was voting.
I think it was The Old Republic, where they had a super brave Gay Romance Planet DLC (you wish I was making that up).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2013, 10:50:47 am
I was looking up that DLC, and "Pay-to-gay" is now my favorite game-related expression.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 06, 2013, 11:00:55 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2013, 10:35:22 am
Not exactly. I'm guessing the study you're thinking of is this one (http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-white-marriages.aspx) (though it is technically only counting miscegenation between black and white people). Approval only became a majority in 1997, but it exceeded disapproval in 1983.
Yeah, I had it backwards in my head, oops.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2013, 10:35:22 am
I think it was The Old Republic, where they had a super brave Gay Romance Planet DLC (you wish I was making that up).
I totally want to live on Gay Romance Planet.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on June 06, 2013, 11:52:08 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2013, 10:35:22 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on June 06, 2013, 10:32:04 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2013, 10:17:05 am
EA was having some scandal (there have been so many I don't actually remember what it was), and they tried to deflect it by saying that the critics were all homophobes who hated EA for their LGBT friendliness.
Wasn't it the Mass effect thingy, where they set up a poll to support EA for their brave descisions, and then used bots because nobody was voting.
I think it was The Old Republic, where they had a super brave Gay Romance Planet DLC (you wish I was making that up).
No, it was Mass Effect 3, specifically people were very critical of the game for the ending, then basically out of nowhere they started a petition to themselves, "to keep protecting LGBT rights", which was apparently in response to religious organisations hassling the company...
It got signed thousands of times... by bots that posted the same comments over and over. I honestly don't know how many real people signed the petition.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on June 06, 2013, 12:15:23 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 06, 2013, 09:25:06 am
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cheerios-stands-tv-ad-showing-151048704.html

Cherio's had an ad with a little mixed race girl, a black dad and a white mom eating and talking about cereal. THE HORROR! This makes it controversial somehow. The yahoo articles comment section is disabled.

On the flip side, the existence of this trope http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AmbiguouslyBrown has been something I've noted all my life, as i well might, and I've grown sufficiently tired of it that it serves as a mental note of doing the bare minimum. I am mixed, by the way.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 06, 2013, 04:41:01 pm
http://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/features/article/-/17094076/abandoned/

Yea. A woman was thrown in prison for being raped in Dubai.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 06, 2013, 04:56:53 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 06, 2013, 04:41:01 pm
http://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/features/article/-/17094076/abandoned/

Yea. A woman was thrown in prison for being raped in Dubai.
Why would you post this in the calm or cool thread? I demand rage for this injustice!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on June 07, 2013, 11:25:19 pm
Hacker Who Exposed Steubenville Rape Case Could Spend More Time Behind Bars Than The Rapists (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/06/07/2119171/anonymous-hacker-steubenville-jail/?mobile=nc)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on June 07, 2013, 11:53:13 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on June 07, 2013, 11:25:19 pm
Hacker Who Exposed Steubenville Rape Case Could Spend More Time Behind Bars Than The Rapists (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/06/07/2119171/anonymous-hacker-steubenville-jail/?mobile=nc)
Wow. One would think a government that listens to my skype conversations and reads my google searches would give that guy a medal for invading others privacy and actually solving a crime that way.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on June 08, 2013, 12:09:03 am
Quote from: XXSockXX on June 07, 2013, 11:53:13 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on June 07, 2013, 11:25:19 pm
Hacker Who Exposed Steubenville Rape Case Could Spend More Time Behind Bars Than The Rapists (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/06/07/2119171/anonymous-hacker-steubenville-jail/?mobile=nc)
Wow. One would think a government that listens to my skype conversations and reads my google searches would give that guy a medal for invading others privacy and actually solving a crime that way.

Hadn't even thought of that.  Really de-legitimizes the whole pretense that they're just an organization that believes in going to extreme measures for the sake of security and justice.  The only way they can hold that up is if they're like "Kids like this are taking our jobs!!!"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 08, 2013, 12:11:45 am
The police bust down criminals' doors and point guns at them, so they should be glad when I do the same thing.

It's quite possible (probable, even) their only argument is "Citizens don't have the right to do anything the government can."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on June 08, 2013, 12:12:53 am
Should he be punished?

Yes.

Is invading someones privacy worse then rape?

No.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 08, 2013, 12:16:23 am
SHOULD he be punished? Did he actually do anything wrong?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on June 08, 2013, 12:18:48 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on June 08, 2013, 12:16:23 am
SHOULD he be punished? Did he actually do anything wrong?
If a cop searches through your house, then yes he did something wrong.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 08, 2013, 12:21:07 am
Quote from: Devling on June 08, 2013, 12:12:53 am
Should he be punished?

Yes.

Is invading someones privacy worse then rape?

No.

Don't assume I support the punishment just because I disagree with Sock's argument against it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on June 08, 2013, 12:23:17 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on June 08, 2013, 12:21:07 am
Quote from: Devling on June 08, 2013, 12:12:53 am
Should he be punished?

Yes.

Is invading someones privacy worse then rape?

No.

Don't assume I support the punishment just because I disagree with Sock's argument against it.
I was just sharing my opinion on the matter in general, not specifically replying to you.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 08, 2013, 12:25:05 am
Oh, sorry. I reacted a little too aggressively.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 08, 2013, 12:27:27 am
I don't think he did anything wrong. The rapists probably wouldn't have been convicted if not for him. Hell, they were barely convicted with all the evidence he exposed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on June 08, 2013, 12:28:16 am
I'm looking at this from two angles right now.

1.  Would he be prosecuted as aggressively if he had stolen personal communications, photos, and video that didn't relate to a high-profile criminal case?

2.  If all this surveillance is going on, why isn't it being employed in cases like this?  It's obviously being used in plenty of other cases that have nothing to do with terrorism.  It seems quite plain to me that the will simply isn't there to effectively investigate this type of crime with the same tools.  Given these circumstances, is it really wrong for citizens to take private action in leveling the field of justice? 

Quote from: penguinofhonor on June 08, 2013, 12:11:45 am
The police bust down criminals' doors and point guns at them, so they should be glad when I do the same thing.

It's quite possible (probable, even) their only argument is "Citizens don't have the right to do anything the government can."

Does mere collection of evidence make one vigilante?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on June 08, 2013, 12:41:22 am
Breaking the law makes you a criminal.
Change the law, don't condone people breaking it for good.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on June 08, 2013, 12:44:23 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on June 08, 2013, 12:21:07 am
Don't assume I support the punishment just because I disagree with Sock's argument against it.
I wasn't making an argument, I was being sarcastic. The US government collects lots of private information from foreign users (the PRISM thing). That is clearly against our privacy laws, recording phone conversations without consent or court order is a crime in Germany. So it seems hypocritical to me that they might sentence this guy to 10 years, while they basically do the same thing "to fight crime".

I think he was doing something wrong, and he should be punished. But I would have expected something like 6 months on probation, up to 10 years seems completely excessive.

Quote from: SalmonGod on June 08, 2013, 12:28:16 am
I'm looking at this from two angles right now.

1.  Would he be prosecuted as aggressively if he had stolen personal communications, photos, and video that didn't relate to a high-profile criminal case?

2.  If all this surveillance is going on, why isn't it being employed in cases like this?  It's obviously being used in plenty of other cases that have nothing to do with terrorism.  It seems quite plain to me that the will simply isn't there to effectively investigate this type of crime with the same tools.  Given these circumstances, is it really wrong for citizens to take private action in leveling the field of justice? 
1. I wonder if they notice these things much at all outside of high-profile cases, ie security risks, economic espionage, maybe filesharing.
2. Seems like they don't have the ability to do that yet. Maybe they just collect data. Or only secret service has access to it, so it is not used in a case like this.
Vigilantism is always a two-edged sword, I understand that they don't want to encourage that, but they are going to need make use of their own surveillance, otherwise there might be more of this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: freeformschooler on June 08, 2013, 12:46:07 am
I'm confused about how he's being charged at all when, according to the article, the only thing he did was leak "social media evidence." I'm pretty sure hacking into phones with his Anonymous hacker powers is not the same as putting together a bunch of evidence from Facebook, youtube, etc.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on June 08, 2013, 12:47:06 am
Quote from: Devling on June 08, 2013, 12:41:22 am
Breaking the law makes you a criminal.
Change the law, don't condone people breaking it for good.

I would agree with this if I had any level of faith that it's actually workable in practice, at present or in the foreseeable future.  Currently, the letter of the law is quite blatantly the tool of the powerful to be used against everybody else.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on June 08, 2013, 12:47:42 am
Quote from: freeformschooler on June 08, 2013, 12:46:07 am
I'm confused about how he's being charged at all when, according to the article, the only thing he did was leak "social media evidence." I'm pretty sure hacking into phones with his Anonymous hacker powers is not the same as putting together a bunch of evidence from Facebook, youtube, etc.
Pretty sure that the evidence was private messages from hacked accounts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on June 08, 2013, 12:51:31 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on June 08, 2013, 12:47:06 am
Quote from: Devling on June 08, 2013, 12:41:22 am
Breaking the law makes you a criminal.
Change the law, don't condone people breaking it for good.
I would agree with this if I had any level of faith that it's actually workable in practice, at present or in the foreseeable future.  Currently, the letter of the law is quite blatantly the tool of the powerful to be used against everybody else.
Oh ye of little faith...

Call me a bright eyed optimist, but I think that laws should be obeyed, and people should work to change them if they feel they are not right and just laws.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: freeformschooler on June 08, 2013, 12:57:34 am
Quote from: Devling on June 08, 2013, 12:51:31 am
Call me a bright eyed optimist, but I think that laws should be obeyed, and people should work to change them if they feel they are not right and just laws.

The problem is the people who get screwed over by the letter of the law (like this guy, esp. if he loses his court case [not sure if that already happened?]) have an extraordinarily low ability to change them compared to elected officials. And, of course, elected officials are the ones who - according to Obama's press report about how well-informed all the expected parties were about PRISM - do this same kind of stuff but get away scott free, without a 10 year sentence or anything like that.

Yes, this guy's a criminal for breaking the law. Due to the fact that I and everyone I know as a group can't up and start changing the written word of the law tomorrow or any time soon, I still condone him for what he did while breaking the law.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 08, 2013, 01:04:07 am
Law for the sake of law is worthless and self-serving. What would you have done if you had known about this? Not leaked it because "THE LAW"?

The law is only so good as it serves society's interests, which in this case it did not.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on June 08, 2013, 01:05:50 am
Quote from: XXSockXX on June 08, 2013, 12:44:23 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on June 08, 2013, 12:28:16 am
1.  Would he be prosecuted as aggressively if he had stolen personal communications, photos, and video that didn't relate to a high-profile criminal case?
1. I wonder if they notice these things much at all outside of high-profile cases, ie security risks, economic espionage, maybe filesharing.

My point for thinking on, though, was if it was noticed, would it be prosecuted as aggressively?  My guess is authorities could be aware that sort of invasion of privacy was taking place and they likely wouldn't care.  This is only different because it embarrassed the local authorities in front of the world.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on June 08, 2013, 01:13:01 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on June 08, 2013, 01:05:50 am
My point for thinking on, though, was if it was noticed, would it be prosecuted as aggressively?  My guess is authorities could be aware that sort of invasion of privacy was taking place and they likely wouldn't care.  This is only different because it embarrassed the local authorities in front of the world.
Could be that they want to discourage vigilantism and have the opportunity to do so now, because it's high profile.
Wasn't there a case where some guy stole pictures from some famous actresses phone a while ago? How did he get punished?

EDIT:
After googling through many distracting pictures (should not have tried "scarlett johansson hacked pictures" first), I found it. That guy got 10 years too, but it was also a high profile case...
http://www.siliconrepublic.com/strategy/item/30789-hacker-who-put-scarlett-joh
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on June 08, 2013, 01:14:07 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 08, 2013, 01:04:07 am
Law for the sake of law is worthless and self-serving. What would you have done if you had known about this? Not leaked it because "THE LAW"?
The law is only so good as it serves society's interests, which in this case it did not.
Fair enough.

Guy's a goddamn hero, doesn't mean what he was doing was super shady!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 08, 2013, 03:54:00 am
Depends exactly what he did to get his evidence, but citizens hacking into private accounts is not better than the state doing it. This guy is kind of a Batman, doing ultimately the right thing, but you don't have to like the way he do it.


So, would you prosecute Batman?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: da_nang on June 08, 2013, 04:37:46 am
Quote from: Devling on June 08, 2013, 12:51:31 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on June 08, 2013, 12:47:06 am
Quote from: Devling on June 08, 2013, 12:41:22 am
Breaking the law makes you a criminal.
Change the law, don't condone people breaking it for good.
I would agree with this if I had any level of faith that it's actually workable in practice, at present or in the foreseeable future.  Currently, the letter of the law is quite blatantly the tool of the powerful to be used against everybody else.
Oh ye of little faith...

Call me a bright eyed optimist, but I think that laws should be obeyed, and people should work to change them if they feel they are not right and just laws.
If only the people who are capable of changing the law actually did change them. As an example, how long does one have to wait for the FRA law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRA_law) to be repealed?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on June 08, 2013, 04:56:44 am
Quote from: Sheb on June 08, 2013, 03:54:00 am
Depends exactly what he did to get his evidence, but citizens hacking into private accounts is not better than the state doing it. This guy is kind of a Batman, doing ultimately the right thing, but you don't have to like the way he do it.


So, would you prosecute Batman?

I don't think the comparison holds up completely.  Batman punishes criminals.  This guy only extracted evidence for a case.  If you want to interpret the principle as strictly as possible, yeah it's the same.  They're both doing things they don't have the authority to do.  Extreme differences in order of magnitude and types of action carried out, though.  I hesitate in even calling the guy a vigilante, because that's commonly perceived as someone (like Batman) who punishes people based on their personal conviction.

But to more directly answer the question, I would not support prosecution of Batman if I lived in Gotham City, where he's basically the only reason the city hasn't been wiped out.  I don't know how it is in the comics, but in the movies, the police are supposed to be horribly corrupt when he shows up and just letting crime run rampant.

If I lived in a place that was relatively safe and had a police force and government with a lot of integrity, I would support prosecuting Batman.

And personally, I find the current style of government surveillance to be verging on vigilante behavior itself, and they're not doing it for the sake of true justice.  This sort of makes vigilante behavior in response excusable, in my opinion, both in self-defense and to make up for the failings of the establishment.  I wouldn't go as far as all-out vigilante justice, but if a police department doesn't even bother to gather evidence for a case where someone has been severely victimized... sure... get that evidence yourself, so long as you're not doing anything extreme to get it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 08, 2013, 06:22:30 am
Quote from: Devling on June 08, 2013, 12:18:48 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on June 08, 2013, 12:16:23 am
SHOULD he be punished? Did he actually do anything wrong?
If a cop searches through your house, then yes he did something wrong.
He's not a cop and he didn't search anyone's house, so I'm not sure hows that's relevant.

Again, what did he ACTUALLY DO WRONG? This wasn't a rhetorical question. The article didn't say.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on June 08, 2013, 06:26:43 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on June 08, 2013, 06:22:30 am
He's not a cop and he didn't search anyone's house, so I'm not sure hows that's relevant.

The article mentions that the FBI raided Lostutter's home.  This is the house search that he is referring to.  He's implying that if a cop searches someone's house, it means that person did something wrong to deserve the house search.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 08, 2013, 06:30:52 am
Seriously? Do you mean "wrong" in the "pissed of someone more powerful than you sense, and bad consequences will come now and there's nothing you can do about it" or in the "morally wrong" or "legally wrong" sense?

If it's one of the second two, what country are you from? Because it obviously isn't the US.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on June 08, 2013, 07:40:03 am
The rapists only got that short a sentence because they were minors (not that I know how long the average sentencing is for adults). And yeah, if the guy actually did hack their accounts to get that information he should be punished, the same as if he had broken into their homes to get it. Laws exist to protect all people. Yes, even rapists.

Now, I completely agree that ten years is too long, but A) it's the maximum sentence and he hasn't been sentenced yet; and B) US sentence times are completely fucked up in general.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 08, 2013, 07:58:11 am
I don't see why hacking should be a crime. If you can't safeguard your data, that's your problem, not the state's. Data isn't like physical property, it can be copied indefinitely.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 08, 2013, 08:05:35 am
So... should be fine if someone points infrared or whathaveyou at your house, right? Fairly equivalent concept t'that. Nothing being stolen, just (likely personal) information being taken without your consent. S'all on the up and up, you could always lead line or house or whatev'.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 08, 2013, 08:16:28 am
Physically spying on someone is not really equivalent to breaking into a computer system. For one thing, spying is generating information that only one party will ever know of while hacking is accessing existent information.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on June 08, 2013, 08:26:53 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 08, 2013, 07:58:11 am
I don't see why hacking should be a crime. If you can't safeguard your data, that's your problem, not the state's. Data isn't like physical property, it can be copied indefinitely.

In other words, breaking into your house and going through all your stuff shouldn't be a crime unless they steal something. I guess you're also completely fine with the patriot act and your government reading all your mail and listening to all your calls and having all your records. After all, they're just copying data.

See, it's not about the "data" itself, it's about privacy and what the data actually means.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 08, 2013, 08:16:28 am
Physically spying on someone is not really equivalent to breaking into a computer system. For one thing, spying is generating information that only one party will ever know of while hacking is accessing existent information.

...That's just. Completely irrational. What you do in the flesh is also just information. Spying on somebody does not "generate information", it generates digital data. All it does is copy what's happening anyway ("already existent information"), and storing data. There is absolutely no difference.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 08, 2013, 08:34:09 am
Quote from: scriver on June 08, 2013, 08:26:53 am
In other words, breaking into your house and going through all your stuff shouldn't be a crime unless they steal something. I guess you're also completely fine with the patriot act and your government reading all your mail and listening to all your calls and having all your records. After all, they're just copying data.
The government is different. They're large and proven untrustworthy to possess such power. The Patriot Act and reading everyone's mail and calls has always been unconstitutional.
Quote
See, it's not about the "data" itself, it's about privacy and what the data actually means.
You have an expectation of privacy against the government and against corporations, but not really against individuals. People are always trying to pry into each others lives, and if you aren't willing to make allowances on that front nobody is ever going to talk to you.

This is why if somebody you've met starts inquiring as to what your political and religious beliefs are, that's not really concerning, but if the state or corporations start asking it is EXTREMELY concerning.
Quote
...That's just. Completely irrational. What you do in the flesh is also just information. Spying on somebody does not "generate information", it generates digital data. All it does is copy what's happening anyway ("already existent information"), and storing data. There is absolutely no difference.
There is a difference in that the individual being spied upon does not possess a copy of the digital data. Digital data is spread almost infinitely easier than non-digital data.

(Truth be told I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here, but the fact that you'd send this guy to prison for exposing rapists who would otherwise get away with their crimes is pretty concerning.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on June 08, 2013, 08:38:41 am
The point of spying is to discover information, not (necessarily) stealing. In terms of that concept, scriver is entirely right and conceptually there's no difference between physically examining you in close proximity or doing it from afar.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 08, 2013, 08:57:24 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 08, 2013, 08:34:09 am
(Truth be told I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here, but the fact that you'd send this guy to prison for exposing rapists who would otherwise get away with their crimes is pretty concerning.)
It's tough, and while I think he should get massive mitigation due to the fact that he exposed a pair of child rapists, that doesn't mean that what he did was acceptable.  The truth is, if you allow individual citizens to invade people's privacy in this way you cannot stop the government from doing so (under your proposed system an FBI agent can just break into your digitally held data off his own bat if he suspects you of being a criminal, even without any kind of actual evidence, and that isn't really any different from giving him the official power to do so).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on June 08, 2013, 09:09:52 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 08, 2013, 08:34:09 am
Quote from: scriver on June 08, 2013, 08:26:53 am
In other words, breaking into your house and going through all your stuff shouldn't be a crime unless they steal something. I guess you're also completely fine with the patriot act and your government reading all your mail and listening to all your calls and having all your records. After all, they're just copying data.
The government is different. They're large and proven untrustworthy to possess such power. The Patriot Act and reading everyone's mail and calls has always been unconstitutional.

And the mass of people isn't a group that's "large and proven untrustworthy to possess such power"?

Quote
There is a difference in that the individual being spied upon does not possess a copy of the digital data. Digital data is spread almost infinitely easier than non-digital data.

(Truth be told I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here, but the fact that you'd send this guy to prison for exposing rapists who would otherwise get away with their crimes is pretty concerning.)

I don't see why them not having a "copy of the digital data" would even matter. They have a copy of the physical data - they were there.

And no, I don't think what he did deserves prison, if it were up to me I'd sentence him to payments, and/or parole, and/or computer deprivation. As I pointed out, I think American sentences are fucked up.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 08, 2013, 09:12:51 am
If he did hack though. For all we know, he sent a PM to the rapists on FB and then had a look on their wall. If you're stupid enough to put evidence of a rape you committed on a social media, you probably didn't think of protecting it. And we all know Facebook's tendency to flog your data to everyone.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on June 08, 2013, 09:15:34 am
Of course it presumes he actually did hack their accounts and it wasn't just a repeat of "stupid criminals brags about robbing store on facebook".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on June 08, 2013, 12:37:37 pm
Bending the law for the good of society to bring in real criminals is infinitely preferable to letting them walk free. The government and its laws are intended to serve society, and if they fail to do so they should be changed and, if necessary, cast aside.

The persecution (yes, persecution) of good Samaritans like this guy makes me sick. In my opinion, he did what was right and his actions harmed no one. He is being prosecuted for a crime in which the only victims were the ones who victimized another to a far greater extent. I remind you that the People have rights. The government does not.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 08, 2013, 01:07:08 pm
I wonder what the jury will say if this ever come to court. It's hard imagining them standing against the guy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on June 08, 2013, 03:55:29 pm
Quote from: greatorder on June 08, 2013, 12:49:33 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 08, 2013, 07:58:11 am
I don't see why hacking should be a crime. If you can't safeguard your data, that's your problem, not the state's. Data isn't like physical property, it can be copied indefinitely.
'If you can't safeguard the stuff in your house, that's your problem'
'If you can't safeguard yourself, that's your problem'

The 'Data isn't physical property' argument is kinda irrelevant here.
If someone made copies of, say, your TV and computer while leaving the originals intact, would you call that theft?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 08, 2013, 04:34:23 pm
That's dumb, my TV ain't personal and plenty of people have copies of it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 08, 2013, 04:54:50 pm
Quote from: Morrigi on June 08, 2013, 03:55:29 pm
If someone made copies of, say, your TV and computer while leaving the originals intact, would you call that theft?
No, but they would know too much about me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 08, 2013, 05:31:57 pm
It's not a matter of theft, it's a matter of invasion of privacy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on June 09, 2013, 01:28:22 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 08, 2013, 04:54:50 pm
Quote from: Morrigi on June 08, 2013, 03:55:29 pm
If someone made copies of, say, your TV and computer while leaving the originals intact, would you call that theft?
No, but they would know too much about me.
They will be able to Custom-tailor Advertisements to me! The Horror!


More seriously, while some people corporations could use some of that info, it would be pretty useless elsewhere.


Data, however, is a lot more expansive, and can't really be taken from someone anyway. If you had say, a secret recipe for Peanut Butter Sandwich, someone taking it from you is physically pointless, but once they have the information, you're life could be damaged (assuming you sell sandwiches). But even otherwise, there is some expectation of a right to privacy in personal manners.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on June 09, 2013, 01:31:44 pm
I assume that you don't have any secret knowledge people could use against you.  Like being gay.  Or transgendered.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on June 09, 2013, 02:25:02 pm
Or an atheist (or non-Moslem) in Saudi Arabia.

Or a communist in 1950s America.

Or an "intellectual" in China or Cambodia.

:I
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 09, 2013, 03:26:27 pm
Or you know, just your general Identity. Identity theft exists, and you'd be surprised how far you'd get just with someone's facebook profile.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on June 09, 2013, 03:39:54 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on June 09, 2013, 03:26:27 pm
Or you know, just your general Identity. Identity theft exists, and you'd be surprised how far you'd get just with someone's facebook profile.
Your tax info. A lot of people do taxes on their computer without protecting themselves.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on June 09, 2013, 07:43:46 pm
Tax info? How about your bank account. E-banking is not very safe if someone has access to all your data.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 20, 2013, 02:12:47 pm
This is a strange petition. (http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/bank-of-england-keep-a-woman-on-english-banknotes) There is no damaging message in my opinion, the message is clear.
Adam Smith - a key figure of the Scottish Enlightenment who contributed greatly to British understanding of morality, philosophy and economics.
Matthew Boulton & James Watt - key engineers in the Boulton and Watt partnership who transformed the Newcomen engine that powered the industrial revolution.
Charles Darwin - His Magnum Opus literally shaped the development of the modern world.
Elizabeth Fry - English social reformer and humanitarian who fought for the humane treatment of all, especially prisoners.
Winston Churchill - Led Britain uphill during the world's bloodiest conflict through constant strife during which many times it seemed almost inevitable that Britain would lose to Nazi Germany - and left with victory.

The line-up of Adam Smith, Matthew Boulton, James Watt, Charles Darwin and Winston Churchill is absolutely quality. They are all famous, they all changed the world radically for the better and they certainly earned their reputations. As sad as it is to see Elizabeth leave the company of Elizabeth, Churchill fits so much better. If I had my way with the £5 note on its inception, it probably wouldn't have been Elizabeth Fry either - but Florence Nightingale. And even still, I'd cede that to Churchill.

And really, it is unfair to say Elizabeth II's done nothing to earn her face either.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 20, 2013, 02:43:09 pm
My opinion of Churchill is generally unfavorable. He was a warmonger and imperialist, trying to maintain the British Empire as long as possible and violently crushing most revolutions. Just look at his comments regarding Gandhi.

On the plus side he fought off the Nazis.

I won't argue if you think that a net positive. I just wonder if they guy would've been so well regarded by history had he led in peace time, or if his legacy would've been closer to Margret Thatcher's.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 20, 2013, 02:49:07 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 20, 2013, 02:43:09 pm
I just wonder if they guy would've been so well regarded by history had he led in peace time
Resounding 'no.'
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on June 20, 2013, 02:54:41 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 20, 2013, 02:49:07 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 20, 2013, 02:43:09 pm
I just wonder if they guy would've been so well regarded by history had he led in peace time
Resounding 'no.'
How so?

Without WWII, imperialism and colonialism would probably not have been 'bad' for a couple of decades more.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on June 20, 2013, 03:02:43 pm
Yeah, but you only ever judge the last ones.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 20, 2013, 03:11:42 pm
It's all about being the right person doing the right thing in the right place at the right time.

Any one of those changes and you'll either end up forgotten or well known in a bad way.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 20, 2013, 06:38:27 pm
Other than his leadership in WW2 Churchill was pretty awful and has a lot of historical baggage.  It would be better to stick to people who unambiguously contributed to the knowledge of mankind.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on June 20, 2013, 06:44:52 pm
Winston Churchill represents most things that I loathe about Britain. In fact, if I wanted to imagine something to intensify my hatred for Britain and my desire to leave it I'd just imagine Winston Churchill's big, smiling fucking "national treasure" face smoking that big cigar, making bigoted, narrow-minded platitudes over a few glasses of expensive wine with Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Sir Walter Scott. Maybe I'd have Bruce Forsyth tap dancing on a quivering, naked Andrew Neil in the background for good measure. Guys like Nye Bevan, Clement Attlee and the rest of the government that replaced Churchill after 1945 on the other hand represent the stuff I really respect. They defined what Britain could be under good governance. I haven't seen the like of them in quite a while, however.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 21, 2013, 03:06:41 pm
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-last-mystery-of-the-financial-crisis-154447818.html


Prosecute.... Prosecute, prosecute, prosecute....

For the love of ... if you or I did that, they'd skin me alive.... (even if it was you that did it, I'd end up being skinned knowing my luck).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 21, 2013, 03:28:16 pm
... days and days I end up wondering if shit like that shouldn't be a capital crime, or at least a life sentence. We put people to death for harming a handful of people, but when filth like that collaborate and fuck over thousands, millions of people, they get off with a proverbial slap on the wrist.

Groups like that shouldn't be fined a fraction of their net worth, the entire bloody thing should be liquidated and those responsible have their assets seized, be forced into community service for the rest of their lives, and never allowed to experience wealth greater than minimum wage again. Never going to happen but goddamn if it wouldn't be a better reaction than the farcical shit being shoved down our throats :-\

Of course, there seems to be buggerall our side of the equation can do about it. S'as depressing as it is damned enraging.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 21, 2013, 03:46:14 pm
It is economic warfare against the people of the united states of America. In my book that constitutes treason.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 21, 2013, 03:54:43 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 21, 2013, 03:46:14 pm
It is economic warfare against the people of the united states of America. In my book that constitutes treason.
The rest of the world was hit too. Don't centralize this on the USA alone.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 21, 2013, 03:59:12 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on June 21, 2013, 03:54:43 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 21, 2013, 03:46:14 pm
It is economic warfare against the people of the united states of America. In my book that constitutes treason.
The rest of the world was hit too. Don't centralize this on the USA alone.

I am aware, but we don't have the legal framework to execute them for crimes committed in other jurisdictions (I do not consider the patriot act and the bullshit extrajudicial executions that flow from it and a few other bills to be valid). Give them a fair trial, then put a bullet in their head.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on June 21, 2013, 05:23:52 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 21, 2013, 03:59:12 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on June 21, 2013, 03:54:43 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 21, 2013, 03:46:14 pm
It is economic warfare against the people of the united states of America. In my book that constitutes treason.
The rest of the world was hit too. Don't centralize this on the USA alone.

I am aware, but we don't have the legal framework to execute them for crimes committed in other jurisdictions (I do not consider the patriot act and the bullshit extrajudicial executions that flow from it and a few other bills to be valid). Give them a fair trial, then put a bullet in their head.
Oh, you americans and your executions... Why not do something that actually hurts them and make them legally liable for damages?
Ratings agencys have been less than helpful in the Euro-crisis, there was a lot of talk about having european ones soon, to counter the balance (They do like to rate EU countries down, but the US? No.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on June 21, 2013, 05:34:01 pm
This is also infuriating.  Please read it. (http://www.salon.com/2013/06/21/goodwill_pays_workers_with_disabilities_as_little_as_22_cents_an_hour/)

Wages, disability, etc.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 21, 2013, 05:46:04 pm
Quote from: Vector on June 21, 2013, 05:34:01 pm
This is also infuriating.  Please read it. (http://www.salon.com/2013/06/21/goodwill_pays_workers_with_disabilities_as_little_as_22_cents_an_hour/)

Wages, disability, etc.

"The Free Market will take care of it." [uncontrollable laughing]

Yeah, this is a result of that. The magic belief that things will just basically "magically work out" is the belief of spoiled children who have lived off the golden age of America after WWII when the government controlled EVERYTHING and seized every aspect of the economy to drag us out of the great depression.

The great feats of Engineering are in China now, not America....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 21, 2013, 05:50:20 pm
Quote from: Truean on June 21, 2013, 05:46:04 pm
Quote from: Vector on June 21, 2013, 05:34:01 pm
This is also infuriating.  Please read it. (http://www.salon.com/2013/06/21/goodwill_pays_workers_with_disabilities_as_little_as_22_cents_an_hour/)

Wages, disability, etc.

"The Free Market will take care of it." [uncontrollable laughing]

Yeah, this is a result of that.
You just can't put a price on equality.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 21, 2013, 05:50:44 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 21, 2013, 05:50:20 pm
Quote from: Truean on June 21, 2013, 05:46:04 pm
Quote from: Vector on June 21, 2013, 05:34:01 pm
This is also infuriating.  Please read it. (http://www.salon.com/2013/06/21/goodwill_pays_workers_with_disabilities_as_little_as_22_cents_an_hour/)

Wages, disability, etc.

"The Free Market will take care of it." [uncontrollable laughing]

Yeah, this is a result of that.
You just can't put a price on equality.

Haven't we? I think it was insultingly low.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on June 21, 2013, 05:50:56 pm
I'm not sure how wages are handled here, although I'm fairly sure it's not as infuriatingly bad as in the US, but there are plans to have a minimum of 5% of a 25+ person company to be a disabled person.

Didn't really pay attention to the fact, but this reminded me of it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on June 21, 2013, 05:55:30 pm
http://thefullbrightcompany.com/2013/06/21/why-we-are-not-showing-gone-home-at-pax/
tldr version; PA are dicks.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on June 21, 2013, 05:55:51 pm
Quote from: Vector on June 21, 2013, 05:34:01 pm
This is also infuriating.  Please read it. (http://www.salon.com/2013/06/21/goodwill_pays_workers_with_disabilities_as_little_as_22_cents_an_hour/)

Wages, disability, etc.
That is really unfair. I have to say though I don't quite understand US labour laws anyways. I would probably suggest to overwrite soon-to-be 100 year old laws.
We don't have a minimum wage, but at this rate of income you'd be eligible for welfare (as are many non-disabled working people). There are hiring plans for disabled people too, in theory you can't reject them if they are as qualified for the job as any other. Then there are state-owned facilities where disabled people can work for (what I hope is) a decent compensation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 21, 2013, 05:58:51 pm
Quote from: alway on June 21, 2013, 05:55:30 pm
http://thefullbrightcompany.com/2013/06/21/why-we-are-not-showing-gone-home-at-pax/
tldr version; PA are dicks.
Free market fixed it.

Quote from: Truean on June 21, 2013, 05:50:44 pm
Haven't we?
Yep, and now it's below minimum wage.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 21, 2013, 06:56:00 pm
Petitioning the government for a redress of your grievances is now terrorism

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/21/official-says-water-complaints-act-of-terrorism/2445071/

I am going to go cry silent manly tears for what was once a beutiful nation. Just like this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGu4AwL5Kho
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 21, 2013, 07:12:19 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 21, 2013, 06:56:00 pm
Petitioning the government for a redress of your grievances is now terrorism

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/21/official-says-water-complaints-act-of-terrorism/2445071/
I freaking called it. EVERYONE freaking called it. Everything is terrorism. Nothing is too sacred to be killed in the war against terrorism. Everything is terrorism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on June 21, 2013, 07:14:53 pm
Tennessee scares me, it really does. Whenever I get too happy, too complacent, I just remind myself that places like Tennessee exist in First-world Countries.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on June 21, 2013, 07:18:58 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 21, 2013, 06:56:00 pm
Petitioning the government for a redress of your grievances is now terrorism

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/21/official-says-water-complaints-act-of-terrorism/2445071/

I am going to go cry silent manly tears for what was once a beutiful nation. Just like this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGu4AwL5Kho
When was that? When the economy was built by slaves? When we fought wars of baseless conquest? When we rebuilt a broken economy on what amounts to war-profiteering?
Nadaka don't be a nostalgic. The USA has always been pretty effed up.

(DURRDURRDURR)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on June 21, 2013, 07:27:10 pm
Quote from: Devling on June 21, 2013, 07:18:58 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 21, 2013, 06:56:00 pm
Petitioning the government for a redress of your grievances is now terrorism

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/21/official-says-water-complaints-act-of-terrorism/2445071/

I am going to go cry silent manly tears for what was once a beutiful nation. Just like this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGu4AwL5Kho
When was that? When the economy was built by slaves? When we fought wars of baseless conquest? When we rebuilt a broken economy on what amounts to war-profiteering?
Truean don't be a nostalgic. The USA has always been pretty effed up.
[that's not Truean; don't get your kitties mixed up]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 21, 2013, 07:29:04 pm
Probably. it just seems like no matter what progress is made, the persistence of erosion still tears down everything we build, and those noble ideals will always remain out of reach.

Yes, My avatar is a cat-thulhu. Trueans is a hat and scarf cat.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 21, 2013, 07:32:48 pm
Avatar confusion? You know what that means...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on June 21, 2013, 07:37:37 pm
Spoiler: refresh page until my avatar moves, then open spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on June 21, 2013, 08:07:13 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 21, 2013, 07:12:19 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 21, 2013, 06:56:00 pm
Petitioning the government for a redress of your grievances is now terrorism

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/21/official-says-water-complaints-act-of-terrorism/2445071/
I freaking called it. EVERYONE freaking called it. Everything is terrorism. Nothing is too sacred to be killed in the war against terrorism. Everything is terrorism.

That sounds like terrorist talk there....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 21, 2013, 09:25:26 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 21, 2013, 07:29:04 pm
Yes, My avatar is a cat-thulhu. Trueans is a hat and scarf cat.

Nadaka's cat-thulhu appears more devious, but Mittens is "looking" innocently cute while covering her tracks and being far worse.

:P
_______________________________________________

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/former-enron-ceo-skillings-prison-193328040.html

What? That's just perfect.... Enron.... The absolute poster-child for corruption and just....  :(
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DWC on June 22, 2013, 02:18:59 am
Quote from: Nadaka on June 21, 2013, 06:56:00 pm
Petitioning the government for a redress of your grievances is now terrorism

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/21/official-says-water-complaints-act-of-terrorism/2445071/

I am going to go cry silent manly tears for what was once a beautiful nation. Just like this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGu4AwL5Kho

Man, check on their complaints.

Free speech has always had a limit, you can't yell 'fire!' in a crowded movie theater as lame as that example is. You can't scream about the water supply being lethal if it actually isn't.

The tap water is fine. The fluoride keeps your teeth from developing cavities and your enamel intact and also helps guard your mind against communist influence.

Creating a panic over nothing can obviously be destructive.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on June 22, 2013, 03:05:42 am
Quote from: Truean on June 21, 2013, 09:25:26 pm
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/former-enron-ceo-skillings-prison-193328040.html

What? That's just perfect.... Enron.... The absolute poster-child for corruption and just....  :(
Don't forget this bit:
Quote
Skilling still has the longest sentence of more than two dozen former Enron executives, including Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow, and others who pleaded guilty or were convicted of Enron-related crimes. All have served their prison terms.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 22, 2013, 12:21:03 pm
Quote from: DWC on June 22, 2013, 02:18:59 am
Quote from: Nadaka on June 21, 2013, 06:56:00 pm
Petitioning the government for a redress of your grievances is now terrorism

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/21/official-says-water-complaints-act-of-terrorism/2445071/

I am going to go cry silent manly tears for what was once a beautiful nation. Just like this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGu4AwL5Kho

Man, check on their complaints.

Free speech has always had a limit, you can't yell 'fire!' in a crowded movie theater as lame as that example is. You can't scream about the water supply being lethal if it actually isn't.

The tap water is fine. The fluoride keeps your teeth from developing cavities and your enamel intact and also helps guard your mind against communist influence.

Creating a panic over nothing can obviously be destructive.
Yeah, but it isn't terrorism. That's the problem here; a politician/public official labeling everything presumably bad under terrorism, much like everything presumably bad was labeled communism in years past.

Whether the complaints were valid or not isn't relevant. The problem is they were calling complains terrorism :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 12:26:39 pm
Quote from: DWC on June 22, 2013, 02:18:59 am
Free speech has always had a limit
No it doesn't.

Quote from: DWC on June 22, 2013, 02:18:59 am
you can't yell 'fire!' in a crowded movie theater as lame as that example is.
And then the boy who cried wolf was declared a terrorist to the state and summarily executed with hellfire missiles, instead of suffering the inherent ingrained social consequences.

Quote from: DWC on June 22, 2013, 02:18:59 am
You can't scream about the water supply being lethal if it actually isn't.
[There have been documented cases of American tap water setting on fire].
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on June 22, 2013, 12:35:01 pm
But it's not lethal unless you fall down dead within eight minutes!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Aptus on June 22, 2013, 12:57:45 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 12:26:39 pm
There have been documented cases of American tap water setting on fire.

That had something to do with fracking didn't it? Something about the gas leaking into the water reserves. There was some big kerfuffle about it some year ago.

Shit why don't I just google it.

EDIT: Yup Obviously a propaganda piece against fracking so take it with a grain of salt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A) but I know it was all over the news some time ago.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on June 22, 2013, 01:25:07 pm
There's been some attempts to do fracking around here where we live... in order to do that they need to get the residents agree (they've attempted to offer pretty crappy compensation), to get people to agree they've sent out a bunch of pamphlets and letters, and... well frankly they claim that they only use sand and saltwater to do the fracking, and that it presents no danger to the environment, or groundwater...

These are blatent lies.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on June 22, 2013, 01:30:04 pm
Okay, if terrorism is defined as committing a violent act in order to cause fear, then domestic abuse, armed robbery, direct police intervention during protests, any excessive force by law enforcement, "shock and awe" tactics used by the military, "enhanced interrogation", etc. etc. all qualify as terrorism. This is really a double-edged sword. The government cannot widen the definition of terrorism without becoming terrorists themselves.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on June 22, 2013, 01:34:00 pm
Quote from: Aptus on June 22, 2013, 12:57:45 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 12:26:39 pm
There have been documented cases of American tap water setting on fire.

That had something to do with fracking didn't it? Something about the gas leaking into the water reserves. There was some big kerfuffle about it some year ago.

Shit why don't I just google it.

EDIT: Yup Obviously a propaganda piece against fracking so take it with a grain of salt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A) but I know it was all over the news some time ago.
As it turned out, that case nothing to do with fracking. He just had a poorly built well into which methane was seeping. There have been studies linking fracking to increased methane in wells, but the only actual risk from it is methane building up in the somewhere air after being released from the water; which is mostly just an issue of ventilation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 22, 2013, 01:42:50 pm
Quote from: Aptus on June 22, 2013, 12:57:45 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 12:26:39 pm
There have been documented cases of American tap water setting on fire.

That had something to do with fracking didn't it? Something about the gas leaking into the water reserves. There was some big kerfuffle about it some year ago.

Shit why don't I just google it.

EDIT: Yup Obviously a propaganda piece against fracking so take it with a grain of salt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A) but I know it was all over the news some time ago.

Not propaganda... The well water at my fathers fathers farm in Minnesota was flammable for decades.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on June 22, 2013, 02:27:40 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 22, 2013, 01:42:50 pm
Quote from: Aptus on June 22, 2013, 12:57:45 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 12:26:39 pm
There have been documented cases of American tap water setting on fire.

That had something to do with fracking didn't it? Something about the gas leaking into the water reserves. There was some big kerfuffle about it some year ago.

Shit why don't I just google it.

EDIT: Yup Obviously a propaganda piece against fracking so take it with a grain of salt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A) but I know it was all over the news some time ago.

Not propaganda... The well water at my fathers fathers farm in Minnesota was flammable for decades.
Just because it's true doesn't mean it's not propaganda.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 22, 2013, 03:58:13 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 12:26:39 pm
Quote from: DWC on June 22, 2013, 02:18:59 am
Free speech has always had a limit
No it doesn't.
[/quote]
Yes it did. Your rights end where the other's rights begin.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on June 22, 2013, 04:02:24 pm
Everything is fine. We are not at war in Afghanistan. There is no record of anyone named Edward Snowden. The Internet is a hive of terrorism that must be put down. You shall not speak your mind, for it will bring the downfall of our great country. 2+2=5.


How long?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 22, 2013, 04:11:38 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on June 22, 2013, 03:58:13 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 12:26:39 pm
Quote from: DWC on June 22, 2013, 02:18:59 am
Free speech has always had a limit
No it doesn't.
Yes it did. Your rights end where the other's rights begin.
[/quote]

You can't directly infringe on someones natural rights with speech.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 04:14:00 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on June 22, 2013, 03:58:13 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 12:26:39 pm
Quote from: DWC on June 22, 2013, 02:18:59 am
Free speech has always had a limit
No it doesn't.
Yes it did. Your rights end where the other's rights begin.
They are impeachable rights which do not conflict with each other.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 22, 2013, 04:14:30 pm
I really think we've hit peak 1984 references with this NSA thing. So now a 9 on the 1984 reference scale is banning porn or 4chan, and a 10 is a massive international surveillance system. You'd think the gap between those two would be bigger.

Quote from: Nadaka on June 22, 2013, 04:11:38 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on June 22, 2013, 03:58:13 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 12:26:39 pm
Quote from: DWC on June 22, 2013, 02:18:59 am
Free speech has always had a limit
No it doesn't.

Yes it did. Your rights end where the other's rights begin.

You can't directly infringe on someones natural rights with speech.

Blackmail?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 04:16:38 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on June 22, 2013, 04:14:30 pm
I really think we've hit peak 1984 references with this NSA thing. So now a 9 on the 1984 reference scale is banning porn or 4chan, and a 10 is a massive international surveillance system. You'd think the gap between those two would be bigger.
4chan has been confirmed as a honeypot under heavy surveillance. It's had its servers shut down and everything saved by the FBI before.

Quote from: penguinofhonor on June 22, 2013, 04:14:30 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 22, 2013, 04:11:38 pm
You can't directly infringe on someones natural rights with speech.
Blackmail?
That's why privacy is a thing. When the NSA isn't breaking it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on June 22, 2013, 04:17:31 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 04:16:38 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on June 22, 2013, 04:14:30 pm
I really think we've hit peak 1984 references with this NSA thing. So now a 9 on the 1984 reference scale is banning porn or 4chan, and a 10 is a massive international surveillance system. You'd think the gap between those two would be bigger.
4chan has been confirmed as a honeypot under heavy surveillance. It's had its servers shut down and everything saved by the FBI before.

You are kidding, right?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 22, 2013, 04:20:01 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 04:16:38 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on June 22, 2013, 04:14:30 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 22, 2013, 04:11:38 pm
You can't directly infringe on someones natural rights with speech.

Blackmail?

That's why privacy is a thing. When the NSA isn't breaking it.

So I can violate your privacy with my speech.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 22, 2013, 04:21:47 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 04:14:00 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on June 22, 2013, 03:58:13 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 12:26:39 pm
Quote from: DWC on June 22, 2013, 02:18:59 am
Free speech has always had a limit
No it doesn't.
Yes it did. Your rights end where the other's rights begin.
They are impeachable rights which do not conflict with each other.
I can perfectly verbally intimidate people to a point where they no longer dare speaking up. A good speaker can intimidate a mob and turn it into a violent riot. Spreading false information can kill someone's carreer, destroying their life and ruining whatever they were doing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 04:30:26 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on June 22, 2013, 04:21:47 pm
I can perfectly verbally intimidate people to a point where they no longer dare speaking up. A good speaker can intimidate a mob and turn it into a violent riot. Spreading false information can kill someone's carreer, destroying their life and ruining whatever they were doing.
And I can perfectly verbally support people to the point where they call you an insufferable prick, and they can also stop listening. If your job rests on rumours your job is already balancing on a pin and you need to use your rights to fix it, not throw them away. Any well natured person can speak out against a speaker, unless you take away their right to do so. Forcibly silencing those who you do not like - even if what they say is hurtful is reducing them to a spine without a head, a clockwork orange who is not living at all. Constricting free speech is the means to making the python your master.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on June 22, 2013, 06:20:35 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 04:16:38 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on June 22, 2013, 04:14:30 pm
I really think we've hit peak 1984 references with this NSA thing. So now a 9 on the 1984 reference scale is banning porn or 4chan, and a 10 is a massive international surveillance system. You'd think the gap between those two would be bigger.
4chan has been confirmed as a honeypot under heavy surveillance. It's had its servers shut down and everything saved by the FBI before.

Quote from: penguinofhonor on June 22, 2013, 04:14:30 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 22, 2013, 04:11:38 pm
You can't directly infringe on someones natural rights with speech.
Blackmail?
That's why privacy is a thing. When the NSA isn't breaking it.

Nope, we'll only hit peak 1984 references when we have advanced Nuerotoxins.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 22, 2013, 06:59:06 pm
Harassment is another reason free speech has limits.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to hurt someone however you like under the protection of free speech, but no, you don't have that right.



When two or more rights seem to conflict, the restricting right wins out.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 07:04:06 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 22, 2013, 06:59:06 pm
Harassment is another reason free speech has limits.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to hurt someone however you like under the protection of free speech, but no, you don't have that right.
When applied to speech this is madness. How can you outlaw speech based on emotional reaction?!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on June 22, 2013, 07:13:46 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 07:04:06 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 22, 2013, 06:59:06 pm
Harassment is another reason free speech has limits.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to hurt someone however you like under the protection of free speech, but no, you don't have that right.
When applied to speech this is madness. How can you outlaw speech based on emotional reaction?!
By passing laws that disallow people from repeatedly contacting someone after they've made it clear they don't want contact?

Benjamin Franklin once said that anyone that was willing to give up a little liberty for a little safety deserved neither, but in reality most of us are willing to give up some of our liberty for safety from having to deal with things like... oh, let's say people repeatedly phoning you with rape/death threats, or mailing you mutilated animals, or things of that nature.

EDIT: Now if you want to live in a world where people are allowed to do such things, I suppose that's what you want, but you might have to accept that most of the rest of us really don't.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 22, 2013, 07:19:34 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 07:04:06 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 22, 2013, 06:59:06 pm
Harassment is another reason free speech has limits.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to hurt someone however you like under the protection of free speech, but no, you don't have that right.
When applied to speech this is madness. How can you outlaw speech based on emotional reaction?!
By setting the line so far inside unacceptability that it can't reasonably be argued that the speech ought to be protected. Pnx provides some good examples of situations where the speech in question is clearly harmful* and unwanted by the target.

*Unless you want to argue that words can't hurt people, in which case we have some fundamental disagreements on the nature of the human mind that are unlikely to be resolved by an argument in this thread. However, given which thread this is, I think I can safely assert that you should probably accept that words can hurt people as a given, and argue from there.

EDIT: The degree to which the speech is malicious is also hugely important, and at a certain point persistence can make it obviously malicious regardless of the content.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 07:22:37 pm
Quote from: Pnx on June 22, 2013, 07:13:46 pm
By passing laws that disallow people from repeatedly contacting someone after they've made it clear they don't want contact?
That is called a restraining order, and curtails disallowing people from contacting the affected persons. It does not allow you to staple someone's mouth shut and break their fingers.

Quote from: Pnx on June 22, 2013, 07:13:46 pm
EDIT: Now if you want to live in a world where people are allowed to do such things, I suppose that's what you want, but you might have to accept that most of the rest of us really don't.
Yeah sure. I like how making saying bad [subjective judgements of course] things illegal stops people from being dicks.

We both live in the same world.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on June 22, 2013, 07:30:05 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 07:22:37 pm
Quote from: Pnx on June 22, 2013, 07:13:46 pm
By passing laws that disallow people from repeatedly contacting someone after they've made it clear they don't want contact?
That is called a restraining order, and curtails disallowing people from contacting the affected persons. It does not allow you to staple someone's mouth shut and break their fingers.
I don't understand, 20 minutes ago you were saying that restricting someone's speech based on how someone reacts to it is madness, but now you're saying that's ok as long as it's in the form of a restraining order?

Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 07:22:37 pm
Quote from: Pnx on June 22, 2013, 07:13:46 pm
EDIT: Now if you want to live in a world where people are allowed to do such things, I suppose that's what you want, but you might have to accept that most of the rest of us really don't.
Yeah sure. I like how making saying bad [subjective judgements of course] things illegal stops people from being dicks.

We both live in the same world.
I don't understand what your point here is either. In fact it seems only very loosely connected to what I was actually saying.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on June 22, 2013, 07:31:58 pm
"Freedom of Speech" is and was always about being able to criticize powerful institutions and organisations. It was never supposed to allow anyone to say whatever they want about or to whoever they want without consequences. Hence threats, harrasment, grave insults to someone's reputation and name, and so on are illegal. That any of those should be covered by "free speech" is just ridiculously out of this world. It's like saying the Swedish All Man's Right gives me right to reap other people's cornfields or plunder your fridge. It's nowhere near the intent of the concept.

Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 07:04:06 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 22, 2013, 06:59:06 pm
Harassment is another reason free speech has limits.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to hurt someone however you like under the protection of free speech, but no, you don't have that right.
When applied to speech this is madness. How can you outlaw speech based on emotional reaction?!

Every single law is based on emotions. Why shouldn't this one be?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 07:46:28 pm
Quote from: Pnx on June 22, 2013, 07:30:05 pm
I don't understand, 20 minutes ago you were saying that restricting someone's speech based on how someone reacts to it is madness, but now you're saying that's ok as long as it's in the form of a restraining order?
No. I stand by my statement that forcibly policing that there are things that cannot be said like whatever you can call intimidating is madness. People don't realize that when expressing yourself to others, one fundamental requirement is that whoever you are addressing has to have consented to listening. Hence why the same thing could be said to two people, and one could find it harassment while the other finds it ok.
If the offended felt so damaged it could be proved in a courtroom, then the speaker would simply be legally obliged to not say whatever statement to that person and yet their right to say that statement would still be preserved.

Quote from: scriver on June 22, 2013, 07:31:58 pm
"Freedom of Speech" is and was always about being able to criticize powerful institutions and organisations. It was never supposed to allow anyone to say whatever they want about or to whoever they want without consequences. Hence threats, harrasment, grave insults to someone's reputation and name, and so on are illegal. That any of those should be covered by "free speech" is just ridiculously out of this world. It's like saying the Swedish All Man's Right gives me right to reap other people's cornfields or plunder your fridge. It's nowhere near the intent of the concept.
No, freedom of expression has only been about one purpose: The exchange of ideas. It is ingrained in the purpose of language. Threats, harassment, insults to reputation and all should be legal. Because the freedom of expression transcends everything that is morally accepted by any given society, what would be a harmless cartoon to one society could be the gravest of insults to another - that is its purpose, to allow people to hold their own opinions without interference from others.
Should we next make violent verbs illegal? Euphemisms too? Implications?

Quote from: Pnx on June 22, 2013, 07:30:05 pm
Every single law is based on emotions. Why shouldn't this one be?
No, law shouldn't be based on opinion and you'd be hard pressed to prove how many laws were built on caprice. Politics maybe, but fewer just laws.
Moods, passions and emotions are subject to massive and frequent fluctuations; basing the laws of your society on these impermanent feelings as opposed to objective virtues is a good way of creating rifts and unequal society in short time.
Least of all the restricting of speech - the sole way we communicate with others, the system on which we build all other laws, intentions and meanings.

*Edit
Fixed typo.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on June 22, 2013, 08:19:59 pm
So if I'm understanding correctly, you basically feel that people should be able to say whatever they want to say so long as the person they're saying it to actually wants to hear it?

I suppose I can understand that...

Also what the heck is an objective virtue?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 08:25:02 pm
Quote from: Pnx on June 22, 2013, 08:19:59 pm
So if I'm understanding correctly, you basically feel that people should be able to say whatever they want to say so long as the person they're saying it to actually wants to hear it?
Correct. In addition, if they address no one, they are also free to express any of their ideas in any medium to preserve the arts.

Quote from: Pnx on June 22, 2013, 08:19:59 pm
Also what the heck is an objective virtue?
A high moral or desired quality in society whose rightness is independent of emotion.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on June 22, 2013, 08:30:37 pm
But isn't "rightness" essentially an emotional reaction to something? You "feel" something is "right" therefore it is virtuous?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on June 22, 2013, 08:41:40 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 07:46:28 pm
People don't realize that when expressing yourself to others, one fundamental requirement is that whoever you are addressing has to have consented to listening.

No. Just no. The real world is not like the internet where you can close your browser and walk away from whatever flaming people threw at you. You can't walk away from people threatening to kill your family. You can't choose not to hear insults and harassment. If somebody spreads lies about you it will affect your reputation an thus chances for the rest of your life. Actual actions have actual consequences for people, and we shouldn't allow actions which only serve to hurt others.

Quote
No, freedom of expression has only been about one purpose: The exchange of ideas. It is ingrained in the purpose of language. Threats, harassment, insults to reputation and all should be legal. Because the freedom of expression transcends everything that is morally accepted by any given society, what would be a harmless cartoon to one society could be the gravest of insults to another - that is its purpose, to allow people to hold their own opinions without interference from others. Should we next make violent verbs illegal? Euphemisms too? Implications?

I can't do anything but facepalm at this. It's nonsense. Just straight nonsense and empty words you think sound good but that has no connection whatsoever to the real world or the history of our societies and civil rights.

Quote
No, law shouldn't be based on opinion and you'd be hard pressed to prove how many laws were built on caprice. Politics maybe, but fewer just laws. Moods, passions and emotions are subject to massive and frequent fluctuations; basing the laws of your society on these impermanent feelings as opposed to objective virtues is a good way of creating rifts and unequal society in short time. Least of all the restricting of speech - the sole way we communicate with others, the system on which we build all other laws, intentions and meanings.

Being based on feelings does not mean it is based on whims. And yes, we are feeling animals, and everything we do are driven by emotions, all opinions, all likes and dislike, all our sense of justice and injustice. We can't not act on emotion - even if you make an effort to not do it that whole action would stem from your feelings that it is better. There is no such thing as "objective virtues" - things are only as virtuous as we feel they are. If you think what you feel are virtues are objective truth, then your just blind to how the world works. Which wouldn't be surprising, because not understanding and/or having any experience with the real world is something I find to come up in your posts on a very frequent basis.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 22, 2013, 08:42:37 pm
Quote from: Pnx on June 22, 2013, 08:30:37 pm
But isn't "rightness" essentially an emotional reaction to something? You "feel" something is "right" therefore it is virtuous?
Ehn. Sorta', but not exactly. S'more in line with something that adheres to the system in question's axiomatic base.

'Course, axioms themselves are ultimately established based on aesthetic preferences and could be considered being chosen based on feeling from that direction... but that's getting hella' meta.

Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 08:25:02 pm
Quote from: Pnx on June 22, 2013, 08:19:59 pm
So if I'm understanding correctly, you basically feel that people should be able to say whatever they want to say so long as the person they're saying it to actually wants to hear it?
Correct. In addition, if they address no one, they are also free to express any of their ideas in any medium to preserve the arts.
And if the person they're addressing doesn't want to hear it? Then it's acceptable to curtail free speech, in that specific instance?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 08:54:33 pm
Quote from: Pnx on June 22, 2013, 08:30:37 pm
But isn't "rightness" essentially an emotional reaction to something? You "feel" something is "right" therefore it is virtuous?
No. I'm going to use an idol of mine as an example, Harold Wilson was the British PM for a while and during this time liberalized censorship laws, abortion laws, abolished capital punishment and the criminality of homosexuality and also prevented British soldiers from going to Vietnam - against public and international opinion.
In doing so he upheld tenets of human liberty that are constant to all societies, that guarantee freedom, equal opportunity and dignified living, despite what he was doing being morally wrong by societal standards.
The fairness and rightness of such objective moral actions are based on fundamental natures of reality and the nature of mankind. But while the individual and specific moral codes are often subject to change; things like economic systems and the distribution of power, the core objective virtues which allow us to change and build these extra virtues in the first place must be protected, even if all are against them.

Quote from: Vector on June 22, 2013, 04:17:31 pm
You are kidding, right?
No, it actually happened. They were searching for a suspected domestic terrorist.

Quote from: scriver on June 22, 2013, 08:41:40 pm
No. Just no. The real world is not like the internet where you can close your browser and walk away from whatever flaming people threw at you. You can't walk away from people threatening to kill your family. You can't choose not to hear insults and harassment. If somebody spreads lies about you it will affect your reputation an thus chances for the rest of your life. Actual actions have actual consequences for people, and we shouldn't allow actions which only serve to hurt others.
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 07:22:37 pm
Quote from: Pnx on June 22, 2013, 07:13:46 pm
By passing laws that disallow people from repeatedly contacting someone after they've made it clear they don't want contact?
That is called a restraining order, and curtails disallowing people from contacting the affected persons. It does not allow you to staple someone's mouth shut and break their fingers.
Another fundamental human right is equality, so employers cannot refuse to employ you on grounds of prejudice like rumours.

Quote from: scriver on June 22, 2013, 08:41:40 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I can't do anything but facepalm at this. It's nonsense. Just straight nonsense and empty words you think sound good but that has no connection whatsoever to the real world or the history of our societies and civil rights.
Civil rights [are supposed to] guarantee your political, societal freedom and your access to equality. Fundamental human rights like the freedom of expression guarantee your mental freedom to convey yourself.

Quote from: scriver on June 22, 2013, 08:41:40 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Being based on feelings does not mean it is based on whims. And yes, we are feeling animals, and everything we do are driven by emotions, all opinions, all likes and dislike, all our sense of justice and injustice. We can't not act on emotion - even if you make an effort to not do it that whole action would stem from your feelings that it is better. There is no such thing as "objective virtues" - things are only as virtuous as we feel they are. If you think what you feel are virtues are objective truth, then your just blind to how the world works. Which wouldn't be surprising, because not understanding and/or having any experience with the real world is something I find to come up in your posts on a very frequent basis.
Being based on feelings means you are basing it on emotions which are a result of moods and circumstance, this would make it easily vulnerable to whims. We are capable of more than being sensory machines who express the emotions of our biological leash because we are also capable of making decisions wholely unrelated to our emotions, such as doing things that would disgust us or incite terror within us.
An objective virtue is both virtuous because it is the moral standard irrespective of emotion or circumstance as good Harold shows, and it is objective because it is the closest to the actual reality of justice we can perceive.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on June 22, 2013, 09:24:21 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 08:54:33 pm
The fairness and rightness of such objective moral actions are based on fundamental natures of reality and the nature of mankind. But while the individual and specific moral codes are often subject to change; things like economic systems and the distribution of power, the core objective virtues which allow us to change and build these extra virtues in the first place must be protected, even if all are against them.
But what are "objective virtues" and are these not subject to change as well?

I feel like I agree with 90% of what you are saying, but you seem to make the assumption that people are more or less reasonable which is completely wrong IMHO. Your idea of free speech might work in an ideal world, but that is clearly not the one we live in.

In Germany we have some very specific limits on free speech, pertaining everything that openly glorifies the Nazis. I actually doubt very much that we still need these limitations today, but they were clearly needed to make a transition to modern democracy work, as people raised and educated under Nazi rule were very much imprinted with the ideology.

You see the decriminalization of homosexuality as something positive, but are you sure that we are ready as a society to extend free speech to "all gays should be killled"? If someone said something like "all left-handed people should be killed", he would be met with the appropriate ridicule and ignored. If someone calls for all black people to be killed, that has historical precedence and might actually lead to acts of violence.

In Germany today, if you say something that even vaguely tries to justify Nazi-stuff ("but at least Hitler build the Autobahn" is a popular one), you very much discredit yourself for serious discourse. Therefore I find we don't need to imprison people who publicly show swastikas anymore, they are just making asses of themselves in the eyes the majority. But I wouldn't be comfortable to allow serious calls for violence against minorities or actually anyone, as long as that is likely to cause actions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 09:39:54 pm
Quote from: XXSockXX on June 22, 2013, 09:24:21 pm
But what are "objective virtues" and are these not subject to change as well?
These are moral guidelines that could be applied to every sane person and used to build a fair society. Things like the equality of all within our species, the sanctity of life and dignified life, rights to education and of course freedom of expression and belief.

Quote from: XXSockXX on June 22, 2013, 09:24:21 pm
I feel like I agree with 90% of what you are saying, but you seem to make the assumption that people are more or less reasonable which is completely wrong IMHO. Your idea of free speech might work in an ideal world, but that is clearly not the one we live in.

In Germany we have some very specific limits on free speech, pertaining everything that openly glorifies the Nazis. I actually doubt very much that we still need these limitations today, but they were clearly needed to make a transition to modern democracy work, as people raised and educated under Nazi rule were very much imprinted with the ideology.

You see the decriminalization of homosexuality as something positive, but are you sure that we are ready as a society to extend free speech to "all gays should be killled"? If someone said something like "all left-handed people should be killed", he would be met with the appropriate ridicule and ignored. If someone calls for all black people to be killed, that has historical precedence and might actually lead to acts of violence.
I see no difference between that and the tumblr snowflakes chanting 'Die cis scum.' It is within their rights to express themselves, and it is also within anyone else's rights to chant with them or criticize them or simply ignore them, much in the same way that those comments could be met with.

Quote from: XXSockXX on June 22, 2013, 09:24:21 pm
In Germany today, if you say something that even vaguely tries to justify Nazi-stuff ("but at least Hitler build the Autobahn" is a popular one), you very much discredit yourself for serious discourse. Therefore I find we don't need to imprison people who publicly show swastikas anymore, they are just making asses of themselves in the eyes the majority. But I wouldn't be comfortable to allow serious calls for violence against minorities or actually anyone, as long as that is likely to cause actions.
You do yourself disfavour where people start drawing these lines, because they are terrible at drawing and instead opt for the much easier option of 'fuck free speech.' Would 'remove kebab' be worthy of banning despite it literally being harmless, or do we project into our thoughts?
“If someone puts their hands on you make sure they never put their hands on anybody else again.”
Would that qualify?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on June 22, 2013, 10:13:54 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 09:39:54 pm
Quote from: XXSockXX on June 22, 2013, 09:24:21 pm
But what are "objective virtues" and are these not subject to change as well?
These are moral guidelines that could be applied to every sane person and used to build a fair society. Things like the equality of all within our species, the sanctity of life and dignified life, rights to education and of course freedom of expression and belief.
I don't think there is anything that could be applied to "every sane person". We would have to define "sane" and that has historical and cultural implications. Same for "fair society". And please, where are equality, rights to education and freedom of expression and belief universally agreed upon? And "sanctity of life"? What is that supposed to mean, I only partially agree with that one depending on the definition.
Basically these are all values of what I would call an ideal society, but they are in no way objective or universal, and have very different histories.

Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 09:39:54 pm
I see no difference between that and the tumblr snowflakes chanting 'Die cis scum.' It is within their rights to express themselves, and it is also within anyone else's rights to chant with them or criticize them or simply ignore them, much in the same way that those comments could be met with.
The very obvious difference I see is that the "murder cis scum" agenda has so far proven to be pretty non-consequential. That is pretty much a joke, even if the person saying it means it. You can however mobilize people with racist or homophobic calls for violence at the moment. These things are subject to change as well, 100 years ago you could organize an anti-socialist mob and start mass-fights, that would not work anymore today.
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 09:39:54 pm
You do yourself disfavour where people start drawing these lines, because they are terrible at drawing and instead opt for the much easier option of 'fuck free speech.' Would 'remove kebab' be worthy of banning despite it literally being harmless, or do we project into our thoughts?
“If someone puts their hands on you make sure they never put their hands on anybody else again.”
Would that qualify?
No...I'm not sure if I understand that completely. "Remove kebab" would be something I would never ban. I'm not very much in favor of banning at all. I wouldn't ban "deport all immigrants", even if that would probably be unconstitutional or something. I would draw the line at stuff like "burn all kebab shops" or "kill all immigrants" probably, and it might possibly play a role who is saying it. There is a difference if some angry kid is saying something thoughtlessly or if the leader of a know-to-be-violent organisation is saying it. In that case it is less about restricting free speech, but about preventing crimes, as the free speech in that case effectively is uttering a plan to commit a crime.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on June 22, 2013, 10:56:23 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 10:57:49 pm
Quote from: XXSockXX on June 22, 2013, 10:13:54 pm
I don't think there is anything that could be applied to "every sane person". We would have to define "sane" and that has historical and cultural implications. Same for "fair society".
Then define without historical and cultural implications. To be sane is to be sensible, without mental illness and perfectly not mad.
Though in searching for a definition, I do find that the idea of a sane person is just as arbitrary of what one could deem a 'normal' person. Nevertheless, in this theoretical example let us assume we had actual sane group of hippocamps and then work on finding what core liberties that if they were to follow would lead to a fair society best adapted for its environment. These values do not rely on the existence of the mythical sane person, but would allow any sane persons at that time to function together happily, and would lead to a balanced society - where rewards and punishment are in proportion to all without prejudices of identity or history.
The ideal list of these virtues would mean that were you to get any sample of peoples and task them with building a town, as long as they were to follow those core virtues above their own prejudices, then it'd be as close to a social Utopia as we could get.

Quote from: XXSockXX on June 22, 2013, 10:13:54 pm
And please, where are equality, rights to education and freedom of expression and belief universally agreed upon? And "sanctity of life"?
Well they're not universally agreed on, why else would I be barking in this thread? Chances are, one person's not going to change the world much. However, with freedom of expression I can rant on about it to infinity and beyond, and sooner or later [maybe] someone will think 'oh hey that's actually a rather nice idea' and now that'll be two people who can change the world a bit more. A 100% increase!

Quote from: XXSockXX on June 22, 2013, 10:13:54 pm
What is that [sanctity of life] supposed to mean, I only partially agree with that one depending on the definition.
The value of life being inviolable.

Quote from: XXSockXX on June 22, 2013, 10:13:54 pm
Basically these are all values of what I would call an ideal society, but they are in no way objective or universal, and have very different histories.
And why they would be objective virtues is because regardless of history or what predispositions we hold, they are fair and lead to balanced society.

Quote from: XXSockXX on June 22, 2013, 10:13:54 pm
The very obvious difference I see is that the "murder cis scum" agenda has so far proven to be pretty non-consequential. That is pretty much a joke, even if the person saying it means it. You can however mobilize people with racist or homophobic calls for violence at the moment. These things are subject to change as well, 100 years ago you could organize an anti-socialist mob and start mass-fights, that would not work anymore today.
That is an obvious difference, the circumstance. And that is what I believe to be the duty of civic law and society to work against. By making such inflammatory statements illegal, you only serve to turn bigots into criminals who will return to society from imprisonment as criminals, nor will you stop the careless from making these statements and the most important thing of all - you will only worsen their opinions.

Quote from: XXSockXX on June 22, 2013, 10:13:54 pm
No...I'm not sure if I understand that completely. "Remove kebab" would be something I would never ban. I'm not very much in favor of banning at all. I wouldn't ban "deport all immigrants", even if that would probably be unconstitutional or something. I would draw the line at stuff like "burn all kebab shops" or "kill all immigrants" probably, and it might possibly play a role who is saying it. There is a difference if some angry kid is saying something thoughtlessly or if the leader of a know-to-be-violent organisation is saying it. In that case it is less about restricting free speech, but about preventing crimes, as the free speech in that case effectively is uttering a plan to commit a crime.
It's important because 'remove kebab' is a euphemism for 'remove middle-Easterners,' and not exactly with the friendliest intent. The quote there: “If someone puts their hands on you make sure they never put their hands on anybody else again.” Was from Malcom X, openly racist and yet still an important humanist in US history. So many social movements would have died so quickly had they been emerging under our censorship policies.
As is observed, even when drawing the line at violent sounding phrases, it's so incredibly easy for people who do seek to incite hatred, slay sacred cows, be expressive, be funny or edgy or whatever using euphemisms, while you've only succeeded in constricting freedom of expression, giving clear distinction also against 'known-to-be-violent' organisations.
And I remember arguing against this notion of 'stopping a crime,' unless a declaration that the crime is going to begin - it is not a declaration of crimes to begin.
You throw away needlessly an inviolable right to express yourself, and you'd kill even the most innocent of persons who made shocking statements made with the intentions of humour under the bus, merely because they made - to borrow from Neonivek's coinage, parody cake.
Charlie Chaplin was hardly advocating Nazism was he now?

Quote from: Ogdibus on June 22, 2013, 10:56:23 pm
Is it necessary to make fun of trans-activists in order to have this discussion?
Trans-activists =/= Tumblr snowflakes
Statements =/= People
Ideas =/= Above scrutiny
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on June 22, 2013, 11:51:58 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 10:57:49 pm
The ideal list of these virtues would mean that were you to get any sample of peoples and task them with building a town, as long as they were to follow those core virtues above their own prejudices, then it'd be as close to a social Utopia as we could get.
Ok, I get that, you are talking about ideal utopian values, that I would agree upon, but are not necessarily part of existing societies.

Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 10:57:49 pm
That is an obvious difference, the circumstance. And that is what I believe to be the duty of civic law and society to work against. By making such inflammatory statements illegal, you only serve to turn bigots into criminals who will return to society from imprisonment as criminals, nor will you stop the careless from making these statements and the most important thing of all - you will only worsen their opinions.
Yes, it is all about circumstance and context. Or essentially preventing people who already are criminals to commit further crimes.

Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 10:57:49 pm
It's important because 'remove kebab' is a euphemism for 'remove middle-Easterners,' and not exactly with the friendliest intent. The quote there: “If someone puts their hands on you make sure they never put their hands on anybody else again.” Was from Malcom X, openly racist and yet still an important humanist in US history. So many social movements would have died so quickly had they been emerging under our censorship policies.
As is observed, even when drawing the line at violent sounding phrases, it's so incredibly easy for people who do seek to incite hatred, slay sacred cows, be expressive, be funny or edgy or whatever using euphemisms, while you've only succeeded in constricting freedom of expression, giving clear distinction also against 'known-to-be-violent' organisations.
And I remember arguing against this notion of 'stopping a crime,' unless a declaration that the crime is going to begin - it is not a declaration of crimes to begin.
You throw away needlessly an inviolable right to express yourself, and you'd kill even the most innocent of persons who made shocking statements made with the intentions of humour under the bus, merely because they made - to borrow from Neonivek's coinage, parody cake.
Charlie Chaplin was hardly advocating Nazism was he now?
Ok that part I partially misunderstood in your first post I think. I would have rated "remove kebab" as a simple call for a boycott of certain products, which I would consider relatively harmless despite racial implications. I also did not recognize the Malcolm X quote, and while I understand that counter-racism is a viable expression for opressed minorities, I don't condone that line of thinking.
I'm very much for full freedom of expression in the arts, my concerns probaly are related to crime prevention, as there are in my eyes expressions from certain people that more or less are declarations that a crime is going to begin. As I said before, context is important here, a nazi-educated grandma who says somehing racist can only be partially faulted IMO, while a leader of a neo-nazi group who openly calls for violent actions clearly is likely to just declare that a crime is going to be committed, which should warrant some sort of investigation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 23, 2013, 12:26:56 am
Quote from: XXSockXX on June 22, 2013, 11:51:58 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Ok, I get that, you are talking about ideal utopian values, that I would agree upon, but are not necessarily part of existing societies.
Indeed, I do not think any country embraces the core ideals I'm trying to hammer into this thread right now.

Quote from: XXSockXX on June 22, 2013, 11:51:58 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Yes, it is all about circumstance and context. Or essentially preventing people who already are criminals to commit further crimes.
But you are not stopping criminals, you are making people into criminals. If you want to prevent crime like that, make the punishment capital or for life, or you're only hiding bad words away for another day and progressively making the situation worse and worse.

Quote from: XXSockXX on June 22, 2013, 11:51:58 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Ok that part I partially misunderstood in your first post I think. I would have rated "remove kebab" as a simple call for a boycott of certain products, which I would consider relatively harmless despite racial implications. I also did not recognize the Malcolm X quote, and while I understand that counter-racism is a viable expression for opressed minorities, I don't condone that line of thinking.
You demonstrated my intended point rather well, what was to you a simple boycott of certain products was also used as an offensive slang term. Would you also make illegal 'remove kebab' despite its legitimate meaning? And even if you would say yes, anyone who actually was organizing actual crime would simply use another term, and you would be falling deeper down the slope of gagged language.
Secondly it's not counter-racism, it is just racism. Malcom was racist in his advocacy for black supremacy and his remarks against all white people, and it was a way for him to gain audience, express exactly how he felt and also speak out against racism against black people. And then we also go down into the political correctness part, where racism is viable for minorities and the censorship applies only to the majorities of any social group, creating an inequality of the rights to expression. And it is one thing to be against racism in the spoken word, but then it is also another thing to have the state make it the ultimate thought crime. For example, if one of your acquaintances were to say something bigoted, would you begin saying to them the reasons why they are wrong, or would you call the police?

Quote from: XXSockXX on June 22, 2013, 11:51:58 pm
I'm very much for full freedom of expression in the arts, my concerns probaly are related to crime prevention, as there are in my eyes expressions from certain people that more or less are declarations that a crime is going to begin. As I said before, context is important here, a nazi-educated grandma who says somehing racist can only be partially faulted IMO, while a leader of a neo-nazi group who openly calls for violent actions clearly is likely to just declare that a crime is going to be committed, which should warrant some sort of investigation.
Currently the idea of investigation is 'go to court.' There is a fine line between saying 'kill all x' and 'I am going to kill all x.'
And frankly, I would still support people's rights to say 'I am going to kill all x' because it makes crime so much easier to prevent, whilst also not outlawing humour, especially where textual mediums are concerned and tones of voice cannot be heard.
And last of all you don't fall into viewing people as these groups where 'you won't be sent to prison for x, but not you other people, you certainly will.' You view everyone as equals, following the same laws under the same principles.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on June 23, 2013, 01:09:24 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 23, 2013, 12:26:56 am
That is an obvious difference, the circumstance. And that is what I believe to be the duty of civic law and society to work against. By making such inflammatory statements illegal, you only serve to turn bigots into criminals who will return to society from imprisonment as criminals, nor will you stop the careless from making these statements and the most important thing of all - you will only worsen their opinions.
Well, there is an educational aspect. If you hear "Jew" used as an insult in Germany today, there is an extremely high chance the person saying it is a (muslim) immigrant. The reason for this is that the old stereotypes have been pretty much wiped from society, not necessarily only by laws, but also by making statements socially unaceptable, basically a mix of public reflection with temporal restricment of free speech. If public reflection alone would have done the job? I doubt it.

Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 23, 2013, 12:26:56 am
You demonstrated my intended point rather well, what was to you a simple boycott of certain products was also used as an offensive slang term. Would you also make illegal 'remove kebab' despite its legitimate meaning? And even if you would say yes, anyone who actually was organizing actual crime would simply use another term, and you would be falling deeper down the slope of gagged language.
Secondly it's not counter-racism, it is just racism. Malcom was racist in his advocacy for black supremacy and his remarks against all white people, and it was a way for him to gain audience, express exactly how he felt and also speak out against racism against black people. And then we also go down into the political correctness part, where racism is viable for minorities and the censorship applies only to the majorities of any social group, creating an inequality of the rights to expression. And it is one thing to be against racism in the spoken word, but then it is also another thing to have the state make it the ultimate thought crime. For example, if one of your acquaintances were to say something bigoted, would you begin saying to them the reasons why they are wrong, or would you call the police?
I'm not easily in favor of banning langauge at all. If there is racism from a minority versus the majority (something that is happening in Germany and only very reluctantly acknowledged by the public), it should be met with the same response as under reversed circumstances, which would be so called hate-crime laws.

Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 23, 2013, 12:26:56 am
Currently the idea of investigation is 'go to court.' There is a fine line between saying 'kill all x' and 'I am going to kill all x.'
And frankly, I would still support people's rights to say 'I am going to kill all x' because it makes crime so much easier to prevent, whilst also not outlawing humour, especially where textual mediums are concerned and tones of voice cannot be heard.
And last of all you don't fall into viewing people as these groups where 'you won't be sent to prison for x, but not you other people, you certainly will.' You view everyone as equals, following the same laws under the same principles.
That again is a context thing. Humour, satire, blasphemy, meaningless empty threats are all irrelevant and should not be subject to any kind of repression. I think law enforcement more or less does have a grip on that, you are not persecuted for publishing the Mohammed cartoons (though you are not protected enough for my taste either), but you may get in trouble if you call for the burning of mosques. (though you may get away with that if you are doing it for satire or on artistic grounds).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Hiiri on June 23, 2013, 01:39:04 am
Trying to regulate hate works as well as trying to regulate sex. Psst, it doesn't work.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on June 23, 2013, 01:47:05 am
Quote from: Hiiri on June 23, 2013, 01:39:04 am
Trying to regulate hate works as well as trying to regulate sex. Psst, it doesn't work.

Except no one is trying to regulate "hate", rather, some of the byproducts of hate.


As for the previous argument, some people do not necessarly believe that virtues are the best way to go about things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarian).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on June 23, 2013, 01:58:19 am
Quote from: Hiiri on June 23, 2013, 01:39:04 am
Trying to regulate hate works as well as trying to regulate sex. Psst, it doesn't work.

That's a pretty interesting thing to say considering how sex is regulated quite a bit. And certainly no one here would argue that even if the regulation is not 100% effective that it is worthless or should not be regulated.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on June 23, 2013, 01:58:52 am
Fuck raw utilitarianism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Hiiri on June 23, 2013, 02:23:46 am
Quote from: alexandertnt on June 23, 2013, 01:47:05 am
Except no one is trying to regulate "hate", rather, some of the byproducts of hate.

Suppressing hateful speech is exactly that. 'Sweep it under a rug and the problem goes away!'. It's worked so well in the past! All it does is victimizes and empowers the hateful parties.

Ps. Sarcasm font.

Quote from: Criptfeind on June 23, 2013, 01:58:19 am
That's a pretty interesting thing to say considering how sex is regulated quite a bit. And certainly no one here would argue that even if the regulation is not 100% effective that it is worthless or should not be regulated.

No, consenting sex shouldn't be regulated at all. Edit: Nor does suppressing our sexuality work. All it produces are pedophile priests and pregnant teenagers.

Quote from: Vector on June 23, 2013, 01:58:52 am
Fuck raw utilitarianism.

Fuck the reactionaries!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on June 23, 2013, 02:39:00 am
Quote from: Hiiri on June 23, 2013, 02:23:46 am
No, consenting sex shouldn't be regulated at all.
It's the consent part that requires regulation. We could argue about details, but nobody here would disagree that we have to define what consent is and who can consent.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on June 23, 2013, 02:40:50 am
Yeah, whata thing, that. So you and me can agree that large swaths of it should be 'okay' and non regulated, but not all of it.

Still a hell of a thing to say when trying to use it as a analogy for speech.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 23, 2013, 02:57:20 am
Quote from: XXSockXX on June 23, 2013, 01:09:24 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Well, there is an educational aspect. If you hear "Jew" used as an insult in Germany today, there is an extremely high chance the person saying it is a (muslim) immigrant. The reason for this is that the old stereotypes have been pretty much wiped from society, not necessarily only by laws, but also by making statements socially unaceptable, basically a mix of public reflection with temporal restricment of free speech. If public reflection alone would have done the job? I doubt it.
Completely "wiped out" by government control of expression, (http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/anti-semitism-is-still-flourishing-throughout-germany-study-shows-1.408862) Allowing for 20% of course. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16708340)
I still believe questioning it is better than repressing it.

Quote from: XXSockXX on June 23, 2013, 01:09:24 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I'm not easily in favor of banning langauge at all. If there is racism from a minority versus the majority (something that is happening in Germany and only very reluctantly acknowledged by the public), it should be met with the same response as under reversed circumstances, which would be so called hate-crime laws.
Then you begin equally suppressing everyone, and it really isn't looking like it's worth the cost.

Quote from: XXSockXX on June 23, 2013, 01:09:24 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
That again is a context thing. Humour, satire, blasphemy, meaningless empty threats are all irrelevant and should not be subject to any kind of repression. I think law enforcement more or less does have a grip on that, you are not persecuted for publishing the Mohammed cartoons (though you are not protected enough for my taste either), but you may get in trouble if you call for the burning of mosques. (though you may get away with that if you are doing it for satire or on artistic grounds).
Holy cow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany#Main_laws), even blasphemy is illegal.

Quote from: XXSockXX on June 23, 2013, 02:39:00 am
Quote from: Hiiri on June 23, 2013, 02:23:46 am
No, consenting sex shouldn't be regulated at all.
It's the consent part that requires regulation. We could argue about details, but nobody here would disagree that we have to define what consent is and who can consent.
1. Agreement to listen.
2. Anyone capable of acting independently.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Hiiri on June 23, 2013, 02:57:45 am
I'm saying lust and hate are unavoidable, therefore we should find constructive outlets for these feelings, instead of trying to suppress them. Go ahead, masturbate! Go ahead, speak your mind!


Statement: "We should kill all homosexuals!"

Wrong response: "Silence him!"
Right response: "Why?"
Optional response: "..."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on June 23, 2013, 03:04:22 am
How about masturbation in public? Masturbation at someone? How about masturbating, taking a photo of you doing it from the waist down, and then passing it around to people telling them it was your mutual acquaintance?

That last one sorta got away from me just a little bit, but to be honest as well fitting as this sex analogy is, it sadly just doesn't fit everything.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Steelmagic on June 23, 2013, 03:06:34 am
Quote from: Criptfeind on June 23, 2013, 03:04:22 am
How about masturbating, taking a photo of you doing it from the waist down, and then passing it around to people telling them it was your mutual acquaintance?.
That is almost frighteningly descriptive.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on June 23, 2013, 03:07:12 am
You're welcome.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 23, 2013, 03:10:25 am
Quote from: Criptfeind on June 23, 2013, 03:04:22 am
How about masturbation in public? Masturbation at someone? How about masturbating, taking a photo of you doing it from the waist down, and then passing it around to people telling them it was your mutual acquaintance?

That last one sorta got away from me just a little bit, but to be honest as well fitting as this sex analogy is, it sadly just doesn't fit everything.
1. Does the public consent?
2. Do they consent?
3. Do they consent?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on June 23, 2013, 03:13:54 am
Quote from: Vector on June 23, 2013, 01:58:52 am
Fuck raw utilitarianism.

Thats it?

Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 23, 2013, 03:10:25 am
1. Does the public consent?
2. Do they consent?
3. Do they consent?

What if a minority doesnt concent? What if the discomfort of the minority heavily outway the benefits to the majority?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on June 23, 2013, 03:16:09 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 23, 2013, 02:57:20 am
Completely "wiped out" by government control of expression, (http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/anti-semitism-is-still-flourishing-throughout-germany-study-shows-1.408862) Allowing for 20% of course. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16708340)
I still believe questioning it is better than repressing it.
I said "pretty much", not "completely". Also the 20% could very easily be construed to be mostly the immigrant part of the population (which is about that number), as the statistics don't say anything about ethnic or religious affiliations.
Of course questioning is better than repressing, but I tend to think that in the 50s repressing might have been necessary.

Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 23, 2013, 02:57:20 am
Then you begin equally suppressing everyone, and it really isn't looking like it's worth the cost.
I'm just for equal laws for everybody.

Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 23, 2013, 02:57:20 am
Holy cow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany#Main_laws), even blasphemy is illegal.
[/quote]
Blasphemy laws are pretty lax. The church has lost a lot of lawsuits against satirists and artists. I could wear inverted crosses as pendants and earings to school without anyone giving me shit about it. And that was almost 20 years ago. Also this shirt - no problem in school :D:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 23, 2013, 02:57:20 am
1. Agreement to listen.
2. Anyone capable of acting independently.
But still we have to regulate this by law. As in "no animals". And some age that is seen as appropriate (I think it's 14 here now), even if it isn't perfect for everybody, you have to draw some lines.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 23, 2013, 03:17:23 am
Quote from: alexandertnt on June 23, 2013, 03:13:54 am
What if a minority doesnt concent?
Then don't whip out the proverbial soapbox and find a venue for your analogying.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on June 23, 2013, 03:42:09 am
Quote from: Hiiri on June 23, 2013, 02:57:45 am
I'm saying lust and hate are unavoidable, therefore we should find constructive outlets for these feelings, instead of trying to suppress them. Go ahead, masturbate! Go ahead, speak your mind!


Statement: "We should kill all homosexuals!"

Wrong response: "Silence him!"
Right response: "Why?"
Optional response: "..."

Yeah. Try that at your local fag-bashing or racist centre if you wish. You will not be met with silence and lack of arguments.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 23, 2013, 03:44:33 am
Nah, in all probablity you will get accused of being one of them, and having either bible verses or ignortant arguments shouted at you before the violence starts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 23, 2013, 03:48:24 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on June 23, 2013, 03:44:33 am
Nah, in all probablity you will get accused of being one of them, and having either bible verses or ignortant arguments shouted at you before the violence starts.
I find it's become less about Deuteronomy and more about shouting 'DEGENERACYYY' these days.

Quote from: scriver on June 23, 2013, 03:42:09 am
Yeah. Try that at your local fag-bashing or racist centre if you wish. You will not be met with silence and lack of arguments.
All three were optional responses, not a sequence of statements. I don't seem to have seen a single fag-bashing or racist centre in my life, only hateful individuals - and it's great when they provide arguments, because it provides a basis for their belief which can be questioned.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 23, 2013, 06:53:13 am
... lucky you? If you're saying you've never actually been in an area that had congregations of violently bigoted people, anyway. I've been living in and around them all my life, and I've seen the results of what happens when you do pretty much anything but join in or stay silent -- and sometimes not even the latter'll save you. Still places in the states where asking "why" would literally get you killed and definitely get you shitkicked, and plenty of places elsewhere.

E:
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 23, 2013, 03:10:25 am
Quote from: Criptfeind on June 23, 2013, 03:04:22 am
How about masturbation in public? Masturbation at someone? How about masturbating, taking a photo of you doing it from the waist down, and then passing it around to people telling them it was your mutual acquaintance?

That last one sorta got away from me just a little bit, but to be honest as well fitting as this sex analogy is, it sadly just doesn't fit everything.
1. Does the public consent?
2. Do they consent?
3. Do they consent?
Wouldn't that heuristic render public speaking or broadcast a complete impossibility? There's pretty much always going to be people that don't consent, to pretty much anything, caught in the proverbial crossfire. Not that I'd exactly complain about the removal of background radio or waiting room TVs and suchlike, but yeah.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 23, 2013, 07:37:46 am
Quote from: Frumple on June 23, 2013, 06:53:13 am
... lucky you? If you're saying you've never actually been in an area that had congregations of violently bigoted people, anyway. I've been living in and around them all my life, and I've seen the results of what happens when you do pretty much anything but join in or stay silent -- and sometimes not even the latter'll save you. Still places in the states where asking "why" would literally get you killed and definitely get you shitkicked, and plenty of places elsewhere.
Lucky me indeed, for a few things at least. When you are getting people lynched and such, that is physical assault and should be dealt with the law. When asking 'why' leads to statements of 'I'm going to kill you,' that is also the time for the police to get involved, as clear intent of an upcoming crime has been given.
Secondly, you really don't need to live near the local bigot's meeting spot where they dastardly plot the next way to insult everyone to live near local bigots. It is just a matter of distinction that you don't need to form everything into groups and cabals for it to be harmful.

Quote from: Frumple on June 23, 2013, 06:53:13 am
Wouldn't that heuristic render public speaking or broadcast a complete impossibility?
In such cases where it is spoken through a private medium, it is very easy to show that you have consented when you change the channel to watch that show, or attend that speech. The consent-ideal would be to void the validity of being able to harass individuals or start shouting at strangers in public, whilst also preserving their right to express themselves.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 25, 2013, 11:02:58 am
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/in-supreme-court-brief-ken-cuccinelli-warned-of-a-slippery-slope-from-gay-marriage-to-polygamy/

And? He says that like its a bad thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 25, 2013, 11:10:22 am
We discussed it before here, but polygamy would be a bureaucratic nightmare. Divorces are already a huge headache; take it to the x'th power (x being the number of spouses - 1).

Past that polygamy is a-okay~
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 25, 2013, 11:11:50 am
Ideologically, I don't see why people would be opposed to polygamy.

Practically and historically, there's good reasons not to recognize it federally, though I could see some of the benefits being good to extend out in general.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 25, 2013, 11:13:49 am
Just do it the way the Romans did.

Marriage is no longer a governemental business. Divorce is simplified to sending you ex the following message "Grab your stuff and get out*"

*Free translation
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on June 25, 2013, 11:35:51 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on June 25, 2013, 11:11:50 am
Ideologically, I don't see why people would be opposed to polygamy.

Practically and historically, there's good reasons not to recognize it federally, though I could see some of the benefits being good to extend out in general.
Traditional polygamy (as in Islam or historically in Mormonism) is a pretty misogynistic affair.
And in terms of "modern" polyamory, where everyone involved can have multiple relationships at once, that would be a huge mess figuring out who is legally tied to who in what way. Divorces involving 15 people should be interesting  :D.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 25, 2013, 11:36:45 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on June 25, 2013, 11:13:49 am
Divorce is simplified to sending you ex the following message "Grab your stuff and get out*"
He/she can simply reply with:

"What's mine is yours, what's yours is mine... so if I take my stuff, I get your stuff!"

Then they drive away into the sunset cackling madly while 100 dollar bills trail in their wake, leaving you poor and homeless.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 25, 2013, 12:08:41 pm
There's a reason the Romans didn't believe in shared goods when marrying. In practice, everything belonged to the man, except for the rather large dowry*.

*Large enough to live of comfourtably in most cases, and in fact often large enough to ruin the man if he couldn't pay it back.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 25, 2013, 12:11:29 pm
My only ethical concern about polyamory/polygamy is that it has traditionally been reserved for the ruling class.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on June 25, 2013, 12:59:48 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on June 25, 2013, 12:11:29 pm
My only ethical concern about polyamory/polygamy is that it has traditionally been reserved for the ruling class.
That's not really true. Islamic law allows a man to have up to 4 wives, if he can economically support them. The ethical problem is more the traditional one-sidedness of the whole thing, genderwise.

There have been cases where muslim immigrants exploit the welfare system to get around the financial requirements. They are legally married but have also married other women in religious ceremonies. These women then claim to be single mothers who don't know the father of their children, which results in them getting child support from the state, to the extent that they receive enough money to no longer be even eligible for welfare. It's a bit of a dilemma, if you legalize that, the father would have to pay for the children, which he probably couldn't, so they would live on welfare anyway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on June 26, 2013, 02:39:04 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/tech/social-media/texas-filibuster-twitter/index.html?hpt=te_r1
That Texas anti-abortion bill is dead, thanks to a 13 hour filibuster by Wendy Davis.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on June 26, 2013, 02:40:12 pm
Can't they just pass it next week or something?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on June 26, 2013, 06:48:20 pm
I don't know if filibusters are terrible or awesome...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 26, 2013, 06:49:29 pm
Quote from: Devling on June 26, 2013, 06:48:20 pm
I don't know if filibusters are terrible or awesome...
They're neutral tools that can be used for good or evil.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on June 26, 2013, 06:51:56 pm
I can't imagine what it feels like to constantly speak for 13 hours without stopping.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 26, 2013, 06:52:32 pm
You can have a glass of water. Takes the sting off a bit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 26, 2013, 06:57:20 pm
Quote from: Sergarr on June 26, 2013, 06:51:56 pm
I can't imagine what it feels like to constantly speak for 13 hours without stopping.
The origins of boxing. Two opponents speaking non stop until the other concedes or passes out.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 26, 2013, 07:00:45 pm
Article says she only spoke for 10 of the 13 hours. Would you believe that isn't the record? That dubious honor belongs to Strom Thurmond, who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes straight in an attempt to prevent Congress from passing the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

According to Business Insider:
Quote
    Thurmond read, verbatim, the voting laws of each one of the 48 states.
    He read the U.S. criminal code
    He read a Supreme Court decision, followed by more laws. A friend brought him a glass of orange juice.
    He allowed Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson to conduct some minor Senate business, such as preparing to swear-in the new Senator from Wisconsin, with a promise that Thurmond will be allowed to resume his filibuster.
    At 1:40 a.m., Thurmond talked about jury trials.
    By 6:45 a.m., Thurmond was having a back and forth with an arriving Senator about the bill. The Senator then left for breakfast with President Eisenhower.
    Thurmond fielded questions from sympathetic Senators looking to give his voice a break.
    Thurmond read the Declaration of Independence.
    Thurmond allowed Johnson to swear in the new Senator from Wisconsin at roughly 1 p.m.
    Thurmond welcomed Italian dignitaries to the chamber and then resumed discussing jury trials.
    Thurmond took questions from sympathetic Senators again, as well as abuse from adversaries.
    A letter from the President Dwight D. Eisenhower momentarily interrupted the discussion of jury trials.
    The Senator finished up with a summary of his opposition to the bill. "Mr. President, I urge every Member of this body to consider this bill most carefully. I hope the Senate will see fit to kill it. I expect to vote against the bill. [Laughter.]"

Spoiler Alert: The Civil Rights Act passed anyway, if you didn't hear.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on June 26, 2013, 07:00:47 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 26, 2013, 06:52:32 pm
You can have a glass of water. Takes the sting off a bit.
Just moves your problem from your throat to your bladder. There are no bathroom-breaks in filibusters, right?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on June 26, 2013, 07:06:55 pm
Quote from: XXSockXX on June 26, 2013, 07:00:47 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 26, 2013, 06:52:32 pm
You can have a glass of water. Takes the sting off a bit.
Just moves your problem from your throat to your bladder. There are no bathroom-breaks in filibusters, right?
Bring in a porta-potty and continue speaking whilst doing your business. Problem solved.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on June 26, 2013, 07:24:44 pm
Is that legal or have you just blessed american politics with a way to make filibusters much longer and much more entertaining?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on June 26, 2013, 07:28:46 pm
How on earth did you mess up the quote tags so badly?

Anyway, I'm mostly just joking around.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on June 26, 2013, 07:32:28 pm
I have no idea... :o

Yeah, I got that you were kidding.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 26, 2013, 07:33:56 pm
Though I rather imagine that, so long as privacy screens of some sort were set up, it wouldn't be illegal. Probably be tried under public indecency of some sort, but I'm not sure what the law's position on public speaking while on the loo is, so long as appropriate measures were taken.

Alternately, catheter(s) of some sort. There are a lot of old people in that group...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on June 26, 2013, 08:29:52 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 26, 2013, 06:49:29 pm
Quote from: Devling on June 26, 2013, 06:48:20 pm
I don't know if filibusters are terrible or awesome...
They're neutral tools that can be used for good or evil.
Kinda like the historical filibusters.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on June 26, 2013, 09:57:07 pm
More on the filibuster: Apparently, they edited (aka tampered aka Federal Offense) with the times to make it look like it passed before midnight, and only backtracked when photographic evidence was presented that shows timestamps after midnight.

http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-abortion-bill-timestampgate-2013-6
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 26, 2013, 10:19:46 pm
Interesting to see if anything comes of that... seems rare that folks are actually slapped for doing stuff of that nature, hrm.

Also that website is kinda' goddamn horribly designed. Any other sources?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on June 26, 2013, 10:20:46 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on June 26, 2013, 02:40:12 pm
Can't they just pass it next week or something?
No, end of the session for a while. BUt he called a special session for July 1, so.


We knew we were going lose this war. We are focused on the battle.


Quote from: Frumple on June 26, 2013, 10:19:46 pm
Interesting to see if anything comes of that... seems rare that folks are actually slapped for doing stuff of that nature, hrm.

Also that website is kinda' goddamn horribly designed. Any other sources?
Confirms what I've heard.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 26, 2013, 10:36:41 pm
I still say the attempt to subvert the system of democracy like that should carry the death penalty, or at minimum a billion dollar fine and a hundred years in prison.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on June 26, 2013, 10:56:11 pm
Whoa... Death penalty? That seems a little dire, especially when you know it would be used to try and remove political rivals at times. You can take a man later found innocent out of jail and give him back his billion dollars, but you can't bring him back from the dead.
It should defiantly mean an end of their political career forever anywhere though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 26, 2013, 11:09:56 pm
Authority figures should be terrified of crossing the the line. It should be something completely unthinkable. Such a fundamental subversion of the construction of our political system poses a grave threat to everyone.

But you are right, I can't seriously propose the death penalty for this crime under my ethical framework.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on June 26, 2013, 11:12:38 pm
The biggest problem with the death penalty is that, since it's only used for murder (basically), it's easy to screw up and get the wrong man. It's much harder to do that with white-collar crime by people in authority, which generally leaves a paper trail.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on June 26, 2013, 11:13:44 pm
I really can't tell, are you talking about the lying about the time stamp? Or the filibuster? Because both sound like "the attempt to subvert the system of democracy"

Edit: To Nadaka if it was not clear.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on June 27, 2013, 06:11:44 am
Regarding the filibuster;

The rules for the Texas Senate state you must stand unaided, so no leaning or sitting. You can't eat or drink. You can't leave the chamber. You can't speak about anything other than the topic of the bill in question. You can't have any assistance from any other senators. You have three strikes before the filibuster is ended.

Senator Davis was struck out. The first 'strike' was when she brought up Planned Parenthood, which was judged (by the Republican majority in the Senate) to be off topic. The second 'strike' was when another senator helped her with her back brace (a neat trick if you are planning on standing up for thirteen hours straight). The third was when she was tying the law into the sonogram law proposed before.

After the third strike there were just under two hours of using parliamentary rules, challenges and questions to run down the clock. Basically the other Democrats stepped in to keep the vote from taking place. Senator Leticia Van de Putte (who had been at her father's funeral earlier in the day, and used that as a reason to ask for a review of the previous points of order), got in the best line. After some of her questions had been ignored and the final vote ending the filibuster was held she was recognised by the Speaker.

This was her question (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPntuZ7jmGY). At which point that cheering continued for the last fifteen minutes before the deadline, which is what blocked the vote from happening before midnight. There were attempts to take the vote but they failed. In the end, just after the deadline, they called the vote as completed and pretended it had been managed before the deadline.

When they did this there were ~180,000 people watching the Youtube livestream I was on. The official record was published with correct timestamps that were then changed (despite people having screenshots). Yeah, it was a pretty dumb attempt at fraud.

Maddow's report on this captures some of the feeling from the live stream and commentaries. (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show#52324859)


As for why it matters;

The law would not only ban abortion after 20 weeks, it would shut down 37 of the 42 clinics that currently serve Texas. That's leaving five clinics covering the entire state. It would close every single clinic in West Texas. This would not just block abortions after 20 weeks, it would block all access to abortion for many women in Texas. Having to travel across or out of state is hard for a lot of women. Having to do so before the 20 week deadline, alongside other restrictions in this and other bills, is harder still.

Then there are the non-abortion services that will be denied with these clinics shut down. Many are also the primary healthcare providers in their area. This will flat out deny many people local healthcare.

Tying this back into the Voting Rights Act decision, I posted in the other thread how the Supreme Court decision paves the way for Texas to pass voting laws previously blocked by the VRA. One of those (albeit with other legal issues) is a new election map passed in 2011. This map deliberately gerrymanders Senator Davis' district out of existence. Basically without the VRA she wouldn't have her seat because the Republicans would have managed to split her majority-minority district into irrelevance.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on June 27, 2013, 06:46:30 am
I am talking about the forged timestamp, the filibuster is playing within the rules.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on June 30, 2013, 09:58:11 pm
Quote from: palsch on June 27, 2013, 06:11:44 am
The rules for the Texas Senate state you must stand unaided, so no leaning or sitting. You can't eat or drink. You can't leave the chamber. You can't speak about anything other than the topic of the bill in question. You can't have any assistance from any other senators. You have three strikes before the filibuster is ended.

Its interesting you should mention this, because lot of people watching probably assumed the rules for filibustering in Texas were the same as the (much, much more lax) rules in congress that conservatives have been using so much lately.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 07, 2013, 10:54:42 am
Once again the question of whether police have a duty to protect citizens is being brought up in court, after two NYPD officers stood by and watched a man get nearly stabbed to death by a serial killer. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZKVSNjlSp0)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Aptus on July 07, 2013, 11:00:20 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 07, 2013, 10:54:42 am
Once again the question of whether police have a duty to protect citizens is being brought up in court, after two NYPD officers stood by and watched a man get nearly stabbed to death by a serial killer. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZKVSNjlSp0)

Isn't "Protect and Serve" on their bloody badges? Or have I just watched too many movies? :p
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on July 07, 2013, 11:28:18 am
Well "Army of One" is the Army's motto, but that doesn't mean the entire army is staffed by a single soldier.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 07, 2013, 11:45:02 am
Quote from: Pnx on July 07, 2013, 11:28:18 am
Well "Army of One" is the Army's motto, but that doesn't mean the entire army is staffed by a single soldier.

I don't really know why you said that, what your objective was etc. If a police force has "Protect and Serve" as their motto, shouldn't they prioritise protecting and serving out of principle? I mean, "Army of One" you can interpret in anyway you like, "Protect and Serve" is pretty black and white.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 07, 2013, 11:49:03 am
Quote from: Owlbread on July 07, 2013, 11:45:02 am
Quote from: Pnx on July 07, 2013, 11:28:18 am
Well "Army of One" is the Army's motto, but that doesn't mean the entire army is staffed by a single soldier.

I don't really know why you said that, what your objective was etc. If a police force has "Protect and Serve" as their motto, shouldn't they prioritise protecting and serving out of principle? I mean, "Army of One" you can interpret in anyway you like, "Protect and Serve" is pretty black and white.
Edit: bleqh, obviously the phrase has been butchered ever since.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 07, 2013, 12:01:15 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on July 07, 2013, 11:45:02 am
I don't really know why you said that, what your objective was etc. If a police force has "Protect and Serve" as their motto, shouldn't they prioritise protecting and serving out of principle? I mean, "Army of One" you can interpret in anyway you like, "Protect and Serve" is pretty black and white.
Pretty black and white excepting it doesn't clarify what it's protecting and serving. If it's the law instead of people, welp.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 07, 2013, 12:09:10 pm
Quote from: Frumple on July 07, 2013, 12:01:15 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on July 07, 2013, 11:45:02 am
I don't really know why you said that, what your objective was etc. If a police force has "Protect and Serve" as their motto, shouldn't they prioritise protecting and serving out of principle? I mean, "Army of One" you can interpret in anyway you like, "Protect and Serve" is pretty black and white.
Pretty black and white excepting it doesn't clarify what it's protecting and serving. If it's the law instead of people, welp.

That's the line that gets thrown around.  Their job is to uphold the law and nothing else.  But then what is the law for?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 07, 2013, 12:26:37 pm
Wouldn't "protecting the law", as silly as that sounds, mean "preventing crime"?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 07, 2013, 12:38:12 pm
Crime against the state, sure. Civies, eh, if they feel like it.

I'd be shocked by these events, but I don't think it is possible for my opinions and expectations of the police to sink any lower, and NYPD are on the low end even amongst that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 07, 2013, 12:59:56 pm
Here, "duty to protect," is more correctly read here as, "liability if someone gets hurt by crime on their watch."

Police have a duty to uphold the law, but you can't sue a police officer for a crime that happens when they are around just because they didn't prevent it. Even in cases of flat out negligence it's usually an internal discipline matter, not a matter of you being able to sue them. The only way that he could viably sue in this case was if he could demonstrate a "special duty" of protection in this case.

In this particular case there is a serious mismatch between the police and victim's accounts, and the two sides seem to be moving further apart over time. But even taking his original outline of events it would seem impossible for there to be lawsuit in this case.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on July 07, 2013, 01:05:23 pm
Quote from: palsch on July 07, 2013, 12:59:56 pm
an internal discipline matter
xD
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 07, 2013, 01:24:51 pm
I'm sorry I could go right into all the wordplay here but if I'm a police officer and I've got the official motto "To Protect and Serve" I shouldn't need to spend any time thinking over whether it's protecting "the law" or "the people". The need to protect both, the people being the priority, should be self-evident.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 07, 2013, 01:54:09 pm
What I was getting at earlier is the entire pretense for the existence of law is to deal with the fact that people hurt each other, materially or bodily.  It codifies interactions that tend to result in harm, attempts reparations for harm done, and tries to discourage willful acts of harm.  In other words, the law is supposed to exist to protect people.  When those who act professionally on behalf of the law, especially those who are trained and equipped to face danger on behalf of the law, deny that they have any duty to protect people, it throws into question the intent and substance of the entire institution.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Robot Parade Leader on July 07, 2013, 05:27:33 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/temporary-jobs-becoming-permanent-fixture-140133833.html

I keep hearing about how companies create jobs and are "job creators...."

Quote
"You can hire 10,000 people for 10 to 15 minutes," says Gigwalk CEO Bob Bahramipour. "When they're done, those 10,000 people just melt away."

Wow, "melt away?" Yeah, we're talking huge companies here too.

Then, of course, the large companies are not trying to invest in the U.S. They will do so overseas, namely in China. :( We're paying them for this."Since the recession ended four years ago," is what they're saying. Never ended. Still going. Large companies are recovered, everybody else is not.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on July 07, 2013, 10:13:43 pm
Er, that's kinda bullshit.

To start out with, the article lumps all 'temporary' positions together. Which is stupid. A temp worker at walmart making minimum wage is not the same thing as a programmer doing contract work for above-industry-average wages. And that's what most of those skilled positions are: doing work in the short term for above-industry-average wages.

Secondly, jobs like those described from Gigwalk I've heard nothing but good reviews from. You are basically told 'go in and do action X at company Y, taking note of things like cleanliness and employee attitudes.' So you go in, do some trivial thing (get a haircut, buy a soda, you name it), fill out a quick survey, and get paid $40 for half an hour of basically doing something you may have done anyway. In short, it's a pretty great way for a college student or similarly low-on-cash individual to make a quick buck.

Quite frankly, temp work is the future. The Company is not there to support you, and people have been under that impression for too long already. If you look at what is happening to the generations from late baby boomers onwards, you see companies laying off people a couple years before retirement; people who have no way to retire or work without The Company. The shift to temp work in skilled sectors isn't a bad thing; it's simply the newer generations understanding the fact that they shouldn't sacrifice everything for The Company, because they can be laid off at a moment's notice. You go where the going is good, and temp work lets you do that.

Though as for the low-end temp work, that will only get worse. There's an oversupply of unskilled labor which is only going to get worse as jobs are increasingly lost to automation technologies and the education system fails to adequately provide higher education for vastly larger numbers of people at an affordable rate.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Robot Parade Leader on July 07, 2013, 10:28:47 pm
Who was it who asked, "Mr. Ford, how many cars does that machine buy?"

You want a well funded customer base and you get a well funded customer base by having well paid employees....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on July 07, 2013, 11:10:23 pm
Quote from: Robot Parade Leader on July 07, 2013, 10:28:47 pm
Even if we give what you say the benefit of the doubt, what about the phrase, "job creator" used to justify tax breaks? If you say the company isn't there to support "you," then why are "you" (the taxpayer) supporting the company under that assumption? Companies love to say they are "job creators" to gain political favor and so they are trying to perpetuate the idea that the company is there to support "you."

Ok, sometimes skilled temp work on certain very specific instances could be good, but I tend to suspect exploitation. Look at the lawyer example in the article. They business is getting 90% off the price it was paying just a few years ago: $5,000 to $500. I guess if somehow the business unexpectedly needs a ton of very skilled workers right this second and is in a major bind, then maybe.... The problem is, the prevailing idea out there now is that everybody, everybody is a dime a dozen. They're even doing it with medical doctors at lower rates than they would otherwise pay.... I want a doctor who is used to the hospital he is operating on me in and who is very comfortable with the setting, personnel, and equipment. We are all somehow disposable no matter the skill level?

That said, "The company isn't there to support you." Yes and no; it's a loop. The customer supports the company who supports the employees who are the customers.... If that sounds circular, that's because it is, and its entirely correct. Every business wants "customers" or "sales" or "clients" or whatever they call people paying them. No business wants to pay "employees," but employees are customers. It's a logical disconnect and very short sighted on the part of companies as a whole (industrial and commercial sectors).

Who was it who asked, "Mr. Ford, how many cars does that machine buy?"

You want a well funded customer base and you get a well funded customer base by having well paid employees....
To start out with, the tax break issue is entirely separate; which is why I didn't address it. However, the proper way to address that issue is not to use anecdotes, but actual economic analyses like this one: http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Stimulus-Impact-2008.pdf
which look at the GDP ROI of a variety of economic decisions. Things like "for every dollar of corporate tax breaks, the economy grows by $0.30, and compared to other forms of government spending, or even doing nothing, that is deplorably bad" are much more convincing than anecdotes about temp workers.

For the second paragraph, the lawyer bit is simply replacing a lawyer agency (with all its associated overhead) with a single lawyer. And from what Truean has recounted about the lawyer business of late, that probably isn't a bad thing since the lawyering agencies themselves overcharge and underpay. You'll also note that it has a highly decentralizing effect: a single lawyer could post for a job they wanted to do, find customers, and do it; all without needing to be part of a 'big law firm.' The small business could do their stuff without overpaying, the lawyer got a small side-job for a couple days, and no law firm bosses got any cut of it.

As for pay, nowhere in that article does it state doctors or similar skilled workers were paid less. Typically you're actually paid more. See, if a company need an employee 50% of the time, if they hire a contract worker for 50% of the time, they can afford to pay up to 200% the wages before it actually costs them extra; more, actually, since they don't give benefits. Contract workers also expect much higher pay. They need to cover the contract worker's expected higher pay or they simply go elsewhere; the whole point of doing skilled contract work is that it gives more flexibility.

For that last half, see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Yeah, let me know when the massive societal change solves that one. Because until then, companies are not there to support you. The best we've got in that direction are things like minimum wage laws and unemployment benefits; very few companies even care about more than their quarterly earnings report, let alone the economy as a whole or even their own long term survival.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 08, 2013, 05:16:04 pm
Hey. [reads thread]

I try not to argue online much anymore, because it's really a no win situation no matter what you're arguing. That said, two points, because I have somehow been name dropped:

a.) Independent contractor and/or temp work won't save the legal profession, or other professions. They do pay terribly for legal work in any case. They have leverage; you don't. Personally, I agree with the article. As pertains to professionals, you get good at something by repeatedly doing it. Doing one shot jobs doesn't provide that. There's a reason military equipment built by the lowest bidder often fails in the field....

b.) I do not understand this notion that businesses are not there to support people. It is. Good businesses used to care about the product they sold and the people they hired--trying to get the best from both. "The customer is always right," is all but dead. Companies don't care if you have to wait an hour or more on customer service lines while hearing your call is important to the company. Said company will not hire anybody to take your call. They will sell you increasingly crappy products with no support, at higher prices while  hoarding money and complaining they never have enough. (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/05/23/2054671/austeritys-vicious-cycle-spurs-record-cash-hoarding-by-us-companies/?mobile=nc)

We are in a race to the bottom. Giving corporations money when they are sitting on mountains of it will not help. If it would help, then how much cash do they need before they finally start spending some of it? Companies will not hire until sales improve. Sales will not improve until people can afford to buy things. We've tried throwing money at companies; not working.

c.) As for when societal change solves those things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_movement
40 hour work weeks, overtime, weekends off, paid vacations, sick leave, 8 hour days, and everything else labor got by incredibly hard work was that societal change. Tragically, it's past tense or quickly becoming that. Keep in mind, none of these things hurt the economy back then, not one bit. Rather, this lead to one of the largest economic expansions in American History.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 08, 2013, 09:25:35 pm
On the point of whether or not businesses exist to support people:

I understand that currently they don't.  I don't think many people dispute that.  The argument is that they should.

Businesses and the general societal structures they are founded on are social constructs designed and supported by human beings, with the theory and intention that they will facilitate a higher quality of life for the general population.  The business is a structure that provides goods and services to people in exchange for money, which in turn distributes that money among the people who work within the business to provide that good/service so that they can afford a decent quality of life through the purchase of other goods/services.

As others have pointed out, it's a cyclical formula for the distribution of resources among the population, and the problem is that a certain class of operators within the cycle has succeeded in subverting it to their exclusive advantage.  Instead of participating in the distribution of resources and elevation of the quality of life for society, they have made the entire system work to elevate their own quality of life at the majority's expense.

So saying that businesses don't exist to support us is kind of missing the point.  They're supposed to and that's why they exist.  The fact that they currently don't is something that there should be broad cultural concern, discussion, and action to address, not acceptance.  Frankly, it should be understood universally and without question that no one should agree to work for a business that doesn't participate honestly in the cycle as it's intended to operate (to support people), and that we need to support each other in order to survive in the process of starving bad business out of existence.  That or tax the hell out of them to directly cancel out the effects of their treasonous greed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on July 08, 2013, 11:43:38 pm
So..... anyone in Florida? Because if you are reading this you had better turn yourself in.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/08/florida-banned-computers_n_3561701.html

One of the guys is fighting back:
"The owner, Consuelo Zapata, is now suing the state after her legal team found that the ban was so hastily worded that it can be applied to any computer or device connected to the Internet"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on July 09, 2013, 12:14:35 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 08, 2013, 09:25:35 pm
Frankly, it should be understood universally and without question that no one should agree to work for a business that doesn't participate honestly in the cycle as it's intended to operate (to support people), and that we need to support each other in order to survive in the process of starving bad business out of existence.  That or tax the hell out of them to directly cancel out the effects of their treasonous greed.
Overtaxing can be crippling for businesses, especially small/medium sized ones. Hoping the population will ignore bad business isn't gonna work, people will often choose to buy the cheapest goods for economical reasons and will take bad jobs over no job.
The solution is more regulation. If unions have a strong influence in society and businesses are forced to implement Works councils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_council), there is a very decent chance bad businesses will be forced to change their ways or quit. Labour regulations were one of the main reasons Wal-Mart failed in Germany (besides strong competition).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 09, 2013, 12:25:36 am
... I need to move to Germany.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on July 09, 2013, 12:33:59 am
Quote from: Descan on July 09, 2013, 12:25:36 am
... I need to move to Germany.
Eh, there is a lot of shady stuff in the business world going on too here. But at least unions and regulations are not seen as sceptical as in the US since the anti-communist panic.
In the case of Wal-Mart - they couldn't compete with local food discounters and their business practices were completely incompatible with labour regulations, which led to lots of law suits.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 09, 2013, 01:27:57 am
Quote from: XXSockXX on July 09, 2013, 12:14:35 am
Overtaxing can be crippling for businesses, especially small/medium sized ones.

Small/medium-sized businesses aren't generally the problem, and I didn't suggest overtaxing anyone.  Many megacorporations could withstand and definitely deserve some pretty severe taxation, at least for a period until they're no longer wasting the majority of the world's resources.

Quote from: XXSockXX on July 09, 2013, 12:14:35 am
Hoping the population will ignore bad business isn't gonna work, people will often choose to buy the cheapest goods for economical reasons and will take bad jobs over no job.

I also didn't say it was realistic or that I expected it.  Just that it's the ideal, and it's not to humanity's credit that we're so easily divided and conquered by forces that rely completely on our investment in them.

Regulation is important, but vulnerable to subversion.  Its influence and operation in good faith can only be maintained by the vigilance of the people, which is a cultural issue, not a policy issue.  One must precede the other, and the necessary culture simply isn't present in America.  If it were, the business world here would be in a lot more trouble for its behavior.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on July 09, 2013, 02:03:33 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 09, 2013, 01:27:57 am
Small/medium-sized businesses aren't generally the problem, and I didn't suggest overtaxing anyone.  Many megacorporations could withstand and definitely deserve some pretty severe taxation, at least for a period until they're no longer wasting the majority of the world's resources.
I interpreted "tax the hell out of them" as overtaxing. Generally it seems to be difficult to find a balance in taxation, where only the megacorporations are taxed severely. There are always too many loopholes (like megacorporations consisting of many smaller ones) that allow the big ones to get away while the smaller ones have to bleed.

Quote from: SalmonGod on July 09, 2013, 01:27:57 am
Regulation is important, but vulnerable to subversion.  Its influence and operation in good faith can only be maintained by the vigilance of the people, which is a cultural issue, not a policy issue.  One must precede the other, and the necessary culture simply isn't present in America.  If it were, the business world here would be in a lot more trouble for its behavior.
The cultural thing is an important point. In the US specifically worker friendly policies and institutions seem to be weirdly discredited, since I guess the McCarthy era.
There are huge cultural differences within Europe too, France and Germany for example both have strong unions, but France has a very strong strike culture, to the point that it's almost crippling, while Germany has implemented a sort of forced dialogue between employers and workers that seems to lead to more negotiation instead of strikes.
Which system ultimately is the best I cannot say, but I tend to think that regulations can further growth of a culture where people are less willing to take shit from corporations.

Quote from: SalmonGod on July 09, 2013, 01:27:57 am
Quote from: XXSockXX on July 09, 2013, 12:14:35 am
Hoping the population will ignore bad business isn't gonna work, people will often choose to buy the cheapest goods for economical reasons and will take bad jobs over no job.

I also didn't say it was realistic or that I expected it.  Just that it's the ideal, and it's not to humanity's credit that we're so easily divided and conquered by forces that rely completely on our investment in them.
This is something that comes up in the media here a lot lately. The elites and the media blame the population for not buying more fair trade food or supporting clothing chains that produce in Bangladesh under inhumane conditions. My point of view is that a lot of people simply can't afford to not buy the cheapest goods available and cannot be blamed for making a choice that seems the most reasonable for them in their situation. You don't see a lot of poor people wearing old tattered clothing anymore or cheap jogging suits, but you shouldn't expect them to do so when corporations are allowed to offer semi-fashionable clothing at low prices (that are sustained by exploiting third world country workers).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 09, 2013, 04:56:31 am
Quote from: Moghjubar on July 08, 2013, 11:43:38 pm
So..... anyone in Florida? Because if you are reading this you had better turn yourself in.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/08/florida-banned-computers_n_3561701.html

One of the guys is fighting back:
"The owner, Consuelo Zapata, is now suing the state after her legal team found that the ban was so hastily worded that it can be applied to any computer or device connected to the Internet"

That is both horribly hilarious and hilariously horrible.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on July 09, 2013, 04:58:48 am
I'd rather exploit third-world countries' workers by making them toil away 16 hours a day in a flammable factory than let them starve. Such exploitation may be harsh, but for a state with a good industrial policy (see China, or Korea, Japan and Taiwain before them), it is a necessary step toward further development.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 09, 2013, 06:57:03 am
Quote from: Sheb on July 09, 2013, 04:58:48 am
I'd rather exploit third-world countries' workers by making them toil away 16 hours a day in a flammable factory than let them starve. Such exploitation may be harsh, but for a state with a good industrial policy (see China, or Korea, Japan and Taiwain before them), it is a necessary step toward further development.
It is not a necessary avenue for development in one that requires people to sleep in cages like common animals where they would have been better off as subsistence farmers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on July 09, 2013, 08:21:54 am
First of all, being a subsistence farmer sucks. Sure, your sixteen hours of back-breaking labor are outside, so at least you get fresh air, but that's about it. The pay sucks, and you often don't even have enough to eat, while your factory labor at least buy you food. There is a reason most of the undernourished people globally are peasants and not workers, and why hundreds of millions of Chinese migrated to the cities.

Second, not only is it a necessary avenue for development, it's the only one. The north-east Asians states that now have developed status all did it. Basically, a developing country doesn't have the technological know-how to support a developed economy. The only way to get it is to use your competitive advantage (plenty of dirt-poor farmer ready to do anything for a sucky wage to get out of the field) to buy, beg and steal your way up the technological ladder. Japan did it twice, Taiwan did it, Korea did it. Now China is doing it, and it's starting to pay off: wages and conditions are rising, so much so that Chinese companies are now delocalizing some of their own operations.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 09, 2013, 09:13:09 am
They don't get enough pay to feed themselves. That's why their children are working as well instead of going to school.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on July 09, 2013, 10:34:30 am
I'm not saying that being a third-world worker is cool. It sucks. My point is that a): It's better than being a subsistence farmer (children in rural housholds are much more likely to go hungry or not to attend school) and b) If you happen to live in a developing country, it's often a necessary step to get the technological know-how necessary for your children to have a better life later on.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 09, 2013, 11:04:49 am
In the western world, we only gained that knowledge because our wages were high enough to afford to pet our children go to school and get an education. If companies paid their workers better, they would be able to go directly to that "step". So no, paying developing world worker the kind of pitiful wages (without any other "benefits" like basic workplace safety at that) they currently are being paid is not a "necessary step". It is, in fact, counterproductive to the development of the country, and the only people profiting from it is the companies, and their customers in the western world.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 09, 2013, 12:14:32 pm
The governement profits, and is then capable of investing in new schooling opportunities, healthcare, and stuff mike that. It might only be a select few that get it, but it wil help.

A bunch of farmers with a smattering of general knowledge are untimately inferior to having a smaller group of university students, willing to start up new ventures in their country.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 09, 2013, 12:19:33 pm
I think there's some truth to what you're saying, Sheb, but I also think that the situation is made much worse by developed countries taking advantage of developing ones, both presently and historically.  Many undeveloped countries are ones that got the worst treatment in the colonial era.  Self-sufficient agrarian communities were destroyed by being forced into cash cropping, for example.  Plenty of other places were doing fine until they were intentionally de-stabilized, which put them in the position of being host to sweatshops.  And above all, I think the primary factor is that nobody can subsistence farm on land that they don't own.

I think the situation is pretty directly comparable to someone like me working a shitty, low-paying, dead-end job for a mega-corporation that profits obscenely from my labor while giving me as little as they can get away with in return.  Yeah, I'm better off in the immediate sense than someone who has no job.  That doesn't mean I shouldn't be aware that my situation is still a product of foul play and my participation is what allows those circumstances to continue.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 10, 2013, 10:55:47 am
In regards to crushing free speech with a smile on your face, I told you so (http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/02/second-teen-spends-months-in-jail-for-video-game-threat/) just isn't as fun a phrase as it used to be.

Quote from: Sheb on July 09, 2013, 08:21:54 am
First of all, being a subsistence farmer sucks. Sure, your sixteen hours of back-breaking labor are outside, so at least you get fresh air, but that's about it. The pay sucks, and you often don't even have enough to eat, while your factory labor at least buy you food. There is a reason most of the undernourished people globally are peasants and not workers, and why hundreds of millions of Chinese migrated to the cities.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
DEVELOPMENT

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Subsistence farming requires only as much work as you need to feed your family.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 10, 2013, 11:07:04 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on July 10, 2013, 10:55:47 am
In regards to crushing free speech with a smile on your face, I told you so (http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/02/second-teen-spends-months-in-jail-for-video-game-threat/) just isn't as fun a phrase as it used to be.
(http://sadpanda.us/images/1726111-Q5OF6LH.jpg)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 10, 2013, 11:29:28 am
While making threats shouldn't be covered by your right to free speech and that threats made over the internet should be treated the same as threats made by phone, letter, or any other "irl" media, I really can't call that threats in any kind of way.

Also; a 20 year old facing possibly 10 years in federal prison. Just that is horrible.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 10, 2013, 12:11:38 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on July 10, 2013, 10:55:47 am
In regards to crushing free speech with a smile on your face, I told you so (http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/02/second-teen-spends-months-in-jail-for-video-game-threat/) just isn't as fun a phrase as it used to be.

Quote from: Sheb on July 09, 2013, 08:21:54 am
First of all, being a subsistence farmer sucks. Sure, your sixteen hours of back-breaking labor are outside, so at least you get fresh air, but that's about it. The pay sucks, and you often don't even have enough to eat, while your factory labor at least buy you food. There is a reason most of the undernourished people globally are peasants and not workers, and why hundreds of millions of Chinese migrated to the cities.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
DEVELOPMENT

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Subsistence farming requires only as much work as you need to feed your family.

I'd appreciate statistics. Last i checked Africa isn't particularly fun in this regard regardless of what they show tourists.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 10, 2013, 12:25:05 pm
Quote from: scriver on July 10, 2013, 11:29:28 am
While making threats shouldn't be covered by your right to free speech and that threats made over the internet should be treated the same as threats made by phone, letter, or any other "irl" media, I really can't call that threats in any kind of way.

Also; a 20 year old facing possibly 10 years in federal prison. Just that is horrible.
That's what happens when one accepts a definition of free speech like the one you are proposing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 10, 2013, 12:46:33 pm
He isn't proposing any definition of free speech. He's saying internet threats should be taken the same as threats made through any other medium. Which sounds reasonable to me... there's nothing magical about internet communication that makes it different than any other form of communication.



As for the content of this particular case, it seems to me like they're taking a harassed, bullied, and possibly depressed individual and throwing him in jail. That'll straighten him up for suuuuure.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 10, 2013, 12:57:37 pm
I think MSH was referring to "making threats shouldn't be covered by your right to free speech," not the internet part.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 10, 2013, 12:58:04 pm
Boasting threats not connected to any action or attempt at action are most certainly free speech, which is why these people shouldn't have been arrested, but they would be crimes under the view of free speech that scriver has proposed.

Not sure how one can condemn arresting them on one hand and call them criminals on the other.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: da_nang on July 10, 2013, 12:59:37 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 10, 2013, 12:46:33 pm
He's saying internet threats should be taken the same as threats made through any other medium. Which sounds reasonable to me... there's nothing magical about internet communication that makes it different than any other form of communication.
Don't believe everything you read on the internet?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 10, 2013, 01:01:37 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 10, 2013, 12:58:04 pm
Not sure how one can condemn arresting them on one hand and call them criminals on the other.

I think he was condemning him being jailed for so long, i.e. he agrees that the dude should be punished but doesn't think the punishment should be so extreme.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 10, 2013, 01:04:10 pm
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/10/indiana-gay-marriage-debate-state-laws/2504767/
http://americablog.com/2013/07/indiana-makes-crime-preacher-conduct-gay-marriage.html

.... :(

I don't entirely know what that means and I am afraid to find out It appears Indiana just made it illegal and a crime for clergy who are "solemnizing" gays "marrying." The article suggests that "solemnizing" is something that is done before the actual filing of any license with the county clerk, which is also illegal and a (low level) felony for a gay person to do.... The clergy performing any ceremony could apparently be charged with a misdemeanor?

So I'm not sure, but it appears the prosecutor would be able to go after a clergy who performed a ceremony for gay people.... Would that apply to something that was not intended to be "marriage" legally? Not sure of this, but I've heard that Unitarian Universalists (UUs) and some other religions seem perfectly fine with performing ceremonies for gay people. Does this imply that the mere act of those ceremonies is now illegal and a criminal offense? I hope not. That sounds suspiciously like the government telling religion what to do by threat of jail, if your religion doesn't mind gays marrying.... Then of course there's that "making it a felony" thing if you're gay, stuff....

:( I really don't know what to think of this. One day I would like to find a nice man to be with. Thankfully I do not currently live in Indiana, but.... The notion of these laws catching on is a frightening one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 10, 2013, 01:22:58 pm
Well first off, any right, not just free speech, only extends so far as it doesn't impede on other's rights. I'm pretty sure I have a solid precedent for people having a right to not be threatened with violence at least as far as the law goes (just look up what constitutes "assault"). If you feel people don't have the right to be free from threats to be killed and harmed then I don't have much to argue against that since it seems axiomatic.

Quote from: da_nang on July 10, 2013, 12:59:37 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 10, 2013, 12:46:33 pm
He's saying internet threats should be taken the same as threats made through any other medium. Which sounds reasonable to me... there's nothing magical about internet communication that makes it different than any other form of communication.
Don't believe everything you read on the internet?
Silly mantras are not rebuttals.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 10, 2013, 01:27:04 pm
I thought I was pretty clear about that I don't consider what he said to be a threat:

Quote from: scriver on July 10, 2013, 11:29:28 am
While making threats shouldn't be covered by your right to free speech and that threats made over the internet should be treated the same as threats made by phone, letter, or any other "irl" media, I really can't call that threats in any kind of way.

Also; a 20 year old facing possibly 10 years in federal prison. Just that is horrible.

Quote from: Truean on July 10, 2013, 01:04:10 pm
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/10/indiana-gay-marriage-debate-state-laws/2504767/
http://americablog.com/2013/07/indiana-makes-crime-preacher-conduct-gay-marriage.html

.... :(

I don't entirely know what that means and I am afraid to find out It appears Indiana just made it illegal and a crime for clergy who are "solemnizing" gays "marrying." The article suggests that "solemnizing" is something that is done before the actual filing of any license with the county clerk, which is also illegal and a (low level) felony for a gay person to do.... The clergy performing any ceremony could apparently be charged with a misdemeanor?

So I'm not sure, but it appears the prosecutor would be able to go after a clergy who performed a ceremony for gay people.... Would that apply to something that was not intended to be "marriage" legally? Not sure of this, but I've heard that Unitarian Universalists (UUs) and some other religions seem perfectly fine with performing ceremonies for gay people. Does this imply that the mere act of those ceremonies is now illegal and a criminal offense? I hope not. That sounds suspiciously like the government telling religion what to do by threat of jail, if your religion doesn't mind gays marrying.... Then of course there's that "making it a felony" thing if you're gay, stuff....

:( I really don't know what to think of this. One day I would like to find a nice man to be with. Thankfully I do not currently live in Indiana, but.... The notion of these laws catching on is a frightening one.

That... So much for protecting churches from the government, I guess? But seriously, that couldn't possible hold up against the constitution/Supreme Court, could it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 10, 2013, 01:28:08 pm
Quote from: scriver on July 10, 2013, 01:27:04 pm
That... So much for protecting churches from the government, I guess? But seriously, that couldn't possible hold up against the constitution/Supreme Court, could it?
Nope. It'll die in court very, very quickly if challenged.

It's just posturing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 10, 2013, 01:34:58 pm
Quote from: Truean on July 10, 2013, 01:04:10 pm
So I'm not sure, but it appears the prosecutor would be able to go after a clergy who performed a ceremony for gay people.... Would that apply to something that was not intended to be "marriage" legally? Not sure of this, but I've heard that Unitarian Universalists (UUs) and some other religions seem perfectly fine with performing ceremonies for gay people. Does this imply that the mere act of those ceremonies is now illegal and a criminal offense? I hope not. That sounds suspiciously like the government telling religion what to do by threat of jail, if your religion doesn't mind gays marrying.... Then of course there's that "making it a felony" thing if you're gay, stuff....
I just love the irony of them doing this, when the GOP is constantly pushing the line about how "Big Gay is going to force preachers to marry same-sex couples!" and now they themselves are forcing preachers to not marry same-sex couples.
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 10, 2013, 01:22:58 pm
Well first off, any right, not just free speech, only extends so far as it doesn't impede on other's rights. I'm pretty sure I have a solid precedent for people having a right to not be threatened with violence at least as far as the law goes (just look up what constitutes "assault"). If you feel people don't have the right to be free from threats to be killed and harmed then I don't have much to argue against that since it seems axiomatic.
You don't have any legal right to that. Just threatening someone isn't assault. Assault requires a present and plausible ability to commit one's threats. By definition, one can not assault someone over the internet unless they also can confront them in meatspace, because you can't punch people through the internet.

In these particular cases, the obvious sarcastic rebuttals delivered by the "criminals" are even less legitimate as assault, as they are clearly facetious. If one accepts that sarcasm or clearly false statements are legitimate threats that can constitute assault, then all manner of humor and jest become serious crimes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 10, 2013, 01:55:22 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 10, 2013, 01:34:58 pm
You don't have any legal right to that. Just threatening someone isn't assault. Assault requires a present and plausible ability to commit one's threats.

However, consider that in Florida, even being perceived as threatening is legal justification for someone to shoot you and claim self-defense.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 10, 2013, 04:27:32 pm
I think in the UK we treat verbal threats as assault.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 10, 2013, 04:51:43 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on July 10, 2013, 04:27:32 pm
I think in the UK we treat verbal threats as assault.
We categorize it as violent crime as well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on July 10, 2013, 04:53:14 pm
Well thats just silly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on July 10, 2013, 06:29:13 pm
It is kind of silly but there's a sort of logic behind it. Essentially the idea is that if someone waves a knife in your face and threatens to stab you, the courts will consider this a violent crime, even if there are no stabbings nor attempted stabbings involved (which I'm sure you'll agree sounds a fairly reasonable practice).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on July 10, 2013, 06:38:18 pm
I do wonder how a verbal knife looks like...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 10, 2013, 06:58:37 pm
Quote from: Pnx on July 10, 2013, 06:29:13 pm
It is kind of silly but there's a sort of logic behind it. Essentially the idea is that if someone waves a knife in your face and threatens to stab you, the courts will consider this a violent crime, even if there are no stabbings nor attempted stabbings involved (which I'm sure you'll agree sounds a fairly reasonable practice).
No, by definition violence indicates harmful force, yet there is no force involved.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 10, 2013, 07:22:22 pm
So you'd rather someone waving a knife in your face have no consequences?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 10, 2013, 07:41:53 pm
Wow, it's almost like that has nothing to do with what he said!

Or are you under the assumption the only crimes we can set up consequences for are violent ones?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 10, 2013, 07:50:26 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on July 10, 2013, 06:38:18 pm
I do wonder how a verbal knife looks like...
Somewhat similar to a cutting remark, I'd imagine.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 10, 2013, 08:00:38 pm
Quote from: Truean on July 10, 2013, 01:04:10 pm
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/10/indiana-gay-marriage-debate-state-laws/2504767/
http://americablog.com/2013/07/indiana-makes-crime-preacher-conduct-gay-marriage.html

.... :(

I don't entirely know what that means and I am afraid to find out It appears Indiana just made it illegal and a crime for clergy who are "solemnizing" gays "marrying." The article suggests that "solemnizing" is something that is done before the actual filing of any license with the county clerk, which is also illegal and a (low level) felony for a gay person to do.... The clergy performing any ceremony could apparently be charged with a misdemeanor?

So I'm not sure, but it appears the prosecutor would be able to go after a clergy who performed a ceremony for gay people.... Would that apply to something that was not intended to be "marriage" legally? Not sure of this, but I've heard that Unitarian Universalists (UUs) and some other religions seem perfectly fine with performing ceremonies for gay people. Does this imply that the mere act of those ceremonies is now illegal and a criminal offense? I hope not. That sounds suspiciously like the government telling religion what to do by threat of jail, if your religion doesn't mind gays marrying.... Then of course there's that "making it a felony" thing if you're gay, stuff....

:( I really don't know what to think of this. One day I would like to find a nice man to be with. Thankfully I do not currently live in Indiana, but.... The notion of these laws catching on is a frightening one.

Yeah, I saw those same links a couple days ago... Didn't know how much they actually represent a change in legal status for gay people here, or how much weight the laws actually carry.  All I could think was "Yup, that's Indiana."  The fundies are powerful here.  They call it the northernmost southern state for good reason.

Having said all that, you've given me the impression many times that I know more people here who are accepting of homosexuality than you seem to in Ohio.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 10, 2013, 08:06:47 pm
On the bright side, the solemnizing law is almost certainly going to be struck down. It isn't often that something manages to violate both Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on July 10, 2013, 08:15:29 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on July 10, 2013, 06:58:37 pm
Quote from: Pnx on July 10, 2013, 06:29:13 pm
It is kind of silly but there's a sort of logic behind it. Essentially the idea is that if someone waves a knife in your face and threatens to stab you, the courts will consider this a violent crime, even if there are no stabbings nor attempted stabbings involved (which I'm sure you'll agree sounds a fairly reasonable practice).
No, by definition violence indicates harmful force, yet there is no force involved.
Firstly I was claiming this seemed a reasonable practise (or rather I was claiming that Dutchling would probably find it a reasonable practise), I was not claiming it was... how shall I say this, semantically accurate practise.
The same way that if someone was stealing money from a cash register and you called it shoplifting, I'd say that's a reasonable thing to call it even though the definition of shoplifting is by most accounts the theft of goods (money not being typically considered goods).

Secondly, let's actually look at some definitions of violence, since you've apparently decided semantics is so vital to the conversation here.
Quote from: First line of the wikipedia article
Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person

Quote from: Dictionary.com
... an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws

Quote from: Google
Strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force.

Most definitions I look at seem to include what I described as being violent. So there doesn't even seem to be a basis for arguing semantics here if that was even appropriate.

Quite frankly LW, I think this was an extremely pedantic argument.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 10, 2013, 08:20:30 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 10, 2013, 07:41:53 pm
Wow, it's almost like that has nothing to do with what he said!

Or are you under the assumption the only crimes we can set up consequences for are violent ones?
<3
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 10, 2013, 09:30:59 pm
Quote from: Pnx on July 10, 2013, 08:15:29 pm
Firstly I was claiming this seemed a reasonable practise (or rather I was claiming that Dutchling would probably find it a reasonable practise), I was not claiming it was... how shall I say this, semantically accurate practise.
The same way that if someone was stealing money from a cash register and you called it shoplifting, I'd say that's a reasonable thing to call it even though the definition of shoplifting is by most accounts the theft of goods (money not being typically considered goods).
I'd call that a robbery since we have different definitions for different offenses of varying intents, circumstances and scale.

Quote from: Pnx on July 10, 2013, 08:15:29 pm
Most definitions I look at seem to include what I described as being violent. So there doesn't even seem to be a basis for arguing semantics here if that was even appropriate.

Quite frankly LW, I think this was an extremely pedantic argument.
The basis is in that violence's literal definition is physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

In the US this means robbery, assault, rape, and murder.

Threatening as declaring the intent is both harassment and verbal abuse, but it is not violent as any crime where physical force is involved.

If it is semantic, it is because it IS, nor is it my argument, and yes it very damn well is a relevant distinction to make.

Quote from: Descan on July 10, 2013, 08:20:30 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 10, 2013, 07:41:53 pm
Wow, it's almost like that has nothing to do with what he said!

Or are you under the assumption the only crimes we can set up consequences for are violent ones?
<3
Why the dick?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 10, 2013, 09:31:55 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 10, 2013, 08:00:38 pm
Having said all that, you've given me the impression many times that I know more people here who are accepting of homosexuality than you seem to in Ohio.

Pretty much yes. I know a lot of people who openly or secretly-while-saying-they-do, do not like gays. I've posted a lot of times about how my friends (who are often single females) will eventually get a boyfriend and that he will have a problem with me hanging around her even as the clearly gay friend.... You'd think the fact that I date guys and just wanna watch chick flicks with the girlfirend would clear up the jealousy but .... Evidently not. Also if that didn't make it obvious, one might think the dress would?

Sadly, there are still plenty of people who would like nothing more than for being gay to be a crime again....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on July 10, 2013, 09:53:28 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on July 10, 2013, 09:30:59 pm
The basis is in that violence's literal definition is physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
I give you a number of definitions that disagree and say that it doesn't have to be physical force, and you completely ignore them.

Quote from: Loud Whispers on July 10, 2013, 09:30:59 pm
Quote from: Pnx on July 10, 2013, 08:15:29 pm
Firstly I was claiming this seemed a reasonable practise (or rather I was claiming that Dutchling would probably find it a reasonable practise), I was not claiming it was... how shall I say this, semantically accurate practise.
The same way that if someone was stealing money from a cash register and you called it shoplifting, I'd say that's a reasonable thing to call it even though the definition of shoplifting is by most accounts the theft of goods (money not being typically considered goods).
I'd call that a robbery since we have different definitions for different offenses of varying intents, circumstances and scale.

(...)

Threatening as declaring the intent is both harassment and verbal abuse, but it is not violent as any crime where physical force is involved.

If it is semantic, it is because it IS, nor is it my argument, and yes it very damn well is a relevant distinction to make.
And again you're completely missing the point, it's not classified as violent crime because it's semantically fits into that classification neatly, it's called that because it's useful to classify it as a violent crime.

In the case of the shoplifter example, because the person in question was stealing from a shop, so it's useful to call them a shoplifter because that makes the nature of the crime clear. The same applies to the whole idea of assault being a violent crime even if it's purely a verbal assault.


Quote from: Loud Whispers on July 10, 2013, 09:30:59 pm
In the US this means robbery, assault, rape, and murder.
We are not talking about the US, this has no relation to what we were talking about at all.
Though since you brought up law in the US, I'd like to point out that in the US they have essentially the exact same practise (though I believe assault laws may vary from state to state), to quote this random google result. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault)
Quote
An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability..
The key difference apparently being the apparent present ability to cause the harm. You yourself classified assault as a violent crime, so the example of threatening someone would be a violent crime, no?

Well, unless you want to get fussy about the semantics for absolutely no reason other than "I think this is the way it should be and damn all definitions, legal precedent, or what everyone else in the world might believe".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on July 10, 2013, 09:56:58 pm
Quote from: Truean on July 10, 2013, 09:31:55 pm

Sadly, there are still plenty of people who would like nothing more than for being gay to be a crime again....

Well... if they don't like 'murica then they can just GEDDOUT!  /DOMAunconstitutional
And then they can go to Uganda.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 11, 2013, 04:31:24 am
Quote from: RedKing on July 10, 2013, 01:55:22 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 10, 2013, 01:34:58 pm
You don't have any legal right to that. Just threatening someone isn't assault. Assault requires a present and plausible ability to commit one's threats.

However, consider that in Florida, even being perceived as threatening is legal justification for someone to shoot you and claim self-defense.
And thus the Trayvon case which a certain website I browse is going mad about.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 11, 2013, 06:42:26 am
Truean the girlfriend/boyfriend thing seems to honestly have little to do with people disliking you for being gay (even if they do). If anything it sounds like your getting more rope than a straight guy would in the same situation. They do seem to be jealous assholes in general though. Remember that there plenty of assholes that are so jealous they won't even let their girlfriends have ANY friends, regardless of gender. You are competition for time and affection there is no doubt about that and its competition some guys just don't want.

I still wonder why you don't move. Yes it would upheave your career but you honestly don't seem to like it much anyway and from the things you say it can't be about the money so... it is actually better in other places than what you describe.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 11, 2013, 08:39:34 am
I'm a bit late for threattalk, but I think there need to be proper guidelines in place for establishing when something isn't an actual threat.  In particular if it's not directed at the people who would be threatened as in the case above.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on July 11, 2013, 08:55:11 am
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23269437
Quote
The alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, reportedly asked his CIA captors if he could design a vacuum cleaner.

Quote
His military lawyer at Guantanamo Bay, Jason Wright, told the Associated Press he was forbidden to discuss whether the vacuum cleaner designs existed.

"It sounds ridiculous," he said. "But answering this question, or confirming or denying the very existence of a vacuum cleaner design... would apparently expose the US government and its citizens to exceptionally grave danger."
It's a good thing these vacuum cleaner designs are a state secret. Imagine the fallout if the world could clean floors at a faster rate; or even as fast as the CIA! Everyone would have enough spare time to plot hundreds of attacks on American soil!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 11, 2013, 08:56:40 am
Quote
Everyone would have enough spare time to plot hundreds of attacks on American soil!
Not sure if deliberate pun or fortuitous choice of words...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 11, 2013, 08:57:04 am
I'm pretty sure making silly headlines happen is his only source of entertainment.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 11, 2013, 09:58:11 am
A lot of these guys are really bright. You know, doctors, engineers, teachers, scientists, historians. It's a shame they've wasted their lives on Al-Qaeda.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 11, 2013, 10:04:04 am
/ on being captured and held indefinitely for no reason at all

e: I don't mean KSM, just a bunch of the other people who are still being held
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 11, 2013, 10:38:03 am
Umm, yeah... I could be getting something mixed up, but aren't some of them completely innocent?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 11, 2013, 10:53:07 am
Certainly some GTMO prisoners have been innocent. Others have been 'innocent' of any crime that would justify legal detention, although maybe the military/administration did justifiably consider them a threat when they were detained. Others may not be 'innocent' but can certainly never be found guilty.

All of this is absolutely separate to who has been released, who has been cleared for release and who can be released. That's all far more complicated.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 11, 2013, 10:38:38 pm
So Russia is taking some steps backwards. (http://www.travelandescape.ca/2013/07/russia-says-it-will-arrest-openly-gay-tourists/?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=bufferc7df4&utm_medium=twitter)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on July 11, 2013, 10:40:50 pm
Fuck.

I wanna take a RC airplane over there and drop tons of gay porn all over the red square. That would be fun.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 11, 2013, 10:59:52 pm
Not surprising. This has been in the making for quite a while now. Putin is playing off the Russian Orthodox Church, who is supporting him in turn for supporting their social agenda. Their growth in power is quite disturbing. I wouldn't be that surprised if Russia enacted a sodomy law in the next few years.

There's certainly enough public support for it.
Quote from: Wiki-Wiki-Wikipedia
Public opinion in Russia tends to be among the most hostile toward homosexuality in the world, and the level of intolerance has been rising.[13] A 2013 survey found that 74% of Russians said homosexuality should not be accepted by society (up from 60% in 2002), compared to 16% who said that homosexuality should be accepted by society.[14] In a 2007 survey, 68% of Russians said homosexuality is always wrong (54%) or almost always wrong (14%).[15] In a 2005 poll, 44% of Russians were in favor of making homosexual acts between consenting adults a criminal act;[11] at the same time, 43% of Russians supported a legal ban on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[11] There is a visible LGBT community network, mostly in major cities like Moscow and Saint Petersburg, including nightclubs and political organizations.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on July 12, 2013, 05:05:04 am
Goddammit Russia. You're doing it wrong.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 12, 2013, 06:05:15 am
The Russian government does a lot of things wrong, yet you'll undoubtedly meet a few people on these very forums who will gladly tell you that Putin is a strong, wise leader who knows what he's doing and is good for Russia. I know I have. A quick browse through youtube comments on videos about this subject are very revealing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 12, 2013, 06:56:40 am
Quote from: Vector on July 11, 2013, 10:38:38 pm
So Russia is taking some steps backwards. (http://www.travelandescape.ca/2013/07/russia-says-it-will-arrest-openly-gay-tourists/?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=bufferc7df4&utm_medium=twitter)
A lot of Russians hold homosexuality on the same light as pedophilia, they really hate seeing it.

Quote from: Owlbread on July 12, 2013, 06:05:15 am
The Russian government does a lot of things wrong, yet you'll undoubtedly meet a few people on these very forums who will gladly tell you that Putin is a strong, wise leader who knows what he's doing and is good for Russia. I know I have. A quick browse through youtube comments on videos about this subject are very revealing.
Strong, yes. Wise? Short sighted. Would you think Putin's internet personality cult is more fantasy than serious adoration, much in the same way that RON PAUL 2012 was?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 12, 2013, 07:01:56 am
A look at some of the groups who protested at the French embassy. (http://barthsnotes.com/2013/07/10/russian-groups-come-together-for-anti-gay-protests-outside-moscow-embassies/)

It's the expected mix of the religious/social conservative groups with a couple of anti-American/west groups thrown into the mix.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on July 12, 2013, 10:25:00 am
What the fuck is a Putin suit ???
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on July 12, 2013, 10:25:37 am
I want one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 12, 2013, 10:46:09 am
So, why are Russians protesting at the French ambassady anyway?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 12, 2013, 10:47:59 am
Quote from: scriver on July 12, 2013, 10:46:09 am
So, why are Russians protesting at the French ambassady anyway?
Didn't the French recently legalize gay marriage?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on July 12, 2013, 10:59:00 am
I know it's been a few pages sinc ethe development discussion, but I'll continue it anyway.

First of all, subsistence farmers works hard. Not only do they have to feed themselves, but they must generate a surplus to pay for the stuff they can't produce (clothing, telephone, health care, school fees) and to cushion them should a crop fail. Unsurprisingly, many farmers simply don't manage to do it, unhelped by bad land policies and ag extension (Japan, Korea and Taiwan all kick-started their devellopment with very aggressive land reform of the king unimaginable today, expropriating everything above a few hectares). Moreover, subsistance farming is no way to develop a country. Not only do the peasant's life sucks, but their children's life won't be any better.

On the other hand, working in a factory means a more-or-less steady income. And it help the whole country climb the technological ladder. Just look at China, 20 years ago, they were making cheap shirts, now, you have companies like Huawei being world leaders in high-tech sectors.

Importantly, this process of technological learning isn't that dependant on education, it mostly happens on site, in the factories. For exemple, Korea had a literacy rate of less than 30% after the Korean War. Didn't prevent them from developing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on July 12, 2013, 11:25:41 am
Unrelated to any discussion currently going on:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/2013/06/29/men-menopause-evolution/
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 12, 2013, 11:39:52 am
Quote from: Willfor on July 12, 2013, 11:25:41 am
Unrelated to any discussion currently going on:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/2013/06/29/men-menopause-evolution/
The amount of sarcasm and vitriol in that started making me nauseated.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 12, 2013, 11:42:09 am
Is such a take on anthropology common enough to warrant this? Please answer civilly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on July 12, 2013, 11:44:37 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 12, 2013, 11:39:52 am
Quote from: Willfor on July 12, 2013, 11:25:41 am
Unrelated to any discussion currently going on:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/2013/06/29/men-menopause-evolution/
The amount of sarcasm and vitriol in that started making me nauseated.

Looks like standard satire to me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 12, 2013, 11:49:55 am
Of which I tend to not be a fan, even if I agree with the real message.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 12, 2013, 12:36:09 pm
Quote from: Sheb on July 12, 2013, 10:59:00 am

On the other hand, working in a factory means a more-or-less steady income. And it help the whole country climb the technological ladder. Just look at China, 20 years ago, they were making cheap shirts, now...
..they keep making cheap shirts. You forget that most of the Chinese population still has dismal standards of living. Including those living in high-tech areas. Consider the suicide rate of the iPhone manufacturers.

Not that I'm defending subsistence farming, mind you. A nation needs industry to develop it's standards of living. But I'll be damned if I accept sweatshop practices as "moral" based on some misguided "white man's burden". Fact is, their living standard is about as bad as that of the peasants, and deserves no sugarcoating.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 12, 2013, 12:51:45 pm
I don't think its necessary to repeat all the worst mistakes of the industrial revolution in order to modernize a nation. There are not plenty of prior examples to build upon, all it takes is some perspective and innovation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on July 12, 2013, 02:45:50 pm
Good news everyone! If you ever need to fire someone, just say its because you might be attracted to them later and start an affair with them (at least in Iowa anyway).

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/iowas-all-male-supreme-court-firing-of-woman-for-being-too-attractive-was-legal.php?ref=fpblg
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 12, 2013, 02:50:42 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on July 12, 2013, 11:39:52 am
Quote from: Willfor on July 12, 2013, 11:25:41 am
Unrelated to any discussion currently going on:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/2013/06/29/men-menopause-evolution/
The amount of sarcasm and vitriol in that started making me nauseated.
They're just picking at the sociologists who keep insisting on abandoning biology about humans for some reason. Biology just wants some love... Your biology says so.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 12, 2013, 04:10:04 pm
Menstrual products banned in Texas Capitol. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/12/tampons-confiscated-texas_n_3588177.html)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 12, 2013, 04:33:19 pm
... apparently in a particular building/area of the Texas capital, and only for people attending a particular public speaking event.

It's still more than a little ridiculous, but less so than it seemed to begin with. They're apparently "just" confiscating stuff that's likely to be thrown at the speaker.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 12, 2013, 04:37:02 pm
Like emergency glucose packets that people with diabetes carry.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on July 12, 2013, 05:16:33 pm
Quote from: Frumple on July 12, 2013, 04:33:19 pm
It's still more than a little ridiculous, but less so than it seemed to begin with. They're apparently "just" confiscating stuff that's likely to be thrown at the speaker.
Because throwing tampons and glucose packets is respectless, but shooting the speaker with a gun is a fair shot?  ;)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 12, 2013, 05:27:13 pm
Let's also make sure that they're confiscating condoms, right?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on July 12, 2013, 05:31:23 pm
Absolutely. I mean imagine someone had thrown a condom at Gabby Giffords. Horrifying.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 12, 2013, 05:34:01 pm
Well I mean, it's not like they're trying to keep women out of the hearing.  Gotta make sure that they confiscate all the male senators' condoms, just to be safe.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 12, 2013, 05:37:07 pm
Clearly the individuals in question have never tried throwing a sanitary towel. Thier low mass and high surface area mean they do not fly well, and dont "thwack" well even if you hit your target.

Source: Blasting them today with a high pressure gas cannon. Turns out they were the same size as my launch tube.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on July 12, 2013, 05:45:40 pm
Quote from: Vector on July 12, 2013, 05:34:01 pm
Well I mean, it's not like they're trying to keep women out of the hearing.  Gotta make sure that they confiscate all the male senators' condoms, just to be safe.
Oh, I didn't even get that aspect. I'm not too familiar with the process of American lawmaking, but they are trying to prevent female protesters from somehow delaying the vote. That's what you mean, right?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 12, 2013, 05:47:43 pm
Yes, that's the reason why it's a problem.  They're hearing an abortion bill so they're confiscating "things that might be thrown at the representatives."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on July 12, 2013, 05:55:30 pm
But concealed guns are ok? That is still incomprehensible to me. I mean, sure the pro-choice people are not usually the ones shooting people, but still...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 12:31:17 am
Quote from: XXSockXX on July 12, 2013, 05:55:30 pm
But concealed guns are ok? That is still incomprehensible to me. I mean, sure the pro-choice people are not usually the ones shooting people, but still...
People concealed carrying aren't usually the ones shooting people either. If someone goes in there with a product like that, they aren't going to be in there long enough to need them. A gun is for protection.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 13, 2013, 12:36:13 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 12:31:17 am
If someone goes in there with a product like that, they aren't going to be in there long enough to need them.

I don't even know what to say.  Haven't you ever had your period start suddenly before?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 12:37:40 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 12:36:13 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 12:31:17 am
If someone goes in there with a product like that, they aren't going to be in there long enough to need them.

I don't even know what to say.  Haven't you ever had your period start suddenly before?
That's what breaks are for.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 13, 2013, 12:44:27 am
Oh, I see!  So you should just sit there and let blood run down your legs.  That's fine, then.  I can get behind that point of view.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 12:49:35 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 12:44:27 am
Oh, I see!  So you should just sit there and let blood run down your legs.  That's fine, then.  I can get behind that point of view.
I don't see what you're going on about. Just excuse yourself. Not that hard. Also I love how the article has an obvious slant just from the title.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 13, 2013, 12:53:12 am
Right, and they confiscated your sanitary products.  Now what?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 12:54:09 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 12:53:12 am
Right, and they confiscated your sanitary products.  Now what?
Toilet paper. Moist towelettes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 13, 2013, 12:54:59 am
kingfisher, I think you're missing the point...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 12:56:26 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 13, 2013, 12:54:59 am
kingfisher, I think you're missing the point...
Go ahead. What is the point I'm missing?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 13, 2013, 01:00:05 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 12:54:09 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 12:53:12 am
Right, and they confiscated your sanitary products.  Now what?
Toilet paper. Moist towelettes.

First of all, that shit is not sanitary and you don't want to be sticking it up inside yourself because toxic shock syndrome and yeast infections are a real thing and a problem.  Second of all, it tends to fall out of your underpants if you just bundle it up in there--yes, even if you tie it on.  Third of all, it doesn't last very long.  At all.  Like, you might as well not.  Especially if you're a gusher.

And FINALLY, if they're just worried about stuff to throw, then like I said they should also take condoms and similar.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 13, 2013, 01:02:24 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 12:56:26 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 13, 2013, 12:54:59 am
kingfisher, I think you're missing the point...
Go ahead. What is the point I'm missing?

That the rule is brazenly exclusionary.  Even if women are capable of simply dealing with the discomfort and awkwardness caused by it, does that in itself really excuse it?  Does it?  If not, why bother putting so much effort into pointing that out?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 13, 2013, 01:03:20 am
I can see this trainwrecking quickly, assuming it hasn't already :/
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:05:37 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 01:00:05 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 12:54:09 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 12:53:12 am
Right, and they confiscated your sanitary products.  Now what?
Toilet paper. Moist towelettes.

First of all, that shit is not sanitary and you don't want to be sticking it up inside yourself because toxic shock syndrome and yeast infections are a real thing and a problem.  Second of all, it tends to fall out of your underpants if you just bundle it up in there--yes, even if you tie it on.  Third of all, it doesn't last very long.  At all.  Like, you might as well not.  Especially if you're a gusher.

And FINALLY, if they're just worried about stuff to throw, then like I said they should also take condoms and similar.
If you hadn't noticed, I was playing devil's advocate. You can't just look at a law and say "It's stupid". I was trying to show you why they might have done that thing. It's stupid, yes, but such is life. And i certainly don't mind sanitary products or concealed firearms in such a place. Finally, you were getting mighty hostile there. Calm down.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 13, 2013, 01:11:25 am
Maybe because I know exactly how much of a woman's life is planned around no one ever knowing that she's having a period.

And maybe because I'm not so stupid as to not know how they'll explain it.  Because they're not the ones having periods.  Which is awfully convenient, because they use their lack of knowledge of female reproductive systems to remove us from the conversation about how they're going to legislate female reproductive systems.

And maybe it's not appropriate to play devil's advocate when there's so many people who actually mean it, and maybe the correct response to people trying to take away your bodily autonomy is, in fact, hostility.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 13, 2013, 01:14:22 am
Yeah... I really have no idea what you were trying to accomplish with your devil's advocacy there.  Usually people do that to demonstrate that even if no one present agrees with it, there is a legitimacy to the other side.  If anything, you further reinforced the very opposite idea.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:19:22 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 01:11:25 am
Maybe because I know exactly how much of a woman's life is planned around no one ever knowing that she's having a period.

And maybe because I'm not so stupid as to not know how they'll explain it.  Because they're not the ones having periods.  Which is awfully convenient, because they use their lack of knowledge of female reproductive systems to remove us from the conversation about how they're going to legislate female reproductive systems.

And maybe it's not appropriate to play devil's advocate when there's so many people who actually mean it, and maybe the correct response to people trying to take away your bodily autonomy is, in fact, hostility.
So first you claim there are no female legislators or people involoved in this descision, any involved in the abortion legislation, and sanitary products are not " Bodily Autonomy". They are products to make your life easier.

And the legislation about abortion isn't about female reproductive systems, it's about morality, and what we consider a life. Not anatomy.

And I didn't get hostile when people started critiscising the fact concealed carry was allowed there, and I'm a huge advocate of concealed carry. You don't need to get angry at someone just for that.

Quote from: SalmonGod on July 13, 2013, 01:14:22 am
Yeah... I really have no idea what you were trying to accomplish with your devil's advocacy there.  Usually people do that to demonstrate that even if no one present agrees with it, there is a legitimacy to the other side.  If anything, you further reinforced the very opposite idea.
But there is a legitimacy. As much as it's stupid, it holds somewhat of a noble idea. Just one half of one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on July 13, 2013, 01:24:12 am
Kingfisher, if blood started dripping down someone's legs, they're going to be forcibly removed from the building. If stopping yourself from being kicked out of a conference doesn't qualify as bodily autonomy, I don't know what does.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 13, 2013, 01:25:09 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:19:22 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 13, 2013, 01:14:22 am
Yeah... I really have no idea what you were trying to accomplish with your devil's advocacy there.  Usually people do that to demonstrate that even if no one present agrees with it, there is a legitimacy to the other side.  If anything, you further reinforced the very opposite idea.
But there is a legitimacy. As much as it's stupid, it holds somewhat of a noble idea. Just one half of one.

I have yet to understand what that half of a noble idea is, or how "women can live without that stuff anyway" is supposed to help me understand.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:27:29 am
Quote from: Scelly9 on July 13, 2013, 01:24:12 am
Kingfisher, if blood started dripping down someone's legs, they're going to be forcibly removed from the building. If stopping yourself from being kicked out of a conference doesn't qualify as bodily autonomy, I don't know what does.
...
Why would they be kicked out? Why haven't you noticed it before it gets to the stage of dripping down your legs? Why aren't you allowed to go to the bathroom?

Quote from: SalmonGod on July 13, 2013, 01:25:09 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:19:22 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 13, 2013, 01:14:22 am
Yeah... I really have no idea what you were trying to accomplish with your devil's advocacy there.  Usually people do that to demonstrate that even if no one present agrees with it, there is a legitimacy to the other side.  If anything, you further reinforced the very opposite idea.
But there is a legitimacy. As much as it's stupid, it holds somewhat of a noble idea. Just one half of one.

I have yet to understand what that half of a noble idea is, or how "women can live without that stuff anyway" is supposed to help me understand.
It's only to stop disgusting, possibly toxic things getting thrown and interfering with proceedings. And temporary. They only need to go without for 1~ day.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 13, 2013, 01:32:44 am
It is freezing outside and the homeless are dying.  I have a house.  I am not required to let the homeless in and save their lives.

I have two kidneys and an innocent is dying for lack of a kidney.  I can survive with one kidney.  I am not required to give that kidney.

But get pregnant just once, and your body belongs to someone else. 


Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:27:29 am
It's only to stop disgusting, possibly toxic things getting thrown and interfering with proceedings. And temporary. They only need to go without for 1~ day.

Clean sanitary products are clean.  They're just a little cotton.  You want to keep out used ones, you should be doing a cavity search.  Or better yet--just keeping all the women out.

It often takes less than five minutes to soak through two layers of clothing, and it doesn't stop dripping if you go to the bathroom.  It's not like you have a blood-bladder you choose to pee out of or not.  And you start noticeably reeking of blood almost immediately.  Go without for a day means you don't go.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on July 13, 2013, 01:33:55 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:27:29 am
Quote from: Scelly9 on July 13, 2013, 01:24:12 am
Kingfisher, if blood started dripping down someone's legs, they're going to be forcibly removed from the building. If stopping yourself from being kicked out of a conference doesn't qualify as bodily autonomy, I don't know what does.
...
Why would they be kicked out?
Because nobody wants blood all over the carpet/floor/seats.

Quote
Why haven't you noticed it before it gets to the stage of dripping down your legs?
See vector's post.
Quote
Why aren't you allowed to go to the bathroom?
Also see vectors post.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 13, 2013, 01:35:20 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:27:29 am
It's only to stop disgusting, possibly toxic things getting thrown and interfering with proceedings. And temporary. They only need to go without for 1~ day.

So they're afraid of an aggressive expression of disapproval.  Yet they don't do anything to prevent any other form of aggressive expression of disapproval.  Only the one that severely impedes and embarrasses women.  Coincidentally, the same group of people who face serious threat of harm due to the issue being voted on.  Yeah, this doesn't add up to anything more than blatant mockery and discrimination no matter how I look at it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 13, 2013, 01:38:25 am
Also, you said something about moist towelettes and toilet paper.

What, you think they can't throw those?  Or an old pair of bloodstained underwear (you know, that one gnarly pair you always wear on the first day of your period because you don't want to drip on your nice ones), with a nice fresh coat?

No, either the women are going in naked or you've got the possibility of having something bloodstained thrown at you.  And yet this somehow manages to not happen.

I understand.  We women are a pretty rowdy, hostile bunch.  But sanitary products are pretty expensive, so we're not really into wasting those pelting legislators, because we might need them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:40:59 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 01:32:44 am
It is freezing outside and the homeless are dying.  I have a house.  I am not required to let the homeless in and save their lives.

I have two kidneys and an innocent is dying for lack of a kidney.  I can survive with one kidney.  I am not required to give that kidney.

But get pregnant just once, and your body belongs to someone else. 
Yeah, slip on the wheel just once and you're dead. Forget to unload a gun and you're dead. Slip with a knife? Dead. That's why you take steps to not do those things. Just like you take steps to not get pregnant. You created life whether you like it or not. You have no right to remove it because you were an idiot and didn't take steps. There ain't no rewind on life, so don't ask for one. Of course, in the case of rape that's fair. ( Perhaps encouraging for rapists considering there will be no baby at the end) However, if you were an idiot, adoption. You don't have a baby, there's no life lost, everybody wins.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 13, 2013, 01:41:52 am
You're a reprehensible fuckhead and I'm not talking to you anymore.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:43:52 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 01:41:52 am
You're a reprehensible fuckhead and I'm not talking to you anymore.  Sorry.
Scuse me' checking my privilge. Wouldn't want any Womyn to be offended. Don't even try to rebut. It's all mine and the government's fault that people can't keep a lid on their emotions and properly manage risks.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 13, 2013, 01:44:56 am
Oh my god, do you even read what you write or does it just spill out of you like a poached whale?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:45:55 am
Quote from: Descan on July 13, 2013, 01:44:56 am
Oh my god, do you even read what you write or does it just spill out of you like a poached whale?
So calm and cool and progressive in here...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 13, 2013, 01:46:10 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:40:59 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 01:32:44 am
It is freezing outside and the homeless are dying.  I have a house.  I am not required to let the homeless in and save their lives.

I have two kidneys and an innocent is dying for lack of a kidney.  I can survive with one kidney.  I am not required to give that kidney.

But get pregnant just once, and your body belongs to someone else. 
Yeah, slip on the wheel just once and you're dead. Forget to unload a gun and you're dead. Slip with a knife? Dead. That's why you take steps to not do those things. Just like you take steps to not get pregnant. You created life whether you like it or not. You have no right to remove it because you were an idiot and didn't take steps. There ain't no rewind on life, so don't ask for one. Of course, in the case of rape that's fair. ( Perhaps encouraging for rapists considering there will be no baby at the end) However, if you were an idiot, adoption. You don't have a baby, there's no life lost, everybody wins.

Even if we give you all that, there are a lot of other things at stake here.  You're missing the part where pregnancies sometimes go badly and abortions are necessary for medical reasons.  Or the part where 88% of the abortion providing clinics in that state will be shut down, and many of those provided services besides abortions that women need.  This isn't just about abortion.  It is literally an attack on women manifest directly in bodily harm.  This is why women fly into a rage when talking to people like you.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 13, 2013, 01:47:42 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 01:41:52 am
You're a reprehensible fuckhead and I'm not talking to you anymore.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:49:45 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 13, 2013, 01:46:10 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:40:59 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 01:32:44 am
It is freezing outside and the homeless are dying.  I have a house.  I am not required to let the homeless in and save their lives.

I have two kidneys and an innocent is dying for lack of a kidney.  I can survive with one kidney.  I am not required to give that kidney.

But get pregnant just once, and your body belongs to someone else. 
Yeah, slip on the wheel just once and you're dead. Forget to unload a gun and you're dead. Slip with a knife? Dead. That's why you take steps to not do those things. Just like you take steps to not get pregnant. You created life whether you like it or not. You have no right to remove it because you were an idiot and didn't take steps. There ain't no rewind on life, so don't ask for one. Of course, in the case of rape that's fair. ( Perhaps encouraging for rapists considering there will be no baby at the end) However, if you were an idiot, adoption. You don't have a baby, there's no life lost, everybody wins.

Even if we give you all that, there are a lot of other things at stake here.  You're missing the part where pregnancies sometimes go badly and abortions are necessary for medical reasons.  Or the part where 88% of the abortion providing clinics in that state will be shut down, and many of those provided services besides abortions that women need.
That is true, I will cede you that. If you truly do need it because of a miscarriage/whatever the term is, you need it. Although I am curious, on the nature of the clinics work and what they provide, what do they provide? Are only the dedicated abortion sections being shut down, or the whole clinics? What is the naturee f the work they need.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DWC on July 13, 2013, 01:50:35 am
I'm all for abortions, but I think it's massively irresponsible to get pregnant unintentionally anyways. That said, massively irresponsible people (perhaps at the time) don't need to be raising kids anyways.

Abortions are unpleasant. Everything is scraped out. Think about it. People are not having fun getting pregnant on accident and having abortions. People have abortions as a last resort because they know at least that a kid is the last thing them or the world needs at the time.

I've never thought abortion was that controversial of an issue, if you take religion and some metaphysical philosophies out of the equation, both of which should not influence government policy anyways. The USA is a free country, individual liberty, self ownership and utilitarianism reign in free secular societies.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:54:02 am
Quote from: Descan on July 13, 2013, 01:47:42 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 01:41:52 am
You're a reprehensible fuckhead and I'm not talking to you anymore.  Sorry.
Alright Descan, what are you finding so objectionable? I can understand Vector but not you. Why?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 13, 2013, 01:55:13 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:54:02 am
Quote from: Descan on July 13, 2013, 01:47:42 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 01:41:52 am
You're a reprehensible fuckhead and I'm not talking to you anymore.  Sorry.
Alright Descan, what are you finding so objectionable? I can understand Vector but not you. Why?
Why can you understand Vector?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:56:22 am
Quote from: Descan on July 13, 2013, 01:55:13 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:54:02 am
Quote from: Descan on July 13, 2013, 01:47:42 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 01:41:52 am
You're a reprehensible fuckhead and I'm not talking to you anymore.  Sorry.
Alright Descan, what are you finding so objectionable? I can understand Vector but not you. Why?
Why can you understand Vector?
I've noted her a few times for getting a little angry, posts in the sad thread etc etc. Now answer me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 13, 2013, 02:00:15 am
Not only what you are saying but how you are saying it. Needlessly confrontational, "Oh look at the silly progressives getting into a tizzy, just because I said that women are idiots if they get pregnant, and shouldn't be allowed an abortion-option because they're stupid!"

On a related note, why are women the ones who are idiots deserving punishment for have sex, when men are just as much, if not more, responsible for the act? I don't need to tell you (or maybe I do) that a LOT of teenage boys are (inadvertently or intentionally) pressuring girls into having sex. Girls who would otherwise not do it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on July 13, 2013, 02:00:45 am
Kingfisher, when you play devil's advocate, you have a special responsibility to have educated yourself on both sides of the issues before you put your name into the ring. Otherwise you are not actually playing devil's advocate, you are presenting your own opinions on an issue.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 13, 2013, 02:06:21 am
Maybe I'm angry because you're actually a reprehensible fuckhead, not because I'm "sensitive" or whatever you're trying to call me right there.


Quote from: Descan on July 13, 2013, 02:00:15 am
On a related note, why are women the ones who are idiots deserving punishment for have sex, when men are just as much, if not more, responsible for the act? I don't need to tell you (or maybe I do) that a LOT of teenage boys are (inadvertently or intentionally) pressuring girls into having sex. Girls who would otherwise not do it?

Don't be silly.  You blame the woman for not acting in her own self-interest, like the man is.  It's because women are weak and irresponsible.

Which is why we want to make them raise unwanted children, rather than making decisions based on the situations their families are in.


Quote from: DWC on July 13, 2013, 01:50:35 am
I'm all for abortions, but I think it's massively irresponsible to get pregnant unintentionally anyways.

Condoms break.


Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:49:45 am
Although I am curious, on the nature of the clinics work and what they provide, what do they provide? Are only the dedicated abortion sections being shut down, or the whole clinics? What is the naturee f the work they need.

The whole clinic is shut down.

Services include STD testing, gynecological exams, mammograms, cancer screenings, birth control of other sorts, and so on and so forth.

And this is why I say you're a reprehensible fuckhead.  Because you don't know the difference between a miscarriage and a birth defect, and you're still trying to "represent the other side."  Problem is, I guess, that you're doing a bit too good of a job because THEY DON'T SEEM TO KNOW ANYTHING EITHER.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 02:12:18 am
Quote from: Descan on July 13, 2013, 02:00:15 am
Not only what you are saying but how you are saying it. Needlessly confrontational, "Oh look at the silly progressives getting into a tizzy, just because I said that women are idiots if they get pregnant, and shouldn't be allowed an abortion-option because they're stupid!"

On a related note, why are women the ones who are idiots deserving punishment for have sex, when men are just as much, if not more, responsible for the act? I don't need to tell you (or maybe I do) that a LOT of teenage boys are (inadvertently or intentionally) pressuring girls into having sex. Girls who would otherwise not do it?
When did i say it was exclusively women's fault? Both sides should be ready. Women/girls need to keep their emotions in check and unmanipulated, and boys need to keep emotions and lusts in check. ( Even then it's getting into major assumption territory that girls who aren't ready are pressuring boys into it.) Education should be handled like it is over here in Aussieland. I.e It's your own fault if you decide to get pregnant, keep everything in check, BOTH MUST BE READY. If you don't take steps, you don't take an easy way out.

Well, that's not what I'm intending. After all, it doesn't come out in text like it does in real life. Everyone here should just take a chill pill.

Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 02:06:21 am
Maybe I'm angry because you're actually a reprehensible fuckhead, not because I'm "sensitive" or whatever you're trying to call me right there.


Quote from: Descan on July 13, 2013, 02:00:15 am
On a related note, why are women the ones who are idiots deserving punishment for have sex, when men are just as much, if not more, responsible for the act? I don't need to tell you (or maybe I do) that a LOT of teenage boys are (inadvertently or intentionally) pressuring girls into having sex. Girls who would otherwise not do it?

Don't be silly.  You blame the woman for not acting in her own self-interest, like the man is.  It's because women are weak and irresponsible.

Which is why we want to make them raise unwanted children, rather than making decisions based on the situations their families are in.


Quote from: DWC on July 13, 2013, 01:50:35 am
I'm all for abortions, but I think it's massively irresponsible to get pregnant unintentionally anyways.

Condoms break.

The whole clinic is shut down.

Services include STD testing, gynecological exams, mammograms, cancer screenings, birth control of other sorts, and so on and so forth.

And this is why I say you're a reprehensible fuckhead.  Because you don't know the difference between a miscarriage and a birth defect, and you're still trying to explain why you know everything about this issue.
You do realise i got a warning for insult, right? I don't want you banned, believe it or not.
First off, there are other contraceptive methods. It's not just condoms.
Second off, you assume once more i'm a raging misogynist who thinks women are inferior.
Third off, those services could be moved.
Fourth off, I never said I knew everything, Or implied intentionally. Maybe you could point me in the direction of where I implied?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 13, 2013, 02:14:12 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:49:45 am
Although I am curious, on the nature of the clinics work and what they provide, what do they provide? Are only the dedicated abortion sections being shut down, or the whole clinics? What is the naturee f the work they need.

That's kind of a difficult question for me to answer, considering it's not something I've ever personally needed to worry about.

A quick glance at the services offered by some of the women's health clinics in my area show pap smears, mammograms, cervical cancer screening, physicals, therapies for various conditions, education and counseling on a wide range of issues, treatment for infections and stds...

And they provide these services in an environment that's tailored towards making the experience comfortable for women, while I know that it can be very difficult to find good service for women-specific issues among hospitals and family practitioners.  It's not uncommon for them to be sloppy and mean when dealing with those things.  My own wife has had frequent complaints.

And many of these places, such as Planned Parenthood, do their best to try and provide these services to everybody, including people who couldn't normally afford them from other providers that are more profit-oriented.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DWC on July 13, 2013, 02:16:29 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 02:06:21 am


Quote from: DWC on July 13, 2013, 01:50:35 am
I'm all for abortions, but I think it's massively irresponsible to get pregnant unintentionally anyways.

Condoms break.


Yeah, I know, especially the old dry-rotten ones like the one in your wallet. Sex also doesn't always happen in the most legally specific consensual and perfectly lucid manner either. Still, it's easy to not get pregnant. You have to make some choices at some point to lead up to you being pregnant, vast majority of the time.

Then again, I specifically remember my deep south edumaction in grade school, a reference sheet listing all the methods of preventing pregnancy and their effectiveness... "abstinence" is apparently only 99.9% effective.

So, abortions are needed at least, for that .1%.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2013, 02:17:52 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 02:06:21 am
Quote from: DWC on July 13, 2013, 01:50:35 am
I'm all for abortions, but I think it's massively irresponsible to get pregnant unintentionally anyways.

Condoms break.
Condoms break, IUD's run out of steam or just fall out, hormonal pills are nullified by unforeseeable body chemistry/medicine, vasectomies and tubal ligations inexplicably reverse themselves...

We humans are the product of many millions of years of evolution, the primary decider of which is whom makes babies and whom does not make babies. We are the end result of 100% of the side that made babies and 0% of the side that did not. Overcoming that, now that the situation has quickly (in an evolutionary context) changed to one in which babies are not usually desirable, is very difficult. Even with all of our science, it took many years for us to get contraception it as good as it is, which still often fails.

It does not help that the very same evolution results in most of us having our Id frequently telling us "Do it. Do it. Do it. Come on, do it. Just do it. Don't listen to them, do it. Nothing bad is going to happen, do it." from pubescence onwards.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 13, 2013, 02:25:35 am
All other contraceptive methods also have serious failure modes having nothing to do with personal irresponsibility.  For example, you can get pregnant if you have alcohol while you're on the pill.  This is something doctors often don't tell you (women pass the info around on the internet).  Or you can have sex and then get the flu, in which case presto you can get pregnant.  Or your antibiotics can interact poorly with your contraceptives (again... not usually covered).  This is only one method... there's issues like this for all of them.

Once again: why do you persist on arguing about topics you know nothing about?


Here's the thing.  If you break your arm, even doing something really stupid and risky, we don't just say "hey, you're stupid."  We do what's best for you and set your arm.  And if you have two children while being unable to support a third because economic downturn, we don't make you carry that child to term.  It's not like there's no cost to being pregnant and giving birth.  There's a huge cost to it, physical, mental, financial.  And it's not like there's no cost to being put up for adoption.  There's a big cost to it.  We can eliminate all those costs simultaneously, or we can say "Hey, you were stupid.  I'm just going to make a whole bunch of people suffer because why not."

Because you know who has a lot of sex?  Married couples.  And you know who really, really, really doesn't want to get pregnant--and is the person getting an abortion in the US some 50% of the time?  Someone who is already struggling to feed a family.

Unless you're suggesting abstinence during marriage, in which case, well, okay player :3


The part where you imply that you know anything is the part where you seem to think you're qualified to discuss this topic and are telling people "no, it has nothing to do with bodily autonomy and everything to do with morality."  What this says to me is that you understand nothing whatsoever about what is at stake, and every comment you've made so far has only made me more and more certain.  You don't understand periods, you don't understand birth control, you don't understand women's health clinics, and you don't understand the circumstances under which people usually seek abortion or why "being stupid" is usually not the problem.


Quote from: DWC on July 13, 2013, 02:16:29 am
Still, it's easy to not get pregnant. You have to make some choices at some point to lead up to you being pregnant, vast majority of the time.

It's true that you could just choose to have gay sex.  That is a really good birth control method.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2013, 02:28:45 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 02:25:35 am
Quote from: DWC on July 13, 2013, 02:16:29 am
Still, it's easy to not get pregnant. You have to make some choices at some point to lead up to you being pregnant, vast majority of the time.

It's true that you could just choose to have gay sex.  That is a really good birth control method.
You believe homosexuality will save you from the babies? Now, perhaps. But not forever. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis#Humans)

soon
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 13, 2013, 02:30:16 am
I'm all for it as a birth-control method. It's my go-to, er... device.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 13, 2013, 02:37:17 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:40:59 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 01:32:44 am
It is freezing outside and the homeless are dying.  I have a house.  I am not required to let the homeless in and save their lives.

I have two kidneys and an innocent is dying for lack of a kidney.  I can survive with one kidney.  I am not required to give that kidney.

But get pregnant just once, and your body belongs to someone else. 
Yeah, slip on the wheel just once and you're dead. Forget to unload a gun and you're dead. Slip with a knife? Dead. That's why you take steps to not do those things. Just like you take steps to not get pregnant. You created life whether you like it or not. You have no right to remove it because you were an idiot and didn't take steps. There ain't no rewind on life, so don't ask for one. Of course, in the case of rape that's fair. ( Perhaps encouraging for rapists considering there will be no baby at the end) However, if you were an idiot, adoption. You don't have a baby, there's no life lost, everybody wins.

Interestingly enough, as a society we put a great deal of effort into seeing to it that there is a way out of most of those- It's called 911 emergency response teams and medical aid. Not always effective, no, but still something we strive for. That is of course, irrelevant to the question of whether there should be a way out- I personally think so, seeing as I don't like dying for stupid things, but maybe you feel differently.  ;D On the topic of abortion, I have to agree with vector- even if you did fuck up, you still have no obligation. I wouldn't personally feel comfortable with the choice, but then I'm a man, so I don't have to make it.

Edit- Personally, I think we could cast this discussion in entirely different light if we consider a particular piece of speculative fiction- The ability to shift the fetus off on the man and have him carry it to term. If you found yourself one half of a particular irresponsible union, would you volunteer your body when the women didn't want to deal with it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DWC on July 13, 2013, 02:43:39 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2013, 02:17:52 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 02:06:21 am
Quote from: DWC on July 13, 2013, 01:50:35 am
I'm all for abortions, but I think it's massively irresponsible to get pregnant unintentionally anyways.

Condoms break.
Condoms break, IUD's run out of steam or just fall out, hormonal pills are nullified by unforeseeable body chemistry/medicine, vasectomies and tubal ligations inexplicably reverse themselves...

We humans are the product of many millions of years of evolution, the primary decider of which is whom makes babies and whom does not make babies. We are the end result of 100% of the side that made babies and 0% of the side that did not. Overcoming that, now that the situation has quickly (in an evolutionary context) changed to one in which babies are not usually desirable, is very difficult. Even with all of our science, it took many years for us to get contraception it as good as it is, which still often fails.

It does not help that the very same evolution results in most of us having our Id frequently telling us "Do it. Do it. Do it. Come on, do it. Just do it. Don't listen to them, do it. Nothing bad is going to happen, do it." from pubescence onwards.

This may be true, but people are not animals. We tend to act rationally, yes, even the majority of people, this teeming dumb mass of backwards baby-having people like our parents. They just put off kids until they can really deal with it. That's being responsible.

Irresponsible people get pregnant before they are able to handle it. That's expected, nobody is perfect, human condition, whatever. That's why there is abortion. It's still irresponsible, the blame mostly laying with the person that is pregnant. They are the ones with the most at stake, the most to lose, with an errant or ill-advised encounter or another, they should be the ones most wary of it's consequences and take precautions to protect themselves.

People's urges compel them to do all sorts of maladaptive things in society. It's irresponsible to succumb to them, just like it's manslaughter to fall asleep behind the wheel and hit somebody, or drive drunk, or get drunk and go duck hunting. Negligent. Society really expects better from people.

Basically, what I mean is that I wholly support abortion, but I reserve the right to tsk-tsk people who resort to abortions. Also, abortions are not pleasant, I think that is "punishment" enough as it is. It's not some light-hearted, frivolous decision, at least not the second time around.

About homosexuality? I think it's like any other sexual fetish. Maybe keep that in your bedroom. A person's sexual preferences should not dominate their cultural or political outlook. It shouldn't be anything special in law. Yeah, no kids, but heteros need not have kids either.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 13, 2013, 02:52:21 am
I've never really understood people's selective obsessions with personal responsibility.  Everybody has strengths and weaknesses, and they can all be construed as various types of personal responsibility.  Yet there are certain types, especially as relates to sex or money, where if you're bad at managing them, you're automatically regarded as a bad person in general who deserves whatever happens to you.  Is it not possible for someone to be really susceptible to peer pressure, for example, but of an exemplary nature in most other respects? 

Nope.  Peer pressured into sex and got pregnant = deserves life ruined and a child who is incredibly likely to grow up as a miserable drag on society as well just for good measure.  You and your friends and family can just take all the suffering because fuck you for slipping up.

Bad at managing money?  Fuck you too.  There's no possible way you could be a good person who contributes to society and deserves a decent life if you're bad at managing money.

Pisses me off.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 02:54:31 am
Vector, quite frankly you so far hae just been horrible. I'm leaving. There, mission accomplished. I'll run on back to my mother's basement to be even more misogynistic. No privilige checking for me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 13, 2013, 02:55:51 am
Quote from: DWC on July 13, 2013, 02:43:39 am
It's still irresponsible, the blame mostly laying with the person that is pregnant. They are the ones with the most at stake, the most to lose, with an errant or ill-advised encounter or another, they should be the ones most wary of it's consequences and take precautions to protect themselves.

BUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLSHIIIIIIIIT!

The man involved is absolutely equally responsible! If he failed to ensure that precautions were taken, he should absolutely suffer an equal measure of the consequences!

When you're getting involved with another person like that, you have an obligation to look out for their welfare. If you fail to do that and they suffer for it, you are absolutely responsible. This goes both ways, note- If you're a women and give your partner an STI because you were sloppy about your checkups, then you had better make up for it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2013, 02:57:09 am
Quote from: DWC on July 13, 2013, 02:43:39 am
This may be true, but people are not animals. We tend to act rationally, yes, even the majority of people, this teeming dumb mass of backwards baby-having people like our parents. They just put off kids until they can really deal with it. That's being responsible.

Irresponsible people get pregnant before they are able to handle it. That's expected, nobody is perfect, human condition, whatever. That's why there is abortion. It's still irresponsible, the blame mostly laying with the person that is pregnant. They are the ones with the most at stake, the most to lose, with an errant or ill-advised encounter or another, they should be the ones most wary of it's consequences and take precautions to protect themselves.

People's urges compel them to do all sorts of maladaptive things in society. It's irresponsible to succumb to them, just like it's manslaughter to fall asleep behind the wheel and hit somebody, or drive drunk, or get drunk and go duck hunting. Negligent. Society really expects better from people.

Basically, what I mean is that I wholly support abortion, but I reserve the right to tsk-tsk people who resort to abortions. Also, abortions are not pleasant, I think that is "punishment" enough as it is. It's not some light-hearted, frivolous decision, at least not the second time around.
I believe you will find that the point which I was making is that only the force of the rational mind holds in check our desire to constantly [procreate], the reason for this being that any significant deviation from this model will not lead to successor generations. And that even allowing for this does not eliminate the problem, as our biology has ways of constantly subverting our methods of contraception.

And this is not a non-issue, especially since many of us are not even taught to place the rational mind's verdict first. The psychological pressure of not [attempting procreation] on a regular basis should not be so easily dismissed. You are asking only a section of a person's mind to hold back everything else. Faltering is not to be unexpected. You cannot really label it maladaptive either. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of maladaptive because the fate of our species technically rests upon it. That the functional reality has changed is something you can not simply convince your lizard brain of. Lizard brain will never stop. Lizard brain thinks you're trying to drive humanity to extinction. What the fuck are you doing, says lizard brain, when you pass up seemingly perfect opportunities for [attempting procreation].

Quote
About homosexuality? I think it's like any other sexual fetish. Maybe keep that in your bedroom. A person's sexual preferences should not dominate their cultural or political outlook. It shouldn't be anything special in law. Yeah, no kids, but heteros need not have kids either.
Homosexuality does not fit into the category of being a sexual fetish. A sexual fetish is a more narrow thing than the desire to [attempt procreation] on one sex, or another, or both. If one accepts the definition as being that wide, it makes heterosexuality a fetish as well, which I think we can agree is plainly silly. It thus follows that homosexuality is not a fetish either.

It probably wouldn't dominate so many people's outlooks if not for the fact that some parts of society seem unable to let the issue go and allow for equality, and will in fact bring up how unwilling they are to let it go constantly in the political arena.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 13, 2013, 02:59:41 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 02:54:31 am
Vector, quite frankly you so far hae just been horrible. I'm leaving. There, mission accomplished. I'll run on back to my mother's basement to be even more misogynistic. No privilige checking for me.

Yup, I'm a mean and horrible person.  Have a good time with your mom.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on July 13, 2013, 03:04:23 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 02:25:35 am
Here's the thing.  If you break your arm, even doing something really stupid and risky, we don't just say "hey, you're stupid."  We do what's best for you and set your arm.  And if you have two children while being unable to support a third because economic downturn, we don't make you carry that child to term.  It's not like there's no cost to being pregnant and giving birth.  There's a huge cost to it, physical, mental, financial.  And it's not like there's no cost to being put up for adoption.  There's a big cost to it.  We can eliminate all those costs simultaneously, or we can say "Hey, you were stupid.  I'm just going to make a whole bunch of people suffer because why not."

This.

No one would dream of telling a skin cancer patient "Sorry, you spent too much time in the sun without sunscreen. That was stupid, so now we're just not going to treat you. You'll just have to deal with it." Why then does whether a man or woman made poor decisions about contraception (or the lack thereof) even factor into the abortion equation? It is not the place of law or medical personnel to punish pregnancy... not to mention that being forced to carry and give birth to a baby as "punishment" is twisted, dangerous, and inhumane.

The duty of doctors (and the medical industry as a whole) is to mitigate human suffering, and promote bodily wellness. We should really stop getting in the way of that duty.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DWC on July 13, 2013, 03:11:11 am
Quote from: Angle on July 13, 2013, 02:55:51 am
Quote from: DWC on July 13, 2013, 02:43:39 am
It's still irresponsible, the blame mostly laying with the person that is pregnant. They are the ones with the most at stake, the most to lose, with an errant or ill-advised encounter or another, they should be the ones most wary of it's consequences and take precautions to protect themselves.

BUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLSHIIIIIIIIT!

The man involved is absolutely equally responsible! If he failed to ensure that precautions were taken, he should absolutely suffer an equal measure of the consequences!

When you're getting involved with another person like that, you have an obligation to look out for their welfare. If you fail to do that and they suffer for it, you are absolutely responsible. This goes both ways, note- If you're a women and give your partner an STI because you were sloppy about your checkups, then you had better make up for it.

Well yeah that's sorta true. But the guy doesn't get pregnant. He gets, alimony? Child support? More obligations that really fall on deaf ears for an irresponsible person. They'll try to duck and dodge that too. His consequences are not quite at there with the lady's.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 13, 2013, 02:57:09 am
Quote from: DWC on July 13, 2013, 02:43:39 am
This may be true, but people are not animals. We tend to act rationally, yes, even the majority of people, this teeming dumb mass of backwards baby-having people like our parents. They just put off kids until they can really deal with it. That's being responsible.

Irresponsible people get pregnant before they are able to handle it. That's expected, nobody is perfect, human condition, whatever. That's why there is abortion. It's still irresponsible, the blame mostly laying with the person that is pregnant. They are the ones with the most at stake, the most to lose, with an errant or ill-advised encounter or another, they should be the ones most wary of it's consequences and take precautions to protect themselves.

People's urges compel them to do all sorts of maladaptive things in society. It's irresponsible to succumb to them, just like it's manslaughter to fall asleep behind the wheel and hit somebody, or drive drunk, or get drunk and go duck hunting. Negligent. Society really expects better from people.

Basically, what I mean is that I wholly support abortion, but I reserve the right to tsk-tsk people who resort to abortions. Also, abortions are not pleasant, I think that is "punishment" enough as it is. It's not some light-hearted, frivolous decision, at least not the second time around.
I believe you will find that the point which I was making is that only the force of the rational mind holds in check our desire to constantly [procreate], the reason for this being that any significant deviation from this model will not lead to successor generations. And that even allowing for this does not eliminate the problem, as our biology has ways of constantly subverting our methods of contraception.

And this is not a non-issue, especially since many of us are not even taught to place the rational mind's verdict first. The psychological pressure of not [attempting procreation] on a regular basis should not be so easily dismissed. You are asking only a section of a person's mind to hold back everything else. Faltering is not to be unexpected. You cannot really label it maladaptive either. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of maladaptive because the fate of our species technically rests upon it. That the functional reality has changed is something you can not simply convince your lizard brain of. Lizard brain will never stop. Lizard brain thinks you're trying to drive humanity to extinction. What the fuck are you doing, says lizard brain, when you pass up seemingly perfect opportunities for [attempting procreation].

Quote
About homosexuality? I think it's like any other sexual fetish. Maybe keep that in your bedroom. A person's sexual preferences should not dominate their cultural or political outlook. It shouldn't be anything special in law. Yeah, no kids, but heteros need not have kids either.
Homosexuality does not fit into the category of being a sexual fetish. A sexual fetish is a more narrow thing than the desire to [attempt procreation] on one sex, or another, or both. If one accepts the definition as being that wide, it makes heterosexuality a fetish as well, which I think we can agree is plainly silly. It thus follows that homosexuality is not a fetish either.

It probably wouldn't dominate so many people's outlooks if not for the fact that some parts of society seem unable to let the issue go and allow for equality, and will in fact bring up how unwilling they are to let it go constantly in the political arena.

Sexual fetish, I say because it's a sexual preference in the minority. Not many people are really into that stuff, no offense intended. Why 'straight' and 'gay' should be 'equal' concepts doesn't make perfect sense. The concept of marriage as a government ensured legal status makes even less sense. What 'equal rights' are at stake here? I personally think 'marriage' should be left out of the government's hand. You have a good friend, should you say someday "Hey, we are best friends, let's go to the courthouse and get the government to recognize us officially as 'best pals 4ever'.

If you want equality, single people and married people would be the same. The government treats single people and married people like 1st and second class citizens. Why do legally married people get paid more in the army or tax cuts, these other benefits, when single people get the full brunt? Why should these sorts of arrangements like marriage provides, be strictly for unrelated married couples? Why can't a brother and sister sharing an apartment share bank accounts, living arrangements, tax-cuts, ambulance rides, whatever?

Seems to me, these legally binding parts of marriage should be able to be done between any people. Not just two straight people, two gay people. Or benefits between married and single people should really end entirely.

"husband' and 'wife' would be legally weightless terms like 'friend' and 'brother from another mother'. No special treatment or government benefits for either.

But that's off topic, I guess.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 13, 2013, 03:31:32 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 01:40:59 am
Yeah, slip on the wheel just once and you're dead. Forget to unload a gun and you're dead. Slip with a knife? Dead. That's why you take steps to not do those things. Just like you take steps to not get pregnant. You created life whether you like it or not. You have no right to remove it because you were an idiot and didn't take steps. There ain't no rewind on life, so don't ask for one. Of course, in the case of rape that's fair. ( Perhaps encouraging for rapists considering there will be no baby at the end) However, if you were an idiot, adoption. You don't have a baby, there's no life lost, everybody wins.
Except that is wrong.
If somebody crashes their car or cuts them self or what have you we don't just say "Well too bad! You should have been more careful!" instead we do everything feasible to protect their quality of life. There is a rewind on life, somewhat. We can undo most damage in most cases. We don't call people who make mistakes idiots who deserve what they get, we call them people who may or may not need assistance depending on the circumstance.
Should we take precautions to prevent accidents? Certainly! And we do! That is why other forms of contraceptive should always be made available, but just because you didn't put on the safety doesn't mean you deserve to get shot and bleed out, and just because the condom broke doesn't mean you forfeit the right to your own body.

Every day we create and destroy life. We grow cattle and kill them for meat, and they have significantly more developed thoughts and feelings than a fetus, yet we have no problem with that. If you want to argue that cattle are too genetically diverse from humans then take cancerous cells for example, often genetically identical DNA, just different functions active that cause it to be harmful. Cutting these out is destroying genetically human life, yet we have no problem with that. If you want to argue for the potential for a human then I have very sad news for you, the majority of teenage males would be guilty of genocide under that pretense, yet with the exception of religious authoritarians who think they can dictate the human condition, we have no problem with that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 13, 2013, 03:36:38 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 13, 2013, 02:54:31 am
Vector, quite frankly you so far hae just been horrible. I'm leaving. There, mission accomplished. I'll run on back to my mother's basement to be even more misogynistic. No privilige checking for me.

FYI, while Vector has been very aggressive, you haven't been exactly flattering either.  If I were a woman, I imagine I would be very offended by some of the things you said.  And I can understand getting very worked up about it, because it's probably really fucking scary as a woman to see the government attacking women's rights sporadically across the country.  When you're talking about stuff like that and someone else who doesn't have to worry about those issues comes along and tries to tell you nonchalantly and without being at all informed that it doesn't actually matter or that you even deserve it... yeah, people are going to get upset.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on July 13, 2013, 03:50:48 am
Quote from: DWC on July 13, 2013, 03:11:11 am
Well yeah that's sorta true. But the guy doesn't get pregnant. He gets, alimony? Child support? More obligations that really fall on deaf ears for an irresponsible person. They'll try to duck and dodge that too. His consequences are not quite at there with the lady's.
So, what you're telling me is that responsibility is directly tied to the potential consequences to me, personally. In that case, I'm going to buy a cheap piece of junk car, load it up with metal sheeting and cushioning for myself, and have a blast doing 120 in a school zone. Kids should be watching the street before they cross it, they're the ones who've got the most to lose. Hell, even if this is only part of the reasoning, I'm still apparently less reprehensible than somebody who does the same in a Ferrari, because I've got less to lose.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 13, 2013, 06:13:00 am
Quote from: Solifuge on July 13, 2013, 03:04:23 am
No one would dream of telling a skin cancer patient "Sorry, you spent too much time in the sun without sunscreen. That was stupid, so now we're just not going to treat you. You'll just have to deal with it."
During the summer heatwave we had a giant media campaign saying "a tan is skin damage, at least use sun cream you idiots" as people were putting themselves at completely unnecessary risk of skin cancer.

Quote from: DWC on July 13, 2013, 03:11:11 am
"husband' and 'wife' would be legally weightless terms like 'friend' and 'brother from another mother'. No special treatment or government benefits for either.

But that's off topic, I guess.
You. Stop making sense.


Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 02:06:21 am
Condoms break, IUD's run out of steam or just fall out, hormonal pills are nullified by unforeseeable body chemistry/medicine, vasectomies and tubal ligations inexplicably reverse themselves...
Stored correctly [i.e. not in a wallet, in the light or hot places], used correctly before expiry date and such condoms will not break.
New high-copper IUDs are 99% effective, but if you don't want to leave it to good chance use a condom.
Hormonal pills are about 95% effective, depending on which is taken and prevent pregnancy in various ways. If you don't want to leave it to good chance or unforeseen circumstances, condoms.
Vasectomies are 99.8% effective, although it can take up to or more than 3 months for some people to definitely be able to have sex without condoms safely as the remaining sperm still has to be cleared. There is also a 1.1% chance on average that after 2 years a vasectomy will fail.
After a year tubal litigations no longer become near-99% effective, probably for the same reason some vasectomies fail as well, as the body tries and can be successful in fully repairing damage done to the body.
Abstinence is as effective as your will, and even then there's a small chance you're going to get impregnated by God. If unsure, wear a condom at all times to avoid immaculate conception.

Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 02:25:35 am
Here's the thing.  If you break your arm, even doing something really stupid and risky, we don't just say "hey, you're stupid."  We do what's best for you and set your arm.
[If you were injured because of something stupid, doctors make sure you know it was stupid. I know from friends and myself, rather humorously. And painfully].
But of course, even with that in account, as well as with the skin damage issue - you wouldn't be denied treatment, even if it were the second or even third time you were sledding down an icy hill on a runway of plastic bags and dislocated both of your feet. That one wasn't me fortunately.
You take responsibility of your actions and you get treatment in a working world.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 13, 2013, 06:30:41 am
Which prominent non-English sites are you familiar with? Any useful to topics of discussion such as this, and please don't tell me to use Google. At first glance it seems i'd have to go through various languages independently.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on July 13, 2013, 06:49:13 am
Quote from: Novel Scoops on July 13, 2013, 06:30:41 am
Which prominent non-English sites are you familiar with? Any useful to topics of discussion such as this, and please don't tell me to use Google. At first glance it seems i'd have to go through various languages independently.
Are you familiar with the Lemon Party?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 13, 2013, 07:35:45 am
Quote from: Dutchling on July 13, 2013, 06:49:13 am
Quote from: Novel Scoops on July 13, 2013, 06:30:41 am
Which prominent non-English sites are you familiar with? Any useful to topics of discussion such as this, and please don't tell me to use Google. At first glance it seems i'd have to go through various languages independently.
Are you familiar with the Lemon Party?

Are you familiar with a few fleeting days of summer?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 13, 2013, 07:55:18 am
... is that... is that some kind of strange next generation internet flirtation, you two? Because it kinda' looks like it. All coquettish and demure and indirect and shit. Petticoats for everyone? Especially the guys. "Few fleeting days of summer" definitely sounds like victorian-era innuendo.

Maybe I'm just confused, I'unno. I'm not up to date with this newfangled culture stuff.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 13, 2013, 07:56:51 am
Love and war are easily confused! Hint: life gives you
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 13, 2013, 08:03:37 am
Quote from: Frumple on July 13, 2013, 07:55:18 am
... is that... is that some kind of strange next generation internet flirtation, you two? Because it kinda' looks like it. All coquettish and demure and indirect and shit. Petticoats for everyone? Especially the guys. "Few fleeting days of summer" definitely sounds like victorian-era innuendo.
It's more the equivalent of sending someone a bundle of aconitus flowers in the Victorian era.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 13, 2013, 08:03:46 am
@ entire abortion debate:

The whole point is, as said before, about what you define as life. I mean, in Belgium abortus is permitted solely if it happens in the first " months of pregnancy (After that, you need a serious danger for the mother, or a serious deficit in the child). What's the difference in a child that's 3 months old, and one that's 3 months and a day old. It's a mostly arbitrary limit, after all.

Ties in with the entire idea that crimes need to avenged, and that people are guilty, and should be punished. Actually, I'd rather see a law system where rather than having revenge as the highest goal, we'd have the twin values of reconcilliation, and rehabilitation. 


Note: I have no idea what the debate is about. After all, both parties appear to be in favour of abortus, but one is apparently trying to reserve the right to dissapprove of it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 13, 2013, 08:05:23 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on July 13, 2013, 08:03:46 am
Note: I have no idea what the debate is about. After all, both parties appear to be in favour of abortus, but one is apparently trying to reserve the right to dissapprove of it.
The general hostility has been mainly about the fact that it's been less of a debate and more like shit slinging.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 13, 2013, 08:32:56 am
I'm frankly amazed the Toad didn't get involved. There was nothing cool or calm about the last three pages :(
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 13, 2013, 08:42:03 am
Abortus is a good name for a band.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on July 13, 2013, 08:45:05 am
You're not the first one to think that. (http://www.metal-archives.com/search?searchString=abortus&type=band_name)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on July 13, 2013, 09:22:40 am
Quote from: DWC on July 13, 2013, 03:11:11 am
Sexual fetish, I say because it's a sexual preference in the minority. Not many people are really into that stuff, no offense intended. [...]

Quote from: Wikipedia
Sexual fetishism, sexual fixation with objects, body parts, or situations not conventionally viewed as being sexual in nature
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 13, 2013, 09:35:56 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on July 13, 2013, 08:03:46 am
@ entire abortion debate:

The whole point is, as said before, about what you define as life. I mean, in Belgium abortus is permitted solely if it happens in the first " months of pregnancy (After that, you need a serious danger for the mother, or a serious deficit in the child). What's the difference in a child that's 3 months old, and one that's 3 months and a day old. It's a mostly arbitrary limit, after all.

Ties in with the entire idea that crimes need to avenged, and that people are guilty, and should be punished. Actually, I'd rather see a law system where rather than having revenge as the highest goal, we'd have the twin values of reconcilliation, and rehabilitation. 


Note: I have no idea what the debate is about. After all, both parties appear to be in favour of abortus, but one is apparently trying to reserve the right to dissapprove of it.

Kingfisher was against abortion. That was the point of the argument.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 13, 2013, 09:42:12 am
He was also in favour of not letting women use tampons
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 13, 2013, 09:45:45 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 13, 2013, 09:42:12 am
He was also in favour of not letting women use tampons

You're kidding.

*Looks at thread*

...You're not kidding. Kingfisher, WTF?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 13, 2013, 09:54:13 am
Umm... yeah... abortion was only like 40% of the argument there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 13, 2013, 10:41:15 am
Quote from: Angle on July 13, 2013, 09:45:45 am
You're kidding.

*Looks at thread*

...You're not kidding. Kingfisher, WTF?

I don't think Kingfisher is very familiar with menstruation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 13, 2013, 10:54:07 am
If people want to understand the deeper cost of these anti-abortion laws, realise that black market abortion drugs are already on the rise (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-11/flea-market-abortions-thrive-as-texas-may-close-clinics.html). The new law is going to make those even more common as women simply can't afford or access a legal and safe alternative.

Only now the clinics that so often deal with the complications from these illegal abortions are going to be shut down. Often these are the clinics that deal with them because they are the only ones around. They are also the places that afford women (and men) access to and information on birth control. Texas already cut family planning budgets by two thirds in 2011, mostly targeted at shutting down Planned Parenthood but with a hell of a lot of collateral damage. That round of cuts wiped out 56 clinics completely and knocked a number of others back to limited hours or days. This will shut down another 37 clinics.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 13, 2013, 11:15:29 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 13, 2013, 09:42:12 am
He was also in favour of not letting women use tampons
Not quite. He specifically said he was against their use in Texas basilicas, so that any afflicted women would be unable to delay votes on any future bills.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 13, 2013, 12:08:44 pm
The thing is that there's exactly two reasons a woman usually (prrrrrretty much always) would choose a late-term abortion, which has somewhat changed my opinion on allowing them.  Those are

a. Developmental issues showing up

b. Early abortion restrictions and lack of access to abortion meaning that the decision has to keep getting pushed until later or later because the woman in question can't transport herself or doesn't have the money or etc.

That's it.  It's not people thinking "eh, I'll just wait."  No.  Pregnancy is not pleasant.  If you don't want to be pregnant, you shut that shit down as soon as possible, especially because abortions become more and more unpleasant and painful the later in the term they are.  And similarly, because of this, forcing women to carry the fetus to term is not a zero-impact decision.

For example, a lot of women will, after having babies, experience Bell's palsy (partial paralyzation, often temporary) or lifelong sporadic incontinence (this is most women--it may surprise you, but controlling this is another reason why people carry sanitary pads everywhere).


For those of us late to our lime party, I've been hostile because of Kingfisher's explanation that restrictions on menstrual products in the debating room were not a problem and, in fact, it was a pure and honorable sort of thing for the legislature to do.

I'm scared of this practice becoming standard.  I no longer trust the federal government to intervene on the behalf of women who are in the process of being disenfranchised; I don't think anyone will say anything about the illegal revote, or the attempts to keep women out of it.  I would not be surprised if this tactic became a trend, because as we've discovered here, it seems so reasonable.  And it taps into a lot of conditioning women have had in this country, being told that we're dirty and unclean and desperately need to hide that filthiness.  Everyone's taught not to pee their beds or their clothes, and then almost immediately after children get that, girls start menstruating.

This is only the beginning (http://front.moveon.org/one-womans-total-humiliation-will-have-you-asking-what-the-hell-is-going-on-in-texas/#.UeGKB23By5y).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 13, 2013, 12:21:32 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 13, 2013, 09:42:12 am
He was also in favour of not letting women use tampons
One of these days, I'll get myself a piece of that sig thread...

Also: I'm back, baby! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12XO38PONoI)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on July 13, 2013, 12:47:57 pm
I think the most effective protest to such bans would simply be this: Send in the women. Send in hundreds, upon hundreds of women; all on their periods. I suspect the ban would be revoked as soon as the state legislature begin slipping on the gore-streaked floor tiles. When they start to realize that with such bans

*sunglasses*

there will be blood.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on July 13, 2013, 12:49:06 pm
Oh god that would be hilarious.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 13, 2013, 12:51:18 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on July 13, 2013, 12:49:06 pm
Oh god that would be hilarious.
And a little disturbing.
/me is slightly squicked by blood
But mostly hilarious.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 13, 2013, 01:00:52 pm
Quote from: alway on July 13, 2013, 12:47:57 pm
I think the most effective protest to such bans would simply be this: Send in the women. Send in hundreds, upon hundreds of women; all on their periods. I suspect the ban would be revoked as soon as the state legislature begin slipping on the gore-streaked floor tiles. When they start to realize that with such bans

*sunglasses*

there will be blood.
That's funny, but they'd probably have to put the whole place down on quarantine.

...Somebody call Michael Bay.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on July 13, 2013, 01:05:24 pm
Oh, and I find the other line of reasoning, if it can be called that, absolutely ridiculous:

"Remember kids, children are your punishment for having sex!" Which is literally the argument that was being used here against abortion. That somehow 'sex' is some ultimate evil which must be punished; and that children are to be interpreted as some inherent evil which enacts that punishment. Which is both incredibly prudish and incredibly offensive to human dignity. This notion that 'you exist to punish your parents' is absolutely disgusting.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 13, 2013, 01:25:08 pm
Quote from: alway on July 13, 2013, 01:05:24 pm
Oh, and I find the other line of reasoning, if it can be called that, absolutely ridiculous:

"Remember kids, children are your punishment for having sex!" Which is literally the argument that was being used here against abortion. That somehow 'sex' is some ultimate evil which must be punished; and that children are to be interpreted as some inherent evil which enacts that punishment. Which is both incredibly prudish and incredibly offensive to human dignity. This notion that 'you exist to punish your parents' is absolutely disgusting.
There was a party tonight which I could not attend that had a Foucault theme (yeah, the people I know are awesome :D ). Apparently that repression of sexuality is a huge part of his philosophy.

Of course, most of my knowledge about Foucault comes from here (http://www.dead-philosophers.com/?p=816), so take that with a grain of salt ;)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 13, 2013, 01:27:17 pm
Foucault discusses the repression of sexuality, but it's not something he's advocating.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 13, 2013, 01:38:55 pm
I would so go to a party like that as a giant pendulum, just to mess with people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 13, 2013, 03:14:48 pm
Article about freelance journalists (http://www.cjr.org/feature/womans_work.php?page=1).  Read it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 13, 2013, 03:51:38 pm
Quote
My youth, for what it’s worth, vanished when bits of brain splattered on me in Bosnia, when I was 23.
Pretty much sums up the article, along with the by now probably overused "War is hell."
Why aren't there more philantropists who finance people like that? Or, more modern: Why has nobody made a Kickstarter for her?

(Makes me wonder what the rewards would be... war souvenirs tend not to be pretty.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on July 13, 2013, 04:12:13 pm
Because philanthropists are few and far between, they typically philanthropise modestly, mostly in things they're interested in.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 13, 2013, 07:47:37 pm
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 03:14:48 pm
Article about freelance journalists (http://www.cjr.org/feature/womans_work.php?page=1).  Read it.

I can relate to this and it is the problem with "freelancing" in general. Everything becomes an excuse for you not to be paid and you are put in the worst imaginable situations. This is especially true in the places and policies that have the backdoor, "nobody cares." You know, the stuff that happens to "other people," as opposed to the "average person" who doesn't want to pay for anything, especially something that's out of sight and out of mind.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on July 14, 2013, 12:28:06 am
Wow... that's pretty horrible. You'd think that dangerous work would be better rewarded (or at least better respected) in a healthy free market. I've had it a bit rough Freelancing before, but at least I'm not getting shelled. That's... just bad.

Quote from: Loud Whispers on July 13, 2013, 06:13:00 am
Quote from: Vector on July 13, 2013, 02:06:21 am
Condoms break, IUD's run out of steam or just fall out, hormonal pills are nullified by unforeseeable body chemistry/medicine, vasectomies and tubal ligations inexplicably reverse themselves...
Stored correctly [i.e. not in a wallet, in the light or hot places], used correctly before expiry date and such condoms will not break.
New high-copper IUDs are 99% effective, but if you don't want to leave it to good chance use a condom.
Hormonal pills are about 95% effective, depending on which is taken and prevent pregnancy in various ways. If you don't want to leave it to good chance or unforeseen circumstances, condoms.

As someone who was conceived despite a properly-installed Copper IUD, and raised by an impoverished single mother, I can tell you that even 99.9% effectiveness isn't a sure enough thing. Not that I mind being here, but had abortion been an accessible option with a bit less social stigma attached, my family's life would likely have been considerably easier.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on July 14, 2013, 12:44:53 am
Heck, I'm told I dodged a condom. Shit happens, but I don't actually think a position opposed to abortion cares about any of this. When somebody brings up these arguments, they reek of distraction - justifications for why abortion should be thought of as unnecessary, so why should you care if it's forbidden? Never reasons why it's wrong and should be forbidden. Those are much harder to find, since "I don't like it" is too painfully honest, and "My church says it's wrong" isn't an explanation that's flying anymore.

This post probably sounds overly bitter, but it's just an incredibly frustrating subject to me. Actually, that's not true - however frustrating it is for me, that extent is probably pretty credible to the women who've got to deal with the reality of it, and so have it far worse than some random guy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 14, 2013, 01:27:27 am
You were very probably conceived like everybody else, in a night of irresponsibility and alcohol.

(Human mating ritual error report) HMRER1A0001: the participants are fucking idiots, literally.

The issue has no simple answers, try as we might to delude ourselves that there are. Who gives a damn if its life or not. Does some chick have a duty to support it at all costs, even and especially if she can't? There's lots of life out there we don't support. If you're making the decision, then you should have to support the kid. Do not be surprised when welfare rolls increase if you support banning abortion. It's only what you're asking for. I believe if you are one of those rabid anti abortion people, you should be issued a baby who is addicted to crack to take care of, or four. People say they "care" about this kid?  ??? No they don't. They don't give a shit about anybody and they are only concerned with how their emotions make them feel. Take a stroll down the streets I do on a regular basis, the ones "concerned" people abandon the moment they can move to the suburbs. People don't care about and don't wanna fix anything, long as it they don't feel bad/don't have to think about it though....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 14, 2013, 01:40:37 am
Quote from: Bauglir on July 14, 2013, 12:44:53 am
"My church says it's wrong" isn't an explanation that's flying anymore.
You say that, but then I recently had a run in with anti-gay marriage activists. Safe to say my confidence that I live in a secular society has been questioned.

I'm pretty sure 'My faith dictates law!' is still valid in the minds of too many.

EDIT: As for the issue of the responsibilities that come along with rights, I'm pretty sure that is taboo. If you even suggest that men should have the right to forfeit all paternal claim in exchange for not being financially responsible, and if the woman can't do it alone she has the right to get an abortion and not do it at all, you are met with cries of heresy. Mostly along the lines of 'Think of the children!', because you know, we can ignore a mans right to financial independents if we make an emotional enough plea.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on July 14, 2013, 01:54:33 am
Can we please not get into a discussion of men's rights on this. No, it's not because I necessarily disagree with you about the extent of a man's responsibility (as the case so often is, my belief here is too complicated to insert into a parenthetical note), but because it's going to get the thread hijacked for a dozen pages by people complaining about men being victimized by feminism for the umpteenth time. This request has nothing to do with taboo, and more to do with the demonstrable effects on the thread every time somebody brings up how men are also screwed over by social assumptions.

I'm not even asking that we forever ban all discussion of the topic in-thread. I'm just asking that it not be yet another tangent from an argument about misogyny, because when people are talking about how women are marginalized, a line of discussion started off by, "But what about the men!?" just doesn't fit very well. Next time the thread is dying and you have a good article or something to link, or however else conversations get started in here in a way that isn't a spin-off, please post it then. We can have a fantastic discussion without having to make it the traditional Suffering Olympics, the wonderful games where everybody loses and hates everybody else for also losing.

EDIT: Hell, if you could just frame it in a way that doesn't make it part of the discussion we were already having, that would be fantastic. You don't even have to wait, we can switch over to that conversation right now as long as we aren't implicitly trying to compare it to how women are doing these days.

EXTRA EDIT: And if, some time in the future, we do have this discussion in a way that isn't setting itself up for failure, and somebody tries to wedge women's rights into it, I promise that I will make a similar plea if I post at all. And if I fail, you can redirect me to this post and I'll feel like an ass. Some mocking of me would probably be in order, too, I would have it coming and you have my explicit permission.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 14, 2013, 03:06:55 am
So George Zimmerman is cleared of all charges. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23304198) Fair enough, I could accept the courts ruling, were it not for the fact that  a black 20 year old mother was given 20 years for firing warning shots above her abusive husband. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/)

Seriously, some things do not add up, and this is one of them. White male goes free after actually shooting someone. Black female goes to jail after jusitifiably using minimum force to protect herself. Fucking Florida...

Edit: Oh, I see this has been brought up in the Rage thread already. Whoops.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 14, 2013, 03:21:22 am
Yeah, latter case started being discussed with this post (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=59069.msg4402642#msg4402642), for those interested.

Does anyone know of, like, a better article on the subject? That one was... frankly, bloody close to outright false on some things. Like the goddamn headline. She was apparently given 20 years for attempted murder, not for firing warning shots. Something a bit more actually informative would be nice... would check myself, but I should seriously be sleeping right now :-\
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 14, 2013, 06:06:40 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 14, 2013, 03:06:55 am
White male goes free after actually shooting someone. Black female goes to jail after jusitifiably using minimum force to protect herself. Fucking Florida...
Hahaahahahahahahaa
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 14, 2013, 07:07:36 am
Y'know... I just noticed that, now that I'm actually awake. Wasn't Zimmerman hispanic? Gotta' get them facts straight, it was a latino male, not a white male.

Also firing off a weapon isn't considered minimum force; possibly justifiable, but definitely not minimal. Also things were apparently more complicated than the linked article described and, well, there may have been a reason the person in question was hit with an attempted murder charge. Or may not have been and it was more racial/social bullshit. Article doesn't give enough actual bloody information to be able to say!

News in this damned country makes me want to strangle reporters :-\
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 14, 2013, 07:49:42 am
White and hispanic aren't really mutually exclusive - Zimmerman is both.  In any case, it's an absolute disgrace that he got away with stalking and killing an unarmed teenager.

e: It may have been the correct decision under the law, but that would make the law pretty fucked up
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 14, 2013, 07:51:06 am
Th'law in question is pretty fucked up, yeah.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 14, 2013, 08:39:16 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 14, 2013, 07:49:42 am
White and hispanic aren't really mutually exclusive - Zimmerman is both.  In any case, it's an absolute disgrace that he got away with stalking and killing an unarmed teenager.

e: It may have been the correct decision under the law, but that would make the law pretty fucked up
No, Zimmerman's father was white and his mother was Peruvian, that makes him Hispanic. In any case, it's an absolute disgrace that people are willing to ignore the evidence so long as they get to hoist their "white people are racists oppressing the black people" narrative.
He didn't stalk him, he was on the neighbourhood watch after there had been 16 reported burglaries. He followed a suspicious person in his car at a distance, as was his duty in the watch and Trayvon fled. George called dispatch to report a suspicious person and stopped following. Trayvon turned back and initiated the conflict, which George lost very quickly. This is when he shot Trayvon once, Trayvon said "ok you got me," and George fled.
The law allows you to justify force - even if the result is in someone dying, if it means you can defend yourself and not have to simply pitifully accept violence directed at you, as should be the case.
Spoiler: Wounds within (click to show/hide)
The male human body is built for fighting, it doesn't need a weapon. It suffices on its own innate strengths.
The only part of this whole debacle that has been racist has been from the people who keep bringing up how this creepy-ass cracker is as white as Polar bears or something and that instantly makes him guilty and Trayvon instantly the innocent angel martyr. National news has given out this guy's name, the names of his family, his social security number and deliberately withheld and misrepresented evidence. Things he was quoted as saying went from "fucking punks" to "fucking assholes" to "fucking coons," despite only the first ever having been said.
All this has served to do is prove that in the name of dividing the races of America, nothing is sacred, not even facts.
Why are trials even televised if instead of watching them people instead only listen to the conjecture made by the news?

Part of being impartial is that you also hold someone to be innocent until proven guilty. And what has been seen in the trial is not only has he not been proven guilty, but he has also been proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. If anyone still believes he's guilty, I'd be happy to present the court evidence or better yet just go watch the whole trial yourself and make your own judgement, it's all up on the internets.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 14, 2013, 08:48:01 am
Oh, I 100% accept the courts decision to aquit him based on the evidence at hand, however emotionally charged a case it may be. I just dont get how he can be innocent of a crime when compared to the not as well publicised case linked earlier. It shows the law as it is being applied to be an ass, as is so very often the case.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 14, 2013, 08:52:58 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on July 14, 2013, 08:39:16 am
And what has been seen in the trial is not only has he not been proven guilty, but he has also been proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.

No. Where did you get this idea from?

He was found not guilty. That means that the prosecution couldn't prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. At no time did he prove his innocence nor did he have to. He just had to introduce that reasonable doubt. This is how the justice system works.

You parrot innocent till proven guilty as a universal moral principle - which it isn't - yet show absolutely no understanding of it as a legal principle, which it is.

I can't even deal with the rest of this right now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 14, 2013, 08:56:49 am
Its at times like this I wish the rest of the world borrowed the "Not Proven" verdict from the Scots.

So, Zimmerman was tried for murder, correct? Was that a mistake? Could or would he have been found guilty of manslaughter or unlawful killing (or thier local equivalent, you crazy yanks with your degrees in murder) if tried for them? Should that have been the aim of the prosecution? Did they let the emotional nature of the case cloud thier judgement?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 14, 2013, 09:09:18 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 14, 2013, 08:48:01 am
Oh, I 100% accept the courts decision to aquit him based on the evidence at hand, however emotionally charged a case it may be. I just dont get how he can be innocent of a crime when compared to the not as well publicised case linked earlier. It shows the law as it is being applied to be an ass, as is so very often the case.
And therein lies the problem of making assumptions based off a news report which listed none of the evidence that led to the conviction.
She had no fear of her husband. Hell, four months after the incident [and after the judge told them both not to be near each other] she violated that order to give her husband a black eye. She didn't fire the shot at the ceiling but at the wall behind Gray. He wasn't coming up to her shouting "BITCH I'LL KILL YOU" he was telling his kids to "get your clothes, we're out of here." At which point she fired into the wall at his head height, and the bullet ricocheted into the ceiling.
Gray is not an angel either. He was a chronic abuser and had done so before, much as she did. Yet this is where the stand your ground laws work: It does not allow you to kill people who are no threat to you. At this time, he was no such threat and yet she did try to kill him.

Quote from: palsch on July 14, 2013, 08:52:58 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on July 14, 2013, 08:39:16 am
And what has been seen in the trial is not only has he not been proven guilty, but he has also been proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.
No. Where did you get this idea from?
Watching the trial. Pardon the brief reply, but still getting the trial tidbits so it's not just hearsay you're responded to with.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 14, 2013, 09:11:28 am
But still, 20 years for not killing someone (circumstances complicated, clearly) compared to free for actually killing someone (circumstances complicated, clearly) makes the logical part of me shudder.

20 years. Thats more than many cold blooded killings get.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 14, 2013, 09:14:52 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 14, 2013, 09:11:28 am
But still, 20 years for not killing someone (circumstances complicated, clearly) compared to free for actually killing someone (circumstances complicated, clearly) makes the logical part of me shudder.
When you plead not guilty, you are either a free person or your sentence is worsened. The original sentence was 3 years. It's the complicated circumstances that decide what the verdict is.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 14, 2013, 09:17:19 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 14, 2013, 08:56:49 am
So, Zimmerman was tried for murder, correct? Was that a mistake? Could or would he have been found guilty of manslaughter or unlawful killing (or thier local equivalent, you crazy yanks with your degrees in murder) if tried for them? Should that have been the aim of the prosecution? Did they let the emotional nature of the case cloud thier judgement?
Tried on charges of second degree murder or manslaughter, actually. Found not guilty. It... it said so in the article you, yourself, linked.

Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 14, 2013, 09:11:28 am
But still, 20 years for not killing someone (circumstances complicated, clearly) compared to free for actually killing someone (circumstances complicated, clearly) makes the logical part of me shudder.
Mandatory sentencing can be a pretty screwed up thing, yes. That said, the situations are apparently not entirely comparable, and you probably shouldn't be considering the two in relation to one another :-\
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 14, 2013, 09:19:36 am
Thanks for the info - I now stand better informed.

667% worse (3 yrs to 20 years).... ouch.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 14, 2013, 11:39:58 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on July 14, 2013, 08:39:16 am
No, Zimmerman's father was white and his mother was Peruvian, that makes him Hispanic.
Yeah, as I said, he's hispanic and white.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

Quote from: Loud Whispers on July 14, 2013, 08:39:16 am
In any case, it's an absolute disgrace that people are willing to ignore the evidence so long as they get to hoist their "white people are racists oppressing the black people" narrative.
He didn't stalk him, he was on the neighbourhood watch after there had been 16 reported burglaries. He followed a suspicious person in his car at a distance, as was his duty in the watch and Trayvon fled. George called dispatch to report a suspicious person and stopped following. Trayvon turned back and initiated the conflict, which George lost very quickly. This is when he shot Trayvon once, Trayvon said "ok you got me," and George fled.
The issue is that, even if you fully believe Zimmerman's story, what he did is completely fucked up.  There was nothing at all to suggestion that Martin was suspicious, he was specifically told not to follow him, and the conflict was ultimately his fault (although it's difficult to say who actually initiated violence when he killed the key witness).  I really don't think it's acceptable to initiate a confrontation and then kill the other person when they get the upper hand and inflict a few minor injuries.

e: The other issue is that Zimmerman's account changed a bunch of times

e2: I think there's a possibility of a civil case being brought against Zimmerman too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 14, 2013, 12:42:47 pm
There is a bitter irony in that Zimmerman may need to use the "stand your ground" law in the future to prevent vigilante justice being carried out.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on July 14, 2013, 12:58:15 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 14, 2013, 12:42:47 pm
There is a bitter irony in that Zimmerman may need to use the "stand your ground" law in the future to prevent vigilante justice being carried out.
My mom has made the joke that someone going to shoot him and go "It was self-defense. What? I knew he was a killer, I feared for my life. Hell, I was wearing a hoodie! what if he shot me?"


Anyway, this was always a little in his favor, as it was a incident which no one else clearly witnessed, and he they had to prove somehow that he had been acting aggressive to him.
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 14, 2013, 11:39:58 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on July 14, 2013, 08:39:16 am
No, Zimmerman's father was white and his mother was Peruvian, that makes him Hispanic.
Yeah, as I said, he's hispanic and white.  The two are not mutually exclusive.
Often I have been asked on forms "Are you a non-white Hispanic?"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on July 14, 2013, 01:19:45 pm
Quote from: misko27 on July 14, 2013, 12:58:15 pm
they had to prove somehow that he had been acting aggressive to him.
Nope. They had to prove he didn't fear for his life. Which is why I've said before, it was obvious there would be no conviction because of the Stand Your Ground laws. The burden of proof for a conviction in that case is pretty damn near impossible. Everything else is all irrelevant circumstantial mish-mash.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 14, 2013, 03:46:52 pm
Also, because I don't think I made this point hard enough in my previous posts: Zimmerman's injuries were very minor.  He did not need any kind of medical treatment for them.  The idea that his head was being smashed against the ground at any point is a total lie, as he would have suffered far worse injuries if that were true.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 14, 2013, 04:09:44 pm
For reference, these are the jury instructions. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Final-Jury-Instructions) From those alone you can see how hard a conviction would have been under current law.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 14, 2013, 05:27:19 pm
Anything anyone else here thinks, believes, proves or at the very least implies GZ is guilty that hasn't already been said?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 14, 2013, 05:44:02 pm
I don't think he's "guilty" under the terrible laws of Florida, but I do think he's "guilty" in that he killed a young man completely unnecessarily.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 14, 2013, 05:50:51 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 14, 2013, 05:44:02 pm
I don't think he's "guilty" under the terrible laws of Florida, but I do think he's "guilty" in that he killed a young man completely unnecessarily.
Could I then instead hear the reasons why he should be guilty, Florida laws not withstanding, unless they have already been said?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 14, 2013, 05:57:47 pm
All I will say that self-defense should never extend to pursuing someone who has done nothing to you, or killing someone who you know is unarmed while you are armed. Flordia's ill-written legal code degrades the concept of self-defense and reasonable laws concerning it. Things like this increase the risk that self-defense laws will be thrown out entirely, which is not acceptable.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 14, 2013, 06:33:23 pm
Are you expecting me to explain why killing someone is a bad thing to do or what?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 14, 2013, 07:14:10 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 14, 2013, 06:33:23 pm
Are you expecting me to explain why killing someone is a bad thing to do or what?
If that's your view on this specific case, as long as you described your view and why I'd be happy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ross Vernal on July 14, 2013, 07:16:58 pm
You need reasons beyond "George Zimmerman willfully and deliberately took actions that lead to the wrongful death of Trayvon Martin" ?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 14, 2013, 07:45:13 pm
Quote from: Ross Vernal on July 14, 2013, 07:16:58 pm
You need reasons beyond "George Zimmerman willfully and deliberately took actions that lead to the wrongful death of Trayvon Martin" ?
I'd like more than opinions, specifically reasons for opinions. If it's a factual opinion, the facts validating that opinion would be helpful.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ross Vernal on July 14, 2013, 08:08:09 pm
It is a fact that George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin. It is a fact that he complained about assholes getting away. It is a fact the police told him he did not need to follow Travyon. It is a fact that he did so regardless of this being expressed to him. It is a fact that Travyon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman.

None of these things are in debate.

The argument (minus the race thing, since angry white folk sure love to say that a known aggressive racist who racially profiled someone before killing him has nothing to do with race) is basically over "What are the circumstances in which the killing took place?" and as far as I can tell, the most articulate argument for "It was somehow lawful" is is "A large man armed with a gun felt threatened by an unarmed teenager who he deliberately followed, therefore it was his right to defend himself with lethal force, and not the right of the unarmed teenager to defend himself from a suspicious stranger who he felt threatened by."

Regardless of the specific circumstances of the killing, the circumstances would not have occurred had Zimmerman not instigated them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ross Vernal on July 14, 2013, 08:22:55 pm
I think I have been coherent and polite as I can on this topic, so I'll be taking my leave before I start letting my irritation show.

I'll just leave on the note of another black teenager shot dead by someone who felt threatened by loud music (http://www.policymic.com/articles/54339/black-17-and-shot-dead-in-florida-why-isn-t-jordan-davis-getting-the-attention-travyon-martin-is), and a question of "So how many more lives are going to be taken before we actually give a damn?"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 14, 2013, 09:04:34 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on July 14, 2013, 07:14:10 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 14, 2013, 06:33:23 pm
Are you expecting me to explain why killing someone is a bad thing to do or what?
If that's your view on this specific case, as long as you described your view and why I'd be happy.
Killing someone is always a bad thing. It is an evil. Sometimes it is a necessary evil. Sometimes it is an acceptable evil.

Do you seriously not see the alternative choices he could have made that would not have led to anyone getting killed? Do you disagree that these would have, in fact, been better choices?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 14, 2013, 09:18:12 pm
I don't see anything wrong with shooting someone in self defense.

But it isn't self defense when you stalk someone and and confront them after being instructed by the police to not do so.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 14, 2013, 09:24:10 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 14, 2013, 09:18:12 pm
I don't see anything wrong with shooting someone in self defense.
That person is now dead. Every good thing they could have done is destroyed. You harm not just them, but their family and the people that relied upon them and interacted with them.

This is never not a bad thing.

It might be better than the alternative, and in a self-defense situation that reflects well on the person doing the self-defending they will have had little or no input into exactly what choices will be made available, but this does not make the act itself righteous or even neutral - it is still a terrible thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 14, 2013, 09:30:26 pm
Particularly in this case.  At worst Martin initiated a minor scuffle with a man who had been chasing after him, and his death was neither deserved nor required.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 14, 2013, 09:32:47 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 14, 2013, 09:18:12 pm
I don't see anything wrong with shooting someone in self defense.

But it isn't self defense when you stalk someone and and confront them after being instructed by the police to not do so.

(A) Stalking is a very specific action that doesn't have much to do with what Zimmerman did to Martin. At any rate, he was in the Neighbourhood Watch and was nominally doing what he was supposed to, since the area had recently seen a bunch of burglaries.

(B) The police dispatchers are legally obligated to tell people that they don't need to intervene directly so that they aren't held liable if things go bad. If Zimmerman saw a woman being raped he would have received the exact same instructions, and they would have been just as binding, which is to say not at all.

Now the problem here is that there isn't much in the way of evidence except for Zimmerman's word and witness testimony. But that being the case, there isn't enough to really find him guilty of anything, so "innocent" is the only just verdict regardless.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 14, 2013, 09:37:55 pm
I'm a bit unfamiliar with the purpose of a neighbourhood watch member in the US.  Is it to follow and confront any random black youth who happens to be in the area of a string of burglaries?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 14, 2013, 09:39:23 pm
"Don't need to intervene" is different from "do not intervene," though, and Zimmerman was told the latter IIRC.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 14, 2013, 09:43:38 pm
So Zimmerman most likely actually did do it. In all reality, it looks to me, filtered through the lens of second hand sources through which I have been able to gather what is going on, that he did it. And yet a jury remained unconvinced? Realistically, it could be more to do with a poorly executed case, rather than racism. Stupidity before malice, and all that. I'm not saying that there was no way they found twelve racists for the jury, or even it is incredibly improbable, but I do have to concede that isn't the only possible reason why things went the way they did. This 'reasonable doubt' thing is kind of important.

I'm not ok with how things played out, based on everything I have seen this certainly looks like something went wrong and I'm very, very doubtful it was Martin who was at fault, but that doesn't mean the only conclusion is that the outcome of this specific case was influenced by a racist jury.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 14, 2013, 09:46:03 pm
The truth is that I think that the whole smirking in court and showing no signs of remorse thing is kind of gross and an indicator that he was probably guilty, whether or not all of the "hard" signs were there.

Not saying that, if you get down to the nitty-gritty, they should have found him guilty.  But if you're going "haha I killed a dude" then that makes me feel somewhat worse about it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 14, 2013, 09:50:59 pm
Well yea, like I said, he most likely did it, and the smugness about it just makes me emotionally despise this guy just a little more, but frankly, I would prefer a legal system where somebodies emotions are less relevant that the evidence presented, no matter how shitty the prosecution is at their job.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on July 14, 2013, 09:57:37 pm
Well yeah, he shot the guy in the chest, nobody has denied that part... It's to what degree it was "self defence" that's in argument. It should probably be said that in fairness he apparently did come out of the situation with a broken nose and severe bruising. So I think there might be something to be said for the self defence argument, but I'm not sure how persuasive an argument it is considering the circumstances.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on July 14, 2013, 10:01:17 pm
On an entirely unrelated note, Apple was found guilty of being part of a conspiracy of price-fixing in the e-book market.
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-its-insane-that-no-one-cares-about-apples-price-fixing-conspiracy-2013-7

E-books increased in price by a full 50% due to a conspiracy between Apple and a variety of publishing companies.

Quote
The CEOs of the publishing houses had secret dinners in the back rooms of New York restaurants to figure out how to screw Amazon and its low prices. Hachette executives were told to delete emails in case they contained evidence of the conspiracy. Jobs and his staff wanted the deal done before he died. Murdoch was in on it. Apple's Eddy Cue pursued the deal monomaniacally, pausing only to eat and sleep. And then, at the iPad launch event, Jobs gave the game away: When asked why anyone would pay $15 for a book on the iPad when Amazon sold them for $9.99, he replied  "The price will be the same."

...

With their Apple pricing deals in hand, the publishers all renegotiated terms with Amazon — which is why all the top selling books on Amazon are now nearly $14, not $9.99.
Another source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/apple-calls-e-book-price-fixing-case-bizarre-says-doj-is-being-unfair/

Most telling image, from arstechnica:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/how-apple-led-an-e-book-price-conspiracy-in-the-judges-words/
(note: Cote was the judge presiding over the case)
Quote
The agency model (along with publisher-set but capped prices of $12.99 to $14.99) made it profitable enough for Apple to open its own e-book store—so long as Amazon's prices went up, too. Apple thus devised a Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause in its contracts with publishers which "guaranteed that the e-books in Apple’s e-bookstore would be sold for the lowest retail price available in the marketplace," Cote wrote. For the publishers to charge up to $14.99 for e-books on Apple's iBooks store, they had to raise prices on Amazon's Kindle store as well by collectively forcing Amazon to accept the agency model.

Quote
Agreeing to agency models still suited the publishers' long-term interests because they wanted to "shift their industry to higher e-book prices to protect the prices of their physical books and the brick and mortar stores that sold those physical books," Cote wrote, adding that "[t]o change the price of e-books across the industry ... the Publishers would have to raise Amazon’s prices."

Random House, the largest publisher, resisted Apple's call to adopt the agency model in 2010. But the company capitulated a year later in order to get its books on the iPad.

"Apple decided to pressure Random House to join the iBookstore," Cote wrote. "As Cue wrote to Apple CEO Tim Cook, 'When we get Random House, it will be over for everyone.' Apple had its opportunity in the Fall of 2010, when Random House submitted some e-book apps to Apple’s App Store. Cue advised Random House that Apple was only interested in doing 'an overall deal' with Random House. By December, they had begun negotiations, and Random House executed an agency agreement with Apple in mid-January 2011. In an e-mail to [Steve] Jobs, Cue attributed Random House’s capitulation in part to 'the fact that I prevented an app from Random House from going live in the app store this week.'"


Quote
When asked by a reporter later that day why people would pay $14.99 in the iBookstore to purchase an e-book that was selling at Amazon for $9.99, Jobs told a reporter, “Well, that won’t be the case.” When the reporter sought to clarify, “You mean you won’t be $14.99 or they won’t be $9.99?” Jobs paused, and with a knowing nod responded, “The price will be the same” and explained that “Publishers are actually withholding their books from Amazon because they are not happy.”

With that statement, Jobs acknowledged his understanding that the Publisher Defendants would now wrest control of pricing from Amazon and raise e-book prices, and that Apple would not have to face any competition from Amazon on price.

The import of Jobs’s statement was obvious. On January 29, the General Counsel of S&S [Simon & Schuster] wrote to [Simon & Schuster CEO Carolyn] Reidy that she “cannot believe that Jobs made the statement” and considered it “ncredibly stupid.”
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 14, 2013, 10:20:35 pm
I thought we all knew they were doing this when they ditched pdf, a format Apple had fully backed right up until they released their tablets, that mysteriously didn't support pdf...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 14, 2013, 10:50:11 pm
I dunno how I feel about the whole thing. I don't like Florida's "Stand your Ground" law, but on the other hand, this exactly what a defense lawyer is supposed to do. Also, quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Zimmerman became an OJ here. Specifically, he might be held civilly liable for wrongful death to the tune of who knows how much. Different burden of proof civilly and criminally.

In an ideal world, Zimmerman would've stayed a distance away and simply observed. If the guy did do anything illegal, then he could've just acted as a witness to whatever may have happened while directing police to the scene and describing the perpetrator. That's kinda why they call it a "neighborhood WATCH," cause ... you know ... watching and not acting. It was stupid to engage somebody in your area that you don't know like that.

And frankly, all those websites put up by gun supporters about castle and "stand your ground" laws don't realize what they're doing, or at least I hope they don't because that'd be worse. Forget for a second that people advising Zimmerman of Stand your Ground won't be considered infamous like he will be for the rest of his life. Forget for a second that those sites are completely ignorant of the law and all its complexities (Zimmerman, for example, could have a Federal Government Suit for Civil Rights Violation, or Wrongful Death Claim among other things brought against him). They're telling people it is ok to perhaps kill other people.... That is a hell of a piece of advice to give isn't it? I mean wow. R...Really? Woah. I don't even. That to me is just too much to even consider telling another person. Just.... What on earth are those people thinking?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 15, 2013, 03:26:09 am
Quote from: alway on July 14, 2013, 10:01:17 pm
Quote
Agreeing to agency models still suited the publishers' long-term interests because they wanted to "shift their industry to higher e-book prices to protect the prices of their physical books and the brick and mortar stores that sold those physical books," Cote wrote, adding that "[t]o change the price of e-books across the industry ... the Publishers would have to raise Amazon’s prices."

Capitalism: nullifying the benefits of technological progress since always.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 15, 2013, 03:31:29 am
I wouldn't say nullifying the benefits, more along the lines of redirecting. They were telling the truth when they said the wealth would trickle down, what they didn't tell us is that in our socioeconomic strata you get wealthier the deeper and more greedily you dig.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 15, 2013, 03:38:43 am
In this case, at least, it's straight-up nullification.  Books that have practically zero physical cost to copy/distribute are priced the same as books that do have a physical cost.  That's quite plain and simple nullification of technological progress.  Why?  Because the people in position to make this happen are behaving according to capitalist motives and principles.  No other reason whatsoever.

Thinking about it a bit more, I see what you mean by redirecting.  Lower production cost + same price = more profit.  So the benefit is redirected.  Still, from most people's perspective it's things just staying the same when they should be getting better.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 15, 2013, 03:42:00 am
But there is still huge benefits... Just not for the consumer. That is how capitalism works, everything is for the benefit of who ever can screw the most people over, so somebody benefits, just a minority of people who tend to already have large amounts of money.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 15, 2013, 08:40:02 am
The whole Apple situation is a good deal more complex and basically is a matter of several giants fighting it out to shape the future direction of ebook distribution.

There was (and largely still is) only one game in town; Amazon and the Kindle. The publishers joined forces with Apple to try to break that monopoly. To do so they broke anti-trust laws and, frankly, opted into a model that was at least no better for consumer, likely worse in the short term.

This piece (from an author) on Amazon's ebook strategy outlines why they tried to attack it. (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/04/understanding-amazons-strategy.html) The short version (all terms defined at length in the piece);
Quote
And the peculiar evil genius of Amazon is that Amazon seems to be trying to simultaneously establish a wholesale monopsony and a retail monopoly in the ebook sector.

You're probably familiar with predatory pricing. A big box retailer moves into a small town with a variety of local grocery and supermarket stores. They stock a huge range of products and hold constant promotions, often dumping goods at or below their wholesale price. This draws customers away from the local incumbents, who can't compete and who go bust. Of course the big box retailer can't keep up the dumping forever, but if losing a few million dollars is the price of driving all the local competitors out of business, then they will have many years of profits drawn from a captive market to recoup the investment. (Meanwhile, helpful laws allow them to write down the losses on this store as a loss against tax, but that's just the icing on the cake.) Once the big box store has killed off every competiting mom'n'pop store within a 50-mile radius, where else are people going to shop?

Amazon has the potential to be like that predatory big box retailer on a global scale. And it's well on the way to doing so in the ebook sector.

Amazon had/has been treating ebooks and Kindles as a loss-leader for a while. All the while they had been including (publisher mandated) DRM on those books they sold, locking readers into their formats and their readers into the forseeable future. If you are already invested in one reader type, one file format, one library, when it comes time to upgrade your reader you can't really afford to shop around. Buying that awesome new B&N reader to replace a Kindle means being unable to use your Kindle books on it, surrendering the use of that collection you have been building (obviously DRM cracks not included).

This meant, when it came to ebooks, customers were getting locked into an Amazon monopoly while the sellers were effectively only selling ebooks to Amazon in a monopsony. Amazon could dictate everything about the market. They had started dictating terms that effectively made them a sub-publisher of the ebooks, sublicensing the book to be sold as a Kindle ebook rather than buying each ebook individually from the retailer. This basically pushed publishers out of the retail chain completely. They still made money from ebooks, but that market was fully dictated by Amazon's terms and they couldn't do a damned thing about it. This is ignoring the areas where Amazon have explicitly become a publisher themselves (most obvious being Audible for audio-books).

The Apple agreement was about an agency model of ebook sales. An older piece outlining the basics (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/01/amazon-macmillan-an-outsiders.html) (worth noting that was two years before the piece linked above and interesting to watch how his views shifted somewhat). It was always about breaking Amazon's retail model. It did so in a grossly non-competitive manner. The four chains;

Traditional: author -> publisher -> wholesaler -> bookstore -> consumer
Amazon traditional: author -> publisher -> Amazon -> consumer
Kindle/Audible: author -> Amazon -> consumer
Agency: author -> publisher -> fixed-price distributor -> consumer

The Agency model kept the publishers in the supply chain, removed the traditional wholesaler/bookstore distinction while also denying the distributor the obscene power that Amazon was grabbing.

After the lawsuit and the publishers backed down (somewhat) on the non-competitive aspects more changes were announced. The biggest has been the steady move of Macmillan away from DRM. This one move helps simply by stopping Amazon from locking (non-DRM cracking) customers into their format and readers. Someone who has a massive Kindle library of non-DRMed books can simply convert those to a new format if someone offers them a better reader. Suddenly Amazon has to remain competitive into the future, not just lock people into their marketplace and then do what the fuck they like (we can call this the Microsoft model).

As far as the agency model being bad for consumers, it's probably worth noting that both theoretically (http://www.digitopoly.org/2012/03/31/are-prices-higher-under-an-agency-model-than-a-wholesale-pricing-model/) and practically (http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/does-agency-pricing-lead-to-higher-book-prices/) the agency model generates lower prices than the wholesale model. The Amazon lower prices were loss-leader discounted prices, not reflections of a more efficient model.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DWC on July 15, 2013, 11:27:54 am
This Zimmerman caper has been a media goat rope. They are trying to race-bait people into challenging this legal concept of 'stand your ground' self defense and conceal carry rights in general. Another attempt by politicians to appeal to people's emotions over a sensational event to pursue a political agenda.

Anyways, I suspect Zimmerman and Treyvon both made bad decisions, but Zimmerman didn't break any laws and Treyvon was pounding his head into the pavement and got scuffed up pretty badly. Treyvon had some bruising on his knuckles, besides the gunshot wound to the chest. The media really tried to distort this as much as they could. All the evidence corresponded with Zimmerman's side of the story and the prosecution was aiming for too high a conviction, 2nd degree murder. Nobody can say 'racial profile' after the prosecution's star witness is up there with all the 'creepy ass cracker' business. The defense could argue Zimmerman was attacked in a hate crime with a comment like that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 15, 2013, 12:10:52 pm
Zimmerman side of the story is that he hunted this boy down and started a fight with him. He then started to lose that fight and so he shot his victim. "Self defense" requires (or should require) that you be the defender, not the aggressor.

I am in favor of the right to defend oneself. I am in favor of the right to use potentially lethal force to do so if defending against a clear and immediate mortal threat. I am in favor of the right to use a firearm in that capacity. But it is plainly evident to me that this case does not qualify.

if z didnt follow the boy, there wouldnt be an issue.
if z stayed in his car, there wouldnt be an issue.
if z didnt confront him, there wouldnt be an issue.
if z followed police instructions, there wouldnt be an issue.
if z followed neighborhood watch policy there wouldnt be an issue.
but he did.
he broke the rules.
he disregarded the police.
he hunted this boy (because i guess its a better word than stalked).
he disregarded his own safety.
he instigated a confrontation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on July 15, 2013, 01:23:04 pm
The main problem is its muddy enough that there is reasonable doubt that he was indeed using 'self defense', therefore theres no murder.

The second problem is it wasn't considered 'reckless' for some reason, likely stand your ground / other gun laws that encourage vigilantes.  If it wasn't for those, he might have been convicted of manslaughter, then bumped up due to manslaughter against a minor (or whatever other Florida law there is).

As is, we must welcome all the new Batmen from Florida (for now).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 15, 2013, 01:52:06 pm
Zimmerman didn't actually claim SYG - I think the story he eventually decided on was that he was pinned by Martin, meaning that he couldn't run away and SYG was irrelevant.  It may have encouraged him to chase after Martin in the first place though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DWC on July 15, 2013, 02:51:41 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 15, 2013, 12:10:52 pm
Zimmerman side of the story is that he hunted this boy down and started a fight with him. He then started to lose that fight and so he shot his victim. "Self defense" requires (or should require) that you be the defender, not the aggressor.

I am in favor of the right to defend oneself. I am in favor of the right to use potentially lethal force to do so if defending against a clear and immediate mortal threat. I am in favor of the right to use a firearm in that capacity. But it is plainly evident to me that this case does not qualify.

if z didnt follow the boy, there wouldnt be an issue.
if z stayed in his car, there wouldnt be an issue.
if z didnt confront him, there wouldnt be an issue.
if z followed police instructions, there wouldnt be an issue.
if z followed neighborhood watch policy there wouldnt be an issue.
but he did.
he broke the rules.
he disregarded the police.
he hunted this boy (because i guess its a better word than stalked).
he disregarded his own safety.
he instigated a confrontation.

None of these things he did were strictly illegal. Trayvon broke the law first by attacking Zimmerman, tackled him and was beating his head in on the pavement. That isn't a reasonable response to somebody following you. Trayvon was staying at a house about 70 meters away, going home or asking "why are you following me?" would have been a better course of action. They both overreacted, but only Trayvon broke the law.

It's not against the law to approach somebody in public or follow them around and nobody should be attacked for doing so either.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on July 15, 2013, 02:52:56 pm
But we don't know that Trayvon attacked first, do we?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 15, 2013, 02:57:55 pm
Quote
Trayvon broke the law first by attacking Zimmerman, tackled him and was beating his head in on the pavement.
We don't know that Trayvon broke the law.

I'm pretty sure that had he lived, Trayvon would have safely been able to be found not guilty by virtue of self defense, esp. under the stand your ground law. He had no duty to retreat, and if he felt this armed person following him at night was a threat that might kill him, he'd be pretty much guaranteed to get off.

Essentially, we have a situation where Zimmerman was defending himself from what would most likely be found to be a valid expression of self-defense. We have no idea if he was aggressive or provoked the conflict, if he started pushing or getting agressive with Trayvon, or the actual motive Trayvon had for punching him. We just don't know, and we won't.

I think there's reasonable doubt that Trayvon broke the law any more than Zimmerman did.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 15, 2013, 02:59:09 pm
They don't have to be against the law. It shows he is the aggressor, not the defender.

And yes. Being hunted, chased and confronted by a large armed man would likely put a real fear of mortal danger in a young man. A fear that justifies action in self defense. Trayvon had the right to defend himself from his attacker by any means necessary.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DWC on July 15, 2013, 03:15:09 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on July 15, 2013, 02:52:56 pm
But we don't know that Trayvon attacked first, do we?

Well, Trayvon just had bruising on one of his knuckles, presumably from hitting Zimmerman. So unless Zimmerman swung at him and missed, it just looks like Trayvon jumped Zimmerman.

Quote from: Nadaka on July 15, 2013, 02:59:09 pm
They don't have to be against the law. It shows he is the aggressor, not the defender.

And yes. Being hunted, chased and confronted by a large armed man would likely put a real fear of mortal danger in a young man. A fear that justifies action in self defense. Trayvon had the right to defend himself from his attacker by any means necessary.

He wasn't being attacked. Trayvon was walking around in the rain around a house that wasn't his and obviously Trayvon was rather lop-sidedly winning the fist fight and I doubt he knew Zimmerman was armed beforehand. If he was concerned for his safety, his house was about 100 feet away and he had plenty of time to go there while Zimmerman was in his car on the phone with the police.

It's not said if Zimmerman actually said anything to Trayvon or not, but I'd imagine he probably said something rude and confrontational, but we'll never know.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 15, 2013, 03:22:48 pm
Quote from: DWC on July 15, 2013, 03:15:09 pm
Well, Trayvon just had bruising on one of his knuckles, presumably from hitting Zimmerman. So unless Zimmerman swung at him and missed, it just looks like Trayvon jumped Zimmerman.
Which very well may have happened. It's even possible Zimmerman shoved or otherwise started the physical altercation in a way that wouldn't leave marks, and Trayvon escalated.

Quote from: DWC on July 15, 2013, 03:15:09 pm
He wasn't being attacked. Trayvon was walking around in the rain around a house that wasn't his and obviously Trayvon was rather lop-sidedly winning the fist fight and I doubt he knew Zimmerman was armed beforehand. If he was concerned for his safety, his house was about 100 feet away and he had plenty of time to go there while Zimmerman was in his car on the phone with the police.
Ah, but there is no duty to retreat if it is available in Florida law. Perhaps he was also concerned for the safety of his family? Perhaps he was just pissed off that this guy was following him.

Didn't Zimmerman claim that Trayvon knew he had a weapon, though, and specifically went after Zimmerman with the intent of taking it from him? So that part doesn't really hold up.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 15, 2013, 03:23:46 pm
Trayvon Martin was heavily schooled in the art of the One Knuckle Death Punch, a fearsome blow that can destroy a person's brain in a single shot.  Zimmerman saw he was preparing for it and had to shoot him dead.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 15, 2013, 03:27:20 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 15, 2013, 01:52:06 pm
Zimmerman didn't actually claim SYG - I think the story he eventually decided on was that he was pinned by Martin, meaning that he couldn't run away and SYG was irrelevant.  It may have encouraged him to chase after Martin in the first place though.

There are different aspects to SYG.

Zimmerman didn't claim the immunity to prosecution offered under SYG. That would have involved a pre-trial hearing about his self defence claim at which time the case would have likely been dropped. From the law in question; (http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter776/All)
Quote
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
This is the law that meant Zimmerman wasn't immediately arrested for shooting Martin. It offers such complete immunity that even arresting someone who has definitely shot and killed another person is a huge financial risk for the police department and state in general. Zimmerman didn't claim this, which is a good thing, but...

There are other aspects to the law. Again, looking at the jury instructions (http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Final-Jury-Instructions) there is this part;
Quote
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physicalabilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.
Italics are explicitly from the SYG legislation. But also notice how the burden of proof rests on the state here.

Self-defence is traditionally an affirmative defence. That is, the defendant has to actively prove - beyond reasonable doubt - that they were acting in self defence.

Under SYG and the related Floridian self-defence laws this is flipped. In this case the state had to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defence. Or rather, that he didn't believe himself to be acting in self defence. That's one hell of a barrier to conviction of anyone with any sort of self-defence claim.

Combine this hurdle with the immunity and financial threats to the police department for prosecuting self-defence cases and you have a disincentive to prosecute these sorts of hard cases, which are the very ones that need resources and effort poured into to try to resolve.

Pile on top of that racial inequalities within the justice system and you can easily get the impression that these laws are a legal license to shoot black people (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/) and get away with it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on July 15, 2013, 03:41:12 pm
So really, if Trayvon Martin had knocked Zimmerman out or shot him, under Stand Your Ground the state would have had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin wasn't acting in self defense if they wanted to charge him with anything.  Seems to me that if there are no witnesses to a fight in Florida, either side can shoot the other and expect protection from the law.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DWC on July 15, 2013, 03:53:38 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 15, 2013, 03:22:48 pm
Quote from: DWC on July 15, 2013, 03:15:09 pm
Well, Trayvon just had bruising on one of his knuckles, presumably from hitting Zimmerman. So unless Zimmerman swung at him and missed, it just looks like Trayvon jumped Zimmerman.
Which very well may have happened. It's even possible Zimmerman shoved or otherwise started the physical altercation in a way that wouldn't leave marks, and Trayvon escalated.

Quote from: DWC on July 15, 2013, 03:15:09 pm
He wasn't being attacked. Trayvon was walking around in the rain around a house that wasn't his and obviously Trayvon was rather lop-sidedly winning the fist fight and I doubt he knew Zimmerman was armed beforehand. If he was concerned for his safety, his house was about 100 feet away and he had plenty of time to go there while Zimmerman was in his car on the phone with the police.
Ah, but there is no duty to retreat if it is available in Florida law. Perhaps he was also concerned for the safety of his family? Perhaps he was just pissed off that this guy was following him.

Didn't Zimmerman claim that Trayvon knew he had a weapon, though, and specifically went after Zimmerman with the intent of taking it from him? So that part doesn't really hold up.

I imagine he was just pissed off because he was being followed and 'swg' doesn't really apply to fist-fights if Zimmerman just walked up and started talking shit to him. Zimmerman isn't an angel either and he's been in fist fights before. Which just makes me believe the lopsidedness of the fight was because he wasn't expecting one.

One thing they teach you in these conceal carry classes is that you do not get into fist fights if you are going to carry a pistol, either it could be used against you or you will be tempted to use it. So the confrontation already escalated to Trayvon pounding his head in and then you have a pistol there, it possibly escalated to life-and-death of the weapon. I think Zimmerman was probably negligent for keeping it on his person if he did go confront him, but then again maybe he'd be dead if he didn't bring it.

Really, the whole chain of events leading up to Trayvon being shot could have been easily stopped by either one of them with a prudent decision somewhere along the way. Such as it is, there isn't any evidence that Zimmerman broke any laws. If he was found guilty, you'd have a serious breach of faith with the law. I dunno, it's a sad turn of events that could have been prevented.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 16, 2013, 01:07:08 am
So related to the topic, regardless of the exact series of events, I'm getting very tired, very quickly of some people (Not here) trying to assert that Trayvon was a drug dealer or part of a gang or something. You know what, lets assume that is all true! Lets assume he was a drug dealing gangster who peddled crack, stole cars and abused women. That isn't fucking relevant! I don't care if he kidnapped babies to make into sandwiches, that is an unrelated crime. Nobody deserves an unlawful death at the hands of a vigilante. I would argue that nobody deserves death, but in the US where you have the death sentence that is a much harder line to sell. Point is it wouldn't matter if Trayvon was the spawn of evil itself, you don't get to just shoot somebody. There is a legal system for a reason! To avoid this sort of bullshit.

Sorry, just had to vent a little.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 16, 2013, 01:10:15 am
The guy also claimed that Trayvon's death was part of God's plan or something.

I mean seriously?  That's your defense?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 16, 2013, 01:14:01 am
But you can justify anything if you say it was part of a grand design, right? Right..? Except sending me to jail, that is never part of the plan. Point is when I do something to harm another, it is God's plan, but when somebody does something to harm or inconvenience me it is injustice.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 16, 2013, 02:13:08 am
Kinda, that's the problem of the God's plan argument. If all's part of a greater, infallible, ultimately good plan, then evil doesn't exist.

Unless you want to be hyprocritical.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 16, 2013, 02:14:39 am
It also necessitates that one accepts a perfectly deterministic reality.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on July 16, 2013, 06:00:29 am
There is released evidence that Zimmerman was shouting for help before Martin was shot. In addition, the house Martin was walking around had been burglarized recently, as had a number of other houses in the neighborhood. Furthermore, there were over 400 registered calls to the police from the neighborhood in question from residents, 9 burglaries, 1 shooting, and numerous reported attempted burglaries. It was also reported that these crimes and attempted crimes had created an atmosphere of fear in the local community.

With this in mind, it is not unreasonable that anyone in the neighborhood watch would be a bit jumpy, more so if yet more trespassing had just been observed. If he was not participating in unlawful activity and was in fear of great bodily harm, which several pieces of evidence point towards, then he was entirely within his rights to fire his weapon defensively.

Regardless of whatever story the mainstream media has been pushing, this is not necessarily a case based on race.

On the subject of the law, here is a portion of it from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html).

...(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

One would think that having one's head bashed into the sidewalk could possibly cause great bodily harm. There is no substantial evidence showing that Zimmerman was in fact engaging in unlawful behavior prior to the shooting, but instead inflated or in some case fabricated claims by the media, often making the fallacy of appealing to emotional outrage rather than fact or reason.

Do remember that much if not all of the televised mainstream media in America is classified as "entertainment", not "news".

tl;dr: This is a legal problem, not a racial one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 16, 2013, 06:58:18 am
A black guy walking down a public street near his home = trespassing
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on July 16, 2013, 07:24:31 am
Yeah, if you consider someone's yard a public street.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 16, 2013, 07:44:53 am
I don't think anyone actually seriously tried to push that angle (because it's bullshit), but if he was trespassing it was almost certainly because there was no pavement in the area.  "A guy is walking on grass because there's literally nowhere else to walk" can't reasonably be regarded as suspicious at all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 16, 2013, 07:47:54 am
Morrigi... you do realize that that still damns Zimmerman? Because it means Trayvon had the right to defend himself.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 16, 2013, 07:56:53 am
People saying this isn't about race should be forced to read Ta-Nehisi Coates (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/trayvon-martin-and-the-irony-of-american-justice/277782/), Jelani (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/07/george-zimmerman-verdict-riots-trayvon-martin-protests.html) Cobb (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/07/george-zimmerman-not-guilty-blood-on-the-leaves.html) (one more (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/07/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-trial-sympathy.html)) and the dozens of other black voices that have been speaking about why this is just one more data point in the long history of racist bullshit.

The central racial aspect (ignoring the racial profiling of Treyvon by Zimmerman, as the trial did when that phrase was banned from use during it) is the long history of black people being killed and there being no punishment for it. Of their killings being justified by their blackness and by their deviation from some impossible to follow set of rules for behaviour that us non-black people never have to think about or even know exist (despite being able to spot immediately when a black guy breaks them).

Read the articles and listen to the discussions that black people are having about this case. It's not screaming that Zimmerman was a racist. It's quiet resignation and sharing of stories. It's stuff like LeVar Burton (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/01/levar-burton-explains-his-ritual-to-prevent-being-shot-by-police/) sharing his procedure for not getting shot by police. It's Melissa Harris-Perry (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46979745/vp/52467630#52473400) putting the trial in historical context of black men getting killed and the justice system meaning their killers get away without consequences, or the perspective of a black mother (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46979745/vp/52467630#52473393) (related text article (http://www.thenation.com/article/167085/what-its-be-problem#axzz2YrZNmXaP)).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EveryZig on July 16, 2013, 09:12:05 am
I have not really been following the Zimmerman trial, so I just heard about it secondhand last night. Apparently the prosecution was so completely incompetent that even my Fox News watching step-uncle (who is a trial lawyer) said that they should be disbarred.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 16, 2013, 11:13:21 am
Quote from: Vector on July 14, 2013, 09:46:03 pm
The truth is that I think that the whole smirking in court and showing no signs of remorse thing is kind of gross and an indicator that he was probably guilty, whether or not all of the "hard" signs were there.

Not saying that, if you get down to the nitty-gritty, they should have found him guilty.  But if you're going "haha I killed a dude" then that makes me feel somewhat worse about it.
Suddenly I remember...
Quote from: Tarran on June 16, 2010, 02:46:23 am

Quote
I agree with him, though. Living in a world where people are convicted of crimes based on popular demand and/or the emperor's will, rather than evidence?
I meant CLEARLY a criminal. You know, the guys who laugh at police, smile in court and such? I wouldn't charge people who are NOT guilty, you misunderstood what I mean by clearly.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 16, 2013, 01:27:56 pm
So McDonalds are going into the financial advice business. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/07/16/mcdonalds-own-mcbudget-shows-workers-underpaid/)
Quote
“They start by assuming that you’re working two jobs,” Matthew Yglesias notes of the sample budget, which is based on income from roughly 60 hours a week, “and then that your monthly budget doesn’t include money for extravagances such as heat.”
Note that they also seem to be ignoring gas/transport costs (they do include car payments and insurance, at a stunningly low rate that I'm sure McDonald's will be ensuring through subsidies and programs for their workers...), food, medicine (other than the, again, stunningly cheap health insurance that I'm again sure is part of an as-yet unannounced new company policy) or childcare. Those all seem to fall under their $800 a month spending money catch-all.

Interestingly they seem to have changed it since the first posts appeared. They are now showing $50 a month for heating and only $750 spending money to cover everything. Although the Spanish version only shows $30 heating. Weird that.

LGM have an original screenshot (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/07/the-mcdonalds-guide-to-living-on-its-wages) along with notes that the 60 hour week is an underestimate if the second job is minimum wage;
Quote
As Robyn Pennacchia (http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/202172/mcdonalds-suggested-budget-for-employees-shows-just-how-impossible-it-is-to-get-by-on-minimum-wage/) notes, that $1105–that’s assuming a 40-hour workweek. So McDonald’s is telling you to work another job, adding up to a mere 62 hour workweek if they live in Illinois, that land of moochers and takers. 74 hours if they are on the national minimum wage. Very Gilded Age. And when you work those 62 or 74 hours, you know what you don’t get? Heat.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 16, 2013, 01:39:52 pm
Their $90 electric cost is incredibly low as well, and their rent of $600 is below the average cost of a 1 bedroom apartment on the bad side of town, and their auto cost estimate is also incredibly low.

So yes, for a single person to barely survive, they have to maintain 2 full time jobs without scheduling conflicts. This is impossible considering that their manager at each job is likely to jerk them around and change schedules randomly. This means they can not get a full nights sleep due to commute times. And it means they live for nothing other than work. This is a guide for slavery.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on July 16, 2013, 01:50:05 pm
After all, capitalism is just a more advanced form of slavery, isn't it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 16, 2013, 01:52:58 pm
Quote from: Sergarr on July 16, 2013, 01:50:05 pm
After all, capitalism is just a more advanced form of slavery, isn't it?

It is when the concept of equitable exchange between informed actors is a promised illusion.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 16, 2013, 02:36:50 pm
Well, given some basic welfare it isn't - equitable exchange between informed factory owners, for example.

What I don't understand is why there still are so few criminals - prison seems to be preferrable to a life like this. Plus there's forms of crime that are very unlikely to get into trouble...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DWC on July 16, 2013, 02:40:47 pm
Well, I guess it goes without saying that people should'nt be planning on working as a McMinion until retirement anyways. I've lived off around 1000$/mo for about 2 years straight. 2000$/mo is easily affordable unless you are area with a high cost of living, then it might be prudent to move or get a better job if the minimum wages are not any higher.

This Mcbudget thing here assumes 800$ for spending money, 100$ cable bill and a 150$ car note. That's a lot of extra, but that's pretty bad for working 60 hours a week. I'd rather live in my car then spend that much of my time making fat people food.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 16, 2013, 02:44:26 pm
As someone who HAS lived out of his car for a year and a half to save money, seconded.

I can't really recommend it though, as it is either illegal or expensive in most states. But I'd be very tempted to go back to it if not for the family - I never understood the personal benefit of most of the shit people spend money on or why I should follow along, but I'm no longer just looking out for myself, so...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 16, 2013, 02:56:40 pm
Quote from: DWC on July 16, 2013, 02:40:47 pm
Well, I guess it goes without saying that people should'nt be planning on working as a McMinion until retirement anyways. I've lived off around 1000$/mo for about 2 years straight. 2000$/mo is easily affordable unless you are area with a high cost of living, then it might be prudent to move or get a better job if the minimum wages are not any higher.

This Mcbudget thing here assumes 800$ for spending money, 100$ cable bill and a 150$ car note. That's a lot of extra, but that's pretty bad for working 60 hours a week. I'd rather live in my car then spend that much of my time making fat people food.

That $100 cable/phone bill. Basically the sum total of this persons budgeted communication ability, that is a single smartphone bill, or the introductory rate for home cable/phone/internet (the normal non-introductory rate pushes that amount to around $150 or more).

That $150 car note is not an extra, if you expect to work you must have reliable transportation, and $150 a month is rather low, even for an old beater with no "note"; breakdowns, service and repair will easily cost that much or more. That $800 a month includes has to cover food, medicine, medical co-pays, clothing, cleaning supplies, gas, entertainment, childcare, etc. It is not enough, not even close.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DWC on July 16, 2013, 03:14:28 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 16, 2013, 02:56:40 pm
Quote from: DWC on July 16, 2013, 02:40:47 pm
Well, I guess it goes without saying that people should'nt be planning on working as a McMinion until retirement anyways. I've lived off around 1000$/mo for about 2 years straight. 2000$/mo is easily affordable unless you are area with a high cost of living, then it might be prudent to move or get a better job if the minimum wages are not any higher.

This Mcbudget thing here assumes 800$ for spending money, 100$ cable bill and a 150$ car note. That's a lot of extra, but that's pretty bad for working 60 hours a week. I'd rather live in my car then spend that much of my time making fat people food.

That $100 cable/phone bill. Basically the sum total of this persons budgeted communication ability, that is a single smartphone bill, or the introductory rate for home cable/phone/internet (the normal non-introductory rate pushes that amount to around $150 or more).

That $150 car note is not an extra, if you expect to work you must have reliable transportation, and $150 a month is rather low, even for an old beater with no "note"; breakdowns, service and repair will easily cost that much or more. That $800 a month includes has to cover food, medicine, medical co-pays, clothing, cleaning supplies, gas, entertainment, childcare, etc. It is not enough, not even close.

This example assumes a single person, so hopefully there are not any kids to spend on. I make plenty of money now and I still own a pre-paid 'dumb' phone. I think I buy a 45$ card once every two months. Your phone might be smart with a contract but spending 150/mo and signing a contract for a phone is dumb. Anyways, buying a 1000$ beater from somebody with cash is always better then getting a loan. I've never owned a beater that needed 150$/mo to maintain it. The whole point of a beater car is that it doesn't matter if shit breaks on it, so long as you do basic maintenance to keep it running and to keep you from getting pulled over, it's all you need. If it quits working entirely within a year, buy another 1000$ car. It's still cheaper then 150$/mo car note.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 16, 2013, 03:19:05 pm
and if it stops working in 9 months then you had to budget at least $150 a month to make certain you have that $1000 to replace it. Not counting the cost of lost workdays from when it breaks down on you.

The average person has more than 1 child. You can't simply assume they do not exist when budgeting because it is convenient.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 16, 2013, 03:34:49 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 16, 2013, 02:56:40 pm
That $100 cable/phone bill. Basically the sum total of this persons budgeted communication ability, that is a single smartphone bill, or the introductory rate for home cable/phone/internet (the normal non-introductory rate pushes that amount to around $150 or more).

Who the hell would pay this much for this sort of thing? It's again the disconnect between the upper class and the lower class sensibilities. You can can purchase a good smartphone (not even a crappy one, but a good one) for a hundred bucks (fully paid for, no contract), and get unlimited text and internet for 35 a month on an as-needed basis.

That's still a good chunk of change for a person who isn't making a lot of money, and if you want home cable/internet that will probably add another 50 or 60 dollars on top of it (assuming again that you are getting good internet, not cheapo internet) and bring you up to a hundred dollars, but honestly isn't needed anyway.

It would be nice if tools ostensibly trying to help people with fiscal responsibility would put some effort into informing people that they are overpaying for stuff, of course, and guiding them to less ripoff alternatives. The site is basically a bunch of empty advice and even then they can't reasonably balance their numbers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 16, 2013, 03:53:40 pm
I'd say that home internet is a must, even if you have a smartphone. Throttling and 'fair usage' limits are pretty much universal even on 'unlimited' plans, and phones are still very limited compared to home computers in what sites and applications can be run - especially affordable phones. Not to mention that mobiles are easily lost, broken or stolen and losing your only means of internet and phone access can be catastrophic.

A home phone line is still required for some things. It's also a factor that can be taken into account when calculating your credit score, something that can be vital if you have a low income.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 16, 2013, 04:23:47 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on July 16, 2013, 02:36:50 pm
What I don't understand is why there still are so few criminals - prison seems to be preferrable to a life like this.
It's not.

Prison will also pretty much completely fuck any chance you have of a future, here in the states. Could say that there's no future anyway, but... yeah. Ex-con is locked out of a hell of a lot in this society, or at least has to deal with much higher barriers of entry.

Unless you plan on spending the rest of your life in prison and, well. For most people, in flat honesty, they'd probably be better off with lead twixt the eyes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 16, 2013, 04:27:10 pm
Quote from: palsch on July 16, 2013, 03:53:40 pm
I'd say that home internet is a must, even if you have a smartphone.
Quote from: palsch on July 16, 2013, 03:53:40 pm
A home phone line is still required for some things. It's also a factor that can be taken into account when calculating your credit score, something that can be vital if you have a low income.

I don't know anyone with a low income who actually has a home phone now, oddly enough.

But if you've got home internet you don't need a smartphone. And you don't really need home internet, at least if you are somewhere in the US where you have free internet at the library. (assuming you have transportation to the library, but that's kinda the whole point of what I'm trying to say here - there are plenty of perfectly acceptable tradeoffs you can make, and paying the full amount for all of these various things is totally unnecessary)

You can live on a McDonalds salary, and even make progress towards a better future assuming you aren't already buried in debt (if you are, you're fucked), the people who built that sight simply have no idea how to do so, and so can't really help you out there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DWC on July 16, 2013, 09:40:19 pm
Yeah, you can live off minimum wage and still bank money. You just can't expect an upper-middle class lifestyle or try to raise 6 kids, make payments on two new cars and a boat and a big house and the smartest phone money can buy either.

It's not hard to make enough money to survive on and still have your freedom. If you'd rather live in prison in exchange for food and shelter then make 500-1000$ a month then that's your prerogative, I'd rather live in a car and raid dumpsters and have all kinds of unmedicated health problems then be in prison, personally. I also don't think the whole of society should have a prison type system that exchanges freedom for material security either. Prison system is full of other failures that value material objects and social status over individual freedom, have it if that's where your priorities lie, it's not hard to sign up for a deal like that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 16, 2013, 09:47:04 pm
Seriously, $800 a month for working not one, but two jobs? Please tell me I misinterpreted that.
Over here, assuming you are providing evidence that you are actively searching for work and don't turn down a reasonable offer, government assistance is a little over $900 a month, and that is in a nation with a better public health care scheme on top. And even that is going off the bare minimum it takes to survive without luxuries or savings.

Granted, our much higher minimum wage means daily commodities like food are more expensive to cover it, but for the items that really take a chunk from your budget such as rent and utilities we are about on par.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DWC on July 16, 2013, 10:01:36 pm
Quote from: Max White on July 16, 2013, 09:47:04 pm
Seriously, $800 a month for working not one, but two jobs? Please tell me I misinterpreted that.
Over here, assuming you are providing evidence that you are actively searching for work and don't turn down a reasonable offer, government assistance is a little over $900 a month, and that is in a nation with a better public health care scheme on top. And even that is going off the bare minimum it takes to survive without luxuries or savings.

Granted, our much higher minimum wage means daily commodities like food are more expensive to cover it, but for the items that really take a chunk from your budget such as rent and utilities we are about on par.

Yeah rent is brutal. I have no idea why rent is always so frigging expensive. If there is any kind of neo-feudal fiefdom peasant-exploiting deal with a free-market it's the high rent. I'm guessing it's a product of building codes and zoning and everything else that makes construction and property expensive, but seriously landlords are aptly named and they must be making ridicious profits from what they charge for rent.

My goal is to buy up some inexpensive property and build some prefab metal hovel on it, so I just got property taxes. A place valued at 20k would have 200$/yr for taxes and it'd be break-even within 4 years compared to even dirt-cheap rental property. Only problem I suppose would be the municipality complaining about my hovel not being good enough for them and wanting to evict me or something, idk.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 16, 2013, 10:10:53 pm
Rent is expensive because buildings are expensive, and because buildings are expensive the interest on the loan is expensive. Banks tend to have a much juicier profit margin than landlords. Couple debt interest with maintenance, insurance, and building depreciation, and you might find your money better spent elsewhere... Maybe. Obviously it is a profitable exercise, as people do it, but it isn't the free cash cow you read about in finance rags. The numbers can easily be skewed by the cashed up who can borrow larger amounts at lower interest to the rest of us.

Point is that if you want cheaper rental properties, you need lower interest rates, and that would require banks to actually act competitively and in the consumers best interest. So don't hold your breath.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 17, 2013, 12:04:08 am
Camp for gender non-conforming boys =) (http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2013/07/15/_you_are_you_looks_at_a_gender_nonconforming_camp_for_boys_photos.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_share_blogpost)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on July 17, 2013, 12:17:21 am
Quote from: Vector on July 17, 2013, 12:04:08 am
Camp for gender non-conforming boys =) (http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2013/07/15/_you_are_you_looks_at_a_gender_nonconforming_camp_for_boys_photos.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_share_blogpost)
That... actually looks pretty damn nifty.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 17, 2013, 05:10:53 am
Quote from: DWC on July 16, 2013, 09:40:19 pm
If you'd rather live in prison in exchange for food and shelter then make 500-1000$ a month then that's your prerogative
Yeah, but what I gathered from the thread was that it's apparently normal to work ten hours a day, six days a week and practically out of a car. Maybe not eating out of dumpsters, but with only 50$/month for heating (30$/month if you're Hispanic). That seemed to make prison a viable alternative.

Quote from: Frumple on July 16, 2013, 04:23:47 pm
For most people, in flat honesty, they'd probably be better off with lead twixt the eyes.
They might be, but they themselves wouldn't see it that way. The will to live is incredibly strong - just look at Aron Ralston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aron_Ralston).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 17, 2013, 05:47:30 am
Well... yeah, when given the choice between freezing to death and prison, there's folks out there that do petty crime/minor felonies to get somewhere warm for winter. It pretty much wrecks any chance they may have had going forward, and possibly ruins them in the process, but sure.

Given pretty much any other option, though, most people are going to take the other option. Prison in the states is not a good place to be, and when/if you get out of it, it makes whatever's left of your life much worse off. Even if it means sixty hour work weeks and living half or better your life out of a car. Possibly even especially then, because doing prison time would bloody close to guarantee there's no chance you're going to get better than that. May be a little exaggeration in that, but... not much.

I know solid handful of few ex-cons, some of them family, and they're part of the demographic my mother teaches. In the states, if you have absolutely any bloody choice whatsoever between prison/a felony record and something else, you almost certainly take the something else. Prison is a viable alternative IFF the other option is death... and even then, you're gambling on a fate potentially worse.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 17, 2013, 06:11:31 am
Yeah... the abuse of solitary confinement in our prisons... *shudders*

From what I've read, that is a fate worse than death.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 17, 2013, 06:15:20 am
Quote from: Frumple on July 17, 2013, 05:47:30 am
IFF
Part of the reason why I love these forums.

I didn't know that prisons in the US are that bad - in Europe, you know prison's rough, but you never hear those kinds of horror stories.
Anyone here familiar with the (a) European penal system?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 17, 2013, 07:44:06 am
I can tell you about the Swedish (and generally Nordic, they're pretty alike though I'm uncertain on specifics for the other four) one. In Sweden, it's not the prison's that's fucked up, it's the jails. Somebody mentioned abuse of solitary confinement, I believe? Yeah, Swedish law can keep you in jail for basically as long as they want, provided the case is still ongoing. They can also opt for solitary confinement if they believe you might somehow interfere with the case in some way. This is a technique that has been used to force admission of guilt before. Luckily, admission of guilt is basically meaningless in the Swedish court system, unlike how I think it is in the Common Law-based systems.

Also, yeah, it's also lucky Swedish police and law is generally a lot nicer than, say, American ones. Abuses do still happen, of course, and even if they're uncommon they're still horrible when they do.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 17, 2013, 08:02:55 am
Australia treats its petty criminals pretty well. Minimum security is similar to what you might expect from a backpackers lodge. Your not going to be getting a maid to clean your room, but the carpet is soft enough, or so I have been informed from a first hand source. I can't speak much for higher security, but it certainly isn't an issue of debate, so either it is hidden very well or a reasonable standard is maintained. After Stanford, I'm willing to say it could be either.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 17, 2013, 08:37:59 am
From my own experience the worst part about being poor is that there's no obvious way out of it by yourself. Even if you can save up some cash it takes a long time to save up enough to take a chance and no chance is guaranteed. It doesn't help that our society has a lot of laws that disallow people from taking any sort of risk to improve their situation while only providing alternatives guaranteed to lock those they claim to "help" into poverty. I spent a lot of time hating the government, who seemed to see me as an undesirable and just wanted me to go away while  making everything about my life harder ostensibly for my own good. I still strongly suspect a lot of that legislation actually exists explicitly to keep the poor poor - I didn't want to believe people were that cruel but I experienced that attitude personally too many times to discount it. 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 17, 2013, 08:46:23 am
And that's how republicans convince the poor to vote against their own interests...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 17, 2013, 08:57:03 am
Quote from: Helgoland on July 17, 2013, 06:15:20 am
I didn't know that prisons in the US are that bad - in Europe, you know prison's rough, but you never hear those kinds of horror stories.
Anyone here familiar with the (a) European penal system?
Well, it strongly varies between nations. From what I've heard, the Scandinavian prisons are fairly alright, with decent options of rehabilitation.
Don't know much about the UK system, except that they apparently invented the private prison*.
Belgium currently suffers from severe overpopulation. (Ranging between 150%-200% of normal capacity), so we're currently exporting prisoners to the Netherlands, and investing in alternative solutions. (Which sometimes causes upheaval when certain (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Martin_(affaire_Dutroux))  prisoners (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Dutroux) apply for early release, though with electronic monitoring)

Don't know about the rest of Europe. It's generally better than the US though. Entirely different focus. The US system is focused on keeping as much people locked up for as long as possible, while much of Europe strives for some form of social reintegration.


*Which might be the number one person of the UK system. Private prisons + the ability to make your prisoners work for 0.19 cent/ hour = Prison industrial complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison%E2%80%93industrial_complex)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 17, 2013, 10:33:32 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 17, 2013, 08:46:23 am
And that's how republicans convince the poor to vote against their own interests...

AND how the Democrats to convince the poor to vote against their best interests. I've never seen evidence that either party has the interests of the poor at heart. I live in a state that's absolutely dominated by Democrats, and nearly every social effort still manages to get "compromised" until it's worth less than nothing for the poor. To most politicians, the poor are not constituents. They are problems.

You want an easy, straightforward piece of legislation that would greatly benefit the poor? Ban companies from charging their employees money to receive and spend their paychecks, a growing predatory practice that makes life just a little bit harder. And yet there doesn't seem to be the slightest interest in actually doing this - instead, regulations are passed to "protect businesses" by making it impossible for a poor person to work without working for one of these abusive corporations.

This is why we have such large chunks of welfare that are emphatically denied to the poor while being proffered to the middle class. This is why there is general bipartisan agreement that the most important goal when dealing with the poor is to keep them invisible, and the second most important goal is to make them somebody else's problem (while looking like they are actually being sympathetic, if at all possible).

The thing is, the Republicans are often CORRECT when they claim that nothing, an absence of government effort, would be better than the alternative being proposed. They often leave out the fact that they are often a major reason why the alternative is so bad.

The Republicans are assholes, and the Democrats are either assholes or idiots who honestly think their fuckups are supposed to help.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DWC on July 17, 2013, 11:04:03 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 17, 2013, 08:37:59 am
From my own experience the worst part about being poor is that there's no obvious way out of it by yourself. Even if you can save up some cash it takes a long time to save up enough to take a chance and no chance is guaranteed. It doesn't help that our society has a lot of laws that disallow people from taking any sort of risk to improve their situation while only providing alternatives guaranteed to lock those they claim to "help" into poverty. I spent a lot of time hating the government, who seemed to see me as an undesirable and just wanted me to go away while  making everything about my life harder ostensibly for my own good. I still strongly suspect a lot of that legislation actually exists explicitly to keep the poor poor - I didn't want to believe people were that cruel but I experienced that attitude personally too many times to discount it.

There are ways out of poverty, a lot of them are non-obvious and it's entirely up to you to figure something out.

Like you said, there is a disconnect between upper-middle class and working class mentalities. Why you'll be some kind of social pariah if you are living in your car, people judging you on what you wear, the shit you own, cops endlessly harassing people not conforming to the unwritten laws of middle class sensibilities.

Also, they don't need legislation designed to keep people poor. There will be 'losers' in capitalism and any other kind of economic system. Although things like car insurance, tags, all the little nickle-and-dime shit. Zoning laws, HOA's, ordinances and little things that try to force people to conceal their poverty or fine the shit out of them if they don't. These things impact poorer people more then anything else. That doesn't seem like a government conspiracy to me though, it's a product of the materialistic cookie-cutter suburban middle class culture in America. The kinds of people that go to municipal council meeting to complain about shit not conforming.

Yeah, they'd like the poor to be invisible, but the system isn't so inequitable that it's really that difficult to escape poverty, I've done it. That is assuming you haven't made alot of mistakes with your credit history or criminal record. Then you are fuuuucked, especially if you have both.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 17, 2013, 11:18:37 am
Like I said, it's definitely possible if you haven't gotten yourself into debt or had criminal problems or suffered medical issues or made any enemies.

But every one of those ways out requires you to be lucky and continue to avoid all three of those problems, which gets markedly more difficult when you are poor, and not everyone is lucky. you've admitted yourself that succeeding when poor basically requires you to break the law, and while most of those probably won't result in a criminal record, they certainly can if someone with a bit of power decides they don't like you.

There is only one relatively quick and fairly reliable way out of poverty - that is, to sign yourself into slavery by taking out a whole heap of debt and invest it into supporting yourself while building your skills in the hopes you can get a better job. (The route I took, by taking out big-time student loans to go to state college - even though my grades were good enough to get a scholarship and I worked through the experience while living out of my car or cheap apartments with no heat or electricity, I still ended up with quite a bit of debt. I could have done better, but it would have required me to know about the better options, which isn't exactly easy)

And that seems less likely to succeed as time goes on, and you're usually gambling with limited knowledge to accomplish even that.

Quote
There are ways out of poverty, a lot of them are non-obvious and it's entirely up to you to figure something out.
If you've been in poverty for a while, your resources for "figuring them out" are pretty limited. A lot of people in poverty don't even get the government assistance that might help them because they honestly don't know about it. I think education, free and widely available and made obvious to those who need it, is one of the best uses of our government we could use to help the poor. There are ways out of poverty - most of them hard, none of them guaranteed, the best all but unknown to those who could best make use of them - but they exist.

Saying "they'll just have to figure it out on their own" is pretty simplistic, because there's always going to be a lot of guesswork when you're operating from such a disadvantaged position, and mistakes are costly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on July 17, 2013, 11:36:08 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 17, 2013, 10:33:32 am
The Republicans are assholes, and the Democrats are either assholes or idiots who honestly think their fuckups are supposed to help.

Obligatory Lewis Black: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZGk_wVgq_0

It is often said that Democrats and Republicans are basically just representing the same interests (same thing, different name).  In reality though, they overlap on a lot of stuff so Democrats seem to end up mostly 'Caring Republicans who are progressive on certain social issues'... and yet still have a few real progressives, which end up being labeled as the 'fringe' aka 'same as those crazy fundies from the right'.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately, if you look at Republicans losing elections lately), the Republicans are pushing crazy right harder and faster, so the Democrats are also swinging further right and basically it leaves us with a choice between evil and bad (with some random good stuff).  In our current system though, its pretty rare that any large vote for third parties work, and therefore voting anyone independent (except in very specific circumstances, say, Bernie Sanders, who has all my respect) just elects the other party when theres a moderately strong independent foil on either side.... I can only hope eventually the whole party system explodes on itself while in the meantime new voters / youngins get taught (as facts have a liberal bias, the more education the better).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 17, 2013, 11:40:02 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 17, 2013, 10:33:32 am
The Republicans are assholes
Hey! Many assholes I know would be offended to be compared to the Republicans!

As for the Democrats... They are the progressive, the more liberal party of the two, that's for sure. But I believe they suffer from similar problems: Lobbyism, reelection pressure, having to respond to crazy right-wing fucknuts (AKA tea-party, which I gather is unpopular with many Republicans too) and so on. That all makes it hard to do actual politics; but at least the Democrats are not in the grips of the likes of Norquist.

For information on the inner workings of the Republican party and the position of  the American people on the left-right spectrum please read "The Conscience of a Liberal" by Paul Krugmann and ask your doctor or pharmacist. (Seriously, it's a good - and very polemic! - book.)

NINJAEDIT:
Quote from: Moghjubar on July 17, 2013, 11:36:08 am
as facts have a liberal bias
Three thumbs up to that! :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DWC on July 17, 2013, 03:08:36 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 17, 2013, 11:18:37 am
Like I said, it's definitely possible if you haven't gotten yourself into debt or had criminal problems or suffered medical issues or made any enemies.

But every one of those ways out requires you to be lucky and continue to avoid all three of those problems, which gets markedly more difficult when you are poor, and not everyone is lucky. you've admitted yourself that succeeding when poor basically requires you to break the law, and while most of those probably won't result in a criminal record, they certainly can if someone with a bit of power decides they don't like you.

There is only one relatively quick and fairly reliable way out of poverty - that is, to sign yourself into slavery by taking out a whole heap of debt and invest it into supporting yourself while building your skills in the hopes you can get a better job. (The route I took, by taking out big-time student loans to go to state college - even though my grades were good enough to get a scholarship and I worked through the experience while living out of my car or cheap apartments with no heat or electricity, I still ended up with quite a bit of debt. I could have done better, but it would have required me to know about the better options, which isn't exactly easy)

And that seems less likely to succeed as time goes on, and you're usually gambling with limited knowledge to accomplish even that.

Quote
There are ways out of poverty, a lot of them are non-obvious and it's entirely up to you to figure something out.
If you've been in poverty for a while, your resources for "figuring them out" are pretty limited. A lot of people in poverty don't even get the government assistance that might help them because they honestly don't know about it. I think education, free and widely available and made obvious to those who need it, is one of the best uses of our government we could use to help the poor. There are ways out of poverty - most of them hard, none of them guaranteed, the best all but unknown to those who could best make use of them - but they exist.

Saying "they'll just have to figure it out on their own" is pretty simplistic, because there's always going to be a lot of guesswork when you're operating from such a disadvantaged position, and mistakes are costly.

Really, I didn't think it was that hard to figure out what to do, I spent a lot of time at the public library on the internet and I went and got a decent paying job that didn't require much education, but I had a pretty clean slate to work with. If I was married or had kids, had too many felonies or DWI's, drug addiction or serious health problems or an extremely derogatory credit history or whatever I'd be so screwed right now. Yeah, it's no joke you have to be extremely wary around police or extremely clean if you are broke, they will always want to harass and dig around until they find something.

I've never been in any kind of substantial debt, I'm debt-adverse. Credit for opening a business or something, not for personal uses. I spent my own money and some grant money to go to college and it was a complete waste of time of money and I immensely regret going to college. The degree led to an entry level position that paid less then what I made driving taxis it required 6 months of internship! So I know what you mean about not always being able to 'figure it out' because as far as I could tell, I had really good prospects but the whole thing was a massive mistake and I'm lucky to have not gone into debt over it, but I did piss away 4 years worth of savings.

I don't really believe in college for economical mobility. It consumes way too much of your time and money and the value of a typical BA or AA degree is very low in terms of getting you a job. A degree is no promise of employment. A better bet would be a 2 year technical degree in something with more obvious demand. Even something simple like getting a CDL or learned a vocation like welding. These jobs pay more then what a teacher makes holding a BA and are significantly less expensive and time consuming. Just my opinion, universities are for kids with rich parents, but your results may vary.

But yeah, there are plenty of opportunities to stop being poor. Unless you made some mistakes and nobody wants to hire you because of them. Too easy to slip up and have your opportunities vanish instantly over something dumb like a DUI or having a baby.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 17, 2013, 07:00:48 pm
I really am surprised you guys are still going strong without a HECS (Higher Education Contribution Scheme). Basically when you want tertiary study, you can take out a loan from the government to pay for it, it is zero interest forever, and you repay with a part of your income once you are earning over a certain amount.
You kind of need a system where people can become educated. Depending on visas for those technical skills is less and less sustainable in a world where those skills can be sold anywhere.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 17, 2013, 07:19:12 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on July 17, 2013, 11:40:02 am
Hey! Many assholes I know would be offended to be compared to the Republicans!

As for the Democrats... They are the progressive, the more liberal party of the two, that's for sure. But I believe they suffer from similar problems: Lobbyism, reelection pressure, having to respond to crazy right-wing fucknuts (AKA tea-party, which I gather is unpopular with many Republicans too) and so on. That all makes it hard to do actual politics; but at least the Democrats are not in the grips of the likes of Norquist.

For information on the inner workings of the Republican party and the position of  the American people on the left-right spectrum please read "The Conscience of a Liberal" by Paul Krugmann and ask your doctor or pharmacist. (Seriously, it's a good - and very polemic! - book.)

I have said this before, but the Democrat Party in the USA is very similar to the British Conservative Party (almost identical, they even share the same party colours), but with the unholy addition of a strong leftist lobby that is frequently impatient and at odds with the reactionary policies of their leadership. I suppose that makes it a bit like our Labour Party, except more disfunctional.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 17, 2013, 07:45:54 pm
Structurally, if not ideologically, they are closer to the pre-Clegg Lib Dems.

From their founding till the 2010 election the Lib Dems were a collection of very effective regional parties, each with their own agendas. They dominated local and by-elections with such flexibility combined with national fund raising and volunteers who could be focused on areas where they could win. There were national level ideological movements within the party, but these didn't force the local groups to fall in line and the movements were often contradictory. That's why you had the old school socialist groups alongside the Orange Book libertarians who took over the leadership and ended up in coalition with Cameron's Conservative leadership (who are far closer to Orange Book Lib Dems than to their own back benches).

Clegg manage to make his brand popular nation wide, but this didn't translate to the Lib Dems traditional focused votes and may have even hurt the local campaigns when you compare the national manifesto to their regional promises and outlooks.

Both American parties are coalitions of regional parties in a similar but larger scale model. Combine that with a very weak whip compared to the UK and you have such a wide range of 'Democrats' that it's almost absurd to use the same label for them. But you can't afford to split the party on a national level and trying to enforce greater party discipline would be catastrophic on a local level. Imagine if the progressive or black caucus were able to make Blue Dogs run on their policies in the south.

Then you have how much weaker the American leadership is when it comes to legislation in the US. The president and even House/Senate leadership have very limited powers to force through legislation when you compare to the British government. Any bill that the back bencher's aren't willing to literally dissolve the government over can be passed in the UK. In the US any bill that you can't get a supermajority of senators behind is not even worth proposing anymore. So suddenly you are relying on those regions not just for seats being filled but also for policy enforcement. And you get gridlock.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DWC on July 17, 2013, 08:31:37 pm
Quote from: Max White on July 17, 2013, 07:00:48 pm
I really am surprised you guys are still going strong without a HECS (Higher Education Contribution Scheme). Basically when you want tertiary study, you can take out a loan from the government to pay for it, it is zero interest forever, and you repay with a part of your income once you are earning over a certain amount.
You kind of need a system where people can become educated. Depending on visas for those technical skills is less and less sustainable in a world where those skills can be sold anywhere.

Well, the US government does have the Pell Grant, which I've used. There is other scholarships and government grants and low/no interest loans out there, but the Pell Grant is available to basically anybody that's broke and wants to go to college. It's honestly not a whole lot, but it's free and easy to get. What shocks me is the prices of tuition and the prices of textbooks in the first place. But I've already said how I feel about debt anyways.

I'd wonder if a scheme like your country has would be a good thing, or tuition would suddenly quintuple in price with 500$ textbooks to fleece all the money going their way or something. I'd like to see some alternative form of accreditation for degrees. In the USA you can do what's called a CLEP, you do a test and are awarded credits as if you actually attended the relevant course. This way, you could just teach yourself subjects you are good at and take classes for ones you are crap at. More alternatives to traditional university and all it's binge drinking and expenses.

You are also correct with the price of rent, I've worked construction and probably should have known it depends mostly on banks, interest rates and availability up the supply chain for building material so construction costs are not constant. I do know I lucked out with an 320$/mo apartment with a utility stipend and endless air filter replacements like every 3 damn days and it was a decent place, even had security guards and a front gate.  Some nebulous massive corporation that was apparently struggling to rent these apartments out right after the real estate implosion/ world economic depression. I think I've been spoiled because I lived there paying such cheap rent for nice digs for so long I forget that shit isn't normal. It also leads me to believe they can probably make a profit with low rent, plenty of services and unoccupied units.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 17, 2013, 08:50:38 pm
Yeah, that's cheap - i was paying about that much for a place with no heat or electricity I was sharing with a few other people.

More expensive than living out of the van though, which was still the best place I've lived. I miss that van. Spent a chunk of the money that WOULD have gone to rent each month making it a pretty nice little place to live. Didn't even mind the subzero winters so much.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 17, 2013, 08:56:11 pm
I imagine with a van some utilities might be a little bit of an issue. Power, water, internet, how do you even?
Short of living in a caravan park, that is, and you know what people are like with their pride. They would rather be cold and dirty than live in any sort of close community without large fences to keep everybody out.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DWC on July 17, 2013, 09:13:35 pm
Well, I know a guy that lived in his van while working in Hawaii. Cost of living is high and property values are so high, that plenty of people like himself were working full-time jobs and were homeless. Only affordable housing on the island was lots built where the lava floe is. But Hawaii is nice year round, it's always mild and tolerable. That isn't normal though I have no idea how you'd survive in van when it's 40C outside in Texas or -40C in Alaska or something.

I never actually had to resort to living in my truck, but I planned it out because I knew it might happen. I read this guy's blog and he did so and his advice made complete and perfect sense to me.

http://guide2homelessness.blogspot.com/ (http://guide2homelessness.blogspot.com/)

This guy just had a regular family car for the sake of hiding the fact he's homeless and covered it with a tarp when he was sleeping. Nobody but homeless people have a creepy van with curtains and solar panels as a daily driver and nobody hires people driving such a rig to work.

So what you do is get a gym membership, because they are fairly inexpensive, you can loiter there, take showers, store some things, change, do personal hygiene, ect. Public library has internet. Water, I mean you can get in either of these places.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 17, 2013, 09:42:02 pm
Quote from: Max White on July 17, 2013, 08:56:11 pm
I imagine with a van some utilities might be a little bit of an issue. Power, water, internet, how do you even?
Short of living in a caravan park, that is, and you know what people are like with their pride. They would rather be cold and dirty than live in any sort of close community without large fences to keep everybody out.

I have no shame, but caravan parks are either expensive or illegal. I did end up spending a week at a campsite while dodging police (I had a spot I purchased for like 30 dollars a month for overnight parking, but the police would force you out despite your valid permit if they realized you were living there) but it's not really an issue. Water is in jugs, and you get it from a sink from a variety of places - library, job, gym. Gym membership certainly makes the whole exercise a lot more pleasant.

Most cars have power, though I barely ever used mine - to charge my cheapo (but long battery life and low battery use) phone and the temp battery for my flashlight, and occasionally for heat was I feeling particularly lazy. There's not really a whole lot you need power for that can't be managed off a small rechargeable battery. I liked not being exposed to time-wasting luxuries constantly, it was very relaxing, so lack of power and internet were positives in my opinion. If I wanted to go online, I'd hit the library or internet cafe like, you know, a normal person, instead of your average entitled first world upper/middle class person. :P

A cheapo chemical toilet install was a nice early addition, cost... 80 bucks, maybe? Plus like 5 dollars a month for the chemicals? Still, not bad.

I don't actually consider myself having been homeless during this period, to be honest. I know what it's like to be homeless, and this wasn't it - I HAD a home. It was the only place that's actually felt like home for me over the last... seven years? I lived out of that van for two years, and it had everything I could have wanted, it was cozy, it was personal, it was mine.

I don't know why I would have been considered homeless, but someone living out of an apartment wouldn't be - I had a home all to myself, they just have a couple rooms someone is letting them use until a better offer comes along, but which they have no control over. I certainly feel more homeless now than I did then, living out of what is honestly a nice apartment but it's not the same as having your own place.

Quote
That isn't normal though I have no idea how you'd survive in van when it's 40C outside in Texas or -40C in Alaska or something.
The heat is BY FAR the worst. The solution to cold is a good thermal sleeping bag, a reflective blanket, and then some thick blankets/rags/sheets/whatever else to pile on top of yourself. It also means you can actually buy and keep chilled food by storing it in a container under the vehicle and not worrying about it instantly going bad.

And then you praise the weather when it snows because it is amazing insulation and keeps you so warm inside. Getting snowed in was basically the best.

But heat? Bluh. There's no good way to deal with heat. It's just bad solutions and worse solutions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 18, 2013, 10:06:42 am
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/aaron-osmond-mandatory-education_n_3612150.html

Are you even kidding me?

So by his insane logic education makes parents not care about their kids and by taking away education, parents won't be able to pawn their kids off on the schools. Granted, lots of parents expect the schools to babysit their kids, but this can't be the answer.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ross Vernal on July 18, 2013, 02:40:45 pm
This just might be me, but I consider the Republicans to be the extreme right and the Democrats to be the right-center.

The only leftist parties in the US are third parties, and people constantly perpetuate the circular logic of "Third parties don't win because people don't vote for them, therefore you shouldn't vote for them."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 18, 2013, 02:44:23 pm
Naah, left and right are relative terms.

Otherwise you'd have a hard time describing German politics - they all are alike! The big ones, at least.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 03:02:23 pm
Quote from: Ross Vernal on July 18, 2013, 02:40:45 pm
This just might be me, but I consider the Republicans to be the extreme right and the Democrats to be the right-center.

The only leftist parties in the US are third parties, and people constantly perpetuate the circular logic of "Third parties don't win because people don't vote for them, therefore you shouldn't vote for them."

U.S. democrats are left of center (and can go as far from the center as an individual decides to go) in U.S. terms, but in Europe I bet they're considered far right in many cases.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 18, 2013, 03:24:08 pm
That whole "left and right are relative terms" thing is a bit irritating, I find. It's quite a fashionable way of thinking, closely related to stuff like "democracy is a relative thing", you know, that little soundbyte that lets the Chinese get off with internet censorship and totalitarian government.

The leaders of the free world, if my memory doesn't fail me, stood up on several occasions and said that it's just a part of Chinese culture and that what is democratic and isn't is relative to the country, but that's utter nonsense. Left and right aren't relative terms when we aren't going by the standards of a particular nation, but politics all over the world. When ideas like socialism and communism still exist then no, the democrats are not left wing. They may not be popular ideologies in the USA but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 18, 2013, 03:31:01 pm
Left and right are relative terms insofar as trying to express the complexity of political nuances in a single scale is bound to be overly reductionist.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 18, 2013, 03:31:51 pm
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on July 18, 2013, 03:31:01 pm
Left and right are relative terms insofar as trying to express the complexity of political nuances in a single scale is bound to be overly reductionist.

But it's broad enough to fit the purpose we're putting it to right now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on July 18, 2013, 03:38:57 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on July 18, 2013, 03:31:51 pm
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on July 18, 2013, 03:31:01 pm
Left and right are relative terms insofar as trying to express the complexity of political nuances in a single scale is bound to be overly reductionist.

But it's broad enough to fit the purpose we're putting it to right now.

Sure, but it's also almost entirely useless for any actual usage.
Instead of describing American politics as a spectrum, you want to describe it as a blob. Errr, good job?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 03:39:31 pm
I remember on another forum, can't remember which one, I was talking to a Communist about the communist countries that exist or ever had existed.

First came the righteous defense of the nations, who were as always, doing what was best for the people, like throwing them into political prison camps, and mass-executing over 100 million of their own people altogether, or alternatively, inadvertently and brainlessly starving them to death with 5-year Plans for Failure and Great Leaps Backwards.

Well, after that he claimed that all of those countries weren't Communist, they were actually socialist.

:/ Okayyy....

That is true, I guess, as Communists are basically advanced socialists... (not sure if everyone agrees with that wording, but they do follow the same policies, believe the same things etc. etc. etc.)

Sorry, I'm confused. Is it generally accepted among Communists that those countries weren't "really" communist, or is it more common to simply try to defend the actions of them?

It's just that from talking to them and listening to what they say, I'm not sure I can tell... Some do both...  >_>

P.S.

Pleeeeeeasse don't rage at me or write a 5-page long essay, I just want a discussion. I guess I might be marching on forbidden territory or something, but... ah well, we'll see what happens (to my dead, bloated corpse[?]). ;)

Edit: I made it sound like the guy was actually defending the mass executions. Didn't mean to. He and the other people I was talking to were saying that they didn't happen.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 18, 2013, 03:41:01 pm
Quote from: Strife26 link=topic=103213.msg4415590#msg4415590
Sure, but it's also almost entirely useless for any actual usage.
Instead of describing American politics as a spectrum, you want to describe it as a blob. Errr, good job?

I don't see how I'm describing it as a blob.

In response to PatriotSaint, the countries that have followed Communist state-ideologies have never actually reached that golden state of Communism that all Communist parties sought. Instead they were always stuck in the Socialist stage of development.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 03:44:28 pm

"In response to PatriotSaint, the countries that have followed Communist state-ideologies have never actually reached that golden state of Communism that all Communist parties sought. Instead they were always stuck in the Socialist stage of development."
-Owlbread


Hmm... well, nobody ever has.

They do keep trying though, and it keeps ending up in lots of executions and prison camps.

It's like the very definition of insanity.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on July 18, 2013, 03:46:23 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 03:39:31 pm
I remember on another forum, can't remember which one, I was talking to a Communist about the communist countries that exist or ever had existed.

First came the righteous defense of the nations, who were as always, doing what was best for the people, like throwing them into political prison camps, and mass-executing over 100 million of their own people altogether, or alternatively, inadvertently and brainlessly starving them to death with 5-year Plans for Failure and Great Leaps Backwards.

Well, after that he claimed that all of those countries weren't Communist, they were actually socialist.

:/ Okayyy....

That is true, I guess, as Communists are basically advanced socialists... (not sure if everyone agrees with that wording, but they do follow the same policies, believe the same things etc. etc. etc.)

Sorry, I'm confused. Is it generally accepted among Communists that those countries weren't "really" communist, or is it more common to simply try to defend the actions of them?

It's just that from talking to them and listening to what they say, I'm not sure I can tell... Some do both...  >_>

P.S.

Pleeeeeeasse don't rage at me or write a 5-page long essay, I just want a discussion. I guess I might be marching on forbidden territory or something, but... ah well, we'll see what happens (to my dead, bloated corpse[?]). ;)

Communism in the hypothetical is a far cry from the communist countries that the world has seen. A true communism is a straight up Utopia. All the communisms we've seen have been centrally planned, authoritarian, disasters (except for modern China, which is certainly an interesting expiriememt)




Owlbread, trying to work American political parties into an international spectrum doesn't help look at issues within the country, because nation state politics does not care very much about what the Europeans are doing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 18, 2013, 03:47:03 pm
Now, now, quite a few attempts at the other end of the spectrum have ended the same way.

The thing is, they've all been big-time authoritarian as well on both sides.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 03:48:05 pm
So basically, Communism in practice is always different than Communism in theory.

China is in a transition stage from Communism to Capitalism, right?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 18, 2013, 03:48:40 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 18, 2013, 03:47:03 pm
Now, now, quite a few attempts at the other end of the spectrum have ended the same way.

The thing is, they've all been big-time authoritarian as well on both sides.

It's a bit like a big ring where the two extremes go so far round the circle they touch.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on July 18, 2013, 03:49:54 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 03:44:28 pm
They do keep trying though, and it keeps ending up in lots of executions and prison camps.

It's like the very definition of insanity.
Quote from: Strife26 on July 18, 2013, 03:46:23 pm

Communism in the hypothetical is a far cry from the communist countries that the world has seen. A true communism is a straight up Utopia. All the communisms we've seen have been centrally planned, authoritarian, disasters (except for modern China, which is certainly an interesting expiriememt)

I see what you did there, Strife!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 03:51:22 pm
Quote from: scrdest on July 18, 2013, 03:49:54 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 03:44:28 pm
They do keep trying though, and it keeps ending up in lots of executions and prison camps.

It's like the very definition of insanity.
Quote from: Strife26 on July 18, 2013, 03:46:23 pm

Communism in the hypothetical is a far cry from the communist countries that the world has seen. A true communism is a straight up Utopia. All the communisms we've seen have been centrally planned, authoritarian, disasters (except for modern China, which is certainly an interesting expiriememt)

I see what you did there, Strife!

Why didn't I see that?   ;D
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 18, 2013, 03:55:30 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 03:48:05 pm
China is in a transition stage from Communism to Capitalism, right?

China is a capitalistic state. The only thing still reminiscent of communism is the name. Their only legacy the single party state.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 18, 2013, 03:56:41 pm
Every time we've ever had an attempt at a communist country, it's been hijacked by totalitarian fucks. Take Lenin for example- He saw a chance to seize power for himself, and he took it. It's because whenever you have a communist revolution, the revolutionaries in question insist on setting up a dictatorship, thinking that they know best, even though they totally don't. It's called the "Vangaurd" - The idea that dictatorship by a bunch of revolutionaries will somehow end well. I really wish that just once, we could have an actual Democratic communist country. Like for example, if instead of having a second revolution and seizing power for himself, Lenin had let the February revolution stand, things might have turned out differently.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on July 18, 2013, 03:58:00 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 03:51:22 pm
Quote from: scrdest on July 18, 2013, 03:49:54 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 03:44:28 pm
They do keep trying though, and it keeps ending up in lots of executions and prison camps.

It's like the very definition of insanity.
Quote from: Strife26 on July 18, 2013, 03:46:23 pm

Communism in the hypothetical is a far cry from the communist countries that the world has seen. A true communism is a straight up Utopia. All the communisms we've seen have been centrally planned, authoritarian, disasters (except for modern China, which is certainly an interesting expiriememt)

I see what you did there, Strife!

Why didn't I see that?   ;D

What did I do?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 18, 2013, 03:59:40 pm
Quote from: Ross Vernal on July 18, 2013, 02:40:45 pm
This just might be me, but I consider the Republicans to be the extreme right and the Democrats to be the right-center.

The only leftist parties in the US are third parties, and people constantly perpetuate the circular logic of "Third parties don't win because people don't vote for them, therefore you shouldn't vote for them."
Both parties are big tent coalitions that compose multiple factions. The Republicans definitely carry the right-populists, theocrats, the Tea Party, and other such individuals, but they also have libertarian an centrist groups. Similarly, the Democrats range from conservative allies of convenience, to Blue Dogs, to traditional liberals, all the way to New England liberals and social democrats.

And you shouldn't vote for third parties outside of the local level. Not right now, anyway. Whom you should vote for is people amongst the major parties whom desire electoral reform that would allow the third parties to put up a fight (IRV and such).
Quote from: Owlbread on July 18, 2013, 03:24:08 pm
That whole "left and right are relative terms" thing is a bit irritating, I find. It's quite a fashionable way of thinking, closely related to stuff like "democracy is a relative thing", you know, that little soundbyte that lets the Chinese get off with internet censorship and totalitarian government.
The leaders of the free world, if my memory doesn't fail me, stood up on several occasions and said that it's just a part of Chinese culture and that what is democratic and isn't is relative to the country, but that's utter nonsense. Left and right aren't relative terms when we aren't going by the standards of a particular nation, but politics all over the world. When ideas like socialism and communism still exist then no, the democrats are not left wing. They may not be popular ideologies in the USA but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
It's not closely related at all.

Right and Left are relative terms when we are speaking of individual nations, because what defines the right and the left is the difference between what is and what could be. As this varies between nations, so must the right and left. While one could possibly be speaking of the global right and left, this is so hard to measure that it might as well be opinion. If you take every place on Earth into consideration, you could easily say that the USA is far-left and Europe has gone off the left end entirely into crazyland.

The China thing is something that is mostly said by China, not the free world. The lack of democratic fervor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_skepticism_of_democracy) amongst the Chinese is admittedly pretty famous though. Mind you, China does have a little bit of democracy, mostly local, that I personally expect to blossom into a full democratic system as the Chinese get more wealthy and less tolerant of government oppression.
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 03:39:31 pm
First came the righteous defense of the nations, who were as always, doing what was best for the people, like throwing them into political prison camps, and mass-executing over 100 million of their own people altogether, or alternatively, inadvertently and brainlessly starving them to death with 5-year Plans for Failure and Great Leaps Backwards.

Well, after that he claimed that all of those countries weren't Communist, they were actually socialist.

:/ Okayyy....

That is true, I guess, as Communists are basically advanced socialists... (not sure if everyone agrees with that wording, but they do follow the same policies, believe the same things etc. etc. etc.)

Sorry, I'm confused. Is it generally accepted among Communists that those countries weren't "really" communist, or is it more common to simply try to defend the actions of them?

It's just that from talking to them and listening to what they say, I'm not sure I can tell... Some do both...  >_>

P.S.

Pleeeeeeasse don't rage at me or write a 5-page long essay, I just want a discussion. I guess I might be marching on forbidden territory or something, but... ah well, we'll see what happens (to my dead, bloated corpse[?]). ;)

Edit: I made it sound like the guy was actually defending the mass executions. Didn't mean to. He and the other people I was talking to were saying that they didn't happen.
It is important to remember that communism is very much a utopian ideology while capitalism is a pragmatic one. This is not to say that one is better than the other, but that the mindset of the two diverges at a very basic level. Indeed, one could just as accurately say that democracy is a utopian ideology while autocracy is a pragmatic one.

Communism is considered, in relevant philosophy, to be the state of total revolution that is supposed to follow the demise of non-communist regimes in the world revolution. With no external foes remaining and internal foes (supposed to have been) subsumed into the proletariat, humanity will be able to do away with the concept of a state entirely and exist as a brotherhood of men, all equal, all working for the common good and not for a few powerful men...forever, basically. Or at least that is how Marx described it. Like I said, utopian ideology, almost an early sci-fi.
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 03:44:28 pm

"In response to PatriotSaint, the countries that have followed Communist state-ideologies have never actually reached that golden state of Communism that all Communist parties sought. Instead they were always stuck in the Socialist stage of development."
-Owlbread


Hmm... well, nobody ever has.

They do keep trying though, and it keeps ending up in lots of executions and prison camps.

It's like the very definition of insanity.
Yes, but consider that every nation that went communist was preceded by a similarly oppressive nation. Tsarist Russia to the USSR, the Qing Empire to the PRC, etc. This is actually a significant diversion from what Marx expected to happen. He himself put money on the first communist revolutions happening in fully industrialized, wealthy, even democratic nations. Those being Germany, France, and the USA. After all, (Republican) France and the USA were the utopian radicals of Marx's time. Significant rights, anti-aristocracy, (and this should sound familiar) set up by a few visionaries for the equality of all people?

If communist revolutions had happened in these places, would they suddenly lose all respect for human rights and start killing people? I don't know. Nobody knows. It's never happened. But the places that did have horrific oppression under communism had said oppression happen in their predecessor as well, suggesting that it might not have been.
Quote from: Owlbread on July 18, 2013, 03:48:40 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 18, 2013, 03:47:03 pm
Now, now, quite a few attempts at the other end of the spectrum have ended the same way.

The thing is, they've all been big-time authoritarian as well on both sides.

It's a bit like a big ring where the two extremes go so far round the circle they touch.
A horseshoe, actually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory)
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 03:48:05 pm
China is in a transition stage from Communism to Capitalism, right?
China is more capitalist than the United States at this point. Big money, no really enforced regulations to speak of.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 18, 2013, 04:00:00 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 link=topic=103213.msg4415666#msg4415666
China is a capitalistic state. The only thing still reminiscent of communism is the name. Their only legacy the single party state.

They basically have all the bad bits of communism and capitalism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:03:41 pm
Quote from: Angle on July 18, 2013, 03:56:41 pm
Every time we've ever had an attempt at a communist country, it's been hijacked by totalitarian fucks. Take Lenin for example- He saw a chance to seize power for himself, and he took it. It's because whenever you have a communist revolution, the revolutionaries in question insist on setting up a dictatorship, thinking that they know best, even though they totally don't. It's called the "Vangaurd" - The idea that dictatorship by a bunch of revolutionaries will somehow end well. I really wish that just once, we could have an actual Democratic communist country.

Again, communism in practice is always different in theory.

It fails and always will fail because instead of at least trying to accommodating human nature, it tries to change it, while denying it exists in the first place. Which is why people like Castro, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, the Kimmies still exist and always will exist. It is also why both it's policies and methods always fail.

Which is why every time someone takes another go, more people in a Motherland through executions and imprisonment than warfare.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 18, 2013, 04:06:44 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:03:41 pm
Quote from: Angle on July 18, 2013, 03:56:41 pm
Every time we've ever had an attempt at a communist country, it's been hijacked by totalitarian fucks. Take Lenin for example- He saw a chance to seize power for himself, and he took it. It's because whenever you have a communist revolution, the revolutionaries in question insist on setting up a dictatorship, thinking that they know best, even though they totally don't. It's called the "Vangaurd" - The idea that dictatorship by a bunch of revolutionaries will somehow end well. I really wish that just once, we could have an actual Democratic communist country.

Again, communism in practice is always different in theory.

It fails and always will fail because instead of at least trying to accommodating human nature, it tries to change it, while denying it exists in the first place. Which is why people like Castro, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, the Kimmies still exist and always will exist. It is also why both it's policies and methods always fail.

Which is why every time someone takes another go, more people in a Motherland through executions and imprisonment than warfare.

Bullshit! It fails because some totalitarian fuck hijacks it for their own ends, and everyone else just stands by and lets it happen. A Democratic communism is a thing we've never seen before, and would be no more likely to end up like that than any other democratic government.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 18, 2013, 04:08:19 pm
I should note that North Korea no longer claims to be communist, nor do the Kims after Kim-Il Sung. They're more of a racial monarchy than a communist state.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:11:30 pm
Quote from: Angle on July 18, 2013, 04:06:44 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:03:41 pm
Quote from: Angle on July 18, 2013, 03:56:41 pm
Every time we've ever had an attempt at a communist country, it's been hijacked by totalitarian fucks. Take Lenin for example- He saw a chance to seize power for himself, and he took it. It's because whenever you have a communist revolution, the revolutionaries in question insist on setting up a dictatorship, thinking that they know best, even though they totally don't. It's called the "Vangaurd" - The idea that dictatorship by a bunch of revolutionaries will somehow end well. I really wish that just once, we could have an actual Democratic communist country.

Again, communism in practice is always different in theory.

It fails and always will fail because instead of at least trying to accommodating human nature, it tries to change it, while denying it exists in the first place. Which is why people like Castro, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, the Kimmies still exist and always will exist. It is also why both it's policies and methods always fail.

Which is why every time someone takes another go, more people in a Motherland through executions and imprisonment than warfare.

Bullshit! It fails because some totalitarian fuck hijacks it for their own ends, and everyone else just stands by and lets it happen. A Democratic communism is a thing we've never seen before, and would be no more likely to end up like that than any other democratic government.

Except for the ones that did end up like that, right? Like capitalism? Which at least is stable? It doesn't crumble when you try to make some pig iron, it doesn't blow up when there's the prospect of a space program.

Again, instead of trying to live with human nature, it tries as hard as it can to look away from it's eyes. It decides to forget that ambition is human.

It's why it's so easy for not just the leader, but the party, the Communist Parties, to take control, which has always happened, and since human nature isn't about to change unless we turn into robots, or a hivemind, will always, unfalteringly, happen.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 18, 2013, 04:13:09 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt link=topic=103213.msg4415683#msg4415683
It's not closely related at all.

Right and Left are relative terms when we are speaking of individual nations, because what defines the right and the left is the difference between what is and what could be. As this varies between nations, so must the right and left. While one could possibly be speaking of the global right and left, this is so hard to measure that it might as well be opinion. If you take every place on Earth into consideration, you could easily say that the USA is far-left and Europe has gone off the left end entirely into crazyland.

I'm sorry I don't agree with you, that's just not it at all. Just because what is right and left in a particular country varies doesn't mean that politics and all political thought must vary from country to country. Other ideas still exist even if they aren't popular in a particular state. I would also like a bit more clarification on your last statement that the USA could be considered far left and Europe has gone into crazyland. Develop that a bit more.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:13:23 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 18, 2013, 04:08:19 pm
I should note that North Korea no longer claims to be communist, nor do the Kims after Kim-Il Sung. They're more of a racial monarchy than a communist state.

Now they call themselves and are called socialist Juche.

Not really an improvement.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 18, 2013, 04:18:46 pm
Capitalism isn't that great either (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression).

But note, we have never had anything remotely similar to the communistical ideals, as described by Marx, in existence. Ever. The features most commonly associated with communism aren't even part of it. The communistical ideal doesn't call for a state led economy, it doesn't require an authoritian state, and it doesn't need a single party system.

Hell, you could go with an implementation where there isn't even a government.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 18, 2013, 04:22:47 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 03:44:28 pm

"In response to PatriotSaint, the countries that have followed Communist state-ideologies have never actually reached that golden state of Communism that all Communist parties sought. Instead they were always stuck in the Socialist stage of development."
-Owlbread


Hmm... well, nobody ever has.

They do keep trying though, and it keeps ending up in lots of executions and prison camps.

It's like the very definition of insanity.

Well, maybe. But then again so would keeping capitalism up be after how we've seen it fail over and over again and cause untold amounts of suffering all over the world.

Quote from: Owlbread on July 18, 2013, 03:41:01 pm
In response to PatriotSaint, the countries that have followed Communist state-ideologies have never actually reached that golden state of Communism that all Communist parties sought. Instead they were always stuck in the Socialist stage of development.

Add to that that the communist party elite quite quickly became more interested in upholding their own power than pursuing the "communist golden state". They pretty much formed a new kind of violently authoritarian nobility (or at least aristocracy), which was exactly what the people had originally revolted against.

Now. If you want successful socialist states, look at western Europe instead.

Preedit: wow. Talk about ninja'd.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:23:03 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on July 18, 2013, 04:18:46 pm
Capitalism isn't that great either (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression).

But note, we have never had anything remotely similar to the communistical ideals, as described by Marx, in existence. Ever. The features most commonly associated with communism aren't even part of it. The communistical ideal doesn't call for a state led economy, it doesn't require an authoritian state, and it doesn't need a single party system.

Hell, you could go with an implementation where there isn't even a government.

About capitalism, it's not the perfect system, but it doesn't result in millions of people being executed and/or put into camps for being political dissidents. I think if a system does do that, you should probably dump it.

About the "features", those have appeared in every, single, instance, of attempted communism. Every single one. The same story every time. Hardly ever a discrepancy, give or take a few million deaths.

I can assure you, the very next time someone tries it on for looks, lots of people are going to die. Prematurely, of course.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 18, 2013, 04:26:45 pm
Also, you keep going on about "Human nature". I hate to break it to you, but things are a lot more complicated than that. Take ambition, for example - In our modern society, it is encouraged, but things haven't always been that way. In most feudal societies, for example, ambition was heavily discouraged for most of the population, and as a result, they displayed very little of it. Now, I happen to actually think ambition is a good thing, and would encourage it, depending on what it is and so long as no lines are crossed.


Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:23:03 pm
About capitalism, it's not the perfect system, but it doesn't result in millions of people being executed and/or put into camps for being political dissidents. I think if a system does do that, you should probably dump it.

About the "features", those have appeared in every, single, instance, of attempted communism. Every single one. The same story every time. Hardly ever a discrepancy, give or take a few million deaths.

I can assure you, the very next time someone tries it on for looks, lots of people are going to die. Prematurely, of course.

That's not communism! That's totalitarianism, which bears no more relation to communism than it does to any other government system. Take the bloody natzi's, for example - explicitly anti-communist, yet they end up much the same way. Common thread - totalitarianism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 18, 2013, 04:27:32 pm
Yeah, the problem with communism is that the people responsible made the mistake of trusting the common man. But it turns out the common man only wants equality when he's worse off, and once they aren't the thing they most want is security for their power and comfort and they'll screw everyone else over to get it.

Basically, communists never figured out how to do quality control and make good decisions in regards to the pursuit of communism, and got their asses kicked and handed to them by totalitarian dictators subverting their ideology pretty much every single time.

Communism in it's more idealized forms has serious problems that it's supporters like to ignore, but it's detractors ignore those problems as well. The problems are similar to the problems of MinAnarchy - it's a system remarkably lacking in stability, and very easily becomes something else far less pleasant. It's easily subverted and inherently unstable.

Well, okay, MOST governments are, but marxist utopias are especially so since there's very few people who benefit a whole lot from stability and quite a few more who benefit from upsetting.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 18, 2013, 04:28:04 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:11:30 pm
Like capitalism? Which at least is stable?
Yes, capitalism is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression) so stable. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308)
Quote
It doesn't crumble when you try to make some pig iron, it doesn't blow up when there's the prospect of a space program.
It was a Space Race, not a Space The USA Was Destined To Win. The USSR was actually ahead of the USA for most of the Space Race. We very much surged ahead from them near the end to land on the moon.
Quote
Again, instead of trying to live with human nature, it tries as hard as it can to look away from it's eyes. It decides to forget that ambition is human.

It's why it's so easy for not just the leader, but the party, the Communist Parties, to take control, which has always happened, and since human nature isn't about to change unless we turn into robots, or a hivemind, will always, unfalteringly, happen.
Talking about vague "human nature" in regards to this is not productive to discussion. It says nothing. Ambition can work with a communal system. Hell, for humanity to exist in greater order it has to. One only has two things:

A. Ambitiously helping the group that you are in helps you. (Even capitalism recognizes this, can you say corporation?)

B. Humanity as a whole is a group, and has been getting more so ever since the Neolithic Revolution.
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:13:23 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 18, 2013, 04:08:19 pm
I should note that North Korea no longer claims to be communist, nor do the Kims after Kim-Il Sung. They're more of a racial monarchy than a communist state.

Now they call themselves and are called socialist Juche.

Not really an improvement.
Still not communism.

Juche is more survivalism than anything else. Kind of necessary when most of the world is aligned against you, and your only allies are your allies because they hate the same people you hate.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 18, 2013, 04:28:54 pm
capitalism has millions of people being executed or put into camps because they are the underclass who don't have the economic power to negotiate a living wage.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:32:05 pm
Quote from: Angle on July 18, 2013, 04:26:45 pm
Also, you keep going on about "Human nature". I hate to break it to you, but things are a lot more complicated than that. Take ambition, for example - In our modern society, it is encouraged, but things haven't always been that way. In most feudal societies, for example, ambition was heavily discouraged for most of the population, and as a result, they displayed very little of it. Now, I happen to actually think ambition is a good thing, and would encourage it, depending on what it is and so long as no lines are crossed.


Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:23:03 pm
About capitalism, it's not the perfect system, but it doesn't result in millions of people being executed and/or put into camps for being political dissidents. I think if a system does do that, you should probably dump it.

About the "features", those have appeared in every, single, instance, of attempted communism. Every single one. The same story every time. Hardly ever a discrepancy, give or take a few million deaths.

I can assure you, the very next time someone tries it on for looks, lots of people are going to die. Prematurely, of course.

That's not communism! That's totalitarianism, which bears no more relation to communism than it does to any other government system. Take the bloody natzi's, for example - explicitly anti-communist, yet they end up much the same way. Common thread - totalitarianism.

1. Feudal nations weren't capitalist... Nor were they communist. Also, we are talking about today and tomorrow.

Ambition is human nature, and Communism in practice is a prime example of when it (human nature) is ignored an not accepted and accomodated.

2. I might as well say Robin Hood stole from the king and he was a man, and a thief stole from the peasants and was a women. They were both thieves. Common thread - thieves
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on July 18, 2013, 04:33:47 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 18, 2013, 04:28:54 pm
capitalism has millions of people being executed or put into camps because they are the underclass who don't have the economic power to negotiate a living wage.

Yeah, but so did Communism.





Everyone! The World sucks! But if people didn't suck so much it might not suck!


Yay!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:34:58 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 18, 2013, 04:28:54 pm
capitalism has millions of people being executed or put into camps because they are the underclass who don't have the economic power to negotiate a living wage.

The poor of America can be considered to be anywhere in the Middle-Class in Europe, and Upper-Class almost anywhere else. Even those in "poverty" often have TVs, microwaves, freezers, etc. etc. etc.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 18, 2013, 04:38:03 pm
PatriotSaint: feudal nations were very much capitalist.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on July 18, 2013, 04:39:25 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 18, 2013, 04:28:54 pm
capitalism has millions of people being executed or put into camps because they are the underclass who don't have the economic power to negotiate a living wage.

Executed? That's an interesting claim.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:41:14 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 18, 2013, 04:38:03 pm
PatriotSaint: feudal nations were very much capitalist.

Explain.

Oh, and as to executions in the U.S. compared to Communist Cuba, for example:

A little over 10,000 people have been executed in the U.S. since the start of the nation

Dozens and dozens of thousands have been imprisoned as political dissidents and/or executed since the beginning of that nation, less than a century ago.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:42:12 pm
Quote from: scrdest on July 18, 2013, 04:39:25 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 18, 2013, 04:28:54 pm
capitalism has millions of people being executed or put into camps because they are the underclass who don't have the economic power to negotiate a living wage.

Executed? That's an interesting claim.

Indeed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 18, 2013, 04:43:28 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:32:05 pm
1. Feudal nations weren't capitalist... Nor were they communist. Also, we are talking about today and tomorrow.

Ambition is human nature, and Communism in practice is a prime example of when it (human nature) is ignored an not accepted and accomodated.
I'm not saying that feudal nations were communist or capitalist, I'm saying they suppressed ambition in a lot of their population. This was a bad thing, but it does show that human nature is more complicated and plastic then you want to believe. I myself think that ambition should be accepted and accomodated, depending on what it is - you want to be a nobel prize wining scientist? Go for it! You want to prosper at the expense of others? That's not so cool. and I think we can all agree that the ambition to kill tons of people is completely unacceptable.

Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:32:05 pm
2. I might as well say Robin Hood stole from the king and he was a man, and a thief stole from the peasants and was a women. They were both thieves. Common thread - thieves
I might, yes. And I'd be right if I did. What's your point here, exactly?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on July 18, 2013, 04:45:32 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 18, 2013, 04:38:03 pm
PatriotSaint: feudal nations were very much capitalist.

How so?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 18, 2013, 04:48:38 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 18, 2013, 04:38:03 pm
PatriotSaint: feudal nations were very much capitalist.

/me snorts

You can't be serious, can you?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:50:28 pm
Quote from: Angle on July 18, 2013, 04:43:28 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:32:05 pm
1. Feudal nations weren't capitalist... Nor were they communist. Also, we are talking about today and tomorrow.

Ambition is human nature, and Communism in practice is a prime example of when it (human nature) is ignored an not accepted and accomodated.
I'm not saying that feudal nations were communist or capitalist, I'm saying they suppressed ambition in a lot of their population. This was a bad thing, but it does show that human nature is more complicated and plastic then you want to believe. I myself think that ambition should be accepted and accomodated, depending on what it is - you want to be a nobel prize wining scientist? Go for it! You want to prosper at the expense of others? That's not so cool. and I think we can all agree that the ambition to kill tons of people is completely unacceptable.

Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:32:05 pm
2. I might as well say Robin Hood stole from the king and he was a man, and a thief stole from the peasants and was a women. They were both thieves. Common thread - thieves
I might, yes. And I'd be right if I did. What's your point here, exactly?

1. I never said human nature was plastic. The exact opposite. It is what it always has been. My point was that Communism attempts to change it, because that is the only way Communism would ever work.

2. That it is irrelevant. Communism in practice (not in theory) is totalitarianism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 18, 2013, 04:51:13 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:34:58 pm
The poor of America can be considered to be anywhere in the Middle-Class in Europe, and Upper-Class almost anywhere else. Even those in "poverty" often have TVs, microwaves, freezers, etc. etc. etc.
Before responding to PatriotSaint, please read this post.  Ask yourself: is it really worth expending effort on someone who is this wilfully ignorant?  I am pretty sure the answer is no.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:54:41 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 18, 2013, 04:51:13 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:34:58 pm
The poor of America can be considered to be anywhere in the Middle-Class in Europe, and Upper-Class almost anywhere else. Even those in "poverty" often have TVs, microwaves, freezers, etc. etc. etc.
Before responding to PatriotSaint, please read this post.  Ask yourself: is it really worth expending effort on someone who is this wilfully ignorant?  I am pretty sure the answer is no.

This is a discussion, not a war of sermons.

Are you saying the above is not true?  I am not talking about the homeless, for which free beds in homeless shelters (that do not allow alcohol or drugs) number much greater.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 18, 2013, 05:00:18 pm
I don't think that "not true" is really a strong enough way of putting it.  If you replaced every single word in that post with the word "WRONG" in 50 foot red letters you'd have a more accurate description.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 05:02:32 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 18, 2013, 05:00:18 pm
I don't think that "not true" is really a strong enough way of putting it.  If you replaced every single word in that post with the word "WRONG" in 50 foot red letters you'd have a more accurate description.

Ah. Please do explain how wrong I am.


P.S. Just wondering, is this how everybody reacts to people they don't agree with? On this forum, I mean. Yeesh, this is literally my second post talking to this guy, ever.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 18, 2013, 05:06:33 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:54:41 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 18, 2013, 04:51:13 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:34:58 pm
The poor of America can be considered to be anywhere in the Middle-Class in Europe, and Upper-Class almost anywhere else. Even those in "poverty" often have TVs, microwaves, freezers, etc. etc. etc.
Before responding to PatriotSaint, please read this post.  Ask yourself: is it really worth expending effort on someone who is this wilfully ignorant?  I am pretty sure the answer is no.

This is a discussion, not a war of sermons.

Are you saying the above is not true?  I am not talking about the homeless, for which free beds in homeless shelters (that do not allow alcohol or drugs) number much greater.

They wouldn't deny that the poor are better off in the west, but they dispute the "middle class in Europe" (some of whom's countries have welfare systems and free health care)  and especially "upper class" in the rest of the world bits. I remind you third world corrupt politicians still do well for themselves. Bear in mind this comes from something who would appreciate Bay12 bearing in mind their position in comparison to others, and is answering this on the off-chance it isn't a troll post and your english/proof reading needs some work. If you misunderstand anything i have said, i suggest you find out by other sources.

Your registration date does not fill me with confidence, combined with the known troll spammer on the boards.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 18, 2013, 05:08:25 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 18, 2013, 04:48:38 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 18, 2013, 04:38:03 pm
PatriotSaint: feudal nations were very much capitalist.

/me snorts

You can't be serious, can you?
How can I not be serious?

I don't have time to go into details, but yes. Its a degenerate capitalist system where absolute power resides in those who acquired a monopoly on capital (the principal form of which was land held by "noble" families).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 18, 2013, 05:12:11 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:34:58 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 18, 2013, 04:28:54 pm
capitalism has millions of people being executed or put into camps because they are the underclass who don't have the economic power to negotiate a living wage.

The poor of America can be considered to be anywhere in the Middle-Class in Europe, and Upper-Class almost anywhere else. Even those in "poverty" often have TVs, microwaves, freezers, etc. etc. etc.

No. Maybe in parts of Eastern Europe. But certainly not the Wrstern half, like in the Scandinavian countries. Poverty don't exist here like it does in the US. What is considered "poor" in the US is considered destitute here. Just look at your trailer parks; anyone living in a trailer would be considered homeless here. Look at your decrepid and drug-filled slums; nothing like that exist here. Look at your uninsured masses; here, everyone is guaranteed healthcare. Look at all the employees working ling hours for minimal wage and no benefits; here, benefits are mandated. Look at how little social mobility there is in the states compared to here. And so on, and so forth.

Once again. If you want successful socialism, look at western Europe.


Quote
Ambition is human nature, and Communism in practice is a prime example of when it (human nature) is ignored an not accepted and accomodated.

Quite the opposite actually - the ambitious were the only ones who had any chance of succeeding in the communist states, whether illegally or inside the system.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 05:16:30 pm
Quote from: Novel Scoops on July 18, 2013, 05:06:33 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:54:41 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 18, 2013, 04:51:13 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:34:58 pm
The poor of America can be considered to be anywhere in the Middle-Class in Europe, and Upper-Class almost anywhere else. Even those in "poverty" often have TVs, microwaves, freezers, etc. etc. etc.
Before responding to PatriotSaint, please read this post.  Ask yourself: is it really worth expending effort on someone who is this wilfully ignorant?  I am pretty sure the answer is no.

This is a discussion, not a war of sermons.

Are you saying the above is not true?  I am not talking about the homeless, for which free beds in homeless shelters (that do not allow alcohol or drugs) number much greater.

They wouldn't deny that the poor are better off in the west, but they dispute the "middle class in Europe" (some of whom's countries have welfare systems and free health care)  and especially "upper class" in the rest of the world bits. I remind you third world corrupt politicians still do well for themselves. Bear in mind this comes from something who would appreciate Bay12 bearing in mind their position in comparison to others, and is answering this on the off-chance it isn't a troll post and your english/proof reading needs some work. If you misunderstand anything i have said, i suggest you find out by other sources.

Your registration date does not fill me with confidence, combined with the known troll spammer on the boards.

Oh, okay. First off, no, I am not a troll. I mean what I say.

1. The poor in the U.S. live better compared to the poor in other countries without the welfare or free healthcare that the poor in said countries receive.

2. They own more property, live more comfortably, have more to eat, some even have their own car(s), etc. etc. etc.

3. Americans don't mass immigrate as refugees searching for a better life. It's the other way around. The U.S. has citizens from every ethnicity and culture in the world.

4. I am not talking about the poor of the U.S. vs. African warlords, a.k.a. "politicians". I am talking about the poor, and the poor, and the difference.

P.S. Umm... what's wrong with my English?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 18, 2013, 05:23:01 pm
I assumed that could be a reason why you effectively said Europe was worse off then America, but don't worry you've cleared it up. We can all agree with the points you've just stated. What would you like to do next?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 05:26:30 pm
Quote from: scriver on July 18, 2013, 05:12:11 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:34:58 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 18, 2013, 04:28:54 pm
capitalism has millions of people being executed or put into camps because they are the underclass who don't have the economic power to negotiate a living wage.

The poor of America can be considered to be anywhere in the Middle-Class in Europe, and Upper-Class almost anywhere else. Even those in "poverty" often have TVs, microwaves, freezers, etc. etc. etc.

No. Maybe in parts of Eastern Europe. But certainly not the Wrstern half, like in the Scandinavian countries. Poverty don't exist here like it does in the US. What is considered "poor" in the US is considered destitute here. Just look at your trailer parks; anyone living in a trailer would be considered homeless here. Look at your decrepid and drug-filled slums; nothing like that exist here. Look at your uninsured masses; here, everyone is guaranteed healthcare. Look at all the employees working ling hours for minimal wage and no benefits; here, benefits are mandated. Look at how little social mobility there is in the states compared to here. And so on, and so forth.

Once again. If you want successful socialism, look at western Europe.


Quote
Ambition is human nature, and Communism in practice is a prime example of when it (human nature) is ignored an not accepted and accomodated.

Quite the opposite actually - the ambitious were the only ones who had any chance of succeeding in the communist states, whether illegally or inside the system.

1. The drug-filled slums and trailer parks are the result of cultural influence, not governmental.
2. "Uninsured" is not a death sentence.
3. Minimal wage jobs aren't careers.
4. "No Benefits" is not a death-sentence.
5. Can you explain how other countries, like yours, have more social mobility than the U.S.?

6. The ambitious were the government. It wasn't allowed for anyone else.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 05:28:31 pm
Quote from: Novel Scoops on July 18, 2013, 05:23:01 pm
I assumed that could be a reason why you effectively said Europe was worse off then America, but don't worry you've cleared it up. We can all agree with the points you've just stated. What would you like to do next?

Well, feel free to counter any of them.

I thought you people wanted discussion and debate?

Unless the purpose of this thread was for people to agree how progressive and liberal they are and talk about how much they like progressive and liberal policy, and otherwise rage about what they don't like, as a group...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 18, 2013, 05:28:55 pm
The US poor have it better than those in rich European countries, providing you are prepared to selectively ignore random factors as "cultural".

e: and insist that black is white repeatedly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 05:37:12 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 18, 2013, 05:28:55 pm
The US poor have it better than those in rich European countries, providing you are prepared to selectively ignore random factors as "cultural".

e: and insist that black is white repeatedly.

My point was never to show how "superior" American life is to European life. The argument was about Capitalism and Communism, not living standards, or even socialist European countries.

I don't care if a country in Europe becomes the wealthiest nation that ever was a resident of Earth.
The discussion got a little derailed, and I think I did contribute to that, sorry.

However, this was a comparison between Capitalism, where there is a standard of living, and Communism, where there is only a standard of dying in every sense.

If I had meant to tote superiority, I could have gone on an endless rant about how Europeans are snooty, pompous, snotty, know-it-all socialites-for-life. I didn't, and I never will.  ;)  *evil American laugh*
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on July 18, 2013, 05:43:26 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 18, 2013, 05:08:25 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 18, 2013, 04:48:38 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 18, 2013, 04:38:03 pm
PatriotSaint: feudal nations were very much capitalist.

/me snorts

You can't be serious, can you?
How can I not be serious?

I don't have time to go into details, but yes. Its a degenerate capitalist system where absolute power resides in those who acquired a monopoly on capital (the principal form of which was land held by "noble" families).

It cannot be a 'degenerate capitalist' system since in medieval times, there was no capitalist system to be degenerated yet.

Monetary exchange was often secondary to barter, especially in systems where the tribute to feudal lords was made to be paid in goods rather than money.

There is no labour market to speak of in feudal societies - peasants are bound to the manor.

The peasants didn't generally receive payment for the work in the fields - they worked the fields and kept or sold the produce, and they paid for the ability to use the land with labour, produce or money - so no wage labour.


Unless you are using custom-tailored definitions, Feudalism is not a Capitalist, but a pre-Capitalist system. Hell, even Marx distinguished between the two.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 18, 2013, 05:54:21 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 05:26:30 pm
No. Maybe in parts of Eastern Europe. But certainly not the Wrstern half, like in the Scandinavian countries. Poverty don't exist here like it does in the US. What is considered "poor" in the US is considered destitute here. Just look at your trailer parks; anyone living in a trailer would be considered homeless here. Look at your decrepid and drug-filled slums; nothing like that exist here. Look at your uninsured masses; here, everyone is guaranteed healthcare. Look at all the employees working ling hours for minimal wage and no benefits; here, benefits are mandated. Look at how little social mobility there is in the states compared to here. And so on, and so forth.

Once again. If you want successful socialism, look at western Europe.


Quote
Ambition is human nature, and Communism in practice is a prime example of when it (human nature) is ignored an not accepted and accomodated.

Quite the opposite actually - the ambitious were the only ones who had any chance of succeeding in the communist states, whether illegally or inside the system.

1. The drug-filled slums and trailer parks are the result of cultural influence, not governmental.
2. "Uninsured" is not a death sentence.
3. Minimal wage jobs aren't careers.
4. "No Benefits" is not a death-sentence.
5. Can you explain how other countries, like yours, have more social mobility than the U.S.?

6. The ambitious were the government. It wasn't allowed for anyone else.
[/quote]

1. They're created and maintained by your economy.
2. Irrelevant. Being insured means you're less poor and healthier than if you are uninsured.
3. Certainly not. Yet in the US, people get stuck with them all the time. Oh, and your minimal wage is lower than ours, as well.
4. Irrelevant. Someone with benefits is less poor and healthier than someone without.
5. In short, greater investure in the people gives them more means with which to pursue a future. You can't make money without spending money, and to be able to spend money you need to have enough to support yourself (and family) and still have enough over to create more wealth. It's simple invest and return, except for the government, the return comes in the happier lives of the citizens (and also taxes ;) ).

6. No, the government were the ambitious, or the one's in charge of the black market. It was the not-particularly-ambitious who suffered.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 18, 2013, 06:05:59 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:50:28 pm
1. I never said human nature was plastic. The exact opposite. It is what it always has been. My point was that Communism attempts to change it, because that is the only way Communism would ever work.

I said human nature was somewhat plastic, and that every society and every political system in the history of the human race have "changed human nature", or more accurately, framed it around the preconception and attitudes.

Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:50:28 pm
2. That it is irrelevant. Communism in practice (not in theory) is totalitarianism.

Not all communisms everywhere, forever. If just once we could have a democratic communist country, things would be different. They wouldn't be perfect, and they might not even be that much better, but they would be different.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 18, 2013, 06:08:58 pm
Quote from: scrdest on July 18, 2013, 05:43:26 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 18, 2013, 05:08:25 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 18, 2013, 04:48:38 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on July 18, 2013, 04:38:03 pm
PatriotSaint: feudal nations were very much capitalist.

/me snorts

You can't be serious, can you?
How can I not be serious?

I don't have time to go into details, but yes. Its a degenerate capitalist system where absolute power resides in those who acquired a monopoly on capital (the principal form of which was land held by "noble" families).

It cannot be a 'degenerate capitalist' system since in medieval times, there was no capitalist system to be degenerated yet.

Monetary exchange was often secondary to barter, especially in systems where the tribute to feudal lords was made to be paid in goods rather than money.

There is no labour market to speak of in feudal societies - peasants are bound to the manor.

The peasants didn't generally receive payment for the work in the fields - they worked the fields and kept or sold the produce, and they paid for the ability to use the land with labour, produce or money - so no wage labour.


Unless you are using custom-tailored definitions, Feudalism is not a Capitalist, but a pre-Capitalist system. Hell, even Marx distinguished between the two.

Capitalism existed long before it was defined. The market has likely existed as long as there have been human cities, perhaps even longer.

The serfs rent access to the capital owned by the nobles in exchange for a portion of the transformed product of their labor. They were bound to the land by the contracts that gave them permission to use the land.

It is a degenerate form of capitalism because it is in its lowest and most exploited state. A state of absolute monopoly and disenfranchisement resulting from the unrestrained dynamics of a market unfettered by the restraint of social interests.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 06:12:01 pm
Quote from: Angle on July 18, 2013, 06:05:59 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:50:28 pm
1. I never said human nature was plastic. The exact opposite. It is what it always has been. My point was that Communism attempts to change it, because that is the only way Communism would ever work.

I said human nature was somewhat plastic, and that every society and every political system in the history of the human race have "changed human nature" or more accurately, framed it around the preconception and attitudes.

Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 04:50:28 pm
2. That it is irrelevant. Communism in practice (not in theory) is totalitarianism.

Not all communisms everywhere, forever. If just once we could have a democratic communist country, things would be different. They wouldn't be perfect, and they might not even be that much better, but they would be different.

1. Fair enough; communism tries to change it radically, to the point that it's not even human nature. Well, it's really a sort of attempted replacement. Again, because it's the only way communism could work.

2. Maybe then, only a few dozen people worldwide will be thrown into camps and/or executed in communist countries in the next 100 years. In the past 100, communism managed over 100 million deaths through execution and failed programs. That's a pretty solid high score. Who knows, maybe they'll actually beat it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on July 18, 2013, 06:20:28 pm
Quote from: scrdest on July 18, 2013, 05:43:26 pm
Unless you are using custom-tailored definitions, Feudalism is not a Capitalist, but a pre-Capitalist system. Hell, even Marx distinguished between the two.
Exactly. It doesn't make too much sense to compare pre-modern societies to modern ones. Feudalism was much more than an economic system, while Capitalism is not.

Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 05:37:12 pm
However, this was a comparison between Capitalism, where there is a standard of living, and Communism, where there is only a standard of dying in every sense.
The cold war is over. While it is true that most capitalist countries have a higher standard of living than communist ones have (or rather had, since very few communist countries still exist), this black and white polarization is pure propaganda. Capitalism is merely an economic system, while Communism is both a political and an economic system. The difference lies in the degree of individual freedom and democratic participation, not necessarily in the standard of living. If you think of Capitalism as a political system you commit the same fallacy the Communists historically did, when in reality the main contrast is between Democracy and Totalitarianism. Even most formerly communist states have long since realized that and implemented Capitalism as their economic system without much intention of implementing Democracy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 18, 2013, 06:21:42 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 06:12:01 pm
1. Fair enough; communism tries to change it radically, to the point that it's not even human nature. Well, it's really a sort of attempted replacement. Again, because it's the only way communism could work.

No it doesn't! Communism, when you boil it down, comes down to the idea that our individual self interests would all be best served by serving our greater group interest. Similarly, capitalism states the inverse: That our group interest is best served by serving our individual self interest. Neither of these is especially an alteration of human nature.

Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 06:12:01 pm
2. Maybe then, only a few dozen people worldwide will be thrown into camps and/or executed in communist countries in the next 100 years. In the past 100, communism managed over 100 million deaths through execution and failed programs. That's a pretty solid high score. Who knows, maybe they'll actually beat it.

And again, that's not communism, that's totalitarianism. You'll notice that in most of those countries, very little attention was devoted to such details as making things better for society as a whole, and a great detail was devoted to things like militaries and the whims of those in power - not details you'd find in a communist system.

Quote from: XXSockXX on July 18, 2013, 06:20:28 pm
Capitalism is merely an economic system, while Communism is both a political and an economic system. The difference lies in the degree of individual freedom and democratic participation, not necessarily in the standard of living. If you think of Capitalism as a political system you commit the same fallacy the Communists historically did, when in reality the main contrast is between Democracy and Totalitarianism. Even most formerly communist states have long since realized that and implemented Capitalism as their economic system without much intention of implementing Democracy.

Communism is not remotely a political system! It is entirely an economic one, and it just so happens that historically, everyone insists on pairing it up with totalitarianism, even though democracy would go so much better with it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 18, 2013, 06:36:00 pm
Nadaka, feudalism was not capitalism. A wealthy merchant was still nothing before a landless noble. It was cronyism,  pure and simple - all the wealth in the world was nothing unless you were in the good graces of the powerfuk. Did mercantile activity happen? Sure. But even mercantalism isn't the same as capitalism. Every communist country that has ever existed was more capitalistic than feudal society by your definitions. Both capitalism and communism are supposed to be classless systems and both were in their own ways revolts against the elite. The first a revolt by those who held the wealth and greased and tinkered the machine of society, the second by those who held the tools and fed the furnaces that kept society running. But neither system was fuedalism - because feudalism wasn't about what you could earn, it was about who you knew, where you could come from, and what you could take. Capitalism requires those who obtain power to offer something in return and feudalism made no such guarantee.

Because there are only two natural natural states for humanity. The natural government is cronyism and the natural.society is tribalism. And ultimately every system we design wants to revert to these two things. 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on July 18, 2013, 06:51:55 pm
Communism is a form of government that goes hand in hand with socialism, which is an economic system.  You can have socialistic democracies (Chile was that until a US supported coup turned it fascist) but you can't have communistic democracy because they are two different forms of government.

Feudalism isn't capitalism.  Capitalism implies competition and choice.  The main labor force in a feudal society (or at least a European one) were serfs who were tied to the land, both in the sense that they couldn't leave and that they were bound to serve whoever owned the land.   Most of what remained of the population were nobles who had their wealth and power for political and social reasons rather than economic ones.  There were a few freeman who might work a job and sell their goods, but they were a minority of the population and often bartered instead of dealing in money anyway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on July 18, 2013, 06:55:37 pm
Quote from: Angle on July 18, 2013, 06:21:42 pm
Communism is not remotely a political system! It is entirely an economic one, and it just so happens that historically, everyone insists on pairing it up with totalitarianism, even though democracy would go so much better with it.
It is a political system. Not necessarily a totalitarian one, that happend mostly due to the circumstances, but not one that cares much about individual interests and therefore not a democratic one. The economic part of Communism is planned economy, the political part is "rule of the proletariat", which in practice always meant "dictatorship of the communist party".
I wrote something about that in another thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=126821.msg4301433#msg4301433) a while ago:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 18, 2013, 06:36:00 pm
Capitalism requires those who obtain power to offer something in return and feudalism made no such guarantee. 
That is wrong. Feudalism requires the powerful to offer protection. It is a system of societal organization, not an economical one. Capitalism requires the rich to offer nothing. Again, Capitalism is only an economical system. The way societies in the West are organized today is Democracy, which usually will have some sort of wealth distribution, to varying degrees.

Quote from: EnigmaticHat on July 18, 2013, 06:51:55 pm
The main labor force in a feudal society (or at least a European one) were serfs who were tied to the land, both in the sense that they couldn't leave and that they were bound to serve whoever owned the land.   Most of what remained of the population were nobles who had their wealth and power for political and social reasons rather than economic ones.  There were a few freeman who might work a job and sell their goods, but they were a minority of the population and often bartered instead of dealing in money anyway.
And that's even simplified. There were early forms of capitalism and democracy in the cities, like the Hansa. Also large chunks of land were owned by the church. The degree to which peasants were unfree serfs varied considerably between regions. Also the power of nobles varied a lot between regions. Same goes for land ownership, in some parts of Germany most peasants owned their land, they just had to give part of their income to a noble/city/monastery etc. Overall Feudalism is much more complex than it looks and it makes no sense to compare it directly to capitalism or other modern forms of societal organization.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 18, 2013, 07:16:13 pm
Quote from: XXSockXX on July 18, 2013, 06:55:37 pm
That is wrong. Feudalism requires the powerful to offer protection. It is a system of societal organization, not an economical one. Capitalism requires the rich to offer nothing. Again, Capitalism is only an economical system. The way societies in the West are organized today is Democracy, which usually will have some sort of wealth distribution, to varying degrees.

In the same sense the mafia offer you protection. Everyone know the thing they are truly protecting you against is themselves, and that protection can be lifted whenever they feel the whim.

And of COURSE capitalism requires the rich to offer something - if you offer nothing, you have no value. If you have nothing to offer, you are not rich. They don't require the rich to offer something to you, but they require them to offer something of value to somebody, or they will be unable to build or benefit from any accumulated wealth.

Do not make the mistake of thinking this is a particularly good or noble thing. It just means that those who have something to offer can climb above those who have nothing to offer.

One of the main points of communism and socialism is that you do NOT need to offer something in return. It is one of the areas where it clashes most harshly with capitalism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Guardian G.I. on July 18, 2013, 07:24:35 pm
Everyone's favourite dictator, Joseph Stalin, tried to envision how a socialist state should become a communist state.

Quote from: "Economical problems of socialism in the USSR", 1952
In order to pave the way for a real, and not declaratory transition to communism, at least three main preliminary conditions have to be satisfied.

 1. It is necessary, in the first place, to ensure, not a mythical "rational organization" of the productive forces, but a continuous expansion of all social production, with a relatively higher rate of expansion of the production of means of production. The relatively higher rate of expansion of production of means of production is necessary not only because it has to provide the equipment both for its own plants and for all the other branches of the national economy, but also because reproduction on an extended scale becomes altogether impossible without it.

2. It is necessary, in the second place, by means of gradual transitions carried out to the advantage of the collective farms, and, hence, of all society, to raise collective-farm property to the level of public property, and, also by means of gradual transitions, to replace commodity circulation by a system of products-exchange, under which the central government, or some other social-economic centre, might control the whole product of social production in the interests of society.

[...]

 3. It is necessary, in the third place, to ensure such a cultural advancement of society as will secure for all members of society the all-round development of their physical and mental abilities, so that the members of society may be in a position to receive an education sufficient to enable them to be active agents of social development, and in a position freely to choose their occupations and not be tied all their lives, owing to the existing division of labour, to some one occupation.

What is required for this?

It would be wrong to think that such a substantial advance in the cultural standard of the members of society can be brought about without substantial changes in the present status of labour. For this, it is necessary, first of all, to shorten the working day at least to six, and subsequently to five hours. This is needed in order that the members of society might have the necessary free time to receive an all-round education. It is necessary, further, to introduce universal compulsory polytechnical education, which is required in order that the members of society might be able freely to choose their occupations and not be tied to some one occupation all their lives. It is likewise necessary that housing conditions should be radically improved, and that real wages of workers and employees should be at least doubled, if not more, both by means of direct increases of wages and salaries, and, more especially, by further systematic reductions of prices for consumer goods.

These are the basic conditions required to pave the way for the transition to communism.
Source can be found here, (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm) quoted extract can be found here. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch13.htm)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on July 18, 2013, 07:31:11 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 18, 2013, 07:16:13 pm
Quote from: XXSockXX on July 18, 2013, 06:55:37 pm
That is wrong. Feudalism requires the powerful to offer protection. It is a system of societal organization, not an economical one. Capitalism requires the rich to offer nothing. Again, Capitalism is only an economical system. The way societies in the West are organized today is Democracy, which usually will have some sort of wealth distribution, to varying degrees.

In the same sense the mafia offer you protection. Everyone know the thing they are truly protecting you against is themselves, and that protection can be lifted whenever they feel the whim.

And of COURSE capitalism requires the rich to offer something - if you offer nothing, you have no value. If you have nothing to offer, you are not rich. They don't require the rich to offer something to you, but they require them to offer something of value to somebody, or they will be unable to build or benefit from any accumulated wealth.

Do not make the mistake of thinking this is a particularly good or noble thing. It just means that those who have something to offer can climb above those who have nothing to offer.

One of the main points of communism and socialism is that you do NOT need to offer something in return. It is one of the areas where it clashes most harshly with capitalism.
Well, I understood "offer something" as some sort of wealth distribution, which is not inherently present in Capitalism. If you mean "spending money", that is what rich people in all societies do, so I don't get what you mean there.

The mafia is actually organized like the roman client system, which is not unsimilar to Feudalism, so you're not that far off there. (except that in Feudalism everybody is in the mafia  ;)).
But Feudalism is also a legal system, so the powerful can not just lift their protection from you. If they do, they act unlawfully and lose their legitimacy.

Communism requires that you offer your labour in return for what society gives you. Try to stop working in a communist state and see what happens. In communist countries everybody had a job, but not necessarily one they liked or wanted to do.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 18, 2013, 07:40:36 pm
I meant in the terms of value dsitribution (which is a bit different than wealth distribution). One can only accumulate wealth in a capitalist system providing things of value to others. If you do not provide values to others, you get nothing in return.

In a kleptocratic system, this is not needed, which is why most capitilists really want to be kleptocrats instead, but kleptocracy is not capitalism.

Socialism, at least, does not require you to give anything of value to another in order to receive something of value in return. If you are sick, or disabled, or poor and alone and young, you will get assistance. This helps insure stability, because it gives people sureness that even if they someday find themselves unable to offer things of value, they will still be taken care of, and is why most countries are not completely capitalist - people LIKE that safety net.

But the feudal aristocracy worked off the same system - you did NOT need to offer things of value to get things in return. And no matter how much you offered in return, there were things you could not get that others could not lose.

A merchant could NOT buy their way into becoming a noble (at least not by common feudalist standards, but exceptions are always made in extreme circumstances).

A noble could never LOSE being a noble, no matter how little of value they offered.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on July 18, 2013, 08:05:41 pm
No, I still don't get it.
In any economic system you can only create wealth by providing something that is of value to others. That includes kleptocracy, since wealth has to come from somewhere before it gets stolen.

A welfare system (if you want to call that Socialism) has to be financed somehow, in practice through taxes and insurances. If nobody pays these anymore, the system collapses. That is the main problem with unemployment in Europe.

Your view on Feudalism is too simplistic. Nobles offered a lot of value, mostly protection and land rights.
People becoming noble was more common than you think, though simply buying in didn't work. Rich people could however become very powerful in the background, while many nobles were chronically bankrupt.
And while nobles couldn't lose their noble birth, they could certainly become irrelevant and die in poverty. That was pretty common too, and it's one reason for the many crusades and wars of the Middle Ages.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 18, 2013, 08:20:49 pm
I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on July 18, 2013, 08:26:16 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 18, 2013, 08:20:49 pm
I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say.
I'm not sure what you wanted to say in your last post either.  :)
We might be nitpicking on semantics or something, I don't think we disagree on anything important, so it's probably okay.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 18, 2013, 08:27:36 pm
That's a major problem with arguing on the internet (and with arguing in general) - It's far too easy to end up talking past each other.

edit: I was actually considering a forum layout designed explicitly for arguing - Essentially, you have to hypertext all your terms to definitions, and you have to put all you arguments into exact forms.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 18, 2013, 08:27:52 pm
I made a thread on GZ trial, probably responded to you somewhere if you posted at all in this thread about it. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=128753.msg4416463#msg4416463)
Just didn't want to derail from your lovely left | right argument.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DWC on July 18, 2013, 09:05:10 pm
Quote from: Angle on July 18, 2013, 08:27:36 pm
That's a major problem with arguing on the internet (and with arguing in general) - It's far too easy to end up talking past each other.

edit: I was actually considering a forum layout designed explicitly for arguing - Essentially, you have to hypertext all your terms to definitions, and you have to put all you arguments into exact forms.

Yeah, I find arguing on the internet to be unproductive, especially with good topics like politics where everybody has deeply entrenched/ indoctrinated belief systems and nothing can ever be said that will sway their opinion. I like to argue just to try and understand people and also to better form my own opinions. I think others do the same thing, it's why they talk past each other and go off topic.

Your forum idea sounds good, but it'd be nice if the board did some of the work for you. Especially on international boards, you have political terminology that differs in meaning from country to country. Like saying 'liberal' or 'populist' mean totally different things in the USA and in Europe and it leads to confusion.

Edit: Speaking of which, Communist is a ridiculously flawed system, inheriant in it's basic philosophy that an individual has absolutely no self-ownership. The amount of effort put into a communist system has zero correlation to what one received from that system. A 'from each to their ability and to each their needs' creates a system where the least productive and most needy benefit the most and the most productive and resilient people lose. So instead of offering incentive for effort, it punishes it and instead of punishing irresponsibility, it rewards it.

So, it's no wonder why every 'communist' or 'socialist' society have been miserable, oppressive hell holes.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 18, 2013, 09:24:52 pm
I'd like to ask that the left/right argument be moved to a different thread, since this is not an appropriate area to discuss the virtues of various political systems at length.


Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 18, 2013, 05:26:30 pm
3. Minimal wage jobs aren't careers.

And yet people are stuck working in them their entire lives and can't get out.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 18, 2013, 09:32:04 pm
Where's it going to move to?  I was about to jump in :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 19, 2013, 03:13:38 am
Me too! Twelve hours gone, and four pages written - entrenched opinions, indeed.
Quote
In der gesellschaftlichen Produktion ihres Lebens gehen die Menschen bestimmte notwendige von ihrem Willen unabhängige Verhältnisse ein, Produktionsverhältnisse, die einer bestimmten Entwicklungsstufe ihrer materiellen Produktivkräfte entsprechen. Die Gesamtheit dieser Produktionsverhältnisse bildet die ökonomische Struktur der Gesellschaft, die reale Basis, worauf sich ein juristischer und politischer Überbau erhebt, und welcher bestimmte gesellschaftliche Bewußtseinsformen entsprechen.
-The man you see below my username

It roughly translates to: In production, individuals agree to certain relations that are independant of their will, production-relations, that correspond to a certain stage of development of their means of production. The totality of those relations forms the economic structure of society, the real basis, on which a legal and political superstructure has been erected to which certain forms of thinking within society correspond.

(Sorry for the rough translation, but it's an old-fashioned German - even native speakers like me have some difficulty understanding it.)

So Marx himself thought that it is pointless to differentiate between political and economic system. Try and obtain the book "Why nations fail" - it may be a bit narrow in focus, but it explains very well how certain economic structures bring forth certain political structures and the other way around.

Also, and this cannot be stressed enough: It is pointless to argue that real communism never existed. It has been honestly attempted, and it has failed every time. That doesn't mean it cannot succeed, but it strongly suggests there is some inherent flaw in communist ideology. My guess: Because communism usually comes with revolution, it destroys pre-existing structures. The high degree of centralization necessary for a planned economy then makes autocracy virtually unavoidable, resulting in the Real Socialism ("Rea existierender Sozialismus" in German - say that out loud! It sounds awesome!) we all know and love.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 19, 2013, 03:46:01 am
The U.S. policy of instigating terrorism against any nation which posed the threat of a good example might have something to do with it as well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 19, 2013, 03:50:44 am
They also instigated coups and terrorism against everyone else.

Edit: But speaking about good examples, Cuba's working fairly well, isn't it. And well, QoL was decent in the USSR and many communistic nations, provided you didn't upset the autocratic communist party. In fact, after the fall of the USSR, it had a devastating crash, which still hasn't been recovered from in some nations.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 19, 2013, 05:38:40 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on July 19, 2013, 03:50:44 am
QoL was decent in the USSR and many communistic nations
They always talked about the GDR being the showcase of communism or something to that effect - because there was actually quite a bit of cross-border traffic, they had to compete (QoL-wise) with the west. And the people fled like rats from a sinking ship.
QoL in the ex-Warsaw Pact nations may not be abysmal, but it's a far cry from western standards even today. Even when comparing Eastern and Western Germany today, almost a quarter of a century later, you see the differences: The East is poorer, older, more infested with Neo-Nazis, and is still losing people to the west. And the further east you go, the worse it gets: Poland is decent, the Ukraine quite a bit worse, Belarus is still a dictatorship, and the european part of Russia is... european, so not terrible as well. Once you go over the mountains to Asia, though... you don't want to go over the mountains to Asia.
Communism hasn't caused these differences, they were there before (with the notable exception of the two Germanies); but it has done jack shit to make them better. And what's worse: In large parts of the East bloc, communism has gone away, but the authoritarian regimes are still standing tall. Google "Uzbekistan cotton" for a particularly bad story.

Bottom line: Communism (even if it were democratic to a degree) just doesn't provide sufficient incentives to create wealth. Case in point: Grain production in the USSR before, during and after the NEP, and - in a very similar area - the agricultural output of China before and after Deng Xiaoping's reforms.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on July 19, 2013, 05:53:45 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 19, 2013, 03:46:01 am
The U.S. policy of instigating terrorism against any nation which posed the threat of a good example might have something to do with it as well.
These days it seems to be a mixture of coups, terrorism, background fuckery, and outright military invasion of anyone who doesn't serve our interests, particularly regarding our currency. Let's look at a couple examples of that last point.

1. Iraq. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/ (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/) Just three years after switching their oil money to the Euro, we accidentally their whole country and guess what (http://www.thedossier.info/news_articles/ft_iraq-returns-to-international-oil-market.pdf)?

2. Libya. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc) The late Muammar Gaddafi had a functional and fully-supported plan to create a new currency throughout much of the Middle-East and Africa known as the gold dinar. The currency would be entirely backed by and made of gold and all interested countries (which involved most muslim and African nations nearby) were fully supportive of the gold dinar and agreed to only sell resources such as oil under the dinar, effectively making the dollar useless.

Suddenly, there were massive civil protests, swift military responses from Western nations, and Gaddafi mysteriously died after being captured. It should be noted that he was in the closing stages of completing the deal with supporting nations and launching the currency when the U.S. and E.U. intervened militarily.

3. Iran and Syria. http://rt.com/news/iran-gold-currencies-oil-453/ (http://rt.com/news/iran-gold-currencies-oil-453/) Early last year, Iran announced that it would be willing to accept payments for oil in both gold as well as the national currencies of those importing the oil. Iran had historically accepted payments from other currencies but the gold standard was a new twist. Over the last decade, the United States had been building their case against Iran, pointing to various supposed violations of international nuclear technology regulations. Despite the complete lack of evidence, the U.S. went on to claim that Iran was building nuclear weapons. (Remember the WMDs ten years ago?)

Syria, Iran's closest ally, is now in the midst of a civil war with the U.S. supplying the rebels with war materiél. Recently the United States and Israel accused the Assad regime of using Sarin gas, a deadly chemical weapon. (Is anyone seeing a pattern here?) The United Nations conducted its own research and concluded that the American and Israeli accusations were entirely false and that it was the rebels that had used Sarin. The American backing of rebels in Syria can only be considered a direct provocation to Iran, which has responded by announcing plans to send 4,000 troops to Syria in accordance with their mutual defense agreement.

Furthermore, last year Russia said this (http://"At some point such actions which undermine state sovereignty may lead to a full-scale regional war, even, although I do not want to frighten anyone, with the use of nuclear weapons,"). Russia also recently stated that it would not allow a U.S.-lead institution of a no-fly zone over Syria.

This entire thing is a clusterfuck of global proportions just waiting to happen.

...Oh, and the only things the American dollar are supported by these days are oil, U.S. military might, and blind faith. At the moment those selling the oil are considering a switch to alternate currencies if not already having done so which would destroy the artificial demand for the dollar, the military is tied up, and the faith is slowly withering away.

What happens when the oil runs out as it inevitably will due to international pressure? We can't print more money, we've already done that and made the dollar even flimsier.

What can we do to keep it afloat, you may ask?

Maintain the dollar's dominance over oil at any cost. Without a constant supply of oil being sold in U.S. Dollars, there would be literally nothing giving it value, thus causing the American economy to collapse entirely.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 19, 2013, 06:00:38 am
You forgot Afghanistan. Where the US* is blatantly stealing the oil.

*And maybe some allies
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on July 19, 2013, 06:05:33 am
On the other hand, one of the reasons everything east of West Germany had lower QoL is that USSR did not allow its satellites to accept aid from Marshal Plan, so while Western Europe had the funds to bandage the war wounds, Central and Eastern had to rely on the whims of Comecon and the USSR overlords.

Then there was the fact that USSR was sucking out the production of the client states, so while western USSR was so-so, it relied on worsening the productivity of other states.

Since we're out of hands, on another leg, Second World suffered from awful, awful pointless projects, with effects such as causing a massive ecological disaster in Uzbekistan (nigh-annihilation of Aral Sea), Chernobyl (USSR being cheap on safety, rushing the project, staffing a nuclear reactor without having a single, you know, person who knew a thing about nuclear power aside from 'press this button and power comes out' during a dangerous experiment)...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 19, 2013, 06:15:43 am
Another reason for the lowered Quality of live is that the USSR, and many allies, where predominantly agrarian states, rather than the Industrial states the plan was designed for. In order to catch up to the military power of the West, the USSR forced it's economy to switch to Heavy industry, causing severe shortages in person goods. They went from 20% heavy industry to over 50% in a few decades. This worked well for the first few years, but later caused them lots of trouble. Most of the USSR's failures derive from trying to show of against the West.

But yeah, inefficiency in production is a inherent problem of a centrally planned economy. This can however be solved by modern technology, for example by installing a cyberocracy. Ie, plugging the entirety of the economy into 1 giant computer system, allowing much faster response to problems, unlike the normal 5 year plans.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 19, 2013, 06:27:47 am
Quote from: DWC on July 18, 2013, 09:05:10 pm
Edit: Speaking of which, Communist is a ridiculously flawed system, inheriant in it's basic philosophy that an individual has absolutely no self-ownership.

No, this is wrong. The communist idea is that of absolute self-ownership, that we are all brothers and no man can own another. Hence why the communist "golden state" is governmentless. Since this is obviously not what happened in the attempted Communist states, this is part of why people are saying they were not "real" communist states.

Quote
The amount of effort put into a communist system has zero correlation to what one received from that system. A 'from each to their ability and to each their needs' creates a system where the least productive and most needy benefit the most and the most productive and resilient people lose. So instead of offering incentive for effort, it punishes it and instead of punishing irresponsibility, it rewards it.

This is a common thought, but it is wrong. Firstly, it assumes one who is productive in one area, say intellectually, can't be unproductive in another - being paraplegic, for example. Hence a great inventor and engineer may still use his skills for the good of society and society takes care of his needs through nurses and other services.

Secondly, it fails to acknowledge that the "least productive and most needy" isn't so because they are lazy, but because they are disabled in either a mental or physical way - or both. That, however, does not mean they are worthless, and it is our moral duty to make sure they do not starve and die or languish in extreme poverty.

Thirdly, it does not recognise that even for the small amount of "lazy coasters", the amount of money they actually get from just drifting along will always be a lot less than if they put in an effort. So no, "the productive" (which, I repeat, are not a group without needs and thus not separate from the "needy") do not lose. They always keep more than they give.

It also doesn't mention how many of the rich and successful supposedly "productive" people are also the biggest leeches on society. Those are the people who wants to enjoy all the benefits of a socialist society - from things such as social services, infrastructure and communications or schools, to safety and health - but doesn't want to pay for it. In my mind - it's the same problem as the "lazy" people, except it's worse since these people have the resources to share to begin with. And that's not even going into the problem of big businesses and fompanies gladly accept millions and millions in grants, which they then call "profit" and store overseas instead of reinvesting into society.


Quote
So, it's no wonder why every 'communist' or 'socialist' society have been miserable, oppressive hell holes.

Once again. Look at western Europe, all successful social democracies. Look at Scandinavia, all successful socialist countries.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 19, 2013, 06:45:02 am
It¡s worth noting as well the pains the western block takes at smashing out any elected goverment that is even somewhat leftist (ref: Chile, Nicaragua, etc...)

Also: the joint anarchist-POUM revolution during the SCW. Which oddly enough ended up in the communist party's shitlist, of all things. 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 19, 2013, 07:07:39 am
And wasn't this branched off to another thread for a reason?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 19, 2013, 07:13:07 am
Did it?  I looked and didn't see it migrate anywhere.  It's not like this forum hasn't gone over this many times before.  If DWC or PatriotSaint aren't interested in our massive infodumps, then there's not much point in bothering with another thread, anyway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on July 19, 2013, 07:13:46 am
Quote from: scrdest on July 19, 2013, 06:05:33 am
On the other hand, one of the reasons everything east of West Germany had lower QoL is that USSR did not allow its satellites to accept aid from Marshal Plan, so while Western Europe had the funds to bandage the war wounds, Central and Eastern had to rely on the whims of Comecon and the USSR overlords.

Then there was the fact that USSR was sucking out the production of the client states, so while western USSR was so-so, it relied on worsening the productivity of other states.

Since we're out of hands, on another leg, Second World suffered from awful, awful pointless projects, with effects such as causing a massive ecological disaster in Uzbekistan (nigh-annihilation of Aral Sea), Chernobyl (USSR being cheap on safety, rushing the project, staffing a nuclear reactor without having a single, you know, person who knew a thing about nuclear power aside from 'press this button and power comes out' during a dangerous experiment)...

Well Chernobyl was stuffed with incompetent people only in 1984, when the control over the station was delegated to regional electricians. Before that it was under Minsredmash control, and those guys had proper trained engineers.

EDIT: Or maybe that was 1970. I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on July 19, 2013, 08:18:14 am
Quote from: Helgoland on July 19, 2013, 05:38:40 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on July 19, 2013, 03:50:44 am
QoL was decent in the USSR and many communistic nations
They always talked about the GDR being the showcase of communism or something to that effect - because there was actually quite a bit of cross-border traffic, they had to compete (QoL-wise) with the west. And the people fled like rats from a sinking ship.
I had relatives in the GDR and I have been there once when it was still the GDR, after the fall of the SED regime but before reunification. It was a rather bizarre experience. QoL was not horrible, people were not starving or living in ghettos or something. But it was like time travel, in terms of how everything (and everyone) looked. Architecture was either old and decaying or new, cheap and dystopian. On the inside, appartments looked like something out of the 60s. The clothing was...weird, cheap-looking and wouldn't have passed for fashionable in the 60s. The food choices were very limited. Stores were half-empty, and what they offered was of very limited choice. And the cars... In a Trabant you feel like you're sitting on the street itself while driving because the thing is basically just plastic (but you had to pre-order a decade early if you wanted one). So yeah, QoL was not terrible, but compared to the West it was pretty depressing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on July 19, 2013, 08:32:10 am
Quote from: XXSockXX on July 19, 2013, 08:18:14 am
Quote from: Helgoland on July 19, 2013, 05:38:40 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on July 19, 2013, 03:50:44 am
QoL was decent in the USSR and many communistic nations
They always talked about the GDR being the showcase of communism or something to that effect - because there was actually quite a bit of cross-border traffic, they had to compete (QoL-wise) with the west. And the people fled like rats from a sinking ship.
I had relatives in the GDR and I have been there once when it was still the GDR, after the fall of the SED regime but before reunification. It was a rather bizarre experience. QoL was not horrible, people were not starving or living in ghettos or something. But it was like time travel, in terms of how everything (and everyone) looked. Architecture was either old and decaying or new, cheap and dystopian. On the inside, appartments looked like something out of the 60s. The clothing was...weird, cheap-looking and wouldn't have passed for fashionable in the 60s. The food choices were very limited. Stores were half-empty, and what they offered was of very limited choice. And the cars... In a Trabant you feel like you're sitting on the street itself while driving because the thing is basically just plastic (but you had to pre-order a decade early if you wanted one). So yeah, QoL was not terrible, but compared to the West it was pretty depressing.

It depends on which place in the West you look. I'd bet Detroit has worse QoL.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on July 19, 2013, 08:38:12 am
Quote from: Sergarr on July 19, 2013, 08:32:10 am
It depends on which place in the West you look. I'd bet Detroit has worse QoL.
I meant West Germany. In terms of pure QoL there might be places in the US where it's worse, but that is a result of poverty without the lack of choice the former GDR offered.
It wasn't like people had no money, quite the contrary sometimes, there was just nothing they could buy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 19, 2013, 08:57:33 am
Yup, result of the planned economy, and the fact that most of the countries infrastructure was ruined after WOII, and never rebuild.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 19, 2013, 09:48:54 am
Quote from: scriver on July 19, 2013, 06:27:47 am
Once again. Look at western Europe, all successful social democracies. Look at Scandinavia, all successful socialist countries.
I believe that in another debate I already told you: That definition of socialist is, well, not universally accepted, and different nomenclature has led to quite a bit of misunderstanding. So, let me try to find a compromise:

Capitalist: Gilded-era US; no welfare state, all charity is private. Hardly any business regulations. Democracy or authoritarian regime
Socialist: Modern Europe and, to a lesser degree, the US: Private enterprise, but heavy social security nets and correspondingly high (and progressive) taxes. (I'd prefer Social Democratic; private enterprise => ¬ socialism). Democracy.
Communist: USSR and pre-Deng China; state ownership of the means of production, central economic planning. Authoritarian.

Utopian communist: What a Western communist wants.



Quote from: 10ebbor10 on July 19, 2013, 06:15:43 am
Another reason for the lowered Quality of live is that the USSR, and many allies, where predominantly agrarian states, rather than the
But yeah, inefficiency in production is a inherent problem of a centrally planned economy. This can however be solved by modern technology, for example by installing a cyberocracy. Ie, plugging the entirety of the economy into 1 giant computer system, allowing much faster response to problems, unlike the normal 5 year plans.
You still need to get the information into the computer; and that's precisely where the USSR failed. Because the plans were utopic, reports were forged, and because of the apparent success, the next plan would be even more ambitious. Potemkin villages seem to be a Russian trait of character :D
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Guardian G.I. on July 19, 2013, 12:31:59 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on July 19, 2013, 09:48:54 am
Quote from: scriver on July 19, 2013, 06:27:47 am
Once again. Look at western Europe, all successful social democracies. Look at Scandinavia, all successful socialist countries.
I believe that in another debate I already told you: That definition of socialist is, well, not universally accepted, and different nomenclature has led to quite a bit of misunderstanding. So, let me try to find a compromise:

Capitalist: Gilded-era US; no welfare state, all charity is private. Hardly any business regulations. Democracy or authoritarian regime
Socialist: Modern Europe and, to a lesser degree, the US: Private enterprise, but heavy social security nets and correspondingly high (and progressive) taxes. (I'd prefer Social Democratic; private enterprise => ¬ socialism). Democracy.
Communist: USSR and pre-Deng China; state ownership of the means of production, central economic planning. Authoritarian.

Utopian communist: What a Western communist wants.

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on July 19, 2013, 06:15:43 am
Another reason for the lowered Quality of live is that the USSR, and many allies, where predominantly agrarian states, rather than the
But yeah, inefficiency in production is a inherent problem of a centrally planned economy. This can however be solved by modern technology, for example by installing a cyberocracy. Ie, plugging the entirety of the economy into 1 giant computer system, allowing much faster response to problems, unlike the normal 5 year plans.
You still need to get the information into the computer; and that's precisely where the USSR failed. Because the plans were utopic, reports were forged, and because of the apparent success, the next plan would be even more ambitious. Potemkin villages seem to be a Russian trait of character :D
The costs of maintaining a computer system controlling the flow of goods would be just as gigantic as maintaining a giant network of paper pushers doing the same thing.

Russian Stalinists like to talk and write about small cooperative enterprises (artels) operating during the Stalin era and how "that Trotskyist bastard Khruschev" nationalised them in 1956. During the times of Stalin, artels were usually workshops or small factories producing various kinds of consumer goods. During World War II, they produced weapons and equipment for the war effort. They were supported by the government, especially after the war.
Stalinists argue that if artels were allowed to operate after Stalin's death, there would be no deficit of consumer goods.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 19, 2013, 07:19:36 pm
Quote from: scriver on July 19, 2013, 06:27:47 am
No, this is wrong. The communist idea is that of absolute self-ownership, that we are all brothers and no man can own another. Hence why the communist "golden state" is governmentless. Since this is obviously not what happened in the attempted Communist states, this is part of why people are saying they were not "real" communist states.

If people have absolute self-ownership and no man can own another, why can't people engage in free exchange of the fruits of their labour?

Quote from: scriver on July 19, 2013, 06:27:47 am
This is a common thought, but it is wrong. Firstly, it assumes one who is productive in one area, say intellectually, can't be unproductive in another - being paraplegic, for example. Hence a great inventor and engineer may still use his skills for the good of society and society takes care of his needs through nurses and other services.

Secondly, it fails to acknowledge that the "least productive and most needy" isn't so because they are lazy, but because they are disabled in either a mental or physical way - or both. That, however, does not mean they are worthless, and it is our moral duty to make sure they do not starve and die or languish in extreme poverty.

Thirdly, it does not recognise that even for the small amount of "lazy coasters", the amount of money they actually get from just drifting along will always be a lot less than if they put in an effort. So no, "the productive" (which, I repeat, are not a group without needs and thus not separate from the "needy") do not lose. They always keep more than they give.

It also doesn't mention how many of the rich and successful supposedly "productive" people are also the biggest leeches on society. Those are the people who wants to enjoy all the benefits of a socialist society - from things such as social services, infrastructure and communications or schools, to safety and health - but doesn't want to pay for it. In my mind - it's the same problem as the "lazy" people, except it's worse since these people have the resources to share to begin with. And that's not even going into the problem of big businesses and fompanies gladly accept millions and millions in grants, which they then call "profit" and store overseas instead of reinvesting into society.

Okay, so even assuming you have a society of selfless Socialist Supermen filled with a willingness to sacrifice anything for their fellow man, you run into the ol' calculation problem. How does the socialist manager at the top of the supply chain determine what gets made and what doesn't? We still live in a world of scarcity and have to decide what to make. A capitalist simply looks at the prices of goods and can see what people want and what is in excess to decide what to make more of, without having to have major knowledge of the entire economy. But the socialist doesn't have a price mechanism, or any method of telling whether his "Five Year Plans" are succeeding or not. Even assuming he is a genius and has the finest polling equipment available to find what "The People" want, he is still basically stumbling about in the dark groping for a stable method of distribution that doesn't exist.

Anyhow, attacking the fascist/corporatist practices of the West and calling it problems of "capitalism" doesn't prove that socialism is preferable, it proves that partial interventionism has unintended consequences.


Quote from: scriver on July 19, 2013, 06:27:47 am
Once again. Look at western Europe, all successful social democracies. Look at Scandinavia, all successful socialist countries.

Well, ignoring a lot of the huge problems that western Europe has, it's worth noting that those countries that adopted a strong welfare state already had fairly powerful economic bases to work with from the start. Anyhow, for Scandinavia in particular, Denmark is a mildly messed up country so far as education is concerned, Norway is cruising off of oil revenues, and Sweden used to be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe, before adopting the welfare state. Since then, Sweden has experienced next to no real growth since the 60s, has been trapped in what amounts to a time capsule with regards to corporate innovation, and has been going down the tubes (and that's AFTER the major reforms that took place in the 90s when Sweden very nearly went off the deep end).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DWC on July 19, 2013, 08:55:24 pm
Quote from: scriver on July 19, 2013, 06:27:47 am
Quote from: DWC on July 18, 2013, 09:05:10 pm
Edit: Speaking of which, Communist is a ridiculously flawed system, inheriant in it's basic philosophy that an individual has absolutely no self-ownership.

No, this is wrong. The communist idea is that of absolute self-ownership, that we are all brothers and no man can own another. Hence why the communist "golden state" is governmentless. Since this is obviously not what happened in the attempted Communist states, this is part of why people are saying they were not "real" communist states.

Quote
The amount of effort put into a communist system has zero correlation to what one received from that system. A 'from each to their ability and to each their needs' creates a system where the least productive and most needy benefit the most and the most productive and resilient people lose. So instead of offering incentive for effort, it punishes it and instead of punishing irresponsibility, it rewards it.

This is a common thought, but it is wrong. Firstly, it assumes one who is productive in one area, say intellectually, can't be unproductive in another - being paraplegic, for example. Hence a great inventor and engineer may still use his skills for the good of society and society takes care of his needs through nurses and other services.

Secondly, it fails to acknowledge that the "least productive and most needy" isn't so because they are lazy, but because they are disabled in either a mental or physical way - or both. That, however, does not mean they are worthless, and it is our moral duty to make sure they do not starve and die or languish in extreme poverty.

Thirdly, it does not recognise that even for the small amount of "lazy coasters", the amount of money they actually get from just drifting along will always be a lot less than if they put in an effort. So no, "the productive" (which, I repeat, are not a group without needs and thus not separate from the "needy") do not lose. They always keep more than they give.

It also doesn't mention how many of the rich and successful supposedly "productive" people are also the biggest leeches on society. Those are the people who wants to enjoy all the benefits of a socialist society - from things such as social services, infrastructure and communications or schools, to safety and health - but doesn't want to pay for it. In my mind - it's the same problem as the "lazy" people, except it's worse since these people have the resources to share to begin with. And that's not even going into the problem of big businesses and fompanies gladly accept millions and millions in grants, which they then call "profit" and store overseas instead of reinvesting into society.


Quote
So, it's no wonder why every 'communist' or 'socialist' society have been miserable, oppressive hell holes.

Once again. Look at western Europe, all successful social democracies. Look at Scandinavia, all successful socialist countries.

Scandinavia has a thriving free-market economy. They just have a lot of taxes and public welfare. That isn't what socialism is. It's anti-thetical to communism. It rejects most all of communist philosophy. It embraces the free-market and uses the prosperity inherit in it to provide common benefits. Sweden does not describe it'self as 'socialist'. It's a 'welfare state' if you want to apply a label to their system.

Also, communist ideology is a direct negation of the concept of 'self-ownership'. With full self-ownership, society would resemble some anarcho-capitalist Ayn Rand Land. Communism is a society that everyone owes a debt to everyone else. All labor, wealth, material, thought, innovation, is the property of everyone else. You can't 'own' anything, let alone yourself. There isn't anything to 'own' in communism, everything belongs to everyone.

Also, productivity means how much they contribute to society. This can be digging holes all day long, pushing a mop, designing software, defending others from violence, anything you can imagine that contributes to society. In Communism, your contribution to society has no reflection on the rewards gained from society. You can be self-less, hard-working, produce far beyond your share and if you don't need much, healthy, single, used to austere conditions the society would give you what you 'need' which isn't much. While somebody who is lazy, selfish, contributes little or nothing and has immense demands and needs, would contribute little, and gain so much.

So, the human always looking to better themselves, will figure it's a better deal to never go to work, have limitless expenses and that system would accommodate them. It encourages exactly the wrong kind of person to make the system work in theory. That's why the USSR harped on this concept of 'The New Man' or 'The Soviet Man' that contributed more to the system then they took from it. Naturally, nobody is going to do that. They want to contribute less and get more.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 20, 2013, 12:41:12 am
Yeah, naturally.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 20, 2013, 01:25:01 am
He's talking about the sum, not every instance.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 20, 2013, 09:18:18 am
Quote from: Guardian G.I. on July 19, 2013, 12:31:59 pm
The costs of maintaining a computer system controlling the flow of goods would be just as gigantic as maintaining a giant network of paper pushers doing the same thing.

Now this is just silly. Sure, setting it up would be expensive, and there'd be plenty of manpower involved keeping it up to date where it can't be automated, but the costs of the two just wouldn't be comparable. There is a reason automation has taken over practically everything people could put it towards. I would be an order of magnitude cheaper than people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 20, 2013, 09:53:37 am
Probably wouldn't have been cheaper back then, though. Now, yeah, without a doubt -- there's a reason automation is cutting into the service sector, and it's because it's flat out cheaper (and often faster and more accurate, to boot) to have a program do paperwork when there's one that can. Flesh and blood paper pusher just can't compare, on pretty much any level. I mean... surprise surprise, something designed to do endless repetitive actions is better at doing them than something that isn't. And from competence comes efficiency, which drives down cost per unit of action, even if there is a higher initial startup cost -- and there's no guarantee that there will be, and going into future likely to be even less of one (FOSS expansions, etc., so forth, so on.).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 20, 2013, 10:26:22 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 20, 2013, 09:18:18 am
Quote from: Guardian G.I. on July 19, 2013, 12:31:59 pm
The costs of maintaining a computer system controlling the flow of goods would be just as gigantic as maintaining a giant network of paper pushers doing the same thing.

Now this is just silly. Sure, setting it up would be expensive, and there'd be plenty of manpower involved keeping it up to date where it can't be automated, but the costs of the two just wouldn't be comparable. There is a reason automation has taken over practically everything people could put it towards. I would be an order of magnitude cheaper than people.
6666th post confirms humanity will be replaced by automated machines
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 20, 2013, 10:30:58 am
Ha ha ha. You say that like there was anything here but automated machines. Humanity cannot be replaced by what it is :P

Now. It will likely be replaced by better machines. Which is probably good. We're pretty crap at a bunch of stuff, and foisting that junk off on stuff that's better at it is th'way to go.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 20, 2013, 10:41:37 am
Quote from: DWC on July 19, 2013, 08:55:24 pm
Also, productivity means how much they contribute to society. This can be digging holes all day long, pushing a mop, designing software, defending others from violence, anything you can imagine that contributes to society. In Communism, your contribution to society has no reflection on the rewards gained from society. You can be self-less, hard-working, produce far beyond your share and if you don't need much, healthy, single, used to austere conditions the society would give you what you 'need' which isn't much. While somebody who is lazy, selfish, contributes little or nothing and has immense demands and needs, would contribute little, and gain so much.

So, the human always looking to better themselves, will figure it's a better deal to never go to work, have limitless expenses and that system would accommodate them. It encourages exactly the wrong kind of person to make the system work in theory. That's why the USSR harped on this concept of 'The New Man' or 'The Soviet Man' that contributed more to the system then they took from it. Naturally, nobody is going to do that. They want to contribute less and get more.

Again, people are more complicated than that. In modern society, and in most societies, the majority of people have contributed much more to the system than they got from it. Today's minimum wage workers, for example, contribute a great deal, and don't get back nearly as much. The serfs in most feudal societies saw most of the fruits of their labor go to other people. They went along with it because that was the system they were used to. I don't think hat's a good thing, but it was a thing, and it demonstrates that people do not necessarily behave as you claim. Moreover, the viewpoint behind your argument is flawed. You seem to see society as a zero-sum game: for someone to benefit, someone else must lose out. This is not accurate: rather, society is a positive sum game. We ca all get back more than we put in. That's the entire point of having a society.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 20, 2013, 11:01:43 am
Total input vs total return is the wrong variable to measure; you have to look at incentives.
The peasant's incentive was not miserably starving.
The USSR citizen's incentive was not being sent to Siberia for 'sabotage'.
The Western citizen's incentive is having a nicer life. (In Europe; in the US it's "having a decent life" for many, I guess)
The hypothetical Communist citizen's incentive is... Altruism? Doing his duty? Being the New Socialist Man?

Somehow, our system appears to work best...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 20, 2013, 11:10:31 am
Quote from: Helgoland on July 20, 2013, 11:01:43 am
The hypothetical Communist citizen's incentive is...

Having a nicer life. By furthering the common interest, we can further our own self interests.

Also, note: I do support some scaling in terms of payment: more difficult and more unpleasant jobs should have greater rewards. I just want those rewards to actually reflect on how difficult and unpleasant a job is, and I want the scaling to be relatively gentle.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 20, 2013, 11:21:10 am
1. And is that how it ever, ever, ever worked out in any of all the communist countries in the last 100 years?

Yah, I guess attempting to make iron on your crop fields for The People (aka the Communist Party and Government and Friends) would further your own interests. Then your mass-grave can be sealed with grossly imperfected iron, instead of dirt.

At least you can be executed in style and comfort!

2. HERETIC! HERETIC ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!!!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 20, 2013, 11:44:03 am
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 20, 2013, 11:21:10 am
1. And is that how it ever, ever, ever worked out in any of all the communist countries in the last 100 years?

Yah, I guess attempting to make iron on your crop fields for The People (aka the Communist Party and Government and Friends) would further your own interests. Then your mass-grave can be sealed with grossly imperfected iron, instead of dirt.

At least you can be executed in style and comfort!

2. HERETIC! HERETIC ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!!!

I don't know why you've brought that kind of thing up again, we've already established that virtually every Communist country that has existed in the last 100 years has completely fucked it up.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 20, 2013, 11:47:07 am
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 20, 2013, 11:21:10 am
1. And is that how it ever, ever, ever worked out in any off all the communit countries in the last 100 years?

Yah, I guess attempting to make iron on your crop fields for The People (aka the Communist Party and Government and Friends) would further your own interests. Then your mass-grave can be sealed with grossly imperfected iron, instead of dirt.

At least you can be executed in style and comfort!

2. HERETIC! HERETIC ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!!!

You're a fan of sensationalism aren't you, PatriotSaint?

So the current prison population in the U.S. is the largest of any nation in the history of the world, mostly because of a for-profit prison system that lobbies for overly strict laws that get people locked up for stupid reasons.  A large number of these people at any given time are held in solitary confinement.  This is a treatment that is considered to be torture by most of the developed world, on the observation that it has been found to cause permanent psychological damage within two weeks almost 100% of the time.  A large portion of prison inmates will at some point find themselves in solitary confinement, some of them for years.  The U.S. prison system is known to be a pretty horrible place to be, motivating criminals, even petty ones, to go to dangerous lengths to avoid it.  In response, the police are continually advised and granted greater leeway to conduct their job with an extreme degree of paranoia and violent force.  As a result, the police severely injure or kill in usually completely uncalled for fashion innocent people or petty suspects every single day.  And the vast majority of victims are poor, as it's pretty widely observed that the poor's rights simply aren't respected very much, if at all.

Not regular political executions, but it's not exactly a flattering set of circumstances, either.  All driven by capitalist motivations.  And that's not even going into how capitalist exploitation of vulnerable populations on an international scale has also resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths.  Or if you want to talk about people being killed for political persecution, how about the terrorism instigated by the U.S. in South America to prevent the spread of socialism, where such was occurring in a peaceful and legitimate fashion completely unrelated to the oppression in the Soviet Union.  Millions murdered there in the name of capitalism.

I don't think claiming moral high ground is the way you should go about promoting your ideology.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 20, 2013, 11:56:30 am
Quote from: Angle on July 20, 2013, 11:10:31 am
Quote from: Helgoland on July 20, 2013, 11:01:43 am
The hypothetical Communist citizen's incentive is...

Having a nicer life. By furthering the common interest, we can further our own self interests.
In the long term, yes - but that's not how incentives work.
An incentive means that this particular action will benefit you - that's why you have stuff like the tragedy of the commons.

But you mention a pay scale: In actual communism, there's no pay at all. As little as I agree with PatronSaint's blunt pro-capitalism, he's right:
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 20, 2013, 11:21:10 am
HERETIC!
describes pretty well what you are in the eyes of a Marxist-Leninist (and any communist who isn't really just a social democrat). Your point of view is bourgeois, uncommunist, and you'd probably have gone to the gulag for it.

(These tthings apply to me as well, btw; if anything, it's a point of honor.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 20, 2013, 12:03:04 pm
I already said that I didn't like Lenin. Did none of you notice that?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 20, 2013, 12:08:28 pm
It applies to other branches of communism too.

Also, how can you not like Lenin? The awesome of his beards is only matched by the combined moustache power of Stalin and Nietzsche!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 20, 2013, 12:16:08 pm
Neitzsche's moustache power > Lenin's beard level
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 20, 2013, 12:40:53 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on July 20, 2013, 12:16:08 pm
Neitzsche's moustache power > Lenin's beard level

Wow, first LordBucket starts saying things I agree with, and then Loud Whispers and I have started seeing eye-to-eye... *brobump*


Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 20, 2013, 11:21:10 am
1. And is that how it ever, ever, ever worked out in any of all the communist countries in the last 100 years?

"We haven't gotten it to work yet in a very narrow and select range of situations" is in and of itself not sufficient evidence for the statement "it will never work."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 20, 2013, 12:51:57 pm
It would be easy to wave at many nations and point out that clearly Capitalism does not work, yet people keep trying, which vexes me somewhat.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 20, 2013, 12:53:48 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 20, 2013, 12:51:57 pm
It would be easy to wave at many nations and point out that clearly Capitalism does not work, yet people keep trying, which vexes me somewhat.

This as well. 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on July 20, 2013, 12:54:16 pm
Capitalism and Democracy are the worst possible of economic and political systems, except for all the others that we've tried.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 20, 2013, 12:55:38 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on July 20, 2013, 12:54:16 pm
Capitalism and Democracy are the worst possible of economic and political systems, except for all the others that we've tried.

Ah, yes, Mr Churchill. He also went on record to say that the best argument against a democracy was a 5 min chat with a typical voter, a statement which has some weight IMHO.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on July 20, 2013, 01:15:36 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on July 20, 2013, 12:54:16 pm
Capitalism and Democracy are the worst possible of economic and political systems, except for all the others that we've tried.

Goodness. How I hate posts like this. Don't take it personally. But people on either side of the argument, posting cliches and cached arguments are bringing up some dark eristic monster within me.

Also: Churchill didn't bring up Capitalism in his quote, so you're stretching it a bit.

Also^2: There are some systems that do work better than the combination here, but they usually fail when you try to expand it from a small group of ideologically-motivated people and/or friends to a statewide level.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 20, 2013, 01:16:33 pm
Quote from: scrdest on July 20, 2013, 01:15:36 pm
dark eristic monster

I think I'm in love.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 20, 2013, 01:17:56 pm
I do think today is one of the forum's better days :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on July 20, 2013, 01:24:37 pm
Quote from: scrdest on July 20, 2013, 01:15:36 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on July 20, 2013, 12:54:16 pm
Capitalism and Democracy are the worst possible of economic and political systems, except for all the others that we've tried.

Goodness. How I hate posts like this. Don't take it personally. But people on either side of the argument, posting cliches and cached arguments are bringing up some dark eristic monster within me.

Also: Churchill didn't bring up Capitalism in his quote, so you're stretching it a bit.

Also^2: There are some systems that do work better than the combination here, but they usually fail when you try to expand it from a small group of ideologically-motivated people and/or friends to a statewide level.

Yeah, I'm totally stretching it badly. However, I'd say that, at the end of the day, capitalistic and democratic societies have done a lot more to improve mankind's quality of life than any other. 


Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Guardian G.I. on July 20, 2013, 01:27:21 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 20, 2013, 09:18:18 am
Quote from: Guardian G.I. on July 19, 2013, 12:31:59 pm
The costs of maintaining a computer system controlling the flow of goods would be just as gigantic as maintaining a giant network of paper pushers doing the same thing.

Now this is just silly. Sure, setting it up would be expensive, and there'd be plenty of manpower involved keeping it up to date where it can't be automated, but the costs of the two just wouldn't be comparable. There is a reason automation has taken over practically everything people could put it towards. I would be an order of magnitude cheaper than people.
I meant that the cost of developing and maintaining such a system during the Soviet times (around 1970s - 1980s) would be enormous.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on July 20, 2013, 02:01:39 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 20, 2013, 11:47:07 am
1. And is that how it ever, ever, ever worked out in any off all the communit countries in the last 100 years?

Yah, I guess attempting to make iron on your crop fields for The People (aka the Communist Party and Government and Friends) would further your own interests
It always works out for Tito. Specifically because he was the most successful person ever to run the Balkans. Until someone somewhere can explain to me why that is, there is a fundamental black-mark against Democracy in my book.


Also, it should be noted that the definition of Communism imaginable and fascism are very similar in certain ways, and very different. Both are completely state-owned societies, Free enterprise is abolished and and the collective over the individual, the key difference is that Communism works to abolish differences between people, while Fascism enshrines it and codifies differences as law. So what you are describing, the self-declared Communist societies, aren't actually communist. By definition they aren't. Communism has multiple problems, but that is simply a view based on people who call themselves Communist incorrectly.


Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 20, 2013, 12:55:38 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on July 20, 2013, 12:54:16 pm
Capitalism and Democracy are the worst possible of economic and political systems, except for all the others that we've tried.

Ah, yes, Mr Churchill. He also went on record to say that the best argument against a democracy was a 5 min chat with a typical voter, a statement which has some weight IMHO.
Quote
VOTE, n. The instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 20, 2013, 03:41:40 pm
Quote from: Angle on July 20, 2013, 11:10:31 am
Quote from: Helgoland on July 20, 2013, 11:01:43 am
The hypothetical Communist citizen's incentive is...

Having a nicer life. By furthering the common interest, we can further our own self interests.

Also, note: I do support some scaling in terms of payment: more difficult and more unpleasant jobs should have greater rewards. I just want those rewards to actually reflect on how difficult and unpleasant a job is, and I want the scaling to be relatively gentle.

Okay, but that doesn't work in reality, and besides the calculation problem (which I already went over), the problem with incentives is another nail in the Communist coffin.

Imagine you work on a collective farm with 99 other workers picking potatoes. Of these potato pickers, let's assume that each picks an average of 10 bags of potatoes a day for a total of 1000 potato bags, of which some are given to those who make other products and the rest are left for eating. So each worker receives the equivalent value of 10 bags of potatoes each day. So imagine that one day, in a fit of "self interest", you decide to work to become a great potato picker, and manage to increase your picking rate to 12 bags each day, or a 20% increase. Despite increasing your picking speed by 20%, the total pool of potatoes has only increased to 1002, and you now receive the value of... 10.02 bags of potatoes each day. Now imagine you become a god of potato pickers and increase your speed to 30 bags each day. Despite having increased your speed by a colossal 300%, you only receive 10.3 bags each day, meaning you still haven't functionally improved your position. Inversely, if you slack off and only pick 1 bag each day, you receive 9.91 bags each day, despite contributing next to nothing. Unless potato picking fills you with joy, the "optimal" thing for you to do every day is to slack off and let everyone else increase picking on your behalf since your contribution is very nearly irrelevant regardless of how hard working or lazy your coworkers are.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on July 20, 2013, 03:59:47 pm
Yeah, capitalism totally doesn't work... It's not like China fully integrated it with its communist tendencies and are experiencing a huge industrial growth rate and are setting up plans to expand their currency to compete with the dollar or anything.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 20, 2013, 04:03:13 pm
It doesn't work in as much as there is still abundant poverty in the worlds richest nations, and that in some it ways acts to divide the rich and poorer even further. Its not the Chinese citizens getting rich off thier efforts. Hell, Look at the US recently, with the banking scandals and 99% motto...

I think the term I am looking for is "not long term sustainable", without resorting to constructs such as interest, inflation, credit and such like that we have all grown to accept.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on July 20, 2013, 04:07:42 pm
Quote from: Morrigi on July 20, 2013, 03:59:47 pm
Yeah, capitalism totally doesn't work... It's not like China fully integrated it with its communist tendencies and are experiencing a huge industrial growth rate and are setting up plans to expand their currency to compete with the dollar or anything.
At a cost of completely neglecting basic work safety (because there are always more Chinese workers)? Sure, ok.

EDIT: found the post which neatly describes what's wrong with China:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=87619.msg2389206;topicseen#msg2389206
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on July 20, 2013, 04:10:39 pm
Capitalism is fantastic if you ignore its downsides in favor of focusing on every other system's.

EDIT: It's merely "not the worst" otherwise. Fucked if I know what the best is.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 20, 2013, 04:20:58 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That's an odd example, seeing as most capitalist versions of that institution don't scale pay at all based on how much work you do. If you do enough to avoid getting fired, you get your minimum wage, if you don't, then you get the axe. If I were organizing that potato farm according to my communist ideals, I'd probably have payment be based on how difficult & undesirable the job is, with slight adjustments based on how productive you were. If you were unproductive enough, the rest of the group might vote to dismiss you, leaving you to find another job or get welfare. And of course, most of the incentive would probably come from your coworkers calling you lazy.  :P

On a societal level, I'd want to put a lot of resources towards things like medical research and therapy, so that people who aren't able to
work for some reason or another can be treated so they can. And of course, I'd definitely automate potato picking.  ::)

Note, my communist ideals vary fairly significantly from the more mainstream ones. I want a decentralized communist economy, and a very thoroughly democratic government.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on July 20, 2013, 04:31:26 pm
The biggest problem with communism is not only that people don't have much of a reason to work hard.

The worst problem is that people start to see the products of work of the other people as something that's always there. This leads to horrible waste of thousands of hours of work in hands of people who think that "nah, it's no matter, there's always more".

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on July 20, 2013, 04:33:35 pm
That actually happens in any economy that produces a civilization. How many people in Western countries do you think seriously consider how frickin' sweet it is to have paved roads? Also, when it comes to wasting hours of work, have you heard of the concept of planned obsolescence? That's something that's purely capitalistic.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 20, 2013, 04:40:59 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on July 20, 2013, 04:33:35 pm
That actually happens in any economy that produces a civilization. How many people in Western countries do you think seriously consider how frickin' sweet it is to have paved roads?
I see the symbols of Breton oppression at the hands of evil Imperialist Romans.

REMOVE EMPEROR remove emperor HANNIBAL ALIVE hannibal alive in Carthage make war elephants GIVE BACK BRETON CLAY give back breton clay SACK OF ROME BEST DAY OF MY LIFE

Quote from: Angle on July 20, 2013, 04:20:58 pm
If I were organizing that potato farm according to my communist ideals, I'd probably have payment be based on how difficult & undesirable the job is, with slight adjustments based on how productive you were.
What if your job is difficult, undesirable and yet has no relevance to society whatsoever? How would you decide what is relevant or not, and would it affect how much a worker is paid for it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 20, 2013, 04:43:20 pm
Why is someone doing it if it isn't relevant?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 20, 2013, 04:44:05 pm
TBH communist production methods worked really well when it mattered - dragging the country up from the floor in WW2 to drive the Germans back to Berlin. Then the USSR produced more of pretty much everything than anyone else, though it didnt take a genius to plan the production of guns and stuff during a war, and it didnt last once the cold war got going. Granted, you really didnt want to work in a factory for them, but still, not dying was a good incentive (either under the Nazi jackboot or in front of the commisars firing squad) - though thats more of a quality of a dictatorship rather than communism.

Is it time to bring up a parecon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics) again yet as a third or fourth alternative and pretty much untried way?

Quote from: Descan on July 20, 2013, 04:43:20 pm
Why is someone doing it if it isn't relevant?

As they really like doing it? Though thats not a good argument ofr expecting renumeration for doing it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on July 20, 2013, 04:51:10 pm
Parecon, huh? Interesting. I don't think that could work in a large country at all. Also looks incredibly weak to aggressive actions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 20, 2013, 04:53:08 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 20, 2013, 04:44:05 pm
TBH communist production methods worked really well when it mattered - dragging the country up from the floor in WW2 to drive the Germans back to Berlin.
Eh, on that same argument we should all be Nazis because they managed to make their economy strong enough to take on all of the world powers at the same time for the first few years. Though their currency did hold merit I'd reckon, at least on an ideal level; money that has its worth backed by labour, not by debt.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 20, 2013, 04:54:12 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on July 20, 2013, 04:40:59 pm
How would you decide what is relevant or not, and would it affect how much a worker is paid for it?

Now that is an interesting question. Frankly, I don't have any definite answers. I have a few ideas, but I'm not sure about any of them. I would want things to be decentralized and democratic - no command economies with incompetent unelected officials making decisions. Perhaps having each coop distribute the fruits of their labor to the other coops as they see fit? Under that system, maybe have some coops whose entire purpose is to provide analysis of what coops are the most productive? Or maybe use some other method.

My purpose in posting in this thread was more to argue in favor of the ideals of communism, and less to argue about it's practicalities- I'm still working on those.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 20, 2013, 05:02:13 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 20, 2013, 04:44:05 pm

Is it time to bring up a parecon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics) again yet as a third or fourth alternative and pretty much untried way?

...That actually sounds more like what I was thinking of then communism does. Though I was thinking of a system with more links between individual enterprises, and between such enterprises and the government.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 20, 2013, 06:08:28 pm
Quote from: Angle on July 20, 2013, 05:02:13 pm
...That actually sounds more like what I was thinking of then communism does.
I hope this won't offend you: How much have you read about communism?
Contary to what many here seem to think, it's actually a pretty clear concept. What you are proposing is interesting - and seems workable, ven, if you include some mechanisms against inefficiency and for innovation -, but it isn't communism. It takes some of its ideas, yes, but your system still has a helluva lot of capitalism in it.
Or, looking at it from a different angle (see what I did there?): How about you start calling it, I dunno, Anglicism (heh), and then run with it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 20, 2013, 06:38:00 pm
I was calling it communism because it shares some the core ideals - relative equality, prosperity for everybody, opposition to capitalism, etc.

I probably should call it my own thing though, seeing as it's actually intended to make off with some of the high points of capitalism. Anglicism is kinda already a thing though. :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 20, 2013, 06:56:16 pm
Quote from: Angle on July 20, 2013, 04:20:58 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That's an odd example, seeing as most capitalist versions of that institution don't scale pay at all based on how much work you do. If you do enough to avoid getting fired, you get your minimum wage, if you don't, then you get the axe. If I were organizing that potato farm according to my communist ideals, I'd probably have payment be based on how difficult & undesirable the job is, with slight adjustments based on how productive you were. If you were unproductive enough, the rest of the group might vote to dismiss you, leaving you to find another job or get welfare. And of course, most of the incentive would probably come from your coworkers calling you lazy.  :P

On a societal level, I'd want to put a lot of resources towards things like medical research and therapy, so that people who aren't able to
work for some reason or another can be treated so they can. And of course, I'd definitely automate potato picking.  ::)

Note, my communist ideals vary fairly significantly from the more mainstream ones. I want a decentralized communist economy, and a very thoroughly democratic government.

Ah, well what you're looking for is a neat system called Syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism), which is a bit different from mainline Communism and has its own features and drawbacks. The main problem of Syndicalism is that you end up with a bunch of workers being forced to make decisions outside of their field, basically transferring all of the problems of democratic government to industry as well. It also has some more and less market based cousins as well in the form of agorism and anarcho-communism, respectively.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 20, 2013, 07:25:00 pm
Eh, my ideas are a good bit more complicated than that. They have a lot more connections between the various coops and government, and most of the ones that are really promising rely on a bit of technology that hasn't actually been invented yet, so far as I know. It's really simple, too: It's a forum designed to allow large numbers of people to discuss a topic and get an actual consensus and decision out of it. Basically, posts are arranged in a tree structure, with each post having to follow a very strict format: all terms linked to definitions, arguments separated out into their own individual components, etc. With very heavy moderation for anything that doesn't meet the requirements. If this works the way I want it to, it would allow complex decisions to be considered and made by thousands of people, harnessing the brainpower and knowledge of all those people. It probably wouldn't work, and I don't have the skills to make such a thing anyway, but it's an interesting idea, no?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 20, 2013, 10:12:08 pm
What gets me the most here is that people are so crazy concerned about lazyness.  So fucking what?  We don't have enough work for everybody as it is.  Yeah, there's a lot of work that isn't getting done and overworked employees, because employers are refusing to hire and such (for entirely capitalist reasons).  But at the same time a huge amount of the work we are doing is superfluous fluff that doesn't accomplish anything meaningful, and there's an ongoing struggle against automation because people are afraid of their jobs being made obsolete.  The greatest challenge faced by capitalism is progress.  It can't handle true prosperity, so it must constantly sabotage itself.

And even if a worker is lazy, as in GreatJustice's potato story, if everyone follows the example of the lazy potato picker, then they quickly learn first-hand how that shit doesn't work and wise up.  If not, then they're only sabotaging themselves.  To say that's wrong is to say it's wrong to place people's fates in their own hands, because they might screw it up.  I shouldn't need to explain what that sounds like.  And when people understand that their work does matter, social pressures will be sufficient to motivate.  A lot of the work I do at my own job, I do because I don't want to drag my team down and provoke their ire.  It sure as fuck doesn't have anything to do with my pay.  Otherwise I do the bare minimum, because my employer is motivated by self-interest to treat me as a little money-making machine instead of a human being, which consequently gives me every reason to avoid being and doing what they want.

I'm really less concerned with a society that is efficient and productive than I am with one that is liberating and just, anyway.  I don't find that with a system that encourages people to betray and exploit each other to succeed.  I don't buy the crap about hard work and innovation for a second.  I see Tesla and Edison as pretty well representative of how those qualities typically work out in a capitalist society.

Quote from: Angle on July 20, 2013, 07:25:00 pm
Eh, my ideas are a good bit more complicated than that. They have a lot more connections between the various coops and government, and most of the ones that are really promising rely on a bit of technology that hasn't actually been invented yet, so far as I know. It's really simple, too: It's a forum designed to allow large numbers of people to discuss a topic and get an actual consensus and decision out of it. Basically, posts are arranged in a tree structure, with each post having to follow a very strict format: all terms linked to definitions, arguments separated out into their own individual components, etc. With very heavy moderation for anything that doesn't meet the requirements. If this works the way I want it to, it would allow complex decisions to be considered and made by thousands of people, harnessing the brainpower and knowledge of all those people. It probably wouldn't work, and I don't have the skills to make such a thing anyway, but it's an interesting idea, no?

Sounds somewhat like what I've been thinking for the last couple years.  I'm not a communist, but an anarchist.  Closest thing I've found to describing me is Social Libertarian.  I think mass communications will enable us to invent completely new broad-scale organizational structures, sort of like you're saying.  Except what I imagine is somewhat less formalized and more grassroots/organically emergent.  Built around helping people form productive social connections that will allow them to organize and provide for the needs of themselves and their communities in a more improvised fashion.  The internet is already doing this for us, but we're only just beginning to create tools designed to do this intentionally and only on limited scales.  We just need to scale that up.  The way I see it, this is the core of what our previous and current political/economic structures have done for us, but with rigid structuralizations making up for the absence of mass communications.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 20, 2013, 10:51:14 pm
I worry about laziness, but the laziness I worry about is the lack of innovation... and withholding resources from people doesn't fix that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 20, 2013, 10:53:29 pm
Eh I'd worry about laziness on a societal level: The idea that work is bad and should be avoided. But then, that's already a problem in capitalism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 20, 2013, 10:55:18 pm
Yes, that's what I'm saying.

I'm saying, I worry about whatever would make people want to consume endlessly rather than produce if they had all the time in the world.  Social censure, lack of resources, any of it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 21, 2013, 04:13:38 am
It's important to know which  version of communism you're using.

Quote from: Wikipedia
According to Marxist theory, higher-phase communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to access abundance to final goods, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely associated individuals.[5][6] Marxist theory holds that socialism, or lower-phase communism, being the new society established after the overthrow of capitalism, is a transitional stage in human social evolution and will give rise to a fully communist society, in which classes and the state are no longer present. Original communism

Leninism adds to Marxism the notion of a vanguard party to lead the proletarian revolution and to secure all political power after the revolution for the working class, for the development of universal class consciousness and worker participation, in the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.Autocratic communism

Council communists and non-Marxist libertarian communists and anarcho-communists oppose the ideas of a vanguard party and a transition stage, and advocate for the construction of full communism to begin immediately upon the abolition of capitalism. There is a very wide range of theories amongst those particular communists in regards to how to build the types of institutions that would replace the various economic engines (such as food distribution, education, and hospitals) as they exist under capitalist systems—or even whether to do so at all. Some of these communists have specific plans for the types of administrative bodies that would replace the current ones, while always qualifying that these bodies would be decentralised and worker-owned, just as they currently are within the activist movements themselves.I think this is what angle wants.

In the modern lexicon of what many sociologists and political commentators refer to as the "political mainstream", communism is often used to refer to the policies of communist states, i.e., the ones totally controlled by communist parties, regardless of the practical content of the actual economic system they may preside over. Examples of this include the policies of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam where the economic system incorporates "doi moi", the People's Republic of China (PRC) where the economic system incorporates "socialist market economy", and the economic system of the Soviet Union which has been described as "state capitalist".     This is what Patriot Saint is attacking. Well, at least parts of it.

Quote from: Guardian G.I. on July 20, 2013, 01:27:21 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 20, 2013, 09:18:18 am
Quote from: Guardian G.I. on July 19, 2013, 12:31:59 pm
The costs of maintaining a computer system controlling the flow of goods would be just as gigantic as maintaining a giant network of paper pushers doing the same thing.

Now this is just silly. Sure, setting it up would be expensive, and there'd be plenty of manpower involved keeping it up to date where it can't be automated, but the costs of the two just wouldn't be comparable. There is a reason automation has taken over practically everything people could put it towards. I would be an order of magnitude cheaper than people.
I meant that the cost of developing and maintaining such a system during the Soviet times (around 1970s - 1980s) would be enormous.
It was an argument to indicate that if we wanted to install a state led economy now, we could do it way more efficiently than before.

Also, it was tried in the seventies. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn) It wasn't a full integretation, and only computer assisted rather than computer controlled, but it was mildly succesfull. Sadly, the other economical choices of the government where disastrous, and it was quickly overthrown.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 21, 2013, 04:23:20 am
SalmonGod: The problem is not people not working, the problem is people not working well. That's a much harder problem to fix.
And when you talk about them screwing themselves over by being lazy individually: You are implicitly assuming some kind of collective will that to some degree manifests itself in social pressure. However, that kind of pressure only works in certain circumstances; otherwise, the tragedy of the commons wouldn't exist.

Could we please move on now? I believe we are getting somewhat repetitive...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 04:40:34 am
Also @SalmonGod: the potato-picking example is excellent, because there have been real-life examples of precisely just that happening - namely, in sovkhozes (collectivized agricultural enterprises) in USSR and client states thereof - nobody's ire was provoked, because the entirety of workers didn't give a shit about efficency.

They would roughly pick a bunch of potatoes, casually trampling a fair bit in the process. In fact, your idea of social pressure got turned on its head there, since the pressure was to be lazy and not give a shit, since otherwise you'd make the rest look bad in comparison. And call me a misanthrope, but I'm fairly certain that in at least 7 cases out of 10 the social pressure is like that.

I'd also like to hear when Capitalism is forced to sabotage itself, and how it cannot handle true prosperity.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 21, 2013, 05:16:54 am
Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 04:40:34 am


I'd also like to hear when Capitalism is forced to sabotage itself, and how it cannot handle true prosperity.
...have you checked the news, like, in the last five years?


Quote from: Helgoland on July 20, 2013, 06:08:28 pm

I hope this won't offend you: How much have you read about communism?
you know, I'm not going to take the same obvious cheap shot that you took against him and suggest that you haven't read about the subject, because I think you have. I do suspect your reading materials are heavily affected by confirmation bias, though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 21, 2013, 05:31:22 am
Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 04:40:34 am
I'd also like to hear when Capitalism is forced to sabotage itself, and how it cannot handle true prosperity.
On a purely philosophical level, it's because capitalism requires the constant exchange of capital, and thus a constant need for the exchange of that capital. If you begin to reach a level where you can create and propagate technology which obsoletes and disrupts this system, which we are starting to see on the horizon, it is in the rational interests of people who have greatly benefited from capitalism to ensure that this technology is limited and artificially controlled. While you would receive the greatest prosperity from allowing such advancements to run free, it puts the economic system we have aligned our world to in a bad spot. And we all know what lengths politicians will go to in order to protect their economy.

If you'd like some examples, I can give you both situations in which this failed and in which it succeeded (for now...). A good example of a failure is Wikipedia. Free, open-source, community based....absolute hell for traditional encyclopedias, but because it wasn't stopped Wikis are now a staple of the internet, and we have a far superior encyclopedic system. While I grant you that the risk of false information has been raised, the sheer fanaticism towards proper citation from many Wiki writers and Wikipedians in particular keeps this risk from becoming a serious burden to anyone paying attention. Further more, we now have literally hundreds of Wikis concerning such narrow and unnotable subjects that never would have received any attention from traditional encyclopedias.

The best success (and I will note that I think most of these, and as such capitalism as we know it, are ultimately a futile struggle against the inevitable) would be that of copyright law. Businesses want to have a monopoly on "their" ideas (even when ideas are the creation and property of individuals), and as such manipulate the code of law in order to ensure a continued and perpetual stifling of idea spread and publication. The reason for this is nothing but profit. Now, do not get me wrong. Copyright isn't even a bad thing. But we now face a mutant copyright spawned from the rational copyright of previous years. Once, copyright kept an individuals works exclusive for a short period (5-15 years) that would allow them to receive profit and thus incentive to continue creating in our pre-abundant economy. Now, however, copyright is likely more of a drain than a benefit to the economy and definitely to the creative scene as a whole. Now, in the US, copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the author. Being dead, they aren't incentiveized to do anything, and the work remains out of public hands even if they stop creating entirely long before their death. The copyright passes onto whatever corporation held their rights (because these days it is almost impossible to get something widely published without such an agreement), and thus these businesses are incentivized to hold onto old stuff for as long as possible, and be as exclusive as possible about it. It is the artificial management of ideas, in order to hammer non-capital into a capitalistic shape.

Now, you may not be particularly alarmed by that. Many are not. But what if it was something a little more vital than creative ideas? Well, fret naught, because we've already got that as well. Can you say, pharmaceutical copyright? Proprietary chemicals? Genetic ownership? So many advances to fields concerning vital substances, kept solely in the hands of the corporations who currently hold the standing rights to them (and don't think this stuff doesn't get traded around, a meritocracy this is not).

And even that might not alarm you yet. But we've got a long way to go, technologically. A lot of good could be done that is not being done already. As long as continue to advance without gaining an appreciation for free information, the disapproval of keeping it locked up will only grow. And you might say that forcing the publication of information like that immediately or within a short timeframe is unfair to the creator, but that would be ignoring that it is not fair to the creator already. It is the larger organization that benefits in this modern age. In a more public system, however, the creator's contributions will be properly recognized instead of downplayed, and as such they will find themselves far more rewarded.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not a communist. Or an anarchist. Or even that anti-capitalist. But it is an old system. A system that is starting to fail in keeping up with the changes that humanity is inflicting upon itself and the world, no matter how well it is managed. I don't even particularly dislike capitalism. But it is doomed. And it will only get more doomed. And we need to be ready when the time comes to evolve from capitalism, as we once evolved from mercantilism, and as we once evolved from barter trade, into something better for mankind.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 21, 2013, 05:55:55 am
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on July 21, 2013, 05:16:54 am
obvious cheap shot
I admit it may have seemed a bit rude, but I didn't mean it that way - his ideas seem to be more sound than most of what you hear out there, but they differ significantly from what is generally known as communism, prompting that question.
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on July 21, 2013, 05:16:54 am
heavily affected by confirmation bias
Well, obviously :P



Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 21, 2013, 05:31:22 am
Do not misunderstand me. I am not a communist. Or an anarchist. Or even that anti-capitalist. But it is an old system. A system that is starting to fail in keeping up with the changes that humanity is inflicting upon itself and the world, no matter how well it is managed. I don't even particularly dislike capitalism. But it is doomed. And it will only get more doomed. And we need to be ready when the time comes to evolve from capitalism, as we once evolved from mercantilism, and as we once evolved from barter trade, into something better for mankind.
I believe you have to distinguish between failure of a specific capitalist system (happens all the time, we may be seeing it right now) and the failure of capitalism (i.e. free market efficiency) in general. When a specific capitalist system fails, it is usually because of the abuse of power by those who have accummulated it. Example. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serrata_del_Maggior_Consiglio)
Failure of capitalism itself, however, is not something I see on the horizon; simply because a more efficient alternative is not in sight. More efficient than our current form, yes: Get rid of national boundaries and trade barriers, combat corruption in the Second and Third world, and institute mechanisms that make producing externalities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality) not worth it - for example a working carbon dioxide certificate market or a cigarette tax that finances the burden that smokers put on society in form of cancer etc. But the absolute failure of capitalism itself? I couldn't find an appropriate quote, but more than 150 years ago Marx prophesied that capitalism would fail with absolute certainty because of its inner contradictions.

Marxists all over the world are still waiting.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 06:27:13 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 21, 2013, 05:31:22 am
A lot of things

So, what you're saying is that Capitalism hinders the development of things that make it obsolete, yes? (Just making sure if I understood you).

I would say that Wikipedia(s) and traditional encyclopedias are not mutually exclusive. That would be like saying that the rise of McDonalds rendered restaurants obsolete. Wikipedia and other wikis are an invaluable tool when it comes to getting reliable information quick and dirty, but you wouldn't cite Wikipedia itself as a source in any serious paper. Sure, 95% of the time it's reliable, but sometimes you want rock solid peer-reviewed data.

I'm generally more of a free market guy, but I must agree that copyright policies are often very very sketchy. Genetic ownership, in particular, strikes me as absurd. However, I can see the need for protecting your inventions, but then I cannot see why it's not the method of obtaining a result that would be copyrighted than the (chemical/DNA sequence - which is also a chemical, so I will omit it from now on). After all, you cannot INVENT a chemical, whatever it might be. You CAN invent a way how to obtain it, and usually, there will be more and less efficient methods of doing that.

But all things said, copyright is not Capitalism. You can have one without the other. Yes, it has grown out of Capitalism, but it is not an integral part of the system.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 21, 2013, 06:37:36 am
It could be argued that the information on Wikipedia is far more rigourously peer reveiwed and eidited updated than any other knowledge base. It is a strength as well as a weakness though due to the ease with which such edits can be done by any undesired individual. Mind you, such edits are often easily spotted and made right, again down to the ease of access to the system.

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that Wikipedia provides a nice analogy for one of my percieved issues with capitalistic systems. A system where a small core of individuals (the so called 1%) have the power and gets to call the shots might be fine in a world where the interconnectivity of the system means that somewhere, there has to be a power source to make all the decisions. As MSH points out, we are outgrowing the need for such a model with our greater interconnectivity, and the 99% that prop up the 1% want greater enfranchisement than we currently have. We currently live under an old Encyclopedia Britannica model, waiting for the Wikipedia revolution.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 21, 2013, 06:40:04 am
Quote from: Helgoland on July 21, 2013, 05:55:55 am
I believe you have to distinguish between failure of a specific capitalist system (happens all the time, we may be seeing it right now) and the failure of capitalism (i.e. free market efficiency) in general.

Failure of capitalism itself, however, is not something I see on the horizon; simply because a more efficient alternative is not in sight. More efficient than our current form, yes: Get rid of national boundaries and trade barriers, combat corruption in the Second and Third world, and institute mechanisms that make producing externalities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality) not worth it - for example a working carbon dioxide certificate market or a cigarette tax that finances the burden that smokers put on society in form of cancer etc. But the absolute failure of capitalism itself? I couldn't find an appropriate quote, but more than 150 years ago Marx prophesied that capitalism would fail with absolute certainty because of its inner contradictions.

Marxists all over the world are still waiting.
... macro market failure has happened kinda' repeatedly, insofar as you could call that the failure of capitalism. I certainly would. The major depressions over the years are kinda' case one for: When Capitalism Can't Cope. It's a known economic thing that, even outside of corruption, the signals within the market just occasionally go tits up and destabilize. Sometimes (often, maybe even usually) it can get back in shape on its own. Sometimes it can't. And without those market signals being stable and clear, the efficiency involved with a capitalist system breaks down.

The capitalist system itself is inherently unstable and will collapse if left untended. S'been demonstrated time and time again. Only reason "capitalism" is still bumbling around is because it's been married to varying degrees of non-capitalist systems in order to keep it going. There's reasons there aren't really any pure capitalist economies anymore, yeah? I certainly can't recall any off the top of my head. States certainly aren't, Europe isn't, if there's anywhere in Asia that is, it's news to me (though I hear a couple are kinda' close). Same for the rest of the world.

So... more or less, Marx was kinda' right. Capitalism did fail with absolute certainty, and was replaced with things of varying degrees of greater efficiency. Usually involving bits and pieces of socialism tacked onto a capitalist framework.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 21, 2013, 06:43:32 am
Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 06:27:13 am
So, what you're saying is that Capitalism hinders the development of things that make it obsolete, yes? (Just making sure if I understood you).
Capitalism hinders the development of post-capital systems, yes.
Quote
I would say that Wikipedia(s) and traditional encyclopedias are not mutually exclusive. That would be like saying that the rise of McDonalds rendered restaurants obsolete. Wikipedia and other wikis are an invaluable tool when it comes to getting reliable information quick and dirty, but you wouldn't cite Wikipedia itself as a source in any serious paper. Sure, 95% of the time it's reliable, but sometimes you want rock solid peer-reviewed data.
This is not about the reliability of Wikipedia or making up accuracy figures. This is about a previously capital thing becoming a non-capital thing as a result of technological advancement, and becoming undeniably superior because of it and because it was not artificially stopped.
Quote
I'm generally more of a free market guy, but I must agree that copyright policies are often very very sketchy. Genetic ownership, in particular, strikes me as absurd. However, I can see the need for protecting your inventions, but then I cannot see why it's not the method of obtaining a result that would be copyrighted than the (chemical/DNA sequence - which is also a chemical, so I will omit it from now on). After all, you cannot INVENT a chemical, whatever it might be. You CAN invent a way how to obtain it, and usually, there will be more and less efficient methods of doing that.

But all things said, copyright is not Capitalism. You can have one without the other. Yes, it has grown out of Capitalism, but it is not an integral part of the system.
You are not understanding me. I am fully aware that copyright is not from capitalism. What I am describing to you is how the growth of non-capital systems has resulted in the extreme mutation of copyright in order to protect non-capital as if it were capital, sourced from those benefiting directly from the artificial maintenance of a capital system in all things. A few benefiting off of knowledge that should belong to the public.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 21, 2013, 06:49:33 am
Really hard for me to believe, given how most people seem to relate, at least politically, to the very idea of laziness.  The poor are a constant target of victim blaming and hatred because of a belief that they're lazy, and that laziness is deserving of all kinds of suffering.  Then there's the very fact that this base emotional reaction to the notion that people are naturally lazy is the one of the largest factors in preventing support for any sort of system that's perceived as enabling laziness.  And then my personal experience in the workplace is that people get pretty damn hostile towards anyone who doesn't pull their weight, and they even behave this way when they're otherwise resentful towards their employer.  Everything I've witnessed indicates that it's something the majority of people are incredibly pre-occupied with.

Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 04:40:34 am
I'd also like to hear when Capitalism is forced to sabotage itself, and how it cannot handle true prosperity.

In addition to what MSH said, I'd throw out several more things.

Capitalism assigns value according to scarcity.  When something becomes non-scarce, it completely short-circuits the system.  Those invested in the market for that product have to take steps to enforce artificial scarcity in order to prevent the collapse of that market. 

This is why we have several empty homes for every homeless person in the U.S.  This is why hunger is still a problem while somewhere from 1/2 to 2/3 of the food we produce is wasted.

This is why we have more money spent on lobbying and subsidies to support current energy technologies than we do research to advance others to a point where they can take over, even as the environment collapses around us.

The same applies to the labor market.  I like to talk about how my job could be run on a single computer with a handful of people providing human oversight of the results, and I get aggressively hushed by my co-workers.  Every time there is technological advancement, somebody's livelihood is rendered obsolete.  As such, there's always resistance.

Intellectual property is also a huge obstacle to progress in more ways that MSH didn't emphasize.  I can't imagine how much more quickly we could advance if information and productivity software were as freely available as we have the capability to make them.  This is the sort of statement Aaron Swartz was trying to make by releasing the JSTOR database to the public.

Oh... or how about the news media.  Imagine the social progress the world could make if news organizations weren't forced to shovel sensationalist crap onto the public for the sake of profit.

Ninja'd like fucking crazy because my family is being needy as fuck.

Quote from: Helgoland on July 21, 2013, 05:55:55 am
When a specific capitalist system fails, it is usually because of the abuse of power by those who have accummulated it. Example. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serrata_del_Maggior_Consiglio)

The way I see it, that's just the natural cycle of capitalism, though.  Wealth consolidates until the distribution reaches an unstable extreme of inequality, causing huge amounts of suffering in the process until it simply isn't bearable by the population anymore and is forced to reboot.  Are you saying that capitalism (i.e. free market efficiency) doesn't fail until the whole world suffers some cataclysmic event?  Because we're getting there, too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 07:58:55 am
Quote from: Frumple on July 21, 2013, 06:40:04 am
Quote from: Helgoland on July 21, 2013, 05:55:55 am
I believe you have to distinguish between failure of a specific capitalist system (happens all the time, we may be seeing it right now) and the failure of capitalism (i.e. free market efficiency) in general.

Failure of capitalism itself, however, is not something I see on the horizon; simply because a more efficient alternative is not in sight. More efficient than our current form, yes: Get rid of national boundaries and trade barriers, combat corruption in the Second and Third world, and institute mechanisms that make producing externalities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality) not worth it - for example a working carbon dioxide certificate market or a cigarette tax that finances the burden that smokers put on society in form of cancer etc. But the absolute failure of capitalism itself? I couldn't find an appropriate quote, but more than 150 years ago Marx prophesied that capitalism would fail with absolute certainty because of its inner contradictions.

Marxists all over the world are still waiting.
... macro market failure has happened kinda' repeatedly, insofar as you could call that the failure of capitalism. I certainly would. The major depressions over the years are kinda' case one for: When Capitalism Can't Cope. It's a known economic thing that, even outside of corruption, the signals within the market just occasionally go tits up and destabilize. Sometimes (often, maybe even usually) it can get back in shape on its own. Sometimes it can't. And without those market signals being stable and clear, the efficiency involved with a capitalist system breaks down.

The capitalist system itself is inherently unstable and will collapse if left untended. S'been demonstrated time and time again. Only reason "capitalism" is still bumbling around is because it's been married to varying degrees of non-capitalist systems in order to keep it going. There's reasons there aren't really any pure capitalist economies anymore, yeah? I certainly can't recall any off the top of my head. States certainly aren't, Europe isn't, if there's anywhere in Asia that is, it's news to me (though I hear a couple are kinda' close). Same for the rest of the world.

So... more or less, Marx was kinda' right. Capitalism did fail with absolute certainty, and was replaced with things of varying degrees of greater efficiency. Usually involving bits and pieces of socialism tacked onto a capitalist framework.

I could say that Capitalism have failed because of being married to non-capitalist systems (for various reasons). Most likely both of us would be partially right.

Quote from: SalmonGod on July 21, 2013, 06:49:33 am
Really hard for me to believe, given how most people seem to relate, at least politically, to the very idea of laziness.  The poor are a constant target of victim blaming and hatred because of a belief that they're lazy, and that laziness is deserving of all kinds of suffering.  Then there's the very fact that this base emotional reaction to the notion that people are naturally lazy is the one of the largest factors in preventing support for any sort of system that's perceived as enabling laziness.  And then my personal experience in the workplace is that people get pretty damn hostile towards anyone who doesn't pull their weight, and they even behave this way when they're otherwise resentful towards their employer.  Everything I've witnessed indicates that it's something the majority of people are incredibly pre-occupied with.

Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 04:40:34 am
I'd also like to hear when Capitalism is forced to sabotage itself, and how it cannot handle true prosperity.

In addition to what MSH said, I'd throw out several more things.

Capitalism assigns value according to scarcity.  When something becomes non-scarce, it completely short-circuits the system.  Those invested in the market for that product have to take steps to enforce artificial scarcity in order to prevent the collapse of that market. 

This is why we have several empty homes for every homeless person in the U.S.  This is why hunger is still a problem while somewhere from 1/2 to 2/3 of the food we produce is wasted.

This is why we have more money spent on lobbying and subsidies to support current energy technologies than we do research to advance others to a point where they can take over, even as the environment collapses around us.

The same applies to the labor market.  I like to talk about how my job could be run on a single computer with a handful of people providing human oversight of the results, and I get aggressively hushed by my co-workers.  Every time there is technological advancement, somebody's livelihood is rendered obsolete.  As such, there's always resistance.

Intellectual property is also a huge obstacle to progress in more ways that MSH didn't emphasize.  I can't imagine how much more quickly we could advance if information and productivity software were as freely available as we have the capability to make them.  This is the sort of statement Aaron Swartz was trying to make by releasing the JSTOR database to the public.

Oh... or how about the news media.  Imagine the social progress the world could make if news organizations weren't forced to shovel sensationalist crap onto the public for the sake of profit.

Ninja'd like fucking crazy because my family is being needy as fuck.

Quote from: Helgoland on July 21, 2013, 05:55:55 am
When a specific capitalist system fails, it is usually because of the abuse of power by those who have accummulated it. Example. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serrata_del_Maggior_Consiglio)

The way I see it, that's just the natural cycle of capitalism, though.  Wealth consolidates until the distribution reaches an unstable extreme of inequality, causing huge amounts of suffering in the process until it simply isn't bearable by the population anymore and is forced to reboot.  Are you saying that capitalism (i.e. free market efficiency) doesn't fail until the whole world suffers some cataclysmic event?  Because we're getting there, too.

Laziness IS the default. In pretty much every living thing, in fact. Nothing is going to expend energy where it isn't needed.

Some of your examples are problematic, too: there is a problem with flat-out giving homes out to the homeless - homeless people often are psychically unable to start living in a home and would need professional help to help them readjust. Not to mention that a percentage of homeless people are also mentally unstable.

Lobbying is not a problem with Capitalism, it's a problem with any system in which the rulers (whatever they are) are able to influence the industry, be it in Capitalism, Socialism or Statist Communism. Not to mention that USSR and China are both responsible for pretty major ecological disasters themselves.

Luddism is, likewise, a problem with how people work, no matter the system someone is going to become obsolete and be angry about that. There is only so much education one worker can get.

News media isn't forced to shovel crap onto public, the public actively yells for having more crap shoveled at them. Sure, if you had a non-profit media, they could be good. BUT NOBODY (aside from weird people like us here) WOULD WATCH IT. Shovel-news is not profitable because it's shovel-news, it is profitable because it's popular.

You entirely ignored that in the case Helgoland brought up, it was not about wealth. It was about political power. In many systems, political power can be abused to profit those who possess it, but again, it is a feature of all systems that are politically exclusive.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 21, 2013, 08:27:38 am
Quote
Some of your examples are problematic, too: there is a problem with flat-out giving homes out to the homeless - homeless people often are psychically unable to start living in a home and would need professional help to help them readjust. Not to mention that a percentage of homeless people are also mentally unstable.

This is a really poor argument against trying to help them in some way though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 21, 2013, 08:30:09 am
Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 07:58:55 am
Laziness IS the default. In pretty much every living thing, in fact. Nothing is going to expend energy where it isn't needed.

Not expending energy where it isn't needed isn't laziness.

Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 07:58:55 am
Some of your examples are problematic, too: there is a problem with flat-out giving homes out to the homeless - homeless people often are psychically unable to start living in a home and would need professional help to help them readjust. Not to mention that a percentage of homeless people are also mentally unstable.

Nevermind that millions of those are people who were foreclosed on over the last few years.  They were living in homes just fine before that happened.  Literally kicked out of their homes just so they can go unused.

Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 07:58:55 am
Lobbying is not a problem with Capitalism, it's a problem with any system in which the rulers (whatever they are) are able to influence the industry, be it in Capitalism, Socialism or Statist Communism. Not to mention that USSR and China are both responsible for pretty major ecological disasters themselves.

Yeah, I'm also not a statist.

Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 07:58:55 am
Luddism is, likewise, a problem with how people work, no matter the system someone is going to become obsolete and be angry about that. There is only so much education one worker can get.

People only get angry about it because it robs them of their ability to live a decent quality of life, or even a life at all.  If that weren't the case, progress would be much easier.

Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 07:58:55 am
News media isn't forced to shovel crap onto public, the public actively yells for having more crap shoveled at them. Sure, if you had a non-profit media, they could be good. BUT NOBODY (aside from weird people like us here) WOULD WATCH IT. Shovel-news is not profitable because it's shovel-news, it is profitable because it's popular.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this one.  I'm not talking about celebrity culture or anything like that, which people do literally ask for.  I'm talking about sensationalism:  presenting information that would otherwise be seen as insignificant in a way that is exaggerated and captivating through emotional manipulation.  It gets viewers and generates profit, because it's designed to cause emotional investment at a glance.  People don't ask to become emotionally invested in things that they wouldn't normally care about.  And it has a horrible effect on society, contributing to fear culture and extreme polarization.  Why does it matter if nobody would watch them otherwise?  Most news isn't very important, but news businesses have to convince people to watch it somehow anyway in order to survive.

Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 07:58:55 am
You entirely ignored that in the case Helgoland brought up, it was not about wealth. It was about political power. In many systems, political power can be abused to profit those who possess it, but again, it is a feature of all systems that are politically exclusive.

And wealth is political power.  Any power is political power, and politics isn't just government.  If what we know today as the government ceased to exist, politics wouldn't.  The business world would form its own relationships and organizations through which they'd engage in the same politics they do now.  Those with wealth would still be powerful, and they'd use that power to fortify and advance their position.  Any centralization of resources in any form will work the same.  It's absolutely about wealth.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 21, 2013, 09:34:22 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 21, 2013, 08:30:09 am
And wealth is political power.  Any power is political power, and politics isn't just government.  If what we know today as the government ceased to exist, politics wouldn't.  The business world would form its own relationships and organizations through which they'd engage in the same politics they do now.  Those with wealth would still be powerful, and they'd use that power to fortify and advance their position.  Any centralization of resources in any form will work the same.  It's absolutely about wealth.
That's a thought of Marx that I really like: Politics and society are merely a topping on the economic relations between the people. Wealth is (to some degree, just look at pre-revolution France for an example where that's not 100% the case) political power, no question.

But I believe we have again run into a definitions problem: Capitalism in the Randian (completely free) and in the ordoliberal (government regulations, progressive taxes), in a hundred other flavors and as the biggest common denominator of all these (which from now on I'll be calling base capitalism).

Whenever a certain capitalist system has failed, it was either because of political meddling (the Venetian example from above) or because of inherent instabilities in that particular flavor (i.e. Great Depression, Crash of '08 etc.). In all those cases, however, base capitalism lived on, merely changed innto another form. The only way it has ever been abolished to a significant degree was after a revolution that blew any previous political and economic structures to smithereens (October revolution, Mao's victory in China). And even in those cases, it has demonstrated a great skill to sneak back in.
Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 21, 2013, 08:27:38 am
This is a really poor argument against trying to help them in some way though.
It really is; but how would helping poor people/renting out homes that aren't gonna be sold soon for a few bucks/doing something else that Ayn Rand would not approve of be uncapitalist?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 21, 2013, 10:08:26 am
Quote from: Helgoland on July 21, 2013, 09:34:22 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 21, 2013, 08:27:38 am
This is a really poor argument against trying to help them in some way though.
It really is; but how would helping poor people/renting out homes that aren't gonna be sold soon for a few bucks/doing something else that Ayn Rand would not approve of be uncapitalist?
Because you make more profit by artificially reducing supply. Small scale example. You got 10 houses, and 8 humans. Each human wants to spend 2 monetary units on a house. Competition ensures that the prize remains the same. Now, if one were to artificially remove several houses out of the market. (High prizes, destroying, just not selling...) So that the total housing numbers ends at 6, prizes can rise. 6*3(new price) > 8*2
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 21, 2013, 10:36:54 am
I thought you might like this. A "Valedictorian Speaks Out Against Schooling", released in 2010.

The webcomic which first introduced me to the speech and video. (http://=http://zenpencils.com/)

The speech and video itself. (http://=http://americaviaerica.blogspot.com.au/p/speech.html)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 11:23:51 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 21, 2013, 08:30:09 am
Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 07:58:55 am
Laziness IS the default. In pretty much every living thing, in fact. Nothing is going to expend energy where it isn't needed.

Not expending energy where it isn't needed isn't laziness.

Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 07:58:55 am
Some of your examples are problematic, too: there is a problem with flat-out giving homes out to the homeless - homeless people often are psychically unable to start living in a home and would need professional help to help them readjust. Not to mention that a percentage of homeless people are also mentally unstable.

Nevermind that millions of those are people who were foreclosed on over the last few years.  They were living in homes just fine before that happened.  Literally kicked out of their homes just so they can go unused.

Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 07:58:55 am
Lobbying is not a problem with Capitalism, it's a problem with any system in which the rulers (whatever they are) are able to influence the industry, be it in Capitalism, Socialism or Statist Communism. Not to mention that USSR and China are both responsible for pretty major ecological disasters themselves.

Yeah, I'm also not a statist.

Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 07:58:55 am
Luddism is, likewise, a problem with how people work, no matter the system someone is going to become obsolete and be angry about that. There is only so much education one worker can get.

People only get angry about it because it robs them of their ability to live a decent quality of life, or even a life at all.  If that weren't the case, progress would be much easier.

Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 07:58:55 am
News media isn't forced to shovel crap onto public, the public actively yells for having more crap shoveled at them. Sure, if you had a non-profit media, they could be good. BUT NOBODY (aside from weird people like us here) WOULD WATCH IT. Shovel-news is not profitable because it's shovel-news, it is profitable because it's popular.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this one.  I'm not talking about celebrity culture or anything like that, which people do literally ask for.  I'm talking about sensationalism:  presenting information that would otherwise be seen as insignificant in a way that is exaggerated and captivating through emotional manipulation.  It gets viewers and generates profit, because it's designed to cause emotional investment at a glance.  People don't ask to become emotionally invested in things that they wouldn't normally care about.  And it has a horrible effect on society, contributing to fear culture and extreme polarization.  Why does it matter if nobody would watch them otherwise?  Most news isn't very important, but news businesses have to convince people to watch it somehow anyway in order to survive.

Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 07:58:55 am
You entirely ignored that in the case Helgoland brought up, it was not about wealth. It was about political power. In many systems, political power can be abused to profit those who possess it, but again, it is a feature of all systems that are politically exclusive.

And wealth is political power.  Any power is political power, and politics isn't just government.  If what we know today as the government ceased to exist, politics wouldn't.  The business world would form its own relationships and organizations through which they'd engage in the same politics they do now.  Those with wealth would still be powerful, and they'd use that power to fortify and advance their position.  Any centralization of resources in any form will work the same.  It's absolutely about wealth.

- Then I need your definition of laziness.

- People who got foreclosed didn't get kicked out of their homes FOR TEH EVULZ. They were kicked out of their homes so that the bank could sell the house and get their money back. Since, due to the state of the economy, many people got foreclosed, the houses became worthless, but that's a whole different issue. I'd say that mindless foreclosures like that are extremely irrational on the bank's side, though.

- Nor did I accuse you of being one. What I did was pointing out that it's not exclusively an issue with Capitalism.

- I don't see how any other system could solve that in any way. Sure, communism may make the transition a bit more smooth by supporting the workers during the transition, but in that case any major advance would be a massive resource sink and it might as well result in social pressure to not innovate to avoid having to fund a whole lotta people who end up out of work, even if it's only temporary.

- I know what you were trying to say. That's exactly what I meant in my post. The people want their sensationalized news. First, they play to the confirmation bias and ingroup/outgroup conflicts, second, both sides believe their propaganda to be unbiased. Even if you aren't for-profit, you have material costs, maintenance, et cetera, and you need to get those somehow. If nobody watches the media, how would you convince anyone to provide those to you?

- Wealth can be converted to political power (and vice versa), via bribes and what have you. But political power is more complex than wealth alone - connections, friendships (the rare actual, non-faked ones), family ties... You can have wealth but lack political pull, and if all you have is wealth, you won't go very far when people who are not only relatively wealthy but also well-connected conspire to deprive you of it - see the Venice example, the noveau riche were deprived of power by more connected old money families.

Quote from: Helgoland on July 21, 2013, 09:34:22 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 21, 2013, 08:30:09 am
And wealth is political power.  Any power is political power, and politics isn't just government.  If what we know today as the government ceased to exist, politics wouldn't.  The business world would form its own relationships and organizations through which they'd engage in the same politics they do now.  Those with wealth would still be powerful, and they'd use that power to fortify and advance their position.  Any centralization of resources in any form will work the same.  It's absolutely about wealth.
That's a thought of Marx that I really like: Politics and society are merely a topping on the economic relations between the people. Wealth is (to some degree, just look at pre-revolution France for an example where that's not 100% the case) political power, no question.

But I believe we have again run into a definitions problem: Capitalism in the Randian (completely free) and in the ordoliberal (government regulations, progressive taxes), in a hundred other flavors and as the biggest common denominator of all these (which from now on I'll be calling base capitalism).

Whenever a certain capitalist system has failed, it was either because of political meddling (the Venetian example from above) or because of inherent instabilities in that particular flavor (i.e. Great Depression, Crash of '08 etc.). In all those cases, however, base capitalism lived on, merely changed innto another form. The only way it has ever been abolished to a significant degree was after a revolution that blew any previous political and economic structures to smithereens (October revolution, Mao's victory in China). And even in those cases, it has demonstrated a great skill to sneak back in.
Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 21, 2013, 08:27:38 am
This is a really poor argument against trying to help them in some way though.
It really is; but how would helping poor people/renting out homes that aren't gonna be sold soon for a few bucks/doing something else that Ayn Rand would not approve of be uncapitalist?

I'm using Capitalism as a purely abstract, purely economical system. So there are two axes: political system and economical system. Neither Capitalism nor Communism are inherently Statist nor Anti-Statist, so you can have four extremes with many different systems in between: Anarcho-Communism and the like, Soviet/Chinese-pre-Deng-style Totalitarian Communism, Statist Capitalism (think zaibatsus) and Anarcho-Capitalism and the like.

Note that there would be a couple of notable systems that fall closer to the centre but are just as, if not more, dystopian - Nazi Germany was very authoritorian and obviously Statist, but self-styledly equidistant from both Capitalism and Communism, Social Democracy as imagined in Silent Hill might be a good simile, with private, but cartellized, enterprises, massive social projects and the like.

Also, do not assume I am not aware, or angered, by the problems of artificial supply manipulation or other examples of dirty tricks, I simply think that such problems might be solved within the system.

EDIT: @ebbor's link - I am a bit conflicted about the speech, because for the most part, it sounds like what people who are actually mediocre and unwilling to do anything to improve say to themselves one someone bests them (personal experience - nigh verbatim), except it is delivered by someone who, despite apparently having enough clarity to say all that still tried to earn it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 21, 2013, 11:59:26 am
Completely off topic and going back quite a ways, but an article that's worth sharing.

Ex-Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens reviewed a book on the history and background of the Voting Rights Act for the New York Review of Books.

He used it as an opportunity to utterly demolish the majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder. (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/aug/15/the-court-right-to-vote-dissent/?pagination=false)

I particularly like the passage talking about how the "fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the States" - relied upon by the majority for that decision - is completely compromised by the history of the south using it's non-voting black population (first through slavery then through Jim Crow and intimidation) to gain greater representation. He even closes by quoting Scalia from his DOMA dissent, released the day after Shelby County, utterly gutting the reasoning used to pass the judgement.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 21, 2013, 12:16:44 pm
Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 11:23:51 am
- Then I need your definition of laziness.

Being unwilling to spend personal energy where it is needed.

Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 11:23:51 am
- People who got foreclosed didn't get kicked out of their homes FOR TEH EVULZ. They were kicked out of their homes so that the bank could sell the house and get their money back. Since, due to the state of the economy, many people got foreclosed, the houses became worthless, but that's a whole different issue. I'd say that mindless foreclosures like that are extremely irrational on the bank's side, though.

Never said it was done for teh evulz.  And I understand why it happened.  My point is that it was a completely inefficient and illogical misuse of resources that only took place because of capitalist imperatives.

Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 11:23:51 am
- Nor did I accuse you of being one. What I did was pointing out that it's not exclusively an issue with Capitalism.

You're right, it's not.  That's just where the current focus of discussion is.  I think it's an issue with any system of property, which is why the core of my political ideology is the abolition of property.  I don't think a person should be able to claim ownership of anything that they don't maintain a personal relationship with (ex. you can own the house you live in, but not one that you don't).

Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 11:23:51 am
- I don't see how any other system could solve that in any way. Sure, communism may make the transition a bit more smooth by supporting the workers during the transition, but in that case any major advance would be a massive resource sink and it might as well result in social pressure to not innovate to avoid having to fund a whole lotta people who end up out of work, even if it's only temporary.

So long as resources are scarce, sure, it will be a problem to support people who aren't working.  But the whole point of technological progress in most cases is to make resources less scarce.  So any system which supports people when their work is made obsolete is going to transition away from scarcity faster than a system which doesn't.  And essential resources are currently not scarce, yet we see huge resistance to progress for economic reasons.  Just because it's a problem that isn't going to be resolved until society reaches a thoroughly post-scarcity stage doesn't mean it couldn't be dealt with a hell of a lot better.

Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 11:23:51 am
- I know what you were trying to say. That's exactly what I meant in my post. The people want their sensationalized news. First, they play to the confirmation bias and ingroup/outgroup conflicts, second, both sides believe their propaganda to be unbiased. Even if you aren't for-profit, you have material costs, maintenance, et cetera, and you need to get those somehow. If nobody watches the media, how would you convince anyone to provide those to you?

I'll give it to you halfway in the case of people wanting political bias in their news.  Only halfway because while people may appreciate not having to face challenges to their beliefs, that doesn't necessarily mean they want the framing of every possible new event constantly twisted into a political context when it really doesn't deserve to be.  And that's only one form of sensationalism, anyway.  Just because people pay for something doesn't mean they want it, any more than someone may have wanted to be addicted to Coca-Cola in 1887.

Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 11:23:51 am
- Wealth can be converted to political power (and vice versa), via bribes and what have you. But political power is more complex than wealth alone - connections, friendships (the rare actual, non-faked ones), family ties... You can have wealth but lack political pull, and if all you have is wealth, you won't go very far when people who are not only relatively wealthy but also well-connected conspire to deprive you of it - see the Venice example, the noveau riche were deprived of power by more connected old money families.

I think this is splitting hairs.  Power is power and power is political.  Just because there are other kinds of power that can be used to trump wealth in the right circumstances doesn't mean that wealth isn't power and that power isn't political.  Someone with wealth has political influence even absent any corruption, because politics deals with resources, so it's impossible for someone who is wealthy not to be politically relevant.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on July 21, 2013, 12:19:35 pm
The main problem with capitalism is that banks rule the economy. And banks are ruled by people who doesn't know squat about how industry works.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 12:43:19 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 21, 2013, 12:16:44 pm
Quote from: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 11:23:51 am
- Then I need your definition of laziness.

Being unwilling to spend personal energy where it is needed.

Where it's needed for the society, or where it's needed for you, personally? And to what degree? I suspect that only the latter would be deemed necessary for an average person, so in other words, if something is needed for the whole society, including you, but does not entail meeting any of your needs, it would be deemed unnecessary - Tragedy of the Commons and Bystander Syndrome are well-documented instances of that happening.

Quote
Never said it was done for teh evulz.  And I understand why it happened.  My point is that it was a completely inefficient and illogical misuse of resources that only took place because of capitalist imperatives.

Inefficent and illogical misuse of resources happened as soon as the banks started, en masse, to lend money to people who couldn't repay them. And when people who were in debt spent money they didn't have. Mind you, I'm not blaming the people who got foreclosed one the crisis begun, they were caught in an avalanche, but the whole thing has a fuckton of inefficent and illogical misuses.

You're right, it's not.  That's just where the current focus of discussion is.  I think it's an issue with any system of property, which is why the core of my political ideology is the abolition of property.  I don't think a person should be able to claim ownership of anything that they don't maintain a personal relationship with (ex. you can own the house you live in, but not one that you don't).

Quote
So long as resources are scarce, sure, it will be a problem to support people who aren't working.  But the whole point of technological progress in most cases is to make resources less scarce.  So any system which supports people when their work is made obsolete is going to transition away from scarcity faster than a system which doesn't.  And essential resources are currently not scarce, yet we see huge resistance to progress for economic reasons.  Just because it's a problem that isn't going to be resolved until society reaches a thoroughly post-scarcity stage doesn't mean it couldn't be dealt with a hell of a lot better.

How so? You're going to use up the resources that could be used to further the progress to support the people who were rendered obsolete by it. So what you're going to do is move the resistance from individual level to community-wide level, since it now affects those who have to provide resources to be redistributed as well as those affected. Sure, it will be a smaller individual impact, but it will be spread on a larger group, and larger groups have more power in democratic societies.

Quote
I'll give it to you halfway in the case of people wanting political bias in their news.  Only halfway because while people may appreciate not having to face challenges to their beliefs, that doesn't necessarily mean they want the framing of every possible new event constantly twisted into a political context when it really doesn't deserve to be.  And that's only one form of sensationalism, anyway.  Just because people pay for something doesn't mean they want it, any more than someone may have wanted to be addicted to Coca-Cola in 1887.

Yes they do. If you do not like the news, do not watch them and do not pay for them. Of course, it's a whole different issue if you are legally forced to pay.

Quote from: Sergarr on July 21, 2013, 12:19:35 pm
The main problem with capitalism is that banks rule the economy. And banks are ruled by people who doesn't know squat about how industry works.

The first rule of the Cliche club is that we do not talk about the Cliche club.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 21, 2013, 12:54:58 pm
The main problem with capitalism is humanity's insanity itself.

We will pay professional athletes tens and sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars, because we WANT sports.

We will gripe about paying teachers, police, firefighters, EMS, social workers, lawyers, doctors, repairmen (auto, home, heating, computer, whatever) and garbage men ANYTHING because, though we absolutely, unquestioningly NEED those things, we don't WANT them.

Capitalism invites this consumer mentality where people make millions of dollars on a pet rock, because people are stupid enough to buy it. The system will somehow "correct" itself, but this is never fully explained except somebody is going to lose their shirt. It also invites fraud, aka marketing (it slices, it dices, it makes fucking french fries, while petting your cat and teaching your kids foreign languages and doing your taxes for you!), at the expense of honest businesses. The honest businesses will tell you the truth (which you don't want to hear because you think you can shop around for better) and the dishonest ones will sell you lies you only figure out after they have your money (and you can be on hold for 45 minutes before you even consider speaking to a human being, who probably barely speaks English).

Capitalism caters to human stupidity and fantasy wishing. There's only so much a robe can do, but a "snuggie," is somehow cloth spun from the hair of sir Jesus Christ himself if you believe the marketing. ???

Utilitarianism: shit gets to where it needs to be to accomplish a goal/goals. Nobody has a closet the size of an average bedroom and a separate closet for all their shoes.... We don't need to mine diamonds, because sparkly rocks don't do anything (I am in favor of industrial use of diamonds as a hard cutting material). We can make TV shows that aren't based upon BS "reality" TV, which is like calling a huge guy "tiny." The huge guy isn't tiny; reality TV isn't.... Whatever the hell Snookie is can just go back to wherever it came from.

We cater too much to Bullshit for the purpose of needless hoarding, because "value" is determined largely by 12 year old girls who shop at the mall (hence why music is terrible, they're the only ones buying records).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 21, 2013, 12:58:54 pm
My understanding of Utilitarianism was that it is a moral philosophy centred around the old idea of the "greatest good for the greatest majority", not necessarily about stuff like people not having "closets the size of an average bedroom and a separate closet for their shoes". Indeed, Jeremy Bentham, an early Utilitarian and hedonist (called an "Act" Utilitarian as opposed to "Rule" Utilitarians like John Stuart Mill), would say that you really ought to have that closet the size of an average bedroom because of the pleasure it would bring you. Provided it didn't rob the majority of people of pleasure, of course.

Indeed, Bentham-style Utilitarianism could lead to situations like 10 sadists torturing a person to death being morally good. The reason why is that the sadists' pleasure would outweigh the physical and emotional pain of the victim. Bentham would probably retort that the pain of the victim would be too great, but it really is a question of just how much pleasure the sadists are getting out of it. It sounds a lot like capitalism to me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 21, 2013, 01:20:04 pm
The issue is how value is measured, or if you want to use Mill, Bentham etc (I don't), "happiness" or "pleasure," or "greatest good" or whatever. 

We could mass produce the crap out of things to make human beings have better lives. We don't. Part of this is the delusion of choice and customization. The Chinese can put up a large 30 story hotel in 15 days....

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/01/10/chinese-builders-construct-30-story-hotel-in-15-days/
Full stop. They're kicking our asses. Those [gasp] "Communists" are beating the daylights out of us in engineering feats and will soon become the dominate world power, replacing the U.S. if this continues.

We could certainly do that with just about anything if we actually wanted to DO something instead of MAKE SOMEONE RICH, SAVE SOMEONE MONEY, or PAY LESS.

It's simple really. You build up excess capacity, then you focus on any luxury that might be wanted. 30 story hotel. 15 days.... It isn't impossible, but we just don't want to do it, almost entirely because some rich person won't get richer doing it. We'd rather have poor people live in hovels and paying exorbitant rent to do so (or have the government pay said exorbitant rent). Why? "Choice?" "Freedom?" [insert worthless buzzword here]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on July 21, 2013, 01:21:00 pm
Everything would be so much better if I were supreme world leader~
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on July 21, 2013, 01:29:46 pm
Quote from: Truean on July 21, 2013, 01:20:04 pm
The issue is how value is measured, or if you want to use Mill, Bentham etc (I don't), "happiness" or "pleasure," or "greatest good" or whatever. 

We could mass produce the crap out of things to make human beings have better lives. We don't. Part of this is the delusion of choice and customization. The Chinese can put up a large 30 story hotel in 15 days....

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/01/10/chinese-builders-construct-30-story-hotel-in-15-days/
Full stop. They're kicking our asses. Those [gasp] "Communists" are beating the daylights out of us in engineering feats and will soon become the dominate world power, replacing the U.S. if this continues.

We could certainly do that with just about anything if we actually wanted to DO something instead of MAKE SOMEONE RICH, SAVE SOMEONE MONEY, or PAY LESS.

It's simple really. You build up excess capacity, then you focus on any luxury that might be wanted. 30 story hotel. 15 days.... It isn't impossible, but we just don't want to do it, almost entirely because some rich person won't get richer doing it. We'd rather have poor people live in hovels and paying exorbitant rent to do so (or have the government pay said exorbitant rent). Why? "Choice?" "Freedom?" [insert worthless buzzword here]

Eh, the Chinese aren't communists. They're moving towards capitalism.

That hotel was for profit. (Or, alternatively, for the Party) (Or alternatively, another set piece for another Chinese ghost town)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Devling on July 21, 2013, 01:31:15 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on July 21, 2013, 01:21:00 pm
Everything would be so much better if I were supreme world leader~
I think we all say that at some point.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 21, 2013, 01:34:25 pm
The Chinese aren't headed for world domination, they're headed for demographic falloff.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 21, 2013, 01:39:53 pm
China is having severe trouble with an overstimulated economy. Probably going to crash within this and 10 years. Also, China is an autocratic capitalist country. No communism left, except for the name.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on July 21, 2013, 02:18:27 pm
Quote from: Truean on July 21, 2013, 01:20:04 pm
We could mass produce the crap out of things to make human beings have better lives. We don't. Part of this is the delusion of choice and customization. The Chinese can put up a large 30 story hotel in 15 days....

...by throwing a couple of truckloads of people to do that. In some places in China, orchards are manually pollinated! It's cheap enough and you don't have to rely on those pesky, pollution-hating insects.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 21, 2013, 03:32:30 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on July 21, 2013, 01:29:46 pm
[Eh, the Chinese aren't communists. They're moving towards capitalism more capitalist than any other nation in the world.
China hasn't had a non-capitalist economy since before Mao died.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 21, 2013, 04:05:34 pm
We can fight over definitions all we want. That's kinda the problem in a way. That sound you're hearing is them spanking us quite severely.

Our infrastructure is rotting; theirs is growing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 21, 2013, 04:20:20 pm
Our relationship with China is symbiotic. I think it is ultimately a good thing, as economic MAD is preferable to nuclear MAD. We just need to curb our side of the abuses and convince/force/bribe China to do the same with its.

I actually want China to grow economically. Democracy movements have historically flowered upon the enrichment of a population.

The point I am trying to make is that this isn't like with the USSR. Nor can it be. The state of the world is far too interconnected for that situation to exist again.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 21, 2013, 04:20:45 pm
Quote from: Truean on July 21, 2013, 04:05:34 pm
Our infrastructure is rotting; theirs is growing.
One of the worst things that can happen to a crop is growing too fast: It will spend all its recources, and once they are gone, it is confronted with the utterly non-sustainability of its form.
China is somewhat like this: They may be able to pull up a 30-story building in 15 days, but they also misallocate resources on a massive scale.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Link. (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/03/business/china-worlds-largest-mall)
It's similar to the building boom in pre-crisis Spain: Most hotels and so on were built as investments, and for some time the prices actually kept rising - but when the crisis came, they found out nobody wanted to live in those places.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DWC on July 21, 2013, 07:39:42 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 21, 2013, 04:20:20 pm
Our relationship with China is symbiotic. I think it is ultimately a good thing, as economic MAD is preferable to nuclear MAD. We just need to curb our side of the abuses and convince/force/bribe China to do the same with its.

I actually want China to grow economically. Democracy movements have historically flowered upon the enrichment of a population.

The point I am trying to make is that this isn't like with the USSR. Nor can it be. The state of the world is far too interconnected for that situation to exist again.

I think I agree with your assessment, but I think globalism isn't something that will survive forever. It's a product of inexpensive oil, great disparities between labor costs/ exchange rates and free market economies, or at least free market economies exploiting disparities with more centralized nations with artificially depressed economies. None of those things are guarantees in the future.

The world is evolving, the USA is stalling in terms of economic and diplomatic importance while other nations are growing to parity. Especially China. Oil is basically at it's peak in terms as a natural resource and the whole of industrialized civilization is wholly dependent on it, it will only get more scarce and expensive from here on out as a whole. Wide spread information from the internet, social media has changed how politics work in the world. The status quo is less secure then it's ever been.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 21, 2013, 07:55:07 pm
Oil, political-bloc driven globalism is declining rapidly, yes. However, information-driven, personal globalism is filling the void. And this is good, because it will create the kind of scenario for planetwide cooperation that we will need in the future to tackle even greater challenges.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on July 21, 2013, 09:45:22 pm
LNG....is the future. Not solar, wind, or god forbid, ethanol. Large scale renewable energy is still in its infantile stages, and in most cases, does not break even until many years.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on July 21, 2013, 10:30:27 pm
Quote from: Mrhappyface on July 21, 2013, 09:45:22 pm
LNG....is the future. Not solar, wind, or god forbid, ethanol. Large scale renewable energy is still in its infantile stages, and in most cases, does not break even until many years.

The future belongs to renewable energy, because it doesn't run out. The only non renewable form of energy that has the potential to significantly outlast the end of the century is nuclear, and that is only if we move to feeder breeder reactors. Even coal will fail when it has to go through liquefaction to run cars/planes or if electric cars become popular enough to dramatically increase demand for grid power.

 And no, ethanol is not a form of renewable energy either. Its cost in soil nutrients and draining of aquifers make it even more dangerous than fossil fuels.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 21, 2013, 10:37:29 pm
Quote from: Mrhappyface on July 21, 2013, 09:45:22 pm
LNG....is the future. Not solar, wind, or god forbid, ethanol. Large scale renewable energy is still in its infantile stages, and in most cases, does not break even until many years.
Spoiler: No. (click to show/hide)

I will grant you only that Liquified Natural Gas is a step up from oil and coal, but it also needs to be eliminated long-term.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on July 22, 2013, 01:18:05 am
Yes, it's the next step. Logical increments after all. Maybe we'll eventually reach cold fusion reactors or develop some sort of material or technique that can safely contain a fusion reaction, but probably not in the next 20 years.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 22, 2013, 01:42:18 am
If I remember correctly, ITER will go live around 2020 - add some twenty years onto that to make it industrially viable, and we have ourselves the energy source of the future. This huge emphasis on decentrality is hogwash, much like Mao's famed steel production concept.
And it only gets more exciting when you remember that fusion produces fast neutrons, which can split U-238 and thus produce both energy and fuel for conventional reactors.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on July 22, 2013, 02:19:38 am
Quote from: Mrhappyface on July 22, 2013, 01:18:05 am
Maybe we'll eventually reach cold fusion reactors or develop some sort of material or technique that can safely contain a fusion reaction, but probably not in the next 20 years.

Cold fusion as we know it is a fraud, violating the known laws of physics and all that. And on the subject of reaction containment, magnetic fields are used. The most theoretically efficient shape of said field would be spherical but unfortunately magnets do not work that way, which means that the current line of thinking in fusion reactor design is shaping the containment vessel into a torus.

Oh, something else about cold fusion. If it produces little to no heat, then where is all the energy going?

And why would we want to use a system that produces virtually no heat and thus energy compared to a conventional fusion reactor? None of it makes any sense whatsoever.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Chink on July 22, 2013, 02:27:34 am
Quote from: Morrigi on July 22, 2013, 02:19:38 am
Quote from: Mrhappyface on July 22, 2013, 01:18:05 am
Maybe we'll eventually reach cold fusion reactors or develop some sort of material or technique that can safely contain a fusion reaction, but probably not in the next 20 years.

Cold fusion as we know it is a fraud, violating the known laws of physics and all that. And on the subject of reaction containment, magnetic fields are used. The most theoretically efficient shape of said field would be spherical but unfortunately magnets do not work that way, which means that the current line of thinking in fusion reactor design is shaping the containment vessel into a torus.

Oh, something else about cold fusion. If it produces little to no heat, then where is all the energy going?

And why would we want to use a system that produces virtually no heat and thus energy compared to a conventional fusion reactor? None of it makes any sense whatsoever.
Cold fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion) means that the reaction itself could be started at room temperatures, not that the reaction would produce no heat. It would still produce similar amounts of heat, and therefore energy, just starting at lower temperatures, which would make the reaction easier to both start and sustain.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 22, 2013, 02:55:49 am
Quote from: Morrigi on July 22, 2013, 02:19:38 am
Cold fusion as we know it is a fraud, violating the known laws of physics and all that. And on the subject of reaction containment, magnetic fields are used. The most theoretically efficient shape of said field would be spherical but unfortunately magnets do not work that way, which means that the current line of thinking in fusion reactor design is shaping the containment vessel into a torus.

Oh, something else about cold fusion. If it produces little to no heat, then where is all the energy going?

And why would we want to use a system that produces virtually no heat and thus energy compared to a conventional fusion reactor? None of it makes any sense whatsoever.
I want you to look at the sky during a cloudless day. You might notice a fucking huge ball of light that hurts to look at. That thing is a fusion engine, largest in the solar system. As it was initially 'sparked' not from incredible heat, but astronomical pressure, one could call it a cold fusion engine. It now provides the energy for a very complex chemical reaction we call life.

Humanity: Proudly sponsored by cold fusion for over 4.5 billion years, long before the earth even formed for humanity to begin on.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 22, 2013, 03:11:04 am
Also, do note that heat is not the only way energy can be produced. That's the main benefit of second generation fusion after all. It emits electrons, which can be directly used for grid power. Sadly, we can't even get first gen fusion working. Btw, the sun is practically a cold fusion engine, temperatures in the core are very low when compared to human fusion installations.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 22, 2013, 03:20:23 am
Quote from: Mrhappyface on July 22, 2013, 01:18:05 am
Yes, it's the next step. Logical increments after all. Maybe we'll eventually reach cold fusion reactors or develop some sort of material or technique that can safely contain a fusion reaction, but probably not in the next 20 years.
No, as the information in the spoiler demonstrates, renewables are the next step. LNG is just more acceptable filler for what fossil fuels can't be replaced yet.
Quote from: Max White on July 22, 2013, 02:55:49 am
I want you to look at the sky during a cloudless day. You might notice a fucking huge ball of light that hurts to look at. That thing is a fusion engine, largest in the solar system. As it was initially 'sparked' not from incredible heat, but astronomical pressure, one could call it a cold fusion engine. It now provides the energy for a very complex chemical reaction we call life.

Humanity: Proudly sponsored by cold fusion for over 4.5 billion years, long before the earth even formed for humanity to begin on.
The sun, while not at all close to the temperature needed for Earthbound fusion, also is under 28 times Earth's gravity. Unless we discover how to manipulate gravity, we are not likely to make much progress on any "cold" fusion front.

On the other hand, if we do discover how to manipulate gravity, humanity wins and the universe is fucked.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 22, 2013, 03:31:02 am
Well I think we are pretty far away from cold fusion at this point, to my understanding. All claims I have ever seen come down to chemistry. But the fact that something is implausible for human technology is far from impossible for physics.

Although we can still harvest the output from the fusion generator we already have, so no dire need to build a new one. Just put up a solar panel and BAM! You are drinking a fusion smoothy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 22, 2013, 03:32:59 am
You don't need to use gravity. Magnetical compression works too.

Though well, containing a fusing ball of plasma with a pressure similar to the core of the sun might be a bad idea. Especially if containment fails.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 22, 2013, 03:34:54 am
All energy on Earth ultimately comes from the sun, Max. The question you should be asking yourself is whether you want to build a Dyson sphere or continue on the creation of Earthly fusion generators, because that would be the fair comparison.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 22, 2013, 03:43:18 am
Honestly, I don't actually see us ever reaching the golden age of space travel. I know this sounds surprising to people, but I honestly think we may never colonize another planet beyond maybe a scientific research station.

Looking at how technology is heading these days, it seems more and more likely that we will eventually all plug ourselves into servers in a fashion similar to The Matrix, and live out the rest of earths life span living like gods of our own virtual world, before our planet is consumed by a dying sun. The Fermi Paradox would seem to indicate this is a more common path than space exploration.

With this in mind, we have no need for a Dyson sphere. All we need is enough green, renewable energy to power our computers, provide some sort of life support, possibly handle human reproduction and maintain a crew of drones to make repairs. We can get all the energy for that on earth.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 22, 2013, 03:52:53 am
In that case, nothing would stop us applying the same technologies in launching a small probe with a few dozen minds running on it, or many such probes, contravening the Fermi paradox.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 22, 2013, 03:58:06 am
That would assume we develop our space technology to that point before we all just plug ourselves in. Once every human is living a virtual life without concern for the outside world, all science and engineering comes to an abrupt end. Relative to nanotechnology, neurology, computing, genetics, all the kinds of fields required, our developments in human space travel is pretty much standing still.

But regardless, a life boat sent into space of people in a virtual world still doesn't require a Dyson sphere.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 22, 2013, 04:06:08 am
Greenpeace on fusion. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/fusion_greenpeace_no/)
They seem less and less likeable to me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 22, 2013, 04:13:46 am
Quote
Spokesperson Bridget Woodman said: "Nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident."

... Better not breath in, lest you inhale some of that nuclear waste, you carbon based fool!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 22, 2013, 04:15:57 am
Greenpeace lying to push thier own agenda? Gee, that never happens! :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 22, 2013, 05:11:40 am
Quote from: Max White on July 22, 2013, 03:58:06 am
Once every human is living a virtual life without concern for the outside world, all science and engineering comes to an abrupt end.
That... is a hell of a stretch. Also a thing that just won't happen. There's always going to be some portion of our population pushing the limits of science and engineering, because they're interesting problems and our species flipping thrives on interesting problems. VR hookup, at most, just means most of the fieldwork would be done by non-humans (drones, etc.).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 22, 2013, 05:12:49 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on July 22, 2013, 03:11:04 am
Btw, the sun is practically a cold fusion engine, temperatures in the core are very low when compared to human fusion installations.

While this is true, it's because the sun can be far less efficient than human fusion needs to be.

The solar core has a power density of around 276.5 Wm-3. ITER, the most ambitious and large fusion reactor so far planned which has the (hopefully slim) potential to be too big to work, is only 840 m3, with the plasma volume only taking up 100 m3. If we were working with reactions on the order of solar fusion we would only seen a 27,650 W power output. ITER is designed for 500 MW. That's an 18,000 fold difference.


As far as cold fusion goes, actual cold fusion is simple impossible. You need to overcome the coulomb barrier between nuclei; the electromagnetic repulsion of the two positive ions you are trying to fuse. That requires at least the atoms that are being fused to be 'hot', or moving fast enough to break through that energy barrier.

Most of the seemingly plausible models of cold fusions are actually variations on inertially confined fusion, where the ions are locally given a high inertia by rapidly compressing a sample of material. The last claim that actually got attention from physicists was so-called bubble fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_fusion), based on the relatively poorly understood sonoluminescence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence). We actually had an option to do an undergraduate report on the topic back in about 2007/8.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 22, 2013, 05:48:00 am
Also Muon fusion, which sadly suffers from muons being too expensive to produce.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on July 22, 2013, 06:20:32 am






Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 22, 2013, 03:34:54 am
All energy on Earth ultimately comes from the sun, Max. The question you should be asking yourself is whether you want to build a Dyson sphere or continue on the creation of Earthly fusion generators, because that would be the fair comparison.

Geothermal, heating from the decay of radioactive material, and let's say other stars just because I really want three negations.









Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 22, 2013, 06:25:55 am
One could argue that our sun provides geothermal, although indirectly. It was the gravitational well that gave earth its dust cloud cradle. No sun, no earth. No earth, no seismic pressure to produce heat. The decay of atoms, however, can be attributed to celestial ghosts, rather than our own living, breathing ball of solar gravity.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 22, 2013, 06:39:58 am
Quote from: Helgoland on July 22, 2013, 04:06:08 am
Greenpeace on fusion. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/fusion_greenpeace_no/)
They seem less and less likeable to me.
I always hated Greenpeace. Just another stupid lobbying group appearing likeable, but they really aren't. Something organised by someone or some subsidiary of theirs trashed a GMO research facility in Australia wrecking over 8 years of research.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 22, 2013, 06:53:47 am
Greenpeace is a large and diverse organization. Some of the earlier members have left in disgust, but there's still some good they do sometimes - but it's got a lot of troglodytes in it too. The opposition to fusion comes as no surprise, really.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 22, 2013, 07:08:01 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 22, 2013, 06:53:47 am
Greenpeace is a large and diverse organization. Some of the earlier members have left in disgust, but there's still some good they do sometimes - but it's got a lot of troglodytes in it too. The opposition to fusion comes as no surprise, really.
I think that's the same with a lot of lobby groups... They still do the thing, just not as well and they're losing their way.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on July 22, 2013, 07:36:19 am
That article was fun to read. :D
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 22, 2013, 06:39:58 am
Quote from: Helgoland on July 22, 2013, 04:06:08 am
Greenpeace on fusion. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/fusion_greenpeace_no/)
They seem less and less likeable to me.
I always hated Greenpeace. Just another stupid lobbying group appearing likeable, but they really aren't. Something organised by someone or some subsidiary of theirs trashed a GMO research facility in Australia wrecking over 8 years of research.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on July 22, 2013, 09:24:19 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 22, 2013, 03:52:53 am
In that case, nothing would stop us applying the same technologies in launching a small probe with a few dozen minds running on it, or many such probes, contravening the Fermi paradox.
Yeah, that's actually one of the original purpose of the 'cyborg' idea. The famous 1960 Clynes and Kline paper:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/40145380/Cyborgs-and-Space-By-Manfred-E-Clynes-and-Nathan-S-Kline
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 22, 2013, 09:43:44 am
Quote from: Helgoland on July 22, 2013, 04:06:08 am
Greenpeace on fusion. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/fusion_greenpeace_no/)
They seem less and less likeable to me.
I began to dislike them when they supported the EUCJ sentence on ESC patents with the usual pro-lifer bullshit about ipscs making ESC "unnecessary". Really? Let's see what Shinya Yamanaka, nobel prize of Medicine and the goddamn DISCOVERER of IPSCs says about the matter: Whoops! (http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/abstract/S1934-5909(12)00237-8)
So... what about the ISSCR? Does it say any different?

Spoiler: "No, it doesn't" (click to show/hide)
So screw you GreenPeace, screw you very hard. If I ever gave a dime to you was so that you could troll the Japanese for ignoring the whaling ban, nuclear weapon tests, and shit like that. But leave actual scientific research to the grownups to deal with, k? Things are bad enough with the Eurozone crisis for you to come in and muddle the waters even further with your cluelessness
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on July 22, 2013, 03:35:44 pm
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on July 22, 2013, 09:43:44 am
Quote from: Helgoland on July 22, 2013, 04:06:08 am
Greenpeace on fusion. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/fusion_greenpeace_no/)
They seem less and less likeable to me.
I began to dislike them when they supported the EUCJ sentence on ESC patents with the usual pro-lifer bullshit about ipscs making ESC "unnecessary". Really? Let's see what Shinya Yamanaka, nobel prize of Medicine and the goddamn DISCOVERER of IPSCs says about the matter: Whoops! (http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/abstract/S1934-5909(12)00237-8)
So... what about the ISSCR? Does it say any different?

Spoiler: "No, it doesn't" (click to show/hide)
So screw you GreenPeace, screw you very hard. If I ever gave a dime to you was so that you could troll the Japanese for ignoring the whaling ban, nuclear weapon tests, and shit like that. But leave actual scientific research to the grownups to deal with, k? Things are bad enough with the Eurozone crisis for you to come in and muddle the waters even further with your cluelessness

> demand IPSCs replace ESCs
> IPSCs require (epi-)genetic manipulation to be made
> trash genetic research facilities

Greenpeace cannot into logic.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 25, 2013, 04:07:27 am
http://michaelsnyder.mensnewsdaily.com/2013/07/the-biggest-oil-discovery-in-50-years/
Thoughts?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 25, 2013, 04:14:09 am
Considering the article contained a  link to this (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45153076/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/italian-cold-fusion-machine-passes-another-test/#.Ue8fum0pgw4), I'm not so sure it's reliable.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 25, 2013, 04:16:29 am
Even if it is true, you know when big oil finds were a sign of a good oil supply? When finding them wasn't news.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: andrea on July 25, 2013, 04:26:48 am
well, it is good to know that we shoved bad the energy collapse point a few years back, even if this doesn't help in regard of climate change. ( if it is as large as stated)
the link to E-Cat is a bit... well, I don't know. I won't trust anything Mr Rossi says about it until he reveals his catalyst, assuming there really is one.

however, there is also a link about thorium fission research in that article, and thorium fissium is a promising field. beats coal, anyway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 25, 2013, 04:39:43 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on July 25, 2013, 04:14:09 am
Considering the article contained a  link to this (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45153076/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/italian-cold-fusion-machine-passes-another-test/#.Ue8fum0pgw4), I'm not so sure it's reliable.
There were questions raised as to it's authenticity on the website I got it from. So keep that in mind that it may not be reliable.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 25, 2013, 05:13:50 am
Aren't we all still waiting for those oil pipelines from Turkmenistan to the West being completed? Some of the biggest reserves in the world are down there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 25, 2013, 06:28:59 am
http://news.yahoo.com/bank-mistakenly-repossesses-ohio-woman-s-home-172941826.html

You or I do this and its a felony burglary among other crimes with a few years in jail. Bank does it; gets cocky about it to victim.... "Corporations are people." Who can we jail? (Hopefully the one in charge, but.... [sigh])

I hope she sues them for far more than $18,000.

I've seem this before where you could kinda see the mistake... 303 instead of 308 or something, but how do you get 509 to 514? GPS? Really?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 25, 2013, 06:40:22 am
Yeah... imagine if that kind of excuse worked for, y'know, thieves. "Sorry yer honor, I thought I was moving my friends' stuff for 'em. They tol' me the address an'GPS lead me here and I assumed it was thissun! Honest mistake, coulda' happened t'anyone." Then y'just hit the same street until everyone but the friend is pilfered.

... but yeah. If it was a group of people doing something like that, who would you jail? Start with the on-the-ground movers and work your way up? Maybe it's about time we started letting some legal liability weasel its way through th'liability protection incorporation offers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 25, 2013, 06:59:34 am
What we need is a cultural shift that stops worshiping wealth and starts socially punishing greed instead.  The law is never going to be turned against them until such a cultural shift takes place anyway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 25, 2013, 07:02:23 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 25, 2013, 06:59:34 am
What we need is a cultural shift that stops worshiping wealth and starts socially punishing greed instead.  The law is never going to be turned against them until such a cultural shift takes place anyway.
Never gonna happen.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 25, 2013, 08:19:04 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 25, 2013, 04:07:27 am
http://michaelsnyder.mensnewsdaily.com/2013/07/the-biggest-oil-discovery-in-50-years/
Thoughts?
Shale oil != crude oil. Comparing our basin to Saudi is somewhat misleading.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on July 25, 2013, 08:24:27 am
Quote
First of all, the oil in this formation in Australia is going to be quite expensive to extract.  It has been estimated that it is going to cost up to 300 million dollars just to get this site ready for production.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 25, 2013, 08:28:06 am
Mens News Daily
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 25, 2013, 08:36:26 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 25, 2013, 08:28:06 am
Mens News Daily
What?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 25, 2013, 11:54:52 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 25, 2013, 06:59:34 am
What we need is a cultural shift that stops worshiping wealth and starts socially punishing greed instead.  The law is never going to be turned against them until such a cultural shift takes place anyway.
What we need is a legal framework that channels greed into productive places.
It's already designed to do that, it just needs to do it better. Much easier than effectively brainwashing ~95% of the population.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 25, 2013, 12:08:47 pm
A cultural shift is not brainwashing. No more so than a culture is, anyway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 25, 2013, 12:12:24 pm
Studies have shown that you only need a convince about 10% of a group to convince all of them in a reasonable timeframe. Peer pressure is weird like that.

Don't know if it works with things as complicated as this though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 25, 2013, 12:17:52 pm
I terms of corporations under our current system, I think we should have the death penalty for corporations, if they screw up badly enough.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on July 25, 2013, 12:24:49 pm
I could get behind a forced dissolution.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 25, 2013, 12:26:30 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on July 25, 2013, 12:12:24 pm
Studies have shown that you only need a convince about 10% of a group to convince all of them in a reasonable timeframe. Peer pressure is weird like that.

Don't know if it works with things as complicated as this though.
As I recall, it was closer to 10% being the likely explosion point for a growing idea, which explains paradigm shifts.
Quote from: Angle on July 25, 2013, 12:17:52 pm
I terms of corporations under our current system, I think we should have the death penalty for corporations, if they screw up badly enough.
Economically dangerous. Remove corporate personhood and limited liability, and they'll mostly police themselves. You Fucked Up-level mistakes can be dealt with through nationalization of the offending corporation. This way, businesses are not suddenly removed from the economy and justice can be served.
Quote from: greatorder on July 25, 2013, 12:21:06 pm
Quote from: Angle on July 25, 2013, 12:17:52 pm
I terms of corporations under our current system, I think we should have the death penalty for corporations, if they screw up badly enough.
Hang on, does that mean we execute all people who work for them, or we execute the company? First one's stupid, second one's... not really possible.
Sure it is. Nullify the corporate charter. No charter, no corporation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Guardian G.I. on July 25, 2013, 06:54:18 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 25, 2013, 06:59:34 am
What we need is a cultural shift that stops worshiping wealth and starts socially punishing greed instead.  The law is never going to be turned against them until such a cultural shift takes place anyway.

The Soviets tried to trigger such a cultural shift. They've failed.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 25, 2013, 07:28:55 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on July 25, 2013, 11:54:52 am
What we need is a legal framework that channels greed into productive places.
It's already designed to do that, it just needs to do it better. Much easier than effectively brainwashing ~95% of the population.

Got any ideas about how to do that without putting sociopaths in control of society?

Quote from: Guardian G.I. on July 25, 2013, 06:54:18 pm
The Soviets tried to trigger such a cultural shift. They've failed.

It seems to me more like they altered the channels through which greed seeks its rewards.

If you don't believe a cultural shift can happen, then meaningful change will never happen.  We intentionally give power to the most horrible among us.  How is that not supposed to result in bad things?


Anyway, I was dropping by to quickly mention that a friend of mine was just turned down for a job.  They told him that they paid Facebook for access to his account, saw that he's not a christian, and rejected him purely on that basis.  Rather infuriating.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 25, 2013, 07:32:29 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 25, 2013, 07:28:55 pm
Anyway, I was dropping by to quickly mention that a friend of mine was just turned down for a job.  They told him that they paid Facebook for access to his account, saw that he's not a christian, and rejected him purely on that basis.  Rather infuriating.

I did not know that was possible.

Fuck.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on July 25, 2013, 07:37:14 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 25, 2013, 07:28:55 pm
Anyway, I was dropping by to quickly mention that a friend of mine was just turned down for a job.  They told him that they paid Facebook for access to his account, saw that he's not a christian, and rejected him purely on that basis.  Rather infuriating.
That is interesting. If that is true (not that I personnally doubt your word, it just sounds weird): How did they get his Facebook account? (If I had one I wouldn't use my name and a different email than what I use for professional purposes.) How did they determine that he's "not christian", is there a checkbox for that?
It's also the first time I hear about paying Facebook for access. I have heard about US corporations demanding access from employees though. That should be illegal (it is here at least).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on July 25, 2013, 07:47:03 pm
As far as I know Facebook doesn't do that kind of thing, but there's a bunch of companies that make money harvesting people's personal information.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on July 25, 2013, 07:56:14 pm
Sure, but it is so easy to circumvent that. You can search my real name in all kinds of search engines and find nothing. I have multiple email adresses for different purposes. Very few people I know use their real names on Facebook and similar networks.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 25, 2013, 07:56:52 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 25, 2013, 07:28:55 pm
Anyway, I was dropping by to quickly mention that a friend of mine was just turned down for a job.  They told him that they paid Facebook for access to his account, saw that he's not a christian, and rejected him purely on that basis.  Rather infuriating.

Isn't that illegal? To reject someone on a religious basis?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 25, 2013, 08:00:59 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on July 25, 2013, 07:56:52 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 25, 2013, 07:28:55 pm
Anyway, I was dropping by to quickly mention that a friend of mine was just turned down for a job.  They told him that they paid Facebook for access to his account, saw that he's not a christian, and rejected him purely on that basis.  Rather infuriating.

Isn't that illegal? To reject someone on a religious basis?
Yes, it is very, very illegal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on July 25, 2013, 08:04:34 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on July 25, 2013, 07:56:52 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 25, 2013, 07:28:55 pm
Anyway, I was dropping by to quickly mention that a friend of mine was just turned down for a job.  They told him that they paid Facebook for access to his account, saw that he's not a christian, and rejected him purely on that basis.  Rather infuriating.

Isn't that illegal? To reject someone on a religious basis?
I feel like this should be a drinking game. Every time someone says "Isn't that illegal" in response to something someone's employer did, you take a drink... I would almost start drinking just to do this, almost.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on July 25, 2013, 08:05:46 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 25, 2013, 08:00:59 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on July 25, 2013, 07:56:52 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 25, 2013, 07:28:55 pm
Anyway, I was dropping by to quickly mention that a friend of mine was just turned down for a job.  They told him that they paid Facebook for access to his account, saw that he's not a christian, and rejected him purely on that basis.  Rather infuriating.

Isn't that illegal? To reject someone on a religious basis?
Yes, it is very, very illegal.
But hard to prove unless they happen to have been secretly recording the conversation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on July 25, 2013, 08:48:34 pm
Quote from: Pnx on July 25, 2013, 08:04:34 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on July 25, 2013, 07:56:52 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 25, 2013, 07:28:55 pm
Anyway, I was dropping by to quickly mention that a friend of mine was just turned down for a job.  They told him that they paid Facebook for access to his account, saw that he's not a christian, and rejected him purely on that basis.  Rather infuriating.

Isn't that illegal? To reject someone on a religious basis?
I feel like this should be a drinking game. Every time someone says "Isn't that illegal" in response to something someone's employer did, you take a drink... I would almost start drinking just to do this, almost.


If we include things that are against army policy as illegal, then I'd go through my days completely obliterated.
But yeah, very very illegal is an accurate descriptor. You *absolutely* cannot refuse to hire someone on the basis of religion.




Quote from: SalmonGod on July 25, 2013, 07:28:55 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on July 25, 2013, 11:54:52 am
What we need is a legal framework that channels greed into productive places.
It's already designed to do that, it just needs to do it better. Much easier than effectively brainwashing ~95% of the population.

Got any ideas about how to do that without putting sociopaths in control of society?

Quote from: Guardian G.I. on July 25, 2013, 06:54:18 pm
The Soviets tried to trigger such a cultural shift. They've failed.

It seems to me more like they altered the channels through which greed seeks its rewards.

If you don't believe a cultural shift can happen, then meaningful change will never happen.  We intentionally give power to the most horrible among us.  How is that not supposed to result in bad things?
No, we give power to the people who best produce things that people pay either money or votes to. That's the basis of everything, at the end of the day.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on July 25, 2013, 08:50:18 pm
Quote from: EnigmaticHat on July 25, 2013, 08:05:46 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 25, 2013, 08:00:59 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on July 25, 2013, 07:56:52 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 25, 2013, 07:28:55 pm
Anyway, I was dropping by to quickly mention that a friend of mine was just turned down for a job.  They told him that they paid Facebook for access to his account, saw that he's not a christian, and rejected him purely on that basis.  Rather infuriating.

Isn't that illegal? To reject someone on a religious basis?
Yes, it is very, very illegal.
But hard to prove unless they happen to have been secretly recording the conversation.
Might not be that hard. I don't know, how do they usually do that?


And yes that is so many variations of obviously Illegal I am actually unsure they said it so bluntly. It's like going: "Ahh, yes I have sex with the under age on a regular basis, what of it?"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 25, 2013, 09:03:42 pm
This guy is very silent on Facebook.  I've only seen him make a couple posts in years.  But he does have his spiritual beliefs on his profile, which is set to be visible to friends only.

He says that the e-mail he received cited "moral concerns found in your basic facebook information".  Then he called them for a follow-up, and they specified that they have "strong christian affiliations".

Apparently a company can have a morality clause that allows them to refuse to hire or fire someone over unspecified "moral concerns", and this is a loophole frequently used by christian employers to circumvent discrimination protections.

As for the thing about paying Facebook for his info, I'm asking him to clarify that part.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on July 25, 2013, 09:10:57 pm
Well, I don't know if companies can refuse applicants on "moral" grounds, I have heard such things but have no idea how that works legally in the US. Here in Germany only the churches can, which is still a pain in the ass if you're working in the health sector where they are heavily involved.
At least if he has emails, he has something in writing for a potential lawsuit.
Still wonder how they found his profile though, or if maybe he should re-visit his privacy settings.
The "paying" part seems a bit hard to believe for me, that would be a major newsworthy scandal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on July 25, 2013, 11:55:21 pm
Interesting. (https://www.facebook.com/help/131112897028467)

Facebook appears to have developed a function to export and download a copy of all of an account's personal data. On the surface, this function is only available to the owner of the account... but this seems an exceedingly strange function to create. I mean, you already know who you are, so why would you have a use for that data?

However, if Facebook was in the business of exporting and sharing user data as a cheep, accessible form of background check, I could see why they would create this function.

Of course, I've heard other stories about employers asking for Facebook passwords in the past (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/06/05/why-employers-want-your-facebook-password/). It happens. And if you're Facebook, and sitting on a huge pile of data that many large companies and organizations would find very valuable... well, the temptation to make significant money off that data would be hard to resist for long.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 26, 2013, 12:05:10 am
Is that legal? I mean seriously, if I was told I was rejected for being an atheist I would be grinning from ear to ear about the payouts I'm going to be receiving after suing their ass for discrimination.
Claiming somebody is morally questionable might fly, but saying they are morally questionable because of their given faith would get shot down in flames.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 26, 2013, 12:09:21 am
Quote from: Max White on July 26, 2013, 12:05:10 am
Is that legal? I mean seriously, if I was told I was rejected for being an atheist I would be grinning from ear to ear about the payouts I'm going to be receiving after suing their ass for discrimination.
Claiming somebody is morally questionable might fly, but saying they are morally questionable because of their given faith would get shot down in flames.

He's filed a complaint with the EEOC.  We'll see what happens.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on July 26, 2013, 12:22:18 am
God damn. I really should finish purging my old Facebook account.

So, Business pays Facebook for your account password. Business then exports an account's Facebook Data using that Export My Account Data feature. Transaction complete, and it's both cheaper and a more comprehensive picture of your beliefs and behaviors than a background check. And since the feature is intended for "the account holder" it stays subtle, and gives them plausible deniability.

Someone should write a script that goes in your browser, and updates your Facebook Password to a random string every hour, and remembers the password to log in for you. That way, Facebook can't reliably hand out your password for money anymore. Then, wait a few weeks, and see if Facebook tips their hand, and changes their policy to not let you change your password more than once a month or something. If it's as big a cash cow as I suspect, endangering that would be a big deal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 26, 2013, 12:24:11 am
. . .

Well, if they're storing my likes and dislikes as well, I guess they probably know exactly how flamingly liberal I am and I will never be employable in large sections of the country.  Gosh-darnit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 26, 2013, 12:27:32 am
I'd laugh if I found out that some company paid to access my Facebook page. It's almost entirely blank and hasn't seen activity for two years now, since shortly after it was created.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 26, 2013, 12:31:40 am
Quote from: Solifuge on July 26, 2013, 12:22:18 am
God damn. I really should finish purging my old Facebook account.

So, Business pays Facebook for your account password. Business then exports an account's Facebook Data using that Export My Account Data feature. Transaction complete, and it's both cheaper and a more comprehensive picture of your beliefs and behaviors than a background check. And since the feature is intended for "the account holder" it stays subtle, and gives them plausible deniability.

Someone should write a script that goes in your browser, and updates your Facebook Password to a random string every hour, and remembers the password to log in for you. That way, Facebook can't reliably hand out your password for money anymore. Then, wait a few weeks, and see if Facebook tips their hand, and changes their policy to not let you change your password more than once a month or something. If it's as big a cash cow as I suspect, endangering that would be a big deal.
I imagine that letting employers directly export data without need for a password would be a lot less controversial, thus more likely.

The best way to go about it, from their point of view, is by making starting new subsidiary that exists for the sole reason of keeping track of peoples data. They can claim some sort of economic reason, an attempt to keep your data secure from people working at facebook, what ever. They will think of something. You then make another subsidiary that has access to this data, and exists to sell this data to employers.

As companies are their own legal entity, it separates facebook itself, and the people who stand to profit, from the actual operation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 26, 2013, 12:33:12 am
I was honestly really worried about running into something like this when I applied to my new job.

I wish people would migrate away from Facebook, but it's so damn firmly established.  It's really a horrible company.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on July 26, 2013, 12:40:44 am
I agree with you. Normal concurrence simply don't work with social network.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on July 26, 2013, 01:09:50 am
I'm writing my Leaving Facebook Tract right now, in the form of a Facebook Post directly proceeding my purging of my old account. I somehow accumulated a few hundred friends from the past, who still message me on there, so... maybe someone will see it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 26, 2013, 01:13:32 am
Yea because that will help in some way. When in the interview they ask for your facebook password and you tell them you don't have an account, they will just skip over you for somebody who is more complacent.

There are a lot of people on facebook. Legal action that forbids this kind of invasion of privacy will be significantly more effective than a boycott.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on July 26, 2013, 01:34:16 am
Well, an important step in having a belief is living your life in a way that corresponds with it, yeah?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 26, 2013, 01:39:02 am
I think the problem is more that Facebook is so ubiquitous that if you say you don't have one, they automatically assume you're either really strange/anti-social or hiding something... or both.

If a different social network that was managed in better faith took over Facebook's position... well... you'd still be passed over for the same reasons for not having an account, but you wouldn't have to worry about your social interactions with friends and family being used against you, either.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on July 26, 2013, 01:46:29 am
Call me opinionated, but I would sooner be unemployed that work for a company that required a Facebook Page as a component of hiring. Even if it's a position I really, really want... I can't condone that. It's invasive and wrong.

In other news... Mark Zucherberg himself has voiced concerns over Facebook's finances being public knowledge now that it's become a Publicly Traded Company. However, apparently Goldman Sachs invested 450 Million with Facebook, and created a "Special Purpose Investment Vehicle" which allows Goldman Sachs to invest in Facebook on behalf of other parties (who themselves pay Goldman Sachs). We only see investments from GS, but who knows what parties are actually investing.

Interesting that Facebook would go through all that trouble just to conceal who's investing in them. Might be related to the means Facebook is using to accept payment and provide their under-the-radar Data Collection services.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 26, 2013, 01:58:15 am
Completely agree... My friend really desperately needs a job, but I told him that's a solid sign of an abusive work environment.  If he works there, it will be a drain on him that will cripple his drive and ability to find a better place.  From experience.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 26, 2013, 02:03:02 am
Well yea, at this point abandoning Facebook on moral grounds is admirable, even sensible, just not always practical.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on July 26, 2013, 02:05:51 am
I'd encourage anyone who has a Facebook profile to try "Export My Personal Information" (https://www.facebook.com/dyi?x=AdnyZHRCxgHzqd6P) out.

They log everything, down to the dates and times you logged in, your location and IP address, what you did during your session, every post you make or are referred to during, every video and photograph you uploaded or were tagged in... absolutely everything. Even your previous and deleted personal and contact information. It never disappears. The Ads.html is interesting to look at... keywords for targeted advertising, by the look.

PPE: Facial Recognition Data? They keep a database of Facial Recognition Data?

(http://i.imgur.com/3dNQvKv.jpg)

Thank god that's an odd angle... but the fuck is this!?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on July 26, 2013, 02:22:36 am
Well lets all be grateful there isn't some government program set up to monitor our social media usage that operates pretty much in secret. No sir, it isn't like your private information is going to be used against you in a secret court for breaking secret laws. And lets all be thankful that we live in a world where the US government respects the sovereignty of other nations and would never have somebody arrested for breaking US laws despite not being in the US. What a fair and transparent system we all enjoy.

EDIT: Interestingly, apparently that Export feature is disabled for me.
I guess it isn't there for anybody living where it could be used for something illegal like breach of privacy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on July 26, 2013, 02:38:05 am
In darkly hilarious news, Facebook's log of my Previous Relationships believes I was involved with a highschool friend of mine, who co-casts on Livestreams and Youtube Videos with me. Awesome.

Now every person who considers employing me can bar me for being a gay anti-facebook non-Christian. Woohoo~!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 26, 2013, 02:52:08 am
Well, worst thing is that that shadow profile also uses information given by your friends. So, if you're ever been tagged, they got you on the database, even if you never made an account.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on July 26, 2013, 04:30:53 am
Whenever I hear of people's personal information being dug out through Facebook, I'm prepared.

I have a roll of tape to tape my smug mouth shut.

I never understood how someone can simultaneously value privacy and  post private information on the Internet.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 26, 2013, 04:50:38 am
Because it's the only way I keep in touch with many people that I care about?

And even though we know it's not currently the case, it's not unreasonable to believe that it should be possible to keep private sections of the internet private.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on July 26, 2013, 06:10:27 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 26, 2013, 04:50:38 am
Because it's the only way I keep in touch with many people that I care about?

And even though we know it's not currently the case, it's not unreasonable to believe that it should be possible to keep private sections of the internet private.

How so? Chat programs, VoIPs, e-mails and phones have been wiped out?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 26, 2013, 06:14:05 am
S'a lot of facebook users that either can't or won't use those methods, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on July 26, 2013, 07:00:30 am
And social network are great for passively staying in contact with other persons. You don't need to activelypen e-mail or call them to know what they're up to and vice-versa.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on July 26, 2013, 07:08:10 am
You can also send messages to someone just by knowing their name. No need for email, chat programs etc. Pretty useful imo.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 26, 2013, 10:00:11 am
Quote from: Sheb on July 26, 2013, 07:00:30 am
And social network are great for passively staying in contact with other persons. You don't need to activelypen e-mail or call them to know what they're up to and vice-versa.

This is the big one.  I can know what's going on in the lives of friends and family who I still care about, but aren't currently a major part of my life and don't communicate with often.  When something's going on with them that's important or I would otherwise have cause to get involved in or comment on, it's easy for me to know and to do so.  My posts do the same for others.

Quote from: Frumple on July 26, 2013, 06:14:05 am
S'a lot of facebook users that either can't or won't use those methods, unfortunately.

And yeah... while the majority of people may be using the internet these days, the majority are not using it to the depth that anyone on this forum likely is.  Most of the people on my facebook list probably don't fully understand and appreciate what IRC or a forum are, or would be very willing to get involved in them.  Most prefer to keep their involvement with the internet light and simple.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on July 26, 2013, 01:06:41 pm
Quote from: scrdest on July 26, 2013, 04:30:53 am
Whenever I hear of people's personal information being dug out through Facebook, I'm prepared.

I have a roll of tape to tape my smug mouth shut.

I never understood how someone can simultaneously value privacy and  post private information on the Internet.

I hope your Smugness Duct Tape brings you a feeling of superiority.

Social Networks like Facebook are oriented towards people you know personally; unlike other mediums like IRC, Forums, even Cell Phones, they allow you to search for people you know by name, and seek them out. It's also a form of asynchronous communication; you don't have to both be free at the same time to stay in contact, organize a gathering, etc. It has unique utility, and though I only used it for about a week back in 2005, it pisses me off that Zuckerburg is taking something that should be the next big communications technology, and twisting it into a fucking Surveillance Tool and Data Collection Service.

He's taking something beautiful and new, and ruining it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BerenErchamion on July 26, 2013, 06:23:09 pm
Quote from: Solifuge on July 25, 2013, 11:55:21 pm
Interesting. (https://www.facebook.com/help/131112897028467)

Facebook appears to have developed a function to export and download a copy of all of an account's personal data. On the surface, this function is only available to the owner of the account... but this seems an exceedingly strange function to create. I mean, you already know who you are, so why would you have a use for that data?

However, if Facebook was in the business of exporting and sharing user data as a cheep, accessible form of background check, I could see why they would create this function.


As has been already noted above, a lot of the data they have on you is stuff they've inferred based on what you've done explicitly.  And EU privacy protection laws require them to make that data available to the individual concerned, in the interests of transparency--you have a right to  know exactly what it is they have on you.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BerenErchamion on July 26, 2013, 06:23:50 pm
Quote from: Solifuge on July 26, 2013, 01:46:29 am
Call me opinionated, but I would sooner be unemployed that work for a company that required a Facebook Page as a component of hiring. Even if it's a position I really, really want... I can't condone that. It's invasive and wrong.

In other news... Mark Zucherberg himself has voiced concerns over Facebook's finances being public knowledge now that it's become a Publicly Traded Company. However, apparently Goldman Sachs invested 450 Million with Facebook, and created a "Special Purpose Investment Vehicle" which allows Goldman Sachs to invest in Facebook on behalf of other parties (who themselves pay Goldman Sachs). We only see investments from GS, but who knows what parties are actually investing.

Isn't that basically what a mutual fund is?  How do you know Facebook itself played an active role in this?  They can't control who does and does not buy their stock.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on July 26, 2013, 07:25:34 pm
At least employers only get your facebook data, just image if they went after your forum/s data!

Also, /highfive for anyone that doesn't have a facebook account, if there are any left  (otherwise, self /highfive)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 26, 2013, 07:48:23 pm
I have one.  It's necessary for networking purposes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on July 27, 2013, 04:17:18 am
Quote from: Vector on July 26, 2013, 07:48:23 pm
I have one.  It's necessary for networking purposes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: da_nang on July 27, 2013, 04:51:02 am
And I refuse to have one. Sue me.

Or rather, I'll sue anyone who denies me a job because of it.

Quote from: Moghjubar on July 26, 2013, 07:25:34 pm
At least employers only get your facebook data, just image if they went after your forum/s data!

Also, /highfive for anyone that doesn't have a facebook account, if there are any left  (otherwise, self /highfive)
/highfive
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on July 27, 2013, 09:31:56 am
Quote from: da_nang on July 27, 2013, 04:51:02 am
And I refuse to have one. Sue me.

Or rather, I'll sue anyone who denies me a job because of it.

Quote from: Moghjubar on July 26, 2013, 07:25:34 pm
At least employers only get your facebook data, just image if they went after your forum/s data!

Also, /highfive for anyone that doesn't have a facebook account, if there are any left  (otherwise, self /highfive)
/highfive

^^^

Also, /highfive.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on July 27, 2013, 10:08:01 am
over here it's considered edgy to not have a facebook

careful when highfiving me i have to use gloves when handling myself
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on July 27, 2013, 10:12:10 am
/highfive x3
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 27, 2013, 03:57:56 pm
I'm not doing that kind of networking, though.  I do translation, teaching, and mathematics, which means that being in contact with someone who knows somebody is really important.

What I'm trying to say is that it's invaluable as a social utility, barring any stupid company requirements.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 27, 2013, 04:04:12 pm
... almost makes me wonder if there's not room for some kind of p2p program that does what things like facebook do, just on an ad-hoc sort of level. Kinda' like an IRC room or whatev's, just maintaining them with something along the lines of what torrents do and with facebook-style functionality. Makes me wish I could code, ha. Might be an interesting experiment.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 27, 2013, 04:13:10 pm
Ther've been a few different attempts to do such, but I don't think any of them have accomplished much.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 27, 2013, 04:17:45 pm
One open question to the people here: do you feel that, the closer that you get (professionally) to the "greats" in your daily work, the less "great" they seem?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 27, 2013, 04:23:39 pm
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on July 27, 2013, 04:17:45 pm
One open question to the people here: do you feel that, the closer that you get (professionally) to the "greats" in your daily work, the less "great" they seem?

Hmm... I've hung out in the same communiies with some world-class artists.  Received comments on my work from people I respect and had them respond when I commented on theirs.  I think the opposite has been true for me.  The closer I get, the more amazing their level of ability and talent seems to me.  I see how easily amazing work flows from their hands and know that I have a long way to go.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 27, 2013, 04:25:06 pm
Me?  Definitely no.  A world-class mathematician is so high into the stratosphere that you can't tell the distance from you except in how he or she approaches the little things, you know, the stuff that's on your personal level.  Getting close to see the technique on the basics... ah, that's a marvel.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on July 27, 2013, 04:52:36 pm
Quote from: Frumple on July 27, 2013, 04:04:12 pm
... almost makes me wonder if there's not room for some kind of p2p program that does what things like facebook do, just on an ad-hoc sort of level. Kinda' like an IRC room or whatev's, just maintaining them with something along the lines of what torrents do and with facebook-style functionality. Makes me wish I could code, ha. Might be an interesting experiment.
You mean... an internet forum? :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 27, 2013, 04:55:13 pm
I hang out here to meet people, too, but frankly the selectivity of Facebook is very helpful in terms of combing down data.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 27, 2013, 04:57:08 pm
...you see, I'm kind of disappointed with my boss. I don't share the raw (and not wholly undeserved) hatred my mates have for him (..I get along reasonably well), and now that the initial conflict (which I won) has somewhat settled down, I can see that all things being said, he's a pretty good clinician. But damn, the flaws... oh man. Not going to go into that, as I already commented on the Resident Revolution elsewhere.

It saddens me, really. I was bordering hero-worship before this mess...

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 27, 2013, 04:58:32 pm
In terms of being total tools, the greats in my field are famous for being eccentric and a little nasty, so I can't say that was really a surprise or disappointment either.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 28, 2013, 12:13:33 pm
"The Charitable-Industrial Complex" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/the-charitable-industrial-complex.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130727&_r=1&).

Please read this fantastic article.  It is a treasure.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 28, 2013, 12:19:01 pm
Quote from: Vector on July 27, 2013, 04:58:32 pm
In terms of being total tools, the greats in my field are famous for being eccentric and a little nasty, so I can't say that was really a surprise or disappointment either.

Mot of the "great" living Physicists that I have met have been kind of dull TBH, and overly absorbed in thier work, but I suppose thats how have to be if you want to end up at the top of the tree in Physics. All of them save for Dame Professor Jocelyn Bell-Burnett. Meeting her was a total joy as she was a total nutter and a really nice person to boot. I have never met Hawking and probably never will no matter how hard I try, but his twitter feed is hilarious.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 28, 2013, 12:19:52 pm
Can't, NY Times doesn't load for me anymore, with the exception of Nate Silver's blog. That site is evil.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 28, 2013, 12:32:09 pm
Have a pastebin dump (http://pastebin.com/q11T8PQt) of the article, then. Site's terrible for me, too, if I don't turn off plugins and javascript. Most news sites are, bleh.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on July 28, 2013, 12:42:38 pm
Quote from: Vector on July 28, 2013, 12:13:33 pm
"The Charitable-Industrial Complex" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/the-charitable-industrial-complex.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130727&_r=1&).

Please read this fantastic article.  It is a treasure.

I guess it wasn't just my imagination. :<
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 28, 2013, 01:37:11 pm
Quote from: Vector on July 28, 2013, 12:13:33 pm
"The Charitable-Industrial Complex" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/the-charitable-industrial-complex.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130727&_r=1&).

Please read this fantastic article.  It is a treasure.

Not that i have an enormous amount of experience/contact, but I'm a little doubtful of guilt-washing being a primary/common purpose amongst wealthy donors. I'll admit this does seem to be a reasonable inclination to how the winds blowing, though I'd like to examine the mysteriously secluded pivot under the cockerel. If i may ask, how did you hear about this?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Toady One on July 28, 2013, 06:08:50 pm
I removed the most recent discussion.  The source in the happy/rage threads was not a stable enough foundation to pretend to have a friendly conversation here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 28, 2013, 11:12:52 pm
Not a very promising start to my vacation. I won't be on the forums very much in the next week, so try to keep it a little more chill than normal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 29, 2013, 03:43:21 am
...But it's so hot these days.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 29, 2013, 04:34:59 am
Quote from: Vector on July 28, 2013, 12:13:33 pm
"The Charitable-Industrial Complex" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/the-charitable-industrial-complex.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130727&_r=1&).

Please read this fantastic article.  It is a treasure.
I read this as: "Capitalism and America are responsible for Africa's problems"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 29, 2013, 04:39:54 am
And I assume you disagree?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 29, 2013, 04:42:13 am
Quote from: scriver on July 29, 2013, 04:39:54 am
And I assume you disagree?
Of course. It's my self appointed job to disagree with almost everything anyone posts in GD.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 29, 2013, 07:47:10 am
Come on, Scriver. You know as well as I do that it's Europe, not America, that is responsible for most of Africa's problems.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 29, 2013, 07:49:55 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 29, 2013, 07:47:10 am
Come on, Scriver. You know as well as I do that it's Europe, not America, that is responsible for most of Africa's problems.
I think it's more Africa that's responsible for Africa's problems.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 29, 2013, 07:51:58 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 29, 2013, 07:47:10 am
Come on, Scriver. You know as well as I do that it's Europe, not America, that is responsible for most of Africa's problems.

Well, it is. Add "and the EU" behind "Capitalism and America" and you have the correct statement.

And yes, if the EU did not exist it would just be Europe there in it's stead.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 29, 2013, 07:53:07 am
Quote from: scriver on July 29, 2013, 07:51:58 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 29, 2013, 07:47:10 am
Come on, Scriver. You know as well as I do that it's Europe, not America, that is responsible for most of Africa's problems.

Well, it is. Add "and the EU" behind "Capitalism and America" and you have the correct statement.

And yes, if the EU did not exist it would just be Europe there in it's stead.
Right, so, name problems that couldn't be fixed by African governments or prevented in the first place caused by the EU and America.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 29, 2013, 07:59:57 am
Considering that Europe set up most of those African governments AND the power structures that support them AND the countries themselves most of the time AND created the situation that led to their rise in power of all the others, most of which came about from revolutionaries trying to overthrow European rule... I'd be guessing it's because they don't WANT to fix them. Europe set them up but good, and even though it sucks for the people of Africa the governments tend to be pretty well off!

The other sources of Africa's problems are a helluvalot of superstition and religious conflict, and the fact everyone with the power to change it benefits from Africa being terrible in some way or another.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 29, 2013, 08:09:25 am
I'm not sure why you would put the blame on the EU. While they haven't done much to help the situation, the root of Africa's problems from Europe significantly predates the EU.

Africa ultimately ended up like it did because it was hit by the resource curse far harder than anywhere else on the planet. Everything else is history and circumstance stemming from this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 29, 2013, 10:16:11 am
Now this is vague, but I remember hearing quite a long time ago that most of France's former colonies in Africa are under a carefully cultivated sphere of French influence. Besides the obvious linguistic situation I'm trying to remember something about these African national banks being controlled or heavily influenced by France, meaning that, basically, if France says jump they ask how high.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 29, 2013, 10:58:21 am
It's no secret that France was hesitant to decolonize. The Vietnam War probably wouldn't have happened if not for that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 29, 2013, 11:18:07 am
I thought the whole Malian situation smelled a bit of that sort of thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 29, 2013, 01:45:48 pm
They have a huge sphere of influence in Africa, much more so than Britain does in its own former colonies.
They still believe they're an empire, so they kind of have to meddle. The French are cute sometimes~
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 29, 2013, 02:47:56 pm
I'd say that the difference is that the UK government still thinks, perversely, that it is some sort of "great power" as opposed to thinking in an Imperial way. They want to play at world policeman, not so much Imperial power.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 29, 2013, 03:06:20 pm
If only they'd do that in a European context... just one world policeman isn't enough, and the only "power" that is large enough to be the second is the European bloc, especially Britain-France-Germany.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 29, 2013, 05:40:54 pm
That just isn't going to happen when the British establishment is so Eurosceptic. Not Eurosceptic enough to fully support leaving the EU but enough to dampen anything like what you've described, unless it was outwith the EU.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on July 29, 2013, 05:44:16 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on July 29, 2013, 05:40:54 pm
That just isn't going to happen when the British establishment is so Eurosceptic. Not Eurosceptic enough to fully support leaving the EU but enough to dampen anything like what you've described, unless it was outwith the EU.
I don't even get what it is David Cameron's been trying to do recently. Trying to negotiate special conditions of the UK in the EU? Why would anyone think that to be a good idea that would work? At best you're put under tighter pressure to fulfil the revised obligations and at worst everyone thinks you a moron for even trying.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 29, 2013, 06:10:28 pm
David Cameron knows that to advocate secession from the EU will be divisive in the UK, causing problems for the next election and it will also galvanise the pro-Scottish independence camp (who advocate European membership). He's playing the difficult game of trying to appease his party, who are predominantly Eurosceptic, thereby preventing them from fleeing to UKIP, but he also wants to appeal to the moderates who may be more inclined to vote Labour in light of the European issues. Unfortunately he isn't a very effective politician and isn't doing as well as he'd like to be in this particular struggle. That said, he has been successful in lowering the support for UKIP in favour of the Conservatives, though that might be due to people realising that UKIP are a bit more swivel-eyed than they like to make out.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 29, 2013, 06:30:38 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 29, 2013, 07:53:07 am
Right, so, name problems that couldn't be fixed by African governments or prevented in the first place caused by the EU and America.
Have you ever heard of slavery or colonialism?  Do you understand why those would badly screw up the development of countries, or do I need to create a picturebook to explain?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 29, 2013, 06:49:43 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 29, 2013, 06:30:38 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 29, 2013, 07:53:07 am
Right, so, name problems that couldn't be fixed by African governments or prevented in the first place caused by the EU and America.
Have you ever heard of slavery or colonialism?  Do you understand why those would badly screw up the development of countries, or do I need to create a picturebook to explain?
You do realize that slavery was very much endemic in Africa and that their political structures were godawful even before colonialism, right? No centralization, no professional bureaucracies... They were screwed either way.
Not advocating colonialism or slavery here, btw; just saying that blaming Africa's problems exclusively on these influences is problematic to say the least. Empirical evidence: Abyssinia/Ethiopia has had practically no colonial history apart from a misguided Italian adventure in the thirties, and South Africa was very much colonized but is now approaching the life standard of the poorer European countries.
And another interesting tidbit: The amount of aid Africa has received since decolonialization is five times the amount Europe received under the Marshall Plan after having been blown to smithereens for the second time in fifty years. 'Bloodmoney', so to speak, has been paid quite liberally.

Quote from: Owlbread on July 29, 2013, 06:10:28 pm
He's playing the difficult game of trying to appease his party, who are predominantly Eurosceptic, thereby preventing them from fleeing to UKIP, but he also wants to appeal to the moderates who may be more inclined to vote Labour in light of the European issues. Unfortunately he isn't a very effective politician and isn't doing as well as he'd like to be in this particular struggle.
Sounds like you need a British Merkel - she basically does what she wants, says nothing, and lets her party take the fire when stuff goes wrong. The opposition, meanwhile, is bleeding out, and Merkel's approval ratings are through the roof.
Regardless of political matters, it has to be admitted that she's a very capable politician.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 29, 2013, 06:51:50 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 29, 2013, 06:30:38 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 29, 2013, 07:53:07 am
Right, so, name problems that couldn't be fixed by African governments or prevented in the first place caused by the EU and America.
Have you ever heard of slavery or colonialism?  Do you understand why those would badly screw up the development of countries, or do I need to create a picturebook to explain?
Please tell me why
A) This is still a relevant problem to African governments.
B) Why giving them a better life than living in huts is a bad thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 29, 2013, 06:56:22 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 29, 2013, 06:51:50 pm
B) Why giving them a better life than living in huts is a bad thing.

Oh christ I'm not even going to get involved in this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 29, 2013, 06:58:22 pm
It'll all end in blood, tears, and discussions about socialism.
But mostly discussions about socialism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on July 29, 2013, 07:01:09 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on July 29, 2013, 06:58:22 pm
It'll all end in blood, tears, and discussions about socialism.
But mostly discussions about socialism.
Heil-a Mussolini!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 29, 2013, 07:05:44 pm
Hilarious game. (http://www.kongregate.com/games/icecreambreakfst/racing-comrade)

Quote
Unlike what all the western propaganda is making you believe, sometimes you just lack the talent to win. And at that point a man is left with no choice but to violently kill everyone.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on July 29, 2013, 07:09:20 pm
Your link leads to nowhere. But I'm guessing it's the one with Laika murdering some soviets?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Guardian G.I. on July 29, 2013, 07:14:30 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on July 29, 2013, 07:09:20 pm
Your link leads to nowhere. But I'm guessing it's the one with Laika murdering some soviets?
Racing Comrade (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/572039)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 29, 2013, 07:35:09 pm
Fix'd.
Also, you knew that just from the 'shivving people' bit? Impressive :D
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on July 29, 2013, 08:01:31 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on July 29, 2013, 06:56:22 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 29, 2013, 06:51:50 pm
B) Why giving them a better life than living in huts is a bad thing.

Oh christ I'm not even going to get involved in this.

Yeah, no. I can't not get involved. Too much ignorance to ignore.

So, you're Africa, living in your apartment on World Street. You don't have a big income, so you don't get a cable package or an internet connection. You've got an old radio you listen to for entertainment now and then, though honestly, most of your entertainment comes from visiting with your friends and family. Some of your neighbors look at you as stupid, backwards, dirty, whatever... but you find plenty of happiness the way things are. That, and you're making things better for yourself every day, at your own pace.

Then one day, one of your neighbors shows up at your door. It's one of the UK's rich kids. She walks right in and says "Hey, I'm moving in. Also, since this place is such a hell hole, I'm going to be in charge. I'm going to fix things up for you, and show you how you're supposed to live. All you have to do is stay on your half of the apartment, and keep on paying half of rent and bills. Glad you agree."

The UK then proceeds to order the fastest internet connection available, a bunch of expensive rent-to-own furniture to fill the place, a widescreen TV with 800 channels, and gym and golf club memberships for both of you. Oh, and someone's coming by on Tuesday to replace "that dreadful carpet with something a bit more colorful". Of course, you don't make nearly enough money to cover your half of this, but your roommate's in charge, and she's going to make things better, right? Even though you have to pick up 3 new jobs, you're able to make ends meet. You don't have much time to enjoy the amenities of this new lifestyle, but you never cared much for TV or golf in the first place. Your roommate is pretty happy with things, though. She doesn't seem too concerned about the cost, either; her Dad's rich, and he's happy to take care of her half.

Anyway, your roommate spends the next 10 years enjoying all of the wonderful things she brought into your home, while you spend most of your time working your ass off to pay the rising bills and interest. For a while you try to cover your half using credit cards, but that plan backfires as your interest payments grow, and get you further and further behind. After a while, you get to thinking that, maybe this roommate of yours doesn't have your best interests at heart. In fact, you're getting pretty tired of her freeloading. You want your apartment back.

You have a long argument, but eventually Nelson Mandela is democratically elected you win back some control of what goes on in your apartment. You agree to cut back to a regular internet connection and local TV channels (you can get movies and shows on Netflix anyway). You agree to keep the furniture since it's already here, but you tell her she can get her own Gym and Golf Club memberships if she wants. Personally, you don't have any use for them.

These days, things are looking up. You've been able to pay off most of your debts, and even cut back to just two jobs. And the neighbors aren't as quick to look down on you as they once were. Even so, the damage has been done; your credit score is pretty much in shambles, and the stress of the last 10 years has probably taken 20 years off your life. Maybe things are better now... after all, you really enjoy that House MD show. But sometimes you wonder what your life would have been like today, if you had been able to build up this apartment on your own, the way you wanted it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 29, 2013, 08:24:19 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 29, 2013, 06:51:50 pm
B) Why giving them a better life than living in huts is a bad thing.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 29, 2013, 08:28:33 pm
But seriously go back to Stormfront.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on July 29, 2013, 08:37:10 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 29, 2013, 08:28:33 pm
But seriously go back to Stormfront.
Oh lawd. That place.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Robot Parade Leader on July 29, 2013, 09:34:02 pm
http://gma.yahoo.com/disabled-man-claims-delta-forced-him-crawl-180716763--abc-news-travel.html

:( Profit before all else.... Awesome... just great.... :(
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 29, 2013, 09:57:29 pm
Africa discussion is not sufficiently chill. Change topics.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 30, 2013, 04:08:53 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 29, 2013, 08:28:33 pm
But seriously go back to Stormfront.
You know what, Leafsnail? Go back to primary school. Go back, relearn how to write more than one sentence. Relearn basic courtesy. Relearn how to not be practically braindead.

Quote from: penguinofhonor on July 29, 2013, 09:57:29 pm
Africa discussion is not sufficiently chill. Change topics.
Dammit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 30, 2013, 05:56:17 am
Quote from: Vector on July 28, 2013, 12:13:33 pm
"The Charitable-Industrial Complex" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/the-charitable-industrial-complex.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130727&_r=1&).

Please read this fantastic article.  It is a treasure.

Just got around to reading this.  It's exactly what I've been thinking about charity for a long time.  It gives me some hope to see the child of one of the richest people in the world owning up to it.

When too many are too poor to pay the wealthy for the resources they need to survive, it threatens to break the cycle that maintains wealth and privilege.  So propping up the poor just enough that they can participate is nothing but a bare minimum of investment necessary for the wealthy to maintain their privilege.

Not saying that I'm in favor of crushing poverty.  Just that I don't see it as genuine benevolence when the wealthy give out some meager pocket change.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on July 30, 2013, 06:12:26 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on July 30, 2013, 04:08:53 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 29, 2013, 08:28:33 pm
But seriously go back to Stormfront.
You know what, Leafsnail? Go back to primary school. Go back, relearn how to write more than one sentence. Relearn basic courtesy. Relearn how to not be practically braindead.

Quote from: penguinofhonor on July 29, 2013, 09:57:29 pm
Africa discussion is not sufficiently chill. Change topics.
Dammit.

You two, shut up NOW. Before Toady makes you.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 30, 2013, 08:36:55 am
Let's keep stuff chill. If you tell someone to go back to Stormfront that doesn't help in keeping things chill, it doesn't matter how much you disagree with his views.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 30, 2013, 09:06:57 am
Ok sorry I'll be more accepting of slavery advocates in future.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 30, 2013, 09:14:32 am
I believe he was referring to poverty rather than slavery. Still a skewed view, though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on July 30, 2013, 09:38:03 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 30, 2013, 09:14:32 am
I believe he was referring to poverty rather than slavery. Still a skewed view, though.
Who, me? No, I just think Africa could sort it's shit out pretty simply.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 30, 2013, 09:47:48 am
... I'd probably recommend some extra research, then. Of all the words I've heard in my exposure to the situation on that continent, "simple" is not one of them.

But yeah, we should be leaving the topic be for a while.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on July 30, 2013, 09:48:34 am
The fact that no sub-saharian African country (save for South Africa, which is a bit peculiar) did, I doubt it. Whether it's due to climate, culture, colonization hand-off, permanent meddling or bad luck is left for you to decide.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Virex on July 30, 2013, 10:43:37 am
Quote from: Sheb on July 30, 2013, 09:48:34 am
The fact that no sub-saharian African country (save for South Africa, which is a bit peculiar) did


Wait, Nigeria, Ghana, Cameroon and Botswana moved to Asia?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on July 30, 2013, 11:38:18 am
Quote from: Sheb on July 30, 2013, 09:48:34 am
The fact that no sub-saharian African country (save for South Africa, which is a bit peculiar) did, I doubt it. Whether it's due to climate, culture, colonization hand-off, permanent meddling or bad luck is left for you to decide.

Someone here is forgetting South Africa is driving itself deeper and deeper into shit lately. I'm fairly sure the underreported genocide of whites who have the skills to keep things running helps.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Virex on July 30, 2013, 12:24:06 pm
Quote
Genocide
Quote
White people


Yeah, I'm going to need a very good source before I believe that's happening.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 30, 2013, 12:33:36 pm
Quote from: Virex on July 30, 2013, 12:24:06 pm
Quote
Genocide
Quote
White people


Yeah, I'm going to need a very good source before I believe that's happening.
http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html

In spite of popular belief white people are in fact people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 30, 2013, 01:15:57 pm
This article was linked to me by a South-African on another forum not long ago: Are white afrikaners really being killed like flies? Why Steve Hofmeyr is wrong (http://www.africacheck.org/reports/are-white-afrikaners-really-being-killed-like-flies/).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on July 30, 2013, 01:23:24 pm
"the song “Kill the Farmer, Shoot the Boer”"

"President Jacob Zuma sang “Shoot the Boer” at the ANC Centenary Celebration event in January of 2012."

Huh.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 30, 2013, 03:50:02 pm
Quote from: scriver on July 30, 2013, 01:15:57 pm
This article was linked to me by a South-African on another forum not long ago: Are white afrikaners really being killed like flies? Why Steve Hofmeyr is wrong (http://www.africacheck.org/reports/are-white-afrikaners-really-being-killed-like-flies/).
Whoever this Steve Hofmeyr is, he does look like he's exaggerated the claims based off of conjecture. However, unsurprisingly the South African Police Service and the National Planning commission are also downplaying what seems to be an issue. The South African Institute of Race Relations on Oct. 11th conceded and said that farmers were twice as likely to be murdered than regular citizens, and the death toll was above 3000 (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/267463) at 2006/7, although the SAPS stopped taking separate statistics on farm murders so the full extent will not be known. Some of these attacks were premeditated, consisted of an incredibly brutal nature and were organized and carried out in groups, with nothing taken. The Crime information Analysis Centre gave the statistic that 74% of the farm murders were against the ethnic minority white group.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 30, 2013, 05:05:06 pm
The ANC are exceptionally stupid and have managed to run South Africa into the ground, for a variety of reasons. They're pretty tyrannical to boot, for example, sending cops in with machetes to murder striking miners. They aren't really a great example of an African success story, though Botswana, Nigeria, and several other countries have managed to achieve some level of improvement over the years.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 30, 2013, 05:11:39 pm
I always think that if Nelson Mandela was all there he'd be criticising Jacob Zuma and what the ANC are doing. Isn't he suffering from dementia? It doesn't seem like he's really there anymore when I see him on the news.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 30, 2013, 05:15:02 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on July 30, 2013, 05:05:06 pm
The ANC are exceptionally stupid and have managed to run South Africa into the ground, for a variety of reasons. They're pretty tyrannical to boot, for example, sending cops in with machetes to murder striking miners. They aren't really a great example of an African success story, though Botswana, Nigeria, and several other countries have managed to achieve some level of improvement over the years.
What is Botswana doing right? They've done incredibly well so far, and I'm ignorant as to how they've done so.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 30, 2013, 05:16:01 pm
Avoided attention?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 30, 2013, 05:18:46 pm
Inclusive institutions: Basic democracy before colonialism, keeping those structures alive during colonial times, not starting clan rivalries after the English left, didn't let some military leader take over... a whole list of things, really.
(All this is explained way better in "Why Nations Fail", go and buy it!)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on July 30, 2013, 08:15:03 pm
After the British left you mean. But I'm very impressed with Botswana's growth, given the poverty they once suffered (one of the poorest countries in Africa when it became independent) you'd expect them to have gone the way of most de-colonised African states. I'd honestly like to visit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 30, 2013, 08:36:53 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on July 30, 2013, 05:15:02 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on July 30, 2013, 05:05:06 pm
The ANC are exceptionally stupid and have managed to run South Africa into the ground, for a variety of reasons. They're pretty tyrannical to boot, for example, sending cops in with machetes to murder striking miners. They aren't really a great example of an African success story, though Botswana, Nigeria, and several other countries have managed to achieve some level of improvement over the years.
What is Botswana doing right? They've done incredibly well so far, and I'm ignorant as to how they've done so.

-Unlike many of their neighbours, the Botswanans didn't lynch their foreigners or attack them, instead welcoming them into society. Race relations in general were quite a bit better in Botswana than in most other countries in southern Africa, which helped as well.
-They successfully established a representative democracy rather than swinging between militaristic plundering strongmen and socialist revolutionary groups every few years via civil war
-In the process, they encouraged foreign investment by guaranteeing property rights and making it clear that if you put money in Botswana it won't be nationalized for the "good of the people" next Friday
-They also avoided falling into the trap of becoming dependent on foreign aid, which has a tendency to decimate local farmers and ruin self sufficiency

Honestly, though, the big one is the fact that they avoided the cycle of "civil war-strongman loots/pillages - civil war- socialist nationalizes everything - civil war" etc, which makes all the difference. Hell, Somalia is significantly improved because they don't have a strong enough government to steal everything or nationalize it, allowing some actual productive domestic industries to crop up.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 31, 2013, 10:18:04 am
So no-one posting about the Manning verdict?

To be honest the reporting has been atrocious so not that surprising. Only a couple of things are clear;

1) He was found not guilty of the most serious charge, aiding the enemy.

2) He was found guilty on all other charges.

That's the point where it gets murkier. Manning had originally been charged with 22 separate charges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_charges_against_Bradley_Manning#Second_set_of_charges_.282011.29). He had plead guilty to ten charges and, reportedly, had these pleas accepted (despite them not being part of a bargain).

But some reports about the verdict are now saying the Judge accepted two pleas. It's not clear that (or how) she could do this, given there were only ten pleas on the table and she had reportedly already accepted them all. I don't believe those charges were contested at all during the trial, so it would make no sense to reverse the acceptance. It may be that she has read as lower crimes two charges, either treating the other either pleas as the original charges or reducing two of the other 12 charges.

And on that note every single article is talking about him being found guilty on 20 counts, not-guilty on one. That leaves one from the original 22 counts. Only thing I can think of is his original plea lumping two of the charges together.

The end result still looks like a potential maximum of 126-136 years of jail (again, sources are split on this). I'm still an advocate of giving him time served in recognition of his treatment, but reportedly the judge has already ruled that the abuse is only worth a reduction of 122 days (IIRC).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on July 31, 2013, 02:19:37 pm
My opinion on the verdict: Well, we won't burn the rubble but we will still knock your house down and bury it. /tinyvictoryismicroscopic

So many verdicts on military guilty of all sorts of shit getting just a few years, or nothing... and Manning is likely to get 30+ 'actual time', if not life.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on July 31, 2013, 05:45:27 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on July 31, 2013, 02:19:37 pm
My opinion on the verdict: Well, we won't burn the rubble but we will still knock your house down and bury it. /tinyvictoryismicroscopic

So many verdicts on military guilty of all sorts of shit getting just a few years, or nothing... and Manning is likely to get 30+ 'actual time', if not life.

As he very well should get. Throw his ass in Leavenworth for fifty years minus 122 days. I definitely think that his actions qualified as aiding the enemy (because really? He didn't think that AQ knew internet?), but I definitely think that the political justification in protecting whistle-blowers should overcome it. 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 31, 2013, 06:35:34 pm
Funny, I doubt you'd hold the traitors in government right now to the same standards, despite overwhelming evidence at the number of innocent people they've killed in their lawbreaking. Or is this something you believe should happen generally?

Because Manning isn't being prosecuted for breaking laws so much as for making the government look bad, and it's pretty damn obvious to everyone. There's been no evidence his leaks got anyone killed except insofar as they set off the Arab Spring, unlike the daily fuckery that happens in your branch of the government and gets brushed under the rug where murdering innocents is a matter of policy, because our once proud military has been reduced to little more than sniveling cowards in the face of the modern days oh-so-scary-except-not-really-compared-to-history threats.

"Aiding the enemy" is a very specific charge, and it frankly boggles my mind that you think he could possibly be guilty of it. None of his actions were remotely close to meeting the criteria there-of.

This isn't to say I disagree with the idea that those who act to undermine our country shouldn't get lengthy sentences. But Manning is pretty much at the back of the line for the list of folks who actually deserve it. And regardless of anything else, he did us, the Citizens of the United State, a significant favour. That's more than plenty of people in the military can say.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on July 31, 2013, 07:11:46 pm
I'd love to, but they're not the ones on trial, are they? When a law gets broken there should be judgement, and there's damn sure a difference between whistle blowing and leaking.



Also, no offense to you, GlyphGryph, but you have no fucking idea of the amount of trouble *my* branch of the fucking government goes through. Guess what the Army faces *these* fucking days. A situation where we're expected not to be just soldiers. Where *my* fucking job isn't to use the best armor platform in the world to kill the enemies of our country with fire, maneuver, and the shock effect of heavy armor.

I'm supposed to be able to act like a tanker, *and* I'm supposed to be able to be an infantry man clearing rooms. Plus, I've got to be able to act like I'm intelligence noticing the million and one fucking things that might be important at the company and higher levels. Besides that, I've got to make nice with a population, some of whom would damn sure like to kill me, and never knowing when one of the fuckers is going to try.

This is cliche, but you want to talk about our what terrifies our once proud military? Go draw a fucking rifle and stand at a post. Don't worry about getting trained or anything, though. There's not the money or time for it these days, in a downsizing army that cares much for the public perception and fighting *either* the doctrinal or low intensity conflict war.



Which do you pick, GlyphGryph, 50 dead marines or 500 dead Iraqis? Because that's what the question comes down to, time and time again. You want to tell soldiers in the field to risk their life, and more importantly, the guy on their left and right's life, because we're trying to complete a mission that's ridiculously complex.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 31, 2013, 07:28:31 pm
Except if there were more people like Manning, we wouldn't be in the fucking mess in Iraq. It wouldn't be a miserable fucking choice we'd have to actually make. The government lies to it's people, and someone reveals the truth, something that could and arguably HAS saved the lives of your comrades by having turned public opinion in some small part against our retarded wars, and you call him a traitor?

That's some fucking gratitude.

Our military budgets bigger than it ever was - you want to complain, don't complain about people like Manning - if there were more people like him, perhaps "public perception" would keep you guys protecting our country instead of sending you off to kill and get killed for no fucking purpose at all.

Here's a question for you - Imagine you were in Manning's place, except it's the lead up to the Iraq war. You have information you know or at least strongly suspect will turn public opinion against the war. Do you release it, knowing you'll be saving the lives of your comrades, protecting your country and it's people from an incredibly waste of money and lives, saving countless innocent civilians in the process?

Or do you stay obedient to your bosses?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on July 31, 2013, 07:33:54 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on July 31, 2013, 07:11:46 pm
50 dead marines or 500 dead Iraqis?

Idealy, neither group would have to die as we should have never gone there in the first place. But to be blunt, I cant think of a reason why a marines life should have a greater value then 10 Iraqis (or one Iraqi)...

Quote
You want to tell soldiers in the field to risk their life

Did GlyphGryph ever actually want to tell soldiers to risk their life?


Dont get me wrong though. I think Manning should be prosecuted for any laws he has broken (our society is based on Rule of law afterall). Although I also think there is a strong bias in the US government against him.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on July 31, 2013, 07:39:26 pm
I haven't exactly been paying attention to the Manning case, and the guy released a lot of files, how exactly did he endanger people's lives with these leaks?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 31, 2013, 07:50:44 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 31, 2013, 07:28:31 pm
Except if there were more people like Manning, we wouldn't be in the fucking mess in Iraq.

100% exactly this.  You are in those fucked up situations because leaders are corrupt or incompetent and the public is kept in the dark.  People like Manning are exactly what it takes to change that.

I also have little sympathy for you.  Is it not what you expected?  Has there ever been any point in history where military service was a simple matter of being handed destructive power and told where to point it?

And U.S. intelligence's very own reports have concluded that Manning's leaks posed no threat to anybody, plus he did not just randomly dump that content on the internet like people always try to say he did.  He handed it over to a journalist organization specifically designed to facilitate whistleblowing, and that organization then collaborated with several other reputable journalists on filtering & redacting the data to be released responsibly.  Someone else then broke the encryption on the archive, which resulted in the mass dumping of information, and that was not Manning's fault whatsoever.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on July 31, 2013, 08:00:14 pm
It's not the Army's job to affect public opinion. It's our job to enforce the orders we're giving. Yeah, they're two cluster fucks of wars, one justified, one probably not. And I'll even agree to you. Men in uniforms should have fallen on their swords and resigned before we went there, but, at the end of the day, we're not responsible for those orders. Look at a government that's trying to nation build.



I'll damn straight complain about Manning. He certainly risked or cost lives with his actions. You want to whistle blow? Fuck, I wouldn't have a problem with the so-called Collateral Murder video. But, there's a difference between whistleblowing and releasing a metric-fuck ton of whatever you can get your hands on. Moreover, what he did right there (and what Snowden did for the non-uniformed agencies) is shoot every intelligence analyst in the foot. Open share of information because we can trust a very professional workforce? Nopes. We've got a world where second guessing things that people don't understand is a religion.


Now, in your hypothetical, I would duly move that information up to my seniors, unless I had reason to believe they were breaking the law. In that case, I would use my rights as a soldier to bring the issue up to the next level in the chain of command that I trust. If I believed that the whole system was utterly corrupt, I'd consider bringing evidence or that corruption to relevant media. I damn sure wouldn't spend my days in Iraq harvesting files for Assange.

Here's the thing that, quite frankly, you probably can't understand. Once the chain of command that orders everything in the military breaks down, everything goes to hell. You don't *get* to do your own thing in the military.


Quote from: alexandertnt on July 31, 2013, 07:33:54 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on July 31, 2013, 07:11:46 pm
50 dead marines or 500 dead Iraqis?

Idealy, neither group would have to die as we should have never gone there in the first place. But to be blunt, I cant think of a reason why a marines life should have a greater value then 10 Iraqis (or one Iraqi)...


Okay, do you pick 50 dead marines, currently pinned down or dropping the airstrike that'd rescue them at the fifty percent risk of 50 dead Iraqis?

Except, replace every 50 with a black box, because there's no way to know, and even if you manage to get everyone out alive, you'll still be crucified for "collateral damage" because one of the MRAP's took down a telephone pole trying to get away.

Quote from: SalmonGod on July 31, 2013, 07:50:44 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 31, 2013, 07:28:31 pm
Except if there were more people like Manning, we wouldn't be in the fucking mess in Iraq.

100% exactly this.  You are in those fucked up situations because leaders are corrupt or incompetent and the public is kept in the dark.  People like Manning are exactly what it takes to change that.

I also have little sympathy for you.  Is it not what you expected?  Has there ever been any point in history where military service was a simple matter of being handed destructive power and told where to point it?

And U.S. intelligence's very own reports have concluded that Manning's leaks posed no threat to anybody, plus he did not just randomly dump that content on the internet like people always try to say he did.  He handed it over to a journalist organization specifically designed to facilitate whistleblowing, and that organization then collaborated with several other reputable journalists on filtering & redacting the data to be released responsibly.  Someone else then broke the encryption on the archive, which resulted in the mass dumping of information, and that was not Manning's fault whatsoever.

What? Giving out classified information to third parties *damn* sure makes it his fault.

Edit: cleaned up the formatting, left everything else the same.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on July 31, 2013, 08:02:21 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on July 31, 2013, 08:00:14 pm
He certainly risked or cost lives with his actions.
How.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on July 31, 2013, 08:04:52 pm
Because he released battlefield reports that gave the enemy insight into our TTP's. These wars have been characterized by a continuous we-learn, they-learn counter-measure, change strategy, counter-measure process.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on July 31, 2013, 08:15:12 pm
Quote
Okay, do you pick 50 dead marines, currently pinned down or dropping the airstrike that'd rescue them at the fifty percent risk of 50 dead Iraqis?

If you mean a choice between: a 100% chance of 50 dead marines of you do nothing, or a 0% chance of dead marines and a 50% chance of killing 50 Iraqis, I would pick the latter -  it has a smaller probability of death.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 31, 2013, 08:47:34 pm
I think you're somewhat missing the point, Strife.  It's not really about bashing soldiers because they ended up killing 200 Iraqi civilians as part of their mission, and more about questioning whether we should be in Iraq at all if killing hundreds of Iraqi civilians on a regular basis is an inevitable part of being there.  If the military/government hides things like the actual Iraq death toll (and there's strong evidence to suggest they did) and there's no legal protection for whistleblowing, how is the public supposed to make an informed decision on whether the war is worth fighting, and what incentive do the people perpetrating these terrible acts have to stop doing them?  The same applies for the leaks about covering up child abuse in Afghanistan, the collateral murder video and all the other awful shit that Manning's leaks have brought to light.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 31, 2013, 08:54:00 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 31, 2013, 08:47:34 pm
If the military/government hides things like the actual Iraq death toll (and there's strong evidence to suggest they did)

There wasn't even an official death toll before the release of the war logs.  Military officials denied for years that they kept any records of casualties.  Most ridiculous claim ever, but what could anyone do about that from the outside?  Then the war logs come out and sure enough... blatant lies.  And it's not hard to see why.  Their own records show the vast majority of casualties to be Iraqi civilians, which is pretty stunning when you take into account just how amazingly broad the military's definition of a combatant is.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 31, 2013, 08:57:16 pm
Let's talk about Canada~ (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mark-taliano/harper-myths_b_3663204.html)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on July 31, 2013, 09:14:05 pm
Quote from: Descan on July 31, 2013, 08:57:16 pm
Let's talk about Canada~ (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mark-taliano/harper-myths_b_3663204.html)

Oh Canada. Our home and native land.

Still, I'm glad to see that 84% of Canadians still support public health care. With the baby boomers getting closer to retirement age every year, we'll need it more than ever.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 31, 2013, 09:29:29 pm
Okay, Strife, look, I can understand why you don't like the guy.

But look at it from my perspective - You're organization lies to me, deceives me, takes my money and then uses it to act in ways directly contrary to my best interests, while killing loads of people and leading to the deaths of countrymen and friends.

I understand obedience is useful for a soldier, and why the army would want obedience above morality - it clearly doesn't give a shit about morality, since the soldiers responsible for a wide variety of atrocities that reflected poorly on them were given nothing but a slap on the wrist. It aids and abets criminals the world over, tarnishing the image of my nation and endangering the lives of those I care about.

I understand why you don't like Manning - he's launched an attack on your organization from the inside, and broken the bonds of trust.

What you need to understand is why we do - because he's not on your side. He chose loyalty to the American people over loyalty to the military. It is a hard choice, and I understand why he needs to be punished in order to keep your organization operating. It's the reason he plead guilty to 10 charges.

But from my perspective, from the perspective of an American citizen, you are serving in an armed organization intent on operating in the interests of those who seek to harm this country. You are working for traitors, and your obedience is not a fucking excuse for the evil you enable. Manning (unlike Snowden), is most definitely a traitor - but he is a traitor who has acted in my best interests, and by god if there's anything I can do to support him I will, and I wish there was more like him. Not just because I care about me, but because I care about you.

Manning was a terrible soldier. But he was a good man. We've got far more of a shortage of the second than we do of the first.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on July 31, 2013, 09:36:22 pm
And you're not looking at it from my point. I don't work for the corrupt "man" in any more than the loosest terms. I work for a company that does it's damnedest to follow generally contradictory orders from colonels and generals of all stripes to complete a mission assigned by our political masters who've never held a rifle, all while, if at all possible, keeping all the people I work with every day alive.


Yeah, I think that he may have been right to blow whistles. But the way he did it? Yeah, shooting a rabid raccoon is all fine and good, but the way I see it, he peppered the hell out of the house in the process.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on July 31, 2013, 09:38:34 pm
Also, I serve an organization that is intent on following our lawful orders as laid out in the Constitution.

Do you really want a military that starts bucking civilian control? Because, we'll see about Egypt (and I'm optimistic about them), but generally that doesn't end well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 31, 2013, 09:43:22 pm
Except the organization was breaking a lot of laws, and we would never know if it weren't for people like Manning.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on July 31, 2013, 09:54:02 pm
Yeah, but now that organization sees everyone on the outside as a direct threat. Effective change of the Army has *always* came from either the top, or within.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on July 31, 2013, 09:55:04 pm
Quote from: Descan on July 31, 2013, 08:57:16 pm
Let's talk about Canada~ (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mark-taliano/harper-myths_b_3663204.html)

Ugh, why is calling someone a socialist/communist such an effective political argument

Quote from: Strife26 on July 31, 2013, 09:38:34 pm
Do you really want a military that starts bucking civilian control?

I am pretty sure that GlyphGryph was implying that they already are...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 31, 2013, 09:57:11 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on July 31, 2013, 09:36:22 pm
And you're not looking at it from my point. I don't work for the corrupt "man" in any more than the loosest terms. I work for a company that does it's damnedest to follow generally contradictory orders from colonels and generals of all stripes to complete a mission assigned by our political masters

wut

Quote from: Strife26 on July 31, 2013, 09:36:22 pm
Yeah, I think that he may have been right to blow whistles. But the way he did it? Yeah, shooting a rabid raccoon is all fine and good, but the way I see it, he peppered the hell out of the house in the process.

And the way I see it, nobody lives in that house but rabid raccoons.

Quote from: Strife26 on July 31, 2013, 09:38:34 pm
Also, I serve an organization that is intent on following our lawful orders as laid out in the Constitution.

It's really hard for me to believe that you have read any of the complaints that we've laid about the U.S. military and political leadership... the whole reason we appreciate people like Manning is because they inform us of the fact that what you just said is not true.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 31, 2013, 11:04:06 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on July 31, 2013, 09:36:22 pm
And you're not looking at it from my point. I don't work for the corrupt "man" in any more than the loosest terms. I work for a company that does it's damnedest to follow generally contradictory orders from colonels and generals of all stripes to complete a mission assigned by our political masters who've never held a rifle, all while, if at all possible, keeping all the people I work with every day alive.

He contacted several new organizations, and WikiLeaks was the only one who would pick it up. He tried to do it in a responsible way. The way he DID do it, most details were removed before publishing. What I'm saying is - what exactly is the better way he could have gone about doing this? And I guarantee the diplomatic cables wouldn't have been released, and it would be hard to argue those haven't been a boon for America and free nations everywhere considering what they led to.

Quote from: SalmonGod on July 31, 2013, 09:57:11 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on July 31, 2013, 09:38:34 pm
Also, I serve an organization that is intent on following our lawful orders as laid out in the Constitution.
It's really hard for me to believe that you have read any of the complaints that we've laid about the U.S. military and political leadership... the whole reason we appreciate people like Manning is because they inform us of the fact that what you just said is not true.

This is it, exactly. If I actually trusted your organization to effectively police itself, this would not be an issue. They have lost that trust now, many times over. There were so many terrible abuses in Afghanistan and Iraq that were swept under the rug, ignored, or resulted in a slap on the wrist, that the trust is shattered. But it's NOT Manning's fault the military is not operating effectively, and hid from us the things they were doing. They've been trying to control the message with increasing rules on reporters and whatnot - well, maybe they should have spent some time trying to get their house in order instead.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 01, 2013, 04:41:30 am
Who is Manning and why is he important? What did he whistleblow about?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 01, 2013, 04:46:45 am
Manning is a solider in the US Army who was just convicted of 20 counts of espionage and acquitted of one charge of aiding the enemy.

It would be better to list the things he didn't whistleblow about. I still can't believe he manged to give Wikileaks such a volume of data.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 01, 2013, 04:53:40 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 01, 2013, 04:46:45 am
Manning is a solider in the US Army who was just convicted of 20 counts of espionage and acquitted of one charge of aiding the enemy.

It would be better to list the things he didn't whistleblow about. I still can't believe he manged to give Wikileaks such a volume of data.
What did he do?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 01, 2013, 04:57:17 am
He leaked stuff like the "collateral murder" video and the diplomatic cable to Wikileaks.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 01, 2013, 05:09:21 am
Oh the irony.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 01, 2013, 05:10:42 am
Irony? I don't get it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 01, 2013, 05:29:24 am
Quote from: Max White on August 01, 2013, 05:10:42 am
Irony? I don't get it.
People are angry about the NSA surveillance and yet cheer on Manning.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 01, 2013, 05:31:51 am
But Mannings acts (exposing bad stuff done by those in positions of power) were in direct opposition to the motivations of the NSA ("spying" on private citizens without "sufficient" justification...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 01, 2013, 05:34:53 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 01, 2013, 05:31:51 am
But Mannings acts (exposing bad stuff done by those in positions of power) were in direct opposition to the motivations of the NSA ("spying" on private citizens without "sufficient" justification...
The intent was to expose bad stuff done by civilians. And even then, what will change? The army is just a besieged organisation now. So many attempts have been made by people to portray them all as psychopaths.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 01, 2013, 05:44:23 am
I view the irony in the opposite direction.  The government thinks it has a right to know everything about everybody at all times as if the human race is its property.  But we're not allowed to know anything they're doing, even though the premise of representative government is that they're supposed to be working for us. 

For example, the stuff that the military does is done with money provided by the citizenry (you and I), and supposed to be for our benefit and representative of our collective will.  If my resources are being used to massacre and torture innocent people in my name, I should fucking know.  I cannot imagine the basis on which anyone could argue that I don't have a right to know.

Here's a complete list of the information given to Wikileaks by Manning:

Collateral Murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike)
Afghan War Diary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak)
Iraq War Logs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak)
Cablegate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak)
The Guantanamo Files (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_files_leak)
Granai Massacre Video (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granai_airstrike)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 01, 2013, 05:49:25 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 01, 2013, 05:34:53 am
The intent was to expose bad stuff done by civilians. And even then, what will change? The army is just a besieged organisation now. So many attempts have been made by people to portray them all as psychopaths.

Civilians are not an armed force. The have the right to privacy. The military, however, is required to be as transparent as can be afforded. While it sometimes has to keep its secrets, suppressing things like civilian casualties do not help our soldiers, nor civilians. In both cases civil rights are being trodden on. I still don't see the irony.

The armed forces, for the most part, had little to do with how the information it gathered was treated. The men on the ground had no say in what was happening, and I'm sure many of them didn't even know the extent of the problem itself, or leaks would have come up a lot sooner.

The reason we can allow our troops the shield of 'just following orders' is because we expect the military to be transparent enough that the people who give those orders are held accountable. Somebody broke that rule and tried to weasel out of their responsibilities by hiding the repercussions of what they did through the proxy of the armed force. They crossed the damn line.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 01, 2013, 05:51:59 am
That's the thing: They don't work for you anymore. America, you dun goofed. You have allowed this shit to pass. You have allowed yourself to be watched. You allowed your soldiers to torture. You allow so much stuff to go on unnoticed and continue to care about non-issues. You remember that 2nd amendment? Fighting against tyrannical government? Now's the time to use it. You should be in open revolt. But no. This will continue quietly on, nothing being done. You're screwed. No wikileaks or Manning can save you. You've got that information, now act on it. You have a large amount of the military on your side. You could honestly revolt against the government, but you choose not to. Until that day comes, if that day comes, you are the government's playtoy. As much as you think you have power over them, you don't.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 01, 2013, 05:58:41 am
You think you're telling me something I don't know?  I mostly agree with everything you just posted.

But is that supposed to be an argument against Manning?  I don't really understand.  The sad fact is, a majority of people still don't understand the nature of the information he released, or the ethical circumstances he acted on.  The majority still buys into the official spin that he's a traitor who dumped a bunch of information that didn't tell us anything important, but somehow was important enough to be an aid to the "enemy" at the same time.   ::)   The situation is slowly changing.  People are waking up.  But that's only because of millions of conversations like this taking place at the grassroots level, and more whistleblowers continuing to sacrifice themselves to beat it into everyone's heads that things are seriously wrong.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 01, 2013, 06:00:31 am
Nah, screw it. I don't know where I was going with Manning.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 01, 2013, 06:09:33 am
I know people who still believe that Iraq had WMDs and Saddam was some kind of Al-Qaeda leader, and will basically plug their ears and start screaming when you try to correct them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 01, 2013, 06:20:01 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on August 01, 2013, 06:09:33 am
I know people who still believe that Iraq had WMDs and Saddam was some kind of Al-Qaeda leader, and will basically plug their ears and start screaming when you try to correct them.
All the same, I also know of people who fall to Second Position Bias and think of Saddam as being a saintly leader of men, which he certainly wasn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack). The guy was mentally unstable at best. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Quran)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 01, 2013, 06:24:20 am
Interesting.  I've never encountered anyone who believed that.  But I'm sure they're out there.

My location probably has a lot to do with it.  Indiana is so backwards.  The Fox News culture is strong here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 01, 2013, 06:29:33 am
Not with Saddam, but I've seen people defend Qaddaffi and even at time Assad, buying into the "Rebels are western-controlled terrorist" thing.

Lot's of people have trouble admitting that just fighting a bad guy doesn't make you a good guy. Often, you just have assholes on both sides.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 01, 2013, 06:29:54 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 01, 2013, 05:51:59 am
That's the thing: They don't work for you anymore. America, you dun goofed. You have allowed this shit to pass.
While it is easy to cross your arms and 'tisk tisk' at the faceless void called society, seeping up the moral authority that comes with blaming something that won't fight back, it is a lot more productive to find who the hell thought it was in peoples best interest to let this shit fly, and burn them into a petty husk.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 01, 2013, 06:31:28 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on August 01, 2013, 06:24:20 am
Interesting.  I've never encountered anyone who believed that.  But I'm sure they're out there.

My location probably has a lot to do with it.  Indiana is so backwards.  The Fox News culture is strong here.
I'm surprised you haven't, most of the ones I've encountered where on the internet (though not on Bay 12).

It's not a hard thing to imagine how it happens. Younger people suffering from disillusionment at finding out the government has been less than honest with them that then proceed to, instead of making a rational assessment of the involved parties, immediately adopt the contrary position out of a feeling of betrayal and a desire to appear radical. And that's how you get people who think that Saddam, the Taliban, al-Qaeda and all the rest are just misunderstood victims of the US government.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 01, 2013, 06:35:13 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 01, 2013, 06:31:28 am
I'm surprised you haven't, most of the ones I've encountered where on the internet (though not on Bay 12).

Are we talking about 4chan?
Because I'm pretty sure they don't actually qualify as people. I mean the genetic resemblance is astounding, I will give you that, but lets be reasonable.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 01, 2013, 06:41:44 am
Quote from: Max White on August 01, 2013, 06:35:13 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 01, 2013, 06:31:28 am
I'm surprised you haven't, most of the ones I've encountered where on the internet (though not on Bay 12).

Are we talking about 4chan?
Because I'm pretty sure they don't actually qualify as people. I mean the genetic resemblance is astounding, I will give you that, but lets be reasonable.
We are not talking about any specific site.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on August 01, 2013, 07:17:08 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 01, 2013, 06:31:28 am
It's not a hard thing to imagine how it happens. Younger people suffering from disillusionment at finding out the government has been less than honest with them that then proceed to, instead of making a rational assessment of the involved parties, immediately adopt the contrary position out of a feeling of betrayal and a desire to appear radical.

I have seen this behaviour too. Not necessarily to do specifically with Saddam or the government, but when people find out one extreme is false, they seem to automatically tip heavily in favour of the other extreme.

In general, I think its because people tend to skip over facts and understanding in favour of emotion and sensationalism.

Quote
Often, you just have assholes on both sides

The media (hell, people in general) seem to love the "Rebels vs the Empre" idea, where the freedom-loving rebels are trying to overthrow the big evil empire. The realty is usually a lot more complex and messy.

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 01, 2013, 05:51:59 am
That's the thing: They don't work for you anymore. America, you dun goofed. You have allowed this shit to pass. You have allowed yourself to be watched. You allowed your soldiers to torture. You allow so much stuff to go on unnoticed and continue to care about non-issues. You remember that 2nd amendment? Fighting against tyrannical government? Now's the time to use it. You should be in open revolt. But no. This will continue quietly on, nothing being done. You're screwed. No wikileaks or Manning can save you. You've got that information, now act on it. You have a large amount of the military on your side. You could honestly revolt against the government, but you choose not to. Until that day comes, if that day comes, you are the government's playtoy. As much as you think you have power over them, you don't.

I dont think the US government is "tyrannical" (yet...). So I dont think the most extreme solution (a violent revolt) is the best way to go about solving these problems, and may cause more problems even if it solves those ones. The most extreme solution isnt always the best.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 01, 2013, 07:27:37 am
It's not only love for the little guy, it's just a desire to have good and bad guys. Look at Israel and the Palestinians in the US for example. You'll have good Israel standing against those damned Palestinian terrorists, despite the Palestinians being very much the little guy fighting against the Empire.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 01, 2013, 07:54:08 am
Quote from: Max White on August 01, 2013, 06:35:13 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 01, 2013, 06:31:28 am
I'm surprised you haven't, most of the ones I've encountered where on the internet (though not on Bay 12).

Are we talking about 4chan?
Because I'm pretty sure they don't actually qualify as people. I mean the genetic resemblance is astounding, I will give you that, but lets be reasonable.
You do realise that 4chan and Bay12 have a surprising interesect of people, right?
Also, how do they not classify as human?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 01, 2013, 07:55:18 am
Only the stupid ones.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 01, 2013, 07:59:07 am
Quote from: scriver on August 01, 2013, 07:55:18 am
Only the stupid ones.
Ouch.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 01, 2013, 08:00:10 am
Quote from: scriver on August 01, 2013, 07:55:18 am
Only the stupid ones.
What? Who were you responding to? My post or someone else's?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 01, 2013, 08:02:37 am
If I wasn't responding to the post right above mine, I would've quoted someone ;)

It was also a response to your pre-edit post, when it flowed better.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 01, 2013, 08:06:17 am
Quote from: scriver on August 01, 2013, 08:02:37 am
If I wasn't responding to the post right above mine, I would've quoted someone ;)

It was also a response to your pre-edit post, when it flowed better.
Maybe you should quote to be more specific. And even then, it made no sense. If I had stated " 4Channers go on Bay12" then it would have made sense.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 01, 2013, 08:08:11 am
Does this exchange not make sense to you?

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 01, 2013, 07:54:08 am
You do realise that 4chan and Bay12 have a surprising interesect of people, right?
Quote from: scriver on August 01, 2013, 07:55:18 am
Only the stupid ones.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 01, 2013, 08:09:35 am
Quote from: scriver on August 01, 2013, 08:08:11 am
Does this exchange not make sense to you?

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 01, 2013, 07:54:08 am
You do realise that 4chan and Bay12 have a surprising interesect of people, right?
Quote from: scriver on August 01, 2013, 07:55:18 am
Only the stupid ones.
In my mind, I thought I'd posted something different. Oh well. Still, which ones are the stupid ones...? And even then, how do you know?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 01, 2013, 08:10:58 am
The stupid ones are the ones who go on 4chan. You can tell because they get defensive about the place.

I'm just going to let that careful mix of circular logic and catch 22 sink in for a second.  :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 01, 2013, 08:12:50 am
Quote from: Max White on August 01, 2013, 08:10:58 am
The stupid ones are the ones who go on 4chan. You can tell because they get defensive about the place.

I'm just going to let that careful mix of circular logic and catch 22 sink in for a second.  :P
Answer my question. How do they not classify as people?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 01, 2013, 08:13:29 am
Everyone knows only robots use 4chan.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 01, 2013, 08:14:21 am
That isn't to say a robot can not be on bay12, but they would certainly be the minority.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on August 01, 2013, 08:25:03 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 31, 2013, 09:29:29 pm
But look at it from my perspective - You're organization lies to me, deceives me, takes my money and then uses it to act in ways directly contrary to my best interests, while killing loads of people and leading to the deaths of countrymen and friends.
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 31, 2013, 09:29:29 pm
But look at it from my perspective - You're organization lies to me, deceives me,
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 31, 2013, 09:29:29 pm
You're organization
Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 31, 2013, 09:29:29 pm
You're
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 01, 2013, 09:13:53 am
I've been watching a few 90s action movies again because I can't get enough of them (Under Siege, The Siege, Mercury Rising etc) and I've come to the conclusion that the bulk of 90s action movies were about things that are more relevant now than they ever were; crooked/shady activities from the CIA/NSA/FBI, questioning authority/reality of war situations and so forth. Even The Siege was about disproportionate security responses towards Arab-Americans in the event of a very large terrorist attack, resulting in a textbook case of the whole "gaze into the abyss and the abyss will gaze into you" idea. That movie came out 3 years before 9/11. As for Enemy of the State, that was about shady NSA spying activities. Again 1998.

It's interesting when you compare the flavour of those films with the flavour of modern action movies. Nowadays they're pretty rare, but they're mostly just pastiches/parodies of the past.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 01, 2013, 10:11:26 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 01, 2013, 08:12:50 am
Quote from: Max White on August 01, 2013, 08:10:58 am
The stupid ones are the ones who go on 4chan. You can tell because they get defensive about the place.

I'm just going to let that careful mix of circular logic and catch 22 sink in for a second.  :P
Answer my question. How do they not classify as people?
Everyone on 4chan is ginger
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 01, 2013, 10:14:45 am
Quote from: Sergarr on August 01, 2013, 08:25:03 am
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH
Your just jealous.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 01, 2013, 10:39:20 am
Quote from: Owlbread on August 01, 2013, 09:13:53 am
I've been watching a few 90s action movies again because I can't get enough of them (Under Siege, The Siege, Mercury Rising etc) and I've come to the conclusion that the bulk of 90s action movies were about things that are more relevant now than they ever were; crooked/shady activities from the CIA/NSA/FBI, questioning authority/reality of war situations and so forth. Even The Siege was about disproportionate security responses towards Arab-Americans in the event of a very large terrorist attack, resulting in a textbook case of the whole "gaze into the abyss and the abyss will gaze into you" idea. That movie came out 3 years before 9/11. As for Enemy of the State, that was about shady NSA spying activities. Again 1998.

It's interesting when you compare the flavour of those films with the flavour of modern action movies. Nowadays they're pretty rare, but they're mostly just pastiches/parodies of the past.

I know next to nothing about the 90's.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 01, 2013, 10:48:12 am
They were a time of peace and prosperity and optimism and technological potential for the United States. They were really kind of great.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 01, 2013, 10:50:20 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on August 01, 2013, 10:48:12 am
They were a time of peace and prosperity and optimism and technological potential for the United States. They were really kind of great.

But they were also a time of terrible hardship, genocide, mass murder, war, pestilence and death. In that sense they were really kind of shit as well. Like practically every decade.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 01, 2013, 10:52:15 am
Well I did try to specify for the United States.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 01, 2013, 11:03:10 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on August 01, 2013, 10:48:12 am
They were a time of peace and prosperity and optimism and technological potential for the United States. They were really kind of great.
Quote from: Owlbread on August 01, 2013, 10:50:20 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on August 01, 2013, 10:48:12 am
They were a time of peace and prosperity and optimism and technological potential for the United States. They were really kind of great.

But they were also a time of terrible hardship, genocide, mass murder, war, pestilence and death. In that sense they were really kind of shit as well. Like practically every decade.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way--in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 01, 2013, 11:10:15 am
Devilry and details, guys!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 01, 2013, 11:12:07 am
Novel if you want us to give you a complete detailed history of the 90s there are far better places to look, honestly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 01, 2013, 11:16:07 am
Just what it was like on your end, Owlbread. GIVE ME DEVILRY
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 01, 2013, 11:23:20 am
In all honesty on my end the 90s were unremarkable for the most part barring isolated events. The 2000's were far more interesting.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 01, 2013, 11:46:42 am
Speaking as someone who was a teenager and young adult in South Wales during the 90's, they sure felt like a good time, even if the spectacles are now rose tinted. Thatcherism was thankfully on its way out the window and the Blair era held promise of prosperity and social improvement and greater EU integration, which to some extent came true during the middle third of the decade. The bleak attitude people had in the area under the Tory government in the 80's was replaced by optimism that things could get better, and the economy began to recover signifigantly (which is why Labour used the D-Ream song...), and a sense of national pride began to re-emerge after Thatchers attempts to destroy communities and thier liveleyhoods. Under Blair it felt like some of the poorer parts of the nation were benefiting from the economic growth, even if that bubble would burst with the banking crisis in the next decade. The internet, home computers and consoles were new and wonderful to most people. Boom and Bust? You bet! Of course, by the end of the 90's and into the 2000's this optimism in "better" seemed misplaced. The first Gulf War felt like a force for good, an almost justifiable application of force to liberate an opressed nation, unlike its subsequent offspring. The IRA were disarming, and devolution was a reality. Eastern Europe was opening up, and the USA had Clinton, who seemed more human than both Reagan and Bush. Japan was seen as the next big thing, even if Africa and China both had thier fair share of problems. The middle east was a shitstorm, but thats not unusual for any time.

That enough of a snapshot?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 01, 2013, 12:08:42 pm
Dohohoho. Much of Bay 12 goes onto 4chan's /tg/. Not all of 4chan is /b/, the worst and most immature part of it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 01, 2013, 12:29:33 pm
If you don't know anything at all about the issue being discussed then I'd suggest looking it up rather than scrabbling for a way to show how much smarter you are than liberals, thanks.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 01, 2013, 12:50:26 pm
Seriously what the hell is going on here, there's 400 different conversations going on at the same time
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 01, 2013, 12:54:07 pm
This is what you get when you let all these 4-chan robots join a forum.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 01, 2013, 12:56:26 pm
We apologize for nothing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on August 01, 2013, 01:54:02 pm
... CANADA.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: werty892 on August 01, 2013, 04:45:18 pm
Quote from: Descan on August 01, 2013, 01:54:02 pm
... CANADA.

Hello, headwear.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: DWC on August 02, 2013, 10:01:41 pm
Every country is 'pretty shit' if you dig around in their history enough, the USA included.

So what? I know being a 'victim' is super special nowadays and a well sought after status (note all the absurd tort culture in the USA), but I don't see how it's productive to bring up grievances from over 100 years ago into modern political rhetoric.

Yeah, the USA is pretty shit for having slavery, while talking a lot of rhetoric about 'freedom' and 'individual liberties' and 'self-ownership' but this was a normal thing, for the era. History is history, let's move on to tomarrow, ffs.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on August 02, 2013, 10:06:43 pm
Quote from: DWC on August 02, 2013, 10:01:41 pm
History is history, let's move on to tomarrow, ffs.
Yes, let's move on to tomorrow by acknowledging that we still have many problems that we had a hundred years ago, and try to fix them, ffs.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on August 02, 2013, 10:14:32 pm
what the heck is the conversation here

it's about the nineties? Leafsnail is getting offended, so something interesting happened at some point

the thread went from NSA threats to... action movies?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 02, 2013, 10:41:29 pm
I am quite upset they discontinued BK Chicken Fries. Why!?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 02, 2013, 11:30:40 pm
Quote from: ggamer on August 02, 2013, 10:14:32 pm
what the heck is the conversation here

it's about the nineties? Leafsnail is getting offended, so something interesting happened at some point

the thread went from NSA threats to... action movies?

Action movies about NSA threats.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BerenErchamion on August 03, 2013, 10:11:55 am
Quote from: Strife26 on July 31, 2013, 09:54:02 pm
Yeah, but now that organization sees everyone on the outside as a direct threat. Effective change of the Army has *always* came from either the top, or within.

So get rid of the army, and indeed the military as a whole.  It's a cancerous tumor on a free society, that actively destroys and degenerates the body.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 10:15:15 am
Quote from: BerenErchamion on August 03, 2013, 10:11:55 am
Quote from: Strife26 on July 31, 2013, 09:54:02 pm
Yeah, but now that organization sees everyone on the outside as a direct threat. Effective change of the Army has *always* came from either the top, or within.

So get rid of the army, and indeed the military as a whole.  It's a cancerous tumor on a free society, that actively destroys and degenerates the body.
It's a job. Do you really want to put hundreds of thousands of people out of a job?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BerenErchamion on August 03, 2013, 10:17:09 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 10:15:15 am
Quote from: BerenErchamion on August 03, 2013, 10:11:55 am
Quote from: Strife26 on July 31, 2013, 09:54:02 pm
Yeah, but now that organization sees everyone on the outside as a direct threat. Effective change of the Army has *always* came from either the top, or within.

So get rid of the army, and indeed the military as a whole.  It's a cancerous tumor on a free society, that actively destroys and degenerates the body.
It's a job. Do you really want to put hundreds of thousands of people out of a job?

Same way we get rid of coal: re-train them for productive, socially useful, endeavors that they find amenable.  The soldiers AND the murder industry that equips them.

Or, hell, given that they already are being paid to do nothing of social worth, instead of paying them to murder brown people, pay them to sit at home and not murder brown people.  It's still a net gain.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 03, 2013, 10:17:33 am
Just pointing that if someone's job is useless, firing him is good practice. We don't hire government worker just for fun, whether they hold a pen or a gun.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 03, 2013, 10:18:51 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 10:15:15 am
Quote from: BerenErchamion on August 03, 2013, 10:11:55 am
Quote from: Strife26 on July 31, 2013, 09:54:02 pm
Yeah, but now that organization sees everyone on the outside as a direct threat. Effective change of the Army has *always* came from either the top, or within.

So get rid of the army, and indeed the military as a whole.  It's a cancerous tumor on a free society, that actively destroys and degenerates the body.
It's a job. Do you really want to put hundreds of thousands of people out of a job?

yeah how about you collapse the country instead

i mean seriously the military is pulling shit like paying $60 for a single bolt because it's "military spec" and i'm not being full retard and including shipping in the price thank you

it's not like it's obvious who's getting rich out of this and who exactly keeps lobbying for more war with the exact same money they get from this right
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 10:19:15 am
Quote from: BerenErchamion on August 03, 2013, 10:17:09 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 10:15:15 am
Quote from: BerenErchamion on August 03, 2013, 10:11:55 am
Quote from: Strife26 on July 31, 2013, 09:54:02 pm
Yeah, but now that organization sees everyone on the outside as a direct threat. Effective change of the Army has *always* came from either the top, or within.

So get rid of the army, and indeed the military as a whole.  It's a cancerous tumor on a free society, that actively destroys and degenerates the body.
It's a job. Do you really want to put hundreds of thousands of people out of a job?

Same way we get rid of coal: re-train them for productive, socially useful, endeavors that they find amenable.  The soldiers AND the murder industry that equips them.
But the military already does that.
Quote from: Sheb on August 03, 2013, 10:17:33 am
Just pointing that if someone's job is useless, firing him is good practice. We don't hire government worker just for fun, whether they hold a pen or a gun.
We hand out money just for fun. Is the army not more useful for training skills and personal attributes than straight up welfare?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 03, 2013, 10:26:02 am
Depends on how the welfare is organized, and all that stuff. Simple logic says that an organization which has training skills as a sidegoal will be less effective at it than one that puts it at a primary goal. Question is whether welfare wants to/ is able to* help people help themselves  .

Also, the military-Industrial complex ensures that making significant cuts to the army is not only political suicide(lobbying), but also economically devastating.

*Budgets, corruption, loopholes, inefficiencies, all that stuff.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 10:28:43 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 03, 2013, 10:26:02 am
Depends on how the welfare is organized, and all that stuff. Simple logic says that an organization which has training skills as a sidegoal will be less effective at it than one that puts it at a primary goal. Question is whether welfare wants to/ is able to* help people help themselves  .

Also, the military-Industrial complex ensures that making significant cuts to the army is not only political suicide(lobbying), but also economically devastating.

*Budgets, corruption, loopholes, inefficiencies, all that stuff.
But training is one of the first goals of any armed force. Would you wander into battle with a bunch of poorly trained peasants? No, you'd want hardened, capable men. Smart men, with leadership and teamwork skills.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on August 03, 2013, 10:31:08 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 03, 2013, 10:26:02 am
Depends on how the welfare is organized, and all that stuff. Simple logic says that an organization which has training skills as a sidegoal will be less effective at it than one that puts it at a primary goal. Question is whether welfare wants to/ is able to* help people help themselves  .
*This is a uncommon and yet existing Republican view-point. Back when the idea was make welfare for giving people jobs instead of removing it entirely.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 03, 2013, 10:39:32 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 10:28:43 am
But training is one of the first goals of any armed force. Would you wander into battle with a bunch of poorly trained peasants? No, you'd want hardened, capable men. Smart men, with leadership and teamwork skills.
Point was that there isn't always a complete overlap between "civilian" skills, and "military" skills. Also, the army isn't purely a training center. Majority of it's funds go to maintenance of people and material.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 10:41:45 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 03, 2013, 10:39:32 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 10:28:43 am
But training is one of the first goals of any armed force. Would you wander into battle with a bunch of poorly trained peasants? No, you'd want hardened, capable men. Smart men, with leadership and teamwork skills.
Point was that there isn't always a complete overlap between "civilian" skills, and "military" skills. Also, the army isn't purely a training center. Majority of it's funds go to maintenance of people and material.
But there is still an overlap of Universal skills which any employer would want.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 03, 2013, 10:44:21 am
Yup, but the partial overlap of the army is significantly less efficient than the ideal overlap of a reintegration welfare program.

[Leading us to the shocking conclusion that the army isn't very efficient as a welfare program.]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 03, 2013, 10:45:25 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 03, 2013, 10:39:32 am
Point was that there isn't always a complete overlap between "civilian" skills, and "military" skills. Also, the army isn't purely a training center. Majority of it's funds go to maintenance of people and material.
Often isn't, really. There's reasons the homeless and jobless rates among veterans are what they are. Part of that is skill mismatch. Some of that training can, sometimes, translate to civilian work. Some of it can't. Much of it is somewhat inefficient, compared to skill sets built from the ground up for civilian work.

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 10:41:45 am
But there is still an overlap of Universal skills which any employer would want.
And military isn't an efficient way to go about training for those. Organizations specifically designed to train such skills for the civilian world would be what you'd be investing in if you wanted to go about that in an efficient manner. As ebb says.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 03, 2013, 10:46:19 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 10:19:15 am
We hand out money just for fun. Is the army not more useful for training skills and personal attributes than straight up welfare?

At the moment the army seems like it's something of a PTSD machine.


Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 10:41:45 am
But there is still an overlap of Universal skills which any employer would want.

Therefore the best/only/most efficient way to train them is the military.  Oh, that makes sense...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 10:46:35 am
Which leads us to the shocking conclusion that well funded and well delivered education of all and any forms would reduce the need for welfare?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 10:51:58 am
Quote from: Vector on August 03, 2013, 10:46:19 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 10:19:15 am
We hand out money just for fun. Is the army not more useful for training skills and personal attributes than straight up welfare?

At the moment the army seems like it's something of a PTSD machine.


Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 10:41:45 am
But there is still an overlap of Universal skills which any employer would want.

Therefore the best/only/most efficient way to train them is the military.  Oh, that makes sense...
The military has hundreds of years of tradition. Even better, it provides multifaceted benefits. Where the hell is a mechanic going to get work? Simple, the military. Unless you want to subsidise companies into hiring mechanics, it's your best bet. Even better, still have to keep around a military until this " World Peace" thing rocks around. Even better, R&D trickles down all sorts of cool stuff into everyday use.
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 10:46:35 am
Which leads us to the shocking conclusion that well funded and well delivered education of all and any forms would reduce the need for welfare?
Which we can't fund because we're spending it on welfare. Well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 11:06:16 am
Or a massive bloated military budget. The US spends something like $700 billion on its armed forces. Imagine what an extra $5billion could do for secondary age (11-18) schools in the US and what little effect that would have on the US military?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:07:21 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 11:06:16 am
Or a massive bloated military budget. The US spends something like $700 billion on its armed forces. Imagine what $5billion could do for schools in the US and what little effect that would have on the US military?
I don't know. I think a lack of funding isn't to blame, but lack of good teaching methods.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on August 03, 2013, 11:09:02 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:07:21 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 11:06:16 am
Or a massive bloated military budget. The US spends something like $700 billion on its armed forces. Imagine what $5billion could do for schools in the US and what little effect that would have on the US military?
I don't know. I think a lack of funding isn't to blame, but lack of good teaching methods.
So just give all the money to the military and tell everyone else to improve their methods or GTFO? No more problems ever~
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 11:12:02 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:07:21 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 11:06:16 am
Or a massive bloated military budget. The US spends something like $700 billion on its armed forces. Imagine what $5billion could do for schools in the US and what little effect that would have on the US military?
I don't know. I think a lack of funding isn't to blame, but lack of good teaching methods.

As someone who has done academic research into the education system in the US, I would agree (one size does not fit all). However, $5bil buys a lot of training for existing staff, improved pay packets to employ support staff to free up teacher time , and allows you to employ and retain quality teachers. Moreover, this pays for itself in improved tax revenues through better employment for individuals, less strain on healthcare systems, lower crime, hell, a whole manner of secondary effects.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:12:48 am
Quote from: Dutchling on August 03, 2013, 11:09:02 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:07:21 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 11:06:16 am
Or a massive bloated military budget. The US spends something like $700 billion on its armed forces. Imagine what $5billion could do for schools in the US and what little effect that would have on the US military?
I don't know. I think a lack of funding isn't to blame, but lack of good teaching methods.
So just give all the money to the military and tell everyone else to improve their methods or GTFO? No more problems ever~
I'm not saying that all money should go to the military, but education's problems are methodology related.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 03, 2013, 11:14:41 am
I think encouraging cheaper private education institutions would be a good idea.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 03, 2013, 11:24:34 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 10:51:58 am
The military has hundreds of years of tradition. Even better, it provides multifaceted benefits. Where the hell is a mechanic going to get work? Simple, the military. Unless you want to subsidise companies into hiring mechanics, it's your best bet. Even better, still have to keep around a military until this " World Peace" thing rocks around. Even better, R&D trickles down all sorts of cool stuff into everyday use.

You act like the number of mechanics we have is an act of god, not something that people actually control.


Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:12:48 am
I'm not saying that all money should go to the military, but education's problems are methodology related.

Your argument is that most school districts in the US have plenty enough money--specifically for things like infrastructure or art programs?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:26:10 am
Quote from: Vector on August 03, 2013, 11:24:34 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 10:51:58 am
The military has hundreds of years of tradition. Even better, it provides multifaceted benefits. Where the hell is a mechanic going to get work? Simple, the military. Unless you want to subsidise companies into hiring mechanics, it's your best bet. Even better, still have to keep around a military until this " World Peace" thing rocks around. Even better, R&D trickles down all sorts of cool stuff into everyday use.

You act like the number of mechanics we have is an act of god, not something that people actually control.


Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:12:48 am
I'm not saying that all money should go to the military, but education's problems are methodology related.

Your argument is that most school districts in the US have plenty enough money--specifically for things like infrastructure or art programs?
Are art programs necessary? And didn't I state that I didn't think all money should go to the military? I didn't specify whether that 5 bil would be better spent on either.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 03, 2013, 11:28:49 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:07:21 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 11:06:16 am
Or a massive bloated military budget. The US spends something like $700 billion on its armed forces. Imagine what $5billion could do for schools in the US and what little effect that would have on the US military?
I don't know. I think a lack of funding isn't to blame, but lack of good teaching methods.
A lack of respect for teachers alongside respectable teachers is a large part of it. Throwing money at schools isn't going to change that. America has a long standing culture of knowledge seeking to be detestable.

Quote from: Dutchling on August 03, 2013, 11:09:02 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:07:21 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 11:06:16 am
Or a massive bloated military budget. The US spends something like $700 billion on its armed forces. Imagine what $5billion could do for schools in the US and what little effect that would have on the US military?
I don't know. I think a lack of funding isn't to blame, but lack of good teaching methods.
So just give all the money to the military and tell everyone else to improve their methods or GTFO? No more problems ever~
If the military's budget was cut the money saved would probably just get turned into more tax cuts for the rich. The US military could be just as effective with much less cost. What was the last military sinkhole for cash? The raptor was it?

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:26:10 am
Are art programs necessary? And didn't I state that I didn't think all money should go to the military? I didn't specify whether that 5 bil would be better spent on either.
It was in the headlines recently here that despite all these cuts to things including defence, there would be no cuts to art programs.

This shit is important.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:34:05 am
First off, make a tank that doesn't have a FUCKING GAS TURBINE WHICH REQUIRES A REFUEL EVERY 7 HOURS! That'll save some cash.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 03, 2013, 11:41:40 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:26:10 am
Are art programs necessary? And didn't I state that I didn't think all money should go to the military? I didn't specify whether that 5 bil would be better spent on either.

Yes, they are.  Art and literature help people develop ethics, aesthetics, expressiveness, compassion, empathy, imagination, and a whole long list of qualities that are necessary for a functioning community--many of which are crucial for the development of effective engineering programs, as well.  Trust me, I'm a math student.  I've seen a wide variety of examples first-hand of those who are good in technical areas but elect to totally neglect their cultural education.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:47:33 am
Quote from: Vector on August 03, 2013, 11:41:40 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:26:10 am
Are art programs necessary? And didn't I state that I didn't think all money should go to the military? I didn't specify whether that 5 bil would be better spent on either.

Yes, they are.  Art and literature help people develop ethics, aesthetics, expressiveness, compassion, empathy, imagination, and a whole long list of qualities that are necessary for a functioning community--many of which are crucial for the development of effective engineering programs, as well.  Trust me, I'm a math student.  I've seen a wide variety of examples first-hand of those who are good in technical areas but elect to totally neglect their cultural education.
Developing ethics: I.e the ones that are deemed "ok" by the government.
Aesthetics: Well, I don't like modern architecture. Taking classes in architecture won't change that.
Expressiveness: Schoolyard, with their friends...?
Compassion: Same.
Empathy: Same.
Imagination: Art does not have a monopoly on imagination.
Trust me, I'm an art student. Art is not as valuable as other areas, and should not be prioritised. More of a specialist program thing than every kid ever getting it. And even then, what of the kid expresses himself through say, racist caricatures? It's a minefield of potential legal battles.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 11:49:58 am
My head is now firmly being hit against my desk. I am sorry, but I disagree so very strongly with so much of that last post, I dont even know how to begin wording a rebuttal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:52:14 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 11:49:58 am
My head is now firmly being hit against my desk. I am sorry, but I disagree so very strongly with so much of that last post, I dont even know how to begin wording a rebuttal.
Please do actually word a response other than " LOLO I'M HEADESKING"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 03, 2013, 11:54:19 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:34:05 am
First off, make a tank that doesn't have a FUCKING GAS TURBINE WHICH REQUIRES A REFUEL EVERY 7 HOURS! That'll save some cash.
And yet for some reason they still decided they needed to scrap railgun research, because $150M sure is wasteful in the face of tens of billions of dollars... Wasted.

Quote from: Vector on August 03, 2013, 11:41:40 am
Yes, they are.  Art and literature help people develop ethics, aesthetics, expressiveness, compassion, empathy, imagination, and a whole long list of qualities that are necessary for a functioning community--many of which are crucial for the development of effective engineering programs, as well.  Trust me, I'm a math student.  I've seen a wide variety of examples first-hand of those who are good in technical areas but elect to totally neglect their cultural education.
It's arguable that the arts not only express how we think, but also define how we think. No arts, no thinking.

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:47:33 am
Developing ethics: I.e the ones that are deemed "ok" by the government.
Not art

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:47:33 am
Aesthetics: Well, I don't like modern architecture. Taking classes in architecture won't change that.
No comment, as I sit in my picturesque house surrounded by a city of brutalist, renaissance and post-modern architecture. A POX ON YOU
But seriously, you're wrong on this one for the lesser reasons.

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:47:33 am
Expressiveness: Schoolyard, with their friends...?
This one is important. Is it seriously a thing where students in America eat lunch in class and don't socialize?

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:47:33 am
Compassion: Same.
Empathy: Same.
Yeah, fuck humanity.

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:47:33 am
Imagination: Art does not have a monopoly on imagination.
Ideas are easy, expressing them can sometimes take some help. What should teachers be able to do?

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:47:33 am
Trust me, I'm an art student. Art is not as valuable as other areas, and should not be prioritised.
True. Neither should it be neglected.

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:47:33 am
More of a specialist program thing than every kid ever getting it. And even then, what of the kid expresses himself through say, racist caricatures? It's a minefield of potential legal battles.
Ben Garrison pls
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 03, 2013, 11:58:08 am
Some kids don't have friends; some kids are relentlessly bullied or ignored; some kids need the support of an arts program (theater, anyone?) to get the skills that would help them leave that situation.  Some kids are taught violence at home and need to be taught something else at school, which they usually won't pick up from their peers.  Some kids learn better from reading and imagining than they do from real-life situations, and unlike developing skills on the playground, art programs teach you to channel and reflect your emotions in a nuanced, thoughtful way.  They give you time to reflect that you don't get in the heat of the moment.

Developing aesthetics doesn't mean "develop my aesthetics," it means "understand what goes into aesthetics so you can choose your own.  Also, what I mean is that developing literacy allows one to access a body of written information from which one can develop one's own ethical understanding.  One doesn't use the skills one learns in school solely in government-mandated ways.

Also, maybe this (http://home.preventioninstitute.org/schoolviol3.html) will help you understand, though you don't exactly seem anti-violence.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 03, 2013, 11:58:32 am
Quote from: Vector on August 03, 2013, 11:41:40 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:26:10 am
Are art programs necessary? And didn't I state that I didn't think all money should go to the military? I didn't specify whether that 5 bil would be better spent on either.

Yes, they are.  Art and literature help people develop ethics, aesthetics, expressiveness, compassion, empathy, imagination, and a whole long list of qualities that are necessary for a functioning community--many of which are crucial for the development of effective engineering programs, as well.  Trust me, I'm a math student.  I've seen a wide variety of examples first-hand of those who are good in technical areas but elect to totally neglect their cultural education.
Silly Vector, culture and painting don't real. The only thing we need to teach our children are math, science, and football. It was good enough for your parents so it will be good enough for you.
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:47:33 am
Developing ethics: I.e the ones that are deemed "ok" by the government.
Uh, no. That's what happens when you don't teach ethics. Teaching ethics isn't about telling you what is good or bad, it is about teaching people how they can determine on their own what is good or bad.
Quote
Aesthetics: Well, I don't like modern architecture. Taking classes in architecture won't change that.
Aesthetics is not architecture. Aesthetics is about the quantification of sensory input and output, which would include architecture alongside hundreds of other things.
Quote
Expressiveness: Schoolyard, with their friends...?
Compassion: Same.
Empathy: Same.
Kingfisher, allow me to reveal to you a great secret. People do not know things before they are taught about them. While a person can certainly develop pro-social qualities without outside help, a child could also theoretically learn algebra without outside help as well. The schools are around to expedite the process of learning.

A child might have compassion and empathy for others, but are they going to know how to express that healthily? Are they going to know the psychological and sociological implications of their interactions with others? Are they in the mindset of seeing others as being real people, equal to them (even if they accept it intellectually, they may not truly accept it in their actions)?

School is not just about learning how to find x. It is not even about learning things so you can get a job with them, despite what some people might tell you. School is about learning how to live as a person who can stand on their own merits in our societies. And as the name implies, societies are primarily social entities.
Quote
Imagination: Art does not have a monopoly on imagination.
But it is a catalyst. Having a flexible imagination may not necessarily solve your problems, but it certainly increases the possibility that you can imagine a solution you otherwise might not.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 03, 2013, 12:02:05 pm
Also: there's a lot of regions where the group you'll find on the playground is not exactly diverse.  Sure, you may develop empathy for a certain kind of person, but you won't know how to react to a different one unless you've gotten some grounding in, well, human diversity.  And usually people learn about these things through art and literature.

Why does this matter?  Because our study of human issues is only as sound as the breadth of our definition of what constitutes a human.  God knows women are still feeling the aftershocks, decades later, and lots of other groups are, too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 03, 2013, 12:03:01 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 10:41:45 am
The military has hundreds of years of tradition. Even better, it provides multifaceted benefits. Where the hell is a mechanic going to get work? Simple, the military. Unless you want to subsidise companies into hiring mechanics, it's your best bet. Even better, still have to keep around a military until this " World Peace" thing rocks around. Even better, R&D trickles down all sorts of cool stuff into everyday use.

Well, simple. Replace the military with another national organization that has a proud tradition, invents awesome stuff, and has a bit more overlap with civilian life, as well as not being outdated when world PeaceTM rolls around. [Penny for NASA anyone]

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 10:51:58 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 10:46:35 am
Which leads us to the shocking conclusion that well funded and well delivered education of all and any forms would reduce the need for welfare?
Which we can't fund because we're spending it on welfare. Well.
Or not taxing the rich enough. Or any of a large number of valid reasons.

Point is, it's hard to reeducate yourself when you don't have a home, can't afford food, can't afford treatment, or a number of other reasons. Education alone isn't going to cut it. You need both reintegration and welfare.

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:07:21 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 11:06:16 am
Or a massive bloated military budget. The US spends something like $700 billion on its armed forces. Imagine what $5billion could do for schools in the US and what little effect that would have on the US military?
I don't know. I think a lack of funding isn't to blame, but lack of good teaching methods.
Both, probably. Stuff is way to expensive for what it does.

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:34:05 am
First off, make a tank that doesn't have a FUCKING GAS TURBINE WHICH REQUIRES A REFUEL EVERY 7 HOURS! That'll save some cash.

Sadly, that's a result of giving the military too much money. They know that if they don't spend all their money this year, they'll get less next year. Hence why you get completely useless vanity projects. If you'd actually punish them for failed projects, I'm pretty sure significant cuts can be made while increasing efficiency.

If the money doesn't disappear completely, that is...

Minor sidetrack here, and with the risk of inflaming stuff but the art courses are similar to what religion courses should be...

Ie, don't teach them to believe, but teach them to understand what they're seeing/ reading/ whatever...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 03, 2013, 12:06:19 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 03, 2013, 12:03:01 pm
Well, simple. Replace the military with another national organization that has a proud tradition, invents awesome stuff, and has a bit more overlap with civilian life, as well as not being outdated when world PeaceTM rolls around. [Penny for NASA anyone]
Seriously, I can't even imagine what NASA might have finished by now if they had the military's level of funding.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 12:07:35 pm
Quote
Not art
Art is an expression of ethics, emotions. It's not something that can be taught. However, meddling in early ethical development can lead to problems. I.E, what if a socialist teacher was to show only protest art to a class? Shape their future political views?
Quote
No comment, as I sit in my picturesque house surrounded by a city of brutalist, renaissance and post-modern architecture. A POX ON YOU
But seriously, you're wrong on this one for the lesser reasons.
Dirty peasant. Surrealism is where it's at. Melting Big Ben at twelve bong? Wonderful.
Quote
This one is important. Is it seriously a thing where students in America eat lunch in class and don't socialize?
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Because expression can be done in many ways. I did it with words and stories. Visual art ( The kind taught in schools) did nothing for me.
Quote
Yeah, fuck humanity.
Here I was saying simply how the schoolyard, socialising, all that can do wanders for those two attributes.
Quote
Ideas are easy, expressing them can sometimes take some help. What should teachers be able to do?
That's the thing. I don't know. Maybe a centralised curriculum from some art authority to prevent government meddling.
Quote
True. Neither should it be neglected.
Not neglected, just better regulated, centralised to certain areas for more funding, and other stuff.
Quote
Ben Garrison pls
Goy pls.
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 03, 2013, 12:06:19 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 03, 2013, 12:03:01 pm
Well, simple. Replace the military with another national organization that has a proud tradition, invents awesome stuff, and has a bit more overlap with civilian life, as well as not being outdated when world PeaceTM rolls around. [Penny for NASA anyone]
Seriously, I can't even imagine what NASA might have finished by now if they had the military's level of funding.
Not a lot more. They accomplished incredible things, but they can't just " More tanks! More troops!" They could make lots of incredible things, but just not really incredible things.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 03, 2013, 12:08:50 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 03, 2013, 12:06:19 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 03, 2013, 12:03:01 pm
Well, simple. Replace the military with another national organization that has a proud tradition, invents awesome stuff, and has a bit more overlap with civilian life, as well as not being outdated when world PeaceTM rolls around. [Penny for NASA anyone]
Seriously, I can't even imagine what NASA might have finished by now if they had the military's level of funding.

a prototype of personal hoverboards based on the alcubierre drive would be constructed around today.

don't ask from where i know this
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 03, 2013, 12:09:46 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 11:06:16 am
Or a massive bloated military budget. The US spends something like $700 billion on its armed forces. Imagine what an extra $5billion could do for secondary age (11-18) schools in the US and what little effect that would have on the US military?
Between 1 and 1.4 trillion in 2012, overall. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_breakdown_for_2012) Federal spending was pegged at 681 billion according to the source (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/hist05z1.xls) (which I found here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals) -- it's an .xls file. You can see the notes on the wikipedia part to see where the discrepancy's coming from.), and education at 91 billion -- but only 39 billion of that going to K-12 education (including vocational training) and 20 to higher education. It'd take less than a 10% (~8.6%) cut to the military spending listed there to have flat out doubled primary et al and higher education spending in 2012. Total spending on what's normally called welfare here (unemployment, food and housing assistance -- only one of which, unemployment, involves "just handing out money for fun") was around 200 billion. You'd have to cut that by better than a forth to double education spending. For what it's worth, we spend more than half as much on veteran benefits as we do on overall welfare (of the sort mentioned: ~120 billion vs ~200 billion).

Plain cash disbursement (especially to folks that aren't unemployed) isn't actually much of th'states' welfare spending, and is more or less a pittance of the overall budget. The big hits are military, medicare, and social security... and at least one of those we could probably stand to loosen up on, just a titch.

As for that five billion. Would be an 8.4% increase in the 2012 education budget for primary et al and higher education, in exchange for a .7% decrease in defense spending. 2.4% decrease in welfare spending, 4% decrease in veteran spending, if you were to draw from one of those, instead. .6% if you were to roll veteran spending into overall military.

Which... should probably help understand why there's this certain subset of folks who want to cut military spending and redirect it into, y'know, other things. As th'states' spending goes, military is one of the less directly necessary or beneficial things money's being spent on, and so much is being spent on it the nation could get significant gains (budgetary, in any case), in other areas. Areas that are considerably more likely to have notable benefit back home, as opposed to pissing off the rest of the world and crippling a fair number of our youth. Being fair, also fending off some of the people we've pissed off, but... yeah.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 03, 2013, 12:10:59 pm
I agree that in an ideal world where we could count on the objectivity of the teacher, some sort of theological education should be mandatory at this juncture of our history.

Or, at the very least, what I had--a project where we had to go to a church we don't normally worship at, attend a service, interview a pastor/reverend/priest/religious dude, do research, and write a 15-page paper.  For my particular class it was a mandatory piece of 8th grade, along with developing a personal project on which we spent at least 70 hours.


Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 12:07:35 pm
Not a lot more. They accomplished incredible things, but they can't just " More tanks! More troops!" They could make lots of incredible things, but just not really incredible things.

. . .

I think you should examine your biases.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on August 03, 2013, 12:12:42 pm
Quote from: Vector on August 03, 2013, 12:10:59 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 12:07:35 pm
Not a lot more. They accomplished incredible things, but they can't just " More tanks! More troops!" They could make lots of incredible things, but just not really incredible things.

. . .

I think you should examine your biases.
Found them (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9D2D954D98379823).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 12:12:55 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:52:14 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 11:49:58 am
My head is now firmly being hit against my desk. I am sorry, but I disagree so very strongly with so much of that last post, I dont even know how to begin wording a rebuttal.
Please do actually word a response other than " LOLO I'M HEADESKING"

Let me try then. Art, as in the creation of music, sculpture, painting, poetry and literature, has been humanities means of comminicating its desires, fears, thoughts feelings and emotions through the ages - from cave paintings up to bisected sharks in formaldehyde. Art tells a story of the place it was made and who by. As a scientist I dont claim to understand art or the process by which it is made, but I understand its purpose and benefits. Art allows for the establishment of cultural identites and practices, and the exchange of these ideas through the medium by which works are created. Art spills over into science, enigeering and the media. Things like the traits you claim need no fostering in this manner are not inherent properties of humanity - they are fostered and tought by the community an individual finds themselves in, fostered by both the people the interact with and the substance of thier society - its works of art, its pop music, its buildings, its myths and legends. Its morals. Should an individual find that they fit with what they are exposed to, then fab. If they dont, then by giving them a footing in these schools of thought allows them to identify why they do not, and to go off and find a sector where they do or to go create thier own identity. Ethics are not set in stone rules. They are guidelines as to decide how to think, and are as artificial a construct as a bridge. People will not know how to choose to act right if they can not identify what is right and wrong. Every young person deserves to be exposed to a range of science, art, music, engineering, math, sport in order to appreciate humanity, and to decide what is best for them. This is a rambling collection of ideas that I have not put much time into, and I am typing on the fly as I think, but I think my feelings are clear.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 03, 2013, 12:13:49 pm
Well, if I recall correctly, the old sixties roadmap would have Humans on the moon, in a pretty large colonies, and outposts on Mars. With airbreathing turbines to allow for cheaper rocketry, and planetoid mining to cut costs.

I can't find it though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 12:14:27 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on August 03, 2013, 12:12:42 pm
Quote from: Vector on August 03, 2013, 12:10:59 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 12:07:35 pm
Not a lot more. They accomplished incredible things, but they can't just " More tanks! More troops!" They could make lots of incredible things, but just not really incredible things.

. . .

I think you should examine your biases.
Found them (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9D2D954D98379823).
I think I'm just fine with my biases thank you.

OH GOD PLEASE LET ME POST
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 03, 2013, 12:17:04 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 12:07:35 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 03, 2013, 12:06:19 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 03, 2013, 12:03:01 pm
Well, simple. Replace the military with another national organization that has a proud tradition, invents awesome stuff, and has a bit more overlap with civilian life, as well as not being outdated when world PeaceTM rolls around. [Penny for NASA anyone]
Seriously, I can't even imagine what NASA might have finished by now if they had the military's level of funding.
Not a lot more. They accomplished incredible things, but they can't just " More tanks! More troops!" They could make lots of incredible things, but just not really incredible things.
What? What in the hell does that even mean?

And no, they could do a lot more incredible things. Like solidifying the continued existence of humanity, for example. You know, small feats like that.

Also, all of this suggests that they probably do good things for technological innovation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies)
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 03, 2013, 12:13:49 pm
Well, if I recall correctly, the old sixties roadmap would have Humans on the moon, in a pretty large colonies, and outposts on Mars. With airbreathing turbines to allow for cheaper rocketry, and planetoid mining to cut costs.

I can't find it though.
I remember that and cannot seem to find it as well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 12:20:44 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 03, 2013, 12:17:04 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 12:07:35 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 03, 2013, 12:06:19 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 03, 2013, 12:03:01 pm
Well, simple. Replace the military with another national organization that has a proud tradition, invents awesome stuff, and has a bit more overlap with civilian life, as well as not being outdated when world PeaceTM rolls around. [Penny for NASA anyone]
Seriously, I can't even imagine what NASA might have finished by now if they had the military's level of funding.
Not a lot more. They accomplished incredible things, but they can't just " More tanks! More troops!" They could make lots of incredible things, but just not really incredible things.
What? What in the hell does that even mean?

And no, they could do a lot more incredible things. Like solidifying the continued existence of humanity, for example. You know, small feats like that.

Also, all of this suggests that they probably do good things for technological innovation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies)
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 03, 2013, 12:13:49 pm
Well, if I recall correctly, the old sixties roadmap would have Humans on the moon, in a pretty large colonies, and outposts on Mars. With airbreathing turbines to allow for cheaper rocketry, and planetoid mining to cut costs.

I can't find it though.
I remember that and cannot seem to find it as well.
While that's all good, I think military R&D can claim quite the list of achievements as well. Anti-sleep pills, more practical lasers, better and better understanding of radar, waves in general, psychological advances, all sorts of medical advancements, and some other things I can't think of right now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 12:22:29 pm
Yes, but in general these are used to kill people with greater efficiency, not to better humanity.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 03, 2013, 12:23:38 pm
Indeed they do, and it is for that reason that R&D is the one aspect of the military I do not seek massive cuts in.

Regardless, military tech advancement is still inferior to space tech advancement in that the former is ultimately all for the cause of, you know, war.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 12:24:10 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 12:22:29 pm
Yes, but in general these are used to kill people with greater efficiency, not to better humanity.
Yes, but it does trickle down, and the competition of an arms race is much better than that of a space race. One, prestige is at stake, the other, hundreds of thousands of lives.
Oh yes, maybe we should have another space race! Drives forward public support of NASA funding among other benefits.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 03, 2013, 12:31:05 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 12:07:35 pm
Quote
Not art
Art is an expression of ethics, emotions. It's not something that can be taught. However, meddling in early ethical development can lead to problems. I.E, what if a socialist teacher was to show only protest art to a class? Shape their future political views?
It's possible, but that's why parents should get involved to make sure the trust invested in a teacher is well spent and teachers should be trained and screened to be teachers, not shills. If you're not going to take the chance to better the next generation for fear that someone's going to abuse the system somewhere no matter what, you're declaring the venture forfeit without actually viewing its merits.
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 12:07:35 pm
Quote
No comment, as I sit in my picturesque house surrounded by a city of brutalist, renaissance and post-modern architecture. A POX ON YOU
But seriously, you're wrong on this one for the lesser reasons.
Dirty peasant. Surrealism is where it's at. Melting Big Ben at twelve bong? Wonderful.
Actually, I would disagree. Due to indoctrination by socialist art teachers...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I DECLARE MIGHT OF SOVIET REALISM SUPREME
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 12:07:35 pm
Here I was saying simply how the schoolyard, socialising, all that can do wanders for those two attributes.
True enough. Art for empathy's really just an additional benefit, not a basis for implementation.
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 12:07:35 pm
Quote
Ideas are easy, expressing them can sometimes take some help. What should teachers be able to do?
That's the thing. I don't know. Maybe a centralised curriculum from some art authority to prevent government meddling.
Like a board of education founded by teachers? That'd be how I would do it, at least from the start.
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 12:07:35 pm
Not a lot more. They accomplished incredible things, but they can't just " More tanks! More troops!" They could make lots of incredible things, but just not really incredible things.
NASA has sent a rover where? :P
The only reason why a spacebot harvesting minerals with lasers seems normal is because NASA has made it seem normal to us. They're really underfunded.

Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 12:22:29 pm
Yes, but in general these are used to kill people with greater efficiency, not to better humanity.
Technology sought after to better kill humanity will also result in technology sought after to better counter the technology used to kill humanity. Arms races result in leaps of innovation and applied technology.
Generally R&D is an area of institutions that I would put as much as would be sensible into, no matter if it be say; medical or military. To say all military R&D is for killing is a massive overstatement, a lot of this stuff will end up in the civilian markets and a lot of our survival orientated tech. comes from guys with guns, glasses and labcoats.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 12:40:04 pm
I agree with most of the stuff you posted. I still think that politically charged areas of education should be watched over by external authorities on that subject. I had a brainwashing teacher once. I'm glad I actually began reading up on stuff and learned what she was saying was completely false.

I also think NASA is underfunded, and that it really has no short term goals. It got the wow factor of the rover, the question is now where to next? I reckon helium mining on the moon.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 03, 2013, 12:48:03 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 12:40:04 pm
I also think NASA is underfunded, and that it really has no short term goals. It got the wow factor of the rover, the question is now where to next? I reckon helium mining on the moon.
Well, I'm glad to see you're so well informed on NASA mission specs. The rover is not for wow factor. The rover is for the collection of vital data concerning the geological and meteorological status of Mars, data that it would be fortunate to know before sending anybody living there. Radiation levels, pressure and temperature changes, present materials, what it would take to keep a human alive on the red planet.

We aren't even close to helium mining the moon. That's going to take multiple manned and unmanned missions before even being on the radar. Got to go back to the moon, got to survey for H3 deposits, got to have the tech on Earth for that to even be useful to us, got to set up at least a semi-permanent settlement, got to have advanced enough autonomous processors to extract the H3, probably got to have a rail driver on the surface of the Moon to launch that shit to Earth, probably got to have better orbital infrastructure in order to ease the Moon-Earth transition.

Then, if nothing goes wrong, you can go mine helium on the moon.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 03, 2013, 12:50:06 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 12:12:55 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:52:14 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 11:49:58 am
My head is now firmly being hit against my desk. I am sorry, but I disagree so very strongly with so much of that last post, I dont even know how to begin wording a rebuttal.
Please do actually word a response other than " LOLO I'M HEADESKING"

Let me try then. Art, as in the creation of music, sculpture, painting, poetry and literature, has been humanities means of comminicating its desires, fears, thoughts feelings and emotions through the ages - from cave paintings up to bisected sharks in formaldehyde. Art tells a story of the place it was made and who by. As a scientist I dont claim to understand art or the process by which it is made, but I understand its purpose and benefits. Art allows for the establishment of cultural identites and practices, and the exchange of these ideas through the medium by which works are created. Art spills over into science, enigeering and the media. Things like the traits you claim need no fostering in this manner are not inherent properties of humanity - they are fostered and tought by the community an individual finds themselves in, fostered by both the people the interact with and the substance of thier society - its works of art, its pop music, its buildings, its myths and legends. Its morals. Should an individual find that they fit with what they are exposed to, then fab. If they dont, then by giving them a footing in these schools of thought allows them to identify why they do not, and to go off and find a sector where they do or to go create thier own identity. Ethics are not set in stone rules. They are guidelines as to decide how to think, and are as artificial a construct as a bridge. People will not know how to choose to act right if they can not identify what is right and wrong. Every young person deserves to be exposed to a range of science, art, music, engineering, math, sport in order to appreciate humanity, and to decide what is best for them. This is a rambling collection of ideas that I have not put much time into, and I am typing on the fly as I think, but I think my feelings are clear.

It is a very good summation of why art is a cornerstone in society, though. A shame kingfisher decided to just ignore it.

Oh, and the three things most likely to keep young people out of crime? Sports, music, and art.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 12:51:37 pm
The trouble with any body overseeing education is that it inevitably ends up under pressure from political bodies looking to manpulate education for its own ends - OFSTEAD in the UK is a good recent example.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 12:56:25 pm
But it is equally for wow factor. Guess what? Walk up to a regular guy on the street. Ask him about NASA's recent accomplishments. He wouldn't know a thing. The rover is something iconic, something that's memorable. Like the moon landing. It's special. It was a dual-purpose PR and info-collection mission.
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 12:51:37 pm
The trouble with any body overseeing education is that it inevitably ends up under pressure from political bodies looking to manpulate education for its own ends - OFSTEAD in the UK is a good recent example.
Yes, but the same goes with government. It's constantly under more push and pull, more so than an external body.
Quote from: scriver on August 03, 2013, 12:50:06 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 12:12:55 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:52:14 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 11:49:58 am
My head is now firmly being hit against my desk. I am sorry, but I disagree so very strongly with so much of that last post, I dont even know how to begin wording a rebuttal.
Please do actually word a response other than " LOLO I'M HEADESKING"

Let me try then. Art, as in the creation of music, sculpture, painting, poetry and literature, has been humanities means of comminicating its desires, fears, thoughts feelings and emotions through the ages - from cave paintings up to bisected sharks in formaldehyde. Art tells a story of the place it was made and who by. As a scientist I dont claim to understand art or the process by which it is made, but I understand its purpose and benefits. Art allows for the establishment of cultural identites and practices, and the exchange of these ideas through the medium by which works are created. Art spills over into science, enigeering and the media. Things like the traits you claim need no fostering in this manner are not inherent properties of humanity - they are fostered and tought by the community an individual finds themselves in, fostered by both the people the interact with and the substance of thier society - its works of art, its pop music, its buildings, its myths and legends. Its morals. Should an individual find that they fit with what they are exposed to, then fab. If they dont, then by giving them a footing in these schools of thought allows them to identify why they do not, and to go off and find a sector where they do or to go create thier own identity. Ethics are not set in stone rules. They are guidelines as to decide how to think, and are as artificial a construct as a bridge. People will not know how to choose to act right if they can not identify what is right and wrong. Every young person deserves to be exposed to a range of science, art, music, engineering, math, sport in order to appreciate humanity, and to decide what is best for them. This is a rambling collection of ideas that I have not put much time into, and I am typing on the fly as I think, but I think my feelings are clear.

It is a very good summation of why art is a cornerstone in society, though. A shame kingfisher decided to just ignore it.

Oh, and the three things most likely to keep young people out of crime? Sports, music, and art.
I know art is important. Not as important as " the big 4" History/geography, maths, English, and science. I'm not saying that we should abolish all art ever, but just better regulate art education. I didn't need a lengthy explanation as to why art is important. Again, I'm an art student, I know it is important.

Also, ignore all my posts on the matter because hypocrisy doesn't apply to you.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 03, 2013, 01:07:52 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 12:56:25 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 12:51:37 pm
The trouble with any body overseeing education is that it inevitably ends up under pressure from political bodies looking to manpulate education for its own ends - OFSTEAD in the UK is a good recent example.
Yes, but the same goes with government. It's constantly under more push and pull, more so than an external body.
Right. It's also a whole mass better than not having any overseeing body to ensure corruption isn't abound, manipulation isn't occurring and cheating isn't rife.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BerenErchamion on August 03, 2013, 01:17:12 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 12:56:25 pm
But it is equally for wow factor. Guess what? Walk up to a regular guy on the street. Ask him about NASA's recent accomplishments. He wouldn't know a thing. The rover is something iconic, something that's memorable. Like the moon landing. It's special. It was a dual-purpose PR and info-collection mission.
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 12:51:37 pm
The trouble with any body overseeing education is that it inevitably ends up under pressure from political bodies looking to manpulate education for its own ends - OFSTEAD in the UK is a good recent example.
Yes, but the same goes with government. It's constantly under more push and pull, more so than an external body.
Quote from: scriver on August 03, 2013, 12:50:06 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 12:12:55 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:52:14 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 11:49:58 am
My head is now firmly being hit against my desk. I am sorry, but I disagree so very strongly with so much of that last post, I dont even know how to begin wording a rebuttal.
Please do actually word a response other than " LOLO I'M HEADESKING"

Let me try then. Art, as in the creation of music, sculpture, painting, poetry and literature, has been humanities means of comminicating its desires, fears, thoughts feelings and emotions through the ages - from cave paintings up to bisected sharks in formaldehyde. Art tells a story of the place it was made and who by. As a scientist I dont claim to understand art or the process by which it is made, but I understand its purpose and benefits. Art allows for the establishment of cultural identites and practices, and the exchange of these ideas through the medium by which works are created. Art spills over into science, enigeering and the media. Things like the traits you claim need no fostering in this manner are not inherent properties of humanity - they are fostered and tought by the community an individual finds themselves in, fostered by both the people the interact with and the substance of thier society - its works of art, its pop music, its buildings, its myths and legends. Its morals. Should an individual find that they fit with what they are exposed to, then fab. If they dont, then by giving them a footing in these schools of thought allows them to identify why they do not, and to go off and find a sector where they do or to go create thier own identity. Ethics are not set in stone rules. They are guidelines as to decide how to think, and are as artificial a construct as a bridge. People will not know how to choose to act right if they can not identify what is right and wrong. Every young person deserves to be exposed to a range of science, art, music, engineering, math, sport in order to appreciate humanity, and to decide what is best for them. This is a rambling collection of ideas that I have not put much time into, and I am typing on the fly as I think, but I think my feelings are clear.

It is a very good summation of why art is a cornerstone in society, though. A shame kingfisher decided to just ignore it.

Oh, and the three things most likely to keep young people out of crime? Sports, music, and art.
I know art is important. Not as important as " the big 4" History/geography, maths, English, and science.

Sure it is.

At the end of the day, after all, everything is subordinate to human development.  If anything, artistic expression is one of the products of human development--so, if anything, those "big 4" are merely subordinate to art.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 01:21:37 pm
Quote from: BerenErchamion on August 03, 2013, 01:17:12 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 12:56:25 pm
But it is equally for wow factor. Guess what? Walk up to a regular guy on the street. Ask him about NASA's recent accomplishments. He wouldn't know a thing. The rover is something iconic, something that's memorable. Like the moon landing. It's special. It was a dual-purpose PR and info-collection mission.
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 12:51:37 pm
The trouble with any body overseeing education is that it inevitably ends up under pressure from political bodies looking to manpulate education for its own ends - OFSTEAD in the UK is a good recent example.
Yes, but the same goes with government. It's constantly under more push and pull, more so than an external body.
Quote from: scriver on August 03, 2013, 12:50:06 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 12:12:55 pm
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 03, 2013, 11:52:14 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2013, 11:49:58 am
My head is now firmly being hit against my desk. I am sorry, but I disagree so very strongly with so much of that last post, I dont even know how to begin wording a rebuttal.
Please do actually word a response other than " LOLO I'M HEADESKING"

Let me try then. Art, as in the creation of music, sculpture, painting, poetry and literature, has been humanities means of comminicating its desires, fears, thoughts feelings and emotions through the ages - from cave paintings up to bisected sharks in formaldehyde. Art tells a story of the place it was made and who by. As a scientist I dont claim to understand art or the process by which it is made, but I understand its purpose and benefits. Art allows for the establishment of cultural identites and practices, and the exchange of these ideas through the medium by which works are created. Art spills over into science, enigeering and the media. Things like the traits you claim need no fostering in this manner are not inherent properties of humanity - they are fostered and tought by the community an individual finds themselves in, fostered by both the people the interact with and the substance of thier society - its works of art, its pop music, its buildings, its myths and legends. Its morals. Should an individual find that they fit with what they are exposed to, then fab. If they dont, then by giving them a footing in these schools of thought allows them to identify why they do not, and to go off and find a sector where they do or to go create thier own identity. Ethics are not set in stone rules. They are guidelines as to decide how to think, and are as artificial a construct as a bridge. People will not know how to choose to act right if they can not identify what is right and wrong. Every young person deserves to be exposed to a range of science, art, music, engineering, math, sport in order to appreciate humanity, and to decide what is best for them. This is a rambling collection of ideas that I have not put much time into, and I am typing on the fly as I think, but I think my feelings are clear.

It is a very good summation of why art is a cornerstone in society, though. A shame kingfisher decided to just ignore it.

Oh, and the three things most likely to keep young people out of crime? Sports, music, and art.
I know art is important. Not as important as " the big 4" History/geography, maths, English, and science.

Sure it is.

At the end of the day, after all, everything is subordinate to human development.  If anything, artistic expression is one of the products of human development--so, if anything, those "big 4" are merely subordinate to art.
But isn't science a product of human development? Isn't literature? Or history?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 03, 2013, 01:22:19 pm
Quote
I know art is important. Not as important as " the big 4" History/geography, maths, English, and science.
I presume you meant "language" instead of "English", 'cause holy crap ethnocentrism otherwise.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 03, 2013, 01:23:06 pm
[Quotesnip please]

Besides, it's not like you can't use any of these big four for indoctrination...
It's probably easier, as few people expect it.

Quote from: kaijyuu on August 03, 2013, 01:22:19 pm
Quote
I know art is important. Not as important as " the big 4" History/geography, maths, English, and science.
I presume you meant "language" instead of "English", 'cause holy crap ethnocentrism otherwise.
This arts tangent is a result of an US military debate, so ...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 03, 2013, 01:25:49 pm
You definitely can't indoctrinate through history.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on August 03, 2013, 01:26:39 pm
Quote from: Vector on August 03, 2013, 01:25:49 pm
You definitely can't indoctrinate through history.
Math, on the other hand...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 03, 2013, 01:29:13 pm
You certainly can't use math as a vehicle to explain why various races or genders are inferior, since math is the highest intellectual creation of our species and Certain People just can't hack it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on August 03, 2013, 01:38:20 pm
Quote from: Vector on August 03, 2013, 01:29:13 pm
You certainly can't use math as a vehicle to explain why various races or genders are inferior, since math is the highest intellectual creation of our species and Certain People just can't hack it.
It's currently futile to try with science as well. People have tried and failed repeatedly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 03, 2013, 01:51:51 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on August 03, 2013, 01:22:19 pm
Quote
I know art is important. Not as important as " the big 4" History/geography, maths, English, and science.
I presume you meant "language" instead of "English", 'cause holy crap ethnocentrism otherwise.
Presumably he is talking about the America.

Quote from: Vector on August 03, 2013, 01:25:49 pm
You definitely can't indoctrinate through history.
You've never had a Chinese history teacher go on about WWII then ::)

Quote from: Morrigi on August 03, 2013, 01:38:20 pm
Quote from: Vector on August 03, 2013, 01:29:13 pm
You certainly can't use math as a vehicle to explain why various races or genders are inferior, since math is the highest intellectual creation of our species and Certain People just can't hack it.
It's currently futile to try with science as well. People have tried and failed repeatedly.
Not really. You can just look and observe at any characteristic a sex or race possesses and pick any where it is brilliant in some way, and as such superior. Ashkenazi IQ, European and Asian upper body strength, Kenyan muscle-fibres, the phenotypical variability and muscle-building testosterone of males with mechanical thinking or the social excellence and heightened senses that the average female inherits, science today is really telling us how much we are different, how much is biological. It's not all that hard to accept that we are not all the same to be equal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 03, 2013, 01:55:04 pm
Someone broke the Irony cynism button.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 03, 2013, 01:57:41 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 03, 2013, 01:55:04 pm
Someone broke the Irony cynism button.
What is cynism?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 03, 2013, 01:59:43 pm
Cynicism misspelled, I imagine.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 03, 2013, 02:02:08 pm
Quote from: Frumple on August 03, 2013, 01:59:43 pm
Cynicism misspelled, I imagine.
+1

Literal dutch-English translation doesn't always work.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 03, 2013, 02:02:47 pm
Quote from: Frumple on August 03, 2013, 01:59:43 pm
Cynicism misspelled, I imagine.
A shame. I was hoping there was a button somewhere that released young swans into the wilds.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on August 03, 2013, 03:08:47 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 03, 2013, 02:02:47 pm
Quote from: Frumple on August 03, 2013, 01:59:43 pm
Cynicism misspelled, I imagine.
A shame. I was hoping there was a button somewhere that released young swans into the wilds.

A swan is a Cygnus, a young one is a Cygnet. Learning taxonomy from songs since 09.01.1977.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on August 03, 2013, 04:45:42 pm
Back to art again, eh? Let me take a crack at it.

Personally, I would say art is important for children because it helps develop one of humanities greatest advantages - abstract thinking. Let me show you an example. Imagine a mountain made of pencils, or a tree that grows upside down, or some other utterly bizarre thing you would never encounter in real life. What would that look like? What properties would it have? Where would you find such a thing? What uses would it have? What could you do with it? What dangers might it represent? You are capable of imagining such a thing, and of attempting to answer those questions. This may not sound especially useful, but it is what allows for most all of the amazing things we do. Without that the jump from

Spoiler: This (click to show/hide)

to

Spoiler: This (click to show/hide)

To

Spoiler: This (click to show/hide)

And from there to the rest of math, would be impossible. Likewise, our ability to come up with complicated, cohesive theories, like those that make up all of modern science, or those that allow for large scale cooperation, would also be impossible. You remember similes and metaphors? That's what I'm talking about. The list goes on, but I think you know what I mean by now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 03, 2013, 06:34:26 pm
True.  For more on this subject, I recommend Lakoff's "Where Does Math Come From?"  It suggests that a great deal of mathematical maturity comes from finding the correct metaphor for a particular abstract notion--when is it best to see the whole numbers as a system with addition and multiplication, when as an ordering system, when as an expression of cardinality?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 04, 2013, 02:03:12 am
Lets not kid ourselves, we all know maths was invented by Issac Newton so that we would all have to learn it as payback for his strange hair. Then some people actually enjoyed maths so he invented physics so he could throw stuff at those people.

Newton was a jerk.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 04, 2013, 03:40:28 am
Quote from: Max White on August 04, 2013, 02:03:12 am
Lets not kid ourselves, we all know maths was invented by Issac Newton so that we would all have to learn it as payback for his strange hair. Then some people actually enjoyed maths so he invented physics so he could throw stuff at those people.

Newton was a jerk.

Actually, he was well known for being a gread A asshat.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on August 04, 2013, 08:16:57 am
Also, in his time, Newton wasn't actually famous for his scientific work, but for his accomplishments with Royal Mint. And amusingly, he wasn't supposed to actually DO anything with it, the job was a synecure, but he took it seriously.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 05, 2013, 11:48:34 am
US healthcare really sucks, apparently. (http://www.policymic.com/articles/58039/man-saves-65-000-on-hip-replacement-by-getting-it-done-in-belgium)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 05, 2013, 11:56:05 am
Actually, this is what get me so mad every time see US commentators or politicians railing about the need to cut Medicare or face crippling budget deficit.

You don't need to cut Medicare. You can expand coverage to anyone, from birth do death. You just need to turn it from being a way to subsidize healthcare companies into a way to deliver healthcare.

You're just doing it wrong. And you're actually doing worse than just about every single other develloped country. If only US politicians weren't so busy ignoring the rest of the world while talking about how great Amurrica is, maybe you could realize we all figured out the solution to your problem and just copy it.

But no, that would be turning into a socialist Eurotrash hell, which for some reasons is a bad thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 05, 2013, 01:13:30 pm
Regardless though, America still has the obligation of producing and researching medical tech for much of the world. It also consists of much of the nation's economy.
http://selectusa.commerce.gov/industry-snapshots/health-and-medical-technology-industry-united-states
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 05, 2013, 01:24:13 pm
Not really, while the majority of the research is done by US companies, the research itself often takes place elsewhere. Europe has several leading universities, but the role of India and other new economies is also significant.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 05, 2013, 01:30:31 pm
Yes, that's the thing. I would really really love if the mentality of most of my fellow Americans would start veering towards better health and an increase in physical activity. The average American is in far poorer health than most developed countries, and that's more of a cultural and social aspect than a lack of healthcare. Tell us your secrets to a better lifestyle, Europeans. Maybe then we could afford universal healthcare.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 05, 2013, 01:37:47 pm
One of the best ways of bringing down healthcare costs is to catch problems early, before they get expensive.

The US strongly, incredibly strongly, incentivizes waiting until a problem is at it's most expensive point before treating it, and incentives the hospitals to charge as much for it as possible on top of that (because they have to legally pay out of pocket for the people who can't otherwise pay, despite getting no legal financial assistance). Culturally, our medical system is also pretty piss-poor, with low quality standards and a lowest-bidder mentality, and the regulation that exists seems to serve primarily to pad pockets rather than improve the system. (Yes, I believe we need both more AND less regulation - more of the good kind, less of the terrible kind. Of course, in the good ol'USA the terrible kind is the only kind that's popular, because people can make a lot more money off of it!)

The whole thing is honestly just a mess, and it's got little to do with US culture. Sure, that contributes in some ways (the primary contributor not being our various states of ill health but our propensity to be awfully spread out compared to Europe, which makes everything more expensive), but it's nowhere near the major player in our healthcare cost woes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 05, 2013, 01:52:09 pm
Yes, and I believe that promoting better fitness and diet would be a core factor in eliminating many problems. Type 2 diabetes is still one of the biggest yet easily preventable medical conditions in the American South and West.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 05, 2013, 01:56:17 pm
A lot of that is issues regulating food companies and with poverty, though, not a need to tell people that they need to diet and exercise.  Like, you can't task individuals with solutions to institutional problems.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 05, 2013, 02:02:00 pm
Actually, there's been a sudden boom in obesity and diabetes after the boom of the 1950's, so it's not necessarily linked so much with poverty. But you are right about the food companies.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 05, 2013, 02:05:24 pm
Well, what I'm really trying to say is that the cheapest, easiest to get food is no longer grits and raw potatoes, it's now manufactured stuff with HFCS in it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 05, 2013, 02:06:35 pm
Quote from: Vector on August 05, 2013, 02:05:24 pm
Well, what I'm really trying to say is that the cheapest, easiest to get food is no longer grits and raw potatoes, it's now manufactured stuff with HFCS in it.
Which is actually, in the long-term, more expensive than the natural thing. Hehe, makes you wonder.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 05, 2013, 02:18:03 pm
... what? If you're including health costs et al, maybe. But only maybe. Or perhaps overall environmental costs and whatnot.

But in dollar amounts, to the consumer, right now? Not even close. At all. Natural, unprocessed stuff is dollar for dollar more expensive in the states than other options. Sometimes significantly so. Joint like walmart you can generally expect to pay 2-3x more per unit of measurement for unprocessed, natural stuff (and because of how incredibly predatory places like Wallie's prices are, beating their price is not a very likely thing to occur), on the low end. There's a couple of exceptions (potatoes, ferex, are often cheaper farm grown or whatev'.), but they're exceptions that highlight the rule.

So... back up that statement, please. It flies entirely in the face of the last half decade or so of grocery shopping I've been doing, down here in Florida.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 05, 2013, 02:24:33 pm
Overall production costs, I'm sorry I did not make that clear. I grow most of my vegetables in my backyard, stuff like cucumbers, potatoes, watermelons, and tomatoes. And the initial costs to setting up a garden wasn't that bad either. Paid off within a few weeks.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 05, 2013, 02:25:26 pm
Because everyone can afford a backyard...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 05, 2013, 02:30:58 pm
The amount of food you can pull out of a backyard garden is pretty damn limited and isn't nearly as cheap as you seem to be making it out to be unless you're really lucky with weather, space, and soil quality (which means you've probably sunk a lot more money into getting some decent property of your own or you're mooching off the hard work of someone else subsidizing your effort). Having had multiple attempts to grow food fail pretty miserable because the conditions where I live (unless I want to spend far more than the food is worth on soil, fertilizer, upkeep, care time, etc. and so on) are useless for growing pretty much any sort of edible plant.

We've managed to keep ONE onion alive. That's it! We can't even get radishes to grow properly, fucking radishes man. And this was after about 30 hours and a couple hundred dollars of digging and remodeling to make things more amenable to plant life. At least we can grow some pretty flowers now (a significant improvement over "nothing but straggly groundcover and grass), but even they don't look so great and you can't eat 'em...

And food generally takes more than a few weeks to grow to a point where it is useful as food, so I very much doubt the validity of your story.

Dandelions actually grow alright, but a full dandelion bed still feeds a family of two for, like... 4 meals. If that. And you've got to make sure you pick them at just the right time, and even though they grow they certainly don't grow that fast. And that's pretty much the only edible thing we've succeeded in growing.

Even then, growing food is always risky. There's a good chance the whole crop gets eaten by weavel moths and you wasted all your money for nothing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 05, 2013, 02:36:24 pm
Quote from: Vector on August 05, 2013, 02:25:26 pm
Because everyone can afford a backyard...
Or even if they can, are living in an area that can support gardening without notable investment. If you've got to water, fertilize, etc., so forth, so on, it can pretty quickly cost more than what some retail joint's charging in order to try and kill competition. Least where I'm at, you've got to beat pricing that's usually coming in at <10c per ounce on a lot of (canned/dried/frozen) vegetables (including transportation on your end, if you're only grocery shopping once or twice a month and driving yourself), 12-13 cent/oz on the upper end. Even discounting the potential cost effect of the time investment gardening can take, that can get pretty hard to beat. As GG ninjas, yeah.

I mean, there's a reason these people are pricing like they are. Killing gardening is part of their business plan, just like killing mom and pops joints is. Even beyond that, there's pretty significant economies of scale to agriculture that makes back yard gardening considerably less cost efficient, in most situations. Think they're actually trying to work around that or somethin', but I've no clue how well (if) that's proceeding.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 05, 2013, 02:38:42 pm
Subsistance farming - its hardly the solution of choice is it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 05, 2013, 02:47:30 pm
I never said that's it was substinence farming. It's just something that's convenient and cost-effective for me on the side.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 05, 2013, 02:48:39 pm
It's a nice hobby, and it's one I think people should pick up if they have the opportunity since it can be very rewarding.

But cost-efficient it aint.

The cheapest sort of home gardening is actually fruit/nut trees. It takes time, though - a few years at least to see results. But I encourage everyone to invest in it if you have a hard that supports even one tree.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 05, 2013, 02:52:28 pm
On a side note, contrary to popular belief, frozen products are usually more nutritious than "fresh" grocery vegetables. The amount of vitamins and stuff lost during freezing and defrosting is often significantly less than the nutrients that are lost during transport of fresh vegetables.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 05, 2013, 02:54:36 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on August 05, 2013, 02:48:39 pm
It's a nice hobby, and it's one I think people should pick up if they have the opportunity since it can be very rewarding.

But cost-efficient it aint.

The cheapest sort of home gardening is actually fruit/nut trees. It takes time, though - a few years at least to see results. But I encourage everyone to invest in it if you have a hard that supports even one tree.
Depends. A lot of it depends on the soil. Northern California soil is a miracle practically.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 05, 2013, 03:02:03 pm
And on what you plant.

Good choices, assuming you have the soil? Peas. Tomatoes. Berries (raspberries and blackberries are basically weeds). (And fruit/nut trees)

Almost guaranteed to be poor choices:
Corn, Potatoes

Mediocre choices:
Squashes and eggplants are great... IF you get lucky. A single pest outbreak can render a years worth of effort useless very quickly though, and sometimes they just don't produce. I've had years where I've pulled in dozens of squashes of various types and it was amazing, and years where the same conditions have produced nothing. They also take up a lot of room.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 05, 2013, 03:06:12 pm
Strawberries are also quite nice, if you live in areas where they don't die from the frost. We just needed to plant them once, and then cut them away whenever they threaten to overrun the other plants.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 05, 2013, 03:19:23 pm
Mrhappyface, how can you try to frame healthcare cost as a personal responsibility issue, when this whole discussion started with an article pointing out that your institutions were so inefficient that it is literally 4 time cheaper to flow someone to Belgium for treatment than treat it in the state?

I also take offense at your whole "USA pays for drug development". Drug companies actually spend more on advertising than R&D. One major cause of this is that the USA, the world's biggest drug market, allow advertisement directly to consumers. (Which is dumb. actually, any kind of advertisement for drugs is dumb, you should be taking decision based on science, not 30 s TV ads or fully-paid "seminars" in the Bahamas) This mean that the US is actually redirecting a lot of cash that would otherwise be used in R&D into advertisement.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 05, 2013, 03:31:41 pm
Well, advertising drugs is pretty pointless in most of Europe, considering that most doctors are legally obligated to prescribe the cheapest, effective medicine,* along with providing alternatives. State, or social institution of choice, will only pay back a smaller amount of alternative treatments though.

*As opposed to the USA, where, IIRC, the doctors are granted a percentage on the medicines sold, and hence are motivated to sell the most expensive medicine, whether or not that's the best choice.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 05, 2013, 03:55:29 pm
Quote from: Sheb on August 05, 2013, 03:19:23 pm
This mean that the US is actually redirecting a lot of cash that would otherwise be used in R&D into advertisement.

And lobbying for intellectual property laws.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 05, 2013, 04:19:26 pm
I did not know that. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Well, the free-market does have its ups and downs but with more of an emphasis on the down side.  :D Good think I'm moving to Costa Rica soon anyways.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 05, 2013, 04:19:48 pm
KFC
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/07/article-0-0A5A81C5000005DC-705_468x286.jpg)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 06, 2013, 05:56:03 am
Syria has been hit by gas attacks, and supposedly an Israeli  37.000 pound bunker buster. I have very little information here, just seen the gas on Al Jazeera, and had to search for the bunker buster.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 06, 2013, 05:59:19 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 06, 2013, 05:56:03 am
Syria has been hit by gas attacks, and supposedly an Israeli  37.000 pound bunker buster. I have very little information here, just seen the gas on Al Jazeera, and had to search for the bunker buster.

Nothing on the BBC about his yet, but I am keeping an eye on it to see what breaks - clear and obvious use of chemical weapons might force NATO, the UN or the US to act in one way or another.

Most recent Syria news article by the BBC is this: Rebels take key airbase. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23585886)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 06, 2013, 06:01:44 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 06, 2013, 05:59:19 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 06, 2013, 05:56:03 am
Syria has been hit by gas attacks, and supposedly an Israeli  37.000 pound bunker buster. I have very little information here, just seen the gas on Al Jazeera, and had to search for the bunker buster.

Nothing on the BBC about his yet, but I am keeping an eye on it to see what breaks - clear and obvious use of chemical weapons might force NATO, the UN or the US to act in one way or another.

Most recent Syria news article by the BBC is this: Rebels take key airbase. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23585886)

The US won't care if the rebels were using gas, but they certainly will if the regime is. Double standards all the way across the sky.

Russia might have to step up the game though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 06, 2013, 06:03:53 am
Oh yeah, and the USA is being kicked out of Yemen. So shit is going down in the Middle East.
http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-yemen-drone-strike-state-department-warning-20130806,0,6659853.story
Drone strikes in Yemen. Shit is fully fully really truly going down.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 06, 2013, 09:07:48 am
Quote from: greatorder on August 06, 2013, 09:04:25 am
I was under the impression that recently, the middle east has been in a perpetual state of 'shit is going down'?

The shit never really was up in the first place.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 06, 2013, 10:34:47 am
For those who think small town police forces are better than big city ones...
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=all

"The county’s district attorney, a fifty-seven-year-old woman with feathered Charlie’s Angels hair named Lynda K. Russell, arrived an hour later. Russell, who moonlighted locally as a country singer, told Henderson and Boatright that they had two options. They could face felony charges for “money laundering” and “child endangerment,” in which case they would go to jail and their children would be handed over to foster care. Or they could sign over their cash to the city of Tenaha, and get back on the road. “No criminal charges shall be filed,” a waiver she drafted read, “and our children shall not be turned over to CPS,” or Child Protective Services."

"Later, she learned that cash-for-freedom deals had become a point of pride for Tenaha, and that versions of the tactic were used across the country. “Be safe and keep up the good work,” the city marshal wrote to Washington, following a raft of complaints from out-of-town drivers who claimed that they had been stopped in Tenaha and stripped of cash, valuables, and, in at least one case, an infant child, without clear evidence of contraband."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 06, 2013, 10:56:34 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 06, 2013, 09:07:48 am
Quote from: greatorder on August 06, 2013, 09:04:25 am
I was under the impression that recently, the middle east has been in a perpetual state of 'shit is going down'?

The shit never really was up in the first place.

It used to be, back in ancient times. You know, before colonial entities wrecked it the same way as Africa.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 06, 2013, 11:17:21 am
I've been seeing stories like that a lot, actually...  I haven't actually read many of them, just because the headlines tend to give off a more alarmist conspiracy vibe.  Saw an article a little while ago about a pair of cops -- *actual on-duty police* -- who were basically pulling people over around Detroit and robbing them at gunpoint.  Didn't read too much into it.  But yeah... it's pretty grim stuff.

What are you supposed to do when your local law enforcement, as in the entire institution, behaves like a criminal enterprise?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 06, 2013, 11:20:09 am
Quote from: Owlbread on August 06, 2013, 10:56:34 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 06, 2013, 09:07:48 am
Quote from: greatorder on August 06, 2013, 09:04:25 am
I was under the impression that recently, the middle east has been in a perpetual state of 'shit is going down'?

The shit never really was up in the first place.

It used to be, back in ancient times. You know, before colonial entities wrecked it the same way as Africa.

Or, you know, the fifties.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 06, 2013, 11:31:01 am
I wouldn't consider the fifties to be in that, what with all the nonsense with Israel and such.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 06, 2013, 11:59:32 am
Well, who though it was a good idea to let law enforcement grab anything they could link to drug anyway?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 06, 2013, 12:08:46 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on August 06, 2013, 11:17:21 am
What are you supposed to do when your local law enforcement, as in the entire institution, behaves like a criminal enterprise?
You can do what California did in the 1990s and repeal the laws that allow it to happen (they had a major wave of abuse in the 80s, lots of public backlash). Although that has since been undone in large part and they are nearly back to where they were before. You have states like Mass with pretty strict laws - but then local police departments will argue their case on the federal level (not entirely sure how that works) because the federal laws are incredibly lax. California, for example, still has a limit of police departments only recovering at most 65% of the value from civil forfeiture. From 2002 to 2009, forfeitures in California under federal law outpaced those under state law by about two to one, because the feds let them keep 80%.

The simplest solution is just to not allow police offices to benefit from civil forfeiture. Cap their personal benefit at 0%, and boom : problem solved. But many police budgets are now based on the assumption that their will be a certain amount of it - essentially, they have become professional theft organizations operating under a quota of "we must steal a certain amount of goods by year end". It's pretty perverse.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on August 06, 2013, 12:18:17 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on August 06, 2013, 11:17:21 am
I've been seeing stories like that a lot, actually...  I haven't actually read many of them, just because the headlines tend to give off a more alarmist conspiracy vibe.  Saw an article a little while ago about a pair of cops -- *actual on-duty police* -- who were basically pulling people over around Detroit and robbing them at gunpoint.  Didn't read too much into it.  But yeah... it's pretty grim stuff.

What are you supposed to do when your local law enforcement, as in the entire institution, behaves like a criminal enterprise?

What are you supposed to do? File a complaint with the FBI or federal district attorneys office... who wont believe you, and have sympathy for authoritarian exploitation. Then you get murdered by the local cops, and if you are lucky the FBI might pay enough attention to connect the two and give you a tiny fractional measure of post mortem justice.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 06, 2013, 01:36:17 pm
Hmmm. Look like some interesting developments in Pennsylvania.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/06/1229194/-The-Town-Of-Gilberton-PA-Has-Been-Taken-Over-By-Miltia
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 06, 2013, 01:41:26 pm
Quote from: Mrhappyface on August 06, 2013, 01:36:17 pm
Hmmm. Look like some interesting developments in Pennsylvania.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/06/1229194/-The-Town-Of-Gilberton-PA-Has-Been-Taken-Over-By-Miltia

..can i please get a second source?

this sounds dangerously like red scare-era "this is what happens when we let the left right-wingers win" propaganda, especially with the media blackout surrounding it

the list of republishers does not help at all
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 06, 2013, 01:43:29 pm
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 06, 2013, 01:41:26 pm
Quote from: Mrhappyface on August 06, 2013, 01:36:17 pm
Hmmm. Look like some interesting developments in Pennsylvania.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/06/1229194/-The-Town-Of-Gilberton-PA-Has-Been-Taken-Over-By-Miltia

..can i please get a second source?

this sounds dangerously like red scare-era "this is what happens when we let the left right-wingers win" propaganda, especially with the media blackout surrounding it

the list of republishers does not help at all
Well, you could always hear it from the man himself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QQW0RswpQ4&feature=youtu.be)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on August 06, 2013, 01:52:47 pm
This is the longest 'neutral' article I can find on the subject. (http://www.officer.com/news/11075971/gilberton-pa-police-chief-suspended-over-controversial-videos) It doesn't actually cover the objectionable content in any real detail, but I think he still comes off pretty badly.

This one better covers the rally. (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/07/video-making_gilberton_police.html)

Raw story covered the original issue here (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/23/pennsylvania-police-chief-fck-all-you-libtards-out-there-you-take-it-in-the-a/) and here (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/29/pennsylvania-police-chief-mark-kessler-insists-he-is-not-a-circus-clown-deranged-lunatic/).

First place I saw the story was on the always great Fred Clark's blog (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/07/24/pa-police-chief-loves-guns-profanity-birtherism-alex-jones-militias-anti-semitic-rock-music-and-serving-on-the-board-of-education/). That one should be read for context.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 06, 2013, 03:03:44 pm
Quote from: Mrhappyface on August 06, 2013, 01:36:17 pm
Hmmm. Look like some interesting developments in Pennsylvania.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/06/1229194/-The-Town-Of-Gilberton-PA-Has-Been-Taken-Over-By-Miltia
I had to check if this was onion news. Both sides are calling each other terrorists. Really, I wonder why this hadn't happened sooner. What's going to happen now?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on August 06, 2013, 04:00:46 pm
I read all of those different articles, and if I didn't know better I'd say they were describing three different events. So he fired off automatic weapons and violently cursed and threatened politicians on YouTube while wearing his badge, and a crowd appeared to defend him when he was only suspended? And now a petition to have him fired is circulating and rapidly garnering signatures.

I was going to write a big long rant but... I have no words. What I'm really interested in is if the major networks will pick this up, and how they'll cover it if they do. Whatever happens, this is going to be a mess.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 06, 2013, 04:20:03 pm
Mind you, this is a rural mining town of 900 people. He's probably a popular enough local figure since he runs his crazy militia there. The petition is probably mostly from outside the town, given that it has 20000 signatures.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 06, 2013, 04:51:58 pm
I say no harm to them, it's not like he's really hurting anyone besides acting like a bit of a boorish idiot.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 06, 2013, 04:59:14 pm
Considering that he's the town's police chief, I'd say he's a lot less benign than you are making him out to be.

These right-wing militias tend to be Neo-Nazis all but in name (unless they are literal Neo-Nazis, which is possible), and he has them controlling the town.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 06, 2013, 05:06:13 pm
Small town USA police chief is crazy and ultra-right wing, stop the presses. Haven't you watched Hollywood movies?

Anyway, I'll wait until he calls for Jews/black people to be exterminated or something along those lines before I call him a Nazi.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 06, 2013, 05:22:15 pm
Yes actually, stop the presses. Crazy people should not be tolerated in any level of government, even local ones. There's a reason why this guy has made the news.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 06, 2013, 05:24:44 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 06, 2013, 05:22:15 pm
Yes actually, stop the presses. Crazy people should not be tolerated in any level of government, even local ones. There's a reason why this guy has made the news.
So, we should start a purge then? Because sociological research (IIRC) has shown that people suffering from megalomania and other disorders, have a significantly higher chance to work their way up to positions of power.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 06, 2013, 06:12:16 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 06, 2013, 05:22:15 pm
Yes actually, stop the presses. Crazy people should not be tolerated in any level of government, even local ones. There's a reason why this guy has made the news.

Like I said though he isn't really hurting anyone besides being boorish.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 06, 2013, 06:18:28 pm
I wouldn't be so sure of that. There are still 900 people in his town, and he seems like the type who'd relish hurting those who disagree with him in every way possible...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 06, 2013, 06:37:26 pm
I'll wait until he does before I call for his removal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Blargityblarg on August 06, 2013, 07:42:03 pm
Somewhat light-hearted but still 'what': An AI built to design and tell jokes seems to be a raging misogynist. (http://www.businessinsider.com.au/computer-tells-offensive-jokes-2013-8)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 06, 2013, 07:44:45 pm
Another great Scottish invention. Who says our hay day was in the last two centuries? We created Roger Ebert's voice for god's sake.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 06, 2013, 07:45:31 pm
Quote from: Blargityblarg on August 06, 2013, 07:42:03 pm
Somewhat light-hearted but still 'what': An AI built to design and tell jokes seems to be a raging misogynist. (http://www.businessinsider.com.au/computer-tells-offensive-jokes-2013-8)

not its fault these women fucked up programming it it's a reference to a comic where exactly this happening stop shouting can anyone post it actually? smbc i believe
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 06, 2013, 07:51:37 pm
Quote from: Blargityblarg on August 06, 2013, 07:42:03 pm
Somewhat light-hearted but still 'what': An AI built to design and tell jokes seems to be a raging misogynist. (http://www.businessinsider.com.au/computer-tells-offensive-jokes-2013-8)
Oh lord that's hilarious.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 06, 2013, 08:58:54 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on August 06, 2013, 07:51:37 pm
Quote from: Blargityblarg on August 06, 2013, 07:42:03 pm
Somewhat light-hearted but still 'what': An AI built to design and tell jokes seems to be a raging misogynist. (http://www.businessinsider.com.au/computer-tells-offensive-jokes-2013-8)
Oh lord that's hilarious.
Ha ha ha, that's like teaching a parrot to curse. Why would you want to break it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 06, 2013, 10:08:52 pm
Japan seems to be experiencing a surplus of sunshine
http://enenews.com/tepco-situation-fukushima-bleak-discharge-beyond-control-video
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 07, 2013, 12:38:56 am
Still causes less damage and loss of human life than burning coal does.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 07, 2013, 04:41:10 am
Yeah, in exchange for all its nuclear power, Japan saw its death toll from the 2011 Tsunami rise from 15,883 to 15,884 (Some old worker in Fukushima died of an heat stroke because of working too hard in a radiation suit).


Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 07, 2013, 05:02:41 am
To be fair, you can probably add another 20-100 people to that. (Not sure how many worked in the nuclear power plant, but those guys did get pretty high dosages).

Besides, it's pretty interesting for marine biology. Nuclear traces make it quite easy to trace migrations.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 07, 2013, 05:13:58 am
Well, they haven't died yet. Maybe some will, but then even Chernobyl, which was terribly managed, you only had a fraction of the death toll coal kills every single year.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 07, 2013, 05:21:38 am
Fukushima was badly designed too. I mean, who decided it was a good idea to put the back up generators for a coastal reactor in an area known for it's earthquakes (and tsunami's) in the basement. Without that flaw, nothing would've happened.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 07, 2013, 05:36:04 am
I think this is less of 'nuclear power is inherently bad' and more of 'under funding your infrastructure to the point where it becomes susceptible to disasters is inherently bad'
Plan and pay carefully for your worst case situation, and these things become a lot less of an issue.


Also, just to add to the pond song, still better than coal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 07, 2013, 05:41:59 am
And better than oil. Maybe gas too, but I'm not sure of that. Haven't been that many major gas explosions, IIRC.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on August 07, 2013, 05:48:38 am
Quote from: Max White on August 07, 2013, 05:36:04 am
I think this is less of 'nuclear power is inherently bad' and more of 'under funding your infrastructure to the point where it becomes susceptible to disasters is inherently bad'
Plan and pay carefully for your worst case situation, and these things become a lot less of an issue.


Also, just to add to the pond song, still better than coal.

Those buildings/reactors were built to be (and were) extremely durable and heavily resistant to damage.
I think it was less an issue with underfunding infrastructure, and more an issue with derpy management ("Lets build a reactor in an earthquake, tsunami prone area and put the backup equiptment in an area vunerable to flooding", "Great Idea! *approved*")

Still better than coal :P.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 07, 2013, 05:56:59 am
They survived a shock 45000 times stronger than what they were designed for (Richter is a logarithmic scale) without core nor coolant damage. I mean, if the automated shutdown hadn't interfered they probably could've continued running without extensive problems.

Edit: Added additional zeroes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on August 07, 2013, 06:05:03 am
Anti-nuclear people always focus on the fact that it failed. Never mind the fact that even despite the stupid problem of backup generators being forced offline, nor that the plant withstood 45 times the safety standards it was supposed to withstand...

Also, rumors spread about the core burning through the earth to the other side of the world (so-called 'Chinese Syndrome) is so stupid it makes me rage-y. Kinda tangential but yeah. Some other reactor meltdown started up a couple mm towards the center of the earth before it froze.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 07, 2013, 06:12:07 am
Wait... So you mean to imply that people think the core will bore a molten hole through the earth and come out the other side?
You know, I don't think that paper was peer reviewed!

While nuclear power is something that can be done wrong, with horrific repercussions, that doesn't mean we should just dismiss as an invisible evil that will mutate your children.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 07, 2013, 06:14:33 am
Besides, a core melting to the earth isn't bad. I mean, it's one problem less you have to worry about. A melting core hitting an aquifer, now that gets interesting.

Besides, the Fukushima plant has been involved in some degrees of corruption. Changes to the design which caused one of the other emergency cooling systems to fail (Steam condenser), Falsifying inspections of critical equipment, not inspecting emergencies generators, ignoring studies even after the emergency generator room flooded and completely submerged.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on August 07, 2013, 06:17:26 am
I think the word "Nuclear" has become the technological equivelant of the political word "Communist" when used in argument against something.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 07, 2013, 06:20:06 am
Yes it has. It's best seen when you read green arguments against nuclear fusion.

Same reason the ITER was renamed. Used to be an abbreviation for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. Turned out that name didn't help in ensuring public trust.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 07, 2013, 06:37:09 am
Technically not renamed, they just started using the acronym literally. Still a good name, though.

My only problem with fusion is that it probably won't be much good in the actual energy crisis, as the roadmap puts DEMO coming online in the 2050s even if both it and ITER go well. Beyond that you'll have to add on another 10-20 years for the 1st generation commercial reactors. By that point we're probably either dead or running off of renewables and refined fission already.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 07, 2013, 07:33:11 am
Quote from: Skyrunner on August 07, 2013, 06:05:03 am
Anti-nuclear people always focus on the fact that it failed. Never mind the fact that even despite the stupid problem of backup generators being forced offline, nor that the plant withstood 45 times the safety standards it was supposed to withstand...

But not even 1 time the safety standard it needed ;)

Quote from: Max White on August 07, 2013, 05:36:04 am
I think this is less of 'nuclear power is inherently bad' and more of 'under funding your infrastructure to the point where it becomes susceptible to disasters is inherently bad'
Plan and pay carefully for your worst case situation, and these things become a lot less of an issue.

No, it's "nuclear power isn't inherently bad" but "the human element makes nuclear plants and inherently bad idea". Because things will always go wrong.

Personally I'm much more against the continuation of using half-century old reactors with outdated safety standards, engineering and archi-tech-ture than I am against nuclear power in itself.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on August 07, 2013, 07:39:43 am
Kinda ironic that anti-nuclear people actually help cause nuclear problems. Eg, due to protests newer, stronger reactors cannot be built, and old reactors are kept running because we still need to substantial energy provided by said old reactors to fuel our civilization.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 07, 2013, 07:47:28 am
Besides, which energy corporation is going to invest in updating a reactor, when there not certain whether it'll still run tomorrow.

Second gen reactors are designed to survive for 80 years, provided they get a midlife update, and proper maintenance.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 07, 2013, 07:49:17 am
Things don't always go wrong. We only had two nuclear catastrophe in the history of nuclear power. On of them hasn't killed anyone yet except for that old worker that died of heatstroke in his combination, and the other has a death toll of a few thousands at most (The official death toll being a whooping 41).

The thing is, a nuclear catastrophe kill less people that a normally operating oil or coal plant.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 07, 2013, 07:52:08 am
Chernobyl's true effects are beyond our ability to measure. Radiation signatures from the plant showed up as far away as Alabama, if I recall correctly. And people get cancer all the time. It might have been the catalyst for many more deaths than we measured, or it might not have gone beyond the official count. There's just no telling.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on August 07, 2013, 07:56:10 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 07, 2013, 07:47:28 am
Besides, which energy corporation is going to invest in updating a reactor, when there not certain whether it'll still run tomorrow.

Second gen reactors are designed to survive for 80 years, provided they get a midlife update, and proper maintenance.
Energy is state-ran here. The gov't has expressed regrets multiple times that protests from residents have prevented it from building more new reactors and hazardous waste disposal facilities. Korea's stable granite structures are probably perfect for building nuclear waste facilities.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 07, 2013, 08:09:46 am
MSH: Detecting a signature is as easy as finding some isotopes from the right period. As long as some radionucleotides found their way into the stratosphere, you'll be able to detect the event all over the planet. You can detect the nuclear test in the same way. It just prove the quality of current analysis technique.

Now, as I said, the current official body count is 41: 26 of the clean-up crew that died through direc radiation exposure, and 15 thyroid cancer. It's estimated a total of 4000 people will die eventually. Now, even if that count is off by a factor of ten, that's still less than a normal year for coal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 07, 2013, 08:19:52 am
I'm not exactly defending coal over here. It's even worse than oil.

All I'm saying is that we should keep in mind the possibility of a heretofore unrealized nightmare scenario that Chernobyl came closest to. The track record of nuclear plants are great, but if private industries operating them were not watched and regulated as closely as they are the risk of such a scenario occurring would increase drastically. We are going to more or less have to employ a greater number of nuclear plants in the future, which will in turn strengthen the industry's political pull, which in turn will put us at risk of creating an iron triangle like that which exists with fossil fuels today.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 07, 2013, 08:38:45 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 07, 2013, 07:52:08 am
Chernobyl's true effects are beyond our ability to measure. Radiation signatures from the plant showed up as far away as Alabama, if I recall correctly. And people get cancer all the time. It might have been the catalyst for many more deaths than we measured, or it might not have gone beyond the official count. There's just no telling.
Statistics, and comparable events and dosises. If Tsernobyl had the effects that greenpeace claims it has, then television would've killed just as many. Radiation levels are comparable after all. The dosages from the incident were pretty low, mostly because they were spread out so much. Only dangerous if you happened to ingest large amounts of radiation, which is rather unlikely to occur away from the place of the incident.

Besides, researchers are capable of determining the reactor and source of the material by the composition and state of the various isotopes. Nuclear science is quite advanced.

Edit: Btw, the reason that greenpeace and the like get million death numbers is because they intentionally (ab)use a calculation method intended for high dosages and short times, as opposed to small dosages over long time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 07, 2013, 09:02:23 am
AFAIK Chernobyl (surprisingly enough) has not led to a leukemia peak (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8adFNycaanI/RgP9pZV0PDI/AAAAAAAAAEA/MvsVQYIH3j8/s400/Leukemia1.JPG), so things are a bit optimistic in that regard.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 07, 2013, 09:31:23 am
It did cause a lot of thyroid cancer that would have been easily preventable (Hand out iodine tablets to everyone), but thyroid cancer got like a 95% survival rate.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 07, 2013, 10:05:39 am
There's all the kids that are being born with mutations in Belarus just over the border too. There's an orphanage full of them, suffering from cerebral palsy and stuff.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 07, 2013, 10:16:55 am
I'd like a source for that actually...

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 07, 2013, 08:19:52 am
All I'm saying is that we should keep in mind the possibility of a heretofore unrealized nightmare scenario that Chernobyl came closest to. The track record of nuclear plants are great, but if private industries operating them were not watched and regulated as closely as they are the risk of such a scenario occurring would increase drastically. We are going to more or less have to employ a greater number of nuclear plants in the future, which will in turn strengthen the industry's political pull, which in turn will put us at risk of creating an iron triangle like that which exists with fossil fuels today.
Then again, third gen reactors can't meltdown by design. Or should be unable too, anyway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 07, 2013, 10:23:51 am
I'll try and find it, it was a Journeyman Pictures documentary I think.

EDIT:

The best ones are from a documentary called "Chernobyl Heart" from HBO:

Here's a few clips. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M3yHtnbsgo)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 07, 2013, 10:32:52 am
I've googled it a bit and the studies and reviews I've seen don't appear to show any significant increase in congenital defects either

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/5/941.short

http://my-co2.net/documents/documents_in_english/abort-castro-99.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534706000292

I'm going to check the last one more throughly later, if I can access it through my old uni account.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 07, 2013, 11:05:17 am
Hm, at least regionally Chernobyl had pretty devastating effects. There is a program that brings children from the region to Germany for vacations and a lot of them have cancer.
Also to this day wild boars that are killed in certain regions of Bavaria have to be treated as biohazard, because they eat truffles or other fungi that store radiation and/or toxic substances.

I remember that there was quite a panic here, with children not allowed to play outside and warnings to not eat certain vegetables because of toxic rains. Interestingly France didn't issue such warnings and the GDR even had a surplus of vegetables suddenly, because the toxic clouds somehow "didn't cross" their borders  ;).

I have to agree though that it's not great that energy companies have stopped updating reactors now that Germany has abandoned nuclear energy. That whole thing was rushed in way to early, green energy isn't sufficient yet and that shows on my electric bill.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 07, 2013, 11:23:53 am
Well, it appears the effects on these children is primarily because they, or their mothers drank heavily contaminated water. The nuclear plant was located at a major river (all plants are) which fed one of the largest surface water systems in Europe. It certainly didn't help that the government denied that the water was polluted, and in fact raised the maximum allowed levels of radioiodine tremendously, so that all the water was considered save.

The boars are gravely overstated to. Merely 0.25% of the boars actually had traces of radiation, and none of them had large amounts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 07, 2013, 11:38:18 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 07, 2013, 11:23:53 am
The boars are gravely overstated to. Merely 0.25% of the boars actually had traces of radiation, and none of them had large amounts.
That is certainly possible, it's just something that comes up in the media from time to time.
Anti-nuclear sentiment in Germany borders on hysteria sometimes, so you better not contradict anything like this or you will be branded as an ignorant crazy person  ;). I wonder how long that will last now that electricity becomes more and more expensive while we have to rely on coal (which isn't eco-friendly either) and people are protesting against wind turbines in their neighbourhoods...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 07, 2013, 11:53:48 am
Quite long actually. Germany has a fairly sensible environmental policy, and an economy strong enough to pull it off. Won't be the optimal descision anyway.

Belgium would be another story. The majority of our power (60%-80%) comes from nuclear, and the government want's a complete shutdown for 2030(AFAIK, I don't know anymore, they keep changing the dates around). Wind turbines have little place and are placed without any precautions. (Germany has a 2km danger zone, Belgium doesn't.*) We have to rely on offshore if we want to do anything usefull.

*You aren't even informed of the plans if you don't live within 800 meters.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 07, 2013, 12:04:32 pm
The funny thing is, now that it's done environmentalists are up on each others throats about the alternatives. Some point out that coal is bad because of CO2 emissions, others are against bio fuel because of the consequences for the food supply in South America, and others hate wind turbines because they are noisy, make the landscape look ugly and kill birds.
2030 was the initial plan here too, but after Fukushima public sentiment became overwhelming and the date was rushed to "ASAP", even if there are still lots of problems with the infrastructure to actually use the electricity that wind turbines produces. AFAIK a lot of wind turbines are not even connected to the power networks yet, because of conversion problems.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 07, 2013, 12:06:34 pm
Isn't biofuel currently a joke, what with the usual production material (corn) costing more to produce than the biofuel made out of it? Or are we talking about algae reactors and such at this point?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 07, 2013, 12:10:35 pm
Biofuel is, at the moment, a negative energy resource. Certainly corn based biofuel. There are others, which are used, but they aren't much better.

Have to make a difference between biofuel and biomass energy. One is car fuel, the other's an actually working alternative. Mainly means that you're burning wood to provide power.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 07, 2013, 12:44:42 pm
Actually, Germany is building coal plants right now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 07, 2013, 12:45:40 pm
I guess they gave up on solar then.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 07, 2013, 12:47:47 pm
Nah, not really.

It's just kinda hard to replace 10% of your energy production at once.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 07, 2013, 01:40:39 pm
Germany, home of the green political school. Building Coal plants. Jeez, really? I am dissapoint.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 07, 2013, 01:45:15 pm
Well, at least as a bridge technology. Germany is not sunny enough for solar to be effective, water is not as big an option as in the Alpes or Norway and wind is still problematic, as I said before, due to infrastructure problems. Biomass energy stuff is being worked on, but it's not quite there yet.
Of course lots of people are against coal plants, but that is what you get when you rush things.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 07, 2013, 01:51:35 pm
Biomass is actually the most advanced and most simple renewable out there. I mean, it's the same technology as a coal plant, but with biomass instead of coal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 07, 2013, 01:53:41 pm
Biomass is generally just an incredibly inefficient type of solar though, isn't it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on August 07, 2013, 01:59:45 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on August 07, 2013, 01:53:41 pm
Biomass is generally just an incredibly inefficient type of solar though, isn't it?

Yes, one that consumes soil nutrient and drains the aquifers of fresh water.

Granted that solar thermal can consume a lot of fresh water too if you don't slap a condenser on the steam pipe.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on August 07, 2013, 02:02:39 pm
A really in depth look at a new German coal plant. (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130724/why-germanys-greenest-city-building-coal-fired-power-plant?page=show) As always, it's a damned sight more complicated than it might first appear.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on August 07, 2013, 01:53:41 pm
Biomass is generally just an incredibly inefficient type of solar though, isn't it?

If you are looking at algae then it's not as horrifically inefficient as it might seem, especially when you consider you can get a direct consumable and potable fuel rather than electrical power that needs to be stored and/or transmitted. There are better sources for electricity generation, sure, but for transport it likely has a role.

The question is whether it can scale and whether it would simply serve as a crutch on oil as a transport fuel (as corn ethanol has) that prevents moving to completely clean forms.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 07, 2013, 02:27:53 pm
Seems like a story of how good intentions fall apart through the quick decisions of green organizations and looks

-Inefficient cooling tower (Looks nicer)
    -24/24 hour operation (No water cooling because green org didn't like it)
-No waste heat recovery (would've doubled the plants efficiency)  ((Some trees stood in the way))
 
Also yeah, America's fracking boom has dropped coal prices worldwide, almost driving natural gas out of the market.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 07, 2013, 05:41:09 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on August 07, 2013, 01:53:41 pm
Biomass is generally just an incredibly inefficient type of solar though, isn't it?
Depends. In America, yeah. In South America, definitely. Sri Lanka's setting a good example by using a plant that naturally grows in most tropics of the world, fixes nutrients back into the soil and can be grown in tandem with tea leaves. It doesn't compete with food crops and its impact on the environment is beneficial, it could also get Sri Lanka's entire energy grid powered on plants.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 07, 2013, 05:55:26 pm
China's running some plants on waste products from processed rice.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 07, 2013, 06:33:16 pm
I would rather have China's cities be able to have air that can support human life.
http://imgur.com/a/CnXGL
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 07, 2013, 06:35:19 pm
Quote from: Mrhappyface on August 07, 2013, 06:33:16 pm
I would rather have China's cities be able to have air that can support human life.
http://imgur.com/a/CnXGL

you'd think at this point they'd just put a giant air pump/filter system in the middle of the city and be done with it

also i like how your statement can be easily misinterpreted to look like you're implying china is not inhabited by humans
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 07, 2013, 06:40:07 pm
No it can't. Not unless you're actively seeking to be offended, I guess

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 07, 2013, 06:40:37 pm
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 07, 2013, 06:35:19 pm
Quote from: Mrhappyface on August 07, 2013, 06:33:16 pm
I would rather have China's cities be able to have air that can support human life.
http://imgur.com/a/CnXGL

you'd think at this point they'd just put a giant air pump/filter system in the middle of the city and be done with it

also i like how your statement can be easily misinterpreted to look like you're implying china is not inhabited by humans
Reading comprehension 20/20 then. You have to make some mighty leaps to go from one to the other.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 07, 2013, 07:11:24 pm
We have been very cruel. (http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/08/experiments-reveal-that-crabs-and-lobsters-feel-pain.html)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 07, 2013, 07:49:03 pm
I fucking knew it. I never eat lobster because of the way they're cooked and killed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 07, 2013, 08:34:02 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on August 07, 2013, 07:11:24 pm
We have been very cruel. (http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/08/experiments-reveal-that-crabs-and-lobsters-feel-pain.html)

I never did buy into that bullshit about them not feeling pain... it always reeked of "I don't want to think about it because I might have to change my mind."

Reminds me of another food practice that I find even more disturbing -- that one where they pour soy sauce into a cephalopod to make it dance.  They say "Oh but it's dead and that's just the sodium causing its nerves to fire!"

I get the impression that people who recite that don't actually stop and think about what that means and are just satisfied that it sounds sciencey.  Doesn't seem to occur to them that firing nerves is pretty fucking meaningless as a description of what's going on, since that can describe basically any function of a living organism.

I did some actual reading into how that dish is served and how it relates to the creature's physiology.  Many posts and articles on the subject claim that the "head" of the creature is cut off before serving, therefore it doesn't have a brain and can't be experiencing anything.  From what I've read, cephalopods don't have the same sort of central nervous system that most vertebrates do.  They do have a central brain of sorts, but it's not located in that bulbous thing most people would think of as the head.  Its brain is a ring shape that runs around the base of its body, surrounding its mouth.  Each tentacle also has a sort of semi-autonomous mini-brain of its own.  It's debated how much of the creature's thinking and experience takes place in its central ring-shaped brain.  The majority of its nervous system is actually located in its tentacles.  The bulbous thing sitting on top of all that is where all its other internal organs are located - basically its gut.

So when they serve dancing squid/octopus, they place it on a plate, chop off its "head", and usually serve it within a minute or two.  If they wait much longer, the dancing effect doesn't take place or isn't as impressive.  Customers are encouraged to pour the soy sauce quickly for this reason.

Think about this.  As compared to human physiology it's more like a disembowelment than a beheading.  Even worse, it directly exposes the part of the octopus that contains its central nervous system, and that's the part that the soy sauce is then poured into.  And how quickly does any creature die from disembowelment?  Certainly not in a minute or two.  It's been proven that even victims of actual beheading can remain alive and aware for at least a couple minutes.  Either type of injury will completely disable the victim to the point that they stop struggling pretty quickly, though.

And Bay12 has had more than one conversation about how fascinating the intelligence of cephalopods is.

So imagine for a moment having your guts ripped out of your body, the top of your skull removed, and then, while you're still conscious but helpless, soy sauce poured into your brain so that it goes completely haywire as spectators take pleasure at the sight of your convulsions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on August 07, 2013, 08:38:36 pm
I still say the cruelest form of food is the one where they basically turn a (still living) frog inside out and eat it. Raw, I believe.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 07, 2013, 08:48:02 pm
I don't even remotely understand the motivation behind that. I prefer my food good and dead before any preparation takes place.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on August 07, 2013, 08:54:28 pm
The suffering adds flavoring.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on August 07, 2013, 08:59:40 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on August 07, 2013, 07:11:24 pm
We have been very cruel. (http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/08/experiments-reveal-that-crabs-and-lobsters-feel-pain.html)

I always found the way crabs and lobsters are consumed to be really abhorent. If the same were done to a chicken there would be outrage, yet nothing if its a crab. I have always suspected part of the problem is that crabs are ugly and we cant relate to them ::).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 07, 2013, 09:00:04 pm
I do love me some crustacean. Any who, there's a recent uproar about fuses in the World Trade Center.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=723_1375920657
Whether you think it was done as a CIA false flag operation, or a surprise attack by reptillians from the Alpha Draconis star system, there's been a recent surge of discussion about 9/11 again.
Turn down your headphones if you don't want to suffer from staticy ear rape.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 07, 2013, 09:00:35 pm
Chicken are uglier than crabs.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on August 07, 2013, 09:10:58 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on August 07, 2013, 09:00:35 pm
Chicken are uglier than crabs.

And cows are uglier then both, yet so many people seem to love them.

I don't eat Lobsters or Crab except on pizza, because they both belong in the fish family of taste, so I guess I can claim moral high ground here, which is good, because I am pretty sure I would have eaten them still alive if they tasted any good.

Although I have a hard time sympathizing with them. They knew the risks when they threw in with the crustaceans against the mammals.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 07, 2013, 09:13:55 pm
Crustaceans don't taste anything at all like any sort of fish  ???
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 07, 2013, 09:14:10 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on August 07, 2013, 09:10:58 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on August 07, 2013, 09:00:35 pm
Chicken are uglier than crabs.
And cows are uglier then both, yet so many people seem to love them.
NUUUUU

Cows are the cutest.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 07, 2013, 09:15:29 pm
You know, I haven't considered it before now, but now that I think about it I don't think I've ever eaten crab or lobster.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on August 07, 2013, 09:16:48 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on August 07, 2013, 09:13:55 pm
Crustaceans don't taste anything at all like any sort of fish  ???
Yes. They do. That fishy disgusting aftertaste is present in almost all marine life in chunks larger then the end of my finger. And I hate it. The curse of the sea it is.

Quote from: Scelly9 on August 07, 2013, 09:14:10 pm
Cows are the cutest.

Have you ever looked at a milk cow udder man!?! There is a reason I am an atheist.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 07, 2013, 09:17:59 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on August 07, 2013, 09:16:48 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on August 07, 2013, 09:14:10 pm
Cows are the cutest.

Have you ever looked at a milk cow udder man!?! There is a reason I am an atheist.
I said cows are cute, not cow boobs are cute.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 07, 2013, 09:18:10 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on August 07, 2013, 09:16:48 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on August 07, 2013, 09:13:55 pm
Crustaceans don't taste anything at all like any sort of fish  ???
Yes. They do. That fishy disgusting aftertaste is present in almost all marine life in chunks larger then the end of my finger. And I hate it. The curse of the sea it is.

I really have no idea what you're talking about.  Something I've never noticed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 07, 2013, 09:20:07 pm
Quote from: alexandertnt on August 07, 2013, 08:59:40 pm
If the same were done to a chicken there would be outrage, yet nothing if its a crab. I have always suspected part of the problem is that crabs are ugly and we cant relate to them ::).

People have been just as cruel to chickens and stuff, and apparently it takes a significant amount of evidence to convince them their actions are wrong (or to convince politicians their actions are wrong so the people just stop because what they're doing is illegal).

I believe the problem up until now with crabs and stuff is that crustaceans don't have obvious pain receptors like most other animals we eat do, so there was no physiological proof that scientists could point to (hence why these guys went with behavioral evidence instead).

Establishing pain in other organisms is pretty difficult to do since they can't actually communicate with us and many of their pain responses are open to interpretation, such as fear of the human grabbing them that's way fucking bigger than they are - note that the study here eliminated that possibility by not having a human administer the shock.

I wonder if this study will also apply to arachnids, so we can stop having scorpions impaled alive on a stick until they're deep-fried.

Also crab is delicious and I've eaten a lot of it and I'm feeling pretty guilty right now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on August 07, 2013, 09:22:34 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on August 07, 2013, 09:17:59 pm
I said cows are cute, not cow boobs are cute.

The rest of them are almost as bad. Nothing but snot and shit covered lumps of disgusting fleshbeasts. Cows should pay more attention to hygiene if they want to really be paid attention to in world politics.

Quote from: SalmonGod on August 07, 2013, 09:18:10 pm
I really have no idea what you're talking about.  Something I've never noticed.

Serious time: I also find it odd. Because clearly you are right, they don't taste the same. I have the evidence of all of human experience vs the evidence of my experience. Clearly I am wrong. And yet they taste like fish.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 07, 2013, 09:23:41 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on August 07, 2013, 09:22:34 pm
Quote from: Scelly9 on August 07, 2013, 09:17:59 pm
I said cows are cute, not cow boobs are cute.

The rest of them are almost as bad. Nothing but snot and shit covered lumps of disgusting fleshbeasts. Cows should pay more attention to hygiene if they want to really be paid attention to in world politics.
Hmmm. You've obviously gone insane. What about ostriches? Ostriches are the best.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on August 07, 2013, 09:25:37 pm
I've never seen a Ostrich in great detail.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 07, 2013, 09:28:21 pm
If you want to read about how scary and hard crab fishing and processing was, you can try to watch Kanikōsen. It's a Japanese film about a crab factory boat and the horrible conditions they had to work under at times.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on August 07, 2013, 09:29:59 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on August 07, 2013, 09:20:07 pm
*snip*

Exactly, we cant relate to them. So we assume they have no pain by default in order to (as SalmonGod pointed out) avoid having to change anything.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 07, 2013, 09:30:19 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on August 07, 2013, 09:22:34 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on August 07, 2013, 09:18:10 pm
I really have no idea what you're talking about.  Something I've never noticed.

Serious time: I also find it odd. Because clearly you are right, they don't taste the same. I have the evidence of all of human experience vs the evidence of my experience. Clearly I am wrong. And yet they taste like fish.
They've definitely got a similar (if distinct) smell. Most marine stuff does. Which means they probably taste pretty similar, since there's a pretty strong connection between those two. I've never actually eaten crab (or lobster, or shrimp, or crayfish, or anything like that), because they're basically underwater cockroaches and no thanks (okay so memory says they're close to ants, but... whatever), so I couldn't say how close the taste are.

Re: Ostriches: They're pretty ugly up close, honestly. Somewhat majestic, I guess, but not the prettiest grown up antediluvian horror bird around. Also fairly foul tempered, iirc. I hear they taste good, though. Or maybe it's the eggs. Ehn.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 07, 2013, 09:32:48 pm
Quote from: alexandertnt on August 07, 2013, 09:29:59 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on August 07, 2013, 09:20:07 pm
*snip*

Exactly, we cant relate to them. So we assume they have no pain by default in order to (as SalmonGod pointed out) avoid having to change anything.

Are you talking about science-wise or just for most people? Because assuming pain by default in everything is pretty unscientific.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 07, 2013, 09:33:26 pm
We where driving through one of those drive through the wildlife park things and one stuck it's head in the window and stole all the food.
It was the most adorable thing ever.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on August 07, 2013, 09:39:17 pm
And then everyone starved to death and the Ostrich exploded from eating all the food in the world.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on August 07, 2013, 09:42:24 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on August 07, 2013, 09:32:48 pm
Are you talking about science-wise or just for most people? Because assuming pain by default in everything is pretty unscientific.

General people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 07, 2013, 10:12:57 pm
Quote from: Mrhappyface on August 07, 2013, 09:00:04 pm
ear rape

Beg pardon?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Blargityblarg on August 07, 2013, 10:25:32 pm
I can confirm that ostriches are good eating. Not sure about the eggs, though. Source: lived on a goddamn ostrich farm til I was five.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 08, 2013, 05:49:29 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=jwealGOjOHU
I'm really hoping to god this ain't a nuke bunker buster like it is being called, and just a fuel-air bomb.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: FritzPL on August 08, 2013, 05:59:58 am
Why did they keep saying Allachu Akbar? Is it because they got really excited and they always say that when they feel strong emotions?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Guardian G.I. on August 08, 2013, 06:14:49 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 08, 2013, 05:49:29 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=jwealGOjOHU
I'm really hoping to god this ain't a nuke bunker buster like it is being called, and just a fuel-air bomb.
I think I saw this video before. Apparently, it was shot after the Israeli air strike on Syrian Army's research facility in May 2013.
Furthermore, the explosion is obviously not nuclear. There is no flash, there is no shockwave, etc.
That's how nuclear explosions look like. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gD_TL1BqFg)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 08, 2013, 06:35:29 am
Quote from: Guardian G.I. on August 08, 2013, 06:14:49 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 08, 2013, 05:49:29 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=jwealGOjOHU
I'm really hoping to god this ain't a nuke bunker buster like it is being called, and just a fuel-air bomb.
I think I saw this video before. Apparently, it was shot after the Israeli air strike on Syrian Army's research facility in May 2013.
Furthermore, the explosion is obviously not nuclear. There is no flash, there is no shockwave, etc.
That's how nuclear explosions look like. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gD_TL1BqFg)
So it's thermobaric?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 08, 2013, 06:37:05 am
Doubt it. Most likely just a large amount of ammunition or something going off.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on August 08, 2013, 06:37:49 am
That video is pretty old. There's been at least one more round of pointedly absurd nuke accusations since that one.

The most recent are around an ammo depot explosion at the start of August. The Syrian Electronic Army (give me a second to stop sniggering) 'hacked' the blog of Jon Snow at Channel 4 and uploaded a story claiming it was a nuclear strike. (http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/syrian-electronic-army-channel-4-jon-snow-124123) They did a similar thing with the AP's twitter feed a while back.

Harry's Place's take on the story, with more links. (http://hurryupharry.org/2013/08/07/did-jon-snow-really-claim-israel-nuked-syria/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 08, 2013, 09:08:47 am
Quote from: FritzPL on August 08, 2013, 05:59:58 am
Why did they keep saying Allachu Akbar? Is it because they got really excited and they always say that when they feel strong emotions?

Yes, it's a war cry and something you say to keep you calm but buzzing at the same time. That's why they always say it in videos.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on August 08, 2013, 09:21:06 am
Quote from: Owlbread on August 08, 2013, 09:08:47 am
Quote from: FritzPL on August 08, 2013, 05:59:58 am
Why did they keep saying Allachu Akbar? Is it because they got really excited and they always say that when they feel strong emotions?

Yes, it's a war cry and something you say to keep you calm but buzzing at the same time. That's why they always say it in videos.

Its also a fear response. There is also the idea that if you die while praising god, you go to heaven.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 08, 2013, 09:23:21 am
It's a really useful thing to say, really. I sometimes wonder if I'd start saying it if I was in their position. If you hear it enough you start taking comfort in it yourself, I find.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on August 08, 2013, 09:43:00 am
http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-irs-manual-detailed-deas-hidden-intel-evidence-005747393.html

That whole rule of law thing? That's only for criminals. Lets forge a trail of evidence because, oh shit, we are using illegal classified intel against people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on August 08, 2013, 09:56:50 am
Speaking of ALLAHUACKBAAAAA*BOOOM*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj0v1V3M10g

Infidel Spider
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 08, 2013, 10:09:01 am
Interestingly nobody said allahu akbar. Nobody, so I don't know why you made that comment. Hopefully he wasn't killed (might want to include a warning there PatriotSaint, I know the guy laughed so that's why I'm not too worried, but still).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 08, 2013, 10:53:40 am
Quote from: palsch on August 08, 2013, 06:37:49 am
That video is pretty old. There's been at least one more round of pointedly absurd nuke accusations since that one.

The most recent are around an ammo depot explosion at the start of August. The Syrian Electronic Army (give me a second to stop sniggering) 'hacked' the blog of Jon Snow at Channel 4 and uploaded a story claiming it was a nuclear strike. (http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/syrian-electronic-army-channel-4-jon-snow-124123) They did a similar thing with the AP's twitter feed a while back.

Harry's Place's take on the story, with more links. (http://hurryupharry.org/2013/08/07/did-jon-snow-really-claim-israel-nuked-syria/)
You know nothin' Jon Snuuuu

In any case, even if it were a tactical nuke there would definitely be no close range footage for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 08, 2013, 11:59:00 am
Quote from: FritzPL on August 08, 2013, 05:59:58 am
Why did they keep saying Allachu Akbar? Is it because they got really excited and they always say that when they feel strong emotions?

It means "God is the greatest," and phrases directly invoking God are an integral part of Arabic idioms.  So, saying that if you're scared, happy, relieved, any unusually intense emotion isn't really surprising.  I mean, how often do we say "Oh my God?"  Or "Goddammit?"  Or "Thank God!" or "In the name of God" or "by goodness" or "thank heavens" or any of those other Christianisms we mostly don't think about?  For most Americans I know, even those who aren't from Abrahamic religions at all, kind of constantly.

I had a friend from Egypt who would always say "I will pray for you.  Pray for me" when we were parting ways.  So, saying that sort of thing constantly is a little bit weird, but what I'm trying to say is that those phrases are usually somewhat more overtly woven into the language.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on August 08, 2013, 02:17:35 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on August 08, 2013, 10:09:01 am
Interestingly nobody said allahu akbar. Nobody, so I don't know why you made that comment. Hopefully he wasn't killed (might want to include a warning there PatriotSaint, I know the guy laughed so that's why I'm not too worried, but still).

1. He wasn't killed.

2. Nobody said it. So that there's no possible way they could be insurgents! I do wonder why they're playing with RPG launchers, though. Great toys for the kids, I bet.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/10011813/Taliban-little-commandos-in-terror-camp-training-video.html

Welcome to summer camp!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcQkpCKpLGg

After you've successfully lost your childhood, welcome to the world of casual days peacefully herding (remote-detonator) sheep.

And remember, pick any day(s) for bring-your-kid-to-work day! What better way to inspire children to be martyrs successful than using them in lieu of Kevlar vests, less frankly known as "human shields"! (Voluntarily, of course. Of course.)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/17/taliban-human-shields
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8519507.stm

Hey look, even the Huff covered this!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/taliban-using-human-shields_n_465119.html

P.S.

I guess since Michael Moore doesn't say stuff like "OH MY CUBA, I LOVE MAH MONEHS/CHEEZBURGAS" (*cough*, out loud) it's impossible to tell if he's a hypocrite.

*sadly silent sad tear of sadness*
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 08, 2013, 02:21:03 pm
Slow down there, you misunderstood me. I wasn't doubting that they're insurgents, they're most likely FSA, but you said: "Speaking of ALLAHUACKBAAAAA*BOOOM*". Nobody in the video said it, I don't know why you did.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on August 08, 2013, 02:26:53 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on August 08, 2013, 02:21:03 pm
Slow down there, you misunderstood me. I wasn't doubting that they're insurgents, they're most likely FSA, but you said: "Speaking of ALLAHUACKBAAAAA*BOOOM*". Nobody in the video said it, I don't know why you did.

Ah, fair enough.

I was thinking of what he might have been thinking.

Dunno, maybe I was wrong, and he was thinking,
"I could be herding explosive sheep right now, but they put me on Pest Control Jihad Squad instead."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 08, 2013, 06:27:16 pm
What an interesting photo of our commander in chief.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Anywho, it turns out even murderers use social media.
http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/269889/158/Alleged-Killer-Posts-Picture-Of-Dead-Wife-On-Facebook
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on August 08, 2013, 06:32:27 pm
Who's the guy to the left? Is he a secret service agent? Because he seems to be pretty damn big compared to Obama.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on August 08, 2013, 06:40:18 pm
ptw
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 08, 2013, 07:57:54 pm
Oh, and another interesting tidbit related to my previous post.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/how-i-saved-someones-life-and-marriage-and-family-problems-thru-communication-derek-medina/1114490355?ean=9781608624676&itm=1&usri=9781608624676
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 08, 2013, 08:02:42 pm
Oh god the reviews.

"This book is loaded with bullet points towards marital bliss. I hear Derek is a photographer and his wife is modeling for him now. I can't wait to love my wife the way he loved his."

"Mister Medina is an insightful author and counselor, who's treasured story or heartache and triumph is counseling that you owe it to yourself to digest. When faced with the adversity of a troubled marriage he narrates how he sought guidance from God, found the courage to mend burned bridges, and shoot his wife in the head."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 10, 2013, 06:21:01 pm
Vector, the main reason for my lack of inspiration for Elysium, is that i highly doubt that it's investors, actors and likely the director have had a sudden change of heart as to wealth distribution, at least on their own parts. A movie made by the first world about the divide between it and the third, with even a passing nod at race judging by the trailer with a white millionaire lead actor. An action movie too for a little bit more palatablity. It's as convincing a sea shift in perspective on the gap between the rich, poor and powerful as Despicable Me is. The only purpose i can discern with any trace of genuineness is a little cultural signposting that you can revolt about this now this much, and you'll even keep Hollywood! How do you expect this to go over outside the west, by the way? Some will buy into it but i hope I'm right when i say most wont.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on August 10, 2013, 06:28:20 pm
So you're saying that because the people who made the movie were on the whole very wealthy, they'd have no reason to be sympathetic to the plight of the poor, therefore the movie is insincere?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 10, 2013, 06:29:32 pm
That, and i have little reason to believe in a free press.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 10, 2013, 06:30:42 pm
a free press has only the purpose of attracting readers and hereby profits

capitalism, ho!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Guardian G.I. on August 10, 2013, 06:55:29 pm
Quote from: Pnx on August 10, 2013, 06:28:20 pm
So you're saying that because the people who made the movie were on the whole very wealthy, they'd have no reason to be sympathetic to the plight of the poor, therefore the movie is insincere?

Elysium's script was written by its director Neill Blomkamp, who doesn't seem to be very rich.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 10, 2013, 06:58:39 pm
Quote from: Guardian G.I. on August 10, 2013, 06:55:29 pm
Quote from: Pnx on August 10, 2013, 06:28:20 pm
So you're saying that because the people who made the movie were on the whole very wealthy, they'd have no reason to be sympathetic to the plight of the poor, therefore the movie is insincere?

Elysium's script was written by its director Neill Blomkamp, who doesn't seem to be very rich.

I couldn't find anything saying otherwise, and obligatory statement about the relevance of "very".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Yoink on August 10, 2013, 07:35:07 pm
I would much prefer that Hollywood "give zero fucks" about the messages contained in films rather than preventing the release of films that go against their/its own beliefs.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 10, 2013, 07:39:03 pm
From the position of saying it's happened, or saying that it doesn't?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 11, 2013, 01:49:45 am
I retract my statement about Hollywood giving no fucks, I never knew this but Bill Mechanic got fired after making fight club. They do have messages they will end you for spreading.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 11, 2013, 05:57:47 am
I found this a very interesting read regarding the role/nature of Democracy in global politics... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23607302)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 11, 2013, 11:40:34 am
UK deploys spying garbage bins. They track you for adds (http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/londons-smart-bins-track-4m-phones-a-week-over-wi-fi-50011958/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 11, 2013, 11:48:52 am
The British government has an unhealthy fascination with bins.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 11, 2013, 12:10:05 pm
It's a private organization, IIRC.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Euld on August 11, 2013, 01:48:42 pm
Wait wait a private organization is... wow...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 11, 2013, 01:54:31 pm
Meatspace equivalent of what google does with your searching, I guess. Something along those lines. Seems to be the angle of excuse they're using to be horrifically goddamn invasive, haha.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on August 11, 2013, 06:41:53 pm
Wonder how long it'll be before they mysteriously start shorting/blowing out...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Yoink on August 11, 2013, 06:46:24 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 11, 2013, 11:40:34 am
UK deploys spying garbage bins. They track you for adds (http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/londons-smart-bins-track-4m-phones-a-week-over-wi-fi-50011958/)

The name's Bin. James Bin.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 11, 2013, 07:00:50 pm
Why not just turn off the wireless functions of your phone when not in use?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 11, 2013, 07:11:11 pm
I don't know about your phone, but in my phone that option is tucked away behind a few menus. If there was a quick way to turn wireless on/off (example: the 3DS has a little switch on the side) then I assume a lot of people would do it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on August 11, 2013, 10:11:01 pm
Speaking of Elysium, it's nice to know people are showing their concern for the "ignorant masses", and to show the evils of being a capitalist by writing a movie attacking everything they are and stand for from the safety, comfort, and luxury of their multi-million-dollar Hollywood Hills houses as they chortle about how intellectual the message of their big-budget film.

"Hardeh hurdeh, this'll stick it to those lame, old-fashioned conservatives. Oh, and trust me, there's no political message or bias in this movie at all. Duh. I'm Matt Damon. Now where's my royalties?"

To quote some of you guys, "CAPITALISM, LAAAWLLZZ" *ahem, "ho"*

Well, at least they're eternally guilty for it on the inside in their tiny consciousnesses. I'm glad they keep their guilt/hypocrisy diaries next to their Saul Alinsky books (tastefully dedicated to "Satan, the first rebel and stuff, yay"), instead of being praised on the AlterNet or some other pathetic polical tabloid. (Well, who knows...)

And it's the (group)thought that counts, not the nonexistent action, after all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 11, 2013, 10:17:47 pm
Quote from: PatriotSaint on August 11, 2013, 10:11:01 pm
To quote some of you guys, "CAPITALISM, LAAAWLLZZ" *ahem, "ho"*

Snarky little bits like that don't exactly do political debate on these forums or yourself much good, PatriotSaint.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 11, 2013, 10:51:49 pm
Wow.....

Anyway.....

To be fair, while a lot of producers, directors, actors, etc are fairly rich in Hollywood, they're not obscenely rich.  I don't actually have a problem with multi-millionaires.  Not until you get up into the multiple hundreds of millions, anyway.  And according to this list (http://www.imdb.com/list/rqIPIL2BX4Y/), there are only a handful of those in showbiz.  Yeah, they're quite rich.  They enjoy more luxurious lives than most people can ever hope for.  But that in itself isn't really harmful to anyone else.

It's billionaires and fucking multi-billionaires that I have a problem with.  That .001% of the population that has hoarded so much wealth, they could end a good number of the world's problems if they cared to.  People so rich that every one of them could be accused of single-handedly impoverishing millions of others.  And those aren't even the reasons I have a problem with them.  I have a problem with them because they abuse the hell out of their influence to constantly make the world a shittier place.  They kick people out of their homes for no reason, destroy the environment, dismantle civil rights, poison the media, push for war, and flaunt their immunity to the law.

Compared to the likes of the Wal-Mart family, even the richest people in Hollywood are hardly anything.  Millionaires may enjoy a comfortable life as citizens on Elysium, but the billionaire class are like the Armadyne corporation responsible for creating that city and its dominance over everyone else.  I don't think there's anything wrong with someone who happens to be privileged, but isn't primarily responsible for creating and maintaining the nature of that privilege, to be critical of it.  I'm privileged compared to many people in the world, but giving it up isn't going to help them.  In fact, it would only hinder my ability to do anything meaningful about it.

Having said that, I don't think the movie is making such a statement because they actually mean it.  I think they just recognize that it's a popular theme right now that's easy to cash in on.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on August 12, 2013, 01:27:55 am
Dunno, I agree with most of what you said above (common sense is refreshing)m you don't really think Bill Gates and Friends holds meetings with the agenda:

"It Is Our Duty To Set Out To:

1. Evict people for fun.

2. Celebrate Pollution!

3. Immunity! Yaaaaaahhh! (Strangely similar to government leaders)

4. Other Assorted Evil Stuff


@ Owlbread

In that case, I'm not sure why this snarky comment from this particular person is worth singling out above all others.

By the apparent criteria, isn't "capitalism, ho!" (And plenty of other wonderful punchlines) itself worthy of a blown whistle and a forum bandaid?

I was wondering what reaction I would get from that...  ;)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 12, 2013, 01:32:21 am
I don't know, Gates himself gives out a lot of money and is pretty much personally responsible for wiping out a third world illness or two... The most criticism you will find is that people also want a piece of the pie going to their charity of choice. Maybe I'm wrong, but he seems alright.

The difference between a movie star and a corporate CEO is that the star made money from using a skill, while the CEO is making money exploiting workers. Yes they are both rich, but how they got there is important.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 12, 2013, 01:33:03 am
Quote from: PatriotSaint on August 11, 2013, 10:11:01 pm
To quote some of you guys, "CAPITALISM, LAAAWLLZZ" *ahem, "ho"*

PatriotSaint, calm down a bit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 12, 2013, 01:34:46 am
Patriot, it's more along the lines of:



And once corporations realize they can just lobby themselves more money, control consumer spending to attain more money, cut every corner off a circle to get more money, destroy the opposition to monopolize the money etc. you end up where America is at now. Glorious United States of Coca Cola.

Capitalism is not corporatism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on August 12, 2013, 01:41:59 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 12, 2013, 01:34:46 am
Patriot, it's more along the lines of:

  • We want money.
  • Lower costs at all times possible. Maximize profits at all times possible.


And once corporations realize they can just lobby themselves more money, control consumer spending to attain more money, cut every corner off a circle to get more money, destroy the opposition to monopolize the money etc. you end up where America is at now. Glorious United States of Coca Cola.

Capitalism is not corporatism.

Huh?

Oh, I wasn't talking about capitalism vs. corporatism, I was talking about the nefarious agenda of the League of Billionaires.

On that note, it's worth noting how everything reliably stayed downhill during and after the Progressive Era (yes, including the Great Depression, because it's all Wilson's fault, 'cause he wasn't a Progressive at all, right? Right? *cough*
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on August 12, 2013, 01:48:02 am
Quote from: Max White on August 12, 2013, 01:32:21 am
I don't know, Gates himself gives out a lot of money and is pretty much personally responsible for wiping out a third world illness or two... The most criticism you will find is that people also want a piece of the pie going to their charity of choice. Maybe I'm wrong, but he seems alright.

The difference between a movie star and a corporate CEO is that the star made money from using a skill, while the CEO is making money exploiting workers. Yes they are both rich, but how they got there is important.

But Bill Gates is a corporate executive, or at least was, for that matter.

A paradox, ain't it?

Anyway;

In other words, one group makes their fortune by pretending to be people they aren't and devolving into acting and being exactly like the idiots they often play, and literally being actors, not as a job, but a lonely lifestyle, and the other makes their fortune by exploiting workers, just like Good ol' Bill.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on August 12, 2013, 02:13:17 am
I'm pretty sure we aren't as single-minded as you seem to think. Pointin at a few good-acting billionaires and saying "Ha! See! Some of them are okay!" isn't going to get more than a shrug and a "Yeah, so?" from most of us.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 12, 2013, 02:15:40 am
If Gates was your typical rich guy, he wouldn't have made a full time job out of convincing other rich guys to give away more money. They would just do it themselves... There will always be good people, doesn't change the fact that Starbucks doesn't pay tax.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on August 12, 2013, 02:19:48 am
Quote from: PatriotSaint
*stuff*

People with alot of power tend to want more money/power. And while people are not going out to do evil per se, the negative consequences of their actions taken whilst aquiring more money/power may outweigh any positives gained for people other then themselves.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 12, 2013, 02:45:30 am
Quote from: alexandertnt on August 12, 2013, 02:19:48 am
There is no evil, plotting League of Billionaires. They do not sit around plotting what evil they can do next.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on August 12, 2013, 03:13:13 am
Are you implying that people in hollywood sit around and plot what evil they can do next?

Or is this some movie reference or something I missed?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 12, 2013, 03:27:06 am
Elysium actors and directirs on the wealth issue... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23630488) straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 12, 2013, 03:35:25 am
Quote from: alexandertnt on August 12, 2013, 03:13:13 am
Are you implying that people in hollywood sit around and plot what evil they can do next?
I'm implying all the implications.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 12, 2013, 06:04:57 am
Not content with building straw men any longer, PatriotSaint decides to build entire straw buildings for his "liberals" to live in.

Here's a hint, an actually honest one and 100% snark free. If you actually come here to debate instead of just bait, then put down your prejudice and what you think you know people's opinions and thoughts are, and start listening to what they are actually saying. Because if you think putting words in other people's mouths makes for good argumentation, then you won't amount to much here besides tiring people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on August 12, 2013, 06:21:03 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 12, 2013, 03:35:25 am
Quote from: alexandertnt on August 12, 2013, 03:13:13 am
Are you implying that people in hollywood sit around and plot what evil they can do next?
I'm implying all the implications.

I altered the post to make the actual point of the post clearer.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 12, 2013, 08:24:12 am
Quote from: PatriotSaint on August 12, 2013, 01:27:55 am
@ Owlbread

In that case, I'm not sure why this snarky comment from this particular person is worth singling out above all others.

By the apparent criteria, isn't "capitalism, ho!" (And plenty of other wonderful punchlines) itself worthy of a blown whistle and a forum bandaid?

I was wondering what reaction I would get from that...  ;)

Actually if people are being snarky I call them out, it's got nothing to do with your politics or their's. You're just the first guy to be snarky in a while.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 12, 2013, 08:34:59 am
You aren't being "snarky", PatriotSaint.  You're rambling about opposing viewpoints that exist only inside your own head, and then acting smug afterwards.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 12, 2013, 09:52:52 am
I liked Pacific Rim more.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on August 12, 2013, 09:58:47 am
Quote from: scriver on August 12, 2013, 06:04:57 am
Not content with building straw men any longer, PatriotSaint decides to build entire straw buildings for his "liberals" to live in.

Here's a hint, an actually honest one and 100% snark free. If you actually come here to debate instead of just bait, then put down your prejudice and what you think you know people's opinions and thoughts are, and start listening to what they are actually saying. Because if you think putting words in other people's mouths makes for good argumentation, then you won't amount to much here besides tiring people.

So when you say "liberals" you think I was talking about you? (Or... Something?)

Hmm... I thought I was talking about the people behind Elysium. (Who indeed have many of the characteristics of a Scarecrow, except they should ask the Wizard for a non-straw brain while they're at it, or at least a tin one.

Or maybe you're saying that those people aren't actually liberal.

Or something of the sort, that could mean a lot of things.

----

Whose mouth was I putting words into?

Matt Damon did claim there was no political message or bias behind Elysium.

I'm fine with people having a bias, as long as you don't pretend to not have one.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on August 12, 2013, 10:00:02 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on August 12, 2013, 08:34:59 am
You aren't being "snarky", PatriotSaint.  You're rambling about opposing viewpoints that exist only inside your own head, and then acting smug afterwards.

And which non-existent opposing viewpoints are those?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on August 12, 2013, 10:01:56 am
What are you guys even talking about? I am getting curious and confused.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 12, 2013, 10:05:03 am
Quote from: Dutchling on August 12, 2013, 10:01:56 am
What are you guys even talking about? I am getting curious and confused.
Occasionally this thread is prone to continuing several conversations from pages past simultaneously.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PatriotSaint on August 12, 2013, 10:11:01 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 12, 2013, 03:27:06 am
Elysium actors and directirs on the wealth issue... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23630488) straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.

Again, at least they're eternally guilty and embarrassed for their success.

"It may be exaggerated, but"

the message is

"this rings true right now"

Hmm... So they are perfectly aware that they already live in Elysium... And they make a movie attacking Elysium that will bring in more than enough money to ensure them a continued life in Elysium.

Looks like it's straight from the mouths of the horses always and reliably in the middle of an eternal identity crisis.

This is like Michael Moore attacking people who own stock, people who have money, those fat, lazy Americans, etc.

Wait...

Edit: Whoops, forgot Mike isn't even American. He sure does fancy American politics, though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 12, 2013, 10:18:30 am
It's not that he's interested in American politics, it's that American politics is interested in the world and it will not stop.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 12, 2013, 10:23:00 am
I don't buy into the Bill Gates thing.  He gives away a lot of money in an objective sense, but in a relative sense, it's nowhere near what he should be considering just how wealthy he is.  His net worth continues to increase.  The guy's giving away money, but he's getting richer at the same time.  That doesn't indicate to me a person who really cares about inequality.  He's now surpassed Warren Buffet, who used to be ahead of him, by almost $15 billion, and that is a man who has publicly admitted to paying less taxes than his secretary by exploiting loopholes.  Plus, there are a some major problems with the way the Gates Foundation operates.

When the biggest problem in the world is inequality, you don't get to say that you're helping with the problem if you take more with one hand than you're giving with the other, or if you maintain a personal wealth that outweighs hundreds of millions of other people combined for decades.  The existence of billionaires is the problem.  Such titanic mountains of wealth doesn't improve their quality of life.  When you hit the point where you could have literally anything you wanted in the world forever multiple times over, the only thing you accomplish by having more is ensuring that others have less.  It's been estimated that it would cost about $175 billion per year to end extreme poverty for the entire world.  The combined net worth of the billionaire class amounts to about $5.4 trillion between only 1,426 people.  A small fraction of them could handle it, if they really wanted to.  Especially if just a few people from that top 50 chipped in.

And don't get me wrong... I don't exactly have a problem with Bill Gates in the same way that I have a problem with the Koch Brothers, the Wal-Mart family, etc.  But he doesn't get a pass from me either.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 12, 2013, 10:31:54 am
http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2013/08/activists-destroy-golden-rice-field-trial

Holy fuck this pisses me off to know end. Remember, regressives aren't only traditional conservatives...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2013, 10:34:13 am
Huh, I had been under the impression that golden rice was already in widespread use.

But yes, the anti-GMO freaks are employing the same kind of annoying "purity logic" that drives so many other stupid ideas.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 12, 2013, 10:36:08 am
It's not in widespread use because they are trying to make sure they move forward responsibly and safely - you know, the things anti-GMO activists accuse GMO folks of never doing - and this is the thanks they get for it. There's just no winning.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 12, 2013, 10:37:20 am
the term you're looking for is not "conservative"

at this point you're looking for "reactionary"

also purity logic is a good logic when you know what logic is
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 12, 2013, 10:40:38 am
This is the very essence of conservative thought - new is bad, change is bad, we need to go back to the way things were, things were better in the past and the future is scary.

Mind you, in places like the US and Europe conservative/progressive issues don't necessarily align with the parties that it would make sense for them to be aligned with, but that's a side effect of coalition politics more than anything else.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 12, 2013, 10:50:27 am
Well, to be fair, there are some issues with GMOs. First there is the question of longterm effects on the environment and humans. Then there is the patent issue. Wasn't it in Canada where some farmers were sued by a big company because modified corn had cross-pollinated their crops? That's a serious concern for countries where the majority of agricultural production comes from small farms.

Europe (or at least Germany) is pretty conservative when GMOs are concerned. AFAIK Monsanto has pretty much given up here because they rarely get anything licensed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on August 12, 2013, 10:52:53 am
Quote from: XXSockXX on August 12, 2013, 10:50:27 am
Europe (or at least Germany) is pretty conservative when GMOs are concerned. AFAIK Monsanto has pretty much given up here because they rarely get anything licensed.
I sure do hope it stays that way...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 12, 2013, 10:53:38 am
Quote from: XXSockXX on August 12, 2013, 10:50:27 am
Well, to be fair, there are some issues with GMOs.
First there is the question of longterm effects on the environment and humans.
This was a trial to attempt to uncover that, that was destroyed.

Quote from: XXSockXX on August 12, 2013, 10:50:27 am
Then there is the patent issue.
This trial was being run by an organization that is the equivalent of the Open Source Software movement for genetics. The rice was to be freely available.

This is everything anti-GMO folks have claimed to have wanted - careful, responsible progress free from entangling patents and ludicrous fees and attempts to control by multinational corporations. It's very easy to believe at this point that what they claim to want isn't actually anything like what they really want...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 12, 2013, 10:55:45 am
It does frustrate the hell out of me how much reactionism is among anti-GMO environmentalists.  Got in a big argument with a bunch of them once when they decided to start protesting a kickstarter by a guy who wanted to make glowing plants to reduce dependence on electric light.  You couldn't reason with them.  It was just this constant orgasmic echoing of "IT'S NOT NATURAL!!!!"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2013, 10:56:26 am
The patent issue is more of a copyright thing than a GMO thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 12, 2013, 11:00:29 am
Ok, so patents weren't a problem. Still this was only an efficacy trial that was going on for a few months, so the issue of possible longterm effects remains. Sometimes just tiny changes can destabilize whole eco-systems.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on August 12, 2013, 11:04:58 am
Quote from: XXSockXX on August 12, 2013, 10:50:27 am
Well, to be fair, there are some issues with GMOs. First there is the question of longterm effects on the environment and humans. Then there is the patent issue. Wasn't it in Canada where some farmers were sued by a big company because modified corn had cross-pollinated their crops? That's a serious concern for countries where the majority of agricultural production comes from small farms.

Europe (or at least Germany) is pretty conservative when GMOs are concerned. AFAIK Monsanto has pretty much given up here because they rarely get anything licensed.

Well, that first bit can also be applied to literally. Everything. An non-native species, regardless of it being modified, can have serious long term effects on a ecosystem. Yet that same level of vitriol and scrutiny for GMOs does not apply to, say, livestock. Or even non-GMO non-native plants
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 12, 2013, 11:07:32 am
I have no moral problems with GMOs. I advocate genetically modifying humans, along with plants (particularly narcotics). It just has to be very carefully controlled.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on August 12, 2013, 11:10:43 am
Quote from: XXSockXX on August 12, 2013, 11:00:29 am
Ok, so patents weren't a problem. Still this was only an efficacy trial that was going on for a few months, so the issue of possible longterm effects remains. Sometimes just tiny changes can destabilize whole eco-systems.
You mean like the huge amount of nitrates put into the soil at farms? And how farming in general messes up ecosystems? Genetically modifying things is not going to have anywhere near the impact as the fact that they are being farmed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 12, 2013, 11:11:28 am
Same here.  My only issue is messing about in it with nothing but short-term profits in mind results in a lot of horrible things.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2013, 11:12:18 am
Indeed. As long as one does not make a plant Von Neumann machine, GMOs have good odds of being an improvement.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 12, 2013, 11:20:18 am
I'm not a biologist, I'm just sceptical. We have a saying: "What the farmer does not know, he does not eat." I just stick with that and the government does too. Agriculture (and the food industry) is pretty heavily regulated here anyways.

In the case of Monsanto abandoning business in the EU it was mostly about patent issues and the "seed police" that led to that IIRC, don't know about environmental issues.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 12, 2013, 11:23:10 am
Yeah, I hate how environmentalists use the "We're not sure there is no long-term effects". Of course we're not. You can never prove something is safe, you can just make a test and look. But even then, you've only proven it's safe in your experimental set-up. Maybe it's unsafe on a longer-term. Maybe it's unsafe in conjunction with *random stuff*.

The worse things is that this fear of potential dangers hide the real, proven risks, like the risks of dying of an nasty bacteria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak) in your organic food.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 12, 2013, 11:28:38 am
Quote from: XXSockXX on August 12, 2013, 11:20:18 am
In the case of Monsanto abandoning business in the EU it was mostly about patent issues and the "seed police" that led to that IIRC, don't know about environmental issues.

Monsanto is an environmental issue... they're the people who invented Agent Orange and many of the most harmful pesticides, including the one that's heavily accused by scientists lately as being the primary reason for drastic falls in honeybee population.  Their main application of genetic modification in crops is to make them resistant to their own pesticides, and they've become problematic invasive species in some places.  There's also an ongoing information war as to whether or not their GMO crops cause health problems.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 12, 2013, 11:37:26 am
Quote from: Sheb on August 12, 2013, 11:23:10 am
The worse things is that this fear of potential dangers hide the real, proven risks, like the risks of dying of an nasty bacteria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak) in your organic food.
Yeah, shit happens.  ;)

I'm neither much of an environmentalist nor do I care much about organic food. I'm just a stubborn consumer and it seems I'm not the only one. I really don't see GMOs getting popular support anytime soon here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on August 12, 2013, 11:45:05 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on August 12, 2013, 11:28:38 am
Quote from: XXSockXX on August 12, 2013, 11:20:18 am
In the case of Monsanto abandoning business in the EU it was mostly about patent issues and the "seed police" that led to that IIRC, don't know about environmental issues.

Monsanto is an environmental issue... they're the people who invented Agent Orange and many of the most harmful pesticides, including the one that's heavily accused by scientists lately as being the primary reason for drastic falls in honeybee population.  Their main application of genetic modification in crops is to make them resistant to their own pesticides, and they've become problematic invasive species in some places.  There's also an ongoing information war as to whether or not their GMO crops cause health problems.

Off topic: Agent Orange is a pesticide? I thought it was a chemical weapon
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on August 12, 2013, 11:47:23 am
Quote from: Luke_Prowler on August 12, 2013, 11:45:05 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on August 12, 2013, 11:28:38 am
Quote from: XXSockXX on August 12, 2013, 11:20:18 am
In the case of Monsanto abandoning business in the EU it was mostly about patent issues and the "seed police" that led to that IIRC, don't know about environmental issues.

Monsanto is an environmental issue... they're the people who invented Agent Orange and many of the most harmful pesticides, including the one that's heavily accused by scientists lately as being the primary reason for drastic falls in honeybee population.  Their main application of genetic modification in crops is to make them resistant to their own pesticides, and they've become problematic invasive species in some places.  There's also an ongoing information war as to whether or not their GMO crops cause health problems.

Off topic: Agent Orange is a pesticide? I thought it was a chemical weapon
I'm sure the two are interchangeable. If it kills bugs there's a decent chance some more of it would kill humans.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2013, 11:47:40 am
It's a defoliant, not a pesticide.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 12, 2013, 11:48:56 am
It (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_orange) was a herbicide/defoliant mix that just happened to kill a shitton of people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 12, 2013, 11:49:38 am
It is a defoliant used to destroy the foliage hiding the Viet Cong, not a pesticide or chemical weapon.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 12, 2013, 11:51:59 am
I'd call that a chemical weapon, Owlei.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 12, 2013, 11:53:12 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2013, 11:47:40 am
It's a defoliant, not a pesticide.
Could qualify for herbicide, I suppose.

Point is, there's no reason to assume that GMO's will have significant health effects. Natural mutation happens all the time, and humans are pretty good at manipulating plants. Genetic engineering is just an way to speed that up. Besides, it's been proven that the current way of farming is pretty bad for the environment (100% organic would be worse). GMO's could be part of the solution.

Quote from: Owlbread on August 12, 2013, 11:49:38 am
It is a defoliant used to destroy the foliage hiding the Viet Cong, not a pesticide or chemical weapon.
Not only the jungles. They also sprayed many farms, in order to hunger the people out, and force them to move to the (American controlled) cities. But that's USA policy, not Monsanto.

Quote from: scriver on August 12, 2013, 11:51:59 am
I'd call that a chemical weapon, Owlei.
Then there are quite a few chemical weapons in everyday use.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 12, 2013, 12:26:13 pm
I meant when used like that, ebbor, in a ;) kind of way.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on August 12, 2013, 12:28:39 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 12, 2013, 11:53:12 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2013, 11:47:40 am
It's a defoliant, not a pesticide.
Could qualify for herbicide, I suppose.

Point is, there's no reason to assume that GMO's will have significant health effects. Natural mutation happens all the time, and humans are pretty good at manipulating plants. Genetic engineering is just an way to speed that up. Besides, it's been proven that the current way of farming is pretty bad for the environment (100% organic would be worse). GMO's could be part of the solution.

There is a reason to assume that GMO's may have significant health effects when they are splicing pesticides into our food supply. There is reason to assume that GMO's may have significant health effects when they add human hormone analogs to staple food supplies (this also goes towards natural organisms, like the overuse of soy). It is dangerous in the extreme because the long term effects can take years or decades for the negative effects to manifest after the entire human population has been exposed. There is nothing more dangerous that screwing with our food supply without appropriate caution. Such products must be labeled for informed consent. Such products can not be allowed to infect natural stocks. Such products can not be weaponized for intellectual property extortion.

I'm not suggesting banning GMO food, but it needs to be as stringently regulated as medicine, perhaps more so because the potential number of people being exposed to risk is the entire human population instead of a select group suffering from an already harmful condition.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 12, 2013, 12:35:45 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on August 12, 2013, 12:28:39 pm
There is nothing more dangerous that screwing with our food supply without appropriate caution.
We've... been doing this since basically day one, poke thing with stick till blood comes out. GMO stuff isn't even a particularly notable thing regarding the amount of ways we [have screwed, screw, will screw] with our food supply without appropriate (or any, nevermind appropriate) caution. Small fish, really...

I'd say it hasn't killed us yet, but all those lovely signs showing things are ramping up to give a go at doing just that and, well. Yeah :-\

Which isn't to say throw caution to the winds or whatever, but singling GMO stuff out when all the other crap we do doesn't get similar scrutiny just. Smells funny? I guess. Unless it's part of a wider "stop fucking with things like idiots" program, which yeah, I can get behind that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on August 12, 2013, 12:50:48 pm
I am generally okay with genetically modifying plants and livestock (humans are another matter). And companies like Monsanto have been pretty predatory in their business practices. But the problem is, they are not entirely in the wrong. These things aren't exactly cheap to develop, and they won't do any more research into them if they can't make money on them: they are a business at the end of the day after all. Now, GMO's will be necessary to feed everyone sometime in the near future, whatever opposition may exist now. If people don't trust corporations to do the work on these things governments will probably pick it up sooner rather than later. I, for one, don't think that the future of the world's food supply should be entrusted to the fickle whims of Congress.

I never thought I would find myself defending Monsanto... I've got some thinking to do.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 12, 2013, 01:04:15 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on August 12, 2013, 12:28:39 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 12, 2013, 11:53:12 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2013, 11:47:40 am
It's a defoliant, not a pesticide.
Could qualify for herbicide, I suppose.

Point is, there's no reason to assume that GMO's will have significant health effects. Natural mutation happens all the time, and humans are pretty good at manipulating plants. Genetic engineering is just an way to speed that up. Besides, it's been proven that the current way of farming is pretty bad for the environment (100% organic would be worse). GMO's could be part of the solution.
There is a reason to assume that GMO's may have significant health effects when they are splicing pesticides into our food supply.
Quote
Note: The same organic pesticides that can be found in many ground bacteria, and are used on bio food and the like. You can't splice in artificial, chemical pesticides, because well, ... ((Besides, there are many GMO plants that don't involve pesticides))
Quote
There is reason to assume that GMO's may have significant health effects when they add human hormone analogs to staple food supplies (this also goes towards natural organisms, like the overuse of soy). It is dangerous in the extreme because the long term effects can take years or decades for the negative effects to manifest after the entire human population has been exposed.
Doesn't count for GMO as a whole though. Which is a problem I have with many of the anti-GMO crowd. They take a problem that is part of the modern farming agriculture, and can be applied to GMO's, then blame the technology.

Quote
There is nothing more dangerous that screwing with our food supply without appropriate caution. Such products must be labeled for informed consent. Such products can not be allowed to infect natural stocks. Such products can not be weaponized for intellectual property extortion.
They can't infect natural stocks. The most popular GMO technology is hybridization. Side effects are that second generation seeds don't have the effects of the first generation seeds. (Ie, they can't infect, and they can't be reused.) Intellectual property is not a problem of GMO's.

Quote
I'm not suggesting banning GMO food, but it needs to be as stringently regulated as medicine, perhaps more so because the potential number of people being exposed to risk is the entire human population instead of a select group suffering from an already harmful condition.
Medicine isn't regulated. At all. With the amount of money going around there, they just throw studies at the wall till they got the results they want.

((Also, GMO's are heavily regulated. Why do you think they do all the tests.))
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 12, 2013, 01:05:13 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on August 12, 2013, 12:28:39 pm
There is a reason to assume that GMO's may have significant health effects when they are splicing pesticides into our food supply. There is reason to assume that GMO's may have significant health effects when they add human hormone analogs to staple food supplies (this also goes towards natural organisms, like the overuse of soy).[...]
I'm not suggesting banning GMO food, but it needs to be as stringently regulated as medicine, perhaps more so because the potential number of people being exposed to risk is the entire human population instead of a select group suffering from an already harmful condition.
I think treating GMO as some huge mono-product is ludicrous. There are more and less dangerous things that can be done with GMO - it would be like someone advocating that a new type of candy made out of well understood ingredients needs to be regulated as well as schedule II drugs. It's incredibly ill-suited to effective discussion of the topic at hand. The rice destroyed had none of the potentially dangerous concerns you listed, they have a single well understood change - why should they have to undergo such strict limitations? Why does it matter so much, in this particular case, that this follow all of the regulations you prescribe?

What does labeling it "GMO" actually accomplish other than stigmatizing food products that are safer than their organic cousins in many situations? Wouldn't we be better off labeling it based on the actual risk? So this one might be "Genetically modified to produce non-harmful vitamins" or "naturally resistant to certain species of insect, dangers to humans unlikely but possible in long term" while organic food would have to be labeled "uses excessive amounts of pesticide to grow known to cause health problems in humans".

A "GMO label" is idiocy - if you're going to label things, label them based on the actual risk involved with what's happened, don't label them with a meaningless stereotype irrelevant to the actual risk involved - and don't make exceptions for foods that are poisoned 100% "naturally" either.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 12, 2013, 01:07:14 pm
Quote from: Baffler on August 12, 2013, 12:50:48 pm
I never thought I would find myself defending Monsanto... I've got some thinking to do.
Ehn. Just decouple Monsanto (The Legitimately Evil) from the potential benefit of GMO in your head. GMO can be good without making M(TLE) less scum. You can fund GMO research and run GMO companies without being most of the downsides of capitalism distilled into a single entity. Pretty sure there's a fair few trying just that, really.

As for th'government control, well... better fickle than outright malicious, perhaps? Monsanto (TLE)'s the kind of corp I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see breed specific diseases into their product and then monopolize the cure (or some equivalent thereof). Bloody bastards really do try pretty hard to make themselves a caricature, some days :-\

Though I guess M(TLE) being what they are is somewhat tangential to the larger GMO subject. Eh.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 12, 2013, 01:32:10 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on August 12, 2013, 01:05:13 pm
A "GMO label" is idiocy - if you're going to label things, label them based on the actual risk involved with what's happened, don't label them with a meaningless stereotype irrelevant to the actual risk involved - and don't make exceptions for foods that are poisoned 100% "naturally" either.
We may be the masters of excessive food labeling (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensmittelkennzeichnung#Lebensmittel), but I really don't see why you wouldn't label GMO based food as such.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 12, 2013, 01:37:00 pm
Because it's not informational. Most GMO is the same exact stuff that would NOT be labeled GMO, just be far more expensive to produce without the label. The end result is identical, because the vast majority of GMO is very mundane applications of what used to be done with targeted radiation, breeding and hybridization.

When you can have two products, identical in every way, but one would require a label and the other would not, I would call that a pointless label - the label should clarify any actual issues that might exist with the food (like if it's been crossed, either through GMO or classic hybridization, with a plant that can cause allergic reactions, and there's a risk the result might cause the same in this new product).

In fact, a GMO label would be actively harmful in informing the public, because most of the public doesn't understand GMO. It would be like labeling organic food as the product of extended exposure to nuclear radiation - true, but you're conveying things that will led the public at large to draw false conclusions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 12, 2013, 01:43:18 pm
Yeah, I agree.  The term GMO doesn't really say much, but carries all these connotations.  It's pretty annoying.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 12, 2013, 01:45:59 pm
If you're going to require labeling, require labeling that is actually clear and relevant, not labeling that spreads faleshoods.

(Of course, if it weren't for all the lies certain groups spread about GMO, a GMO label wouldn't be a problem, but most of the stuff they say, just like most of the stuff Nadaka has said, don't actual apply to the bulk of GMO foods)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 12, 2013, 01:49:41 pm
Actually I just saw that we do have a label for non-GMO based food (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentechnikfrei). It is not mandatory (yet) though. I knew it  ;). We have labels for everything. I can basically tell if the hen that laid my egg had a bad day or not...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 12, 2013, 01:54:41 pm
But what I'm saying is, if you're going to have labels, it's probably best to use labels that convey actual legitimately useful information that people can use to make wiser decisions. A GMO label fails at that - if you can have identical products, one with the label and one without, you're not using a label that conveys actual information.

It's about maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio - adding more noise weakens the signal and leads to less-informed consumers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 12, 2013, 02:00:53 pm
You're right. Just where I come from basically nobody would question the need for such a label. We have so many labels I doubt anybody reads all of them. And how useful the information is is also debatable. A few years ago we almost got an ample sign label to indicate how (un)healthy the food is...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on August 12, 2013, 03:07:58 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/u-rights-group-urges-nobel-peace-prize-wikileaks-143943786.html

I approve.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on August 13, 2013, 12:28:33 am
Quote from: XXSockXX on August 12, 2013, 02:00:53 pm
You're right. Just where I come from basically nobody would question the need for such a label. We have so many labels I doubt anybody reads all of them. And how useful the information is is also debatable. A few years ago we almost got an ample sign label to indicate how (un)healthy the food is...
Pretty much. If we really wanted maximum consumer awareness of what they were purchasing, we would put everything in identical grey tins with nothing but a serial number to tell the milk from the Drain-o. Then everyone would do their research before going to the supermarket. ;)

As it is, the easiest way to tell if something is unhealthy is to look for 'BUY THIS BECAUSE IT IS HEALTHY' monikers. Because those are usually way worse than all the food surrounding them. To find overpriced stuff, look for the label 'ORGANIC.'
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on August 13, 2013, 01:28:52 am
Quote from: Nadaka on August 12, 2013, 03:07:58 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/u-rights-group-urges-nobel-peace-prize-wikileaks-143943786.html

I approve.

Agreed. It's not only a good move for the Nobel committee from a PR perspective, but might help to counter the whole Police State mentality the states have been shifting ever closer toward.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 13, 2013, 01:33:04 am
Quote from: Nadaka on August 12, 2013, 03:07:58 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/u-rights-group-urges-nobel-peace-prize-wikileaks-143943786.html

I approve.
While I certainly approve of a nomination, as far as being granted the award I would have to have a better understanding of who else is in the running.
Even promoting Manning as a candidate should help send a message about how the rest of the world is viewing these events though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on August 13, 2013, 02:04:40 am
Quote from: Max White on August 13, 2013, 01:33:04 am
Even promoting Manning as a candidate should help send a message about how the rest of the world is viewing these events though.

The Nobel committee doesn't do that though. All candidates and nominations are kept secret for 50 years. (http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/) You usually find out lists of candidates because people who nominate them talk about it publicly, or people just campaign for people they assume have been nominated. Which is likely accurate; the list of nominators is so long you can find all kinds of people getting the nod. I remember a holocaust denier rumoured to be on the list this year.

The committee only releases raw numbers of nominations, which this year was 259 with 50 organisations.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 13, 2013, 02:06:48 am
Really..? Well that is a little disappointing. Ah well, guess we can't depend on a single prize to solve all our problems.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 04:09:34 am
http://rt.com/news/russia-jews-fry-comment-396/
Thoughts? I've always wondered why the hell people should care about the democratically voted laws of another country. And the logic of it is appealing as well. Still, your thoughts Bay12?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 04:20:38 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 04:09:34 am
http://rt.com/news/russia-jews-fry-comment-396/
Thoughts? I've always wondered why the hell people should care about the democratically voted laws of another country. And the logic of it is appealing as well. Still, your thoughts Bay12?

people just don't care that russia is a different nation where the status quo for homosexuals is at least a mild dislike because all the countries in the world must conform to their set of beliefs

let's ignore that homosexuality is generally not accepted outside of the west and rage at those wacky russians, right? let's not notice that the same kind of stuff happened when the laws weren't in place (and was widely ignored by the police) but now that the government tries to not make itself look like fools whose decrees are only executed when people find them nice there's an outcry comparable to what i suspect would be the fallout of the leader of germany straight up denying the holocaust and nobody in the government giving a shit

i mean shit, it's generally bad in post-soviet countries if you're not "as normal as possible, but not too normal" and as far inside the closet as the closet goes but you should be looking at kyrgyzstan if you want to be annoyed - no wait, nobody fucking cares about kyrgyzstan. the light that could be shining onto this entire piece of shit situation is about as misplaced as you could put it, short of pointing it at sweden or something
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 13, 2013, 04:36:56 am
Ah, people have empathy for what they are shown by the media. People are allowed to feel that other nations have it wrong or right when compared to thier own - we all do it in one way or another, be it regarding a nations stance on race, religion, homosexuality, education, migration, economics and so on, depending on what we are exposed to.  There is nothing wrong with people being angry at the suffering of any particular person/people anywhere in the world, or angry that other places have a better slant on it than thier own. The issue for me is that the media deems certain suffering/intolerance more worthy of air time than others, espcailly when it is relevant to issues under debate in thier own nation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on August 13, 2013, 04:55:29 am
Quote
because all the countries in the world must conform to their set of beliefs

Our set of beliefs is to complain about their set of beliefs.

If its their culture to dislike homosexual behaviour (and that somehow means we shouldnt compain about it), then its our culture to complain and make noise about it (and that means they shouldnt complain about us complaining, riiiight?).

The comparison to Hitler in the article is just godwins law, though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 13, 2013, 04:58:30 am
I think the comparison to Jews is Nazi Germany is pretty apt, and if anyone disagrees I'd like them to explain why.

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 04:09:34 am
http://rt.com/news/russia-jews-fry-comment-396/
Thoughts? I've always wondered why the hell people should care about the democratically voted laws of another country. And the logic of it is appealing as well. Still, your thoughts Bay12?
We should care about the "democratically" (considering it's Putin you have to use the word fairly lightly) voted laws of another country when they are about to win a huge propaganda victory thanks to major international sporting events that we are supporting.  Particularly if those laws involve are openly bigoted.

What do you think about the 1936 Olympics?  Was it a good idea to allow Hitler to have an internationally supported celebration of Aryanism?  I mean, all those laws restricting the rights of Jews were just the democratically voted laws of another country.

Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 04:20:38 am
people just don't care that russia is a different nation where the status quo for homosexuals is at least a mild dislike because all the countries in the world must conform to their set of beliefs

let's ignore that homosexuality is generally not accepted outside of the west and rage at those wacky russians, right? let's not notice that the same kind of stuff happened when the laws weren't in place (and was widely ignored by the police) but now that the government tries to not make itself look like fools whose decrees are only executed when people find them nice there's an outcry comparable to what i suspect would be the fallout of the leader of germany straight up denying the holocaust and nobody in the government giving a shit

i mean shit, it's generally bad in post-soviet countries if you're not "as normal as possible, but not too normal" and as far inside the closet as the closet goes but you should be looking at kyrgyzstan if you want to be annoyed - no wait, nobody fucking cares about kyrgyzstan. the light that could be shining onto this entire piece of shit situation is about as misplaced as you could put it, short of pointing it at sweden or something
Kyrgyzstan isn't going to be hosting the Olympics.  Your moral relativism argument is bullshit (you could equally say in 1936 that most countries didn't accept Jews, so why get annoyed at Germany?) and the fact that the government is officially siding with the bigots is a serious issue.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 13, 2013, 05:03:55 am
I'm going with Leafsnail on this one. It is the state turning against a minority. I don't care if it is 'just how they are', that is just unacceptable. Not much I can add that he hasn't put better.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 05:06:57 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on August 13, 2013, 04:58:30 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 04:20:38 am
people just don't care that russia is a different nation where the status quo for homosexuals is at least a mild dislike because all the countries in the world must conform to their set of beliefs

let's ignore that homosexuality is generally not accepted outside of the west and rage at those wacky russians, right? let's not notice that the same kind of stuff happened when the laws weren't in place (and was widely ignored by the police) but now that the government tries to not make itself look like fools whose decrees are only executed when people find them nice there's an outcry comparable to what i suspect would be the fallout of the leader of germany straight up denying the holocaust and nobody in the government giving a shit

i mean shit, it's generally bad in post-soviet countries if you're not "as normal as possible, but not too normal" and as far inside the closet as the closet goes but you should be looking at kyrgyzstan if you want to be annoyed - no wait, nobody fucking cares about kyrgyzstan. the light that could be shining onto this entire piece of shit situation is about as misplaced as you could put it, short of pointing it at sweden or something
Kyrgyzstan isn't going to be hosting the Olympics.  Your moral relativism argument is bullshit (you could equally say in 1936 that most countries didn't accept Jews, so why get annoyed at Germany?) and the fact that the government is officially siding with the bigots is a serious issue.

i'm sorry what

how does a sport event have any, any correlation with bigots? there always were bigots and always will be bigots. i didn't claim the government is siding with them, because it bloody well isn't, at least not more than it was previously (since that seems to be your point in this case). the law doesn't say "well normally you're forbidden to do this but if you feel like doing it to a homosexual go ahead"

oh and sure let's not get annoyed at this whole hitler thing it was all because of these silly jews, should have just left europe altogether since nobody accepted them there i like your thinking how about we make a country for lgbts and say "fuck it, we're done, segregation time" like they themselves did after the fact
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on August 13, 2013, 05:09:00 am
The problem is the same with all comparisons with the Nazi's. The argument rarely has anything to do with the Nazi's, and is just a way of attaching negative emotions to something through association.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 13, 2013, 05:09:35 am
This discussion is no longer calm, or cool.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 05:11:40 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on August 13, 2013, 04:58:30 am
I think the comparison to Jews is Nazi Germany is pretty apt, and if anyone disagrees I'd like them to explain why.

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 04:09:34 am
http://rt.com/news/russia-jews-fry-comment-396/
Thoughts? I've always wondered why the hell people should care about the democratically voted laws of another country. And the logic of it is appealing as well. Still, your thoughts Bay12?
We should care about the "democratically" (considering it's Putin you have to use the word fairly lightly) voted laws of another country when they are about to win a huge propaganda victory thanks to major international sporting events that we are supporting.  Particularly if those laws involve are openly bigoted.

What do you think about the 1936 Olympics?  Was it a good idea to allow Hitler to have an internationally supported celebration of Aryanism?  I mean, all those laws restricting the rights of Jews were just the democratically voted laws of another country.

Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 04:20:38 am
people just don't care that russia is a different nation where the status quo for homosexuals is at least a mild dislike because all the countries in the world must conform to their set of beliefs

let's ignore that homosexuality is generally not accepted outside of the west and rage at those wacky russians, right? let's not notice that the same kind of stuff happened when the laws weren't in place (and was widely ignored by the police) but now that the government tries to not make itself look like fools whose decrees are only executed when people find them nice there's an outcry comparable to what i suspect would be the fallout of the leader of germany straight up denying the holocaust and nobody in the government giving a shit

i mean shit, it's generally bad in post-soviet countries if you're not "as normal as possible, but not too normal" and as far inside the closet as the closet goes but you should be looking at kyrgyzstan if you want to be annoyed - no wait, nobody fucking cares about kyrgyzstan. the light that could be shining onto this entire piece of shit situation is about as misplaced as you could put it, short of pointing it at sweden or something
Kyrgyzstan isn't going to be hosting the Olympics.  Your moral relativism argument is bullshit (you could equally say in 1936 that most countries didn't accept Jews, so why get annoyed at Germany?) and the fact that the government is officially siding with the bigots is a serious issue.
1. Nope. It's a complete bullshit argument. Preventing Propaganda != Shit like what the Nazis did.
2. Again, democratically voted. The whole bullshit " Putin is an oppressive dictator conservative racist nazi!" argument has no ground. Russia went to huge lengths to make the elections transparent. It's obvious that there is some sort of bias in these things. Also, " Propaganda victory"? How the hell does Olympics= Anti-homosexual propaganda victory?
3. Remember the guy who got lots of golds at those 1936 Olympics? No? Alright then. And yes, it is fully their right in government to prevent people meddling in children's young orientation development.
4. It's not bigotry. That's the thing, it provides a neutral environment. ( The laws against propaganda) and stops them from attempting to play up homosexuality as something superior. ( As people have been doing.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 13, 2013, 05:18:26 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 04:09:34 am
http://rt.com/news/russia-jews-fry-comment-396/
Thoughts? I've always wondered why the hell people should care about the democratically voted laws of another country. And the logic of it is appealing as well. Still, your thoughts Bay12?
Countries where homosexuality is legally punished by death: Maldives, Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Somaliland, Nigeria, Mauritania, Sudan
Countries where homosexuality is cause for life imprisonment: Sierra Leone, Uganda, Tanzania, Guyana
Countries where homosexuality is cause for whipping: Malawi, Maldives, Malaysia
Countries where homosexuality is cause for imprisonment but not for life [though it may last for years]: Algeria, Libya, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, Cameroon, Burundi, Eritrea, Kenya, Uganda, Comoros, Mauritius, Seychelles, Malawi, Zambia, Western Sahara, Somaliland, Belize, Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait, Oman, Palestinian Territories, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Tuvalu, Tonga, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia,  Brunei, Saudi Arabia.
Countries where free speech is crushed by disallowing the publication of any positive lgbt media: Russia, Lebanon, all of the above.
Countries people give a fuck about: Russia.
I guess it's just a case of people only really empathizing with whatever's in front of them, whatever's given to them. If you ask me, every Olympics should be held in Russia if you want to see it fall, the whole bloody thing's a waste of money that is in itself a perpetuation of human rights violations.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 05:20:27 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 13, 2013, 05:18:26 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 04:09:34 am
http://rt.com/news/russia-jews-fry-comment-396/
Thoughts? I've always wondered why the hell people should care about the democratically voted laws of another country. And the logic of it is appealing as well. Still, your thoughts Bay12?
Countries where homosexuality is legally punished by death: Maldives, Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Somaliland, Nigeria, Mauritania, Sudan
Countries where homosexuality is cause for life imprisonment: Sierra Leone, Uganda, Tanzania, Guyana
Countries where homosexuality is cause for whipping: Malawi, Maldives, Malaysia
Countries where homosexuality is cause for imprisonment but not for life [though it may last for years]: Algeria, Libya, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, Cameroon, Burundi, Eritrea, Kenya, Uganda, Comoros, Mauritius, Seychelles, Malawi, Zambia, Western Sahara, Somaliland, Belize, Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait, Oman, Palestinian Territories, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Tuvalu, Tonga, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia,  Brunei, Saudi Arabia.
Countries where free speech is crushed by disallowing the publication of any positive lgbt media: Russia, Lebanon, all of the above.
Countries people give a fuck about: Russia.
I guess it's just a case of people only really empathizing with whatever's in front of them, whatever's given to them. If you ask me, every Olympics should be held in Russia if you want to see it fall, the whole bloody thing's a waste of money that is in itself a perpetuation of human rights violations.

i'd usually hate to undermine something that is basically one of my points put into better words but from where did you get that list? i feel it might be very useful to me sometime
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Blargityblarg on August 13, 2013, 05:20:37 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 05:11:40 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on August 13, 2013, 04:58:30 am
I think the comparison to Jews is Nazi Germany is pretty apt, and if anyone disagrees I'd like them to explain why.

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 04:09:34 am
http://rt.com/news/russia-jews-fry-comment-396/
Thoughts? I've always wondered why the hell people should care about the democratically voted laws of another country. And the logic of it is appealing as well. Still, your thoughts Bay12?
We should care about the "democratically" (considering it's Putin you have to use the word fairly lightly) voted laws of another country when they are about to win a huge propaganda victory thanks to major international sporting events that we are supporting.  Particularly if those laws involve are openly bigoted.

What do you think about the 1936 Olympics?  Was it a good idea to allow Hitler to have an internationally supported celebration of Aryanism?  I mean, all those laws restricting the rights of Jews were just the democratically voted laws of another country.

Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 04:20:38 am
people just don't care that russia is a different nation where the status quo for homosexuals is at least a mild dislike because all the countries in the world must conform to their set of beliefs

let's ignore that homosexuality is generally not accepted outside of the west and rage at those wacky russians, right? let's not notice that the same kind of stuff happened when the laws weren't in place (and was widely ignored by the police) but now that the government tries to not make itself look like fools whose decrees are only executed when people find them nice there's an outcry comparable to what i suspect would be the fallout of the leader of germany straight up denying the holocaust and nobody in the government giving a shit

i mean shit, it's generally bad in post-soviet countries if you're not "as normal as possible, but not too normal" and as far inside the closet as the closet goes but you should be looking at kyrgyzstan if you want to be annoyed - no wait, nobody fucking cares about kyrgyzstan. the light that could be shining onto this entire piece of shit situation is about as misplaced as you could put it, short of pointing it at sweden or something
Kyrgyzstan isn't going to be hosting the Olympics.  Your moral relativism argument is bullshit (you could equally say in 1936 that most countries didn't accept Jews, so why get annoyed at Germany?) and the fact that the government is officially siding with the bigots is a serious issue.
1. Nope. It's a complete bullshit argument. Preventing Propaganda != Shit like what the Nazis did.
2. Again, democratically voted. The whole bullshit " Putin is an oppressive dictator conservative racist nazi!" argument has no ground. Russia went to huge lengths to make the elections transparent. It's obvious that there is some sort of bias in these things. Also, " Propaganda victory"? How the hell does Olympics= Anti-homosexual propaganda victory?
3. Remember the guy who got lots of golds at those 1936 Olympics? No? Alright then. And yes, it is fully their right in government to prevent people meddling in children's young orientation development.
4. It's not bigotry. That's the thing, it provides a neutral environment. ( The laws against propaganda) and stops them from attempting to play up homosexuality as something superior. ( As people have been doing.)

Mate, what? They're not combatting some massive outburst of 'gays r better than u lol', they're taking a second run at stomping on the existence of gay people. They are not providing a neutral environment. They are providing an environment where, for all intents and purposes, gay people do not exist.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on August 13, 2013, 05:23:14 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 05:11:40 am
4. It's not bigotry. That's the thing, it provides a neutral environment. ( The laws against propaganda) and stops them from attempting to play up homosexuality as something superior. ( As people have been doing.)

The issue is that people are concerned they will be used to stop discussion about homosexuality altogether, given how broard the meaning of the term "propaganda" can be stretched.
Plus show me one group of significant influence (ie not just a single crazy person somewhere on the internet) that are "attempting to play up homosexuality as something superior".

Quote
That's the thing, it provides a neutral environment

Are hetrosexuals banned from "attempting to play up hetrosexuals as something superior"?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Yoink on August 13, 2013, 05:23:38 am
Whoah... sometimes the discussions on this forum terrify me.
I've written and re-written a long wordy post in my head, but sadly my ability to "progressively discuss" things whilst still remaining "calm and cool" is somewhat lacking. It's not a muscle I get a chance to exercise outside of the internet, after all.

Instead, I'll make a poor, possibly somewhat inflammatory attempt at humour and say: the day unlabelled GMO food becomes a common thing on supermarket shelves is the day I flee to a cave in the wilderness and try my hand at becoming one of those crazy survivalist types. (And probably die in the process, but ehh, it'd be preferable to the alternative.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on August 13, 2013, 05:26:55 am
Quote from: Yoink on August 13, 2013, 05:23:38 am
And probably die in the process, but ehh, it'd be preferable to the alternative.

Probably dying is preferable to probably living on probably harmless GM food ???
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Yoink on August 13, 2013, 05:30:05 am
That there is a lot of "probably"s!
Why yes I do consider myself a gambling man. I call your GMO produce and raise you a flock of bloodthirsty wild wombats. :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 13, 2013, 05:32:14 am
The food you eat already is genetically modified. Granted, this modification takes the form of artificial selection to bring out desired characteristics over many, many generations rather than the short cut of splicing and dicing, but there is nothing natural at all about agriculture.

I think I prefer the term "genetically enhanced" rather than "genetically modified".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 05:33:18 am
Quote
Mate, what? They're not combatting some massive outburst of 'gays r better than u lol', they're taking a second run at stomping on the existence of gay people. They are not providing a neutral environment. They are providing an environment where, for all intents and purposes, gay people do not exist.
I'm sorry, what about all that stuff coming out of places around here saying " Gay parents raise smarter kids!" No propaganda there.
Quote from: alexandertnt on August 13, 2013, 05:23:14 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 05:11:40 am
4. It's not bigotry. That's the thing, it provides a neutral environment. ( The laws against propaganda) and stops them from attempting to play up homosexuality as something superior. ( As people have been doing.)

The issue is that people are concerned they will be used to stop discussion about homosexuality altogether, given how broard the meaning of the term "propaganda" can be stretched.
Plus show me one group of significant influence (ie not just a single crazy person somewhere on the internet) that are "attempting to play up homosexuality as something superior".

Quote
That's the thing, it provides a neutral environment

Are hetrosexuals banned from "attempting to play up hetrosexuals as something superior"?
See above. And it also bans imagery stuff as the rainbow flag. Also note how it's not illegal to be gay in Russia. Inb4 slippery slope.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 13, 2013, 05:33:27 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 05:20:27 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 13, 2013, 05:18:26 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 04:09:34 am
http://rt.com/news/russia-jews-fry-comment-396/
Thoughts? I've always wondered why the hell people should care about the democratically voted laws of another country. And the logic of it is appealing as well. Still, your thoughts Bay12?
Countries where homosexuality is legally punished by death: Maldives, Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Somaliland, Nigeria, Mauritania, Sudan
Countries where homosexuality is cause for life imprisonment: Sierra Leone, Uganda, Tanzania, Guyana
Countries where homosexuality is cause for whipping: Malawi, Maldives, Malaysia
Countries where homosexuality is cause for imprisonment but not for life [though it may last for years]: Algeria, Libya, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, Cameroon, Burundi, Eritrea, Kenya, Uganda, Comoros, Mauritius, Seychelles, Malawi, Zambia, Western Sahara, Somaliland, Belize, Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait, Oman, Palestinian Territories, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Tuvalu, Tonga, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia,  Brunei, Saudi Arabia.
Countries where free speech is crushed by disallowing the publication of any positive lgbt media: Russia, Lebanon, all of the above.
Countries people give a fuck about: Russia.
I guess it's just a case of people only really empathizing with whatever's in front of them, whatever's given to them. If you ask me, every Olympics should be held in Russia if you want to see it fall, the whole bloody thing's a waste of money that is in itself a perpetuation of human rights violations.

i'd usually hate to undermine something that is basically one of my points put into better words but from where did you get that list? i feel it might be very useful to me sometime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory
*EDIT
Of course, don't just trust wikipedia. Search the news of each country.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 13, 2013, 05:34:15 am
Quote from: Yoink on August 13, 2013, 05:23:38 am
Instead, I'll make a poor, possibly somewhat inflammatory attempt at humour and say: the day unlabelled GMO food becomes a common thing on supermarket shelves is the day I flee to a cave in the wilderness and try my hand at becoming one of those crazy survivalist types. (And probably die in the process, but ehh, it'd be preferable to the alternative.)
Depending on how far the term GMO stretches, and where you live, that might already be the case.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 13, 2013, 05:35:00 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 05:11:40 am
1. Nope. It's a complete bullshit argument. Preventing Propaganda != Shit like what the Nazis did.
2. Again, democratically voted. The whole bullshit " Putin is an oppressive dictator conservative racist nazi!" argument has no ground. Russia went to huge lengths to make the elections transparent. It's obvious that there is some sort of bias in these things. Also, " Propaganda victory"? How the hell does Olympics= Anti-homosexual propaganda victory?
3. Remember the guy who got lots of golds at those 1936 Olympics? No? Alright then. And yes, it is fully their right in government to prevent people meddling in children's young orientation development.
4. It's not bigotry. That's the thing, it provides a neutral environment. ( The laws against propaganda) and stops them from attempting to play up homosexuality as something superior. ( As people have been doing.)
1. Preventing propaganda? What do you think that means? Please do tell, what do you think Putin means when he says he is stopping homosexual propaganda?
2. Democratically voted is not a licence to do as you please (See Egypt for an example) Putin is an oppressive dictator who is keeping his throne by oppressing a minority instead of everybody, and dictating what sexuality is acceptable.
3. Part of the Olympic debate is that we want to send people over there to compete and watch. It isn't safe for some of these people. It doesn't matter if anybody remembers who wins what events. Fuck I have no idea who did anything last Olympics, the point is that it isn't safe.
4. As people have been doing? Can you provide evidence of this? Also, see 1.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Yoink on August 13, 2013, 05:36:59 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 13, 2013, 05:32:14 am
The food you eat already is genetically modified. Granted, this modification takes the form of artificial selection to bring out desired characteristics over many, many generations rather than the short cut of splicing and dicing, but there is nothing natural at all about agriculture.

I think I prefer the term "genetically enhanced" rather than "genetically modified".

Yeah.
If I bought my own food & actually took proper care of myself I would probably be far more discerning as to what I eat...
As it is I'm doubtless killing myself with the heavily-processed rubbish I eat every day. :(
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 05:39:11 am
Quote from: Max White on August 13, 2013, 05:35:00 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 05:11:40 am
1. Nope. It's a complete bullshit argument. Preventing Propaganda != Shit like what the Nazis did.
2. Again, democratically voted. The whole bullshit " Putin is an oppressive dictator conservative racist nazi!" argument has no ground. Russia went to huge lengths to make the elections transparent. It's obvious that there is some sort of bias in these things. Also, " Propaganda victory"? How the hell does Olympics= Anti-homosexual propaganda victory?
3. Remember the guy who got lots of golds at those 1936 Olympics? No? Alright then. And yes, it is fully their right in government to prevent people meddling in children's young orientation development.
4. It's not bigotry. That's the thing, it provides a neutral environment. ( The laws against propaganda) and stops them from attempting to play up homosexuality as something superior. ( As people have been doing.)
1. Preventing propaganda? What do you think that means? Please do tell, what do you think Putin means when he says he is stopping homosexual propaganda?
2. Democratically voted is not a licence to do as you please (See Egypt for an example) Putin is an oppressive dictator who is keeping his throne by oppressing a minority instead of everybody, and dictating what sexuality is acceptable.
3. Part of the Olympic debate is that we want to send people over there to compete and watch. It isn't safe for some of these people. It doesn't matter if anybody remembers who wins what events. Fuck I have no idea who did anything last Olympics, the point is that it isn't safe.
4. As people have been doing? Can you provide evidence of this? Also, see 1.
1. Preventing people " Playing up" homosexuality as more than it is: A genetic abnormality. A lot of people seem to think it's some wonder ability that turns you into a great friend, intelligent person and the greatest parent ever.
2. Why isn't it? That is how democracy works. Do you think it's fair for a minority to take away the rights of everybody? No? Then go protest anti-gun lobbies in the US.
3. Didn't the guy state in the article that nobody would be oppressed or anything similar?
4. Funnily enough, see 1.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 13, 2013, 05:40:10 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 05:06:57 am
how does a sport event have any, any correlation with bigots? there always were bigots and always will be bigots.
It implies that the international community supports their bigotry, as in 1936, thus strengthening the government.  We should not be actively helping to give them legitimacy.

Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 05:06:57 am
i didn't claim the government is siding with them, because it bloody well isn't, at least not more than it was previously (since that seems to be your point in this case). the law doesn't say "well normally you're forbidden to do this but if you feel like doing it to a homosexual go ahead"
Gay people are being beaten up on a regular basis.  The police are completely ignoring this.  Everyone knows it.

In response, the government passes a law to criminalize activism for gay rights (such as the right to not be beaten up), instead of, say, attempting to make sure that bigots are arrested.  That is very much siding with the bigots.

Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 05:06:57 am
oh and sure let's not get annoyed at this whole hitler thing it was all because of these silly jews, should have just left europe altogether since nobody accepted them there i like your thinking how about we make a country for lgbts and say "fuck it, we're done, segregation time" like they themselves did after the fact
I can only parse this paragraph as an attack on your own argument.  What are you trying to say?

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 05:11:40 am
1. Nope. It's a complete bullshit argument. Preventing Propaganda != Shit like what the Nazis did.
2. Again, democratically voted. The whole bullshit " Putin is an oppressive dictator conservative racist nazi!" argument has no ground. Russia went to huge lengths to make the elections transparent. It's obvious that there is some sort of bias in these things. Also, " Propaganda victory"? How the hell does Olympics= Anti-homosexual propaganda victory?
3. Remember the guy who got lots of golds at those 1936 Olympics? No? Alright then. And yes, it is fully their right in government to prevent people meddling in children's young orientation development.
4. It's not bigotry. That's the thing, it provides a neutral environment. ( The laws against propaganda) and stops them from attempting to play up homosexuality as something superior. ( As people have been doing.)
I'm honestly amazed at how completely you've fallen for the Russian party line.

To 1 and 4: The law is to be used to target gay activists asking for actual human rights.  I didn't think that anyone would be tricked by the fact that they labelled the bill "gay propaganda" (as if that's a thing that exists), but apparently you were.  And if it were about creating a "neutral environment" then they'd ban "heterosexual propaganda" as well.

To 2:  How about the irregularities in the elections reported by international observers (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/europe/observers-detail-flaws-in-russian-election.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)?  In the presidential elections Putin's opposition was crushed by government spending, and the parliamentary elections were rigged by ballot stuffing.

Hosting the Olympics allows there to be a massive celebration of your country, and is thus a clear propaganda victory you wouldn't want to hand to a bigoted nation.  It also implies that the international community is ok with what they're doing.

To 3: The fact that Jesse Owens got 4 gold medals doesn't really outweigh the fact that the Germans won the overall competition, and were thus allowed Hitler to claim an overall victory for his ideology.  We also can't really guarantee that a gay athelete will win lots of golds.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 13, 2013, 05:44:31 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 05:39:11 am
1. Preventing people " Playing up" homosexuality as more than it is: A genetic abnormality. A lot of people seem to think it's some wonder ability that turns you into a great friend, intelligent person and the greatest parent ever.
2. Why isn't it? That is how democracy works. Do you think it's fair for a minority to take away the rights of everybody? No? Then go protest anti-gun lobbies in the US.
3. Didn't the guy state in the article that nobody would be oppressed or anything similar?
4. Funnily enough, see 1.
1. Then how can you justify the Four Dutch tourists that were arrested under these laws, despite the fact that they weren't promoting the kind of propaganda you just described?
2. No! No it isn't! Democracy is meant to protect the voice of minorities, not enforce the tyranny of the majority. This is a really important pillar that the society you live in was built on.
3. Tourists. Dutch. Gay. Arrested. Explain.
4. Saying that sort of propaganda exists IS NOT proof that people are promoting that. On that logic I can prove spider man exists.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 13, 2013, 05:45:43 am
Quote from: Yoink on August 13, 2013, 05:36:59 am
Yeah.
If I bought my own food & actually took proper care of myself I would probably be far more discerning as to what I eat...
As it is I'm doubtless killing myself with the heavily-processed rubbish I eat every day. :(
Start growing peas/wild strawberries if you have vertical growing space, or else potatoes/lettuces. They're relatively easy foods to start with.

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 13, 2013, 05:40:10 am
In response, the government passes a law to criminalize activism for gay rights (such as the right to not be beaten up), instead of, say, attempting to make sure that bigots are arrested.  That is very much siding with the bigots.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Russians just hate activism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 13, 2013, 05:47:47 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 05:39:11 am
1. Preventing people " Playing up" homosexuality as more than it is: A genetic abnormality. A lot of people seem to think it's some wonder ability that turns you into a great friend, intelligent person and the greatest parent ever.
Tell us more about homosexual propaganda, please.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 13, 2013, 05:48:33 am
I was going to wade in with a long post regarding the current Russia/homosexualty debate, but it would just fan the flames. Instead I shall calm myself down by using the "report to moderator" button instead on some things I find objectionable rather than try and argue with people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 13, 2013, 05:51:00 am
I'm going to be honest with you Monkey, I'm not sure what posts you are reporting... I mean the thread is moving pretty fast, but things don't seem personal to the point of censorship. Sure there are what I would think of as unsavory views, but that is kind of expected in a 'Progressive Discussion Thread'
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 13, 2013, 05:53:23 am
Quote from: Max White on August 13, 2013, 05:51:00 am
I'm going to be honest with you Monkey, I'm not sure what posts you are reporting... I mean the thread is moving pretty fast, but things don't seem personal to the point of censorship. Sure there are what I would think of as unsavory views, but that is kind of expected in a 'Progressive Discussion Thread'

Actually, looking back at it, yea, there is only really one statement that got to me. I think I am just finding it hard to understand why some people seem to be arguing in favour of opression.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on August 13, 2013, 05:54:30 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on August 13, 2013, 05:47:47 am
Tell us more about homosexual propaganda, please.

I am more interesting in this "genetic abnormality".

Quote
A lot of people seem to think it's some wonder ability that turns you into a great friend, intelligent person and the greatest parent ever.

No, they dont, this is a strawman. As I said, give some examples of people who are saying homosexuality is superior, but now you have to deomonstrate that "A lot" of people think like this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 13, 2013, 05:57:48 am
Well I'm always up for camp fire stories, please, how are homosexuals a genetic abnormality? I'll get my marshmallows.

Although I would like to point out that lets say that scientists somehow proved that homosexuality occurred due to a mutation, I don't see how that really changes much. I have all sorts of mutations, as do all people. Doesn't inherently make us lesser beings. The survival of our species depends on mutations. Still should be a good story though...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 13, 2013, 06:02:02 am
I have a feeling the answer will involve South Park
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 13, 2013, 06:02:35 am
Quote from: Max White on August 13, 2013, 05:57:48 am
Well I'm always up for camp fire stories, please, how are homosexuals a genetic abnormality? I'll get my marshmallows.

Although I would like to point out that lets say that scientists somehow proved that homosexuality occurred due to a mutation, I don't see how that really changes much. I have all sorts of mutations, as do all people. Doesn't inherently make us lesser beings. The survival of our species depends on mutations. Still should be a good story though...
Latest news I heard is that it's a pseudo genetical mutation. Rather than being a mutation itself, it's a genetic tag that's applied differently. Said tags are generally applied during pregnancy , or during the first life year.

Also, homosexuality has a benefit for quite a few species. It's unusually prevalent for something that reduces change of reproduction.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 06:03:14 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on August 13, 2013, 05:40:10 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 05:06:57 am
how does a sport event have any, any correlation with bigots? there always were bigots and always will be bigots.
It implies that the international community supports their bigotry, as in 1936, thus strengthening the government.  We should not be actively helping to give them legitimacy.

what's with you and the hitler implications. come on. the government doesn't exactly need strengthening or additional legitimacy (since it can just do all the nice things you claim them to do - stuff the ballots, crush opponents with government spending, i won't dispute these simply because not even most russians have reliable evidence for these being a thing)

on that note, could you please tell me your opinons on the post loudwhispers made just a while ago since it seems you're not going to quote it, here it is for your viewing pleasure

Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 13, 2013, 05:18:26 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 04:09:34 am
http://rt.com/news/russia-jews-fry-comment-396/
Thoughts? I've always wondered why the hell people should care about the democratically voted laws of another country. And the logic of it is appealing as well. Still, your thoughts Bay12?
Countries where homosexuality is legally punished by death: Maldives, Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Somaliland, Nigeria, Mauritania, Sudan
Countries where homosexuality is cause for life imprisonment: Sierra Leone, Uganda, Tanzania, Guyana
Countries where homosexuality is cause for whipping: Malawi, Maldives, Malaysia
Countries where homosexuality is cause for imprisonment but not for life [though it may last for years]: Algeria, Libya, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, Cameroon, Burundi, Eritrea, Kenya, Uganda, Comoros, Mauritius, Seychelles, Malawi, Zambia, Western Sahara, Somaliland, Belize, Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait, Oman, Palestinian Territories, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Tuvalu, Tonga, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia,  Brunei, Saudi Arabia.
Countries where free speech is crushed by disallowing the publication of any positive lgbt media: Russia, Lebanon, all of the above.
Countries people give a fuck about: Russia.
I guess it's just a case of people only really empathizing with whatever's in front of them, whatever's given to them. If you ask me, every Olympics should be held in Russia if you want to see it fall, the whole bloody thing's a waste of money that is in itself a perpetuation of human rights violations.

i added some emphasis, hope you don't mind

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 13, 2013, 05:40:10 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 05:06:57 am
i didn't claim the government is siding with them, because it bloody well isn't, at least not more than it was previously (since that seems to be your point in this case). the law doesn't say "well normally you're forbidden to do this but if you feel like doing it to a homosexual go ahead"
Gay people are being beaten up on a regular basis.  The police are completely ignoring this.  Everyone knows it.

In response, the government passes a law to criminalize activism for gay rights (such as the right to not be beaten up), instead of, say, attempting to make sure that bigots are arrested.  That is very much siding with the bigots.

allow me to delve into my limited knowledge of how that stuff operates - people are going to get beaten regardless of their sexual orientation if a group decides they want to beat someone up, they just need a "reason" - ridiculous, flimsy, doesn't matter broke someone's nose

these are "gopniks" if my memory serves. i need a proper russian here, the russia-fu is slowly faltering on my part

also russia dislikes activism, activism killed the soviet union brought on the shitstorm of the 90s which is still in living memory and we do not want that again do we

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 13, 2013, 05:40:10 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 05:06:57 am
oh and sure let's not get annoyed at this whole hitler thing it was all because of these silly jews, should have just left europe altogether since nobody accepted them there i like your thinking how about we make a country for lgbts and say "fuck it, we're done, segregation time" like they themselves did after the fact
I can only parse this paragraph as an attack on your own argument.  What are you trying to say?

oh nothing, just a misguided attempt of pointing out your comparing the reality of today to the reality of more than seventy years ago and bringing everything down to hitler hitler hitler holocaust come on you're better than this
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 06:04:03 am
-Leafsnail
1. Becuase there isn't heterosexuals running around with flags, having huge straight pride parades, commissioning pseudoscientific studies saying that heterosexuals are superior, and the like.
2. How about the fact that he went so far as to install webcams? A few discrepancies != rigging the entire election. And how come there have been only minority marches on this issue? That's right, majority support! Putin's popular for a reason. This is what the masses of Russia want. You can parrot on about treading on the minority, but in the end, the people of Russia want this law.
3. This isn't even worth talking about.
Quote from: Max White on August 13, 2013, 05:44:31 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 05:39:11 am
1. Preventing people " Playing up" homosexuality as more than it is: A genetic abnormality. A lot of people seem to think it's some wonder ability that turns you into a great friend, intelligent person and the greatest parent ever.
2. Why isn't it? That is how democracy works. Do you think it's fair for a minority to take away the rights of everybody? No? Then go protest anti-gun lobbies in the US.
3. Didn't the guy state in the article that nobody would be oppressed or anything similar?
4. Funnily enough, see 1.
1. Then how can you justify the Four Dutch tourists that were arrested under these laws, despite the fact that they weren't promoting the kind of propaganda you just described?
2. No! No it isn't! Democracy is meant to protect the voice of minorities, not enforce the tyranny of the majority. This is a really important pillar that the society you live in was built on.
3. Tourists. Dutch. Gay. Arrested. Explain.
4. Saying that sort of propaganda exists IS NOT proof that people are promoting that. On that logic I can prove spider man exists.
1. I've done some reading and they are about minors. The articles I'm finding on the Dutch tourists are all from biased sources. Basically, they are trying to stop interference only among minors. Basically, stopping the interference of people into young people's orientations. So yes, they are guilty of that.
2. Right. They still aren't going to have popular support, laws or not. If the minority can have every way, I.e, the 1% affecting the 99%'s wants, well then that isn't democracy. Democracy is the rule of the people. What the people want. When 2 different peoples come into direct opposition, well then, who wins? I'll give you a hint, the majority.
3. ^
4. I do not know what you are going on about max.


Quote
No, they dont, this is a strawman. As I said, give some examples of people who are saying homosexuality is superior, but now you have to deomonstrate that "A lot" of people think like this.
Quite a few people in Bay12 have previously posted about how women are incredibly interested in gay men on the point that they are gay men. From personal experience, I can back that up. Also, seriously, just google " Gay parents are better parents" and you'll likely come up with a wealth of responses.

Can I damn well post yet?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 13, 2013, 06:09:18 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 06:04:03 am
1. I've done some reading and they are about minors. The articles I'm finding on the Dutch tourists are all from biased sources. Basically, they are trying to stop interference only among minors. Basically, stopping the interference of people into young people's orientations. So yes, they are guilty of that.
2. Right. They still aren't going to have popular support, laws or not. If the minority can have every way, I.e, the 1% affecting the 99%'s wants, well then that isn't democracy. Democracy is the rule of the people. What the people want. When 2 different peoples come into direct opposition, well then, who wins? I'll give you a hint, the majority.
3. ^
4. I do not know what you are going on about max.
1. That doesn't make sense, you said yourself it was genetic, therefor how could people interfere with somebodies sexuality? No amount of 'propaganda' changes your genetics, right?
2. So might makes right? No, we care about people these days. Sometimes. It is nice when we do at least.
3. ^^
4. I am saying prove that homosexuals are spreading propaganda promoting homosexuality as superior. Prove this propaganda exists.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 06:14:11 am
Quote from: Max White on August 13, 2013, 06:09:18 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 06:04:03 am
1. I've done some reading and they are about minors. The articles I'm finding on the Dutch tourists are all from biased sources. Basically, they are trying to stop interference only among minors. Basically, stopping the interference of people into young people's orientations. So yes, they are guilty of that.
2. Right. They still aren't going to have popular support, laws or not. If the minority can have every way, I.e, the 1% affecting the 99%'s wants, well then that isn't democracy. Democracy is the rule of the people. What the people want. When 2 different peoples come into direct opposition, well then, who wins? I'll give you a hint, the majority.
3. ^
4. I do not know what you are going on about max.
1. That doesn't make sense, you said yourself it was genetic, therefor how could people interfere with somebodies sexuality? No amount of 'propaganda' changes your genetics, right?
2. So might makes right? No, we care about people these days. Sometimes. It is nice when we do at least.
3. ^^
4. I am saying prove that homosexuals are spreading propaganda promoting homosexuality as superior. Prove this propaganda exists.
1. It's genetic, but a lot of things can be modified by environment.
2. So we are going to listen to every majority and the majority has no say? Alright then. All the people who post on bay12 under the name kingfisher1112 are oppressed! Screw you democracy, I deserve a palace!
3. ^
4. GOOGLE SEARCH. GOOGLE SEARCH!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 13, 2013, 06:18:11 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 06:14:11 am
1. It's genetic, but a lot of things can be modified by environment.
2. So we are going to listen to every majority and the majority has no say? Alright then. All the people who post on bay12 under the name kingfisher1112 are oppressed! Screw you democracy, I deserve a palace!
3. ^
4. GOOGLE SEARCH. GOOGLE SEARCH!
1. This is true. But it doesn't change the fact that providing support to young homosexuals isn't a gay conspiracy to convert the masses. But hey, lets assume it was. So what? Who cares? Do you have a problem with gays?
2. We are going to listen, defiantly. That is the point. Even when I don't like what you are saying, I will let you say it. Heck I will even fight for your right to say it. The majority still get their say, but it needs to be balanced.
3. >>>
4. Ok, go google search then. Come back when you have evidence of your claims. Off you go now!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 13, 2013, 06:19:34 am
Screaming GOOGLE SEARCH proves nothing. Find an article, or selection of articles that you believe backs up your claim so we can understand exactly what you mean. When I google search for "homosexual propaganda" all I get is news articles about the current Russian law, and Homophobic propaganda, with only a single return leading to an article criticising homsexual propaganda in the first 25 or so results but its clearly from some kind of American right wing extremist website devoted to attacking all LGBT issues, hardly balanced and unbiased.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 13, 2013, 06:23:53 am
But he totally heard someone say it on Bay 12 once!  Also there was this one scientific study that showed that gay people are better parents, and this is propaganda because

Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 06:03:14 am
what's with you and the hitler implications. come on. the government doesn't exactly need strengthening or additional legitimacy (since it can just do all the nice things you claim them to do - stuff the ballots, crush opponents with government spending, i won't dispute these simply because not even most russians have reliable evidence for these being a thing)
I don't see any real argument to respond to here.  What, once a dictatorship has seized power you may as well just support it because its position is rock solid?

Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 06:03:14 am
on that note, could you please tell me your opinons on the post loudwhispers made just a while ago since it seems you're not going to quote it, here it is for your viewing pleasure
It's a deflection and not really worth addressing at all ("Well they're bad, but the fact that other people are worse means we should ignore that they're bad").  Apart from the bolded part which is just wrong - the UK Olympics certainly helped boost the government's flagging popularity, for instance.

Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 06:03:14 am
allow me to delve into my limited knowledge of how that stuff operates - people are going to get beaten regardless of their sexual orientation if a group decides they want to beat someone up, they just need a "reason" - ridiculous, flimsy, doesn't matter broke someone's nose
Your knowledge is indeed limited if you don't think that homophobia is an actual thing.

Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 06:03:14 am
also russia dislikes activism, activism killed the soviet union brought on the shitstorm of the 90s which is still in living memory and we do not want that again do we
What

Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 06:03:14 am
oh nothing, just a misguided attempt of pointing out your comparing the reality of today to the reality of more than seventy years ago and bringing everything down to hitler hitler hitler holocaust come on you're better than this
You haven't provided any actual argumentation against the comparison, and in any case the comparison is part of the original discussion since Fry made it.  Thinking about it, it may be better to compare it to the Nazis' treatment of homosexuals - they started by cracking down on vocal gay rights groups in a pretty similar way.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 06:25:01 am
Quote from: Max White on August 13, 2013, 06:18:11 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 06:14:11 am
1. It's genetic, but a lot of things can be modified by environment.
2. So we are going to listen to every majority and the majority has no say? Alright then. All the people who post on bay12 under the name kingfisher1112 are oppressed! Screw you democracy, I deserve a palace!
3. ^
4. GOOGLE SEARCH. GOOGLE SEARCH!
1. This is true. But it doesn't change the fact that providing support to young homosexuals isn't a gay conspiracy to convert the masses. But hey, lets assume it was. So what? Who cares? Do you have a problem with gays?
2. We are going to listen, defiantly. That is the point. Even when I don't like what you are saying, I will let you say it. Heck I will even fight for your right to say it. The majority still get their say, but it needs to be balanced.
3. >>>
4. Ok, go google search then. Come back when you have evidence of your claims. Off you go now!
1. I have a problem with conversion.
2. It does, but the current situation does not work on either side.
4. http://www.queerty.com/gay-americans-are-wealthier-better-educated-than-straights-who-wouldnt-want-to-be-a-homosexual-20101111/
Welp?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on August 13, 2013, 06:26:53 am
Quote
Quite a few people in Bay12 have previously posted about how women are incredibly interested in gay men on the point that they are gay men
... That in no way suggests anything to do with propaganda thats just some peoples opinion. Peoples voicing their opinion is not propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda). Its not event the gays that are saying that. If you dont like the fact that some women like gay men, deal with it. Dont try to pass it off as propaganda.

Quote
From personal experience, I can back that up.

What? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence)

Quote
Also, seriously, just google " Gay parents are better parents" and you'll likely come up with a wealth of responses.

If you google the opposite, you get more results. Should we ban hetrosexual "propaganda" too, In order to "provides a neutral environment"? (ironically, going off the google hits suggests an enviroment in favour oh hetrosexuality, not homosexuality) Also: (Max White also covered what I am implying on his 4th point)

Quote
Plus show me one group of significant influence

Quote
It's genetic
Why is this even relevant to anything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi)?

Quote
GOOGLE SEARCH. GOOGLE SEARCH!
I am assuming that if searching "Gay parents are better parents" gets hits implies gay propaganda, then searching "Straight parents are better parents" and getting hits also implies straight propaganda?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 13, 2013, 06:28:14 am
This scientific study goes against my prejudices therefore it is propaganda.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 13, 2013, 06:29:14 am
A news article that extracts data from a census is not propaganda. So homosexuals are better educated and harder working than heterosexuals? Correlation is not causation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 13, 2013, 06:30:18 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 06:25:01 am
1. I have a problem with conversion.
2. It does, but the current situation does not work on either side.
4. http://www.queerty.com/gay-americans-are-wealthier-better-educated-than-straights-who-wouldnt-want-to-be-a-homosexual-20101111/
Welp?
Α) You have a problem with letting people make an informed choice for themselves? Why?
Β) What about homosexuality doesn't work for the majority of people? How does a person loving somebody of the same gender hurt anybody?
Γ) Can you now provide accurate data to disprove this article?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on August 13, 2013, 06:32:24 am
Quote
I have a problem with conversion

Good, then dont convert.

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 06:25:01 am
4. http://www.queerty.com/gay-americans-are-wealthier-better-educated-than-straights-who-wouldnt-want-to-be-a-homosexual-20101111/
Welp?

Thats the problem with vague propaganda laws. Instead of logically/scientifically debunking the study, the study is just outright banned. It is simply assumed by default to be false/harmful.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 06:40:17 am
Quote from: alexandertnt on August 13, 2013, 06:26:53 am
Quote
Quite a few people in Bay12 have previously posted about how women are incredibly interested in gay men on the point that they are gay men
... That in no way suggests anything to do with propaganda thats just some peoples opinion. Peoples voicing their opinion is not propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda). Its not event the gays that are saying that. If you dont like the fact that some women like gay men, deal with it. Dont try to pass it off as propaganda.

Quote
From personal experience, I can back that up.

What? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence)

Quote
Also, seriously, just google " Gay parents are better parents" and you'll likely come up with a wealth of responses.

If you google the opposite, you get more results. Should we ban hetrosexual "propaganda" too, In order to "provides a neutral environment"? (ironically, going off the google hits suggests an enviroment in favour oh hetrosexuality, not homosexuality) Also: (Max White also covered what I am implying on his 4th point)

Quote
Plus show me one group of significant influence

Quote
It's genetic
Why is this even relevant to anything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi)?

Quote
GOOGLE SEARCH. GOOGLE SEARCH!
I am assuming that if searching "Gay parents are better parents" gets hits implies gay propaganda, then searching "Straight parents are better parents" and getting hits also implies straight propaganda?
The laws are about minors for a reason. Heterosexuality is the norm for a reason, and there is now no need to ban heterosexual propaganda. They have no propaganda to fight against. And even then it's not a war of straight v gay it is one of influencing young people's sexuality. I realise now I've been going way off track with my argument, but basically, the laws are to protect minors. They will do a good job of that.
Quote from: alexandertnt on August 13, 2013, 06:32:24 am
Quote
I have a problem with conversion

Good, then dont convert.
Or maybe stop people trying to influence conversion?
Quote from: Max White on August 13, 2013, 06:30:18 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 06:25:01 am
1. I have a problem with conversion.
2. It does, but the current situation does not work on either side.
4. http://www.queerty.com/gay-americans-are-wealthier-better-educated-than-straights-who-wouldnt-want-to-be-a-homosexual-20101111/
Welp?
Α) You have a problem with letting people make an informed choice for themselves? Why?
Β) What about homosexuality doesn't work for the majority of people? How does a person loving somebody of the same gender hurt anybody?
Γ) Can you now provide accurate data to disprove this article?
1. Haven't we established it's genetic but influenced by environment? That's the thing. It ain't a choice, and it shouldn't be a thing trying to influence young development.
2. You're exactly right. It doesn't hurt anybody, thus why it ain't a criminal offence to be gay.
4. Not now. Maybe later, when I can be bothered. Prepping a reply for 3+ people ain't easy work.
Ah screw it. I'm out of effort. Goodbye.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 13, 2013, 06:45:36 am
Damn... Why is it that unless you actually take the king it is still a tie? Can't we give credit to why ever forces the stalemate? No? Fuck it I'm playing Scrabble next time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 13, 2013, 06:47:51 am
It's more like kingfisher refused to set up his pieces, preventing the game from starting at all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 13, 2013, 06:49:51 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on August 13, 2013, 06:23:53 am
It's a deflection and not really worth addressing at all ("Well they're bad, but the fact that other people are worse means we should ignore that they're bad").  Apart from the bolded part which is just wrong - the UK Olympics certainly helped boost the government's flagging popularity, for instance.
That's the whole idea. The Olympics is a way for a country to boost popularity, and do fuck all for its people. Everyone loves the Olympics but the country that's hosting it. The 2004 Olympics were exemplified by Greece's overspending and corruption, and sparked an entire country's bankruptcy. In 2008 millions were displaced and people protesting disappeared, but at least we all got to watch some fancy CGI. In 2012, the UK saw its largest militarization since WWII with civilian houses being used as military installations, and the nation with the most cameras decided it needed not only more cameras, but a smarter integrated system that allowed for individual tracking of persons. The year we lived in was copyrighted and marketed out, the homeless disappeared and were used as labour all the while the speakers across the city blared inescapable poetry. It was overbudgeted and debted us a wonderful £9B, where it was supposed to provide increased tourism and rental business income it only achieved to deter people from abroad. And then the ticket revenue went to the IOC. The 2016 ones haven't even begun and already it's looking terrible with the Brazilians rioting because somehow all of their public industries have no funding when the Olympics does.

It is fucking shit, why do you hold it to be some paragon of virtue when it's corrupt to the core and encourages treating its own competitors as subhumans.
It used to be about sportsmanship, and now it is only about achievement. So much so that those athletes who have suffered nothing less than child abuse their whole lives, only to fail at the last moment often kill themselves for the shame of having come second.

Oh and it's not a deflection, I'm just puzzled as to why people are boycotting Russian vodka or slamming them whilst happily consuming $3.5B of goods from Malaysia and Saudi Arabia with much worse policies. Yeah, yeah, starving children in Africa, but why does Russia earn all this special attention in the face of brutal treatment? At least it's commonly known people starve in Africa. This is one of the first time I've seen some big media spectacle and many small businesses uniting to boycott an entire country's goods over human rights issues. And really, I'm just questioning the validity of the activism, in that it should be inclusive of these other far worse laws held up by other countries.

Seriously though, fuck the Olympics.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: freeformschooler on August 13, 2013, 06:51:17 am
I'm still not sure who you think is "influencing" gay children to continue to be gay. If anything, the influence (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/us/group-that-promoted-curing-gays-ceases-operations.html?_r=0) is overwhelmingly (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html?pagewanted=all) toward forcing (http://www.narth.com/docs/jmft.html) kids to be straight. (http://www.worldmag.com/2013/07/orthodox_jews_oppose_nj_ban_on_gay_therapy) Especially when parents get involved.

I would like to see one - just one - organization known for converting kids to homosexuality (as opposed to those in the links above).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on August 13, 2013, 06:52:11 am
Quote
The laws are about minors for a reason. Heterosexuality is the norm for a reason, and there is now no need to ban heterosexual propaganda. They have no propaganda to fight against. And even then it's not a war of straight v gay it is one of influencing young people's sexuality. I realise now I've been going way off track with my argument, but basically, the laws are to protect minors. They will do a good job of that.

Simply not being the norm does not make it harmful. Is homosexuality actually harmful to minors?

Quote
Or maybe stop people trying to influence conversion?

People do it all the time (particularly for religion. Infact, they are famous for it). Why is homosexuality a special case?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Yoink on August 13, 2013, 06:53:26 am
Quote from: Max White on August 13, 2013, 06:30:18 am
Quote from: kingfisher1112 on August 13, 2013, 06:25:01 am
1. I have a problem with conversion.
2. It does, but the current situation does not work on either side.
4. http://www.queerty.com/gay-americans-are-wealthier-better-educated-than-straights-who-wouldnt-want-to-be-a-homosexual-20101111/
Welp?
Α) You have a problem with letting people make an informed choice for themselves? Why?

Wait, what? This point is bizarre.

As a rule(or disclaimer?), I have no problem with homosexuals. I have had several gay friends in the past, all of whom I have gotten along fine with. As far as I knew, their sexuality wasn't something they could help, so what right would I have to judge them because of it? Acceptance doesn't make it the ideal situation, however. Oh well, I got past it.
Now, you're telling me these people, whom I have had great respect for, "made a choice" to be homosexual? ???

Spoiler: Disclaimer: (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 13, 2013, 06:55:46 am
Right, I see.  I'm not really saying the IOC an an organization is good in any way, or that it doesn't fuck up the people living near its events.  Rather, that the Olympics usually have a positive effect on the popularity and legitimacy of the government that's hosting them, and that we shouldn't hand such an effect to a government that is making things worse and worse for gay people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 13, 2013, 06:59:49 am
I vaguely remember the 2000 Olympics. Reactions were a mix of 'SPORTSPORTSPORTSPORTS!!!!' and 'You know we could build that desperately needed infrastructure for this cost...'
A lot more of the prior.

Yea, the Olympics arn't the best use of resources, but if we are going to anyway, it should at least have some better standards.

Quote from: Yoink on August 13, 2013, 06:53:26 am
Wait, what? This point is bizarre.

As a rule(or disclaimer?), I have no problem with homosexuals. I have had several gay friends in the past, all of whom I have gotten along fine with. As far as I knew, their sexuality wasn't something they could help, so what right would I have to judge them because of it? Acceptance doesn't make it the ideal situation, however. Oh well, I got past it.
Now, you're telling me these people, whom I have had great respect for, "made a choice" to be homosexual? ???

Spoiler: Disclaimer: (click to show/hide)
No, I don't think it is a choice at all. And I don't think turning people gay is as easy as letting them know that homosexuality exists and is normal and deserves equal rights, like most advocates in Russia. I think homosexuality is just like heterosexuality, as much as being right handed is just like being left handed. They are different, but functionally identical.

I just like following peoples trail of logic and seeing where it goes. Just give people all the rope they need to hang themselves. Eventually you sort out the inconsistent from the rational if you keep going.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 13, 2013, 07:00:48 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on August 13, 2013, 06:55:46 am
Right, I see.  I'm not really saying the IOC an an organization is good in any way, or that it doesn't fuck up the people living near its events.  Rather, that the Olympics usually have a positive effect on the popularity and legitimacy of the government that's hosting them, and that we shouldn't hand such an effect to a government that is making things worse and worse for gay people.
Oh right, global politics. Yeah I can see that. Still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth to see the IOC of all things being able to make countries seem nice and cuddly. I still support sending the Olympics on an all Russia boogaloo if you want them to change.


Also California is doing opposite Russia day:
"California law protects rights of transgender students (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23677492)"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 07:04:01 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on August 13, 2013, 06:23:53 am
But he totally heard someone say it on Bay 12 once!  Also there was this one scientific study that showed that gay people are better parents, and this is propaganda because

Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 06:03:14 am
what's with you and the hitler implications. come on. the government doesn't exactly need strengthening or additional legitimacy (since it can just do all the nice things you claim them to do - stuff the ballots, crush opponents with government spending, i won't dispute these simply because not even most russians have reliable evidence for these being a thing)
I don't see any real argument to respond to here.  What, once a dictatorship has seized power you may as well just support it because its position is rock solid?

Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 06:03:14 am
on that note, could you please tell me your opinons on the post loudwhispers made just a while ago since it seems you're not going to quote it, here it is for your viewing pleasure
It's a deflection and not really worth addressing at all ("Well they're bad, but the fact that other people are worse means we should ignore that they're bad").  Apart from the bolded part which is just wrong - the UK Olympics certainly helped boost the government's flagging popularity, for instance.

Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 06:03:14 am
allow me to delve into my limited knowledge of how that stuff operates - people are going to get beaten regardless of their sexual orientation if a group decides they want to beat someone up, they just need a "reason" - ridiculous, flimsy, doesn't matter broke someone's nose
Your knowledge is indeed limited if you don't think that homophobia is an actual thing.

Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 06:03:14 am
also russia dislikes activism, activism killed the soviet union brought on the shitstorm of the 90s which is still in living memory and we do not want that again do we
What

Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 06:03:14 am
oh nothing, just a misguided attempt of pointing out your comparing the reality of today to the reality of more than seventy years ago and bringing everything down to hitler hitler hitler holocaust come on you're better than this
You haven't provided any actual argumentation against the comparison, and in any case the comparison is part of the original discussion since Fry made it.  Thinking about it, it may be better to compare it to the Nazis' treatment of homosexuals - they started by cracking down on vocal gay rights groups in a pretty similar way.

i'm not exactly arguing because if i were arguing i'd put some effort in the posts i guess? i started off on the assumption that i'm not getting your position to move anywhere except further into whichever territory you are currently occupying so might as well prod you a few times and hear the opinions

so alright, from top bottom because clipping posts into tiny parts is very silly and i don't know why i actually did that part

oh boy dictatorships. why. how did you jump to this conclusion? i asked what's it with you and comparing things to hitler, which you later answered, and that's nice. but sure, i'll bite - what sort of dictatorship is it? usually you'd support not because "i might just as well do that" but because "if i don't it'll either force me to support it or get rid of me", are you trying to delve into a higher-level political debate in here? or is this an assumption that russia is a dictatorship, in which case your argument about boosting popularity isn't a thing because the elections are a joke anyway. you'd really have to weigh a literal fuckton of variables, most of which you have no manner of quantifying as a run-of-the-mill citizen, to say if you should support the current dictator, or make a move towards supporting something else, which may or may not succeed in subverting the current system and replacing it with its own. and here's the shocker: most people don't have the time or the effort required to do that, hence why even the most recent batch of revolutions was "spontaneous" - arab spring ring a bell? now that you've got some of them through the point of civil war, like libya, you've got them having no idea what to actually do because democracy isn't the status quo, it's a network of delicate structures that you've got to set up one by one. as to said structures, this guy said it best, mind what the article is supposed to be about though (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23607302)

so yeah people have it worse off in places, big whoop right? you can go on a tirade of pointing at people and telling them their various privileges in the current world, now that there's some people who acknowledge that they are a thing. no siree, the point is, let's focus on the shittiest ones first and work from the ground up. hence why i pointed our kyrgyzstan, which in retrospect is not the ground we should work up from but it works decently. what's the incentive for a bigot to "convert" to tolerance if they can just point somewhere else and say "well these guys are worse than me and you don't care about them, what do you have against me to act like this"

and okay sure let's call me a homophobe because i acknowledge that there are people who don't give a shit about homosexuality and just engage in wanton violence. i don't know what sort of fairytale country you are (actually i do, your part of england must be a nice place. you guys not being overwhelmed by used kitchen salesmen i hope) but have you pondered for the least significant amount of a time period that, you know, not everywhere is as safe and peachy as the area around you? while getting a visa is a bitch, and i'm willing to bet significant amounts of money you're not inclined towards it, go for a trip sometime. sankt petersburg-moscow will do, though if you take the transsiberian (or baikal-amur if you don't wish to travel near the chinese border for some reason, though you'd have to get to irkutsk either way) and you will probably know more of that strange and foreign land we all do here, since my knowledge is significantly outdated on some aspects. just make sure to not spend all your time in the biggest cities (a common complaint about moscow from non-muscovites is that other than the historical parts it's a giant village, not a city representing that should act as a capital)

on this note, a short and gloriously simplified history lesson as your "what" requests it - you remember the soviet union, right? the gerontocracy and all that fun stuff when brezhnev was still around and gorbachev was taking over. well he tried to reform that with perestroika (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroika). meaning more or less a return to the directly post-war economic system as stalin saw it, and glasnost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasnost), in short giving more information about the government to the people. while the first part was greatly successful, the second meant the people saw where their infallible government fucked up, so they demanded more power so the government wouldn't fuck up, and then they saw more fuckups, fast forward and you've got a thwarted hardliner coup and the republics start declaring independence and hoo boy everything doesn't exist anymore. i suggest further reading starting from the articles linked, wikipedia isn't the greatest source but hey the sources cited are good when you've got entry-level stuff covered

my constant objection to keeping nazis in the discussion is mainly because while fry went ahead and invoked godwin, you just keep godwin in and the guy just can't catch a break and let's not even start on how eager your stereotypical jew is to say something is comparable to the holocaust if they don't like it (stereotypical "oy vey!" optional) and in full disregard if it has any connection to any genocide, or specifically the holocaust, whatsoever, and he just now served to reinforce that stereotype thanks we really needed that in a world where antisemitism still exists.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 13, 2013, 07:06:15 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 13, 2013, 07:00:48 am
"California law protects rights of transgender students (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23677492)"
I needed a bit of cherring up.  :)

Although that does raise an interesting question. Do children as young as kindergarten actually identify with any gender? I don't mean to make any assertion, I honestly don't know if identifying with a different gender to that which you are genetically is something consistent from even that young an age.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on August 13, 2013, 07:18:58 am
Quote from: Max White on August 13, 2013, 07:06:15 am
Although that does raise an interesting question. Do children as young as kindergarten actually identify with any gender? I don't mean to make any assertion, I honestly don't know if identifying with a different gender to that which you are genetically is something consistent from even that young an age.

Ewwwww, they have cooties :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 13, 2013, 07:34:52 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 13, 2013, 07:04:01 am
(...your part of england must be a nice place. you guys not being overwhelmed by used kitchen salesmen i hope)
MY MISE EN PLACE BRINGS ALL THE BOYS TO THE YARD

Quote from: Max White on August 13, 2013, 07:06:15 am
Although that does raise an interesting question. Do
children as young as kindergarten actually identify with any gender?
From as young as 3, though they exhibit gender typical behaviour from Day 1 [based off of the amount of testosterone they have, they exhibit different behaviour which affects their development]. (http://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/5b1501/F/sex.pdf)
Also it's done by Simon Baron-Cohen, Sacha Baron-Cohen is his cousin.

Only thing I'm a bit worried about with the California thing is the injuries. Men and women don't compete in sports together not just for competitive reasons, but for safety too. Biological males competing against biological females in contact sport can result in scrapes and sheared bones.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on August 13, 2013, 07:39:25 am
Eh, physical differences is strength aren't that great until into puberty. By that point I imagine any child in an environment where there school and parents are accepting of their identity would be looking at hormone therapy anyway. I think?

I'm really on unfamiliar ground when it comes to transgender issues.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on August 13, 2013, 07:54:01 am
The experiences of the few girls and women that participate in mens' sports would probably make a good starting point of reference for deciding how to handle this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 13, 2013, 07:57:04 am
Quote from: Max White on August 13, 2013, 07:39:25 am
Eh, physical differences is strength aren't that great until into puberty.
Young boys will on average exhibit greater gross motor skills development in things like running & jumping. Plus the whole aggressive risk taking mindset settles in rather early too. Plus AB1266 also applies to secondary school, after puberty begins and ends.
Quite amusing is the list of who supported and who was against it:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The opposition was outnumbered gratuitously. Personally, I'd say just making the damn facilities unisexual would have been a better choice, but this'll do. Except the sports thing, I'm still skeptical. On review, excluding Disney villain-esque boys who'll don a dress just to curbstomp girl sports competitions, trans-kids in the USA have the option to take hormone blockers to delay puberty, and once they're old enough to decide for themselves, choose which gender they wish to develop as. I retract sports skepticism. 'Cept maybe for ftm trans competing against boys.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 13, 2013, 08:07:40 am
I'd prefer if we focused on the most recent topic.

I was unaware of, though I'm unsurprised by, the hormone blockers treatment. I would have thought settling at the right degree of neurological development would be the trick, otherwise age has limited utility.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 13, 2013, 08:14:07 am
Quote from: Novel Scoops on August 13, 2013, 08:07:40 am
I was unaware of, though I'm unsurprised by, the hormone blockers treatment. I would have thought settling at the right degree of neurological development would be the trick, otherwise age has limited utility.
Because children cannot consent it is best for them to grow up and decide for themselves in order to avoid these horror stories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer) achieving reality again.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on August 13, 2013, 08:19:13 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 13, 2013, 08:14:07 am
Quote from: Novel Scoops on August 13, 2013, 08:07:40 am
I was unaware of, though I'm unsurprised by, the hormone blockers treatment. I would have thought settling at the right degree of neurological development would be the trick, otherwise age has limited utility.
Because children cannot consent it is best for them to grow up and decide for themselves in order to avoid these horror stories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer) achieving reality again.
I am not sure how that is relevant o.O
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 13, 2013, 08:20:30 am
Quote from: Dutchling on August 13, 2013, 08:19:13 am
I am not sure how that is relevant o.O
Explaining why blocker hormones are the better option to possible trans-kids than just letting them go through puberty naturally or through medical hormones.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 13, 2013, 08:51:56 am
My position on body modification is that any person who wants to modify their bodies in a particular way (any kind of genital mutilation like circumcision or physical changes like those associated with full hormone treatment) should be of an age of responsibility. That should be the same age that they are criminally responsible. In Scotland that is actually 8 years old, I hear in Sweden it is 14. I honestly couldn't suggest an age myself - I just don't know.

If blocker hormones do not leave the teenager stunted in some way if they decide not to go through with it after all, I'm all for them being used as an alternative.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on August 13, 2013, 09:17:56 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 13, 2013, 08:20:30 am
Quote from: Dutchling on August 13, 2013, 08:19:13 am
I am not sure how that is relevant o.O
Explaining why blocker hormones are the better option to possible trans-kids than just letting them go through puberty naturally or through medical hormones.
Because whatever they choose they can then be given the appropriate hormones later, without already having gone through puberty.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 13, 2013, 09:49:50 am
And a blast from the recent past about a topic I'd much rather discuss...
Yoink you should probably see someone about that GMO-phobia. 'specially since you're already probably eating a bunch of it. Most countries in the west are majority GMO. Although if you're eating a bunch of over-processed foods that's the least of your problems! Buy some high quality GMO seeds and start yourself a garden, or convince whoever is buying your food to buy from a local GMO farmer and you'll be the better for it! ^_^
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 13, 2013, 10:01:31 am
I'd meant to post this yesterday about the Russian situation, but... (http://americablog.com/2013/08/russia-olympics-gay-safety-athletes-sochi.html)

I don't really even know.  Russia is a beautiful country.  I want to say that I like the culture, and yet.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 13, 2013, 10:51:49 am
I know I don't. Russia never really emerged from having an authoritarian, intolerant culture. They came close in the 90's, but Putin swept all that away and more.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Guardian G.I. on August 13, 2013, 11:19:15 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 13, 2013, 10:51:49 am
I know I don't. Russia never really emerged from having an authoritarian, intolerant culture. They came close in the 90's, but Putin swept all that away and more.

You can't just erase Russian cultural code.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 13, 2013, 11:36:57 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 13, 2013, 06:49:51 am
Oh and it's not a deflection, I'm just puzzled as to why people are boycotting Russian vodka or slamming them whilst happily consuming $3.5B of goods from Malaysia and Saudi Arabia with much worse policies. Yeah, yeah, starving children in Africa, but why does Russia earn all this special attention in the face of brutal treatment? At least it's commonly known people starve in Africa. This is one of the first time I've seen some big media spectacle and many small businesses uniting to boycott an entire country's goods over human rights issues. And really, I'm just questioning the validity of the activism, in that it should be inclusive of these other far worse laws held up by other countries.
On the risk of sounding cynical, isn't that fairly obvious? From a simplified western perspective all these other countries are places you'd rather not live in anyways because they're 3rd world countries or radically islamic or both. Russia on the other hand is not only bigger and more influential but also much more "close" to us, not only in a geographical sense but culturally. Basically Russia has been somewhat lingering on the path to a western style democracy for the past 25 years and everytime we realize that it's not really there (yet?), there is a lot of disappointment.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 13, 2013, 10:51:49 am
I know I don't. Russia never really emerged from having an authoritarian, intolerant culture. They came close in the 90's, but Putin swept all that away and more.
Yeah, basically this. Though I guess it is much more of a cultural issue from being used to an authoritarian intolerant culture than only the fault of Putin and his ex-KGB gang. After all Putin's crackdown on gays is basically populism, not something he imposed on an otherwise tolerant country. I'm always baffled by the huge Russian (and Eastern European in general) neo-nazi scene, of all people these guys should know better. Also Putin is relatively moderate compared to many other Russian politicians (remember this guy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Zhirinovsky)), hence the attitude of "hey, maybe Russia needs a strong hand for a while to transition to democracy" that has been and partially still is so prevalent in western politics.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Guardian G.I. on August 13, 2013, 12:36:13 pm
Quote from: XXSockXX on August 13, 2013, 11:36:57 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 13, 2013, 06:49:51 am
Oh and it's not a deflection, I'm just puzzled as to why people are boycotting Russian vodka or slamming them whilst happily consuming $3.5B of goods from Malaysia and Saudi Arabia with much worse policies. Yeah, yeah, starving children in Africa, but why does Russia earn all this special attention in the face of brutal treatment? At least it's commonly known people starve in Africa. This is one of the first time I've seen some big media spectacle and many small businesses uniting to boycott an entire country's goods over human rights issues. And really, I'm just questioning the validity of the activism, in that it should be inclusive of these other far worse laws held up by other countries.
On the risk of sounding cynical, isn't that fairly obvious? From a simplified western perspective all these other countries are places you'd rather not live in anyways because they're 3rd world countries or radically islamic or both. Russia on the other hand is not only bigger and more influential but also much more "close" to us, not only in a geographical sense but culturally. Basically Russia has been somewhat lingering on the path to a western style democracy for the past 25 years and everytime we realize that it's not really there (yet?), there is a lot of disappointment.

Russian society is fundamentally different to Western society - it is collectivist (unlike the individualist Western society) and it doesn't hold freedom and liberty in high regard (unlike the Western society). The most important value for Russians is justice.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 13, 2013, 12:43:08 pm
Yup.  I, in general, am pro-collectivism, though I think the attempts to force homogeneity (rather than supporting diversity within a community) are short-sighted, to say the least.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 13, 2013, 01:31:40 pm
Quote from: Guardian G.I. on August 13, 2013, 12:36:13 pm
Russian society is fundamentally different to Western society - it is collectivist (unlike the individualist Western society) and it doesn't hold freedom and liberty in high regard (unlike the Western society). The most important value for Russians is justice.

This sums it up so well. I've found that speaking to a lot of Russians, especially if I go bigot-baiting and start discussing Chechnya. They see things in collectives - they accuse me of hiding Chechen rebels when I'm just a guy out in the Highlands, I'm not bloody MI5. If I start talking negatively about the Russian government or Putin, I am criticising them i.e. the Russians I am talking to personally. I suppose it dates back to Tsarist times. Lends itself very well to authoritarian/totalitarian governments too. Justice is the most important value I have seen.

Maybe the problems that people generally see with Communism come from that - you know, it's all fine and well saying "power to the people" until one small group declare that they "are the people" and seize power, but in Russia and China and many other failed Communist states that was the norm and always had been. The collectivist way of thinking also, in my opinion, leads to a lot of the racism and bigotry that run rampant through Russian society - if a Muslim/Caucasian guy robs your friend or you or your relative fought them in the wars back in the '90s, that's all Muslims/Caucasians written off.

The most difficult thing to get across to guys like that is the whole idea of how certain bad people do not represent all people of that race/ethnicity/nation. They will usually say that I just don't understand and that I'm a stupid Westerner and I should come to Russia and see how "these animals" live.

It's interesting that the Russian culture tends to value justice as much as English culture does. The difference is that English people traditionally value personal freedom and the whole "a man's home is his castle" idea (hence why totalitarianism never took hold there). Their love of justice is also focussed largely on, to quote a Scottish writer almost verbatim, a particular kind of justice according to charter and statute. It accentuates stuffy tradition, law and order, rules and regulations and keeping social order. The Houses of Parliament and all their little details are good visual examples of that part of English culture. You can see then why Conservatism, on the whole, would be popular in both Russia and England.

An older part that is now being forgotten that I particularly like is a love of flowers. They used to hold a special place in English culture. Obviously England is not a monolithic/homogenous state and people from county to county will differ wildly, I am just going by the established dominant culture that originates from the South-East.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Guardian G.I. on August 13, 2013, 03:33:39 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on August 13, 2013, 01:31:40 pm
Quote from: Guardian G.I. on August 13, 2013, 12:36:13 pm
Russian society is fundamentally different to Western society - it is collectivist (unlike the individualist Western society) and it doesn't hold freedom and liberty in high regard (unlike the Western society). The most important value for Russians is justice.

This sums it up so well. I've found that speaking to a lot of Russians, especially if I go bigot-baiting and start discussing Chechnya. They see things in collectives - they accuse me of hiding Chechen rebels when I'm just a guy out in the Highlands, I'm not bloody MI5. If I start talking negatively about the Russian government or Putin, I am criticising them i.e. the Russians I am talking to personally. I suppose it dates back to Tsarist times. Lends itself very well to authoritarian/totalitarian governments too. Justice is the most important value I have seen.

Maybe the problems that people generally see with Communism come from that - you know, it's all fine and well saying "power to the people" until one small group declare that they "are the people" and seize power, but in Russia and China and many other failed Communist states that was the norm and always had been. The collectivist way of thinking also, in my opinion, leads to a lot of the racism and bigotry that run rampant through Russian society - if a Muslim/Caucasian guy robs your friend or you or your relative fought them in the wars back in the '90s, that's all Muslims/Caucasians written off.

The most difficult thing to get across to guys like that is the whole idea of how certain bad people do not represent all people of that race/ethnicity/nation. They will usually say that I just don't understand and that I'm a stupid Westerner and I should come to Russia and see how "these animals" live.

To be honest, Chechens are not saints. When they live in diasporas (and they tend to create diasporas), they have a tendency to create gangs and terrorize the locals. You may think that it happens because they are discriminated and not allowed to have good jobs and so on and so forth, but they usually don't even try to fit into the society even if given the opportunity. Furthermore, they are known to be extremely arrogant and hostile to non-Chechens, no matter how tolerant the non-Chechens are.

In the 1990s, a lot of Chechen refugees settled down in the town when I live. Belarusians are tolerant and hospitable people, and when the Chechens came, no one objected - everyone knew about the war in Chechnya, and how awful things are there.
The Chechens bought several houses on the eastern outskirts of the city. They didn't take any kind of jobs, instead they've formed a gang, started harassing the locals, robbed shops, and generally acted like they own the place. The neighbourhood where they lived was soon nicknamed "Dudaev Street" by the town's residents, and had a reputation of being very dangerous.
The local residents started to complain to local authorities. The authorities decided to fix the problem once and for all: one day, early in the morning, the Chechen neighbourhood was stormed by heavily armed police forces. All Chechen residents were deported back to Russia.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 13, 2013, 04:03:18 pm
I know Chechens aren't saints in the same way that African Americans aren't saints or black Jamaicans/Afro-Britons or Somalians in the UK, or indeed white European people. I don't claim that they are saints, nor do I doubt that some North Caucasians do form street gangs and cause trouble for a plethora of reasons. They're just people. Refugees, especially from a country like Chechnya where a lot of resentment towards the victors/people you are fleeing to is festering, can often cause problems. They often carry the problems of their old country with them. Scotland knows this only too well, people get stabbed in the street over it on a regular basis.

I maintain though that there is a tendency among the Russians that I have spoken to on this issue to view all bad eggs as being representative of their respective nation/culture, not just as bad eggs. It is part of the collective thinking we've talked about.

One could suggest that I am doing the same thing; by suggesting that "Russians" think in such and such a way, I'm being a bit hypocritical. I've been careful though to never speak in absolutes like that and only refer to those that I have debated with. Every single one (honestly) has had these attitudes, but I know that still doesn't mean I can speak in absolutes on that evidence.

I suppose that begs the question; what am I trying to show then if I'm not trying to say "Russians think like such and such"? It's more like I'm trying to show cultural trends that I have noticed. It isn't shown by all Russians but a significant number - significant enough for comment. That's different from me saying something like "Russians can't stop thinking in collectives and are all racist because of it". That simply isn't true.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on August 14, 2013, 02:20:40 am
What the hell was that earlier conversation?

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 14, 2013, 03:36:45 am
It's probably best if we do not open that one up again...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 14, 2013, 04:27:26 am
Quote from: Descan on August 14, 2013, 02:20:40 am
What the hell was that earlier conversation?
Russians, gay rights. Mix of both.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Waidaminute...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 14, 2013, 09:48:23 am
Blame the male-centric society of history for inserting "male" into the concept of "man" :P

If man still would just have meant human/person instead of taking an overtone of "male" then that would have been entirely correct.

Did you contact Google about correcting that? (Disclaimer - I don't know how that "define" command work or if Google can actually do anything about it).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 14, 2013, 09:51:25 am
Many Western countries actually have it as a point of law that women cannot commit rape and that it is a strictly male crime.

The definition is correct in the region where Loud Whispers lives, and not for reasons of semantics.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 14, 2013, 09:54:02 am
Someone with a penis who identifies as a woman (that covers people who are intersex and transexuals) can be a rapist under UK law, although that's probably something of an edge case.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 14, 2013, 09:57:00 am
Quote from: scriver on August 14, 2013, 09:48:23 am
Did you contact Google about correcting that?
Nah, not bothered by it enough to care. Found it quite funny though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 14, 2013, 09:58:50 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on August 14, 2013, 09:51:25 am
Many Western countries actually have it as a point of law that women cannot commit rape and that it is a strictly male crime.

The definition is correct in the region where Loud Whispers lives, and not for reasons of semantics.

The legal definition is not the end-all-be-all definition, though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on August 14, 2013, 11:11:22 am
I totes think we should go back to wereman and wyfman (or whatever other variants upon either word both have 'man' in but have some other letters in the word).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 14, 2013, 11:16:01 am
Yeoman and woman?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 14, 2013, 11:31:28 am
Dibs on human.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 14, 2013, 11:33:31 am
Yeah, that is something that needs to change. Though, since there are contexts where it matters, we cannot simply dispense with gender-specific nouns and just go to "human".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 14, 2013, 11:44:32 am
I mean... why can't we say "humankind?"  Etc.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 14, 2013, 11:47:05 am
Seriously, English speakers have no right to complain about gender-specific nouns, there barely are any compared to other languages. Imagine you had to talk about "rapistresses and rapists" to be politically correct.  ;)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on August 14, 2013, 12:01:36 pm
Reminds me of David Brins uplift universe - In that series, he had "man" as the generic term for human, while "Mel" and "Fem" were the terms for a specific gender.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 14, 2013, 12:03:28 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on August 14, 2013, 11:33:31 am
Yeah, that is something that needs to change. Though, since there are contexts where it matters, we cannot simply dispense with gender-specific nouns and just go to "human".
No, as in I was suggesting we replace male context of man and replace it with human. Then there'd be no conflict over man...kind.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on August 14, 2013, 12:03:43 pm
So... your father would always be the melman?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 14, 2013, 01:18:14 pm
Working with sex offenders runs in my family and many of them are female, or became abusers due to sexual abuse carried out by their mothers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 14, 2013, 01:40:51 pm
Quote from: Vector on August 14, 2013, 11:44:32 am
I mean... why can't we say "humankind?"  Etc.
Oh, yeah, that is a better way to go for that sort of thing. I meant there are contexts like dating where gender-specific nouns have relevance and "male" and "female" are likely to come off as clinical or dehumanizing, although then again if we're hypothesizing better language structures anyway there's no particular reason to keep either of those objections as valid, I suppose.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on August 14, 2013, 02:08:46 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/video/outrage-over-forced-sterilization-female-150136080.html

Women in prisons are being forced into sterilization, given the racial bias in conviction and sentencing outcomes, this may constitute a literal genocide in America.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kansa on August 14, 2013, 02:12:55 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on August 14, 2013, 02:08:46 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/video/outrage-over-forced-sterilization-female-150136080.html

Women in prisons are being forced into sterilization, given the racial bias in conviction and sentencing outcomes, this may constitute a literal genocide in America.

The comments on that page are just terrible...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on August 14, 2013, 02:13:06 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on August 14, 2013, 02:08:46 pm
Women in prisons are being forced into sterilization
So prisons are definitely not for correcting behaviour and instead are for... profit I guess. Got it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 14, 2013, 02:14:31 pm
Quote from: Kansa on August 14, 2013, 02:12:55 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on August 14, 2013, 02:08:46 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/video/outrage-over-forced-sterilization-female-150136080.html

Women in prisons are being forced into sterilization, given the racial bias in conviction and sentencing outcomes, this may constitute a literal genocide in America.

The comments on that page are just terrible...

it's yahoo news. why do you read the comments? it's like reading social justice tumblrs hoping to learn something
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on August 14, 2013, 02:15:44 pm
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 14, 2013, 02:14:31 pm
Quote from: Kansa on August 14, 2013, 02:12:55 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on August 14, 2013, 02:08:46 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/video/outrage-over-forced-sterilization-female-150136080.html

Women in prisons are being forced into sterilization, given the racial bias in conviction and sentencing outcomes, this may constitute a literal genocide in America.

The comments on that page are just terrible...

it's yahoo news. why do you read the comments? it's like reading social justice tumblrs hoping to learn something
I read both when I'm bored. That, or I search for 'christian' or 'god' the talk pages of sciency Wikipedia pages >.>
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kansa on August 14, 2013, 02:17:52 pm
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 14, 2013, 02:14:31 pm
it's yahoo news. why do you read the comments? it's like reading social justice tumblrs hoping to learn something

It's a bad habit
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Levi on August 14, 2013, 02:35:13 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on August 14, 2013, 02:08:46 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/video/outrage-over-forced-sterilization-female-150136080.html

Women in prisons are being forced into sterilization, given the racial bias in conviction and sentencing outcomes, this may constitute a literal genocide in America.

Holy heck.  I can't believe that is actually happening in the US.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 14, 2013, 02:43:10 pm
This sort of thing has been happening continuously for centuries, sadly =(  Here's a famous example from 1927 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell), but there are lots more recent cases.  American eugenics programs were the blueprint for what the Nazis eventually carried out, and groups such as the Rockefeller foundation actually provided funding.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on August 14, 2013, 02:46:49 pm
I am appalled that it STILL happens in America, but considering the widespread support such things get by the general public I shouldn't be surprised.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 14, 2013, 02:55:30 pm
Quote from: Levi on August 14, 2013, 02:35:13 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on August 14, 2013, 02:08:46 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/video/outrage-over-forced-sterilization-female-150136080.html

Women in prisons are being forced into sterilization, given the racial bias in conviction and sentencing outcomes, this may constitute a literal genocide in America.

Holy heck.  I can't believe that is actually happening in the US.

Pretty sure it's been going on for a while... it's been mentioned on these boards a couple times.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on August 14, 2013, 03:01:23 pm
Of all countries Sweden - you know, the very model of a socialdemocratic European state - had had a nationwide eugenics/forcible sterilization program until 1975.

But, since I like being contrarian, do you think there is any, literally any, situation, in which forcible sterilization is excusable?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 14, 2013, 03:03:31 pm
If they have a genetic mutation that makes all their kids into horrifying bloodfiends bent on world destruction and domination.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 14, 2013, 03:06:47 pm
A few, sure. Saving life of patient, etc. Probably some edge cases regarding insanity. Possibly in extreme resource crises. Potentially killing off particular genetic diseases, if they're bad enough (though "bad enough" would have to be pretty damn bad.) and we haven't figured out better options by the point it became something approaching necessary.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 14, 2013, 03:09:27 pm
Usually it's considered excusable in the event that it is medically known to 100% probability with no sliver of doubt that a person will never, ever, ever be able to make decisions for themselves.

Like the babies born with only a brainstem.

(On the other hand disabled children are sometimes given hysterectomies so that the parents won't have to deal with menstruation--this is horrible and not medically indicated, since there are period-suppressing drugs and disabled people who can make choices deserve to make their own choices).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on August 14, 2013, 03:46:24 pm
No. Procreation is a basic human right. Ethically I can't see any justification for its permanent infringement by forced sterilization.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 14, 2013, 04:00:57 pm
Probably not. There are situations in which it's a tempting option, but the implications are delicate enough to warrant thinking it twice and thrice.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on August 14, 2013, 04:31:14 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on August 14, 2013, 03:46:24 pm
No. Procreation is a basic human right. Ethically I can't see any justification for its permanent infringement by forced sterilization.

OK - let's say we have an alcoholic woman who, despite being unable to support them, keeps giving births to children - whether due to ignorance or indifference - which are later forced to live on the streets, and that's if they survive. Justified or not, and why?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 14, 2013, 04:32:27 pm
Shouldn't social welfare take care of those kids?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on August 14, 2013, 04:39:28 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on August 14, 2013, 04:32:27 pm
Shouldn't social welfare take care of those kids?

Should =/= will. And even then:
a) this is a moral question, it doesn't need to refer specifically to the sociopolitical context of the US - in a situation like this, moral or immoral?
b) even if they DO, the kids will be traumatized - more or less, but still.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on August 14, 2013, 04:40:31 pm
Quote from: scrdest on August 14, 2013, 04:31:14 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on August 14, 2013, 03:46:24 pm
No. Procreation is a basic human right. Ethically I can't see any justification for its permanent infringement by forced sterilization.

OK - let's say we have an alcoholic woman who, despite being unable to support them, keeps giving births to children - whether due to ignorance or indifference - which are later forced to live on the streets, and that's if they survive. Justified or not, and why?

No. Not justified. That constitutes child abuse and negligence which would result in the children being removed from the household along with criminal charges and either jail time and/or probationary treatment of the root causes of her problems, addiction/etc. For the most extreme of cases, birth control as a requirement of probation provides a non-permanent solution.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 14, 2013, 05:06:16 pm
Quote from: scrdest on August 14, 2013, 03:01:23 pm
Of all countries Sweden - you know, the very model of a socialdemocratic European state - had had a nationwide eugenics/forcible sterilization program until 1975.

For some reason, the Swedish elite was very much in love with the racial-biologist idea of an Aryan Master Race.

Swedish governments is still sterilizing transsexual people who wants to change gender as a direct consequence of those old programmes. We had the opportunity to change it one or two years ago, but despite 6/8s of the Riksdag parties supporting such a change it fell through because the main government (the Moderates) party wanted to indulge the Christian Democrat party and made their coalition vote against it. The Christian Democrats, the smallest party in the coalition, were also the only one's in it to oppose the change (the other opposer were the far-right Nazi party). I guess the Moderates thought they wouldn't loose too much opinion by letting the CDs have their way with this one thing. So they went against what they themselves believed was right and pushed the question up another 20 or so years, iirc.

The CDs have since changed their official opinion on the matter (The party leader changed the policy after he had won an internal power struggle against an extremist challenger) - just a few months after the old vote. So now all the people who will have to be sterilized in order to get a gender change in the coming 20 years will be happy to now a 95% majority of the Riksdag supports a change and still won't actually do anything about it!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 14, 2013, 05:17:21 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on August 14, 2013, 03:46:24 pm
No. Procreation is a basic human right. Ethically I can't see any justification for its permanent infringement by forced sterilization.
Mm. It occasionally comes up that a life saving medical procedure that would result in sterility needs to be performed on a patient that can't give consent. I'd probably say the doctors that performing those operations are ethically justified in doing so. It's still still sterilization without consent (which is pretty much the definition of forced, yes?), but it's fairly well justified.

'Course, the more interesting ethical scenario is when the patient can give consent, but chooses not to -- preferring death to sterility. Since that'd more or less be suicide, there's a number of cultures that would deny the patient the right to choose to die. S'also somewhat questionable if a doctor can let someone die in a situation like that, perhaps.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 14, 2013, 05:19:51 pm
Honestly... ?  I think we have the right to choose our own deaths.  It seems absurd to disallow it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 14, 2013, 05:50:24 pm
In cases of "choose death or treatment you don't want", then yes, I agree (here the true conflict is between people's right to a dignified death versus the medical folks right to not have to kill who they want to "save"/treat). In other cases, not so much, but I don't think you'd were making such broad generalisations? I ask to keep things from derailing into a general euthanasia debate.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 14, 2013, 05:57:15 pm
Actually... no.  I believe in euthanasia as well.

But in that instance, I was chiefly speaking to a "DNR" sort of situation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 14, 2013, 06:25:52 pm
Quote from: Vector on August 14, 2013, 05:19:51 pm
Honestly... ?  I think we have the right to choose our own deaths.  It seems absurd to disallow it.
I'd agree, but there's a pretty large amount of folks that wouldn't. There's also certainly laws on the books disallowing it in many cases, re: suicide prevention, ferex. But yeah, discussion of that would derail into a different debate. I'd definitely be cool with dropping it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on August 14, 2013, 06:28:25 pm
Huehuehue. This reminds me of Santorum claiming half the Dutch people die of involuntary euthanasia and the we all kill our elderly family members for their monnies or something. I'm still sad that dude's not your president, as it would have been incredibly hilarious.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on August 14, 2013, 06:46:46 pm
Amazing... Pentagon is going to be letting gay soldiers ~10 days off to go to states that allow gay marriage to marry.

http://www.newser.com/article/da81k8no0/pentagon-plan-would-grant-benefits-to-same-sex-spouses-but-deny-them-to-unmarried-gay-couples.html
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 14, 2013, 06:51:17 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on August 14, 2013, 06:28:25 pm
Huehuehue. This reminds me of Santorum claiming half the Dutch people die of involuntary euthanasia and the we all kill our elderly family members for their monnies or something. I'm still sad that dude's not your president, as it would have been incredibly hilarious.
Well, prepare to be disappointed forever, then. He would have lost even more spectacularly than Romney did. Last I heard of him he was ranting about how acknowledging the existence of the class divide is Marxist rhetoric.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on August 14, 2013, 08:26:24 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on August 14, 2013, 06:46:46 pm
Amazing... Pentagon is going to be letting gay soldiers ~10 days off to go to states that allow gay marriage to marry.

http://www.newser.com/article/da81k8no0/pentagon-plan-would-grant-benefits-to-same-sex-spouses-but-deny-them-to-unmarried-gay-couples.html

Not that amazing, the only thing holding them back was DOMA.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 15, 2013, 04:51:19 am
Quote from: Vector on August 14, 2013, 05:19:51 pm
Honestly... ?  I think we have the right to choose our own deaths.  It seems absurd to disallow it.
I'd disagree, many times it is the moral option for doctors to disallow patients the option to let themselves die, and they save their lives anyways because the patient is not thinking with a clear head when they are sick and in pain. Then of course the alternative is to allow perfectly healthy people to kill themselves.
I can't get over that, I don't think this should be legalized.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 15, 2013, 04:52:16 am
Or patients with depression for example.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 15, 2013, 05:25:20 am
 Patient autonomy laws imply that anyone able to give consent has also the right to refuse a procedure or treatment.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on August 15, 2013, 05:49:41 am
Quote from: Vector on August 14, 2013, 05:19:51 pm
Honestly... ?  I think we have the right to choose our own deaths.  It seems absurd to disallow it.

I agree, in cases where the person has been judged to be thinking rationally. If I want to die, that should be my choice.

Is suicide actually illegal? It seems pointless in the case of a sucessful suicide (what are they going to do, imprison your rotting corpse?), and arresting/jailing/fining someone for attempted suicide doesnt seem like it would actually help the problem.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 15, 2013, 06:05:17 am
Fairly sure it's illegal in parts of the states, at least. Certainly you can be institutionalized et al for attempting it. Not sure if or to the extent there's actual criminal laws, but yeah. Actual suicide isn't, s'far as I'm aware, but attempted suicide is (in some places), iirc. Or something very similar to illegal, anyway. E: Wiki has this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation#United_States) to say. Looks like it's improved, somewhat, since the last time my attention noticed it. E2: But do notice that last bit re: being committed for evaluation and treatment.

As for the first bit, the problem is with the "thinking rationally" part. There's those that hold that any action that seeks death is irrational, and thus anyone that would choose death over life, regardless as to the quality of that life, is not capable of thinking rationally -- and thus can have their autonomy overruled. I'm not entirely sure how much that line of thinking is legally enshrined these days, but I'm fairly certain it's been used before. Who decides what construes rational thought, and who is capable of it?

I'd be incredibly dubious that anyone making that claim has actually experienced something like chronic, crippling pain, or even "merely" extended and intense suffering, though. People who claim there's no fate worse than death rarely seem to have. Gods know if I had to live with something like kidney stone pain on a daily basis, I'd tear my own damn throat out. Couple weeks of that under fairly heavy painkillers was bad enough.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on August 15, 2013, 06:14:44 am
sometimes though people are unwilling to deal with a temporary problem, or don't believe the problem is temporary and resort to actions they regret later. nobody regrets a successful suicide but i don't think that makes a good argument
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on August 15, 2013, 06:17:07 am
Quote from: Askot Bokbondeler on August 15, 2013, 06:14:44 am
sometimes though people are unwilling to deal with a temporary problem, or don't believe the problem is temporary and resort to actions they regret later. nobody regrets a successful suicide but i don't think that makes a good argument

What if the pain is caused by a terminal illness? Or the sufferer may experience extreme pain for the rest of their life?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 15, 2013, 06:55:05 am
Here in Belgium, euthanasia is available if
a) There is no hope of treating the issue.
b) The issue cause intense, constant and intreatable suffering.
c) The patient request it repeatedly, without outside pressure, must be conscious and sound of mind, and and adult.


Interestingly, the pain doesn't have to be physical, psychological pain can be invoked. (Depression is ruled out however) For exemple last year we had a pair of deaf-born twins that requested euthanasia together as they were loosing sight and couldn't bear not to be able to see each other and communicate with each other.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MorleyDev on August 15, 2013, 07:11:58 am
In the UK, legally a Doctor can give someone any dosage of painkillers they feel is appropriate to stop the person feeling the pain. It's written to be just vague enough to not make euthanasia legal, but allow for it so long as the Doctor's word it right (i.e never acknowledge this is what they're doing whilst still getting patient consent to do it...it's a weird one).

Personally I support euthanasia, but think we need to abandon the concept it's a dying with dignity. It's a less painful way. If you can, track down the documentary with Terry Prachett: Choosing to Die. Watch the last moments of a man who just took the final drink, hear his last words. Whilst amongst his last words are to tell his wife not to be afraid, his actually last words? A coughing fit and a choked call for "Water....", pain in his voice.

I don't think you can die with dignity.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on August 15, 2013, 07:29:07 am
I wonder why he asked for water ...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on August 15, 2013, 07:30:25 am
Quote from: Skyrunner on August 15, 2013, 07:29:07 am
I wonder why he asked for water ...
Probably because the toxin was irritating his throat.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on August 15, 2013, 07:49:15 am
Quote from: alexandertnt on August 15, 2013, 06:17:07 am
Quote from: Askot Bokbondeler on August 15, 2013, 06:14:44 am
sometimes though people are unwilling to deal with a temporary problem, or don't believe the problem is temporary and resort to actions they regret later. nobody regrets a successful suicide but i don't think that makes a good argument

What if the pain is caused by a terminal illness? Or the sufferer may experience extreme pain for the rest of their life?
then it's a different case
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 15, 2013, 07:53:13 am
Rejecting  or limiting treatment is not euthanasia.  The difference is significant for legal and practical purposes :(
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 15, 2013, 07:54:18 am
I still think it's a better way to die. For one thing, it gives you the opportunity to die with your loved ones near you.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 15, 2013, 07:56:31 am
Quote from: MorleyDev on August 15, 2013, 07:11:58 am
In the UK, legally a Doctor can give someone any dosage of painkillers they feel is appropriate to stop the person feeling the pain. It's written to be just vague enough to not make euthanasia legal, but allow for it so long as the Doctor's word it right (i.e never acknowledge this is what they're doing whilst still getting patient consent to do it...it's a weird one).

Personally I support euthanasia, but think we need to abandon the concept it's a dying with dignity. It's a less painful way. If you can, track down the documentary with Terry Prachett: Choosing to Die. Watch the last moments of a man who just took the final drink, hear his last words. Whilst amongst his last words are to tell his wife not to be afraid, his actually last words? A coughing fit and a choked call for "Water....", pain in his voice.

I don't think you can die with dignity.

Being able to choose the way you die is a dignified thing, I imagine. My great uncle was illegally euthanised by our old family doctor about 20 years ago (I'm not afraid of saying that here, nobody knows who I am and hopefully never will) when he was in agony in his bed, dying of very advanced cancer of the liver or something if I remember correctly. The fact that his suffering ended left him with more dignity I believe - I couldn't imagine what it would have been like to just expire like that over time, waiting, sweating, writhing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 15, 2013, 09:55:30 am
Back to Russia and lgbt laws and the Olympics - in the not-quite-Olympics-but-still-World-Championships in Moscow going on right now, Swedish athlete Emma Green-Trebaro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Green_Tregaro) showed up with rainbow nail polish today. Swedish tv is playing it up, Russian journalists seem to not want to touch the issue at all.

Hopefully it's the first of many such protests from other athletes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 15, 2013, 10:06:41 am
Brilliant. It's noticeable enough to be recognized, but subtle enough that it will make the Russians seem insane if they do anything about it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 15, 2013, 10:09:09 am
I propose mass rainbow-flag bearing among spectators. You know, rip open your shirt like superman to reveal gay pride shirts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 15, 2013, 10:35:08 am
Homoerotic Hulk Hogan is running wild, brother!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MorleyDev on August 15, 2013, 10:59:38 am
The shit going on in Russia at the moment is really irritating me. I've been rather misanthropic lately, and signs of humanity appearing in all of the bile are so very pleasing to see. I hate the "well our laws" argument because it's a human rights issue, which means fuck your laws. Human rights, your rights stop at the point they get in the way of others. You have no right to call for the harming of another, none. And yes, we will decry those who think they do. And we will be right to do so.

Quote from: Owlbread on August 15, 2013, 07:56:31 am
The fact that his suffering ended left him with more dignity I believe - I couldn't imagine what it would have been like to just expire like that over time, waiting, sweating, writhing.

I grant the latter would be worse than the former. I do support the right to choose to die, I just dislike the idea of "dying with dignity". What I believe to be a better way to view it is as stopping yourself from having to live without dignity. The end, those last few moments on this earth, are always without dignity. Doesn't mean you should have to live without dignity.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Guardian G.I. on August 15, 2013, 04:18:44 pm
The International Olympic Committee announced that all protests advocating for gay rights by sportsmen at the 2014 Winter Olympics contravene the Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter which bans political protests and displays of political, religious or racial propaganda at the Olympic Games. Violators will be disqualified. (http://news.msn.com/world/ioc-gay-protests-wont-be-tolerated-at-olympics)

Gay rights activists will tear the IOC apart in 3, 2, 1...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 15, 2013, 04:22:51 pm
That was reported days ago, so your count is off. They've been tearing them apart for quite a while.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 15, 2013, 04:23:03 pm
We should boycott the Olympics.  Not because of Russia, but because the IOC is a terrible organization that deserves to fade into irrelevance.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 15, 2013, 04:24:34 pm
I've never even watched the Olympics or supported it financially in any way. I am of a more pure boycott than all of you![/gawdgetonmylevel]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Aptus on August 15, 2013, 04:25:39 pm
Quote from: Guardian G.I. on August 15, 2013, 04:18:44 pm
The International Olympic Committee announced that all protests advocating for gay rights by sportsmen at the 2014 Winter Olympics contravene the Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter which bans political protests and displays of political, religious or racial propaganda at the Olympic Games. Violators will be disqualified. (http://news.msn.com/world/ioc-gay-protests-wont-be-tolerated-at-olympics)

Gay rights activists will tear the IOC apart in 3, 2, 1...

This disgusts me. If I did not already not give a shit about the olympics I would be boycotting right about now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on August 15, 2013, 04:27:53 pm
I tend to miss the Olympics entirely. Shit like this reminds me it exists.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Guardian G.I. on August 15, 2013, 04:31:09 pm
All the fuzz over boycotting the Winter Olympics in Sochi reminds me of the threats to boycott the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing because of the Tibet independence campaign and general human rights violations.
Not a single Olympic team boycotted the Games. Furthermore, Georgian Olympic team didn't dare to stage anti-Russian protests in response to the war in South Ossetia, fearing possible disqualification.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 15, 2013, 04:34:57 pm
can we please not discuss how an organization that doesn't bend over backwards in full disregard of the regulations that have been there since the cold war became a thing (unless i am mistaken that's the time this one was added, as to not turn the olympics into a bloc vs bloc thing, they ended up being boycotted by people anyway) and how utterly horrible it is for that and how it should go die in a fire while there's a plethora of human rights abuses that have occurred while the olympics were not hosted in russia and that's more of a reason why it should be disliked? sure let's turn a blind eye to what was said in the previous discussion we already had on this (and my post was conveniently not replied to, but i don't hold it against someone to just stop talking when i'm starting a ~srs discuzzion~) but suffice to say the last three ones were bad on that front if not outright horrible but hey we had nice cgi and ridiculous mascots

Quote from: Guardian G.I. on August 15, 2013, 04:31:09 pm
All the fuzz over boycotting the Winter Olympics in Sochi reminds me of the threats to boycott the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing because of the Tibet independence campaign and general human rights violations.
Not a single Olympic team boycotted the Games. Furthermore, Georgian Olympic team didn't dare to stage anti-Russian protests in response to the war in South Ossetia, fearing possible disqualification.

also this
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 15, 2013, 04:40:06 pm
I loathe the Olympics and the IOC for the way that they've managed to turn competitions that were once about individuals into this... outlet for nationalism, really. Of the questionable sort. The Olympics in London were politicised to the Nth degree.

You may be surprised but I would rather Scotland did not have its own Olympic team. I would rather no country did, that it was about individual sportsmen and their abilities like it was in ancient times.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 15, 2013, 04:47:04 pm
@LordSlowpoke -
Your post was "conveniently not responded to" because it involved saying Jews should have just moved out of Europe when nobody liked them, and everyone was too much in pain from the resounding facepalment upon reading it that they could bother with it.

Also your posts are unstructured and run-on and it's hard to make sense if what point you're even trying to make.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 15, 2013, 04:49:15 pm
LordSlowpoke - the Olympics are pretty much an outright negative influence on the world, and we'd be better off without them. Their sole purpose is to advertise to as many people as possible while paying people as little as possible and acting as parasites on the countries they land in. Anything that opens more people's eyes to their bullshit is a good thing - I don't care how long they've had the regulations on the books.

Their primary motivation is, has been, and will continue to be "make as much money as possible, everything else be damned" and that's pretty much it.

Also you're words are kinda painful to read - you should consider not making your entire post a poorly punctuated capitalization resistent run on sentence.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 15, 2013, 04:49:32 pm
Quote from: scriver on August 15, 2013, 04:47:04 pm
@LordSlowpoke -
Your post was "conveniently not responded to" because it involved saying Jews should have just moved out of Europe when nobody liked them, and everyone was too much in pain from the resounding facepalment upon reading it that they could bother with it.

Also your posts are unstructured and run-on and it's hard to make sense if what point you're even trying to make.

sir

there was even an abbreviation included in the post you're responding to. it should have sated your sarcasmometer by all means. i have no idea what else should i have added.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 15, 2013, 04:51:49 pm
I mostly ignored it because I kept getting confused as to what you were actually trying to say.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 15, 2013, 04:58:35 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on August 15, 2013, 04:40:06 pm
I loathe the Olympics and the IOC for the way that they've managed to turn competitions that were once about individuals into this... outlet for nationalism, really. Of the questionable sort. The Olympics in London were politicised to the Nth degree.

You may be surprised but I would rather Scotland did not have its own Olympic team. I would rather no country did, that it was about individual sportsmen and their abilities like it was in ancient times.
The modern Olympics were always about political prestige. And most of them had controversies going on, at least in the background.

The ancient Olympics were not much better, that is a very idealized view. If you read up on them, they were at least as political as the modern ones. Also you didn't even have to participate yourself in some cases, many prominent winners were the owners, not the steerers of the horse wagons for example.

@LordSlowpoke
Your longer posts would be much easier to read if you would capitalize the first letter of your sentences or use more paragraphs. (No offense, just sayin'.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 15, 2013, 05:15:07 pm
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 15, 2013, 04:49:32 pm
Quote from: scriver on August 15, 2013, 04:47:04 pm
@LordSlowpoke -
Your post was "conveniently not responded to" because it involved saying Jews should have just moved out of Europe when nobody liked them, and everyone was too much in pain from the resounding facepalment upon reading it that they could bother with it.

Also your posts are unstructured and run-on and it's hard to make sense if what point you're even trying to make.

sir

there was even an abbreviation included in the post you're responding to. it should have sated your sarcasmometer by all means. i have no idea what else should i have added.

If by "abbreviation" you mean mouseover text then you should bear in mind that not all browsers can even see them, nor do all computers have mice or mousepointers. So you could begin by not assuming people have read what they might not have any way of telling is there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 15, 2013, 05:26:40 pm
It was also at its core a deflectionist argument and those are bad.  If you really care about Kyrgyzstan then you should start a discussion about it rather than going on about how it's so much important than other discussions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on August 15, 2013, 05:37:44 pm
Quote from: XXSockXX on August 15, 2013, 04:58:35 pm
The modern Olympics were always about political prestige. And most of them had controversies going on, at least in the background.

The ancient Olympics were not much better, that is a very idealized view. If you read up on them, they were at least as political as the modern ones. Also you didn't even have to participate yourself in some cases, many prominent winners were the owners, not the steerers of the horse wagons for example.
They also viewed all forms of doping (at least all the forms they had and tried back then) as perfectly legitimate. Which has always been a bit of an interesting thing to me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on August 15, 2013, 05:44:58 pm
Quote from: Pnx on August 15, 2013, 05:37:44 pm
Quote from: XXSockXX on August 15, 2013, 04:58:35 pm
The modern Olympics were always about political prestige. And most of them had controversies going on, at least in the background.

The ancient Olympics were not much better, that is a very idealized view. If you read up on them, they were at least as political as the modern ones. Also you didn't even have to participate yourself in some cases, many prominent winners were the owners, not the steerers of the horse wagons for example.
They also viewed all forms of doping (at least all the forms they had and tried back then) as perfectly legitimate. Which has always been a bit of an interesting thing to me.
I never got why not. Eating a healthier diet makes you better at sport, and so do steroids. Really there's no difference between the two apart from whether or not society sees them as normal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on August 15, 2013, 05:57:08 pm
Well there's the issue of health and well being, there are plenty of athletes out there that would ruin themselves if it gave them a better chance of winning.

But then again we let athletes train in high altitudes for a while, which has some distinctly "unnatural" performance enhancement.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 15, 2013, 05:58:13 pm
Ideally the limitations on what athletes can put in their bodies depends on the harm it causes them. Steroids give a host of negative issues alongside the boost to muscle mass.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 15, 2013, 06:05:31 pm
Healthy food and training isn't the same as doping. And it's not just steroids, but all kinds of stuff. If you allow doping, in the end the winner will be the one with the better chemists and doctors in the team. Just like with all the great formula 1 drivers who suddenly suck if their new team has a shitty car.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on August 15, 2013, 06:06:56 pm
Quote from: XXSockXX on August 15, 2013, 06:05:31 pm
Healthy food and training isn't the same as doping. And it's not just steroids, but all kinds of stuff. If you allow doping, in the end the winner will be the one with the better chemists and doctors in the team. Just like with all the great formula 1 drivers who suddenly suck if their new team has a shitty car.
Well right now the winner is either the one with the best genetics or the best dieticians and trainers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 15, 2013, 06:12:37 pm
Sure, training and diet make a difference. And genetics is the most important obviously. But that is all "natural", and that is what most sports are about. Doping can make a much bigger difference than that. With the right stuff you can make superhumans out of relatively normal people (if only for a short time and with some negative impact on their health of course).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 15, 2013, 06:14:32 pm
Ha-hem

The current diet we're eating is NATURAL, you say?  Our genetics are NATURAL, you say?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 15, 2013, 06:23:13 pm
You notice the quotation marks around "natural", right? I meant natural in the perceived sense of physical ability vs chemicals in the context of doping. AKA do you have stamina from training or from cocaine? (which ironically would also be natural).
Apart from that I would guess that my genes are natural and most of my diet is too.  ;)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on August 15, 2013, 06:31:21 pm
Are we going to complain about why the word natural is misapplied so often? Because I would like that.
Fact is that everything is natural. Everything that exists arose from and conforms to natural laws (Unless it's one of Cthulu's friends I guess). When people claim that what humans do is unnatural it's just trying to lift humans above the rest of nature, which is dishonest and self-centred.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 15, 2013, 06:40:11 pm
True. I don't want to get into a semantics debate.

Regarding doping, let's just say it's against the rules. The rules allow no ability enhancing drugs or medical procedures. Some forms of doping don't even involve chemicals, like the blood doping that was so common with bicyclists.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 15, 2013, 06:42:48 pm
The concept of "artificial" is a helpful one in certain contexts, but "better or worse" is not one of them, yeah.

As has been said, the problem with steroids is the long-term consequences on the athlete's health. A good diet, physical training, and so on are usually better for your health anyway. The thing that comes closest the stress of certain sports, such as American football, which do significantly increase your chances of long-term health problems. Even there, those stresses are integral to the sport to an extent, which is a bit different than needing to put those stresses on yourself to be successful. There's a bit more of an element of freely choosing to put yourself at risk there, or at least there would be if those sports didn't generate such disproportionate amounts of income and fame, and knowledge of the risks was a bit more popularly spread. But I feel like those aren't exactly analogous issues because they don't have much to do with the rules of the game.

Even the blood one has implications for health, and I'm largely against allowing anything that forces athletes to undergo medical procedures in order to remain competitive.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 15, 2013, 08:05:57 pm
I haven't met anyone who has played a sport for a significant amount of time without needing at least some minor surgery because of the wear and tear (and breaking and crushing) done to their body.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on August 15, 2013, 08:22:05 pm
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 15, 2013, 04:34:57 pm
can we please not discuss how an organization that doesn't bend over backwards in full disregard of the regulations that have been there since the cold war became a thing (unless i am mistaken that's the time this one was added, as to not turn the olympics into a bloc vs bloc thing, they ended up being boycotted by people anyway) and how utterly horrible it is for that and how it should go die in a fire while there's a plethora of human rights abuses that have occurred while the olympics were not hosted in russia and that's more of a reason why it should be disliked? sure let's turn a blind eye to what was said in the previous discussion we already had on this (and my post was conveniently not replied to, but i don't hold it against someone to just stop talking when i'm starting a ~srs discuzzion~) but suffice to say the last three ones were bad on that front if not outright horrible but hey we had nice cgi and ridiculous mascots
Why I hate this idea:

"You didn't boycott them in the past? Then you're not allowed to make up for that and start now!"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 15, 2013, 08:24:56 pm
It would be pretty wonderful if someone who loaded the fireworks at the Olympics did it a rainbow formation....

Hint hint.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 16, 2013, 04:31:51 am
Quote from: Scelly9 on August 15, 2013, 08:24:56 pm
It would be pretty wonderful if someone who loaded the fireworks at the Olympics did it a rainbow formation....

Hint hint.

At the World Atheltics Championships in Russia, did you see the Russian athlete giving an interveiw defending her nations stance? Did you also see the Sweedish athletes painting thier nails in the rainbow flag?  (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/23717242)

In other sports related shenanigans, the South African Rugby Union is applying a new rule which places a required minimum number of black players in a team... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/23713530)

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on August 16, 2013, 04:34:10 am
Quote from: Scelly9 on August 15, 2013, 08:24:56 pm
It would be pretty wonderful if someone who loaded the fireworks at the Olympics did it a rainbow formation....

Hint hint.
If they had the intent of it being a political statement it would be in violation of the 'no politics' rule.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 16, 2013, 08:43:00 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on August 15, 2013, 08:05:57 pm
I haven't met anyone who has played a sport for a significant amount of time without needing at least some minor surgery because of the wear and tear (and breaking and crushing) done to their body.

What counts as a significant amount of time?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 16, 2013, 10:59:31 am
Like 3+ years, I guess. Also I'm not sure if stuff like fixing broken fingers counts as minor surgery. But I've seen a lot of broken fingers, broken legs, blown out knees, broken collarbones... mostly a lot of broken stuff, I suppose.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 16, 2013, 11:00:48 am
Man, maybe for high-impact stuff.  Japanese martial arts don't, to my understanding, usually have that sort of problem.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 16, 2013, 11:03:39 am
Now that I think about it, none of the people that did track or other running stuff got injured. Just the ones where people are slamming into each other or sending balls flying around.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 16, 2013, 11:10:16 am
Quote from: Vector on August 16, 2013, 11:00:48 am
Man, maybe for high-impact stuff.  Japanese martial arts don't, to my understanding, usually have that sort of problem.
It depends on the martial art, actually. The more sparring-focused/competition-focused ones have their fair share of serious injuries, from what I understand.

I actually stopped playing volleyball/wallyball because I kept getting injuries. (sprains, but one of them knocked me out of work for a week and kept me off my foot for a month and a half or so. Took several more months to fully recover, still hurts occassionally).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 16, 2013, 11:15:22 am
Ah, injuries are common in e.g. kendo, but they're usually not the sort of thing that requires surgery to my understanding.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 16, 2013, 11:17:30 am
I think "surgery" was the wrong word for what I wanted to convey.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 16, 2013, 11:19:10 am
I played football for 7 years and wrestled for 4 without any serious injuries.  I'm not sure how many of my teammates could say the same, though.

It's one of those things I feel justified being immodest about, because I'm not obviously big or muscular.  People almost always assume that I'm not a tough or athletic person.  It can be fun to correct them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 16, 2013, 11:21:21 am
Well if you didn't get any serious injuries you can't be THAT tough or athletic!

;)

And Vector, I missed the surgery bit and thought this was just about broken stuff and other injuries with potentially long-lasting consequences.

It's a bit weird to make surgery the limitation anyways, since many of the worst sports injuries are concussions which cause permanent damage but don't end up having surgery done because of them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 16, 2013, 03:25:46 pm
been playing Rugby for almost 20 years, man and boy. One smashed wrist, one dislocated jaw, one dislocated knee. Nobody counts broken or disloctaed fingers as they happen to someone each and every game. I have gotten off quite lightly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 16, 2013, 04:02:13 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on August 16, 2013, 04:34:10 am
Quote from: Scelly9 on August 15, 2013, 08:24:56 pm
It would be pretty wonderful if someone who loaded the fireworks at the Olympics did it a rainbow formation....

Hint hint.
If they had the intent of it being a political statement it would be in violation of the 'no politics' rule.
Yes, that would be the point.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on August 17, 2013, 03:22:46 pm
So this is a thing that happens:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/17/us/victims-dilemma-911-calls-can-bring-eviction.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lue on August 17, 2013, 03:47:12 pm
It sounds like a good idea at first, until you realize it's just a "Your domestic violence is interrupting my quiet reading time, go away." type of law instead of one that actually helps solve the issue.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on August 17, 2013, 04:47:21 pm
It's if an emergency call is made and gets services sent to your house 4 times.
Which is pretty silly. You can't call someone disruptive because someone broke into their house or tried to burn it down or some other crime.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 18, 2013, 02:27:56 am
The Uk's high speed train system isn't exactly doing well (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10249815/High-speed-rail-scheme-cost-to-double-to-80bn-economists-warn.html)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 18, 2013, 12:49:23 pm
For some reason, British governments and trains just don't mix anymore. We can't do them right, haven't been able to for about a century or so. If you think the rail link is bad by the way you should see the Edinburgh tram fiasco.

Of course we could pay for this railway link quite easily if we just scrapped trident.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 18, 2013, 01:36:55 pm
I am all for big infrastructure projects as a means to create jobs and generate income for the nation - the trouble is there is no real projected need for the HS2 link thatI can find that does a good job of justifying the immense sums anticipated to build it (which is predicted to shorten the travel time from the N.West to London by about 50% - worth £80bn??), and like most projects that will be administered under the Tories it will serve to generate income for the rich companies who land the contracts, not the workers who do the building or the nation as a whole through some kind of secondary wealth generation compared to the sums involved in the construction.

People have suggested several cheaper or cost equivalent alternatives with greater potential benefits, such as an east coast motorway, a bridge to the Isle of Wight, an expansion to Heathrow (or new S.East airport), removing the rail bottleneck in the N.East, a second channel crossing (possibly a road bridge-tunnel similar to the one in Tokyo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Bay_Aqua-Line), or some kind of integrated tram system in one or more major city.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 18, 2013, 02:20:51 pm
To be fair, the current railway connections are almost at capacity. Though there have been other, much smaller, projects suggested. A nice spread out refit of infrastructure all around the UK could have a much larger effect, across the entire the continent.

Quote from: Owlbread on August 18, 2013, 12:49:23 pm
Of course we could pay for this railway link quite easily if we just scrapped trident.
Total Trident cost is a mere 10 billion pounds. (about 40% paid by the US).

Of course, there's a significant maintenance cost, but that would barely pay for the program, even if you take the expenditures for 30 years. Especially dismantelement of bases and weaponry could be costly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 18, 2013, 02:31:06 pm
The railways are at capacity in buil up areas at peak times. At other times away from cities, the trains are nigh on empty. Due to there being so many smaller train companies working in different regions, or competing against one another and often operating under subsidy, there is little to no probability of empty trains being used more sensibly to bolster areas bursting at the seams.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 18, 2013, 03:09:17 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 18, 2013, 02:20:51 pm
Total Trident cost is a mere 10 billion pounds. (about 40% paid by the US).

Of course, there's a significant maintenance cost, but that would barely pay for the program, even if you take the expenditures for 30 years. Especially dismantelement of bases and weaponry could be costly.

I'm not talking about acquisition costs. Maintenance costs are now around 2 billion pounds per year, having risen in the last decade from 1 billion. We are currently replacing said nuclear defence system for roughly 25 billion pounds. According to the think tank known as BASIC (British American Security Information Council) scrapping trident would save the British government 83 billion pounds over the next 50 years, whereas Greenpeace claim that the replacement costs are going to be closer to 34 billion pounds, while the upkeep costs for the system over its 30 year lifespan will be roughly 130 billion pounds altogether.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 18, 2013, 04:47:09 pm
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/12/christian-bigots-lost-at-sea/

I ... what?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on August 18, 2013, 05:07:25 pm
Quote from: Truean on August 18, 2013, 04:47:09 pm
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/12/christian-bigots-lost-at-sea/

I ... what?
There's not much discussion to be had about this. It can be agreed upon by everybody that these people are morons and irresponsible and should probably have their children taken away.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 18, 2013, 05:07:40 pm
Quote from: Truean on August 18, 2013, 04:47:09 pm
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/12/christian-bigots-lost-at-sea/

I ... what?
They must have been blown off course by the Gay Magic.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 18, 2013, 05:21:04 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 18, 2013, 05:07:40 pm
Quote from: Truean on August 18, 2013, 04:47:09 pm
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/12/christian-bigots-lost-at-sea/

I ... what?
They must have been blown off course by the Gay Magic.
Curse you, Fabulous Poseidon?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 18, 2013, 05:29:56 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on August 18, 2013, 05:21:04 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 18, 2013, 05:07:40 pm
Quote from: Truean on August 18, 2013, 04:47:09 pm
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/12/christian-bigots-lost-at-sea/

I ... what?
They must have been blown off course by the Gay Magic.
Curse you, Fabulous Poseidon?

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2781#comic
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on August 18, 2013, 05:30:14 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on August 18, 2013, 05:21:04 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 18, 2013, 05:07:40 pm
Quote from: Truean on August 18, 2013, 04:47:09 pm
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/12/christian-bigots-lost-at-sea/

I ... what?
They must have been blown off course by the Gay Magic.
Curse you, Fabulous Poseidon?
Spoiler: And yet it was created before you had even conceived of it (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lue on August 18, 2013, 05:36:47 pm
Quote from: My thoughts, seeing the headline
♪Hallelujah, Michael row the boat a-shore.♫

My guess for why more extremist people don't flee the country is simply that most are not that extreme.

And, to dampen the flaming liberalism of the article a smidge, what American would move to any of those other places just to practice anti-homosexuality? They just want Modern America - liberals + Bible Law.

Quote from: Truean on August 18, 2013, 05:29:56 pm
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2781#comic

That's the second smbc comic I've seen here on bay12 in the past couple of days. I think I'm convinced to read it now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 18, 2013, 05:41:23 pm
Quote from: lue on August 18, 2013, 05:36:47 pm
And, to dampen the flaming liberalism of the article a smidge, what American would move to any of those other places just to practice anti-homosexuality? They just want Modern America - liberals + Bible Law.
Aren't there those ones that head off to Africa and whatnot to do just that? Blazes if I can remember any sources of it off the top of my head, but Americans jumping country to push (often violent) anti-homosexuality in other nations more sympathetic to such things is actually a thing, if my memory's not failing me. S'a bit of a problem, really, since they often bring resources (of varying sorts) to folks that are, y'know, killing people et al.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on August 18, 2013, 06:05:14 pm
Around here, the violent anti-gay bigots hang out in places that gay people live.  They beat up random strangers, and hope that they get the gay ones. :<
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 19, 2013, 09:21:07 pm
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/ontario-police-aware-hateful-letter-telling-family-euthanize-171036930.html

... Abhorrent. "Euthanize?" How lovely....

See, first (after the reform era) they had mental institutions called "asylums," and at least in theory they were called that as a place of refuge. That is, it was a place of refuge for the mentally ill, from you, everyone else.... They were supposed to be places where the insane could seek respite from the world, which nature in its cruelty did not give them the ability to deal with fairly. Sadly the reality was that these places ended up being terrible. Now, nobody wants to pay to establish, run and properly maintain these places, so logically, we have to have severely mentally disabled people out in the world. Again, won't pay for proper treatment, so by default they are left out in the world (hence why many homeless people have mental illnesses).

So, not wanting to properly pay for inpatient care, outpatient treatment, or any type of services for this poor child, the neighbor just thinks the kid should be dead or at least not within earshot.... NIMBY (Not in my back yard).

One of the problems with treating people as their medical condition is that it becomes so much easier to dehumanize them. It's so much easier to gloss over things like an individual's rights, or freedoms. No, they become "a disease" with ... terrible ... awful symptoms.... And not to worry, there is a cure for said disease, or at least a treatment--cruelty... We are cruel and seek a way to justify it....

I look at this line of thinking with such disdain....

That person is hurting, unjustly as a rule. Rather than contempt, compassion?

_____________________________________________________________________________

http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-court-shouldnt-invent-minorities-221932818.html

Ever since, the whole Corporations can behind the scenes bribe, I mean campaign contribution "Corporations are people with free speech rights" ~ Citizens United.... You've lost any and all credibility from that point onward in my eyes. Because, if you follow this logic, then Brown v. Board of Education would've never happened. I mean hey, by this line of thinking, Brown v. Board should've been decided the other way until and unless Congress decided to pass a law forbidding segregation of black people and white people.... Pre existing things like the US Constitution aren't good enough? 14th amendment's right to life liberty and property not good enough?  Equal protection clause? Pick one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 19, 2013, 09:36:47 pm
While screaming children are horrible regardless of mental capacity, that is not an appropriate response.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 20, 2013, 02:32:48 am
I also love how apparently  being able to go outside is a special treatment.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: shadenight123 on August 20, 2013, 03:01:46 am
...the kid screams and that's an excuse for euthanasia?
Don't all kids scream? She has children too, right? Excuse me, do her children scream too? Because if they do, then clearly they are unable to properly exist in society and must be purged.
Society after all is made only for those who do not scream, who obey the laws, and are genetically perfect under all points of view. //sarcasm mode off now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mech#4 on August 20, 2013, 06:06:28 am
Can we fund a trip to space for the noisy kids?  :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 20, 2013, 06:20:18 am
That's the problem with this country, nobody thinks anybody is entitled to anything. Somehow "entitled" became a bad word.... "Entitled," applied to common usage and common people was one of the most noble things we've ever done as a species.

The idea that you can't just do things to people, because they were entitled to certain rights which cannot be ignored and which they can invoke, was a good one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on August 20, 2013, 07:57:04 am
No no, see, nobody thinks anyone else is entitled to any rights or privileges. They, of course, are entitled to everything.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on August 20, 2013, 09:52:19 am
Somehow "entitled" became a synonym for "spoiled". As in, "Ugh, they are so entitled!"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on August 20, 2013, 11:56:10 am
Quote from: Descan on August 20, 2013, 09:52:19 am
Somehow "entitled" became a synonym for "spoiled". As in, "Ugh, they are so entitled!"
I think it started off as people being too lazy to say "They feel like they're entitled to everything".
Then "They feel so entitled".
Then just "They're so entitled".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on August 20, 2013, 11:59:28 am
Quote from: Graknorke on August 20, 2013, 11:56:10 am
Quote from: Descan on August 20, 2013, 09:52:19 am
Somehow "entitled" became a synonym for "spoiled". As in, "Ugh, they are so entitled!"
I think it started off as people being too lazy to say "They feel like they're entitled to everything".
Then "They feel so entitled".
Then just "They're so entitled".
It's Newspeak.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on August 20, 2013, 01:01:29 pm
A little behind on the news right now, but just saw this (http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/10/texas-on-voting-rights-its-not-about-race-just-politics/).
Quote
Texas didn’t discriminate against minority voters. It was only because they were Democrats. And even if it did, the racial discrimination Texas engaged in is nowhere near as bad as the stuff that happened in the 1960s.
So basically Texas' defence against charges of racial discrimination is that they are just discriminating politically to disenfranchise Democrats, and that happens to involve disenfranchising minorities disproportionately.

Nice.

Also legally irelvant given (IIRC) the clause in question in the VRA talks about racial effect rather than the legislative intent behind that effect, so so long as it has a discriminatory racial effect it doesn't matter why they are putting the law forwards.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 21, 2013, 10:07:24 am
Quote from: Owlbread on August 18, 2013, 12:49:23 pm
Of course we could pay for this railway link quite easily if we just scrapped trident.
Yeah, then we could just be entirely dependent on the USA or Queenie forbid, France, for nuclear deterrent.

Quote from: greatorder on August 20, 2013, 01:05:21 pm
@Truean's post with the retarded letter

I have one very minor complaint (compared to the others) about that letter, and that's the overuse of ! and ?

I mean, I don't use about fifteen exclamation marks when I say anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, I suspected it was a fake but the trails................. Of punctuation led me to believe it was simply an educated moron unused to writing letters.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 21, 2013, 10:39:23 am
Yeah, right, because we all know what happen when you're a big NATO power without a nuclear detterent of your own. Look at Germany and Turkey, they're half-commie, half-zombie already!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 21, 2013, 10:45:48 am
Quote from: Sheb on August 21, 2013, 10:39:23 am
Yeah, right, because we all know what happen when you're a big NATO power without a nuclear detterent of your own. Look at Germany and Turkey, they're half-commie, half-zombie already!
And do you see any commie-zombies in the UK? 28 weeks later doesn't count, they were NHS patients not zombies.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 21, 2013, 10:46:33 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 21, 2013, 10:45:48 am
Quote from: Sheb on August 21, 2013, 10:39:23 am
Yeah, right, because we all know what happen when you're a big NATO power without a nuclear detterent of your own. Look at Germany and Turkey, they're half-commie, half-zombie already!
And do you see any commie-zombies in the UK? 28 weeks later doesn't count, they were NHS patients not zombies.

Ah, good old elephant repellant!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 21, 2013, 10:54:50 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 21, 2013, 10:46:33 am
Ah, good old elephant repellant!
Or just got little time to make any serious, muscle-hearted and committed posts as of yet. Plus it'd make a good topic on the Euro-pol thread, but I'd have to hold it for a later date, a time with better internets.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 21, 2013, 10:56:34 am
Well, you're welcome to discuss it in the Euro thread anytime, but I'm really curious what kind of argument you can make.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 21, 2013, 11:12:07 am
Quote from: Sheb on August 21, 2013, 10:39:23 am
Yeah, right, because we all know what happen when you're a big NATO power without a nuclear detterent of your own. Look at Germany and Turkey, they're half-commie, half-zombie already!
Germany has 2 operational nuclear missile bases, a third one on standby, and actually fabricate' s France's Nuclear weaponry, so they kinda have the knowledge and material to make more.

Turkey has between 40-90 nuclear weapons, all made in the US.

I mean, even Belgium technically has strike capacity. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/europe-s-five-undeclared-nuclear-weapons-states/17550)

Note: We don't have the detonation codes of foreign nuclear weaponry, but we'd get them if we need them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 21, 2013, 11:20:45 am
Quote from: Sheb on August 21, 2013, 10:39:23 am
Look at Germany and Turkey, they're half-commie, half-zombie already!
Ah, that explains why my brain fell out at the kolkhoz this morning.  :P

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 21, 2013, 11:12:07 am
Germany has 2 operational nuclear missile bases, a third one on standby, and actually fabricate' s France's Nuclear weaponry, so they kinda have the knowledge and material to make more.
The bases belong to the US though. We may have the knowledge to build nukes, but neither public opinion nor international treaties (it was actually a point in the re-unification treaty) would allow us to do so.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 21, 2013, 11:23:33 am
Capabilities != nuclear weapons. AFAIK, neither Germany nor Turkey got the launch code, so they are effectively dependent on US deterrent, the precise thing that frighten Loud Whisper so much.

I actually posted my argument on the Eurpean thread, so I suggest we move the discussion there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 21, 2013, 11:56:04 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 21, 2013, 10:07:24 am
Yeah, then we could just be entirely dependent on the USA or Queenie forbid, France, for nuclear deterrent.

But we don't need any nuclear deterrent at all. I agree with Sheb, we should move that conversation to the European thread.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 21, 2013, 01:45:52 pm
Anyone wants to buy some of the world's history?  (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/21/nasa-sells-shuttle-launch-platforms)

It's kinda sad that NASA has to sell out like this. Launchpad's, landing strips, launch platforms... Everything has to go.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 22, 2013, 01:52:37 am
Well, why keep it if they don't use it anymore? Selling it so the kit is available to private space companies seems better.

On antoher note, the Seattle PD has been handing out munchies at this year hempfest. (http://www.salon.com/2013/08/20/meet_the_cops_who_give_doritos_to_potheads/) Pretty cool initiative, but funnily enough it was done with private money and private time. Apparently the taxpayer only pay for violent police actions, not the cool ones.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 22, 2013, 02:02:45 am
Quote from: Sheb on August 22, 2013, 01:52:37 am
Well, why keep it if they don't use it anymore? Selling it so the kit is available to private space companies seems better.
Oh, they could probably repurpose it. I mean, it dates back to the Saturn projects. Point is they don't have the funds to make use of what they got anymore.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 22, 2013, 09:01:55 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 22, 2013, 02:02:45 am
Quote from: Sheb on August 22, 2013, 01:52:37 am
Well, why keep it if they don't use it anymore? Selling it so the kit is available to private space companies seems better.
Oh, they could probably repurpose it. I mean, it dates back to the Saturn projects. Point is they don't have the funds to make use of what they got anymore.
Every rocket since Apollo's been getting weaker. It's a travesty to human progress.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 22, 2013, 09:12:02 am
Sad thing is that even if we had the funds, and the need, we couldn't build them anymore.

Formulas and designs for quite a few parts have been lost. For example, while working on the shuttle, they tried to look into the heat shielding of the Apollo and found out that they didn't know how to make them anymore.

And in hindsight, switching the Saturn for the shuttle was a step backwards, proving both less reliable, less capable and more expensive than it's earlier predecessor.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 22, 2013, 09:27:22 am
Nuclear weapons and military research are much more important and worthy of spending. Surely.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 22, 2013, 09:32:34 am
Quote from: Owlbread on August 22, 2013, 09:27:22 am
Nuclear weapons and military research are much more important and worthy of spending. Surely.
Nah, it's the corporate interests and legal bribery in the US that killed this one of. Same ones that killed the shuttle. (Though, to be fair, that one was pretty death anyway)

And saddled us up with the Space Launch System. (Which is expensive and underperforming due to being forced to use shuttle technology, rather than what was best for the job)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 22, 2013, 10:57:09 am
The trouble with the space shuttle was that is was designed with public image in mind by committiee. It ended up being part heavy lift system, part satellite launcher, part orbital lab, and part human spaceflight module - jack of all trades, master of none. With such a complex craft, unreliability was inevitable, hence the insane cost of operating it and frequent saftey scares, particularly when it was being used beyond its shelf life. It would have made more sense for NASA to diverissfy the Saturn/Apollo programme into 3 strands, alas, nobody looks that far into the future, and my hindsight is 20/20.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on August 22, 2013, 11:52:29 am
Bradley Manning has revealed that she is trans* and is going to change her name to Chelsea. (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/08/2013822153522726776.html)

Of course, Al Jazeera can't be arsed to refer to her properly. Hell, even the facebook comments for the article are better, and this is fucking Al Jazeera! Every comment on their facebook is almost as bad as Yahoo! comments.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 22, 2013, 11:57:30 am
Supposedly, Manning being transsexual has been open information for a while now, it just hasn't been reported on until this letter. I certainly didn't hear anything about it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 22, 2013, 12:00:50 pm
Is it just a coincidence that the media has not really been making a big deal about this until after Manning was sentenced?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 22, 2013, 12:12:58 pm
There was some media attention devoted to this back when the chat logs with Lamo were released.  He confided some gender identity issues there, but I don't think it was ever described as full on transexuality.  I think what's most likely is Manning avoided the issue as much as possible for PR reasons while his trial was ongoing.  Now that he knows he's going to be locked up for a long time where it's unlikely to matter, he has no reason not to confess his identity.  He also probably did a lot of soul searching on the subject while in solitary confinement.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 22, 2013, 12:20:15 pm
Quote from: Descan on August 22, 2013, 11:52:29 am
Bradley Manning has revealed that she is trans* and is going to change her name to Chelsea. (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/08/2013822153522726776.html)
I'm suspicious as to why Manning wants to begin Hormone therapy now. I can't help but draw parallels to Chevalier d'Eon, a spy and a whistleblower, both had secrets; one kept them, the other released them. One was discredited by being forced into womanhood, the other is 'volunteering' himself into it. The corporate media machine will love every opportunity that suggests instability in the American psyche.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 22, 2013, 12:28:21 pm
From what I understand, he delayed doing this first for professional reasons, and second to appear better before the court.

She's got no more reason to hide it or deny it, since she's no longer worry about employment or sentencing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on August 22, 2013, 12:28:49 pm
I'm sure she did, SalmonGod. :/
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 22, 2013, 12:29:23 pm
I also heard that Manning may suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome. She's classic gender dysphoria though, 100%. I heard she even joined the army in the first place to "man up".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on August 22, 2013, 03:00:37 pm
Well then... It certainly was a bit of a surprise. I personally doubt any particular ill-intent, although I do wonder about the timing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 22, 2013, 03:11:09 pm
Quote from: misko27 on August 22, 2013, 03:00:37 pm
Well then... It certainly was a bit of a surprise. I personally doubt any particular ill-intent, although I do wonder about the timing.

It wasn't for me, I'd seen stuff about it for quite a while in circulation. It's been referenced for quite a while, though it gathered momentum a while ago when they showed the picture of her in a wig during the trial.

The timing is probably because she has nothing to lose anymore.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 22, 2013, 03:18:03 pm
Sounds a little like we're supposed to trust her. Sounds a little like my reaction is an intended response. I'm not on the side of the US and other governments, incidentally.

Edit: too many sound a little's. G'damn repetitiveness.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 22, 2013, 03:21:53 pm
Sounds a little like Novel Scoops is jumping at shadows and implying nonsensible mega-conspiracies again...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 22, 2013, 03:23:21 pm
The thread doesn't quite give the impression that bleeding hearts are completely null and void for transgendered.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 22, 2013, 03:24:44 pm
What are you actually trying to say. Its so god damn frustrating when you do this and you are doing it more and more often lately.

You are terrible at implying things, insuating things, or otherwise subtly communicating complex ideas. Stop implying context but refusing to actually supply it.

Please, for the love of fuck, just say what you are trying to communicate.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 22, 2013, 03:27:49 pm
The political left is sympathetic to the plight of the transgendered, and a leaker who is being played up as a sympathetic figure turns out to be transgendered. Whoop dedo conspiracy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 22, 2013, 03:29:08 pm
You could easier see it the other way round. I bet making that public at the same time as the leaks occured or even before the trial would have impacted public opinion negatively and hurt her credibility. I'm thinking of "A traitor AND a pervert" type headlines, similar to how Assange is portrayed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 22, 2013, 03:30:02 pm
I imagine his sentence would be lower in that case.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 22, 2013, 03:31:01 pm
Okay, you have stated some facts. And then... again, contextless, meaningless statements.

Do you think it's a conspiracy? By whom? To do what? Why are you hesitant simply because it's obvious? (It's not obvious to me)

Why would her sentence be lower? Especially since it WAS brought up during the actual trial? Being transgendered is not something that makes you more popular in the US, so why would it being public have done anything to shorten the sentence length?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on August 22, 2013, 03:36:42 pm
Quote from: Descan on August 22, 2013, 12:28:49 pm
I'm sure she did, SalmonGod. :/

His response sums up how the media, even those supposedly supportive of her, have been treating Manning, isn't it?

It was pretty clear she was trans for a long time now even though her team was keeping it quiet.

P.S. Fuck everybody suggesting this was some kind of conspiracy on the media's part.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 22, 2013, 03:37:38 pm
I edited out the "hesitant because it's obvious" bit within ten seconds, but my luck :). "Whoop dedo conspiracy" was sarcasm, because cultivating a sympathetic response in the political side that care the most about the leaks couldn't possibly be convenient. I thought the sentence would be lower because the degree of leftwing backlash against popular disdain for Manning based purely on being transgendered might in fact rally more support in more countries, with more coverage of that support then i heard off actually occurring. An unduly harsh sentence would also have caused more uproar.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 22, 2013, 03:40:46 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on August 22, 2013, 03:24:44 pm
What are you actually trying to say. Its so god damn frustrating when you do this and you are doing it more and more often lately.

You are terrible at implying things, insuating things, or otherwise subtly communicating complex ideas. Stop implying context but refusing to actually supply it.

Please, for the love of fuck, just say what you are trying to communicate.

Novel's nebulous diction is renowned for bursting the heads of those who try to fathom it.

I would recommend reading the essay "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell, Novel. He will cure you of some of your ailments and if you try to copy his general writing style it can only do you good.

I wonder if Manning coming out like this will help spur on the next big civil rights movement, which will undoubtedly be based around transgendered rights. They're like the next big frontier.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 22, 2013, 03:49:40 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on August 22, 2013, 03:40:46 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on August 22, 2013, 03:24:44 pm
What are you actually trying to say. Its so god damn frustrating when you do this and you are doing it more and more often lately.

You are terrible at implying things, insuating things, or otherwise subtly communicating complex ideas. Stop implying context but refusing to actually supply it.

Please, for the love of fuck, just say what you are trying to communicate.

Novel's nebulous diction is renowned for bursting the heads of those who try to fathom it.

I would recommend reading the essay "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell, Novel. He will cure you of some of your ailments and if you try to copy his general writing style it can only do you good.

I wonder if Manning coming out like this will help spur on the next big civil rights movement, which will undoubtedly be based around transgendered rights. They're like the next big frontier.

I'm reading it. I rely on each of my posts being taken in context of both the prior ones and the one I'm responding too, but conversational habits don't transfer well to the internet.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on August 22, 2013, 03:51:57 pm
Novel, if everyone and their grandmother thinks you're hard to comprehend...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 22, 2013, 03:53:34 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on August 22, 2013, 03:51:57 pm
Novel, if everyone and their grandmother thinks you're hard to comprehend...

Exactly what i fucking said :D
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 22, 2013, 03:54:28 pm
Quote from: Novel Scoops on August 22, 2013, 03:53:34 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on August 22, 2013, 03:51:57 pm
Novel, if everyone and their grandmother thinks you're hard to comprehend...

Exactly what i fucking said :D
...What.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 22, 2013, 03:55:16 pm
Damn it we had a rhyme scheme.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on August 22, 2013, 03:56:18 pm
Then it's a conspiracy!

midoinrite
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 22, 2013, 03:57:18 pm
Quote from: Descan on August 22, 2013, 03:56:18 pm
Then it's a conspiracy!

midoinrite

mebbeifyousayittwice
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 22, 2013, 03:57:49 pm
Quote from: Descan on August 22, 2013, 03:56:18 pm
Then it's a conspiracy!

midoinrite

Too blatant.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 22, 2013, 03:58:56 pm
Quote from: Novel Scoops on August 22, 2013, 03:53:34 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on August 22, 2013, 03:51:57 pm
Novel, if everyone and their grandmother thinks you're hard to comprehend...

Exactly what i fucking said :D
... for what it's worth, you've never actually typed the word grandmother in any post you've made on B12, at least according to the search function. You've included the word grandmother in two of your posts via quotation, but nothing more than that.

Unless you actually type out the quotes, which. Yeah.

So... not exactly what you said, no.[/pedant]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 22, 2013, 03:59:31 pm
Quote from: Frumple on August 22, 2013, 03:58:56 pm
Quote from: Novel Scoops on August 22, 2013, 03:53:34 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on August 22, 2013, 03:51:57 pm
Novel, if everyone and their grandmother thinks you're hard to comprehend...

Exactly what i fucking said :D
... for what it's worth, you've never actually typed the word grandmother in any post you've made on B12, at least according to the search function. You've included the word grandmother in two of your posts via quotation, but nothing more than that.

Unless you actually type out the quotes, which. Yeah.

So... not exactly what you said, no.[/pedant]

[/wellunderstood]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 22, 2013, 04:00:37 pm
You can't end being understandable until you've started, thats just weird.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on August 22, 2013, 04:00:48 pm
At least someone is.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 22, 2013, 04:04:21 pm
Manning's statement was completely out of the fucking blue and irrelevant to the situation. Stupid media doing this for ratings and views.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 22, 2013, 04:05:53 pm
Quote from: Glowcat on August 22, 2013, 03:36:42 pm
Quote from: Descan on August 22, 2013, 12:28:49 pm
I'm sure she did, SalmonGod. :/

His response sums up how the media, even those supposedly supportive of her, have been treating Manning, isn't it?

It was pretty clear she was trans for a long time now even though her team was keeping it quiet.

P.S. Fuck everybody suggesting this was some kind of conspiracy on the media's part.

How was it pretty clear?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 22, 2013, 04:06:10 pm
Quote from: Mrhappyface on August 22, 2013, 04:04:21 pm
Manning's statement was completely out of the fucking blue
No.
Quote
and irrelevant to the situation. Stupid media doing this for ratings and views.
Yes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on August 22, 2013, 04:17:47 pm
Quote from: scriver on August 22, 2013, 04:05:53 pm
How was it pretty clear?

http://boingboing.net/2010/06/20/was-alleged-wikileak.html (http://boingboing.net/2010/06/20/was-alleged-wikileak.html)

And then two letters under the name 'Breanna' which got her labeled as unstable.

Of course there were some obfuscating elements, such as her intent to hide her transition until the trial was over, but from the trickle of information we've had access to there was a pretty clear picture being painted of somebody who was transgender and suffering for it in that hell called the military. Maybe not 100% but beyond reasonable doubt in my mind.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 22, 2013, 04:24:54 pm
Quote from: scriver on August 22, 2013, 04:05:53 pm
How was it pretty clear?

Because there have been regular news reports on it from a wide variety of outlets since 2010, when the chatlogs with Lamos where it was revealed first came out.

I mean, sure, people who don't know who Lamos is probably won't know about it, but it's not like the information was hidden in any way - it just means some people haven't actually been following along.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 22, 2013, 04:25:33 pm
I've known about it for years. . .
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 22, 2013, 04:58:00 pm
There seems to be a lot of backlash towards Manning over her "coming out" like that. I've seen some pretty bad things said about her, maybe this will raise awareness and help to put issues like this out in the public forum.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on August 22, 2013, 05:09:08 pm
I've always heard him described as gay. But being trans is pretty much exactly the same general public perception.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 22, 2013, 05:11:06 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on August 22, 2013, 05:09:08 pm
I've always heard him described as gay. But being trans is pretty much exactly the same general public perception.
-.-
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 22, 2013, 05:16:35 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on August 22, 2013, 05:09:08 pm
I've always heard him described as gay. But being trans is pretty much exactly the same general public perception.

It's how she identified herself, it's common for trans people to do that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 22, 2013, 05:17:16 pm
I had initially heard neither. Heard it here first, but that was not that long ago.
I guess it will rather have a slighly adverse effect if any on the perception of transsexuals, since Manning is a controversial figure already. For positive effects you need beloved entertainers coming out, like Ellen in the 90s. And I doubt something like that is going to happen soon, as that is a bit more complicated than coming out as gay.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on August 22, 2013, 05:53:30 pm
The highest profile trans person I know is one of the Wachowski's, director of "The Matrix", etc.

Quote from: Scelly9 on August 22, 2013, 05:11:06 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on August 22, 2013, 05:09:08 pm
I've always heard him described as gay. But being trans is pretty much exactly the same general public perception.
Pronouns are a pain in the ass, as the only gender neutral ones we have in English reference either objects (it) or group (they). Saying "she" is described as "gay" isn't necessarily correct ether for a m->f trans either.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 22, 2013, 06:37:15 pm
I have also become confused when it comes to trans folk's sexuality.

The ones I know use their actual gender to determine sexuality. MtF who likes men = straight. However, I have come across a few who said differently.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 22, 2013, 06:39:23 pm
The way I see it sexuality is such a fluid thing classifications barely fit anyway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on August 22, 2013, 06:51:53 pm
I personally define my sexuality as "penis wants what penis wants".
If people ask it's funny enough to not make a big deal of but while being sufficient enough of an answer.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 22, 2013, 07:02:45 pm
Quote from: Glowcat on August 22, 2013, 04:17:47 pm
Quote from: scriver on August 22, 2013, 04:05:53 pm
How was it pretty clear?

http://boingboing.net/2010/06/20/was-alleged-wikileak.html (http://boingboing.net/2010/06/20/was-alleged-wikileak.html)

And then two letters under the name 'Breanna' which got her labeled as unstable.

Of course there were some obfuscating elements, such as her intent to hide her transition until the trial was over, but from the trickle of information we've had access to there was a pretty clear picture being painted of somebody who was transgender and suffering for it in that hell called the military. Maybe not 100% but beyond reasonable doubt in my mind.

Ah. I hadn't heard of even anything like that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 22, 2013, 08:27:27 pm
The current categorization of sexuality is flawed in many ways. At the very least a slight improvement would be to describe it as "target"-sexual - so something like Massexual and Femsexual. Femsexuals like women, massexuals like men. It would have the side effect of being specific to sexuality and sexual interest, whereas our current standard requires also knowing the gender of the person involved.

I can't be the only one who sees the "label for sexual attraction" not actually specifying who someone is attracted to being a weirdass fucking thing. You'd think knowing someone's sexuality would help you know who their attracted to, but it's useless! What a useless piece of crap label.

If I tell you someone is "homosexual" you would still have no idea if they were attracted to men or women. All it means, really, is "not normal" - you'd know they were deviant, and that was all.

Is that really the sort of terminology we should be using?

Ah, but the world is stupid...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 22, 2013, 08:29:44 pm
Needs more fancy latin. Andro-/gyno- sexual?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 22, 2013, 08:41:25 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on August 22, 2013, 08:27:27 pm
The current categorization of sexuality is flawed in many ways. At the very least a slight improvement would be to describe it as "target"-sexual - so something like Massexual and Femsexual. Femsexuals like women, massexuals like men. It would have the side effect of being specific to sexuality and sexual interest, whereas our current standard requires also knowing the gender of the person involved.

I can't be the only one who sees the "label for sexual attraction" not actually specifying who someone is attracted to being a weirdass fucking thing. You'd think knowing someone's sexuality would help you know who their attracted to, but it's useless! What a useless piece of crap label.

If I tell you someone is "homosexual" you would still have no idea if they were attracted to men or women. All it means, really, is "not normal" - you'd know they were deviant, and that was all.

Is that really the sort of terminology we should be using?

Ah, but the world is stupid...

One of those moments where I'm reminded just how deeply language and culture are connected...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on August 22, 2013, 09:09:36 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on August 22, 2013, 08:41:25 pm
One of those moments where I'm reminded just how deeply language and culture are connected...
There used to be a time when I thought things like, "It's just words, it's not going to matter very much how you use them."

These days I find myself amazed at how much of a difference one little word can make in the world.

I also think it's rather heartwarming how many people after the conversation about Manning being transsexual, a lot of people very blatantly started using "she", and "her" to refer to her. It's like an awesome kind of subtle show of support/protest.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 22, 2013, 09:10:41 pm
Quote from: Mannings Statement
The decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of the concern for my country and the world that we live in. Since the tragic events of 9/11, our country has been at war. We have been at war with an enemy that chooses not to meet us on a traditional battlefield. Due to this fact, we’ve had to alter our methods of combatting the risk posed to us and our way of life.

I initially agreed with these methods and chose to volunteer to help defend our country. It was not until I was in Iraq and reading secret military reports on a daily basis that I started to question the morality of what we were doing. It was at this time that I realized that our efforts to meet the risk posed to us by the enemy, we had forgotten our humanity. We consciously elected to devalue life both in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we engaged those that we perceived were the enemy, we sometimes killed innocent civilians. Whenever we killed innocent civilians, instead of accepting responsibility for our conduct, we elected to hide behind the veil of national security and classified information in order to avoid any public accountability.

In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture. We held individuals at Guantanamo for years without due process. We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government. And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror.

Patriotism is often the cry extolled when morally questionable acts are advocated by those in power. When these cries of patriotism drown out any logically-based dissension, it is usually an American soldier that is given the order to carry out some ill-conceived mission.

Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy—the Trail of Tears, the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism and the Japanese-American internment camps—to mention a few. I am confident that many of the actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light.

As the late Howard Zinn once said, there is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.

I understand that my actions violated the law. I regret that my actions hurt anyone or harmed the United States. It was never my intent to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people. When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and my sense of duty to others.

If you deny my request for a pardon, I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society. I will gladly pay that price if it means we could have a country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on August 22, 2013, 10:05:54 pm
Nevermind.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 22, 2013, 10:17:40 pm
Left out of what?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 22, 2013, 10:20:05 pm
Quote from: Glowcat on August 22, 2013, 03:36:42 pm
P.S. Fuck everybody suggesting this was some kind of conspiracy on the media's part.
It's not a conspiracy when it's well known how owned American media is and how united it is in its goal of perpetuating destructive identity politics over ethical concern. Sort of like how the entire American media machine started saturating its headlines with Russia gayness, or lack thereof, whilst similarly ignoring PRISM.
And yeah as you said, the American media also hates Bradley, or I guess Chelsea if this is true.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on August 22, 2013, 09:10:41 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
They got him to apologize for everything in court despite having nothing more to lose, and 'admit' he was wrong and that he hurt lots of people. It's saddening to say the least, can we please not forget what he has done, why he did it even in lieu of this coming? Man or woman, this should be of no concern.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 22, 2013, 10:28:43 pm
So long as we think critically about all involved. However, yes, i expect his sentence wont hold up.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 22, 2013, 10:43:50 pm
Loud Whispers, I agree with you completely but this is the one occasion in which most of this stuff has actually come from the defence of Manning and is genuine, not from the prosecution or the media. The whole "Chelsea Manning" thing is true.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on August 22, 2013, 11:35:50 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 22, 2013, 10:20:05 pm
Quote from: Glowcat on August 22, 2013, 03:36:42 pm
P.S. Fuck everybody suggesting this was some kind of conspiracy on the media's part.
It's not a conspiracy when it's well known how owned American media is and how united it is in its goal of perpetuating destructive identity politics over ethical concern. Sort of like how the entire American media machine started saturating its headlines with Russia gayness, or lack thereof, whilst similarly ignoring PRISM.
And yeah as you said, the American media also hates Bradley, or I guess Chelsea if this is true.
Meanwhile, I have barely been able to find anything on Russia and the anti-gay laws, while I have been positively flooded with stuff on everything ever on the NSA. Maybe your American Media is different then mine... I blame Google. Not being sarcastic, it probably is the way they filter results by location.


Putting it here because why not: One of my friends is a relatively famous Forensic Psychologist, and a Canadian TV show was interviewing him on ex-Pfc. Manning, and he hadn't heard about the recent news. So they start off with asking him "What impact will Manning coming out as a Women, here's her picture here, on the possibility of a Pardon, and how might it affect parole?" and he had literally seconds to answer. He covered pretty well, but it was damned funny seeing him attempting to get off to a coherent start going "Well, uh, I don't believe it will have any impact, in relation to Obama, that is to say, on a Pardon, but, I definitely see her as having a chance for Parole, etc."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 22, 2013, 11:46:24 pm
Whether it's true or not  doesn't really make the situation better or worse, just weirder and something more gossipy. It just seems like a desperate grasp for straws from whoever released the info.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 23, 2013, 02:09:28 am
Or just the media knowing they'd get rating because people like gossips more than analysis.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 23, 2013, 06:53:34 pm
In international news, Chinese political rising star and known Maoist traditionalist Bo "She-Lie" Xilai has called his wife mad (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-23814472) and a liar during his trial for corruption in which she testified against him. His wife poisoned a British businessman that was close to the family over a money dispute, and is now attempting to bring down her husband after he tried to cover it up.

Bo Xilai is quite an interesting man. He's known for encouraging people to join him in singing old revolutionary songs and the like.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 24, 2013, 07:35:38 am
Yeah, the Economist has been covering this a lot. It mostly seems like a power struggle at the top between "princelings", sons of Mao's comrades-in-arms. Bo still got a lot of support around the party, so he'll probably avoid the death penalty, but be lacked for at least the 10 years Xi Yinping is supposed to serve.

On another note, in case anyone had any doubt about Israel apartheid tendencies, they've now started segregated kindergarten for
 non-Jews black children in southern Tel Aviv.  (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/23/the-banality-of-racism-in-israel-s-most-liberal-city.html)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 24, 2013, 10:12:38 am
Quote from: Owlbread on August 23, 2013, 06:53:34 pm

Bo Xilai is quite an interesting man. He's known for encouraging people to join him in singing old revolutionary songs and the like.

Come on. Guess.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 24, 2013, 10:53:03 am
What do you mean?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 24, 2013, 11:03:56 am
Name one board where that statement wouldn't prompt further comment.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 24, 2013, 11:07:37 am
This one?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 24, 2013, 11:16:20 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 24, 2013, 11:07:37 am
This one?

That was a bad joke, man.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on August 24, 2013, 11:19:27 am
I don't get it either. What is he supposed to guess? There was no question in what you quoted.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 24, 2013, 11:29:16 am
The guess being that making that statement is going to lead to questioning. What other purpose will i quote him on that for?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 24, 2013, 11:30:28 am
I'm not following anymore.

Actually, I wasn't following from the beginning.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 24, 2013, 11:35:04 am
Quote from: Novel Scoops on August 24, 2013, 10:12:38 am
Quote from: Owlbread on August 23, 2013, 06:53:34 pm

Bo Xilai is quite an interesting man. He's known for encouraging people to join him in singing old revolutionary songs and the like.

Come on. Guess.

Isn't it bleedingly obvious that I'm going to ask him about the quoted statement? Pretty please?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on August 24, 2013, 11:36:41 am
No. It's fucking not.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 24, 2013, 11:37:52 am
Quote from: Scelly9 on August 24, 2013, 11:36:41 am
No. It's fucking not.

In the best possible way, shove it up your ass. I held off swearing, you can do the same.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 24, 2013, 11:38:01 am
God damn it, Novel.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 24, 2013, 11:41:10 am
After more than half a page of people being confused about it, it might be clear that they don't know.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 24, 2013, 11:45:05 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 24, 2013, 11:41:10 am
After more than half a page of people being confused about it, it might be clear that they don't know.

Why not? Hell, what was wrong with my immediate response?

Quote from: Novel Scoops on August 24, 2013, 11:03:56 am
Name one board where that statement wouldn't prompt further comment.

The statement, the one single statement, i quoted him on two comments above.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on August 24, 2013, 11:49:44 am
Quote from: Novel Scoops on August 24, 2013, 11:45:05 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 24, 2013, 11:41:10 am
After more than half a page of people being confused about it, it might be clear that they don't know.
Why not? Hell, what was wrong with my immediate response?
I'm sure the answer to this question is self evident, even if it follows none of the conventions usually followed in our communications, and I shall persist in saying this no matter how many people disagree.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 24, 2013, 11:52:59 am
If i had said, "what am i going to ask, eh?", replete with the quote, would we be in this position? I hoped that a mild form of Socratic questioning wasn't completely unheard of.

Quote from: Pnx on August 24, 2013, 11:49:44 am
Quote from: Novel Scoops on August 24, 2013, 11:45:05 am
Why not? Hell, what was wrong with my immediate response?
I'm sure the answer to this question is self evident, even if it follows none of the conventions usually followed in our communications, and I shall persist in saying this no matter how many people disagree.

Is that true of the immediate response i just mentioned? The one just below what you chose to quote? I am trying to improve here, so swallow your snark.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on August 24, 2013, 11:58:45 am
Quote from: Novel Scoops on August 24, 2013, 11:52:59 am
If i had said, "what am i going to ask, eh?", replete with the quote, would we be in this position? I hoped that a mild form of Socratic questioning wasn't completely unheard of.
We probably would be, because there was no way to tell what it was you wanted to ask, be it what songs he was singing, whether the user that posted liked his songs, whether patriotic songs have any relevance to Chinese politics or any of the other thousands of questions you might ask.

Novel, the entire world does not think the way you do, you need to establish a solid context for your statements for them to make any sense. Otherwise you're pretty much just saying random gibberish, which is confusing and frustrating for the rest of the world.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 24, 2013, 12:00:22 pm
I wanted a answer to the obvious questions you'd ask about the statement. I'll be more blunt next time, as i wasn't any less long-winded. Or i could have just kept going guess and see how I'd be badgered and/or lampooned, i suppose. Would have been funnier.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on August 24, 2013, 12:19:01 pm
Quote from: Novel Scoops on August 24, 2013, 12:00:22 pm
I wanted a answer to the obvious questions you'd ask about the statement. I'll be more blunt next time, as i wasn't any less long-winded. Or i could have just kept going guess and see how I'd be badgered and/or lampooned, i suppose. Would have been funnier.
... Being deliberately obtuse for amusement is called trolling around these parts, don't do it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 24, 2013, 12:26:25 pm
Quote from: Pnx on August 24, 2013, 12:19:01 pm
Quote from: Novel Scoops on August 24, 2013, 12:00:22 pm
I wanted a answer to the obvious questions you'd ask about the statement. I'll be more blunt next time, as i wasn't any less long-winded. Or i could have just kept going guess and see how I'd be badgered and/or lampooned, i suppose. Would have been funnier.
... Being deliberately obtuse for amusement is called trolling around these parts, don't do it.

It seemed to go over well before. Oh well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 24, 2013, 01:16:38 pm
Novel's so obtuse I don't even know what he's saying anymore, I feel sick when I try to understand.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 24, 2013, 01:23:59 pm
I still don't know what the obvious question is.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 24, 2013, 01:24:25 pm
I can't believe it's not butter!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 24, 2013, 01:32:53 pm
I mean, there's nothing exactly wrong with having an unusual thought process, it just makes it hard to have a conversation. I'm making an effort here, but I tend to have a lot of trouble figuring out implications you make, antecedents you refer to, and the relevance of some statements you make or questions you ask. I'm getting a real sense that your posts are heavily embedded in a stream of consciousness, but we don't have access to the surrounding context that gives the posts meaning to you. It's like talking to a really well-made chatbot - I get the feeling that there's some logic behind the responses I see, and they follow all the usual structural rules, but I'm not actually getting any meaning out of it.

Trying to be helpful here, not sure if am.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 24, 2013, 01:39:50 pm
yeaaaaaah

once i let myself slip a fair bit regarding thought processes, i actually got called out for it and as such things are happening and i'm more or less making sense lately (i hope at least)

please try to make this easier on people because conversations are a two-sided thing
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 24, 2013, 01:42:54 pm
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 24, 2013, 01:39:50 pm
i actually got called out for it and as such things are happening and i'm more or less making sense lately
I've noticed a marked improvement on your part lately, personally.

And a marked detoriation on Novel's part. >_>
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 24, 2013, 02:12:01 pm
I'll try, but i dislike the tendency in forums for everyone and their mother to barrel in after a point has already been made and settled. How many people need to grumble about my mistakes, unhelpfully, after i apologize? Thank you Bauglir and LordSlowpoke.

The question is, "tell me more about why he's an interesting fellow".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 24, 2013, 02:19:17 pm
He's an interesting fellow because he stands out from the rest of the "princelings" in Chinese politics (the guys who are descendents of past-influential figures in the Communist Party). He is the champion of the Chinese New Left, a group of social democrats and Maoists who disagree with the hyper-Capitalist route the rest of the Chinese leadership are taking. He wants to revive the so-called "red culture" from the time of the Cultural Revolution.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 24, 2013, 02:22:27 pm
Somehow, I have my doubts that social democrats and Maoists are going to be able to get along.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 25, 2013, 05:52:54 am
I actually doubt it. Bo Xilai himself is rich and shows no way of disliking the hyper-capitalism way, at least so long at its lining his own pockets. The Red Culture and New Left things were mostly cosmetics used in the party struggle for leadership. With Xi Jinping getting into power, another factions won, and Bo Xilai is paying the price of loosing the power struggle.

On other news: Germany gives Bitcoins some recognition. Mostly it means a business using Bitcoins can now be taxed. (http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/countingthecost/2013/08/2013823131247804717.html)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on August 25, 2013, 03:50:52 pm
Bitcoins always seemed dubious at best to me. The only thing that gives them value is speculation on their value, as I understand it (and I could be wrong here, haven't looked in on it in awhile). You might argue that basing a currency's value on that of some arbitrary commodity like gold or "trust" is just as dubious, but at least they have some resemblance of stability. Bitcoin value parity dropped from $230 at the beginning of April to $50 at the end: that isn't an unusual occurrence either. They are pretty neat as a concept but there are darn good reasons that they aren't officially recognized by anyone. At least until now. I wonder what prompted this descision...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 25, 2013, 04:00:10 pm
You realize that just about every currency in the world right now has its value based on trust? Were we to suddenly revert to the gold standard, no economy in the world would be able to survive the absurd amounts of inflation we'd be dealing with - and even if, the globalized economic links would fuck it up further. Actually, I'd see Lebanon surviving that...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on August 25, 2013, 04:13:04 pm
I realize that trust is what is behind currencies, but my point is that those currencies are STABLE.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 25, 2013, 04:17:36 pm
Actually, most modern currencies are based on debt. All banks loan money from a central bank, which creates it from nothing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 25, 2013, 04:23:17 pm
The thing is, there is something backing up most currencies.  The dollar, for instance, is backed by the fact that there's an understanding that the US government will use their considerable power to make sure that the dollar does not crash and burn.  Bitcoin just has the software.  Interestingly, someone could actually seize control of Bitcoin as a currency if they were able to take half of the blockchain, according to my understanding (that would require having more computing power than all the other miners put together).

The main problem with Bitcoins is that they're staggeringly inconvenient to use, though.  Trades take ages, and the Bitcoin client takes ages to download because it has a complete log of everyone's transactions with it.  You could use a digital wallet, but then you'd have to put up with the fact that your Bitcoins will be stolen sooner or later.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on August 25, 2013, 04:36:33 pm
I still don't understand the German Bank's reason for (sort of) recognizing bitcoins as a unit with value. Maybe they want to expand on the concept at some point in the future.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 25, 2013, 04:37:31 pm
It was right there in the article: you can't tax something that you don't officially recognize. Apparently someone was doing some tax evasion using imaginary currencies so they had to step up.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 26, 2013, 01:40:13 am
As for BitCoin stability, I guess it'll increase as the user base widen and the percentage of purely speculative users diminish.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on August 26, 2013, 09:34:23 am
Quote from: Sheb on August 26, 2013, 01:40:13 am
As for BitCoin stability, I guess it'll increase as the user base widen and the percentage of purely speculative users diminish.
Na, the whole thing is going down within a decade, tops. It's a fad for True Believer internet libertarians, dumb speculators, and algorithmic traders; only the latter of which will come out with a net gain. Every day, its fluctuation is about what an actual currency fluctuates within a year. That's a stock, not a currency. Additionally, the more and faster it rises, the more speculation and thus the more instability it gets.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 26, 2013, 09:36:15 am
I could see some of the electronic currencies surviving, but not Bitcoin. There was an article on some of the others that had fixes for Bitcoin's major failings, but I can't recall it at the moment.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 26, 2013, 09:40:56 am
The difference between a stock and a currency is pretty minimal, by design. Its not like currency speculation is anything new. I dont know what the future holds for bitcoin - its biggest problems still remain, like the wallet thefts and the large scale oppoisition on the part of various official organizations - and there are still clear risks (if anyone ever starts accepting stolen bitcoincs - until now all the thefts have been speculative I believe). But I wouldnt write it off completely.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 27, 2013, 04:48:36 am
One more proof (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/health/exploring-salines-secret-costs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&) that the way to balance the health care budget in the US does not have to be to cut services or raise payroll taxes. Bags of salty water that cost less than 1$ apiece are sold to patient for between 100$ and 1000$. The article claim that 1 billion of those saline water bags are used every year, if 100 dollars is an average price, I'll let you calculate for yourself what bringing the price of this thing down to 5$ (The European price) would save in money for patients and insurers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 27, 2013, 11:07:26 am
There was a political comic strip in an adult comic book I was reading that I found amusing, but I'm not sure if it's legal to post it here. Is it still a violation of copyright if I just copy that particular strip?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on August 27, 2013, 11:08:52 am
Quote from: Owlbread on August 27, 2013, 11:07:26 am
There was a political comic strip in an adult comic book I was reading that I found amusing, but I'm not sure if it's legal to post it here. Is it still a violation of copyright if I just copy that particular strip?

Its for educational purposes to inform discussion. It falls under fair use.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on August 27, 2013, 11:10:04 am
I'll take it down right away if there's a problem.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on September 02, 2013, 09:02:27 pm
An unpleasant little something. (http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jay-bookman/2013/aug/29/ga-insurance-chief-brags-about-sabotage-obamacare/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on September 03, 2013, 05:41:33 am
Yeah, this kind of people should be tried for high treason and then shot. Regardless of the court's decision :P

Seriously, though: Impeding the state as one of its agents is just about the worst crime there is in a normal society; it goes not against a select few, but against all people there are in the state.
Corruption might be the best example. Why's Africa so damn poor? Screw wars, screw lack of education - China used to be even worse. No, it's the lack of a functioning state that's keeping it the miserable dump that it for the most part is.
And every corrupt civil servant is one more step in that direction. Every civil servant who acts in his own interest instead of the state's.
/rant
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on September 03, 2013, 09:33:19 am
Oh, it's worse than that- this guy isn't working against Obamacare for his interest, he's working against it cause he's convinced himself that it's the right thing to do. That's why he's bragging about it. Because you see, Government cannot ever do anything right, and if it would, the Republican party will take it upon themselves to make sure it doesn't.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 03, 2013, 10:11:21 am
Quote from: Helgoland on September 03, 2013, 05:41:33 am
Seriously, though: Impeding the state as one of its agents is just about the worst crime there is in a normal society; it goes not against a select few, but against all people there are in the state.

Yet typically one of the least punished :[
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nadaka on September 03, 2013, 10:59:44 am
Glad to see my "try them for treason" stance related to public servants is catching on.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 03, 2013, 11:52:12 am
Quote from: Nadaka on September 03, 2013, 10:59:44 am
Glad to see my "try them for treason" stance related to public servants is catching on.

I was on board that from the beginning.  I'm really not sure anyone wasn't.  I think it's just ignored because people don't want to smash their faces against the classic "Who watches the watchmen" conundrum.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on September 03, 2013, 04:06:47 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 03, 2013, 11:52:12 am
Quote from: Nadaka on September 03, 2013, 10:59:44 am
Glad to see my "try them for treason" stance related to public servants is catching on.

I was on board that from the beginning.  I'm really not sure anyone wasn't.  I think it's just ignored because people don't want to smash their faces against the classic "Who watches the watchmen" conundrum.
Pitchforks and meat hooks.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 03, 2013, 08:14:57 pm
Employees should train, Universities should educate. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/universities-should-educate-employers-should-train/article14078938/)


"We're at the point where we don't need retailers. Retailers need us." (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-10/local/40487421_1_wal-mart-spokesman-steven-restivo-minimum-wage-retail-giant)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on September 03, 2013, 10:10:52 pm
Bayer suing Europe over their ban on its pesticides (http://action.sumofus.org/a/bayer-bees-lawsuit/10/2/?sub=fb).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 03, 2013, 10:49:09 pm
Quote from: Descan on September 03, 2013, 08:14:57 pm
Employees should train, Universities should educate. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/universities-should-educate-employers-should-train/article14078938/)
I trust nothing about this site. Everything about it set off alarm bells at first glance, reading the article set off more, and reading some of the other articles set off even more. It does not seem honest, anyway - or at the least like it has some willingness to play loose with the facts to push... whatever agenda it is pushing. I honestly don't know.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 03, 2013, 10:49:59 pm
... It's an opinion piece, Glyph.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 03, 2013, 10:53:03 pm
It's not just about it being an opinion piece. I understand it's an opinion piece. It's the sort of... language they use. It's not a good opinion piece, is the thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 03, 2013, 10:57:05 pm
Like what~?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on September 03, 2013, 11:05:48 pm
This is sort of my opinion as well. I mean I feel they could've told the whole truth, which is that while the chemicals produced by Bayer are likely not solely responsible for the bee issues we're having. But that they would probably not be as bad as they are without them, and that Bayer covered up the negative effects on bees that were confirmed to be there during the development process.

Also, the language usage is sensationalist in a variety of ways, especially the use of the word "sued". While it's technically accurate (it means to initiate an appeal or other legal action), most people will hear it and believe they're trying to extract money from the EU, whereas what they're actually doing is just trying to overturn the ban. I really don't like that kind of sensationalist language.
Though that said, I do wish they weren't trying to overturn the ban.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 03, 2013, 11:07:40 pm
Quote from: Pnx on September 03, 2013, 11:05:48 pm
This is sort of my opinion as well. I mean I feel they could've told the whole truth, which is that while the chemicals produced by Bayer are likely not solely responsible for the bee issues we're having. But that they would probably not be as bad as they are without them, and that Bayer covered up the negative effects on bees that were confirmed to be there during the development process.

Also, the language usage is sensationalist in a variety of ways, especially the use of the word "sued". While it's technically accurate (it means to initiate an appeal or other legal action), most people will hear it and believe they're trying to extract money from the EU, whereas what they're actually doing is just trying to overturn the ban. I really don't like that kind of sensationalist language.
Though that said, I do wish they weren't trying to overturn the ban.
We glossed over Vector's and were talking about the article about universities (Glyph even quoted me).

At any rate, I linked it more for the idea than saying "aw man this is so well written!".

But yes, that petition is very sensationalist. Though I do try and look past that to see the idea, and "overturning the ban on bee-killing pesticides" is a very bad idea, opposing that is a very good one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on September 03, 2013, 11:23:58 pm
Ah, sorry, I was half asleep had just finished going over the three articles and mistakenly thought he was responding to the wrong one.

I'm really not so sure what to think of that one. I suppose I'm generally in favour of a general education.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: freeformschooler on September 07, 2013, 08:40:47 am
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/06/21/download-code-penny-arcade-needs-to-fix-its-krahulik-problem/?__lsa=bc54-7be8
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/09/penny-arcade-expo-dickwolves/
http://elizabethsampat.com/quit-fucking-going-to-pax-already-what-is-wrong-with-you/

ಠ_ಠ

ಠ_ಠ

So basically, I didn't know this was going on at all. As one of my favorite comic strips (well, most of the time), it's a bit jarring. No, not "the creators are Human, whooooaaaaa." It's more: their community in and out of PAX supports all kinds of inclusion. It's a community for NERDS, come ON. A convention for MtG players, PC gamers, and all other kinds of probably-socially-inept, possible-outcast people to get together and have some fun. Can't the owners, of all people, see what's wrong with picking out specific groups of outcasts and waving their fingers, nya-nya-nya? No?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on September 07, 2013, 08:49:35 am
some of these days i would poke what you just posted with a stick

this is not one of these days

/me umequips the Stick of Poking +3
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on September 07, 2013, 08:53:29 am
I don't get it.
People are upset because of rape jokes? Is that what's going on? I red two of those and I have no idea what is actually the problem.

EDIT: Oh, the problem is that they didn't apologise. I got it.
I still don't get how that relates to hat ffs said though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: freeformschooler on September 07, 2013, 09:05:40 am
Quote from: Graknorke on September 07, 2013, 08:53:29 am
I don't get it.
People are upset because of rape jokes? Is that what's going on? I red two of those and I have no idea what is actually the problem.

That was in 2010 and only an indication of the larger problem. A fairly robust timeline can be found here (http://debacle.tumblr.com/post/3041940865/the-pratfall-of-penny-arcade-a-timeline), but the gist of it is:

-A somewhat offensive "the joke is rape, lol" comic is posted to PA some point in 2010
-This would maaaybe be fine if everyone ignored it, but people who found it offensive (rape/SA survivors?) pointed that out
-THIS WOULD ALSO BE FINE, say what you want and all that, but then the creators of the comic (mostly Krahulik) went on to antagonize the people who originally spoke out against it in many ways: a comic strip literally mocking them (and missing the point), official merchandise mocking them, and endless hateful Phil Fish-esque tweets toward the comic's fanbase
-A bunch of other things also happen: a security guard gets sexually assaulted at PA and the owners try to cover it up, Krahulik posts a ton of nasty stuff (http://wpmedia.business.financialpost.com/2013/06/gabe.jpg?w=620) toward whatever LGBT crowd member he's feeling hateful toward that day, the hateful merchandise is removed from the PA store and the creators speak out against its removal

It doesn't stop hapening. Basically, my point is: if you're going to make a community all about including geeks/dweebs/nerds/other social outcasts and allowing them to have a safe place where they can have fun, why the fuck would you go WAY OUT OF YOUR WAY to step all over SA survivors, transgirls and other specific subgroups of people for a period of nearly three years? It just seems hypocritical.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 07, 2013, 09:15:45 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)


Quote from: freeformschooler on September 07, 2013, 09:05:40 am
It doesn't stop hapening. Basically, my point is: if you're going to make a community all about including geeks/dweebs/nerds/other social outcasts and allowing them to have a safe place where they can have fun, why the fuck would you go WAY OUT OF YOUR WAY to step all over SA survivors, transgirls and other specific subgroups of people for a period of nearly three years? It just seems hypocritical.
I'm immediately very skeptical of where you're getting your information because it seems they didn't mention how mr Krahulik basically begged for forgiveness about the trans thing, not to mention donating $20,000.



EDIT: If we wanna talk about this subject without the PA focus: I feel jokes along these lines are acceptable in the same way jokes about murder and violence are acceptable. Reprehensible acts that should never be performed in real life, and there are people for whom it's courteous to not mention around for PTSD reasons, but let's not put a blanket censor on something just because it's bad.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: freeformschooler on September 07, 2013, 09:26:37 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on September 07, 2013, 09:15:45 am
Quote from: freeformschooler on September 07, 2013, 09:05:40 am
It doesn't stop hapening. Basically, my point is: if you're going to make a community all about including geeks/dweebs/nerds/other social outcasts and allowing them to have a safe place where they can have fun, why the fuck would you go WAY OUT OF YOUR WAY to step all over SA survivors, transgirls and other specific subgroups of people for a period of nearly three years? It just seems hypocritical.
I'm immediately very skeptical of where you're getting your information because it seems they didn't mention how mr Krahulik basically begged for forgiveness about the trans thing, not to mention donating $20,000.

Yes it does. I already linked:

http://elizabethsampat.com/quit-fucking-going-to-pax-already-what-is-wrong-with-you/

Quote
Mike publicly denies the gender identities of trans men and women, doubles down with bullying, and is eventually cowed into making a donation to a non-trans-specific, but otherwise worthwhile charity.

The recently flurry of blog posts was due to the creators dredging the whole thing up again (at least the rape apologist part) on stage at the most recent PAX. It's like Mike can't let the freaking thing rest. Is it a publicity thing? Their fans sure seem to appreciate it

Quote
But then Krahulik got up on stage at the recent PAX Prime and admitted that he regretted pulling dickwolf merchandise from the Penny Arcade store. And he was applauded.

Well, fuck that.

I realize this isn't a new thing. "Oh, the people who were offending by this are just overreacting! Hahaha!" Probably they were. But this has exploded from a simple tiny thing to a full-on CAD-esque campaign on people speaking out against the blatant sexism present in the PA community. It has nothing or little to do with a comic. It's about harassing people just for speaking out. Maybe, to the people involved, it's like the kind of Anti-tumblr SJW backlash that happened with MSPA for a while. No, it's not. This is not a moral cause. It is just immaturity.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on September 07, 2013, 11:00:05 am
So, I'm thinking the original comic was fine. I actually thought it was pretty funny, and the punchline definitely wasn't "Rapelololol". The joke was not "Rape is funny". Taking offense to it is also fine, because the experiences that allow me to see it as funny and not feel threatened are not universal. Talking to the authors to point this out is also fine, because how else can they gauge their audience? Giving feedback is good, and at this point a reasonable creator would say, "Oh, sorry, I apologize for upsetting you. That wasn't my intent." They would make this apology whether or not they believe the joke to be justified.

And then a reasonable creator would make an effort in the future to evaluate whether or not it's worth doing the same thing with future jokes and maybe make an effort to telegraph it somehow if they decide the joke can't work otherwise. Doesn't have to be anything so unambiguous as trigger warnings on each comic - even a heads up that this is something that might continue to appear in the comic, so readers should be aware of that, would do the job. Just an obvious attempt to exercise conscious judgment and to help readers out with a problem they've raised. Basic customer service.

That's not what happened.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 07, 2013, 11:20:41 am
Well said, mr Bauglir :)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: freeformschooler on September 07, 2013, 11:21:56 am
Yes, thank you.

This is, on the most basic level, much like the Ocean Marketing debacle, but with an operations director (?) instead of a PR wonk.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 07, 2013, 11:28:23 am
Bauglerman summed up my position as well.

In addition, I feel a lot of people in the "geek culture" don't generally understand the power of an apology. Or even the concept of apology. I guess one could attribute it to the crippled social understanding a lot of geeks have, but I don't know. It's seems part of the whole self-righteous aura that's all over "geekdom".

But then again, a lot of nongeeks could stand to learn to apologise more as well. After all, civilization was built on apologies.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on September 07, 2013, 11:28:40 am
Yeah, that's my feeling on it.

I similarly didn't find the comic all that offensive--kind of hate the strip because I don't think it's funny, much like Megatokyo, but that's unrelated.  But the T-shirt thing. . . man, I understand the idea ("we feel insecure so we're creating a sign of our solidarity around this rape joke!") but it's sort of gross.

Here's my favorite article on the subject: Penny Arcade, Geek Culture, and Hegel's "Beautiful Soul" (http://threefingeredfox.net/?p=50)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 07, 2013, 11:35:10 am
The whole entire thing was stupid, and Mike did stupid dick things in response to stupid dick things, each side mischaracterized and misunderstood the others, and since the people who hate Mike and Penny Arcade are never going to admit that they themselves made a mistake (and many on that side of the issue created and popularized plenty of outright falsehoods) the only proper course of action for the PA team was to apologize to those they offended and disengage.

That was the point of the most recent quotation that set things off - they shouldn't have created the follow up content, they shouldn't have put up the merchandise, and they shouldn't have pulled it, because at every point they were engaging with people who only wanted to make them look bad - people who don't care about what you do, but who just want you to engage in any way so they can find an opening and take another bite.

Articles like the ones linked with hilariously inaccurate comments like "Mike and Jerry posted a rape joke. They were respectfully called out on it." don't really serve to elevate the discussion.

I understand Mike screwed up his response bad, but I also understand WHY he screwed up his response, having had to deal with people of the same mindset about different issues (and stop people I'm working with from actually engaging with them and making us look bad in the process)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: freeformschooler on September 07, 2013, 11:37:38 am
I have no idea what's accurate or not in terms of articles on the subject. The Financial Times and Wired ones seem okay (both sites have very good, sourced content most of the time) but everything else just seems like a blog, and with a subject like this you get people's feelings really distorting the writing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 07, 2013, 11:42:12 am
Unless you were there from the beginning and had your finger on the pulse of multiple different communicate sources it's hard to get a complete picture. But I distinctly remember criminal accusations, death threats, demands that they stop doing the comic, all sorts of accusations. It felt like there were a few people with legitimate grievances who just went about it the wrong and a lot of others who were just waiting in the woodworks for this sort of opportunity to lash out at the PA guys and saw this as an opportunity.

Since then there's been a lot of hyperbole, clickbait, and defensive lashing out. It's... blegh.

The whole thing is just so stupid.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on September 08, 2013, 05:00:48 am
It's not a rape joke. A rape joke is a joke where the punchline is rape, where rape is treated as funny. Rape is used in this joke as an example of extreme horribleness that happens to people. The joke is that MMO protagonists tend to do the minimum requirement for quests even if that leaves people in terrible, terrible fates.

Also, here's Mike's side, (http://www.penny-arcade.com/2013/09/04/some-clarification) since nobody decided to post that despite being clearly applicable.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on September 08, 2013, 05:34:09 am
To be honest I  found the joke not-very-funny to begin with, but I don't really think rape jokes are inherently worse than any other horrible-event jokes. Still, freedom of speech obviously involves freedom to criticise as well. By lashing against their critics in such a way with their media muscle, the Penny Arcade bunch were trying to quell freedom of speech in the name of freedom of speech, which I don't know if it's ironic or just moronic.

...this is actually the kind of shit /b/ and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad love to do, come to think about it...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: anzki4 on September 08, 2013, 06:34:12 am
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on September 08, 2013, 05:34:09 am
To be honest I  found the joke not-very-funny to begin with, but I don't really think rape jokes are inherently worse than any other horrible-event jokes. Still, freedom of speech obviously involves freedom to criticise as well. By lashing against their critics in such a way with their media muscle, the Penny Arcade bunch were trying to quell freedom of speech in the name of freedom of speech, which I don't know if it's ironic or just moronic.
Except that freedom of speech also involves freedom to lash out against your critics.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on September 08, 2013, 07:09:48 am
Freedom of speech involves freedom to speak against your critics. PA's campaign went far beyond that into plain bullying.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 08, 2013, 07:24:45 am
Freedom of speech is not absolute. (For the argument to make sense, this has to be the case). Question is, how much are you willing to give up.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on September 08, 2013, 10:49:22 am
Quote from: Putnam on September 08, 2013, 05:00:48 am
Also, here's Mike's side, (http://www.penny-arcade.com/2013/09/04/some-clarification) since nobody decided to post that despite being clearly applicable.
Ah, hey, that's good. That's significantly more reasonable than what I'd seen from him earlier (which was the stuff he's calling kneejerk now - fair enough), and is pretty much all I could ask for at this point.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 08, 2013, 08:18:19 pm
You guys will love this... (http://jezebel.com/dc-comics-contest-draw-a-naked-woman-committing-suicid-1265537616)

DC is holding a contest over who can draw the best four-panel strip of Harley Quinn attempting suicide naked.  The winner gets to contribute to an upcoming comic, giving them a foot in the door to the industry.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on September 08, 2013, 08:25:59 pm
It's a 4-panel strip in which only the last panel is this:

Quote
Harley sitting naked in a bathtub with toasters, blow dryers, blenders, appliances all dangling above the bathtub and she has a cord that will release them all. We are watching the moment before the inevitable death. Her expression is one of “oh well, guess that’s it for me” and she has resigned herself to the moment that is going to happen.

The other 3 aren't of her attempting suicide naked.

Not that much better, but it kind of bothers me that we now have two links in a row with editorialized, out-of-context, blatantly incorrect descriptions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 08, 2013, 08:27:14 pm
Well... a bikini made of chicken isn't much better than naked.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on September 08, 2013, 08:41:22 pm
I am so tired of this shit.

On the other hand, here's (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/education/harvard-case-study-gender-equity.html?hp&_r=2&) a discussion of an attempted "sexism deprogramming" program at Harvard Business School.  I have it as a personal goal to some day do something that would make Harvard interested in me just so that I can say no, but I think this was good of them to try and provides a pretty cogent argument that women have less skill in some areas because sexism, rather than because suck.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 08, 2013, 08:44:46 pm
I'm not sure how I feel about this. That's pretty grotesque, but Harley Quinn is not exactly portrayed as a bastion of mental stability.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on September 08, 2013, 08:48:07 pm
It's okay if she's sexualized because she's mentally unstable?

I know what you're getting at, but given that sexy does not imply unstable most of the time in the DC universe--it just implies woman--I don't really think that it's an appropriate argument.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 08, 2013, 08:50:29 pm
Well, kind of. Harley is generally portrayed as fine when outside the Joker's influence. It is her hopeless and one-sided love of him that makes her both tragic and a villain. So yes, the sexual component is indeed kind of vital.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on September 08, 2013, 08:59:19 pm
Okay.

I've got to admit, at this point, that this frankly just squicks me out and I don't think that any in-universe justification would make me go "oh, okay!"  I usually don't feel quite this way about things, but this is at the level where I'm just not going to feel fine.  Harley was already sort of on the border of what I felt I could deal with, and using this as an industry break-in opportunity really, really, really sets it over the line.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 08, 2013, 09:06:14 pm
As I said, I am not exactly jumping in support either, but I can see where it is coming from.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on September 08, 2013, 09:07:25 pm
Quote from: Vector on September 08, 2013, 08:59:19 pm
Okay.

I've got to admit, at this point, that this frankly just squicks me out and I don't think that any in-universe justification would make me go "oh, okay!"  I usually don't feel quite this way about things, but this is at the level where I'm just not going to feel fine.  Harley was already sort of on the border of what I felt I could deal with, and using this as an industry break-in opportunity really, really, really sets it over the line.

Yeah, I mostly agree with that. It's already indicative of larger problems, but making it an opportunity to get into the industry suggests that they're embracing the issue rather than trying to solve it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 08, 2013, 09:08:50 pm
To me the implication is "You're gonna be drawing this -a lot-, fuck if we're gonna change. So we wanna make sure you can do this properly!", which is why I have more of an issue with this than the normal run-of-the-mill comic-book sexism. :U
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 08, 2013, 09:12:07 pm
Of all the possible complaints about this they could have really dug into, of all the things that are wrong with it, Jezebel has to make something up to be the core of the article?

W.T.F.

Oh wait it's Jezebel why am I expecting anything other than sensationalist clickbait that sets back the very cause it ?

So yeah, the whole thing is terrible in lots and lots of ways, but since there isn't actually any requirement she be naked, being naked in a bathtub isn't inherently sexualizing, especially in this circumstance. Nudity, if the artists do decide to go with nudity, is a common theme in depictions of suicide in fiction meant to carry emotional wait for legitimately good reasons (symbolic of vulnerability and the discarding the mask they wear to shield themselves from a harsh world etc. and so on), and there's a reason it's a common motiff for both male and female characters.

I'm not saying the competition isn't terrible (Meat bikini? Really?), that the winning strip isn't likely to be terrible (they don't require sexualized imagery but by current DC standards I've no doubt they'll jump for it), but personally I'm more raging that Jezebel consistently does this... hack job of reporting on terrible things, where they feel the need to add layers of bullshit on top of it and (often enough) end up being outright sexist themselves.

I'd like to rage at DC but honestly after all the stuff they've done recently I've exhausted that particular font.

Edit:
I've been spending a good bit of time upset with Doctorow on BoingBoing lately too for the same reason. It infuriates me when people are right about the ultimate point and then undermine themselves by building their argument out of bullshit instead of the obvious stuff right in front of them that is obviously wrong. Rrrrrrgh.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: freeformschooler on September 08, 2013, 09:15:55 pm
Jezebel is just a single baby step ahead of Daily Mail. We need, like, a chart.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 08, 2013, 09:18:10 pm
Yeah, I'm really not familiar with Jezebel at all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 08, 2013, 09:32:33 pm
"Celebrity, Sex, Fashion for Women. Without Airbrushing."

It's a "news and gossip" site - Gawker's feminist-targeted equivalent to Gizmodo or Kotaku.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mrhappyface on September 08, 2013, 09:39:37 pm
Ha Gawker. 90% of any of their magazines read like Tumblr rants.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on September 08, 2013, 09:51:52 pm
I think we should just avoid blogspam in general...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on September 09, 2013, 02:17:26 am
From what I've seen, they basically just write terrible "feminist" hack jobs that are largely responsible for the Man-hating-feminazi stereotype. And thus greatly harm the feminist movement as a whole.

They are much worse than The Daily Mail.


As for Harley Quinn, I don't see the issue. The Tom & Jerry level depictions of violence and the darker themes surrounding such violence in a more realistic situation are a big part of what makes both her and The Joker's characters both amusing and absolutely terrifying. Suicide, and the threatening of it, is par for the course for the two of them.

With Quinn, hypersexualization is a big part of the character as well; and it isn't really meant to be sexy, but tragic. From what I recall, after falling in love with The Joker, she gave up a promising life, a good career, and eventually even her sanity, all in order to attempt to get him to love her in return. And yet, at the end of the all that, The Joker sees her as he sees everyone else; simply another piece in his grand game, worth no more than its potential future use. She's been objectified to the point where that's all that is left of herself.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on September 09, 2013, 02:24:28 am
Quote from: alway on September 09, 2013, 02:17:26 am
From what I've seen, they basically just write terrible "feminist" hack jobs that are largely responsible for the Man-hating-feminazi stereotype. And thus greatly harm the feminist movement as a whole.

They are much worse than The Daily Mail.

You know, they aren't a really reliable source of information, but citation needed for the idea that they're largely responsible for the man-hating feminazi stereotype, since that term has been around since 1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi) thanks to Rush Limbaugh.  Perhaps it actually is an unfounded stereotype, seeing as apparently the person who put the term into common usage was Rush Limbaugh, not some poor young man who had just had it up to here with all that feminist man-hatin'.

Second of all, I'm not sure where you get off calling them much worse than the Daily Mail.  Yes, their articles often have holes in them, and no, I don't think they're an accurate source of information.  They still aren't publishing articles written by unattractive women, talking narcissistically about how much more attractive they are than other people and how they enjoy special treatment, just to create comment wars about how ugly the author is.  The Daily Mail is in a special circle of journalistic hell.


Quote from: alway on September 09, 2013, 02:17:26 am
As for Harley Quinn, I don't see the issue. The Tom & Jerry level depictions of violence and the darker themes surrounding such violence in a more realistic situation are a big part of what makes both her and The Joker's characters both amusing and absolutely terrifying. Suicide, and the threatening of it, is par for the course for the two of them.

With Quinn, hypersexualization is a big part of the character as well; and it isn't really meant to be sexy, but tragic. From what I recall, after falling in love with The Joker, she gave up a promising life, a good career, and eventually even her sanity, all in order to attempt to get him to love her in return. And yet, at the end of the all that, The Joker sees her as he sees everyone else; simply another piece in his grand game, worth no more than its potential future use. She's been objectified to the point where that's all that is left of herself.

Which could be fascinating if we explored it from within, rather than without, gave Harley Quinn a story where she manages to get out of there, had some sort of story arc, whatever.  As-is it's a lot of very fancy explanation for why they get to have a female character on Maximum Objectification Mode.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Lovechild on September 09, 2013, 03:35:52 am
Here is the complete description for reference.

Quote from: DC
PANEL 1
Harley is on top of a building, holding a large DETACHED cellphone tower in her hands as lightning is striking just about everywhere except her tower. She is looking at us like she cannot believe what she is doing. Beside herself. Not happy.
PANEL 2
Harley is sitting in an alligator pond, on a little island with a suit of raw chicken on, rolling her eyes like once again, she cannot believe where she has found herself. We see the alligators ignoring her.
PANEL 3
Harley is sitting in an open whale mouth, tickling the inside of the whale’s mouth with a feather. She is ecstatic and happy, like this is the most fun ever.
PANEL 4
Harley sitting naked in a bathtub with toasters, blow dryers, blenders, appliances all dangling above the bathtub and she has a cord that will release them all. We are watching the moment before the inevitable death. Her expression is one of “oh well, guess that’s it for me” and she has resigned herself to the moment that is going to happen.

Note that Harley wears a "suit" of raw chicken, not a bikini.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 09, 2013, 06:41:57 am
Also I'm an idiot. >_<

I read that last one three times, and it DOES say naked, I was just somehow unable to see it. Herp derp.

The whole concept still seems sort of... super cheap and a bit disturbing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 09, 2013, 06:49:06 am
I just don't buy the character justifications.  It doesn't make any sense for her to behave in a sexualized or objectifying fashion in situations that don't involve Joker.  In fact, I think it would be directly the opposite.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on September 10, 2013, 07:29:46 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24021573
Quote
Almost a quarter of men surveyed in a UN report looking at violence against women in parts of Asia have admitted to committing at least one rape.
Quote
Nearly three quarters of those who committed rape said they did so for reasons of "sexual entitlement".

Report author Dr Emma Fulu said: "They believed they had the right to have sex with the woman regardless of consent.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on September 10, 2013, 10:56:24 pm
Quote from: alway on September 10, 2013, 07:29:46 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24021573
Quote
Almost a quarter of men surveyed in a UN report looking at violence against women in parts of Asia have admitted to committing at least one rape.
Quote
Nearly three quarters of those who committed rape said they did so for reasons of "sexual entitlement".

Report author Dr Emma Fulu said: "They believed they had the right to have sex with the woman regardless of consent.

...
...
...
...
...
...
Nope. I have no words.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on September 11, 2013, 03:04:38 pm
Hey, look. Researchers say that segregation in the US is over forever! Celebrate! (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_66.htm)
Quote
  • The most standard segregation measure shows that american cities are now more integrated than they’ve been since 1910. Segregation rose dramatically with black migration to cities in the mid-twentieth century. On average, this rise has been entirely erased by integration since the 1960s.
  • All-white neighborhoods are effectively extinct. A half-century ago, one-fifth of America’s urban neighborhoods had exactly zero black residents. Today, African-American residents can be found in 199 out of every 200 neighborhoods nationwide. The remaining neighborhoods are mostly in remote rural areas or in cities with very little black population.
  • Gentrification and immigration have made a dent in segregation. While these phenomena are clearly important in some areas, the rise of black suburbanization explains much more of the decline in segregation.
  • Ghetto neighborhoods persist, but most are in decline. For every diversifying ghetto neighborhood, many more house a dwindling population of black residents.

Spoiler: Oh wait... (click to show/hide)

US Racial Distribution Map. (http://demographics.coopercenter.org/DotMap/index.html) Check out your hometown. It's surprising how stark these dividing lines are.

Quote from: alway on September 10, 2013, 07:29:46 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24021573

Wow... yeah. This is only tangentially related (http://www.thersa.org/events/rsaanimate/animate/rsa-animate-the-truth-about-dishonesty), but helps me understand how people can do that, and still feel okay about themselves. Maybe they justify it, because most of them did it first during adolescence, and never saw the consequences of that? But yeah... this is tough for me to process.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 11, 2013, 03:17:50 pm
Well, at the very least my city seems to be EXTREMELY integrated, what looks to be the most integrated are of the region.

Also, the Asians are are eveywhere, tying everything together!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 11, 2013, 03:23:34 pm
It's really a matter of time at this point. There are still plenty of people alive who own the home they owned back in segregation, and some of them have and will hand those homes down to their children, creating persisting racial lines.

Raleigh is interesting to me on that map. It's almost cut in half directly through the center of the city, though it is decently blurry.

Boone is about what I expected. All white people, all the time. It actually sort of creeped me out when I first lived here how much of this town is white, after living in Raleigh my whole life.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on September 11, 2013, 04:04:42 pm
I like how I can pick out the historic neighbourhoods around here.

But yeah, there's definitely a lot of "black neighbourhood, white neighbourhood". Though to be fair I don't think there's very many which are now exclusively black or white.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on September 11, 2013, 04:20:18 pm
Where I live there are no black people. I knew one family of Cubans in a town 30 miles away who were black but that's it. Everyone is white, though we have some Filipino people now and South Asians, but they are quite rare. Basically this regional authority is 99% white, and where I live within that authority, it's 99.999% white.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on September 11, 2013, 04:28:55 pm
And lucky for me I live in the multicultural center of the world! Woo!

Though honestly even in ideal conditions you still get racial lines because of people's natural tendency to ghettoize (As in tend to live near people who are similar to themselves)

Though honestly, it is nice to actually see different cultures in your own city.

Though honestly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 11, 2013, 05:29:13 pm
I'm pretty sure the neighborhood my parents have lived in the past 13 years is 100% white.  And a couple Halloweens ago in said neighborhood, there was a guy running around in a blackface mask and a t-shirt that said something about Obama.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on September 11, 2013, 05:34:55 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 11, 2013, 05:29:13 pm
I'm pretty sure the neighborhood my parents have lived in the past 13 years is 100% white.  And a couple Halloweens ago in said neighborhood, there was a guy running around in a blackface mask and a t-shirt that said something about Obama.

Honestly a lot of things sort of confuse me about racism... In that I HONESTLY don't know why some things are racist.

Though I consider it to be a byproduct of my relatively sheltered upbringing where I didn't even know racism was a thing until much later.

Which paradoxically enough made me feel more awkward because now I feel like there is a expectation of appearance I am meant to keep up.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on September 11, 2013, 05:36:50 pm
Quote from: Neonivek on September 11, 2013, 05:34:55 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 11, 2013, 05:29:13 pm
I'm pretty sure the neighborhood my parents have lived in the past 13 years is 100% white.  And a couple Halloweens ago in said neighborhood, there was a guy running around in a blackface mask and a t-shirt that said something about Obama.

Honestly a lot of things sort of confuse me about racism... In that I HONESTLY don't know why some things are racist.

Though I consider it to be a byproduct of my relatively sheltered upbringing where I didn't even know racism was a thing until much later.
Crazy 'murricans saying blackfaces are racist :v
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on September 11, 2013, 05:39:29 pm
Yeah, it isn't as "self-explanatory" is one might think Dutchling, especially since "ALL" blackface is considered racist. Which I can only guess the reason it is "racist" is because of association.

Though once again I think it is more about me being blissfully ignorant. Or if someone takes offense to that, put it under just plain ignorant.

Just so this thread doesn't go somewhere dark. I am not saying there is nothing racist about it, I assume there is. I am just saying that I lack a certain cognizance as to why.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on September 11, 2013, 05:43:00 pm
I am offended by those bad wigs though
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on September 11, 2013, 05:46:58 pm
NYC is arguably the most diverse place in the country. The Wiki says:
Foreign Born: 37%
White: 44.6%
Black: 25.1%
Hispanic: 27.5%
Asian: 11.8%

Also we apparently have more Asians then LA and San Diego combined and the largest colony of Chinese outside of Asia, and the most Puerto Ricans outside Puerto Rico, and more Jews then Tel Aviv.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 11, 2013, 05:49:27 pm
It's racist because it's intentionally goofy parody of appearance.  Originates from and reflects a time when black people were considered mentally inferior.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on September 11, 2013, 05:50:39 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 11, 2013, 05:49:27 pm
It's racist because it's intentionally goofy parody of appearance.  Originates from and reflects a time when black people were considered mentally inferior.

Yes but why does that even count when the blackface is good?

I'll stick away from "Why isn't the reverse or self-referential racist" since that is just a time sink of horror when it comes to intelligent conversation since there is no set answer.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 11, 2013, 05:53:35 pm
Quote from: Neonivek on September 11, 2013, 05:50:39 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 11, 2013, 05:49:27 pm
It's racist because it's intentionally goofy parody of appearance.  Originates from and reflects a time when black people were considered mentally inferior.

Yes but why does that even count when the blackface is good?

I'm not sure what you mean.  "Blackface" refers to a very specific thing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on September 11, 2013, 05:55:58 pm
Well, I obviously just meant the use of blackface make-up. Still racist to you?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on September 11, 2013, 05:57:46 pm
My father had a golliwog (http://www.giftwarepro.com/pictures/gallery/Miscellaneous/Golliwog.jpg) as a stuffed toy as a child and used to watch men dance and sing in blackface on television in the 1960s and 1970s. They were called the Black and White Minstrels. Everyone watched them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 11, 2013, 06:05:19 pm
I am definitely on the "That's racist" side of things here. Jesus Christ, Europe.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on September 11, 2013, 06:06:25 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 11, 2013, 06:05:19 pm
I am definitely on the "That's racist" side of things here. Jesus Christ, Europe.

It gets worse. This is the old world we're talking about after all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on September 11, 2013, 06:10:28 pm
Gonna admit it--I grew up reading an original copy of Little Black Sambo.

Yup.  Definitely very racist.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on September 11, 2013, 06:10:41 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 11, 2013, 06:05:19 pm
I am definitely on the "That's racist" side of things here. Jesus Christ, Europe.
It's more of a Dutch thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on September 11, 2013, 06:22:14 pm
Britain during the second half of the 20th century had fascinating attitudes towards race as our Afro-Caribbean and South Asian populations grew. The 1970s and 80s were the golden age of racist comedians like Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson, who remains popular to some extent in Australia I hear. We had the Black and White Minstrels, we even had a sitcom called Love Thy Neighbour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Thy_Neighbour) which dealt with a white, middle class suburban couple living next to a black couple.

During that period we also saw the growth of the National Front and ethnic nationalism along Fascist lines, we saw skinhead culture morph from white middle class youths listening to Jamaican-influenced music to groups of Neo-Nazi thugs, we saw the great "Rivers of Blood" speech by the Conservative politician Enoch Powell in which he described the dangers of a future where the "black man holds the whip hand over the white man". That said, one has to juxtapose a startling innocence and simple lack of understanding (the sort that can be seen in my first paragraph) with this darker side. We were, in some ways, miles behind the USA in our attitudes towards race by the 1970s and 1980s, though ahead in others.

This, however, primarily applies to England, not Scotland. Scotland was even more sheltered. In my home town in its hayday in the '70s when it must have had a population of over 100,000 there were no black people, though there were perhaps one or two South Asian families. Very few though, to the point that when a black gentleman named Cyril came to the town and played for my father's hockey club he was a novelty. Contrast that with my mother in London who was taught mathematics by a black teacher.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 11, 2013, 06:24:38 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on September 11, 2013, 06:10:41 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 11, 2013, 06:05:19 pm
I am definitely on the "That's racist" side of things here. Jesus Christ, Europe.
It's more of a Dutch thing.

Heh... my wife lived in the Netherlands for a year, and I remember her telling me about Zwarte Piet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwarte_Piet).  It didn't seem racist to her, though.  More of an oddity.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 11, 2013, 06:28:31 pm
Quote from: Neonivek on September 11, 2013, 05:39:29 pm
Though once again I think it is more about me being blissfully ignorant.
Yes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on September 11, 2013, 06:40:05 pm
This makes me thinks of celebrating Sinterklaas at school. Seeing your teacher all black and in those costumes is hilarious~
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on September 11, 2013, 06:50:12 pm
I would have liked Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet more if they didn't give me nothing but ginger drops and mints when I went and did the begging by the river thing.

Frigging Dutch taste in sweets sucked the fun out of the racist holiday.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on September 11, 2013, 06:52:27 pm
Why don't the Dutch make magical chocolate like the Belgians manage to? Even the Germans are good at it, the Swiss especially.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on September 11, 2013, 06:53:29 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on September 11, 2013, 06:52:27 pm
Why don't the Dutch make magical chocolate like the Belgians manage to? Even the Germans are good at it, the Swiss especially.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on September 11, 2013, 06:54:42 pm
There was sometimes chocolate, but I seem to remember it being mainly hard and bitter stuff.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on September 11, 2013, 06:55:51 pm
But Pnx was talking about the "Dutch taste in sweets".... oh I get it now, it's only ok if a DUTCH person says it. Yeah, it's just political correctness gone mad I tell you! Hang on, let me put down this copy of the Daily Mail so I can adjust the gusset of my Union Jack underpants.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on September 11, 2013, 06:56:46 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on September 11, 2013, 06:55:51 pm
But Pnx was talking about the "Dutch taste in sweets".... oh I get it now, it's only ok if a DUTCH person says it. Yeah, it's just political correctness gone mad I tell you.
I just wanted to post that gif here :v

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on September 11, 2013, 06:58:21 pm
...And in the US it causes race fights in a sufficiently diverse neighborhood. Even, and especially on Halloween. It's seen as a call-back to the time when they were seen as an oddity, weird, strange. "Darky" is the word Wikipedia reminds me of. "Them darkies" is the implied thought, and so people using blackface is a relic from that age where being black was a novelty in and of itself, and stereotypes was the primary interest in them.

To be entirely honest though, just the images on Wikipedia make me mad, and it freaks me out there are places outside of Alabama where it is seen as harmless fun (although you probably couldn't get away with it in Alabama, huge black population.) It's the product of a time over a hundred years ago in the US.

Quote from: Owlbread on September 11, 2013, 06:52:27 pm
Why don't the Dutch make magical chocolate like the Belgians manage to? Even the Germans are good at it, the Swiss especially.
Err, lack of magic?


Quote from: Dutchling
Quote from: Owlbread on September 11, 2013, 06:52:27 pm
Why don't the Dutch make magical chocolate like the Belgians manage to? Even the Germans are good at it, the Swiss especially.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Big difference between the assumed quality of physical exports of a country; and the assumed  stereotypes regarding a certain race. Simply put, it isn't racist that Germans make good cars because they do make a higher quality car due to large  high-end manufacturing industry.

If I wanted to be racist, I'd confuse the Dutch with the Deutsche, and the Swiss with the Swedes. And Yodeling would be involved, and Lederhosen prominent.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on September 11, 2013, 07:00:46 pm
I'm sure my grandmother had a dog called "darkie" and a cat called "blackie". The word "darkie" is still quite popular in the UK among certain people but it's nearly always tongue in cheek.

Quote from: misko27 on September 11, 2013, 06:58:21 pm
Big difference between the assumed quality of physical exports of a country; and the assumed  stereotypes regarding a certain race. Simply put, it isn't racist that Germans make good cars because they do make a higher quality car due to large  high-end manufacturing industry.

If I wanted to be racist, I'd confuse the Dutch with the Deutsche, and the Swiss with the Swedes. And Yodeling would be involved, and Lederhosen prominent.

Though many say that the Dutch and the Germans are not "races", they are nationalities/ethnicities. You know, I recall having a debate with somebody a few months ago who rather distinctly implied that "Scots" (a generalisation) want to "kick the English out" of this country as soon as we get the chance. Quite straight-faced too, we were debating nationalism and such at the time. In retrospect I don't really consider that racist, he just wasn't thinking at the time I presume.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on September 11, 2013, 07:01:14 pm
Okay, before people are going to believe I actually think there is something like a Dutch master race which just happens to be bad at making chocolate: I don't.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on September 11, 2013, 07:07:37 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on September 11, 2013, 07:01:14 pm
...there is something like a Dutch master race which just happens to be bad at making chocolate...
This is how Politicians get disgraced.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on September 11, 2013, 07:10:40 pm
Riddle me this, is it the Walloon or Flemish part of Belgium that makes such good chocolate?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on September 11, 2013, 07:22:48 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on September 11, 2013, 07:10:40 pm
Riddle me this, is it the Walloon or Flemish part of Belgium that makes such good chocolate?
I am going to assume it's the Flemish because they are closer to the DMR.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on September 11, 2013, 07:35:04 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 11, 2013, 05:53:35 pm
Quote from: Neonivek on September 11, 2013, 05:50:39 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 11, 2013, 05:49:27 pm
It's racist because it's intentionally goofy parody of appearance.  Originates from and reflects a time when black people were considered mentally inferior.

Yes but why does that even count when the blackface is good?

I'm not sure what you mean.  "Blackface" refers to a very specific thing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface)

Blackface is common refered to WHENEVER a person, usually white, uses makeup, paint, or what have you... To look "black". It has long since been divorced from its very specific definition.

But I think we moved past this topic.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on September 11, 2013, 08:05:38 pm
Honestly, at the end of the day there doesn't seem to be much difference between race, ethnicity, and nationality.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on September 11, 2013, 08:07:09 pm
Quote from: Pnx on September 11, 2013, 08:05:38 pm
Honestly, at the end of the day there doesn't seem to be much difference between race, ethnicity, and nationality.
I thought race ~= ethnicity and dependent on birth, while nationality is of course dependent on your current nationality.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 11, 2013, 08:21:01 pm
Quote from: misko27 on September 11, 2013, 06:58:21 pm
If I wanted to be racist, I'd confuse the Dutch with the Deutsche,

But that wouldn't be wrong. They're the same word. Completely unlike Swedes and Swiss that are two completely different words :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on September 11, 2013, 08:22:46 pm
People from the Netherlands are the Dutch. Germany are the Deutsche.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Pnx on September 11, 2013, 08:35:06 pm
They call themselves Nederlanders, and their language Nederlands.

The English term stems from middle English when we called all the German people the "diuts" (or some variation of that word), yet for some reason after we adopted the Latin term "Germania" to refer to the reason, we kept on referring to the Netherlands by the old name, don't ask me why.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 11, 2013, 08:41:29 pm
Quote from: Neonivek on September 11, 2013, 07:35:04 pm
Blackface is common refered to WHENEVER a person, usually white, uses makeup, paint, or what have you... To look "black". It has long since been divorced from its very specific definition.
No it hasn't.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on September 11, 2013, 08:51:15 pm
Quote from: Neonivek on September 11, 2013, 05:50:39 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on September 11, 2013, 05:49:27 pm
It's racist because it's intentionally goofy parody of appearance.  Originates from and reflects a time when black people were considered mentally inferior.

Yes but why does that even count when the blackface is good?
All Blackface, from the originals to straight make-up, is frowned upon. It's debatable whether it's even possible to do tastefully.


Quote from: scriver on September 11, 2013, 08:21:01 pm
Quote from: misko27 on September 11, 2013, 06:58:21 pm
If I wanted to be racist, I'd confuse the Dutch with the Deutsche,

But that wouldn't be wrong. They're the same word. Completely unlike Swedes and Swiss that are two completely different words :P
If I wanted to be racist, I wouldn't care about how accurate or inaccurate my descriptions were. Jesus! I'm a hypothetical racist, I don't have to know the difference. You can all be Arabs (Pronounced A-rab) as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 11, 2013, 09:00:56 pm
Quote from: Neonivek on September 11, 2013, 07:35:04 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 11, 2013, 05:53:35 pm
Quote from: Neonivek on September 11, 2013, 05:50:39 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 11, 2013, 05:49:27 pm
It's racist because it's intentionally goofy parody of appearance.  Originates from and reflects a time when black people were considered mentally inferior.

Yes but why does that even count when the blackface is good?

I'm not sure what you mean.  "Blackface" refers to a very specific thing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface)

Blackface is common refered to WHENEVER a person, usually white, uses makeup, paint, or what have you... To look "black". It has long since been divorced from its very specific definition.

But I think we moved past this topic.

I don't think I've ever seen the word used to refer to anything but the caricature that is unrealistically black skin, googly eyes, and humongous red lips.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 11, 2013, 09:07:40 pm
My knowledge of blackface comes 98% from American pop culture and it certainly seems to think it refers to all browner-than-tanning-spray-skinned makeups.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on September 12, 2013, 11:29:34 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 11, 2013, 09:00:56 pm
I don't think I've ever seen the word used to refer to anything but the caricature that is unrealistically black skin, googly eyes, and humongous red lips.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 12, 2013, 11:45:53 am
The only other context I've ever heard of it is in making jokes about people with terrible fake tans.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 12, 2013, 12:59:02 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on September 11, 2013, 07:22:48 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on September 11, 2013, 07:10:40 pm
Riddle me this, is it the Walloon or Flemish part of Belgium that makes such good chocolate?
I am going to assume it's the Flemish because they are closer to the DMR.
Both actually. The Belgian Chocolate tradition dates back to the Spanish occupation, and has as such evolved nationwide, especially during the colonization of Congo, rather than regional**. Strange is that apparently chocolate is regulated by law, though Wikipedia needs citations on that.

Of course, as with the beer, it's a combination of traditional techniques, knowledge, and High quality ingredients*.

*Explaining why the Dutch have no decent cuisine.
** Example are Waffles, with many regional varieties. Or beers, with lot's of regional varieties.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on September 12, 2013, 09:29:10 pm
Women and harassment on the internet (http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/12/4693710/the-end-of-kindness-weev-and-the-cult-of-the-angry-young-man).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on September 12, 2013, 09:49:44 pm
Quote from: Vector on September 12, 2013, 09:29:10 pm
Women and harassment on the internet (http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/12/4693710/the-end-of-kindness-weev-and-the-cult-of-the-angry-young-man).

Also oddly enough the reverse is also oddly common though not as specific.

In that a woman who is dissatisfied with a man can basically post lies about him on the net which can interfere with his everyday life.

When I heard of it I thought there should be laws against businesses allowing slander as the basis for hiring.

Quote
Hell, I'd like to see someone hack into that guy's account and **** HIM over

I don't really believe in revenge, but yeah legal pursuits are something.

Also the article isn't so much about internet police as it seems to be specific laws that protect people's right to privacy. As the laws it refers to are things like, a website cannot withhold pictures of you if you request they be removed.

Unfortunately I know that this will likely spin off into the corporate zone quite easily. Then again I held no illusions that the internet would remain anomalous and "free" forever.

Though I will admit what I thought was going to happen was that corporate maneuvering was going to do that. I didn't think it was going to be Cyber-rights laws that were going to be it but I guess that does make more sense.

Unlike Cyberbullying where I still believe such laws are going to be abused in stupid ways... This makes sense and doesn't have much room for abuse if kept in the private sector.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Blargityblarg on September 12, 2013, 09:54:47 pm
I sincerely doubt that you can find an example on nearly the same scale where a woman has instigated an all-out avalanche of sex-based abuse upon a man, Neo.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on September 12, 2013, 09:57:06 pm
Neonivek, read the part about statistics.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 12, 2013, 10:03:48 pm
So the United States is experiencing a measles outbreak, once again thanks to our friends, the fucking anti-vaccers. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/health/worst-measles-year/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

Let us thank our primary celebrities responsible for the easily preventable suffering and death of hundreds of children, Andrew Wakefield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield) and Jenny McCarthy (http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on September 12, 2013, 10:05:50 pm
Goddammit. How did we go from all-but-eradicating smallpox to dying from freaking measles?

I don't say this to a lot of people, but go to hell anti-vaccers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on September 12, 2013, 10:06:38 pm
Quote from: Vector on September 12, 2013, 09:57:06 pm
Neonivek, read the part about statistics.

The gender balance part?

It freakishly enough follows the regular statistics that I can find. Well except it seems to be skewed towards gender balance more so then the other sets of statistics I have that makes male victims a bit rarer then 40% (for stalking) and 20% (for harassment), and no the ones I have weren't the kind made up to make women more victims then they already are for shock value either.

Quote from: Sirus on September 12, 2013, 10:05:50 pm
Goddammit. How did we go from all-but-eradicating smallpox to dying from freaking measles?

I don't say this to a lot of people, but go to hell anti-vaccers.

Well I will tell you that it is completely unrelated to the anti-vaccers, at least to my knowledge, since the herd immunity should more then make up for them.

It has mostly to do with overseas ability and willingness to receive vaccines.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 12, 2013, 10:11:18 pm
It isn't really an all-but-eradication, smallpox is seriously eradicated. And once the stocks held by the US and Russia are either intentionally destroyed or degrade into uselessness, the threat will be gone for good.
Quote from: Neonivek on September 12, 2013, 10:06:38 pm
Well I will tell you that it is completely unrelated to the anti-vaccers, at least to my knowledge, since the herd immunity should more then make up for them.
It has everything to do with the anti-vaccers. They are the ones breaking down herd immunity. It isn't a singular threshold, and everybody who can be safely vaccinated has an obligation to be in order to speed eradication.

MMR vaccines don't last forever, either. The longer this goes on, the more work that has to be done by people who aren't stupid selfish assholes in order to maintain herd immunity.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on September 12, 2013, 10:14:06 pm
Yeah... apparently in this case. OPPS!

Quote
stupid selfish


Well stupid could be argued. Selfish I don't know.

What is the reason for them refusing the vaccine?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 12, 2013, 10:16:56 pm
From my speaking with them?

"I don't care what happens to you, I don't want to and you can't make me, and the slight risk my child might have a negative reaction to the vaccine is perfectly acceptable even if it's significantly more likely for your family members to die because of it."

(Not everyone can get the vaccine and have it help - these are the people who herd immunity protects)

So yeah, I'd call it selfish.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on September 12, 2013, 10:22:56 pm
So... "I want my child to be safe from this vaccine everyone is trying to force upon us."

Though yeah, I though this was one of those cases where herd immunity failed, but apparently not... If people who didn't get vaccines out of fear were spread out it wouldn't be a problem.

Mind you they very well may be selfish, I am just thinking what the solution is exactly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on September 12, 2013, 10:43:49 pm
Quote from: Neonivek on September 12, 2013, 10:22:56 pm
So... "I want my child to be safe from this vaccine everyone is trying to force upon us."

Trying to force? Really? Wheres the force? Talking loudly doesn't count. And safe from the vaccine? All that nonsense about vaccines being dangerous is exactly that, nonsense. Wrong on both counts.

Quote from: Neonivek on September 12, 2013, 10:22:56 pm
Though yeah, I though this was one of those cases where herd immunity failed, but apparently not... If people who didn't get vaccines out of fear were spread out it wouldn't be a problem.

Unfortunately, we are not so lucky.

Quote from: Neonivek on September 12, 2013, 10:22:56 pm
Mind you they very well may be selfish, I am just thinking what the solution is exactly.

The solution is very simple: The anti vaxxers should STFU and get vaccinated, before they cause more deaths.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on September 12, 2013, 10:49:51 pm
Quote
Trying to force? Really? Wheres the force? Talking loudly doesn't count. And safe from the vaccine? All that nonsense about vaccines being dangerous is exactly that, nonsense. Wrong on both counts

I am talking from what I believe is their perspective.

Quote
The solution is very simple: The anti vaxxers should STFU and get vaccinated, before they cause more deaths

Well why aren't you in favor of just having mandatory vaccinations for people who can have them?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on September 12, 2013, 10:50:09 pm
http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on September 12, 2013, 10:57:25 pm
A large cause of distruct of vaccines comes from... something? Im not enturely sure, given the lack of evidence showing any dangers of vaccines.

Maby it has something to do with the Evil Government encourages it, therefore its deadly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on September 12, 2013, 10:59:25 pm
Wait it is the same stupid autism crud?

They already scientifically disproven the connection AND explained why the connection seemed to exist in the first place!

Why is this still a thing?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on September 12, 2013, 11:00:05 pm
Quote from: alexandertnt on September 12, 2013, 10:57:25 pm
A large cause of distruct of vaccines comes from... something? Im not enturely sure, given the lack of evidence showing any dangers of vaccines.

Maby it has something to do with the Evil Government encourages it, therefore its deadly.

Some British scientist with a few conflicts of interest making a paper showing an existing correlation between usage of vaccines and autism, two values that go up over time for known reasons that are unrelated (better medical technology and better diagnostics, respectively), then claiming with no other evidence that the two are connected, followed by a woman who got famous for farting on MTV blowing it up all over the place.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on September 12, 2013, 11:00:17 pm
Because one was publicized and the other wasn't.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on September 12, 2013, 11:02:28 pm
What doesn't help also Putnam is the fact that evidence that a child has autism generally happens after the shots.

Not because the shots cause autism but because autism doesn't show in a baby any earlier
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on September 12, 2013, 11:07:35 pm
Quote from: Neonivek on September 12, 2013, 10:59:25 pm
Wait it is the same stupid autism crud?

They already scientifically disproven the connection AND explained why the connection seemed to exist in the first place!

Why is this still a thing?

After also being destroyed in court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_omnibus_trial), I have no idea.

Quote from: Neonivek on September 12, 2013, 11:02:28 pm
What doesn't help also Putnam is the fact that evidence that a child has autism generally happens after the shots.

Signs of autism often still show up before that, as Eric Fombonne demonstrated in the above trial.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on September 12, 2013, 11:41:53 pm
Quote from: Neonivek on September 12, 2013, 10:49:51 pm
Well why aren't you in favor of just having mandatory vaccinations for people who can have them?

In theory, I would be in favor of that, but in practice, it wouldn't work, because everyone would flip their shit, and because a certain party that will remain unnamed would set out to sabotage it, as they do every other useful thing we might use the government for. I still think we should push this from a cultural and societal perspective.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on September 13, 2013, 05:31:57 am
I don't see what the problem is. More anti-vaccers => more dying anti-vaccers => fewer anti-vaccers.

It all works out, eventually.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on September 13, 2013, 05:39:04 am
Not exactly. Virus have this nasty habit of spreading and mutating given the chance. This means that the more people who aren't vaccinated the higher the chance of a new strain that can affect everybody shows up. At the same time, the more people who are vaccinated the less people who carry the disease and the safer the non-vaccinated are.
Vaccinations work more on a community basis, where as the total percent of the population vaccinated is the best indicator to peoples safety.


Personally I think the best solution is public health care that is dependent on filling several conditions, such as being vaccinated, being a non-smoker, donating blood if possible, ect. That way people aren't being forced to do something, but they damn well have a good reason to, and the people who don't pull their weight aren't costing the system too much.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 13, 2013, 05:54:36 am
There is actually a specific threshold for herd immunity, although it depends on the disease in question.  It basically depends on how many people each person with the disease would infect if no-one were immune.  In the case of measles, I think the number is roughly 11.  So to prevent the disease from spreading out of control just over 17 out of those 18 people need to be immune (on average), or about 94%.  That would mean that each person with measles would infect less than one other person on average, allowing the whole thing to burn out.

The complication is that the measles vaccine is only about 95% effective, so you really need to have as close to 100% coverage as possible.  That's also why the anti-vaccination movement is worrying even if your kids are vaccinated - they may be part of the 5% who are relying on herd immunity from the other 95%.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 13, 2013, 06:35:51 am
Quote from: Vector on September 12, 2013, 09:29:10 pm
Women and harassment on the internet (http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/12/4693710/the-end-of-kindness-weev-and-the-cult-of-the-angry-young-man).

Still is all so god damn horrible. What can I do about it, Vector? I have a lot of fire and no direction.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 13, 2013, 07:39:40 am
Quote from: scriver on September 13, 2013, 06:35:51 am
Quote from: Vector on September 12, 2013, 09:29:10 pm
Women and harassment on the internet (http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/12/4693710/the-end-of-kindness-weev-and-the-cult-of-the-angry-young-man).

Still is all so god damn horrible. What can I do about it, Vector? I have a lot of fire and no direction.

Demand dignity (http://www.amnesty.org/campaigns/demand-dignity) for those whose rights have been violated.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 08:54:05 am
Quote from: Darvi on September 13, 2013, 05:31:57 am
I don't see what the problem is. More anti-vaccers => more dying anti-vaccers => fewer anti-vaccers.

It all works out, eventually.
No, it doesn't. By breaking herd immunity, people who are incapable of receiving vaccinations and those whom have had their MMR vaccine wear off are put at risk.
Quote from: Max White on September 13, 2013, 05:39:04 am
Not exactly. Virus have this nasty habit of spreading and mutating given the chance. This means that the more people who aren't vaccinated the higher the chance of a new strain that can affect everybody shows up. At the same time, the more people who are vaccinated the less people who carry the disease and the safer the non-vaccinated are.
Vaccinations work more on a community basis, where as the total percent of the population vaccinated is the best indicator to peoples safety.
Measles doesn't have a fast enough mutation rate for that to be a serious threat in the immediate sense, but I suppose it is possible.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on September 13, 2013, 08:57:50 am
Given long enough things can come back. Much better to eradicate a virus than leave it in the corners for a few generations to make a comeback.
Fun fact: If it isn't alive, I have no obligation to support biodiversity.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on September 13, 2013, 09:00:49 am
what do you mean spooky scary skeletons aren't an important feature of earth's fauna and don't have to be protected so future generations can enjoy them
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on September 13, 2013, 09:05:30 am
Okay I didn't account for collateral damage :V
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on September 13, 2013, 09:13:18 am
Quote from: Neonivek on September 12, 2013, 09:49:44 pm

Quote
Hell, I'd like to see someone hack into that guy's account and **** HIM over

I don't really believe in revenge, but yeah legal pursuits are something.
Funny that, I'm a big believer in revenge when it comes to this sort of thing. That's all people like that understand -- they do this shit because to them, there's no consequences for their actions. There need to be consequences, preferably ones that are severe enough to deter the next lulz-seeking asshole.

To borrow a line from The Untouchables, "They bring a knife, you bring a gun. They put one of yours in the hospital, you put one of theirs in the morgue."

I'm totally down with draining his bank accounts and landing him in prison (although he's already there). Launder the money and donate it to a non-profit for battered women.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on September 13, 2013, 09:23:00 am
redkiiiiiiiing

violence breeds violence, if you apply violence instead of the legal alternatives you're up for a nice spiral

if the legal resources were unavailable or inadequate i'd also consider alternative means i'll give you this much but after acknowledging he's been jailed you won't get anywhere without said legal system helping you

oh, and take into consideration that the more brutal you get with punishments, the more incentive people get to abuse even harder to ensure the victim doesn't speak about it, or said victim gets put into a basement all fritzl-like so nobody gets to see its effects

i also have virtually no idea what i'm commenting on since this device likes to fuck shit up and does so splendidly
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 13, 2013, 09:34:08 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on September 13, 2013, 09:23:00 am
if the legal resources were unavailable or inadequate i'd also consider alternative means i'll give you this much but after acknowledging he's been jailed you won't get anywhere without said legal system helping you
He's in jail for something completely unrelated and we ALL lose for him being in jail for that. Even the person he tormented says he shouldn't be in jail (for the thing he's in jail for).

The legal system IS unavailable and inadequate. He did NOT go to jail for his campaign to ruin someones life. He went to jail because he pissed off the people who run AT&T.

If the only legal protection is "hope he does something stupid to someone who isn't as helpless and me and can get revenge on him regardless of the law", that... err, yeah, I'm gonna say that's 'inadequate'.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on September 13, 2013, 09:39:40 am
you know i did acknowledge right there i have no idea what the original stuff is so if you could pm me the gist of it or just put it here it would be great

i assumed this was a matter of abuse of the physical/financial kind mostly so that's what i were working off, in retrospect to do so wasn't the best idea but saying "violence is not the best answer" is always appropriate
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 13, 2013, 09:46:18 am
Violence is never good, but it is sometimes a necessary evil.

Hell, or our entire legal and enforcement system is based on either this principal or outright 'violence is GOOD under certain circumstances' thinking. Honestly I prefer the necessary evil acknowledgement that even doing a bad thing for good reasons doesn't change the fact that you are doing a bad thing.

Violence often is, unfortunately, the best answer.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on September 13, 2013, 09:59:36 am
Best answer does not make it a good one - simply the least bad.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 13, 2013, 10:49:28 am
Can we try and take this debate back to this specific case, firstly.  Are you advocating beating the shit out of internet trolls or what?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 13, 2013, 11:42:36 am
I'm on the fence on the whole vaccination thing.  While it's obviously a public health concern and the anti-vaccers are basing their behavior on refuted evidence and bad priorities, their concern does align with some history that deserves heeding.  The government has intentionally administered harmful or experimental substances to unwitting and unwilling citizens in the past, and has done so in alliance with pharmaceutical companies.  Given the state of politics today, I see no reason to believe that this could not happen again or is not already happening.  Mandatory vaccinations would be about the most ideal opportunity for such abuses imaginable.

I'm definitely not one who buys into the disproven crap about vaccinations causing autism and stuff like that.  I have no reason to believe they are currently abused.  However, as much as I would like to trust authorities to use these tools exclusively for the benefit of public health, I simply can't.  I don't prevent my children from getting their essential immunizations or anything / the stuff that you guys are talking about.  But I don't bother with others such as the annual flu vaccine.

*hides*
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on September 13, 2013, 11:47:40 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 13, 2013, 11:42:36 am
I'm on the fence on the whole vaccination thing.  While it's obviously a public health concern and the anti-vaccers are basing their behavior on refuted evidence and bad priorities, their concern does align with some history that deserves heeding.  The government has intentionally administered harmful or experimental substances to unwitting and unwilling citizens in the past, and has done so in alliance with pharmaceutical companies.  Given the state of politics today, I see no reason to believe that this could not happen again or is not already happening.  Mandatory vaccinations would be about the most ideal opportunity for such abuses imaginable.

I'm definitely not one who buys into the disproven crap about vaccinations causing autism and stuff like that.  I have no reason to believe they are currently abused.  However, as much as I would like to trust authorities to use these tools exclusively for the benefit of public health, I simply can't.  I don't prevent my children from getting their essential immunizations or anything / the stuff that you guys are talking about.  But I don't bother with others such as the annual flu vaccine.

*hides*
those are good points
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 12:22:41 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 13, 2013, 11:42:36 am
I'm on the fence on the whole vaccination thing.  While it's obviously a public health concern and the anti-vaccers are basing their behavior on refuted evidence and bad priorities, their concern does align with some history that deserves heeding.  The government has intentionally administered harmful or experimental substances to unwitting and unwilling citizens in the past, and has done so in alliance with pharmaceutical companies.  Given the state of politics today, I see no reason to believe that this could not happen again or is not already happening.  Mandatory vaccinations would be about the most ideal opportunity for such abuses imaginable.

I'm definitely not one who buys into the disproven crap about vaccinations causing autism and stuff like that.  I have no reason to believe they are currently abused.  However, as much as I would like to trust authorities to use these tools exclusively for the benefit of public health, I simply can't.  I don't prevent my children from getting their essential immunizations or anything / the stuff that you guys are talking about.  But I don't bother with others such as the annual flu vaccine.

*hides*
There is no incentive for them to do that, at least not with vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies make bank off of effective vaccines, and would suffer great profit loss if they ever did something like that.

You should not be risking your children's livelihoods by ignoring available medical treatments. Children can and have died of influenza, which kills ~50,000 people (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm) in the United States every year. I myself remember my case of it when I was a young child vividly because of how horrific it was.

Your children aren't very likely to ever encounter a polio virus, much less actually be infected, but I'm sure you got them that vaccine.

In the end, all vaccines are essential vaccines, and it is not just a person's prerogative but their responsibility to themselves and those around them to be vaccinated.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on September 13, 2013, 12:25:14 pm
I thought the flu vaccine is only for senile old people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 12:26:55 pm
In Europe it is generally only recommended for the elderly, but in the US it is recommended for everybody (which I think is a far sounder policy).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on September 13, 2013, 12:33:33 pm
Also people like me, who are predisposed to catching pneumonia with any sort of respiratory infection.

There is a reason not to just vaccinate vaccinate vaccinate, which is that it is generally not good to have your immune system running around with no practice and with nothing to do.  However, we're not living in a mystery fantasy land where we've got vaccines against everything, and vaccines aren't 100%, etc.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 13, 2013, 12:46:08 pm
Doesn't vaccination consist of injecting weakened/dead specimens into the bloodstream, thereby triggering the same immune reaction as happens during an actual infection.

Here's some interesting stuff. Nuclear weaponry in Europe is being updated. (Dutch article) (http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=dmf20130913_00739697). Not all that informative.

Point is, the Nuclear weaponry in Europe (also Belgium) is gradually being exchanged for B-61 warheads.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on September 13, 2013, 12:53:20 pm
Is it really exactly the same, though?

That's an honest question.  I know next to nothing about immunology.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 13, 2013, 12:54:30 pm
Depends on the type of vaccine, I believe.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on September 13, 2013, 12:57:31 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on September 13, 2013, 12:54:30 pm
Depends on the type of vaccine, I believe.

Right.  Then that was the point I was trying to make--there's conceivably a point at which too many vaccines -> immune system doesn't get enough training, which should be taken into account even if we aren't there yet.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 01:04:00 pm
Yes, it depends on the type of vaccine. You have inactivated vaccines, which consist of truly well and dead organisms, and attenuated vaccines, which consist of living-but-crippled organisms. Attenuated vaccines can be dangerous for people with immunodeficiency disorders, but it says something about them that even such individuals are usually alright with attenuated vaccines. Someone with a functional immune system is in no danger from attenuated vaccines, which are a small minority of vaccines anyway.
Quote from: Vector on September 13, 2013, 12:57:31 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on September 13, 2013, 12:54:30 pm
Depends on the type of vaccine, I believe.
Right.  Then that was the point I was trying to make--there's conceivably a point at which too many vaccines -> immune system doesn't get enough training, which should be taken into account even if we aren't there yet.
That isn't how it works. The immune system is "trained", as you put it, by vaccines. That's the whole point. The immune system "learns" by rapid-fire production of antibodies to determine how to identify and kill hostile organisms. Most vaccines operate by providing a non-pathogenic copy of the organism in question, which the immune system then is able to bombard an learn without actually putting you at risk. Then, if you run into a normal version of the disease later, your immune system annihilates it as if you had already been infected but recovered.

Vaccines do nothing that your immune system does not do otherwise.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 13, 2013, 01:05:21 pm
Vaccines ARE training the immune system.

The immune system basically just has a collection of antibodies it shoots at things to kill them. Getting a vaccine makes your immune system gain new types of antibodies, improving its arsenal. There is no downside to vaccines, barring gaining a (extremely weakened) infection of what you're trying to vaccinate against and things like irritating those allergic to eggs (since those are used to produce vaccines).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 13, 2013, 01:07:36 pm
Don't think it actually works like that.

Vaccines don't shield the system from infections, they prepare them from it. (Either through the injection of an infection, or the immune cells itself, or a related virus). Even if you're vaccinated, your immune system still reacts and has to fight of the infection. Besides that, there're thousands of minor viri, bacteria and other infectious agents which are found pretty much everywhere, and from which the immune system has to defend itself constantly.

You'd have to live in a bubble to get underexposure.

Edit: Anybody has a ninja vaccine.

Quote from: kaijyuu on September 13, 2013, 01:05:21 pm
The immune system basically just has a collection of antibodies it shoots at things to kill them. Getting a vaccine makes your immune system gain new types of antibodies, improving its arsenal. There is no downside to vaccines, barring gaining a (extremely weakened) infection of what you're trying to vaccinate against and things like irritating those allergic to eggs (since those are used to produce vaccines).
I don't know if it applies to vaccines (probably not), but overexposure to certain pathogens/allergens/poisons*, can result in an overreaction** from the immune system.

* Beekeepers are vulnerable to this. They can get stung so much that their immune system goes overkill whenever it detects the poison, doing more damage than it could've ever done.
**With deadly results
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 13, 2013, 01:22:31 pm
Ironically, one of the only proven environmental causes of autism is prenatal exposure to the rubella virus.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 13, 2013, 01:25:16 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 12:22:41 pm
There is no incentive for them to do that, at least not with vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies make bank off of effective vaccines, and would suffer great profit loss if they ever did something like that.

Just like ISPs and other IT businesses shouldn't have had any incentive and suffered great profit losses for cooperating with mass scale violation of privacy and various other things that people are really unhappy with, right?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 13, 2013, 01:28:23 pm
Well no, they had the incentive of not being thrown in jail for refusing to co-operate with the US government, who had a clear motive.  But what motive does the government have for poisoning people with vaccines?

It's a real shame that this dumb scare broke out in the US too, because it had basically eliminated measles back in the early 2000s.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 01:30:06 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 13, 2013, 01:25:16 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 12:22:41 pm
There is no incentive for them to do that, at least not with vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies make bank off of effective vaccines, and would suffer great profit loss if they ever did something like that.

Just like ISPs and other IT businesses shouldn't have had any incentive and suffered great profit losses for cooperating with mass scale violation of privacy and various other things that people are really unhappy with, right?
They didn't have any incentive. For the most part, they were ordered to by the government. And what they have done may yet come back to bite them.

This is not Tuskegee and the government isn't trying to figure out the effects of plutonium on the human nervous system. This is proven medical science that has done more good for human health than almost any other factor. There is no purpose, nothing to be gained from trying to experiment on the entire population when any experiments that you want to do could be done legally and scientifically in a proper laboratory setting. Quit acting like a conspiracy theorist.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on September 13, 2013, 01:56:33 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 13, 2013, 01:28:23 pm
Well no, they had the incentive of not being thrown in jail for refusing to co-operate with the US government, who had a clear motive.  But what motive does the government have for poisoning people with vaccines?

It's a real shame that this dumb scare broke out in the US too, because it had basically eliminated measles back in the early 2000s.
Same here. Now the Dutch Biblebelt is causing a measles epidemic :/
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on September 13, 2013, 02:06:35 pm
*nod*

Okay, thanks.  I was wondering if it was a "book learning" vs. "practical learning" situation thing, but . . . >____________>  As I said, I know nothing about the subject.


We already had this MMR experiment with Japan, though, which stopped vaccinating its population and saw increase in MMR, no decrease in autism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 02:22:13 pm
Quote from: Vector on September 13, 2013, 02:06:35 pm
*nod*

Okay, thanks.  I was wondering if it was a "book learning" vs. "practical learning" situation thing, but . . . >____________>  As I said, I know nothing about the subject.


We already had this MMR experiment with Japan, though, which stopped vaccinating its population and saw increase in MMR, no decrease in autism.
An increase, no less. Anti-vaccers often speak of the "autism epidemic", which is much better explained by our increasing skill at recognizing and diagnosing autism, as opposed to the previous classification of "those weird motherfuckers".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on September 13, 2013, 02:34:44 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 02:22:13 pm
Quote from: Vector on September 13, 2013, 02:06:35 pm
*nod*

Okay, thanks.  I was wondering if it was a "book learning" vs. "practical learning" situation thing, but . . . >____________>  As I said, I know nothing about the subject.


We already had this MMR experiment with Japan, though, which stopped vaccinating its population and saw increase in MMR, no decrease in autism.
An increase, no less. Anti-vaccers often speak of the "autism epidemic", which is much better explained by our increasing skill at recognizing and diagnosing autism, in addition to the previous classification of "those weird motherfuckers".
fixed that for you :3
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on September 13, 2013, 03:03:17 pm
Of note was the last 18 months in Swansea, South Wales. After the false link between MMR and autism was reported in the early 90's press in the UK, vaccination rates for the MMR dropped as low as 30% IIRC in and around Swansea for some birth years. Then, when these babies grew into teenagers last year, the number of cases of MMR skyrocketed (A few thousand in the space of a month at its peak, with no corresponding decrease in autism - if anything, the number of autistic children increased. Very basic science to draw a conclusion here, but its all sound.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on September 13, 2013, 03:17:45 pm
I was thinking about the stuff that's been happening in Swansea while I was reading the vaccination chat here. Thanks for clearing that up MonkeyHead, it's depressing that allegations like those in the press could lead to an MMR epidemic over here.

See now, one thing to take from this is that in the UK we don't really need religious leaders to tell us that vaccination is bad, just get some fudged sensationalist reports in the most popular tabloids and people will listen to that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 13, 2013, 03:32:58 pm
Even worse, IIRC, the original study was created by a bought scientists, so that some people could sue vaccinators.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 13, 2013, 04:02:45 pm
Quote from: greatorder on September 13, 2013, 03:53:19 pm
Also, I remember seeing something somewhere. Someone was saying that there was no such thing as autism and that it was simply a label given to children so their parents could feel special.
It caused many WTFs.
The first thing might be correct. It's a Spectrum of Symptoms, not a single traceable thing. The rest is bogus though.

Ok, reread the Wikipedia about the controversy. The guy was paid about 450 000 dollars, maybe more, by Brittish lawyers. In addition, he'd developed/ helped develop/ patented an alternative vaccine.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 13, 2013, 04:07:03 pm
Confusing above normal IQ with Autism. (Not uncommon; both are often related, after all)

Also some general stupidity near the end. Clearly not one of the gifted.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 04:08:51 pm
Autism severely reduces IQ outside of high-functioning and Aspergers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 13, 2013, 04:12:52 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 04:08:51 pm
Autism severely reduces IQ outside of high-functioning and Aspergers.
The quote is obviously talking about Aspergers though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 04:14:41 pm
Quote from: greatorder on September 13, 2013, 04:10:04 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 04:08:51 pm
Autism severely reduces IQ outside of high-functioning and Aspergers.
And Aspergers is constantly in and out of whether or not it is a type of autism. They seem unable to make up their mind.
It's a pointlessly subjective attempt at distinction. Aspergers can be considered to be in the spectrum, and more high-functioning than high-functioning, or it can be considered a related condition outside of the spectrum, but it makes no practical difference.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 13, 2013, 04:46:37 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 01:30:06 pm
They didn't have any incentive. For the most part, they were ordered to by the government. And what they have done may yet come back to bite them.

This was my point.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 01:30:06 pm
Quit acting like a conspiracy theorist.

Pointing out that something has happened in the past and could happen again is not acting like a conspiracy theorist.  You're overreacting to my statement.  I've not said that people should stop getting vaccinations or anything like that.  Only that I can understand why some people would be paranoid, even if they take it to stupid extremes.  It's not their fault that every powerful institution in the country has proven to us over and over and over again for as long as anyone alive can remember that they cannot be trusted.  Those institutions are at fault for continually weakening the fabric of society with their power games.

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 13, 2013, 01:28:23 pm
But what motive does the government have for poisoning people with vaccines?

Is it really hard to imagine how a bunch of megalomaniacs might enjoy the ability to secretly put substances in the bodies of whoever they wanted?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 04:52:56 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 13, 2013, 04:46:37 pm
Pointing out that something has happened in the past and could happen again is not acting like a conspiracy theorist.  You're overreacting to my statement.  I've not said that people should stop getting vaccinations or anything like that.  Only that I can understand why some people would be paranoid, even if they take it to stupid extremes.  It's not their fault that every powerful institution in the country has proven to us over and over and over again for as long as anyone alive can remember that they cannot be trusted.  Those institutions are at fault for continually weakening the fabric of society with their power games.
There. Is. No. Reason. For. Anybody. To. Do. What. You. Are. Suggesting.

The government did have a reason (however bad) for their Big Data projects, that being paranoia of terrorists and IP enforcement, but what you are suggesting serves no purpose whatsoever.
Quote
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 13, 2013, 01:28:23 pm
But what motive does the government have for poisoning people with vaccines?

Is it really hard to imagine how a bunch of megalomaniacs might enjoy the ability to secretly put substances in the bodies of whoever they wanted?
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 01:30:06 pm
Quit acting like a conspiracy theorist.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on September 13, 2013, 04:54:10 pm
*sigh*

One more time: Look up eugenics in America.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 04:59:34 pm
1. That has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

2. No significant portion of the population supports eugenics anymore, and besides:

3. Eugenics in the traditional sense is completely impossible to actually do, and would require programs that last longer than the lifespan of most nations combined.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on September 13, 2013, 05:04:02 pm
Yea, lets compare a horrible act by a government against humanity to a trialed and proven medical practice that has shown to be one of the best preventive measures in the world. Might as well advice people about the dangers of washing your hands.

But then the fluoride people already do...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 13, 2013, 05:42:35 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 13, 2013, 04:46:37 pm
Is it really hard to imagine how a bunch of megalomaniacs might enjoy the ability to secretly put substances in the bodies of whoever they wanted?
Well, let's rephrase it to be accurate:

the ability to put the same chemical into everybody, after it has gone through clinical trials.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 13, 2013, 05:57:01 pm
Quote from: Max White on September 13, 2013, 05:04:02 pm
Yea, lets compare a horrible act by a government against humanity to a trialed and proven medical practice that has shown to be one of the best preventive measures in the world.

Who has said anything meant to compare these two things?

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 04:52:56 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 13, 2013, 04:46:37 pm
Pointing out that something has happened in the past and could happen again is not acting like a conspiracy theorist.  You're overreacting to my statement.  I've not said that people should stop getting vaccinations or anything like that.  Only that I can understand why some people would be paranoid, even if they take it to stupid extremes.  It's not their fault that every powerful institution in the country has proven to us over and over and over again for as long as anyone alive can remember that they cannot be trusted.  Those institutions are at fault for continually weakening the fabric of society with their power games.
There. Is. No. Reason. For. Anybody. To. Do. What. You. Are. Suggesting.

The government did have a reason (however bad) for their Big Data projects, that being paranoia of terrorists and IP enforcement, but what you are suggesting serves no purpose whatsoever.
Quote
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 13, 2013, 01:28:23 pm
But what motive does the government have for poisoning people with vaccines?

Is it really hard to imagine how a bunch of megalomaniacs might enjoy the ability to secretly put substances in the bodies of whoever they wanted?
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 01:30:06 pm
Quit acting like a conspiracy theorist.

So I'm a conspiracy theorist if I believe that given the ability to, for example, medicate an unaware population into complacency that there would be some support for such a measure and that under the right circumstances, it could actually happen?  Especially when we're taking about organizations which have mass medicated populations in the past with the explicit goal of achieving mind control, and continues to regularly engage in mass violation of basic rights?

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that this is a thing which is happening right now.  I'm saying it's well-established that it can happen.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 04:59:34 pm
2. No significant portion of the population supports eugenics anymore, and besides:

Not very relevant, when popular support doesn't have much to do with decision-making in America.  Programs that are expected to be unpopular (but useful for consolidating power) are decided on and implemented in secret.

Even if that weren't the case, culture can swing back in that direction.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 04:59:34 pm
3. Eugenics in the traditional sense is completely impossible to actually do, and would require programs that last longer than the lifespan of most nations combined.

Since when does this stop people from attempting stupid, reprehensible shit anyway?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 13, 2013, 06:05:18 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 04:52:56 pm
There. Is. No. Reason. For. Anybody. To. Do. What. You. Are. Suggesting.
You know, I really don't know why the government has pulled ANY of the bullshit medical experiments they've pulled. Secret drugs for no scientific benefit? Check. Intentionally infecting people it claims to be treating 'just to see what happens'? Check. Now, a while ago, I would have said "The cold war is over, stuff like that doesn't happen anymore", but honestly?

I don't really have any idea. The whole post-investigation on those programs showed they were terribly illegal at the time, but no one who would care knew about them or the extent of what they were up to. It was a side effect of secret government organizations without much oversight.

Do I think they are doing it now? Probably not.

But I could understand how someone could, and while it would make them a conspiracy theorist remember that they are theorizing something that DID IN FACT HAPPEN might be happening again UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES.

I don't think the government, as a whole, has any interest in repeating the bullshit it pulled in the past - but I've also got good reason to believe they've got plenty of secret programs still running with minimal oversight. So they might actually be doing so, and while the fear is unreasonable statistically, it's still a fear that could be considered "realistic" if not "reasonable" - it's not a completely bonkers conspiracy theory, on account of the government having a proven track record of engaging in it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 13, 2013, 06:06:30 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 13, 2013, 05:42:35 pm
the ability to put the same chemical into everybody, after it has gone through clinical trials.
Hnn... disregarding the rest of the conversation, clinical trials -- in the states, at least -- are not quite as rigorous (or corruption proof, it seems some days) as I'd prefer, m'self. Might not mean much, in practice.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 13, 2013, 06:11:34 pm
I just want to clarify: My position is that "Man, I wish I could shut down all these looney conspiracy theorists, but the god damn government keeps doing conspiracies!"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on September 13, 2013, 06:16:58 pm
Quote
It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way they work.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 13, 2013, 06:18:44 pm
Quote from: Frumple on September 13, 2013, 06:06:30 pm
Hnn... disregarding the rest of the conversation, clinical trials -- in the states, at least -- are not quite as rigorous (or corruption proof, it seems some days) as I'd prefer, m'self. Might not mean much, in practice.
That's true.  But any universally administered vaccine will have gone through a lot of trials all around the world, and one of them would probably have picked it up if it was secretly a mind control drug.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 13, 2013, 06:19:59 pm
Yeah, honestly if the government's up to it's old tricks, the average middle class anti-vac proponents is NOT going to be the target - it's disadvantaged groups no one would miss or care about either way.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on September 13, 2013, 06:20:42 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 13, 2013, 06:18:44 pm
Quote from: Frumple on September 13, 2013, 06:06:30 pm
Hnn... disregarding the rest of the conversation, clinical trials -- in the states, at least -- are not quite as rigorous (or corruption proof, it seems some days) as I'd prefer, m'self. Might not mean much, in practice.
That's true.  But any universally administered vaccine will have gone through a lot of trials all around the world, and one of them would probably have picked it up if it was secretly a mind control drug.
Though it's pretty easy to tell it's not a mind control drug.
Because people are complaining. If I had a populace under mind control the last thing I would want them doing is discussing it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 13, 2013, 06:22:05 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 13, 2013, 06:11:34 pm
I just want to clarify: My position is that "Man, I wish I could shut down all these looney conspiracy theorists, but the god damn government keeps doing conspiracies!"

That's basically my position, too.  I don't agree with the anti-vaccers, at least the type as described earlier in this thread, but I can at least understand paranoia and difficulty making proper decisions about what to believe.  And I don't support measures that enable more conspiracy *fact* to be enacted in the future.  Mock and shame the anti-vaccers all you want.  Encourage people to get their vaccinations.  I agree like 95%.  But making it mandatory?... breaking down the fundamental notion that a person deserves to control what they put into their bodies opens all kinds of doors to worse problems than the one you're trying to solve.

Quote from: Graknorke on September 13, 2013, 06:20:42 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 13, 2013, 06:18:44 pm
Quote from: Frumple on September 13, 2013, 06:06:30 pm
Hnn... disregarding the rest of the conversation, clinical trials -- in the states, at least -- are not quite as rigorous (or corruption proof, it seems some days) as I'd prefer, m'self. Might not mean much, in practice.
That's true.  But any universally administered vaccine will have gone through a lot of trials all around the world, and one of them would probably have picked it up if it was secretly a mind control drug.
Though it's pretty easy to tell it's not a mind control drug.
Because people are complaining. If I had a populace under mind control the last thing I would want them doing is discussing it.

You've got that completely wrong.  You want them discussing it, but looking ridiculous for it.  I think one of the most difficult things to deal with in America is information control isn't absolute.  Most things are known to people who really dig for the truth.  But when only a minority bothers to actually do that on any given subject and mainstream sources of information say the opposite thing, the person who knows the truth tends to look really ridiculous.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 06:31:04 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 13, 2013, 06:22:05 pm
But making it mandatory?... breaking down the fundamental notion that a person deserves to control what they put into their bodies opens all kinds of doors to worse problems than the one you're trying to solve.
Vaccines are not just about the individual. They are a cure that requires societal investment, or it will be ultimately of little use. We see how well it goes when it is voluntary, from the anti-vaccers to individuals such as yourself, who draw a line of what vaccines are "necessary".

Besides, they're just about mandatory anyway. You can't enter primary or secondary education without proof of active vaccination, and I'm sure there are other places proof is needed as well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on September 13, 2013, 06:44:43 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 13, 2013, 06:22:05 pm
You've got that completely wrong.  You want them discussing it, but looking completely ridiculous for it.
Oh god man this is completely indistinguishable from a Birther post.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 13, 2013, 06:56:57 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 06:31:04 pm
Besides, they're just about mandatory anyway. You can't enter primary or secondary education without proof of active vaccination, and I'm sure there are other places proof is needed as well.
*coughs* Actually, you could waive most of them, last time I had to deal with that, and that may have only been for housing.* I think the one I'm in right now didn't even ask.

*I'm fairly sure I've got the big ones, but gods be buggered if I knew where the paperwork was, so I waived most of them >_>
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on September 13, 2013, 07:27:08 pm
The point is in the end vaccines aren't likely to be a government cover up for something, they are administered world wide with positive results. There is no rational reason to not get one. Hypothetical conspiracies will end with you wrapping your head in tinfoil for all the bad tings that might be happening. Does the US government have a history of horror level stupidity? Yea, but that isn't a license to claim everything in the world is an evil plot.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on September 13, 2013, 09:44:59 pm
I'd also like to point out this is literally the same sentiment as the Taliban and highly conservative blocking largely US and UN led efforts to eradicate Polio. Actually, they suspect it might have pork in it, which is far more likely. They also suspect it might have aids, which is less likely.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 13, 2013, 09:52:12 pm
No, it's not, because I have not once said that people shouldn't get vaccinations or even be pressured to get them.  My literal sentiments were that I can understand how anti-vaccers get to where they are, even if I still disagree with them the same way you guys do, and that I don't support making vaccinations 100% mandatory.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on September 13, 2013, 11:34:03 pm
I still dont understand why they think that.

I understand that they think the Evil Government is working to reconfabulate their brains with their sufficiently-advanced-technology governments always seem to have. But I dont understand why, if they suspect this, they then proceed to ignore the overwhelming non-governmental evidence against this. Because of that, I dont understand why they are against vaccines, it just strikes me as people living in another world.

There is no rational basis for the fear, its just superstition.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on September 13, 2013, 11:37:38 pm
Quote from: alexandertnt on September 13, 2013, 11:34:03 pm
non-governmental

It's all governmental to them. All of it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on September 14, 2013, 03:15:46 am
That is the thing about a conspiracy. It is never disproved, instead the number of people simply increases.

Anybody don't agree with you? They are brainwashed. Can they present evidence contrary to your claim? They are in on it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 14, 2013, 07:48:27 am
Most vaccines are taken once in life. Flu shots are taken once every year. So congratulations, Evil Government. You've just mind controlled a bunch of third graders or a bunch of elderly gentlefolks for 3-4 weeks tops.

Because yeah. Vaccines would be a horribly inefficient way to administer "mind control chemicals" to people, because they're not taken often enough to actually to actually cause any kind of consistent behaviour. They'd need you to take "vaccine shots" like every 4-6 weeks for that to happen.

Now, if I were an Evil Government Conspiracist I'd much rather put tge mind control drug in insulin shots and lobby for increased diabetes in the populace. A shot you need to take every day, maybe even several times? That's a lot more efficient. Thank god people are so careful about what they eat and diabetes ie on its way dow- hey, wait a second...!

But nah. Still to inefficient. What your really want to do is work with the fast food chains, and cheap beer and soft drink producers instead of the medicine business. Wake up sheeple! McDonald's Coca Cola is brain controlling you!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 14, 2013, 07:50:25 am
Shush, I won't be able to pass the Everybody Has Diabetes bill if you keep talking like that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 14, 2013, 08:29:20 am
So since we seem to be playing a game of "use the unrelated thing SalmonGod said to attack these despicable strawmen" why don't we move on to a more productive topic?

(especially since the real clincher for this not being a good reason to avoid vaccines is that historically  the thing the government would do is make you batch of vaccine do nothing... leaving you in the same exact place as if you refused it completely.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: PanH on September 14, 2013, 08:48:50 am
Quote from: scriver on September 14, 2013, 07:48:27 am
Most vaccines are taken once in life.
Twice at least usually. Without at least one booster, vaccines are not very efficient nor have long-lasting effects (as in several years or decades). Though, you rarely need to do one more than once a decade.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on September 18, 2013, 01:33:26 am
So, this is a significantly smaller thing than just about anything vaccine related, but a certain children's card game has decided it's okay to refer to homosexual relationships in their product (http://dougbeyermtg.tumblr.com/post/61385493599/are-the-guardians-or-meletis-magics-first-gay-couple). I like seeing signs of progress in media, and this is from a company that once pulled Satanic imagery and demons from the game to avoid upsetting moral guardian types. Doing it this way is also good, because it subtly underscores that it's socially okay by not making it seem weird enough to warrant special attention. I'm reading this as, "Sometimes dudes love other dudes, and we think that's so okay that we don't even need to tell you that. We can just start putting it in the work we do."

I like that I'm making a bigger deal of it than they are.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 18, 2013, 01:35:50 am
Wait, is Magic a children's card game? I thought it was too expensive to be considered that, like Warhammer.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on September 18, 2013, 01:44:56 am
I can no longer find the citation, but I was under the impression that the average player was around 14-15 years old. This is distinct from the market that buys the most cards and plays in competitive environments, though. Because, yeah, that's expensive. Still, point is, there's a very large part of the game aimed at young people.

EDIT: And I only mention it for two reasons. One, it's particularly relevant to the moral guardian crowd, who insist that any mention, within earshot of somebody under 18, of the possibility of guys loving guys is going to lead to the collapse of society. Two, I like making references to things, so why not take an easy opportunity to refer to an Abridged Series.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on September 18, 2013, 02:00:39 am
I have to be really honest, though: I am super-happy about the fact that gay dudes are featuring in more products, but I really hope we get some non-fetishized lesbians at some point.  Because they are . . . pretty rare.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 18, 2013, 02:04:23 am
But Vector, chicks kissing!

Chicks... KISSING!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mech#4 on September 18, 2013, 02:08:34 am
Quote from: Bauglir on September 18, 2013, 01:44:56 am
I can no longer find the citation, but I was under the impression that the average player was around 14-15 years old. This is distinct from the market that buys the most cards and plays in competitive environments, though. Because, yeah, that's expensive. Still, point is, there's a very large part of the game aimed at young people.

EDIT: And I only mention it for two reasons. One, it's particularly relevant to the moral guardian crowd, who insist that any mention, within earshot of somebody under 18, of the possibility of guys loving guys is going to lead to the collapse of society. Two, I like making references to things, so why not take an easy opportunity to refer to an Abridged Series.

I believe Games Workshops target market is around 12 to 15 years as well. I have no basis other then pessimism but I believe that's because they have the most disposable income (I.E. from parents.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: NobodyPro on September 18, 2013, 05:03:11 am
Quote from: Mech#4 on September 18, 2013, 02:08:34 am
Quote from: Bauglir on September 18, 2013, 01:44:56 am
I can no longer find the citation, but I was under the impression that the average player was around 14-15 years old. This is distinct from the market that buys the most cards and plays in competitive environments, though. Because, yeah, that's expensive. Still, point is, there's a very large part of the game aimed at young people.

EDIT: And I only mention it for two reasons. One, it's particularly relevant to the moral guardian crowd, who insist that any mention, within earshot of somebody under 18, of the possibility of guys loving guys is going to lead to the collapse of society. Two, I like making references to things, so why not take an easy opportunity to refer to an Abridged Series.

I believe Games Workshops target market is around 12 to 15 years as well. I have no basis other then pessimism but I believe that's because they have the most disposable income (I.E. from parents.)
Yeah, they apparently make a fair amount of their profit from the sale of starter kit-type products. Given that I own a Battle of Macragge starter kit and nothing else...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrunner on September 18, 2013, 05:27:31 am
Quote from: Bauglir on September 18, 2013, 01:33:26 am
So, this is a significantly smaller thing than just about anything vaccine related, but a certain children's card game has decided it's okay to refer to homosexual relationships in their product (http://dougbeyermtg.tumblr.com/post/61385493599/are-the-guardians-or-meletis-magics-first-gay-couple). I like seeing signs of progress in media, and this is from a company that once pulled Satanic imagery and demons from the game to avoid upsetting moral guardian types. Doing it this way is also good, because it subtly underscores that it's socially okay by not making it seem weird enough to warrant special attention. I'm reading this as, "Sometimes dudes love other dudes, and we think that's so okay that we don't even need to tell you that. We can just start putting it in the work we do."

I like that I'm making a bigger deal of it than they are.
Maybe they're using the shakespherian 'lover'.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on September 18, 2013, 01:42:41 pm
I love tripping people up by asking "'Know' in the biblical sense?"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on September 18, 2013, 01:44:13 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on September 18, 2013, 01:42:41 pm
I love tripping people up by asking "'Know' in the biblical sense?"

I dislike whenever "Biblical" is used... If only because that is vague.

"We were in love, in the Biblical sense"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2013, 01:50:53 pm
Quote from: Vector on September 18, 2013, 02:00:39 am
I really hope we get some non-fetishized lesbians at some point.  Because they are . . . pretty rare.
I'm hoping for some bears (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheBear) too.

The only acceptable gay folk are young and stereotypically sexy, it seems. You won't see much of anything besides young voluptuous women and young sleek guys.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on September 18, 2013, 02:00:12 pm
I thought Bill in the Last of Us would fit that category.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2013, 02:17:43 pm
/me has only vaguely heard of that game

/me stands corrected, then
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on October 16, 2013, 02:20:54 pm
You know, I've never actually seen the numbers laid out this way. If true, 's a good thing. (http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2012/04/child_supportcu.html)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 16, 2013, 02:27:50 pm
Aye, I've been looking for good statistics on that subject for a while. Looks legitimate :)

My only problem is the bolded part here:
Quote
It turns out that fathers who ask for custody (and don't give up) are very likely to get either sole or joint custody:

And that's probably not a problem that has anything to do with gender; long divorce and custody cases take a huge toll on kids too, and a good parent might want to end the case early to keep the stress off their kids.



So now I'm wondering if there's a gender bias with short custody cases; if little information is provided that either parent is better suited to take care of the child, does it default to one or the other on gender lines? Probably difficult to get information on that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 17, 2013, 06:11:30 am
That's my main problem with the information presented, too, and I think shoddy presentation is mainly to blame.

Quote
Study 1: MASS
2100 cases where fathers sought custody (100%)
5 year duration

29% of fathers got primary custody
65% of fathers got joint custody
7% of mothers got primary custody

Study 2: MASS
700 cases. In 57, (8.14%) father sought custody
6 years

67% of fathers got primary custody
23% of mothers got primary custody

Study 3: MASS
500 cases. In 8% of these cases, father sought custody
6 years

41% of fathers got sole custody
38% of fathers got joint custody
15% of mothers got sole custody

They list a duration of 5/6 years with each study.  Is that the length of time the father spent fighting for custody, or the duration of the study itself?  Because if it's the former, I don't find it very encouraging.

Most of the article feels like data just tossed about haphazardly.  She didn't put much effort into painting a coherent picture with it.  So I don't know what to think.  I guess she just expects everyone to follow her links to understand them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 17, 2013, 06:50:07 am
That seems like a biased sample.  Fathers probably seek legal advice and only push for custody if they're likely to get it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 17, 2013, 06:52:23 am
I also don't like the implications in that a non-working parent has the advantage in a custody case.  I understand why it would be that way, but that doesn't make it any less rotten.  If anything, the working parent has more tangible proof of their ability to handle responsibility, while the non-working parent doesn't prove anything regarding their suitability as a parent by not working.  I've seen a few cases first-hand (going both ways gender-wise) of one parent staying home under the guise of childrearing just to do whatever the hell they want and mostly ignore their parenting, or where one parent works because they're better educated or better at holding down a job, but would also clearly be better with the children if they were able to stay home with them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on October 17, 2013, 07:04:16 am
Oh look, as soon as we see a study that goes against preconceived notions time to try and knock it down!  :P
Actually that is exactly right, we should always question studies, regardless of our personal opinion on the subject. Anyway I have some interesting reading, maybe for another night, there is a lot of information in those sources.
I will say that that first study linked was commissioned in 1986... Five years before I was even born. You know I understand you can't do a new study every week, but something from this decade, or heck even millenia would be nice, and perhaps with more broad a scope than the state of Massachusetts. Irrelevant data is irrelevant. Unproven point is unproven.

I'll get reading on more tomorrow, it is getting late here...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 17, 2013, 12:11:08 pm
I'd also like some data that's broken down between divorce custody cases vs all other custody cases. Mainly curious as to whether the man or woman gets stuck with the child if neither wants it (almost certain it goes to the woman), and checking if the kids were outside of wedlock is probably a decent metric for whether the parents wanted it or not.


Anyway, I'm probably more willing to believe the conclusions of that article than most here it seems, but yeah, more data and more recent data would be nice.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on October 17, 2013, 06:21:44 pm
Yea, looking more deeply at the source, all those numbers provided from various studies are from the early 80's or late 70's. I'm also wondering what the definition of 'sought custody' means in this context. If a man were to try and negotiate through a court system but find the battle winnable and drop out early does he still count? The very low rates of men actually 'seeking custody' makes me wonder about their unprovided definitions. Still, totally irrelevant information if you are trying to disprove a modern perception, as these social trends are decades old.

It is hard for me to comment on the second source, as the link seems to not work for me. Still, there is this little nugget from the page supposedly disproving these perseptions.

Quote
Old stereotypes die hard, though, and fathers’ rights advocates say neutral statutory language has done little to change the courts’ pro-mother leanings. Moms are granted custody in 85 percent of all cases, notes Dianna Thompson, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based American Coalition for Fathers and Children. She says the expense of litigation and likelihood of losing discourages many dads from even fighting for custody.

However, statistics on custody awards can be deceiving, since most custody orders are uncontested or negotiated by the parties. A 1992 study of California cases showed that fathers were awarded primary or joint custody in about half of contested custody matters.
Well at least that was in my lifetime, so that is a plus, right? Once again, what is a contested custody matter? Does a party have to fight to the bitter end for it to count?

I'm left wondering how many of the five states mentioned still have maternal preferences, if any. Honestly so far all of this information is way past its expiry date. I'm left to wonder did the author not actually carefully read the information? Did they think nobody would do any fact checking? Do they not understand that social trends and laws might have changed since the 90's (Or even 70's in some cases)? Why am I being given information that is very misleading when you leave a date off?


The next myth on the chopping block is that fathers pay higher child support, and claims this is false. The link provided for this one looks like a government website that would be changed to reflect current trends, but no, it is a journal issue from the 1st September, 1994. Well a hand of applause, as we are getting a little closer to something relevant with each link! No really, your going to get food poisoning if you don't check the date. Is there really no more relevant information on the entire internet on this subject to link me to? Or is the more up to date stuff not fall in line with the conclusion?

On to fathers not spending as much time with their kids. The diagnosis? True! Men spend about half as much time with their children as women according to a 2007 report. But don't worry, that is changing, as it is up from 2.5 to 6.5 hours on average, and it only took 35 years to get there. Still not exactly 12.9, but getting there. Still, while this study was made in 2007, it is ranging from 1965 to 2000. I would love to see their data collection method.


Ok, breakfast time for me...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on October 17, 2013, 07:24:40 pm
Child support? Data? Well. This might be something that can help. (http://www.alllaw.com/calculators/childsupport/) What it tells you (beyond just plugging it in) is that there's a formula, per state, on how to calculate the child support rate. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support_in_the_United_States#State_by_state_provisions) would appear to be a convenient list of individual provisions for each state. Those'd be some places to start your search. If you were really trying to brass tacks things, you'd probably have to hunt down the minutes or whatever of individual child support cases and find out what the judge's reasoning is, since there is some wiggle room beyond the state's given rate based on varying circumstances.

Also, yeah, it's not uncommon for it to be hard to find up to date research on stuff like this. Studies often take a bloody long time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on November 26, 2013, 10:40:09 pm
Pregnant Woman Charged With Absconding With Fetus (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/us/custody-battle-raises-questions-about-the-rights-of-women.html)

I link to this blog site only since some interesting other details of the case appear in the comments (http://www.shakesville.com/2013/11/absconding-with-ones-fetus.html).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2013, 11:04:49 pm
I thought we were missing one of the major threads.
Quote from: Vector on November 26, 2013, 10:40:09 pm
Pregnant Woman Charged With Absconding With Fetus (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/us/custody-battle-raises-questions-about-the-rights-of-women.html)
Because that's not a precedent that could result in terrible consequences.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on November 26, 2013, 11:18:52 pm
That is just so fundamentally wrong, so opposed to basic ideas of human decency, and requires such a massive deviation from the basic laws of property, childcare, and pregnancy, that I think the judge that ruled that should be stripped of his title.


The Appeals court seems to have made the wise decision here; so as long as the judge in California can let go of his ego, family court can take it over.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on November 27, 2013, 12:05:46 am
Wow. Speechless. So wrong.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on November 27, 2013, 10:54:55 am
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25118156
Quote
The US authorities have studied online sexual activity and suggested exposing porn site visits as a way to discredit people who spread radical views
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on November 27, 2013, 11:50:48 am
Quote from: alway on November 27, 2013, 10:54:55 am
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25118156
Quote
The US authorities have studied online sexual activity and suggested exposing porn site visits as a way to discredit people who spread radical views
That's fucking stupid.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 27, 2013, 12:16:53 pm
It's a strategy that's been around since McCarthyism, but I doubt it'll work so well these days.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 27, 2013, 12:36:22 pm
If the "radicals" in question are religious extremists, it might discredit them among their fellows.

Won't discredit almost anyone else, though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 27, 2013, 12:40:26 pm
Kaijyuu, if the revelation of hypocritical sexuality could get rid of religious extremists, we wouldn't have any religious extremists.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on November 27, 2013, 02:17:04 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on November 27, 2013, 12:36:22 pm
If the "radicals" in question are religious extremists, it might discredit them among their fellows.

I don't think the "propaganda of the infidels" has much influence on their social standing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 27, 2013, 04:31:52 pm
Fair point.

Righto, this is pointless, intrusive, and insulting then.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on November 27, 2013, 07:02:08 pm
So government as usual, then?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on November 27, 2013, 11:36:54 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 27, 2013, 12:16:53 pm
It's a strategy that's been around since McCarthyism, but I doubt it'll work so well these days.
It's also the strategy used against the leakers. And quite effectively. You'll note it also mentions things like "attracted to fame."

As per the widespread media slandering:
Manning: Sexual deviant, unsettled, attracted to fame
Assange: Sexual deviant, attracted to fame
Snowden: unsettled, attracted to fame
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 27, 2013, 11:40:54 pm
I'm not sure if it really counts if you release the information yourself, as in Manning's case.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on December 15, 2013, 05:30:36 pm
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/14/pope-im-not-a-marxist/?hpt=hp_t2
Pope V Limbaugh: FIGHT!
*grabs popcorn*
*sells tickets*
*collects wagers*
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 15, 2013, 05:54:59 pm
The Pope should grow a Marx beard to get everyone scared out of their pants.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on December 15, 2013, 06:19:37 pm
Personally I think everyone should grow a Marx beard.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 15, 2013, 06:21:44 pm
The People's Vatican State will surely soon engulf all of Christendom.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on December 15, 2013, 07:07:01 pm
Just... MSH, that sounds like some kind of incredibly horrifying innuendo. I'm not even quite sure what it's implying. You have inadvertently stated something that my mind shies away from attempting to comprehend.

... perhaps it's for the better.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 15, 2013, 07:33:49 pm
I am stating that a hypothetical Marxist Vatican is going to take over Europe, i.e., Rush Limbaugh's nightmare scenario.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on December 15, 2013, 07:36:58 pm
I thought the nightmare scenario were a Marxist Vatican taking over AMERICA under the banner of Muslim Obama.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on December 15, 2013, 07:38:37 pm
You call that a nightmare scenario?

My mother was over in Ireland today visiting relatives when she met a Hungarian fellow in a fish and chip shop, serving her and all that. She spoke to him briefly, he just wanted to talk to someone and basically told her his life story. When she asked "what brought you to Ireland?" he somehow started talking about how Jews rule Europe, the US Army and also a lot of Hungary. He went on an enormous rant talking about an entire Jewish district somewhere in Budapest that had been created specifically for them or something and complained that where once there had been swastikas in Berlin, now there was only the star of David. I think he moved to Ireland specifically to escape from Jews.

My mother was so bewildered and confused at this cacophony of anti-semitism that she did not know what to do, all she wanted was vinegar on her chips. She managed to escape with the meal unscathed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 15, 2013, 07:54:39 pm
I'm astounded by the number of Eastern Europeans who have expressed the belief that their governments are essentially vassal states of the CIA.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on December 15, 2013, 07:55:21 pm
Well it certainly gets points for originality; Usually it's the New York Jewish Bankers.

The Vatican has their own bank don't they? The plot thickens.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on December 15, 2013, 09:11:11 pm
During a discussion about why shows like "Young Justice" get cancelled...

Quote
DINI: “They’re all for boys ’we do not want the girls’, I mean, I’ve heard executives say this, you know, not Ryan(?) but at other places, saying like, ‘We do not want girls watching this show.”

SMITH: “WHY? That’s 51% of the population.”

DINI: “They. Do. Not. Buy. Toys. The girls buy different toys. The girls may watch the show—”

SMITH: “So you can sell them T-shirts if they don’t—A: I disagree, I think girls buy toys as well, I mean not as many as f***ing boys do, but, B: sell them something else, man! Don’t be lazy and be like, ‘well I can’t sell a girl a toy.’ Sell ‘em a T-shirt, man, sell them f***ing umbrella with the f***ing character on it, something like that. But if it’s not a toy, there’s something else you could sell ‘em! Like, just because you can’t figure out your job, don’t kill chances of, like, something that’s gonna reach an audi—that’s just so self-defeating, when people go, like… these are the same fuckers who go, like, ‘Oh, girls don’t read comics, girls aren’t into comics.’ It’s all self-fulfilling prophecies. They just make it that way, by going like, ‘I can’t sell ‘em a toy, what’s the point?’

DINI: “That’s the thing, you know I hate being Mr. Sour Grapes here, but I’ll just lay it on the line: that’s the thing that got us cancelled on Tower Prep, honest-to-God was, like, ‘we need boys, but we need girls right there, right one step behind the boys’—this is the network talking—’one step behind the boys, not as smart as the boys, not as interesting as the boys, but right there.’ And then we began writing stories that got into the two girls’ back stories, and they were really interesting. And suddenly we had families and girls watching, and girls really became a big part of our audience, in sort of like they picked up that Harry Potter type of serialized way, which is what The Batman and [indistinct]’s really gonna kill. But, the Cartoon Network was saying, ‘F***, no, we want the boys’ action, it’s boys’ action, this goofy boy humor we’ve gotta get that in there. And we can’t—’ and I’d say, but look at the numbers, we’ve got parents watching, with the families, and then when you break it down—’Yeah, but the—so many—we’ve got too many girls. We need more boys.’”

SMITH: “That’s heart-breaking.”

DINI: “And then that’s why they cancelled us, and they put on a show called Level Up, which is, you know, goofy nerds fighting CG monsters. It’s like, ‘We don’t want the girls because the girls won’t buy toys.’ We had a whole… we had a whole, a merchandise line for Tower Prep that they s***canned before it ever got off the launching pad, because it’s like, ‘Boys, boys, boys. Boys buy the little spinny tops, they but the action figures, girls buy princesses, we’re not selling princesses.’”


from http://smodcast.com/episodes/paul-dini-shadow-of-the-shadow-of-the-bat/ (http://smodcast.com/episodes/paul-dini-shadow-of-the-shadow-of-the-bat/)

>_>  <_<    /postvent
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on December 15, 2013, 10:25:18 pm
You'd think it was still 1986 after reading that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on December 16, 2013, 02:09:20 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 15, 2013, 07:54:39 pm
I'm astounded by the number of Eastern Europeans who have expressed the belief that their governments are essentially vassal states of the CIA.
To be fair, the CIA probably did the best they could.

It's not their fault everyone makes them out to be super-competent at doing it. :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 19, 2013, 07:15:57 am
Bless the Brits that fought the Nazis and fight them to this day. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqv9k3jbtYU) Absolute madness.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 19, 2013, 07:53:28 pm
True dat. True heroes, all of them. *pours out some beer in remembrance of the fallen*
*does not actually pour out beer, because that would be a sin against being German*
*still remembers all the brave soldiers from the Great War*
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on December 19, 2013, 09:16:16 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on December 19, 2013, 07:15:57 am
Bless the Brits that fought the Nazis and fight them to this day. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqv9k3jbtYU) Absolute madness.
And I the only one who thinks that first kid to speak out, the one that actually wasn't ok with racial segregation and got thrown out for his efforts, was actually the most moral one there?
That entire thing just turned into "I suffer racism, therefor it is ok for me to discriminate against all of you and dismiss what you have to say out of hand. You are just some white person who refuses to take their damn pills, and there is no way you have any sort of valid point."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on December 19, 2013, 09:18:11 pm
I was waiting for her to turn around to the brown eyes and say "why the hell did you agree that every single one of those blue eyes is racist"? But she didn't, she just talked about how every white person is racist. Every. Single. One.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on December 19, 2013, 09:19:27 pm
Yea, I kept waiting for the "Hey guys, why the hell are you all ok with this shit?" moment, but it just never came. Turns out the bitch really is just a bitch.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on December 19, 2013, 09:20:58 pm
Quote from: Max White on December 19, 2013, 09:19:27 pm
Yea, I kept waiting for the "Hey guys, why the hell are you all ok with this shit?" moment, but it just never came. Turns out the bitch really is just a bitch.

She was disturbed by brown-eyes going along with it with glee when she was teaching all-white classes but now that the brown eyes are mostly black there's no problem.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on December 19, 2013, 09:24:30 pm
Apparently we have just been brainwashed since before we were born. Her own words.

The worst bit is that anybody who point out how batshit the entire thing is gets dismissed as unwilling to see other white folk suffer for their own good.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on December 19, 2013, 10:00:43 pm
More along the lines of "If you are white and don't like being called a racist? Racist. Are willing to join us and condemn all other whites? Well there might be hope for you, just shut up and do what I say and don't think."

Why does the US keep doing this? First Salem, then McCarthy...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on December 19, 2013, 10:22:02 pm
Quote from: Max White on December 19, 2013, 10:00:43 pm
More along the lines of "If you are white and don't like being called a racist? Racist. Are willing to join us and condemn all other whites? Well there might be hope for you, just shut up and do what I say and don't think."

Why does the US keep doing this? First Salem, then McCarthy...
Oh wow, It is just like an Australian to take one group of people and say they're all the same. (Read the sentence again if you don't catch it).

Two things: 1) This video took place in Britain. 2) Those two incidents took place 253 years apart, which is longer then the US has existed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on December 19, 2013, 10:32:57 pm
Quote from: misko27 on December 19, 2013, 10:22:02 pm
Two things: 1) This video took place in Britain. 2) Those two incidents took place 253 years apart, which is longer then the US has existed.

Jane Elliott is an American who does this all over the world. The specific video happened in Britain, but it started in the US...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on December 19, 2013, 10:53:38 pm
Quote from: Max White on December 19, 2013, 10:32:57 pm
Quote from: misko27 on December 19, 2013, 10:22:02 pm
Two things: 1) This video took place in Britain. 2) Those two incidents took place 253 years apart, which is longer then the US has existed.

Jane Elliott is an American who does this all over the world. The specific video happened in Britain, but it started in the US...
Ahh, so a single person from a group comprising 315 million people (and about 4.5% of the population of the planet) is doing it. Is Toronto the crack capital of the world then? There is a lot of evidence with which to criticize the US, but that is faulty.

This seems more like an experiment in group psychology then hidden racism to be honest. A Stanford Prison Experiment.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on December 19, 2013, 11:01:15 pm
Quote from: misko27 on December 19, 2013, 10:53:38 pm
Ahh, so a single person from a group comprising 330 million people is doing it. Is Toronto the crack capital of the world then? There is a lot of evidence with which to criticize the US, but that is faulty.

This seems more like an experiment in group psychology then hidden racism to be honest. A Stanford Prison Experiment.
Chill. I'm not trying to say this is systemic of everybody in the US, just the shallow insight that this is a recurring theme in the history of the US.

And yes, this is very similar to the Stanford Prison Experiment, the difference is that was an experiment to see what would happen, and the person doing the test fell through the looking glass, while the Blue/Brown eye thingy is using that same hypothesis against people and siding with the jail guards.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on December 20, 2013, 08:29:56 am
One has to say though that this video is not a particular neutral portrayal. It is quite sensationalist.
Wikipedia has a long article on her with an extensive criticism section on her diversity training that paints a different picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott#Criticism_of_Elliott-inspired_diversity_training (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott#Criticism_of_Elliott-inspired_diversity_training)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 20, 2013, 02:09:34 pm
Quote from: Max White on December 19, 2013, 10:32:57 pm
Jane Elliott is an American who does this all over the world. The specific video happened in Britain, but it started in the US...
The worst part is that she has done this for 40 years. How many hundreds of children has she done this too?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: t. fortsorter on December 20, 2013, 02:35:29 pm
Indoctrination must be harsh, or else the people subject to it will be having second thoughts, haha~
Why would people want to or let others indoctrinate in this manner? Especially when it comes to this exact issue. You are welcome to educate me, in fact, please do~
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 13, 2014, 12:21:28 pm
I know this is Cracked, but here is an article based on an interview with a veteran about how shitty things are for women in the military (something that's been brought up here before): Enjoy (http://www.cracked.com/article_20701_5-shockingly-outdated-problems-women-in-military-face.html).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on January 13, 2014, 07:10:34 pm
Quote from: scriver on January 13, 2014, 12:21:28 pm
I know this is Cracked, but here is an article based on an interview with a veteran about how shitty things are for women in the military (something that's been brought up here before): Enjoy (http://www.cracked.com/article_20701_5-shockingly-outdated-problems-women-in-military-face.html).

Those comments...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Caz on January 13, 2014, 07:18:33 pm
Quote from: Vector on January 13, 2014, 07:10:34 pm
Quote from: scriver on January 13, 2014, 12:21:28 pm
I know this is Cracked, but here is an article based on an interview with a veteran about how shitty things are for women in the military (something that's been brought up here before): Enjoy (http://www.cracked.com/article_20701_5-shockingly-outdated-problems-women-in-military-face.html).

Those comments...

/exit thread
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 13, 2014, 07:24:10 pm
Quote from: scriver on January 13, 2014, 12:21:28 pm
I know this is Cracked, but here is an article based on an interview with a veteran about how shitty things are for women in the military (something that's been brought up here before): Enjoy (http://www.cracked.com/article_20701_5-shockingly-outdated-problems-women-in-military-face.html).
I do not trust this article. As in, at all.
Firstly, Cracked. Secondly, there's only three people actually quotes there. Thirdly, I got to number three.
Being given some hygiene products that are targeted at women is not a big deal. It'll still work, the difference is negligible. That should definitely not be more important than the equipment one, and even that is a petty complaint. The military gear is not made for any person or even group of people, it's just made to be as generic as possible. So that it can be mass-produced cheaply.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on January 13, 2014, 07:28:17 pm
Let me remind you that female hygiene involves managing large quantities of blood.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 13, 2014, 07:34:54 pm
Quote from: Vector on January 13, 2014, 07:28:17 pm
Let me remind you that female hygiene involves managing large quantities of blood.
...duly noted.
Still though, wouldn't a hospital have supplies of [product of choice for absorbing expelled womb lining], regardless of the 'comfort kits'?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on January 13, 2014, 07:42:22 pm
Wouldn't the hospital have plenty of shit for male hygiene, too, regardless of comfort kits?  And hospital gowns, if the patient should happen to need anything to wear.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on January 13, 2014, 08:11:14 pm
I've seen some of that stuff first hand.  Disbelieving it doesn't make it go away.  It makes the problem worse.  When you see something like that from a dubious source, you can always check for it in credible sources, assuming that you can distinguish the two, (which isn't exactly easy).  This stuff comes up in the news on a regular basis.  Who am I going to trust, the people that are there when it happens, and journalists, or anonymous internet guys that want to be seen as the unabomber?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on January 14, 2014, 07:34:51 am
Knowing society in general, and at least the military here in Austria, I have little doubt that it is a more misogynist place than average. Still it would be very nice to actually see those credible sources you talk about. Link maybe?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 14, 2014, 08:40:14 am
Quote from: Vector on January 13, 2014, 07:28:17 pm
Let me remind you that female hygiene involves managing large quantities of blood.

Number Three is also about a lot more than just hygiene products.

Quote from: Graknorke on January 13, 2014, 07:24:10 pm
That should definitely not be more important than the equipment one, and even that is a petty complaint. The military gear is not made for any person or even group of people, it's just made to be as generic as possible. So that it can be mass-produced cheaply.

1, You are confusing Cracked's populist "everything is a list" formula for a "sorted by worsitude breakdown list". It is not. Having read Cracked for a long time, they hardly ever make the numbering matter, and this is clearly the case here - they wanted to bring up things that are bad in the military and because of the way they write articles on Cracked it had to be made into a list.

2, "Petty complain", huh?
Quote from: Article
Again, as if she's complaining about comfort instead of about equipment making her less effective as a soldier
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 14, 2014, 08:49:51 am
Since when are women allowed to serve in the military? These might just be adaption troubles - some stuff needs time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on January 14, 2014, 11:22:17 am
Roughly 25 years or so? Depending on the country. I think there were women in the US military in combat in the first Gulf War (90/91). Seems like enough time.

Still I'm always surprised how naive people in general are about what it means being in the military. No matter what recruiters tell you, don't people watch the news or movies?

Since Germany switched from conscription to recruitment 2 years ago, they are being extra nice to recruits in the first half year. Still 30% drop out after that time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on January 14, 2014, 12:40:25 pm
It is not even one year that woman are allowed in most combat roles in the US.
Source: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119098 (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119098)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 14, 2014, 04:23:13 pm
Quote from: scriver on January 14, 2014, 08:40:14 am
Quote from: Graknorke on January 13, 2014, 07:24:10 pm
That should definitely not be more important than the equipment one, and even that is a petty complaint. The military gear is not made for any person or even group of people, it's just made to be as generic as possible. So that it can be mass-produced cheaply.
2, "Petty complain", huh?
Quote from: Article
Again, as if she's complaining about comfort instead of about equipment making her less effective as a soldier
But that is not a woman-exclusive problem. It's not something that comes about through sexism, it's because of practicality. It is assumed that everybody will match one body-type, because most of them do. Everyone who doesn't has to deal with it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on January 14, 2014, 04:28:26 pm
Most people are women, though.  Does that mean that society ignores the concerns of men out of practicality?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on January 14, 2014, 04:30:58 pm
When you have a bimodal distribution, you don't just outfit one of the modes.  You outfit both.  Outfitting to only one is not "practical" at all.

Also, hey, I used to do martial arts.  Armor came in three sizes: small, medium, large.  The small is ill-fitting because I'm even smaller than that, but it's usable.  The large is not usable for me.  It is not usable as armor, because having that much clearance space makes it not function properly.  And I was only getting hit by sticks, while we're at it.

For example, women and men have different bicycle helmets made for them because their head sizes are so different, and having a much larger helmet than is made to possibly fit your head is a serious safety issue in event of a crash--you almost might as well not be wearing one at all.  I am sure you can extrapolate that to military helmets.

It is not a comfort problem.  Proper fitting of equipment to the average member of the other 50% of your army is a physical safety problem.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 14, 2014, 04:33:38 pm
Quote from: Vector on January 14, 2014, 04:30:58 pm
It is not a comfort problem.  Proper fitting of equipment to the average member of the other 50% of your army is a physical safety problem.
Is it really 50% though?
(not that I disagree with your point)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 14, 2014, 04:39:35 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on January 14, 2014, 04:33:38 pm
Quote from: Vector on January 14, 2014, 04:30:58 pm
It is not a comfort problem.  Proper fitting of equipment to the average member of the other 50% of your army is a physical safety problem.
Is it really 50% though?
(not that I disagree with your point)
No. (http://www.statisticbrain.com/women-in-the-military-statistics/)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on January 14, 2014, 04:40:42 pm
It is not currently 50%.  Currently, it's 15.7% according to the US Army Webpage (http://www.army.mil/women/).

So, they're one standard deviation out at the moment.

I'm sorry--I made an incorrect argument, thinking about the recruiting pool (but I don't know how many people from each sex would actually be able to serve).  In any case, I think that 15% of 1,105,301 US Army personnel--165,795 people--is a big enough problem that you might want to outfit them with equipment which is functional, if not comfortable.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 04:43:24 pm
Quote from: Ogdibus on January 14, 2014, 04:28:26 pm
Most people are women, though.  Does that mean that society ignores the concerns of men out of practicality?
Yes?

If you're going to also be specific, this is the armed forces; practicality > most concerns, where most concerns do not infringe on practicality.

Quote from: Vector on January 14, 2014, 04:40:42 pm
I'm sorry--I made an incorrect argument, thinking about the recruiting pool (but I don't know how many people from each sex would actually be able to serve).  In any case, I think that 15% of 1,105,301 US Army personnel--165,795 people--is a big enough problem that you might want to outfit them with equipment which is functional, if not comfortable.
Only matters if a sizeable portion of that is going to be in combat. Anyone know what are the stats for that?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 14, 2014, 04:45:36 pm
I'm sorry, but are you actually arguing that functional and efficient equipment is only a priority for direct combatants? Because the rest of the military isn't just a clubhouse for Senator's kids. All of their jobs are more or less vital to eventually make the shooty-shooty part happen.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on January 14, 2014, 04:52:07 pm
Furthermore, combat roles are where promotions up the chain of command happen.  I'm sure that you can see why the next investigation into why women aren't being promoted could turn ugly, if they're denied functional equipment.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 04:57:17 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 14, 2014, 04:45:36 pm
I'm sorry, but are you actually arguing that functional and efficient equipment is only a priority for direct combatants?
Only? No. Priority? Yes. Seems obvious really, the people who face the most risk of dying need the most functional equipment before all else.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 14, 2014, 04:45:36 pm
Because the rest of the military isn't just a clubhouse for Senator's kids.
Senators join the military? Is the US a literal Rome?

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 14, 2014, 04:45:36 pm
All of their jobs are more or less vital to eventually make the shooty-shooty part happen.
Spoiler: I was under the impression that the US armed forces were the largest and best equipped in the world. (click to show/hide)

Now, if you're talking about body armour - that shit is expensive. Tailoring it exclusively for women, is expensive.

The US armed forces of course have plenty of money to throw around, so there is no longer an issue of equipment either. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19652591)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on January 14, 2014, 05:02:26 pm
That armor probably exists thanks to people like the ones in the article.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on January 14, 2014, 05:03:49 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 04:57:17 pm
Now, if you're talking about body armour - that shit is expensive. Tailoring it exclusively for women, is expensive.

Whereas tailoring it exclusively for men is business as usual.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on January 14, 2014, 05:09:23 pm
Quote from: Vector on January 14, 2014, 05:03:49 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 04:57:17 pm
Now, if you're talking about body armour - that shit is expensive. Tailoring it exclusively for women, is expensive.

Whereas tailoring it exclusively for men is business as usual.

Well, yes, it is precisely business as usual since your average armour will be tailored for a man due to the percentage of women in the military.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 05:10:59 pm
Quote from: Vector on January 14, 2014, 05:03:49 pm
Whereas tailoring it exclusively for men is business as usual.
Pretty much yeah. The Murricans are designing good armour for a different kind of soldier with different physiology, so they're going to have to throw more money into research before the costs start going down and it just becomes business as usual for both sexes. They only just started development for female body armour in 2009, whereas male body armour had been developing since... Armour.

Quote from: Ogdibus on January 14, 2014, 05:02:26 pm
That armor probably exists thanks to people like the ones in the article.
Cracked? More likely not, I'd chock it down to the ones in the BBC article. That's more to do with the BBC article actually saying the armour was put into development on suggestion of some female soldiers, and less to do with my natural distrust of cracked.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on January 14, 2014, 05:14:22 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 05:10:59 pm
Quote from: Ogdibus on January 14, 2014, 05:02:26 pm
That armor probably exists thanks to people like the ones in the article.
Cracked? More likely not, I'd chock it down to the ones in the BBC article. That's more to do with the BBC article actually saying the armour was put into development on suggestion of some female soldiers, and less to do with my natural distrust of cracked.

Don't be absurd.  I was talking about the women in the article.  That's why I said "in the article".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on January 14, 2014, 05:18:45 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 05:10:59 pm
They only just started development for female body armour in 2009, whereas male body armour had been developing since... Armour.

Must I remind you that people like Joan of Arc and Tomoe Gozen existed?

No, armor is not historically only used by men and designed for men.  This is ridiculous.


Oh, and lest you assume it was only those two exceptional women, let me just link (http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/) and link (http://fozmeadows.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/psa-your-default-narrative-settings-are-not-apolitical/).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on January 14, 2014, 05:22:14 pm
Let me make sure I understand.

>Equipment is only manufactured for the average soldier, who at the moment is a man
>Only soldiers with effective equipment should be deployed in combat
>Only soldiers deployed in combat advance in rank efficiently
>Rank advancement determines who makes decisions like equipment manufacture priorities
>Possibility of advancement is also a major incentive to enlist
>People wonder why women don't enlist
>OR People wonder why women want "special treatment"
>OR People think this is a good way of deterring women from serving, but aren't willing to admit that they don't think women should serve, for fear of accusations of sexism
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on January 14, 2014, 05:26:25 pm
Quote from: Vector on January 14, 2014, 05:18:45 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 05:10:59 pm
They only just started development for female body armour in 2009, whereas male body armour had been developing since... Armour.

Must I remind you that people like Joan of Arc and Tomoe Gozen existed?

No, armor is not historically only used by men and designed for men.  This is ridiculous.

There was a single Joan of Arc in the entire army. And she was kinda popular, so getting a custom-made armour was not that big of a problem for her. The next instance (in Europe/Americas) of a suit of armour specifically designed for a woman is what, hundred years later? Two? Three? Either way, that's an exception, not the rule.

Even when there were women who served in the military, most of the time they would have to conceal the fact they are not men and thus wear armour made for a man.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on January 14, 2014, 05:30:59 pm
Quote from: scrdest on January 14, 2014, 05:26:25 pm
And she was kinda popular, so getting a custom-made armour was not that big of a problem for her.

And therefore development and design of female body armor did not start in 2009.  The first instance was at least 1,000 years ago.

Mainstream design?  Perhaps... but we did not discuss mainstream design.  We didn't say "the first instance of a man wearing armor didn't count as development of male armor because not many people were wearing it."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on January 14, 2014, 05:31:17 pm
Oh, for the love of- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_warrior)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on January 14, 2014, 05:35:32 pm
i love how people want women to serve in the military but don't consider for a single moment that at this point of the world's existence the west has very little use for armies at all

surely if they were scaled down to a sane amount, women would have no problems regarding equality since for one the logistics argument would be abolished on the spot
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on January 14, 2014, 05:39:31 pm
The problem is one of culture, not pragmatism.  I don't think downsizing will solve it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on January 14, 2014, 05:52:03 pm
Well this totally didn't turn into a stupid rant about historical accuracy, rather than looking at the economics of why this is happening.
The more you make of a single thing, the cheaper it is to make. Ideally the cheapest way to make body armor is to only have a single fit for everybody, but sadly that just doesn't work, so instead they look at what will fit the largest chunk of people. In this case there are a lot more males, and men tend to have a more homogeneous body shape, so it is a lot easier to fit them all. There is male body armor because numbers and similarities, not because penis. There are men who have trouble getting fitting armor too! That is just what happens when your body shape doesn't conform to one of the sizes they are financially able to produce.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 05:52:38 pm
Forgive me if I continue to vouch over the women in the BBC one against Cracked. In my eyes if no sources are named, the least amount of distrust can be awarded to the most reputable reporter.

Quote from: LordSlowpoke on January 14, 2014, 05:35:32 pm
i love how people want women to serve in the military but don't consider for a single moment that at this point of the world's existence the west has very little use for armies at all

surely if they were scaled down to a sane amount, women would have no problems regarding equality since for one the logistics argument would be abolished on the spot
The West has been involved in quite a few wars in the past 30 years.

Quote from: Vector on January 14, 2014, 05:18:45 pm
Must I remind you that people like Joan of Arc and Tomoe Gozen existed?
I don't know who Tomoe Gozen is other than she's Japanese, and my extent of Japanese knowledge goes to katanas and their gorrilion folds amongst other things. When European women fought they wore the same cheap male armour available, tailored to them if they were wealthy or had wealthy patrons. Look at the Order of the Hatchet - they fought in whatever armour was around, naturally it was all the clothing and armor of blokes. Joan of Arc for your example is wearing pretty regular gothic plate in her sole painting. Most of the big general women of European history didn't tend to fight in the front lines, and so like Elizabeth the I never felt the need to commission themselves armour.

Quote from: Vector on January 14, 2014, 05:18:45 pm
No, armor is not historically only used by men and designed for men.  This is ridiculous.
Armour is historically predominately used by men and designed by men. When women fought in armour they fought in mens' armour. Whilst not uncommon, it wasn't common, and was a practice quickly replaced by the emergence of professional armies until it was really freaking rare and confined to individuals.

Quote from: Vector on January 14, 2014, 05:30:59 pm
And therefore development and design of female body armor did not start in 2009.  The first instance was at least 1,000 years ago.
Mainstream design?  Perhaps... but we did not discuss mainstream design.  We didn't say "the first instance of a man wearing armor didn't count as development of male armor because not many people were wearing it."
Eh? I mean sure, if you really want to get into semantics, no new advanced product was made or developed.
Just to expand this further; let's say they bothered to reshape a new suit of armour for Joan of Arc. That's a millennium between the constant development of body armor for men and the modern revisions for women. I'm not even sure what's the point of bringing this up, since the whole argument is:
Quote from: Vector on January 14, 2014, 05:03:49 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 04:57:17 pm
Now, if you're talking about body armour - that shit is expensive. Tailoring it exclusively for women, is expensive.
Whereas tailoring it exclusively for men is business as usual.
Which I've already covered, so before this just gets recursive I'm going to end my post here before ninjas lengthen it further - it'd still just be business as usual.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on January 14, 2014, 05:53:47 pm
I wonder how hard tailoring body armour would be. >___>
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on January 14, 2014, 05:57:26 pm
Quote from: Descan on January 14, 2014, 05:53:47 pm
I wonder how hard tailoring body armour would be. >___>

if you want to make me body armor i will consider letting you try tailor it for me

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on January 14, 2014, 05:58:29 pm
Quote from: Max White on January 14, 2014, 05:52:03 pm
Well this totally didn't turn into a stupid rant about historical accuracy, rather than looking at the economics of why this is happening.
Thank you.

That said, I'm still reasonably confident that 15% is a large enough chunk to merit spending the dosh to ensure that they can actually serve properly, so I disagree with the rest of your post. This is a military that spends hundreds of millions on individual planes. A military that gets 58% of the United State's discretionary spending (or ~20% of its total). You're seriously telling me that effective body armor for an extra body type is what's going to break the camel's back, here? When it enables over 100,000 extra troops to serve with significantly greater efficiency?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 06:02:14 pm
Quote from: Descan on January 14, 2014, 05:53:47 pm
I wonder how hard tailoring body armour would be. >___>
I reckon the difficulty's not in the actual tailoring, since the private sector seems to manage that at a moderate cost with little difference between male and female armour. Now, making armour that could be mass produced to fit most women, that would be where I reckon they have to think.

Quote from: Bauglir on January 14, 2014, 05:58:29 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 04:57:17 pm
The US armed forces of course have plenty of money to throw around, so there is no longer an issue of equipment either. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19652591)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on January 14, 2014, 06:02:56 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on January 14, 2014, 05:58:29 pm
That said, I'm still reasonably confident that 15% is a large enough chunk to merit spending the dosh to ensure that they can actually serve properly, so I disagree with the rest of your post. This is a military that spends hundreds of millions on individual planes. A military that gets 58% of the United State's discretionary spending (or ~20% of its total). You're seriously telling me that effective body armor for an extra body type is what's going to break the camel's back, here? When it enables over 100,000 extra troops to serve with significantly greater efficiency?
You are assuming those 15% all require the exact same fit, almost impossible. It is, however, possible that making fits for those 15% may very well require more variants than the remaining 85% combined.
It isn't just "Female Armor", because that wouldn't fit everybody. It is "Female Armor 1" + "Female Armor 2" + "Female Armor 3"... You get the idea.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on January 14, 2014, 06:04:53 pm
@Loud Whispers

Ah, thank you. I don't know how I missed that. I'm... I'm just gonna let that post serve as my reply to Max White.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on January 14, 2014, 06:05:30 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 06:02:14 pm
Quote from: Descan on January 14, 2014, 05:53:47 pm
I wonder how hard tailoring body armour would be. >___>
I reckon the difficulty's not in the actual tailoring, since the private sector seems to manage that at a moderate cost with little difference between male and female armour. Now, making armour that could be mass produced to fit most women, that would be where I reckon they have to think.
I'm thinking more like have two basic body types, one for the more feminine style and one for the more masculine style. And for soldiers that diverge wildly enough that it impacts their performance, tailor it so they can be more effective.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on January 14, 2014, 06:07:35 pm
Quote from: Max White on January 14, 2014, 06:02:56 pm
It isn't just "Female Armor", because that wouldn't fit everybody. It is "Female Armor 1" + "Female Armor 2" + "Female Armor 3"... You get the idea.

How is this different than for men, again?  Convince me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on January 14, 2014, 06:12:09 pm
Quote from: Vector on January 14, 2014, 06:07:35 pm
Quote from: Max White on January 14, 2014, 06:02:56 pm
It isn't just "Female Armor", because that wouldn't fit everybody. It is "Female Armor 1" + "Female Armor 2" + "Female Armor 3"... You get the idea.

How is this different than for men, again?  Convince me.

It isn't. Except making an armor type for each 28% of army is more justifiable economically than making one for 5%.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 14, 2014, 06:13:13 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 04:57:17 pm
The US armed forces of course have plenty of money to throw around, so there is no longer an issue of equipment either. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19652591)
So in other words "tailoring" (insofar as making something roughly the right shape constitutes tailoring) body armour to women was judged to be worthwhile.  Doesn't this mean your argument about female body armour being insanely exotic and expensive is wrong?  The source in the Cracked argument correctly identified an issue that is now being fixed, and there's no need to try and defend the old status quo.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on January 14, 2014, 06:14:21 pm
Quote from: Vector on January 14, 2014, 06:07:35 pm
How is this different than for men, again?  Convince me.
Male armor 1 fits 30% of people, Female armor 1 fits 3% of people. I'm getting more bang for my buck equipping the 30%, regardless of their anatomy.

Heck, historically many armies had high restrictions for this very reason. Couldn't be too short or tall, because you wouldn't fit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on January 14, 2014, 06:16:43 pm
Quote from: Max White on January 14, 2014, 06:14:21 pm
Quote from: Vector on January 14, 2014, 06:07:35 pm
How is this different than for men, again?  Convince me.
Male armor 1 fits 30% of people, Female armor 1 fits 3% of people. I'm getting more bang for my buck equipping the 30%, regardless of their anatomy.

Heck, historically many armies had high restrictions for this very reason. Couldn't be too short or tall, because you wouldn't fit.

Do you mean 3% of people in the total army, or are you saying that female body types are so different that you'd need 33 different types of armor to equip the whole female population--as opposed to men, who have only 3 body types?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on January 14, 2014, 06:17:57 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on January 14, 2014, 06:13:13 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 04:57:17 pm
The US armed forces of course have plenty of money to throw around, so there is no longer an issue of equipment either. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19652591)
So in other words "tailoring" (insofar as making something roughly the right shape constitutes tailoring) body armour to women was judged to be worthwhile.  Doesn't this mean your argument about female body armour being insanely exotic and expensive is wrong?  The source in the Cracked argument correctly identified an issue that is now being fixed, and there's no need to try and defend the old status quo.

I can't see anyone defending status quo of pre-female armor. At worst people are explaining why it didn't happen earlier.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 06:18:41 pm
@Bauglir no probs

Quote from: Leafsnail on January 14, 2014, 06:13:13 pm
So in other words "tailoring" (insofar as making something roughly the right shape constitutes tailoring) body armour to women was judged to be worthwhile.  Doesn't this mean your argument about female body armour being insanely exotic and expensive is wrong?  The source in the Cracked argument correctly identified an issue that is now being fixed, and there's no need to try and defend the old status quo.
The Cracked article adressed an issue that was not an issue, because they are talking about it in 2014 when it was already undergoing live trials in 2012. There is no argument because there is nothing to argue. It's expensive; the Americans want female body armour, the Americans have the money and are using it to develop it. What's the fuss about?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on January 14, 2014, 06:20:05 pm
Quote from: Vector on January 14, 2014, 06:16:43 pm
Do you mean 3% of people in the total army, or are you saying that female body types are so different that you'd need 33 different types of armor to equip the whole female population--as opposed to men, who have only 3 body types?
3% of total people, otherwise I would have said 3% of women. Heck some of those people with Male Armor 1 may very well be women who just find the fit works for them, while some guys might be missing a good fit could be part of that 3% that Female Armor 1 would be acceptable for.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on January 14, 2014, 06:26:25 pm
Okay, I misread your previous argument, then--I thought you meant that there was greater female body diversity than male body diversity, and confused myself.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on January 14, 2014, 06:28:55 pm
Quote from: Vector on January 14, 2014, 06:26:25 pm
Okay, I misread your previous argument, then--I thought you meant that there was greater female body diversity than male body diversity, and confused myself.
Well I'm under the impression this is also true, although there is no maths of science behind it, simply experience with clothes shopping, knowing that there are a lot more different fitting clothes for different female body types than male. Men have an easier time fitting into stuff because we don't have breasts to contend with. They tend to vary in size, and it is a logistical pain in the ass.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on January 14, 2014, 06:35:48 pm
It's not as difficult for armor as it is for clothing because the armor is worn over clothing, and you don't worry about the way that it looks in the same way as clothing.  If someone is complaining that their armor doesn't fit right, chances are that it fits very poorly.  I've worn armor that doesn't fit before, and it's very physically taxing compared to armor that does fit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on January 14, 2014, 06:36:25 pm
Quote from: Max White on January 14, 2014, 06:28:55 pm
Well I'm under the impression this is also true, although there is no maths of science behind it, simply experience with clothes shopping, knowing that there are a lot more different fitting clothes for different female body types than male. Men have an easier time fitting into stuff because we don't have breasts to contend with. They tend to vary in size, and it is a logistical pain in the ass.

So do dicks... I know men who have a hell of a time finding pants that fit in the crotch.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on January 14, 2014, 06:37:29 pm
Boobs are the least limiting factor in armor, and have been throughout history. Unless one is the exception, simple binding takes care of the problem. The real limiting factors are the places where the armor rests on the hips and shoulders because these are where the weight of the armor is supposed to fit very well to ensure that someone can use it for long duration without experiencing exhaustion. Well fit armor barely makes it presence known to the wearer, and poorly fit armor is hell on earth.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on January 14, 2014, 06:40:20 pm
To be honest, I've seen a LOT of wildly different male body types, from the hulking muscular to the skinny to the runner-type to the husky to the swimming type, that I'm not so sure that "They have different sizes of breasts!" is all that great an indicator.

Not to mention that if the army says "You must be between these two heights and weights to enlist", I can certainly see them saying "You must be between these two cup sizes to enlist". Though perhaps that'd be treading on dangerous ground.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on January 14, 2014, 06:41:09 pm
Quote from: Ogdibus on January 14, 2014, 06:35:48 pm
It's not as difficult for armor as it is for clothing because the armor is worn over clothing, and you don't worry about the way that it looks in the same way as clothing.  If someone is complaining that their armor doesn't fit right, chances are that it fits very poorly.  I've worn armor that doesn't fit before, and it's very physically taxing compared to armor that does fit.
So if a fit will fit a more busty woman about as well as a flat chested woman, why won't a fit made for a flat chested man also work?

Quote from: Vector on January 14, 2014, 06:36:25 pm
So do dicks... I know men who have a hell of a time finding pants that fit in the crotch.
Yea, that can be true if you are wearing skinny jeans, but lets face it, you would need to be some sort of Roman god for that to be an issue any other way. I'm sorry but for the vast majority of pants a man will wear this is not an issue.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 14, 2014, 06:43:31 pm
Quote from: Max White on January 14, 2014, 06:41:09 pm
So if a fit will fit a more busty woman about as well as a flat chested woman, why won't a fit made for a flat chested man also work?
Have you ever looked at a woman before

I mean, at parts other than the breasts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on January 14, 2014, 06:44:08 pm
Usually requiring your soldier to be able to run takes care of the larger cup sizes.


Quote from: Max White on January 14, 2014, 06:41:09 pm
Quote from: Vector on January 14, 2014, 06:36:25 pm
So do dicks... I know men who have a hell of a time finding pants that fit in the crotch.
Yea, that can be true if you are wearing skinny jeans, but lets face it, you would need to be some sort of Roman god for that to be an issue any other way. I'm sorry but for the vast majority of pants a man will wear this is not an issue.

.... The guy I was talking about wasn't wearing skinny jeans.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on January 14, 2014, 06:45:56 pm
Quote from: Vector on January 14, 2014, 06:44:08 pm
Usually requiring your soldier to be able to run takes care of the larger cup sizes.


Quote from: Max White on January 14, 2014, 06:41:09 pm
Quote from: Vector on January 14, 2014, 06:36:25 pm
So do dicks... I know men who have a hell of a time finding pants that fit in the crotch.
Yea, that can be true if you are wearing skinny jeans, but lets face it, you would need to be some sort of Roman god for that to be an issue any other way. I'm sorry but for the vast majority of pants a man will wear this is not an issue.

.... The guy I was talking about wasn't wearing skinny jeans.
I'm afraid I can't call him anything then a statistical outlier then.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on January 14, 2014, 06:47:51 pm
It strikes me as being a bit of a waste of money to make women their own armour, considering more than half of women can't even pass the basic upper strength tests. (http://news.yahoo.com/marines-delay-female-fitness-plan-half-fail-203830967--politics.html) Keep in mind, those are the bare minimum requirements, so even just barely making those requirements would make you a big liability.

This is basically a gigantic publicity stunt by the DoD. It isn't like adding women to the active services is going to somehow increase their effectiveness, and if anything it won't be long before they start loosening standards to let more women in (since "10% of women make it through basic training" isn't so good for publicity), and that's before all of the practical issues.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 14, 2014, 06:51:55 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on January 14, 2014, 06:47:51 pm
It strikes me as being a bit of a waste of money to make women their own armour, considering more than half of women can't even pass the basic upper strength tests. (http://news.yahoo.com/marines-delay-female-fitness-plan-half-fail-203830967--politics.html) Keep in mind, those are the bare minimum requirements, so even just barely making those requirements would make you a big liability.

This is basically a gigantic publicity stunt by the DoD. It isn't like adding women to the active services is going to somehow increase their effectiveness, and if anything it won't be long before they start loosening standards to let more women in (since "10% of women make it through basic training" isn't so good for publicity), and that's before all of the practical issues.
And you somehow think "military loosens training standards for diversity" is going to be good publicity? Everybody knows women have lesser ability to grow muscle mass, it's not surprising they have trouble getting into the Marines (who have the toughest standards anyway). Anyway, if you can pass the basic strength tests, you aren't a liability. That's what the tests are for. Strength is important but it isn't the most important aspect in the age of machine guns and drone strikes, not by far.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on January 14, 2014, 07:04:00 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 14, 2014, 06:51:55 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on January 14, 2014, 06:47:51 pm
It strikes me as being a bit of a waste of money to make women their own armour, considering more than half of women can't even pass the basic upper strength tests. (http://news.yahoo.com/marines-delay-female-fitness-plan-half-fail-203830967--politics.html) Keep in mind, those are the bare minimum requirements, so even just barely making those requirements would make you a big liability.

This is basically a gigantic publicity stunt by the DoD. It isn't like adding women to the active services is going to somehow increase their effectiveness, and if anything it won't be long before they start loosening standards to let more women in (since "10% of women make it through basic training" isn't so good for publicity), and that's before all of the practical issues.
And you somehow think "military loosens training standards for diversity" is going to be good publicity? Everybody knows women have lesser ability to grow muscle mass, it's not surprising they have trouble getting into the Marines (who have the toughest standards anyway). Anyway, if you can pass the basic strength tests, you aren't a liability. That's what the tests are for. Strength is important but it isn't the most important aspect in the age of machine guns and drone strikes, not by far.

Women are now signing up for positions in the infantry, not as drone operators. In the infantry (and the marines, etc), soldiers are expected to carry over 100 pounds of equipment at any given time, cover very long distances quickly, and do all of this while in the middle of a firefight. While strength isn't important in the old sense of swinging a sword or bayonet in close quarters, it is important in the sense that you have to carry so much weight for so long, which (if recent studies are anything to go by) is even worse for women due to muscle tear. This is, again, ignoring all of the temporary, cultural downsides, like the macho Western instinct to protect a woman above other priorities, the substantially increased costs from having to adjust equipment, and so on.

Also, the USMC minimum requirements are:
-3 pull ups
-100 crunches in 2 minutes
-3 miles in 18 minutes

Are those exceptionally hard requirements that only the strongest can manage? Once again, those are the bare minimum requirements, and it isn't a good sign if most can't even manage to hit that.

EDIT: Whoops, I actually overestimated the minimum requirements. Hypothetically, a person could pass with 3 miles in 28 minutes or 40 crunches in 2 minutes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 14, 2014, 07:09:25 pm
"-3 pull ups"

Seriously xD?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on January 14, 2014, 07:10:26 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on January 14, 2014, 07:09:25 pm
"-3 pull ups"

Seriously xD?

Yeah, they aren't terribly restrictive. They're quite a bit higher in the UK, for example.

Oh, and if anyone wants proof that I'm not making this up as a joke, here you go (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/l/blfitmale.htm)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 07:13:11 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on January 14, 2014, 07:04:00 pm
This is, again, ignoring all of the temporary, cultural downsides, like the macho Western instinct to protect a woman above other priorities
This is a biological instinct in men, not some temporary cultural thing. Hardwired right into the brain.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on January 14, 2014, 07:15:01 pm
Okay so. Maybe I should come out and say this. I mean, I'm not in America, I'm in Canada. Still. I have an aunt in the armed forces, and if she gets into another combat situation -- she was on the ground in UN peacekeeping force in some hairy situations -- I want her to have effective body armor. I have a friend who was homeschooled in the same group as me, who wants to go into the armed forces, and if she gets into a combat situation I want her in combat armor that is effective.

Is this an unreasonable opinion? Am I asking too much not to have people I am personally associated with not die to faulty equipment? Is this an unreasonable thing for anyone to desire? Simply projecting my feelings onto people in America who may or may not have loved ones who go into combat situations, this is a real concern to people who exist and make up a not insignificant amount of people. Is it unreasonable to ask that they be treated fairly?

I live five minutes outside a military base, I work just outside a military base, and I see women in combat fatigues all the time. I see them in full kit when they're on training, running alongside the road. This issue is personal to me because I see people all the time who could very easily be affected by something such as this, and I know people who this can affect.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on January 14, 2014, 07:16:25 pm
I don't think those physical requirements are accurate.  I don't see the pull ups requirement getting slightly easier while the run time gets dramatically harder, even over the course of the ten years since I was last informed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on January 14, 2014, 07:16:46 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 14, 2014, 07:12:04 pm
Quote from: Vector on January 14, 2014, 06:51:22 pm
Quote from: Max White on January 14, 2014, 06:50:00 pm
Ok, fuck this. Blocking you again.

You were never unblocked.  All the same, you don't need to condescend to me when discussing mathematics.
Is there, like, a story behind this! There must be a story behind this. What's the story behind this?
*Helgoland stares at the screen, paralysed by his perplexed social instincts*

I seem to recall it had something to do with misogyny in math class, but maybe I'm thinking of something different.

Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 07:13:11 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on January 14, 2014, 07:04:00 pm
This is, again, ignoring all of the temporary, cultural downsides, like the macho Western instinct to protect a woman above other priorities
This is a biological instinct in men, not some temporary cultural thing. Hardwired right into the brain.

Some
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
would argue against this, but I'm not sure either way so I'm going to be generous.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 14, 2014, 07:17:47 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 07:13:11 pm
Quote from: GreatJustice on January 14, 2014, 07:04:00 pm
This is, again, ignoring all of the temporary, cultural downsides, like the macho Western instinct to protect a woman above other priorities
This is a biological instinct in men, not some temporary cultural thing. Hardwired right into the brain.
I should hope you have a citation for that. I know I at least don't really feel that way towards women.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on January 14, 2014, 07:20:55 pm
(removed)

Quote from: Willfor on January 14, 2014, 07:15:01 pm
Is this an unreasonable opinion? Am I asking too much not to have people I am personally associated with not die to faulty equipment? Is this an unreasonable thing for anyone to desire? Simply projecting my feelings onto people in America who may or may not have loved ones who go into combat situations, this is a real concern to people who exist and make up a not insignificant amount of people. Is it unreasonable to ask that they be treated fairly?
No, it is actually totally reasonable, especially in the US army where they throw away enough money that they can afford to spend some of it effectively. I agree, they should be spending the extra money.
I just feel that it is important to point out that women not getting good fitting armor is a spending choice, if a poor one, not a matter of wanting them to have no protection. It isn't about body parts, it is about whether they choose to spend the money to fit a small minority of people, and yes they should, but I understand why they didn't.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 07:25:03 pm
Quote from: greatorder on January 14, 2014, 07:19:07 pm
I'm not sure about this, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some kind of instinct towards protecting potential mothers/mates harking back to the times when men may well have 'stolen' women, or predators were much more of a danger.
And I would be about as unsurprised if it's just some cultural... thing that popped up at some point.
Ba dum tss (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8757282/Men-biologically-wired-to-care-for-children.html)

Will return with a bunch of other shit if the conversation continues, but until then I'm out for now
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Kansa on January 14, 2014, 07:27:31 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 07:25:03 pm
Ba dum tss (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8757282/Men-biologically-wired-to-care-for-children.html)

Will return with a bunch of other shit if the conversation continues, but until then I'm out for now

Isn't that article about men having wired protection for children rather than women?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on January 14, 2014, 07:30:39 pm
Look up pedomorphism.  I'm not sure if he's alluding to that, but that's where you'll find a connection.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 14, 2014, 07:34:16 pm
It's also about how the "hard-wired care" has the opposite effect on males than what is being claimed above, what with him becoming a less testosterone-filled risktaker.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 14, 2014, 07:37:37 pm
It also refers specifically to pregnancy, which I would hope is uncommon on the battlefield.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 14, 2014, 07:47:39 pm
Quote from: greatorder on January 14, 2014, 07:26:33 pm
Children and women are different :X
when I become a cannibal warlord I'll throw men, women and children alike in my cookpots. I'll be an equal-oportunity anthropophage.

(http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/D/Idi-Amin-Dada-9183487-1-402.jpg)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Toady One on January 14, 2014, 08:29:30 pm
I removed a spat.  Hopefully people can exercise some caution and so on, and remember to follow the guidelines.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 15, 2014, 04:37:17 am
That stuff got pretty heated, yeah.
Anybody up for a change in topic?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on January 18, 2014, 09:35:48 pm
I was reading the thread about the Jane Elliot video (the blue eyes / brown eyes experiment).

This is my take on the problems with it - in the original experiment, the group was racially homogenous, there was no preexisting us/them divide. Then, they're divided by an arbitrary rule into blue eye / brown eyes groups.

Bigotry ensues; then, deprogramming / debriefing, the children realize that the division was false, and see how easily they slipped into an us/them divide that didn't exist. And, therefore existing racial lines don't mean a thing.

The problem therefore, is that the British example we saw, is no longer arbitrary since it's involving a mixed-race group, and the eye-color factor that was arbitrary, is now largely distributed on preexisting racial boundaries. Getting people to bicker while divided largely along pre-existing racial boundaries cannot possibly "break down" the barriers.

The equivalent would be to take a room full of Jews and Nazis, put the Jews in charge, watch the sparks fly, and then try and claim you've broken down the Jew/Nazi divide.

Now, either Jane Elliot should be well aware of the problems of running her "experiment" with mixed race crowds along the eye-color divide, so my guess is that she's doing this for career reasons.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2014, 09:41:18 pm
Well the difference would be that Nazis, pretty much by definition, are racist against Jews. You have a choice about being a Nazi or not, and as a racially motivated hate group, being racist is an intrinsic property. White people, do not by definition, hate black people. Some of them do, certainly! But getting a room full of white people and asserting that they are all racist is just incorrect. You don't have a choice about being white, so people who are born white aren't going to change that when they choose to not be racist.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 18, 2014, 10:45:53 pm
Godwin's Law tangent:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2014, 10:48:11 pm
While that is very true of WWII Germany, I do think civilization has moved on a bit to the point where these days it is pretty safe to say that anybody identifying as a Nazi would have a thing about the Jews.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on January 18, 2014, 10:51:02 pm
Quote from: Kansa on January 14, 2014, 07:27:31 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 07:25:03 pm
Ba dum tss (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8757282/Men-biologically-wired-to-care-for-children.html)

Will return with a bunch of other shit if the conversation continues, but until then I'm out for now
Isn't that article about men having wired protection for children rather than women?
Relevant:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15177709
"FSH and testosterone levels were lower in men in love, while women of the same group presented higher testosterone levels."

While googling around for info on the topic, I found something truly horrifying (http://josephnicolosi.com/is-male-protectiveness-sexist/).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on January 18, 2014, 11:08:01 pm
The testosterone boost for women is in the early stage of a romance. I'd link that to increased sex drive. For men, the drop makes him less aggressive, brings out more lovey-dovey side.

http://healthyliving.msn.com/health-wellness/men/13-surprising-facts-about-testosterone-1
It only lasts a few months according to the studies, which gels well with the well-known "honeymoon period" of relationships. so the boost to female testosterone should be finished by the time she has a baby.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2014, 11:12:47 pm
So what you are saying is wait at least 24 months for the chemicals to wear off to make sure you are still attached to the person in question before tying the knot.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on January 18, 2014, 11:15:06 pm
Sorry, other sites say 3 months for the boost. One site says "back to normal" after "one to two years". My take on that is there's a big spike in the first 3 months, then it gradually resettles. Also, the studies that say "years" might have only tested participants every 12 months, so they might not be that fine-grained to measure fall-off rates.

I think it's just to get baby-making going in the first place. Some people are serial-daters, e.g. addicted to that feeling you get in the first few months of a relationship: possibly it's the hormone changes they're addicted to. They tend to break up and move onto different people once the "magic" is gone.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on January 18, 2014, 11:33:15 pm
Quote from: kaijyuu on January 18, 2014, 10:45:53 pm
Godwin's Law tangent:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I would disagree.
Spoiler: Spoiler because Nazis (click to show/hide)
Quote from: Reelya on January 18, 2014, 10:51:02 pm
Quote from: Kansa on January 14, 2014, 07:27:31 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2014, 07:25:03 pm
Ba dum tss (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8757282/Men-biologically-wired-to-care-for-children.html)

Will return with a bunch of other shit if the conversation continues, but until then I'm out for now
Isn't that article about men having wired protection for children rather than women?
Relevant:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15177709
"FSH and testosterone levels were lower in men in love, while women of the same group presented higher testosterone levels."

While googling around for info on the topic, I found something truly horrifying (http://josephnicolosi.com/is-male-protectiveness-sexist/).
Interesting. Males have less need for that testosterone.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on January 18, 2014, 11:54:01 pm
Quote from: misko27 on January 18, 2014, 11:33:15 pm
Interesting. Males have less need for that testosterone.
Spoiler: testosterone-related (click to show/hide)

On another track: I've been looking at what's called "heightism". Apparently every inch in height, for men, correlates to an extra $950 per year (in the USA) in average earnings. For two adult men with a height difference of 5 inches, the average difference in height between male and female, that's pretty close to the gender divide on wages.

Also, short men who are assertive are often accused of having a Napoleon complex and being pushy. Similar to how assertive women are viewed.

But it's not just external prejudice: the height you were as a child is more highly associated with the difference than your adult height, e.g. compare two 6 foot adult men, where one of them was shorter than the other as a child, that one earns significantly less per year than the one who was taller as a child.

This shows how people can internalize prejudices, since there is basically no way to rationalize two 6 foot men being discriminated by outside forces. One theory is that taller and larger children are treat by their peers more as if they were an older peer, rather than a same-age peer, they thus are automatically afforded more respect and deferred to as group leaders. This is important i think, because it may be an important part of what we see as the gender divide, as well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 19, 2014, 04:41:23 am
So the whole thing's justified? That doesn't explain the discrimination of women, though, because the internalization wouldn't work the same way for them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on January 19, 2014, 04:48:27 am
Also, girls grow faster than boys... they're taller until boys hit puberty.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 19, 2014, 07:16:53 am
@Misko

We're probably splitting hairs here. I was mostly thinking of people like Oskar Schindler (and the other opportunists who might not of had a conscience) when I wrote that post.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 19, 2014, 07:19:27 am
Well, there were actually quite a few people who were attracted by the 'socialist' part. They tended to become disappointed rather quickly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on January 19, 2014, 07:26:07 am
Yeah, and a lot of the crazy racist stuff was unknown to or ignored by the majority until it was too late. I mean, it's not what they emphazised the most in their election campaigns. Certainly a fatal ignorance, but appearing at least somewhat moderate was part of Nazi tactics before they were in power.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on January 19, 2014, 10:40:48 am
-double post-
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on January 19, 2014, 10:50:45 am
Quote from: Helgoland on January 19, 2014, 04:41:23 am
So the whole thing's justified? That doesn't explain the discrimination of women, though, because the internalization wouldn't work the same way for them.

Justified? How do you get that? Outlining one type of discrimination doesn't mean other types of discrimination are "o.k". It's not like if someone counted the number of women in car accidents, then mentioning that some men also get in car accidents makes women being hurt in car accidents "cool" or something. Mentioning the height-pay-gap no more "justifies" the gender pay gap than does mentioning the black pay gap.

What is does show, is that heightism is a form of discrimination with measurable effects on the individual on a comparable scale to those of racism, sexism. Except it's not socially acceptable for heightism-affected individuals to complain about it.

What I did mention was that "Short Man Syndrome" a.k.a. "Napoleon Complex", is coded in similar language and biases to those against women who are assertive. There are feminist writers who believe the two types of discrimination are intrinsically linked, i.e. you can untangle one without the other.

And internalization of one type of discrimination gives added credence to other types of discrimination, aka stereotype threat. Though the stereotypes coded for are different, the mechanism is likely to be similar.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 19, 2014, 11:44:27 am
Quote from: Reelya on January 18, 2014, 11:54:01 pm
But it's not just external prejudice: the height you were as a child is more highly associated with the difference than your adult height, e.g. compare two 6 foot adult men, where one of them was shorter than the other as a child, that one earns significantly less per year than the one who was taller as a child.

This shows how people can internalize prejudices, since there is basically no way to rationalize two 6 foot men being discriminated by outside forces. One theory is that taller and larger children are treat by their peers more as if they were an older peer, rather than a same-age peer, they thus are automatically afforded more respect and deferred to as group leaders. This is important i think, because it may be an important part of what we see as the gender divide, as well.
This is what I meant by 'justified'. Originally unfounded discrimination becomes valid selection because the discrimination has changed the individual.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 19, 2014, 12:34:34 pm
Quote
Nazis didn't simply hate jews. They are the Jew-haters. They deigned themselves anointed by god to eradicate Jewish blood both from within and without. They created elaborate formulas to determine how Aryan you were, and had another for how contaminated you are for having a Jewish grandparent.

Torquemada did it before. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limpieza_de_sangre). There's nothing particularily new about Nazi antisemitism. For that matter, you can find examples of ethnic groups massacring other ethnic groups way back in history. The only singular thing about the nazis is that they made an industry out of massacres of civilians, which meant carrying them out at a scale never seen before.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on February 13, 2014, 11:01:19 pm
Kansas Gay Segregation Bill (http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html).

Heyyyyy I AM NOT VERY CALM OR COOL RIGHT NOW
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 13, 2014, 11:08:43 pm
On a similar note, a rapper by the name of Bizzle made a..."cover (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9KQ4_uH1RA)" of Same Love recently.

I don't have much to say that I haven't said on here before when it comes to religion and civil liberties.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 13, 2014, 11:12:06 pm
Holy. Shit.

I just skimmed the article, but it sounds horrifying. The worst part IMO: Any state employee can deny his services to gay people - which becomes even more chilling if you consider what would will happen when a homophobic police officer becomes a witness of a hate crime.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on February 13, 2014, 11:20:29 pm
Or medical personnel turn away someone badly or fatally injured. Which, as near as I can tell, the bill would allow.

Codified hatred's as sickening as it ever is, bleh.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 13, 2014, 11:21:25 pm
If I recall correctly, technically the bill requires that somebody serve gay people when it come to the public sector, but still horrible.

Anyway, the good news is that this would most likely not be considered "neutral on its face", and thus subject to far stricter judgement by the courts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on February 13, 2014, 11:26:17 pm
They also have a similar bill pending in Oregon.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 13, 2014, 11:27:28 pm
I thought it was a referendum?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on February 13, 2014, 11:28:38 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 13, 2014, 11:27:28 pm
I thought it was a referendum?

I do not know what the difference between those two things is, so I will just say "Oregon's got it on its mind too."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 13, 2014, 11:30:04 pm
Quote from: Vector on February 13, 2014, 11:28:38 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 13, 2014, 11:27:28 pm
I thought it was a referendum?

I do not know what the difference between those two things is, so I will just say "Oregon's got it on its mind too."
Bills are voted on by the legislature, referendums are voted on by the whole voting population.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on February 13, 2014, 11:38:32 pm
is it just me or is it initially worded as if it were a bill against gay segregation but then it has everything else saying it does in fact segregate gays

weird puzzle shit i tell you
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on February 13, 2014, 11:40:03 pm
They're arguing that the necessity to treat gay people as human is oppressive to the Christian population.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on February 13, 2014, 11:53:03 pm
So here is the actual bill. (http://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_00_0000.pdf)
Is that the standard for legal documents in Kansas? My god it is practically legible, do they not have a single lawyer able to convolute it a little? Still, while this law might be drafted with homosexuality in mind, I have bad news for women (And men I guess, but fuck it this is Kansas) and transsexuals.

Quote
Section 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual
or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious
beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:

Technically they didn't even use the word sexuality, so you could make a legal case that this law can't be applied to homosexuals.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sindain on February 13, 2014, 11:58:32 pm
Well they could just make the case that when they say "regarding sex and gender" that includes everything that a specific gender "should" be doing. i.e males shouldn't have relationships with other males. Which this argument has even more terrifying implications since it could be easily expanded to include just about anything.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on February 14, 2014, 12:01:03 am
Well yea, I guess. Still, when religious schools decide that girls shouldn't be taught to read and write, and substitute their education for sewing and cooking don't even say I didn't warn you.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 14, 2014, 12:10:24 am
Quote from: Vector on February 13, 2014, 11:01:19 pm
Kansas Gay Segregation Bill (http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html).

Heyyyyy I AM NOT VERY CALM OR COOL RIGHT NOW
Huh I was feeling pretty good about this day and then nope. Holy shit, the mental gymnastics to pitch this garbage as anti-discrimination... Just. Wow. I thought such madness was only found in legend and folklore.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 14, 2014, 12:11:17 am
Quote from: Max White on February 14, 2014, 12:01:03 am
Well yea, I guess. Still, when religious schools decide that girls shouldn't be taught to read and write, and substitute their education for sewing and cooking don't even say I didn't warn you.
I'm sure plenty of the people behind this would agree with that sort of thing. After all:
Quote from: 1 Timothy 2:12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on February 14, 2014, 12:17:27 am
Technically, that would merely prohibit a female teacher from having a class that isn't all girls. *pointless pedantry*
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on February 14, 2014, 12:20:27 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 14, 2014, 12:11:17 am
Quote from: Max White on February 14, 2014, 12:01:03 am
Well yea, I guess. Still, when religious schools decide that girls shouldn't be taught to read and write, and substitute their education for sewing and cooking don't even say I didn't warn you.
I'm sure plenty of the people behind this would agree with that sort of thing. After all:
Quote from: 1 Timothy 2:12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
Are you actually reading through 1 Timothy because that religious rapper in the video you linked kept quoting it?  :P

Anyway if there is one state in the US where it is legal, expect it to happen. The population is large enough that people who want to live a certain way can gang up and assume the critical number of people required. There is little doubt in my mind that enough people want to educate their children like that for it to happen.

Quote from: Darvi on February 14, 2014, 12:17:27 am
Technically, that would merely prohibit a female teacher from having a class that isn't all girls. *pointless pedantry*
I guess they could interpret the "She must be quiet" line with a little more significance than that... I wonder if there is any legal precedent for challenging legal documents like this one as unconstitutional, what with separation of church and state and all that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 14, 2014, 12:33:42 am
Quote from: Max White on February 14, 2014, 12:20:27 am
Are you actually reading through 1 Timothy because that religious rapper in the video you linked kept quoting it?  :P
No, just one verse among many I memorized between my time as a Christian and my experiences afterwards. I haven't actually read a Bible directly in several years now.
Quote
I wonder if there is any legal precedent for challenging legal documents like this one as unconstitutional, what with separation of church and state and all that.
There's plenty. For one thing, this fails the Lemon Test hard. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 14, 2014, 12:44:46 am
Now, we need a Muslim saying this will finally allow him to stop serving women, and the bil will fold down.

More seriously, it sucks for all the people that'll be targeted by this bill between now and the striking down.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smirk on February 14, 2014, 12:46:43 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 14, 2014, 12:33:42 am
Quote from: Max White on February 14, 2014, 12:20:27 am
I wonder if there is any legal precedent for challenging legal documents like this one as unconstitutional, what with separation of church and state and all that.
There's plenty. For one thing, this fails the Lemon Test hard. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test)
Aye. As blatant as this is, I can't think but that it'll eventually get dragged before the Supreme Court and stomped on. That'll take a while though, and in the meantime...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 14, 2014, 12:48:37 am
It doesn't have to go all the way to SCOTUS to stop being enforced. It could be struck down without stay even by a state court and not be enacted between then and SCOTUS.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smirk on February 14, 2014, 12:51:54 am
True; that'd be the likely route. I'm just being a pessimist.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on February 14, 2014, 12:52:32 am
Actually there might be one legal keyword that provides some cover that I missed on my first read through...

Quote
Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities,
goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other
social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to,
or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil
union or similar arrangement;

So you an discriminate on the basis of any sort of relationship between two people (Meaning literally everybody with how vaguely it is worded, unless you live in a cave and never talk to anybody) but only if they are explicitly celebrating it? But then I don't see how things like adoption, foster care or employment would ever relate to any specific ceremony, so I expect this keyword to largely be ignored.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 14, 2014, 12:55:14 am
It or the celebration of it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on February 14, 2014, 12:58:32 am
Right... Fucking legal documents!
It is interesting just how much effort they put into defining a religious organisation (And was sure to include businesses and all that good stuff) but literally none into 'similar arrangements'. I mean really, how similar is similar? Does it count if you live in the same house and provide financial support? Every shared rent house in the state is now a hotbed for homosexual sin!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on February 14, 2014, 02:22:01 am
I, High Priest Misantrope of the First Church of Grognard, hereby declare that we find all happy and unabuse relationships, between two persons or more, to be highly affrontical to our faith and religion.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on February 14, 2014, 02:25:50 am
Quote from: scriver on February 14, 2014, 02:22:01 am
I, High Priest Misantrope of the First Church of Grognard, hereby declare that we find all happy and unabuse relationships, between two persons or more, to be highly affrontical to our faith and religion.
You misspelled my name :V
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 14, 2014, 06:57:01 am
This lady just made a video about a proposed feminism 2.0. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR9FHKKbMZo#t=300)
Tl;dr, we Lysistrata now, and the video has managed to anger everyone. Is her proposition good, bad, or a mix of the two?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on February 14, 2014, 07:27:40 am
i agree with the entirety of that video

...with one tiny, irrelevant exception that's based on semantics only but still agree with it in its entirety

so from where do you draw the anger, lw? the comments or wot?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 14, 2014, 07:36:28 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on February 14, 2014, 07:27:40 am
so from where do you draw the anger, lw? the comments or wot?
Normally you could just chock it down to youtube comments being youtube comments, but there are definitely right now people from feminist/MRA subreddits in the comments alongside 4chan Anons. Trolling aside, by 'everyone' I mean all the ideologies being soapboxed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on February 14, 2014, 07:54:29 am
So, like, a quick look at the kind of "feminism" Tammy Bruce represents via Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_Bruce). Namely a conservative anti-progressive version. Yeah... I'm just gonna stick with my skeptic-oriented intersectional feminism, thank you very much.

EDIT: LOL. Even Prager "University" is a bin for right-wing lunatics.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on February 14, 2014, 07:58:25 am
only genuinely anti-progressive thing i see there is opposing gay marriage.

what if we got rid of marriage altogether and replaced it with civil unions

it'd solve a lot of shit maybe? i'm not exactly giving this more than five seconds of thought
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on February 14, 2014, 08:08:05 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on February 14, 2014, 07:36:28 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on February 14, 2014, 07:27:40 am
so from where do you draw the anger, lw? the comments or wot?
Normally you could just chock it down to youtube comments being youtube comments, but there are definitely right now people from feminist/MRA subreddits in the comments alongside 4chan Anons. Trolling aside, by 'everyone' I mean all the ideologies being soapboxed.

It's basically a free-for-all, an exercise in idiots calling other idiots idiots. Entertaining, in a way.


Quote from: Glowcat on February 14, 2014, 07:54:29 am
So, like, a quick look at the kind of "feminism" Tammy Bruce represents via Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_Bruce). Namely a conservative anti-progressive version. Yeah... I'm just gonna stick with my skeptic-oriented intersectional feminism, thank you very much.

You didn't gather that much from the video itself? Huh.


The way I see it, she makes a step in the right direction, then slips and zooms past into the zone of stupid on the other side.

So, women should be able to want to pursue marriage instead of career. Yaaaay. Then she says that a woman pursuing career cannot be happy. *facepalm*. Or that a woman shouldn't be like a man because it's bad and wrong. WHAT IF SHE FUCKING WANTS TO OUT OF HER OWN FREE WILL? LET HER ACT LIKE A GODDAMN MAN, SAME GOES FOR THE OTHER WAY ROUND. GOD, IS THIS SO HARD TO PARSE FOR BOTH SIDES?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 14, 2014, 08:28:39 am
I think the problem is that people care too much about other people. If everybody just stopped giving a shit a lot of problems would disappear.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scrdest on February 14, 2014, 08:33:34 am
Quote from: Helgoland on February 14, 2014, 08:28:39 am
I think the problem is that people care too much about other people. If everybody just stopped giving a shit a lot of problems would disappear.

I agree. This is pretty much my approach summarized. I'm all for people doing whatever they damn want because I don't really care what they do.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 14, 2014, 08:39:39 am
There's something I wanted to talk about. Recently we had a mini-controversy around here after a feminists posted a list of advice to men to make women feel safer. Now, amongst them was "When I'm walking behind a woman at night, I cross the street to give her a wide berth." Now, my first reaction was "Fuck that, I'm already doing my part by not raping anyone, thank you very much". But she was raising some interesting point about the fact that women are brought up in the fear of being raped by strangers (never mind that rapist are more often than not people you know).

So yeah, I'd like the forum's opinion on this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 14, 2014, 08:48:51 am
I dislike walking near strangers at night anyway; I'd probably just go faster than her.
It might be the nice/polite thing to do, but it's hardly something you should wreck your head about.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on February 14, 2014, 09:02:38 am
It's something to keep in mind if feasible, and knowing how people from other backgrounds might read your actions is useful, but don't lose any sleep over it. Unless the reason relates to direct doucheness (e.g. street harassment) I doubt most people would hold it against you.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on February 14, 2014, 09:09:54 am
Wouln't it make more sense for the woman to cross the street?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on February 14, 2014, 09:18:17 am
If you're the one making an effort to alleviate anxiety... no?

Not to mention that placing the action in a random woman's hands also forces her to become a target/noticed by the variable person. This is completely contrary to making her feel safer.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on February 14, 2014, 09:22:07 am
I actually do stuff like that. I'm often out at night and it happens fairly often that I'm the only person leaving the train at a station or waiting for the train. It's pretty noticeable that I might look threatening to a woman or girl leaving/waiting for the same train or being alone in the street. Might be due to my looks or intoxication level, might be just because I'm a man. So I try at least to not walk behind them, not come too close, and possibly cross the street and walk away fast in the other direction. I also try to appear as non-threatening as I can, avoid looking too long and try to appear busy. It's something I started doing a long time ago, because I really noticed that people do feel uncomfortable in these situations, which in turn made me feel bad.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on February 14, 2014, 09:40:48 am
If I feel I might come off as threatening I give people their space.

For that specific example, I'd don't think I'd do anything to change my behavior. I'd give them the same amount of physical space I'd give anyone.


A better hypothetical for me is hitting on people. It's very conceivable that before I was married I might go up to some random person and try to strike up a conversation. If I got rejected, I'd actively avoid the person (within reason) in an attempt to be non-threatening and non-pushy to them.



On another topic, even a religious conservative clock is right twice a day. (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/pat-robertson-on-creation-debate-nonsense-to-think-earth-is-only-6000-years-old/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on February 14, 2014, 10:01:45 am
Quote from: kaijyuu on February 14, 2014, 09:40:48 am
A better hypothetical for me is hitting on people. It's very conceivable that before I was married I might go up to some random person and try to strike up a conversation. If I got rejected, I'd actively avoid the person (within reason) in an attempt to be non-threatening and non-pushy to them.
That is a bit besides the point though.  :) If someone tries to chat me up in a lonely street late at night I mentally prepare for confrontation, because normal people don't do that unless they really need help or something. That's pretty much the worst time to hit on somebody.
In case of women, you just notice that they are scared when they start walking faster and keep their phone ready. That's not the time to propose having a drink together.  ;)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on February 14, 2014, 10:13:56 am
You're conflating both hypothetical scenarios; I wouldn't be likely to hit on someone in the middle of a night on a dark street. A public gathering of some sort though? It's possible.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on February 14, 2014, 10:17:43 am
Of course, but that's something different altogether. Sheb particularly asked for thougths on the lonely-street-at-night scenario.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: kaijyuu on February 14, 2014, 10:19:06 am
He did. I answered that one and I posed another one :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 14, 2014, 10:42:21 am
Heh, why would you make yourself look non-threatening? Just asking to get mugged.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on February 14, 2014, 10:43:36 am
Quote from: Sheb on February 14, 2014, 08:39:39 am
There's something I wanted to talk about. Recently we had a mini-controversy around here after a feminists posted a list of advice to men to make women feel safer. Now, amongst them was "When I'm walking behind a woman at night, I cross the street to give her a wide berth." Now, my first reaction was "Fuck that, I'm already doing my part by not raping anyone, thank you very much". But she was raising some interesting point about the fact that women are brought up in the fear of being raped by strangers (never mind that rapist are more often than not people you know).

So yeah, I'd like the forum's opinion on this.
You know I go to the gym regularly, and while there I'm in a place with other guys, many of whom are significantly bigger and stronger than I, and while I may not know their political views I'm sure considering the number of other people it is statistically likely a few, maybe one or two of them are homophobic, and strong enough to beat the living shit out of me if they chose.
Would it be reasonable for me to want other men there to actively avoid me just to make me feel more secure? No, that would be total bullshit, most of them are really nice people. I'm not going to make such silly demands on people who have done nothing wrong just because there are a few bad apples in the world.
If a woman feels uncomfortable walking near me at night, she can cross the damn road. I refuse to get to the back of the bus.


Anyway, the fact of the matter is that while the vast majority of people aren't going to want to beat me up, some will. I haven't been bought up in fear, it is just a rational concern. In the same way any women that is slightly worried when a guy walks behind her at night has rational reason to do so as sexual assault is a real thing that actually happens. Once you demand that all guys cross the road just for her sense of safety, not actual safety as the vast majority of these guys are fine, but just the feeling of being safe, you are getting unreasonable.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 14, 2014, 10:47:16 am
Well, if we're talking about rational fears, then women should be more wary of their friends and family than random people on the street, as it is the former that makes up the majority of sexual assaults.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 14, 2014, 10:48:11 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 14, 2014, 10:47:16 am
Well, if we're talking about rational fears, then women should be more wary of their friends and family than random people on the street, as it is the former that makes up the majority of sexual assaults.
And it is the latter that will mug them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on February 14, 2014, 11:24:15 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on February 14, 2014, 10:42:21 am
Heh, why would you make yourself look non-threatening? Just asking to get mugged.
I usually try to appear somewhat threatening and it seems to work, as I never got mugged. Maybe I was just lucky.

I did notice however that women tend to call someone to tell them they're at the train station or something like that when they encounter me alone at night, which - combined with what female friends tell me - has made me a bit more aware in that regard. I'm paranoid in reverse too, I always offer to accompany female friends to their cars and have my girlfriend call or text me when she's out alone.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 14, 2014, 11:37:33 am
Eh. Are you obligated to cross to the other side of the street? No, probably not. Can it be a nice thing you do to make somebody else's day better? I don't really think this is a case where we ought to be codifying principles of behavior to be enforced, but it does seem like a perspective worth being aware of so you can properly demonstrate courtesy to people who might hold it (which seems like a reasonably large number of people).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on February 14, 2014, 12:23:32 pm
But if you go out of your way to appear less threatening it just makes you more sinister.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 14, 2014, 12:35:54 pm
If you go out of your way to cross the street, it just makes it look like you need to be on that side of the street.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on February 14, 2014, 12:41:33 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on February 14, 2014, 12:23:32 pm
But if you go out of your way to appear less threatening it just makes you more sinister.
Oh, come on. How is a guy with a wide grin cradling a cute invisible teddy bear sinister?  :P

Quote from: penguinofhonor on February 14, 2014, 12:35:54 pm
If you go out of your way to cross the street, it just makes it look like you need to be on that side of the street.
Which is indeed a problem if you'd have to cross back later. In that case I'd just walk faster.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smirk on February 14, 2014, 12:46:35 pm
Quote from: XXSockXX on February 14, 2014, 12:41:33 pm
In that case I'd just walk faster.
Not such a good idea. If the woman ahead of you is already freaked by your presence, what's she gonna think when she hears your footsteps speed up? Recipe for a macing, is that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 14, 2014, 12:48:32 pm
Good mace is illegal here then. :p
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on February 14, 2014, 12:51:38 pm
Quote from: smirk on February 14, 2014, 12:46:35 pm
Quote from: XXSockXX on February 14, 2014, 12:41:33 pm
In that case I'd just walk faster.
Not such a good idea. If the woman ahead of you is already freaked by your presence, what's she gonna think when she hears your footsteps speed up? Recipe for a macing, is that.
Right, but that means just one awkward moment till you passed by. Better than an entire walk with someone walking behind you I think. But yeah, essentially you're bound to freak people out in some way.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smirk on February 14, 2014, 12:56:50 pm
Fair. I usually just slow down and let them put distance between, if they want. Given the time of night and level of intoxication at which this scenario comes up, it's not like I have a pressing need to be anywhere quickly =P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smirk on February 14, 2014, 01:08:03 pm
Ah. Around here we call those "alleyways" o_o
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 14, 2014, 01:08:57 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on February 14, 2014, 11:37:33 am
Eh. Are you obligated to cross to the other side of the street? No, probably not. Can it be a nice thing you do to make somebody else's day better? I don't really think this is a case where we ought to be codifying principles of behavior to be enforced, but it does seem like a perspective worth being aware of so you can properly demonstrate courtesy to people who might hold it (which seems like a reasonably large number of people).
In a large damned city it is impossible to think like this, on both ends. It's impossible to think and act as if everyone is out to get you, and it is impossible to think and act as if you are out to get everyone.
Commute with common sense.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 14, 2014, 01:23:21 pm
It's still symptomatic treatment, not actually solving the problem. By avoiding situations were you experience fear, you have not solved your fear.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on February 14, 2014, 01:52:05 pm
Quote from: smirk on February 14, 2014, 12:46:35 pm
Not such a good idea. If the woman ahead of you is already freaked by your presence, what's she gonna think when she hears your footsteps speed up? Recipe for a macing, is that.
Anybody that attacks another with mace unprovoked like that should be arrested for assault. Don't teach me not to walk, teach women not to mace!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on February 14, 2014, 01:55:15 pm
"Women should be taught to defend themselves instead of making me do anything to help them feel safe, but they had better not effectively defend themselves because that could cause collateral damage to me!" - Max White
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 14, 2014, 01:55:58 pm
And so begins the caricature phase of the fight.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on February 14, 2014, 01:59:33 pm
I'm sorry, but that was too good to pass up. It was like he was parodying himself.

The only effective way to use mace is to use it before you are overpowered by your attacker on the street. If someone thinks you are threatening them, and they use mace, they are using mace effectively. It's the only way it works as a tactic. You can't tell people that their only option is to defend themselves, and then force them to deal with bullshit that they can only use it on people who have overpowered them -- when that means that they can't use it!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on February 14, 2014, 02:00:05 pm
Quote from: Willfor on February 14, 2014, 01:55:15 pm
"Women should be taught to defend themselves instead of making me do anything to help them feel safe, but they had better not effectively defend themselves because that could cause collateral damage to me!" - Max White
So a women deciding to turn around and mace a guy just for walking quickly is now "effectively defend themselves"? No, it is not. I'm sorry but paranoia is not just cause for self defense. That is literally, down to the letter the exact same as the gay panic defense, except replace "Creepy gay deviant" with "Uncontrolled male rapist".

Quote from: Bauglir on February 14, 2014, 01:55:58 pm
And so begins the caricature phase of the fight.
I'm used to it...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on February 14, 2014, 02:03:03 pm
Please respond to my second post.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on February 14, 2014, 02:07:22 pm
Quote from: Willfor on February 14, 2014, 01:59:33 pm
The only effective way to use mace is to use it before you are overpowered by your attacker on the street. If someone thinks you are threatening them, and they use mace, they are using mace effectively. It's the only way it works as a tactic. You can't tell people that their only option is to defend themselves, and then force them to deal with bullshit that they can only use it on people who have overpowered them -- when that means that they can't use it!

If the only way to implement a tactic is with random, unprovoked attacks, it is a bad tactic.
Where Sheb is 'good' mace is illegal, and I didn't know about the huge rise in rape and muggings against women in Belgium. Maybe we should look at other measures that don't revolve around attacking random people on the street when you feel the need.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on February 14, 2014, 02:11:58 pm
You are completely ignoring the fact that you are being perceived as a threat, and doing absolutely nothing within your power to change that perception. You are ignoring the fact that people have been educated to view you, personally, as a threat. You are ignoring the treatment of both the symptoms and the disease at the same time by putting the blame completely on the woman instead of the shitty system in which you happen to be a willing/unwilling cog.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on February 14, 2014, 02:16:00 pm
"You are completely ignoring the fact that you are being perceived as a sexual partner, and doing absolutely nothing within your power to change that perception. You are ignoring the fact that people have been educated to view you, personally, as a sexual partner. You are ignoring the treatment of both the symptoms and the disease at the same time by putting the blame completely on the man instead of the shitty system in which you happen to be a willing/unwilling cog." ~ Willfor, on why women should be required to wear burkas or else get raped.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 14, 2014, 02:18:26 pm
Quote from: Willfor on February 14, 2014, 02:11:58 pm
You are completely ignoring the fact that you are being perceived as a threat, and doing absolutely nothing within your power to change that perception. You are ignoring the fact that people have been educated to view you, personally, as a threat. You are ignoring the treatment of both the symptoms and the disease at the same time by putting the blame completely on the woman instead of the shitty system in which you happen to be a willing/unwilling cog.
Wee Strawman

Anyway, we should be disbanding the USA, NATO, and EU as well, an unanimously start worshipping the Great and Glorious Kim-Yong-Un
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 14, 2014, 02:19:28 pm
Quote from: Max White on February 14, 2014, 02:07:22 pm
If the only way to implement a tactic is with random, unprovoked attacks, it is a bad tactic.
I would disagree, it is a highly efficient tactic.
This is why you should all vote me in as supreme overlord of planet Earth, the Bay12 secret police's random abductions would be sure to keep any would-be assaulters tip on their toes!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on February 14, 2014, 02:20:31 pm
Okay, maybe I legitimately misread what people were saying. Whatever.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 14, 2014, 02:22:36 pm
Actually, if you ask cops here, they'll tell you to use spray-on deodorant instead of mace, apparently it's not good for the eyes either. :p

More seriously, spraying people because they're walking toward you is BAAAAD. If you really think you're going to get mugged, turn around say "hello", if the guy still look aggressive, ready the mace, if he goes toward you to the point where you know he is attacking, mace away.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 14, 2014, 02:23:17 pm
Stop it. This was a good discussion that doesn't need to degrade into insults.

Max, your original post had a point but it really seems like your intention was to anger anyone who disagrees with you. If you actually want to discuss this honestly then restate your point more respectfully.

Willfor, please do not respond to bad posts with more bad posts. That helps nothing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on February 14, 2014, 02:26:03 pm
Could you do me a favor and quote what post exactly you think was unrespecful and argumentative?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 14, 2014, 02:27:20 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on February 14, 2014, 02:23:17 pm
Willfor, your original post had a point but it really seems like your intention was to anger anyone who disagrees with you. If you actually want to discuss this honestly then restate your point more respectfully.
Max, please do not respond to bad posts with more bad posts. That helps nothing.
ftfy
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 14, 2014, 02:28:19 pm
Yeah, I like my discussion. Can we have it some more if we promise to behave poh?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smirk on February 14, 2014, 02:28:39 pm
Quote from: Sheb on February 14, 2014, 02:22:36 pm
More seriously, spraying people because they're walking toward you is BAAAAD. If you really think you're going to get mugged, turn around say "hello", if the guy still look aggressive, ready the mace, if he goes toward you to the point where you know he is attacking, mace away.
Agreed. On the other hand, given that we live in a society that likes to handle these situations by teaching women to fear for their lives if they're ever out alone, it's still something you hafta take into account. It's not ideal, but there's no call to aggravate the situation either.

Quote from: penguinofhonor
-snip-
Quote from: Max White
-snip-
Please let's not get into arguments about arguments, folks. Far too meta.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr. Strange on February 14, 2014, 02:29:19 pm
Quote from: Max White on February 14, 2014, 02:16:00 pm
"You are completely ignoring the fact that you are being perceived as a sexual partner, and doing absolutely nothing within your power to change that perception. You are ignoring the fact that people have been educated to view you, personally, as a sexual partner. You are ignoring the treatment of both the symptoms and the disease at the same time by putting the blame completely on the man instead of the shitty system in which you happen to be a willing/unwilling cog." ~ Willfor, on why women should be required to wear burkas or else get raped.
Shame on you for stooping so low. Especially on this thread.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on February 14, 2014, 02:31:56 pm
Yeah, mace is nothing to mess around with (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_spray#Effects). There's a reason so many countries restrict it's use. It needs better justification than a bad feeling about someone to use, IMO.

Preedit:
Quote from: Sheb on February 14, 2014, 02:22:36 pm
Actually, if you ask cops here, they'll tell you to use spray-on deodorant instead of mace, apparently it's not good for the eyes either. :p

More seriously, spraying people because they're walking toward you is BAAAAD. If you really think you're going to get mugged, turn around say "hello", if the guy still look aggressive, ready the mace, if he goes toward you to the point where you know he is attacking, mace away.
This.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on February 14, 2014, 02:35:24 pm
Alright, I admitted that I jumped the gun already. I mostly agree with Sheb here on procedure. I picked a bad way to express myself. I apologize.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 14, 2014, 02:45:51 pm
And here I was thinking people were literally suggesting to go medieval and knock someone's brains out.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on February 14, 2014, 02:50:12 pm
I would certainly give anyone carrying any sort of medieval weaponry a wide berth  :)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on February 14, 2014, 03:01:13 pm
Quote from: Mr. Strange on February 14, 2014, 02:29:19 pm
Shame on you for stooping so low. Especially on this thread.
I still think that was the most effective way to show just how little difference there is between victim blaming and victim blaming.

I actually don't have a problem with giving people the advice that in certain neighborhoods it is a bad idea to approach people, including women for the reason being discussed. I don't want to get maced, so if I'm worried about it I think it is a reasonable thing to stay a certain distance away from people. Where I take exception, however, is that if you do choose to walk more quickly that does not then justify assault via mace spray. You can't just say 'Well she thought she was being attacked, so fuck that guy, even if he was just trying to make his way home!'
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 14, 2014, 03:03:49 pm
Quote from: Max White on February 14, 2014, 02:26:03 pm
Could you do me a favor and quote what post exactly you think was unrespecful and argumentative?

I'll link to it (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg5009124#msg5009124) because I'm on my phone and that's slightly less difficult.

There's a fine line between making a joke in your argument and ridiculing people who disagree with you. It felt like you were trying to get a response like Willfor's out of someone rather than a real counterpoint.

Quote from: Max White on February 14, 2014, 03:01:13 pm
I still think that was the most effective way to show just how little difference there is between victim blaming and victim blaming.

I think this sentence does a better job than your earlier post.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 14, 2014, 03:12:23 pm
I for one don't find anything wrong with the post you linked, but hey, your thread.

Anyway, as it as been pointed before, women's fear of being raped in the street is in some way irrational, as most rape happens with people you know. I get how going across the street would alleviate that fear, but should we? Wouldn't it be best to simply be nice and polite and show that you don't have to fear men?

For example, lots of people got an irrational fear of blacks. Would you advise blacks to cross the street so as not to frighten whites?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 14, 2014, 03:23:45 pm
Eh, yeah, I think I was m a little too harsh on Max. I'm on my phone and at work and this thread is moving really fast so I mentally mixed up a few different posts.

My points to Max still stand because I think he was being a little more aggravating than necessary with the "Teach women not to mace!" bit, but Willfor's post was a bigger problem than Max's (which I think everyone else has already concluded).

Apologies if I reacted too hastily and misjudged the situation a bit. I just hate when I'm away from the thread and it blows up and Toady has to come in and clean up.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on February 14, 2014, 03:45:11 pm
The point is that first people consider any rape that's not stranger danger "not what rape is really like," tell women that it's their fault and need to protect themselves--and that 1/6 of them will be raped, and then guys feel offended by the women, as opposed to by the rapists causing this problem, if they're asked to give lone women late at night a wide berth.

*shrog*
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smirk on February 14, 2014, 04:29:00 pm
Yes, that. If the society in which you live glosses over or distorts rape and assault, and teaches women to fear for their lives as their main defense, then the correct action is to change that society, not get huffy at females when said attitudes adversely affect you. We're all in this together, after all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 14, 2014, 04:31:51 pm
I agree with you, but is this a step in the right direction, or does it just reinforce the problem?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on February 14, 2014, 04:48:49 pm
You know I think a nice start would be if in movies mace spray was at least occasionally shown realistically, instead of having all the effectiveness as spraying water. If the audience sees a guy spend the next fifteen minutes on the ground before an ambulance turns up because he could choke to death then people carrying spray might be a little more hesitant to use the stuff so quickly, and predators might actually be worried about people carrying it, making it a more effective preventative measure than a reactionary measure... Although it is pretty hard to try and enforce what the media will and will not show.

A more effective measure might be required licencing to buy and carry the stuff. Take a quick course to get your license, teach people about safety, effective actions leading up to use, checking for expiry date, storage, all that good stuff. If really required you could include getting maced as part of the course, as they do in police training, but I'm not 100% convinced that would be required. At the same time I think actually having a formal process would legitimize carrying mace, making more people consider it an an option. Ultimately you are buying mace so you can use it as a non-lethal weapon if required, I think that merits some training.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 14, 2014, 04:52:41 pm
Quote from: smirk on February 14, 2014, 04:29:00 pm
Yes, that. If the society in which you live glosses over or distorts rape and assault, and teaches women to fear for their lives as their main defense, then the correct action is to change that society, not get huffy at females when said attitudes adversely affect you. We're all in this together, after all.
Is it really so hard not to just be cautious and reasonable? Why the hell do you have to walk between two extremes where everyone is launching preemptive assaults on one another or politely rolling over to make it easier for thuggery to operate? How the hell is complaining about getting maced for no reason getting 'huffy at females' over being 'adversely' affected?

Quote from: Max White on February 14, 2014, 04:48:49 pm
You know I think a nice start would be if in movies mace spray was at least occasionally shown realistically, instead of having all the effectiveness as spraying water.
That's like asking hollywood to stop making cars explode or news stations to stop wanking on mass shootings. It won't happen in this lifetime.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on February 14, 2014, 04:55:02 pm
Quote from: Vector on February 14, 2014, 03:45:11 pm
The point is that first people consider any rape that's not stranger danger "not what rape is really like," tell women that it's their fault and need to protect themselves--and that 1/6 of them will be raped, and then guys feel offended by the women, as opposed to by the rapists causing this problem, if they're asked to give lone women late at night a wide berth.

*shrog*
Ah yes, the male hivemind that controls every facet of society. Forgot about that one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on February 14, 2014, 04:57:47 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on February 14, 2014, 04:52:41 pm
That's like asking hollywood to stop making cars explode or news stations to stop wanking on mass shootings. It won't happen in this lifetime.
I still hold hope that one day there will be a really great, realistic action movie that isn't Om Bak.  :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 14, 2014, 05:00:29 pm
Quote from: Max White on February 14, 2014, 04:57:47 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on February 14, 2014, 04:52:41 pm
That's like asking hollywood to stop making cars explode or news stations to stop wanking on mass shootings. It won't happen in this lifetime.
I still hold hope that one day there will be a really great, realistic action movie that isn't Om Bak.  :P
Except that the female lead sounds like a dolphin. Pretty sure she's a dolphin. The raid on the other hand...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Blargityblarg on February 14, 2014, 05:16:05 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on February 14, 2014, 04:55:02 pm
Quote from: Vector on February 14, 2014, 03:45:11 pm
The point is that first people consider any rape that's not stranger danger "not what rape is really like," tell women that it's their fault and need to protect themselves--and that 1/6 of them will be raped, and then guys feel offended by the women, as opposed to by the rapists causing this problem, if they're asked to give lone women late at night a wide berth.

*shrog*
Ah yes, the male hivemind that controls every facet of society. Forgot about that one.

...There is no 'male hivemind' mentioned anywhere in this post. Society (both men and women) has a shitty attitude towards some things, and ideally we should work together to change that. 'Patriarchy' is sort of a misnomer; it conjures this idea of a secret group controlling society, when it's really more that the logical conclusion of the general public's attitudes towards things is old white guys tending to be in charge of a lot of things.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smirk on February 14, 2014, 05:17:11 pm
Quote from: Sheb on February 14, 2014, 04:31:51 pm
I agree with you, but is this a step in the right direction, or does it just reinforce the problem?
Probably neither or just a bit of both, really; avoidance is mostly a stalling tactic. Like you said earlier, being nice and polite is a good thing - you just hafta be aware that even when you do that there'll still be times when people will fear you anyway, and getting mad over that doesn't help. It's a part (or symptom) of the process. That's why statements like Max White's from earlier...
Quote
You can't just say 'Well she thought she was being attacked, so fuck that guy, even if he was just trying to make his way home!'

...aren't helpful. It's a false dichotomy. You're not choosing sides in some fictitious struggle, you're trying to get those two to find common ground.

Which admittedly is difficult, when one is running away and the other's soft tissues are full of capsaicin. But it was never gonna be easy  =P

Quote from: Max White on February 14, 2014, 04:48:49 pm
You know I think a nice start would be if in movies mace spray was at least occasionally shown realistically, instead of having all the effectiveness as spraying water. If the audience sees a guy spend the next fifteen minutes on the ground before an ambulance turns up because he could choke to death then people carrying spray might be a little more hesitant to use the stuff so quickly, and predators might actually be worried about people carrying it, making it a more effective preventative measure than a reactionary measure... Although it is pretty hard to try and enforce what the media will and will not show.

A more effective measure might be required licencing to buy and carry the stuff. Take a quick course to get your license, teach people about safety, effective actions leading up to use, checking for expiry date, storage, all that good stuff. If really required you could include getting maced as part of the course, as they do in police training, but I'm not 100% convinced that would be required. At the same time I think actually having a formal process would legitimize carrying mace, making more people consider it an an option. Ultimately you are buying mace so you can use it as a non-lethal weapon if required, I think that merits some training.
Agreed; mace is dangerous stuff and should be more accurately presented. Not a lot of other options, though. Tasers maybe? On second thought, no. Definitely not Tasers.

Quote from: Loud Whispers on February 14, 2014, 04:52:41 pm
Quote from: smirk on February 14, 2014, 04:29:00 pm
Yes, that. If the society in which you live glosses over or distorts rape and assault, and teaches women to fear for their lives as their main defense, then the correct action is to change that society, not get huffy at females when said attitudes adversely affect you. We're all in this together, after all.
Is it really so hard not to just be cautious and reasonable?
When your whole life you have "stranger danger" shoved in your face, and are taught to fear an entire gender under fairly common circumstances? And when even talking about rape and assault is culturally frowned upon? Yes.
Quote
Why the hell do you have to walk between two extremes where everyone is launching preemptive assaults on one another or politely rolling over to make it easier for thuggery to operate?
Well, sane middle ground is only found between extremes =D
Quote
How the hell is complaining about getting maced for no reason getting 'huffy at females' over being 'adversely' affected?
It's about seeing things from the other person's point of view. Getting maced is a terrible thing. But being taught to fear constantly is also terrible. Neither is good, and getting mad at one at the expense of the other, or saying one is more valid than the other, doesn't help. Is my point.
Quote
Quote from: Max White on February 14, 2014, 04:48:49 pm
You know I think a nice start would be if in movies mace spray was at least occasionally shown realistically, instead of having all the effectiveness as spraying water.
That's like asking hollywood to stop making cars explode or news stations to stop wanking on mass shootings. It won't happen in this lifetime.
Still something we need to work towards, though.


Gaaah. I type too slowly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on February 14, 2014, 05:22:12 pm
Quote from: smirk on February 14, 2014, 05:17:11 pm
Agreed; mace is dangerous stuff and should be more accurately presented. Not a lot of other options, though. Tasers maybe? On second thought, no. Definitely not Tasers.
You know if we are going to go tasers why not at least do it right and encourage people to use mech walkers equip with rockets and rail guns...  Actually come to think of it, the level of training required would pretty much reduce misuse to naught, so it might be a good idea.  :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 14, 2014, 05:23:48 pm
Anyway, since we're not allowed to walk between extremes, let's turn in another direction.

Mass surveillance, Cameras on Every corner, personal drones following you home, ensuring everyone is save and secure.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smirk on February 14, 2014, 05:26:28 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on February 14, 2014, 05:23:48 pm
Anyway, since we're not allowed to walk between extremes, let's turn in another direction.

Mass surveillance, Cameras on Every corner, personal drones following you home, ensuring everyone is save and secure.
So, London? =P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on February 14, 2014, 05:30:48 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on February 14, 2014, 05:23:48 pm
Anyway, since we're not allowed to walk between extremes, let's turn in another direction.

Mass surveillance, Cameras on Every corner, personal drones following you home, ensuring everyone is save and secure.
I'm not sure what people have against public surveillance... There are enough cameras in Sydney that police can have some control over street crime, although the interesting effect here is that while crime continues to go down, publicity of that crime goes up and people think it is becoming more of a problem, so anti-crime policy gets more and more extreme, and that might be a good thing to some degree, just not as draconian as we see here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 14, 2014, 05:34:24 pm
Pretty sure it's a rule by now. You can't mention public surveillance without making an Orwellian allusion.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on February 14, 2014, 05:36:06 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on February 14, 2014, 04:55:02 pm
Quote from: Vector on February 14, 2014, 03:45:11 pm
The point is that first people consider any rape that's not stranger danger "not what rape is really like," tell women that it's their fault and need to protect themselves--and that 1/6 of them will be raped, and then guys feel offended by the women, as opposed to by the rapists causing this problem, if they're asked to give lone women late at night a wide berth.

*shrog*
Ah yes, the male hivemind that controls every facet of society. Forgot about that one.

...I'm not sure whether to comment on your post itself or on the ridiculousness of posting something like that right after another jump-to-conclusions argument has just been dissolved.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 14, 2014, 07:42:26 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on February 14, 2014, 05:23:48 pm
Anyway, since we're not allowed to walk between extremes, let's turn in another direction.

Mass surveillance, Cameras on Every corner, personal drones following you home, ensuring everyone is save and secure.
Tl;dr: London
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: winner on February 14, 2014, 08:01:41 pm
I once accidentally shot myself in the crotch with pepper spray.  (I thought "pepper blaster" mean it was a strange kind of pepper grinder). I can report that capsaicin is quite effective incapacitating me for several hours.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Steeled on February 14, 2014, 09:11:15 pm
Quote from: Max White on February 14, 2014, 05:30:48 pm
I'm not sure what people have against public surveillance... There are enough cameras in Sydney that police can have some control over street crime, although the interesting effect here is that while crime continues to go down, publicity of that crime goes up and people think it is becoming more of a problem, so anti-crime policy gets more and more extreme, and that might be a good thing to some degree, just not as draconian as we see here.
(http://i.imgur.com/St4EjbS.gif)
Do you work for the NSA? Because it sounds like you work for the NSA.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on February 14, 2014, 09:13:12 pm
If I did, do you really think I would still use the internet, knowing what we do?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Steeled on February 14, 2014, 09:28:13 pm
Quote from: Max White on February 14, 2014, 09:13:12 pm
If I did, do you really think I would still use the internet, knowing what we do?
You have to garner support somehow. Also if senators, congress and assemblymen can except themselves from laws, I'd think a government agency would look after their own.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 14, 2014, 09:39:55 pm
Isn't the NSA controversy due to private rather than public surveillance though?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Max White on February 14, 2014, 09:43:02 pm
Honestly? We can't really tell the difference most of the time. Data is data, and after all, the guys at the pirate bay insist copying isn't stealing, so it isn't like we are actually taking anything.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Steeled on February 14, 2014, 09:53:31 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on February 14, 2014, 09:39:55 pm
Isn't the NSA controversy due to private rather than public surveillance though?
So the government openly watching your every movement is better than them secretly watching your every move? The government shouldn't be allowed to do either without a permit, and then they shouldn't be allowed to spy on a few hundred million people.
The federal government shouldn't be able to have such vast powers, and people should stop thinking it's a good thing. When the former head of the KGB says he's jealous of the NSA and how he'd never be able to get away with that people should realize somethings wrong.

Why people feel such a compelling need to give away their rights to a faceless, unaccountable government I have no idea.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BFEL on February 14, 2014, 10:00:02 pm
You know, I wouldn't really care if something watched my every move if I had any confidence it was just doing it impassively as opposed to selling all my secrets to the highest bidder and generally using it to be the Legion of Doom.

Basically, surveillance would be alright if it wasn't synonymous with complete, absolute dickitude. Which, y'know good luck with that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 14, 2014, 10:04:40 pm
There are potential problems with monitoring public areas, but the arguments are pretty different to those against monitoring people's private communications (stuff that people reasonably expected to be kept secret).  Conflating the two doesn't help your argument at all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Steeled on February 14, 2014, 10:18:46 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on February 14, 2014, 10:04:40 pm
There are potential problems with monitoring public areas, but the arguments are pretty different to those against monitoring people's private communications (stuff that people reasonably expected to be kept secret).  Conflating the two doesn't help your argument at all.
I don't believe the government should have the right to do either. Recently a us police department said their was nothing wrong with them using aerial surveillance to observe residential areas and that people were silly for caring that they could see into their fenced backyards.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on February 14, 2014, 10:26:35 pm
Quote from: Steeled on February 14, 2014, 10:18:46 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on February 14, 2014, 10:04:40 pm
There are potential problems with monitoring public areas, but the arguments are pretty different to those against monitoring people's private communications (stuff that people reasonably expected to be kept secret).  Conflating the two doesn't help your argument at all.
I don't believe the government should have the right to do either. Recently a us police department said their was nothing wrong with them using aerial surveillance to observe residential areas and that people were silly for caring that they could see into their fenced backyards.
Again, public is different to private.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Steeled on February 14, 2014, 10:44:33 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on February 14, 2014, 10:26:35 pm
Quote from: Steeled on February 14, 2014, 10:18:46 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on February 14, 2014, 10:04:40 pm
There are potential problems with monitoring public areas, but the arguments are pretty different to those against monitoring people's private communications (stuff that people reasonably expected to be kept secret).  Conflating the two doesn't help your argument at all.
I don't believe the government should have the right to do either. Recently a us police department said their was nothing wrong with them using aerial surveillance to observe residential areas and that people were silly for caring that they could see into their fenced backyards.
Again, public is different to private.
Are you telling me that people have no expectation of privacy in their own fenced in backyards?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Scelly9 on February 14, 2014, 10:46:56 pm
Quote from: Steeled on February 14, 2014, 10:44:33 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on February 14, 2014, 10:26:35 pm
Quote from: Steeled on February 14, 2014, 10:18:46 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on February 14, 2014, 10:04:40 pm
There are potential problems with monitoring public areas, but the arguments are pretty different to those against monitoring people's private communications (stuff that people reasonably expected to be kept secret).  Conflating the two doesn't help your argument at all.
I don't believe the government should have the right to do either. Recently a us police department said their was nothing wrong with them using aerial surveillance to observe residential areas and that people were silly for caring that they could see into their fenced backyards.
Again, public is different to private.
Are you telling me that people have no expectation of privacy in their own fenced in backyards?
I don't think they should. Fenced yards are an odd thing, because on one hand the normal person walking on the street can't see through them, on the other, a plane can fly over and take pictures, a satellite could do the same. It's a bit of an inbetween thing and people have to realize that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 14, 2014, 10:51:54 pm
Quote from: Steeled on February 14, 2014, 10:18:46 pm
I don't believe the government should have the right to do either.
Ok.  That doesn't mean you can use the same arguments for both.

Quote from: Steeled on February 14, 2014, 10:18:46 pm
Recently a us police department said their was nothing wrong with them using aerial surveillance to observe residential areas and that people were silly for caring that they could see into their fenced backyards.
I don't see how this fact relates to your previous sentence or the point I was making.

Quote from: Steeled on February 14, 2014, 10:44:33 pm
Are you telling me that people have no expectation of privacy in their own fenced in backyards?
No.  He's saying that there's a difference between being surveillance in public and private areas.  In fact you clearly agree with that, otherwise this objection you're raising makes no sense.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Steeled on February 14, 2014, 11:07:29 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on February 14, 2014, 10:51:54 pm
Quote from: Steeled on February 14, 2014, 10:18:46 pm
I don't believe the government should have the right to do either.
Ok.  That doesn't mean you can use the same arguments for both.
The government openly and secretly spies on people and then uses that information against the peoples best interest. Can I use all of the same arguments? No. Can I use the vast majority? Yeah.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smirk on February 15, 2014, 03:18:29 am
OldNewBusiness: Remember that Kansas bill thing from earlier? They might just have the tiniest bit of self-awareness after all. (http://www.kansas.com/2014/02/13/3287827/susan-wagle-bill-that-allows-service.html)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 15, 2014, 05:33:31 am
Quote from: winner on February 14, 2014, 08:01:41 pm
I once accidentally shot myself in the crotch with pepper spray.  (I thought "pepper blaster" mean it was a strange kind of pepper grinder). I can report that capsaicin is quite effective incapacitating me for several hours.

Sigged!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on February 15, 2014, 11:59:45 am
-maybe later-
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 15, 2014, 12:09:23 pm
Still not trolling.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on February 15, 2014, 02:20:04 pm
Is that directed at me? If so, u be the one trolling (post designed to inflame a response).

What I edited out was not related to the previous discussion, it was a new news article on politics in Venezuela, but more details are coming in other articles that somewhat contradict the first story, so I deleted it to avoid needless confusion until there are more details.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 15, 2014, 06:23:06 pm
That'd still not be trolling, that'd be flame baiting. I'm not trolling, I'm just pointing out that no one is trolling the Venezuelan government as of this moment, as fun as that would be. The rest of your post I don't particularly seem to understand, considering you appear to be accusing me of accusing you with a negative over something that you redacted.
~o.o~
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on February 15, 2014, 08:33:04 pm
When you pop in randomly and say "Still not trolling," without any immediate context except someone who editted out a post, it's not that hard to take a widdle step to a conclusion.

Anyway, who ever said anything about trolling in the past 5 pages? Let alone one related to Venezuela.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on February 15, 2014, 10:15:39 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on February 15, 2014, 06:23:06 pm
That'd still not be trolling, that'd be flame baiting.

Pretty sure they're synonymous. Look at GameFAQs' definition:

Quote
Trolling is not someone posting an opinion that differs from yours, but someone posting a message designed to get others mad enough to violate one of the other rules. Going on a board and posting "This game sucks and everybody who enjoys it is stupid" is trolling, and nothing good will come of it. Going on a board and posting "I hated this game, the controls were awful," isn't trolling, although it may not be popular opinion. Even if you disagree, you can either debate the user on their points or just ignore it.

Trolling: Provoking other users to respond inappropriately
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 16, 2014, 05:19:28 am
Quote from: Descan on February 15, 2014, 08:33:04 pm
Anyway, who ever said anything about trolling in the past 5 pages? Let alone one related to Venezuela.
Edited out by Reelya.

Quote from: Putnam on February 15, 2014, 10:15:39 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
There's more emphasis on deceitfulness, but this derail has gone on long enough and I'll stop.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on February 16, 2014, 06:21:30 am
Well, what exactly was the context of "Still not trolling" then? you're kinda beating around the bush on that.

BTW I only pointed out what my edited-out comment was about to make it clear that it wasn't in relation to that heated rape discussion that happened recently. Your comment made it sound like I'd said something inflammatory.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 16, 2014, 06:43:16 am
Quote from: Reelya on February 16, 2014, 06:21:30 am
Well, what exactly was the context of "Still not trolling" then? you're kinda beating around the bush on that.
You wrote the context, about people trolling Venezuela over accused Venezuelan censorship of protestors.

Quote from: Reelya on February 16, 2014, 06:21:30 am
BTW I only pointed out what my edited-out comment was about to make it clear that it wasn't in relation to that heated rape discussion that happened recently. Your comment made it sound like I'd said something inflammatory.
Not really no. Do you want to move this to PMs because this is drawing out far longer than it should.

And now people are accusing the Venezuelan government of deploying adamsite gas. This is why I consider the accusations above "trolling." This could be serious. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QGYIEhxFgc)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 16, 2014, 08:06:02 pm
Flame baiting is... most definitely a type of trolling, for any reasonable definition of the term. I've seen you argue this a whole lot of times - might be good to publicly get it out of the way somewhere. But not here. Stupid semantic debates are less important that actual stuff happening.

can someone bring me up to date on WHY the government is bringing out the riot gas?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 16, 2014, 11:31:33 pm
NYTimes article on Israeli and Arab water issues. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/opinion/israeli-water-mideast-peace.html?hp&rref=opinion) Has a strong focus on the technical side; a very interesting read.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 17, 2014, 04:28:45 am
Hard to say, from what I get hardline opposition started protests to evicts Maduro from power. Lots of people joined up, fed up with the 50% inflation rate and huge murder rate and stuff. Then some pro-government militia shot at least on protester, a cop and some other pro-government guy died, which make me thing some opposition group wants a fight.

Of course, there is a large media clampdown by the government who just blame everything of "fascists" and "neo-nazis". Since everyone was also too busy watching Ukraine, no one seems to know exactly what happened.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on February 17, 2014, 06:00:53 pm
Well, blaming violence on Fascists in Venezuela is actually a lot more plausible than you would think. The coup was only in 2002, and many current opposition leaders were signatories to the coup declaration.

If you look at documentary evidence from the 2002 coup, it appears that the Venezuelan opposition leaders pre-positioned snipers to shoot and kill their own supporters so that they could justify a military coup. And what was the first thing they did after the coup? Well, for their part, the cops instantly sided with the coup leaders and are on video firing machine guns out of armored cars, and running around shooting shotguns at pro-Chavez protestors. As for the leaders, they formally abolished the constitution, the parliament, supreme court, human rights ombudsman's office and electoral commission, thus allowing the new "president" to rule as a dictator. This is not a conspiracy theory, they were quite open about it, they're on video cheering as they announce that the constitution and all checks and balances on the president were abolished.

So the Venezuelan Right back in 2002 had their own "burning the reichstag" moment, and straight out acted like Fascists from the 1930's in Italy or Spain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2Uqx_mkhPs
This video, which you can see from the watermark is from SBS News Australia, at 5:00 in they start to talk about the snipers who shot at the right-wing rally in 2002. It appears that the coup-leaders pre-recorded their TV statement condemning the sniper attacks, hours before the shootings actually occured, even naming the number of deaths and the method of shooting (snipers).

The rally was originally meant to be at one location, but they made a "spontaneous" decision to move the rally to confront a left-wing civilian rally at another location. It was only after they changed direction "spontaneously" that they came under fire (and somehow were able to produce a video about it before hand).

Now, the original rally just happened to be hosted in front of the headquarters of the national oil company, and the crowd there are on video being encouraged to give what look suspiciously like NAZI salutes, whislt they scream about "kill them all" and "death to Chavez" etc.

Meanwhile, the "evil" socialist rally they planned to attack with this enraged mob, had a stage with musicians, with families watching and people dancing etc.

Then there are media outlets, such as RCTV. After the coup failed, RCTV had a lot of problems with the Chavez government. But this was purely because they were directly involved in the planning and execution of the coup. RCTV promoted the rallies beforehand, and provided pro-coup censorship and media distortions during and after the coup. How do you think America would take to a news outlet that sided with a violent overthrow of the elected government, the imposition of a dictator in Washington? Under the Chavez government, nobody even went to jail for that. But, when their broadcast license expired, it went to another channel. They didn't get their broadcast license renewed. That was almost the entire extent of the payback. Chavez could have dragged them through the mud on treason charges, but he didn't.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on February 20, 2014, 07:42:22 pm
Nefarious gay agenda propaganda by Europe's first transgender lawmaker stamped out by Russian law enforcement. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/17/europes-first-openly-transgender-lawmaker-arrested-for-holding-gay-is-ok-banner-in-sochi/)

Because grown Russian men are terrified of a intimidating message like "Gay is OK", Putinforce was mobilized to deal with this terrible instance of malicious propaganda. /cynicalsarcasm

Circumstances in Russia are hell right now, and it makes me very uneasy how the situation worsened after LGBT people were made a public target by its government who can pretend that their laws are humane while not prosecuting the rampant hate crimes being committed (http://world.time.com/2014/02/05/watch-russias-anti-gay-vigilantes-exposed-in-their-own-shocking-videos/) with the latest surge of (government supported) anti-LGBT rhetoric. The IOC ignoring these atrocities because of political convenience only highlights how little protection LGBT people actually have, even in countries where the culture is supposedly more friendly towards their basic human rights.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 20, 2014, 07:49:02 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 16, 2014, 08:06:02 pm
Flame baiting is... most definitely a type of trolling, for any reasonable definition of the term. I've seen you argue this a whole lot of times - might be good to publicly get it out of the way somewhere. But not here. Stupid semantic debates are less important that actual stuff happening.

He's done that already. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=121008.0)

edit: you were aware of this already, weren't you
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 26, 2014, 03:47:37 pm
So a Federal judge struck Texas' gay marriage ban down.  (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/26/judge-strikes-down-gay-marriage-ban-in-texas/?wpisrc=al_comboPN_p) No gay Texan weddings yet, he suspended it waiting for an appeal though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 26, 2014, 04:18:59 pm
That's going to keep happening, by the way. The Supreme Court was basically trying to buy themselves time by being narrow with the DOMA decision, but even that is opening the door to this. It's hard to make judges ignore the Equal Protection Clause.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 26, 2014, 04:48:42 pm
Yeah, I'm just surprised it didn't happen sooner. Of course, no conservative will dare take this to the Supreme Court so it'll have to be a state-by-state affair.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 26, 2014, 07:10:10 pm
It has happened before, it was just that with DOMA codified only the particularly liberal justices had the bias to make such rulings (see: the original Prop 8 strikedown by District IX). Now that the important part of DOMA is gone, any judge who is not particularly unfair will have to face the reality that the Constitution guarantees equal protection, and these laws are blatantly and openly unequal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on February 26, 2014, 07:26:06 pm
Quote from: Sheb on February 26, 2014, 03:47:37 pm
So a Federal judge struck Texas' gay marriage ban down.  (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/26/judge-strikes-down-gay-marriage-ban-in-texas/?wpisrc=al_comboPN_p) No gay Texan weddings yet, he suspended it waiting for an appeal though.
Ehh, I've stopped bothering to report them anymore. Oklahoma's was struck down a while ago, Virginia's a few weeks ago. The interesting thing about the latter is that the District's court could also strike down the laws in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia (and Maryland, but they're ahead of the curve and legalized it a year ago).

Utah's is on a speeded-up schedule though. The marriages in legal limbo means the Supreme court will have to deal with it either way. Like it or not the DOMA decision opened the floodgates. And yes, it's already being appealed; it's the last hope for many conservatives. I mean at this rate gay marriage will be legal throughout the country by the end of the year. The race to be the last is on: with Texas and Utah out, Alabama and Mississippi would've standed out as the front runners. But given the judicial climate, Alabama is already facing a challenge, and Mississippi's could be invalidated by the 5th district (to where Texas's ban goes now).

Also, Arizona, which was quietly speeding along with a bill similar (but less expansive then) the bill we saw earlier regarding the right to refuse service. It has already passed both houses, but the governor is leaning against it after a media storm and threats from businesses to remove themselves from the state.

Edit: Brewer to make statement at 7:45 eastern. (http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/arizona-brewer-bill/) That's in 14 minutes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on February 26, 2014, 08:30:56 pm
Ha, I thought that sounded like a veiled threat when I heard businesses talking about costs concerning the 'right to refuse service' shit. Good. My money's on them being last, they've really been sticking out for being backward recently.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on February 26, 2014, 09:44:33 pm
This was in the New Yorker, and it is hilarious (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/02/arizona-confronting-awkward-realization-that-gay-people-have-money-buy-stuff.html).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on February 26, 2014, 10:49:24 pm
Quote from: Vector on February 26, 2014, 09:44:33 pm
This was in the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/02/arizona-confronting-awkward-realization-that-gay-people-have-money-buy-stuff.html)

It is hilarious, but...

Quote
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs

Looks about as much New Yorker as the various blogs (example (http://www.forbes.com/sites/cameronkeng/2014/02/25/bitcoins-mt-gox-shuts-down-loses-409200000-dollars-recovery-steps-and-taking-your-tax-losses/)) that start with "forbes.com/sites/" are forbes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on February 26, 2014, 10:59:23 pm
frack believed someone else's commentary again =/  Thanks for the fact-checkin', siblings!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on February 27, 2014, 01:48:11 am
Borowitz is basically the Onion, only hosted by The New Yorker and written by one dude.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on February 27, 2014, 01:58:40 am
Quote from: Descan on February 27, 2014, 01:48:11 am
Borowitz is basically the Onion, only hosted by The New Yorker and written by one dude.
That dude needs a raise
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Twi on March 09, 2014, 12:22:00 pm
Quote from: Luke_Prowler on February 27, 2014, 01:58:40 am
Quote from: Descan on February 27, 2014, 01:48:11 am
Borowitz is basically the Onion, only hosted by The New Yorker and written by one dude.
That dude needs a raise
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 08, 2014, 05:59:38 am
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/07/leak-at-fukushima-nuclear-plant-threatens-dangerous-meltdown/

Panic, panic, everyone.

FYI, it almost complete nonsense, as you suspect from fox.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 08, 2014, 06:06:30 am
There is something really cool about a potential fukushima meltdown is that because of the way thermohaline circulation and ocean currents mix water, you wouldn't get an even spread of radioactive water [reducing the severity for individuals affected], you would get these concentrated moving islands of radioactive water that would kill everything that sails or swims through it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 08, 2014, 06:21:25 am
There has been a meltdown already(actually, probably 3 of them), no islands of radioactvity yet. Remember, radioactivity really doesn't penetrate far in water, and you need massive amounts of released materials to get acute radiation poisoning.

The problem with the article is that fox can't tell the difference between a spent fuel pond and a reactor. I think. Honestly, who believes that a reactor will melt down at 65 degrees celsius?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 08, 2014, 06:34:22 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on July 08, 2014, 06:21:25 am
There has been a meltdown already(actually, probably 3 of them), no islands of radioactvity yet. Remember, radioactivity really doesn't penetrate far in water, and you need massive amounts of released materials to get acute radiation poisoning.
I mean the kind of meltdown that means the Eastern coast of America is screwed. You don't need the radiation to penetrate the water, in fact that just makes things worse as anything covered in the stuff, surrounded by the stuff or has drank the stuff [especially the latter] is completely stuffed because they'll absorb all that alpha and beta radiation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 08, 2014, 10:43:51 am
It just pisses me off how overblown Fukushima is.

Like seriously, there's already a LOT more radiation in fish just from things like potassium and such already in their system, than anything they found in fishes post-Fukushima. It's not the radiation that'll kill ya, it's the mercury :I

(Also reminds me of that new conspirifad, aqua-trails. Like chem-trails, but in the OCEAN! :D)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 08, 2014, 10:56:03 am
Aqua trails? Not ocean currents, aqua trails?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 08, 2014, 10:58:50 am
Or at least that's what the Japanese government wants you to think~
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 08, 2014, 10:59:32 am
Or at least that's what the Japanese government wants you to think~
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 08, 2014, 11:02:57 am
Yeah, aqua-trails. They think that there are vessels leaking out chemicals in the water on purpose, and use things like "See, it's brown there!" or "That wake isn't natural!" or "That water is taking too long to settle!"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 08, 2014, 11:12:44 am
Quote from: Descan on July 08, 2014, 11:02:57 am
Yeah, aqua-trails. They think that there are vessels leaking out chemicals in the water on purpose, and use things like "See, it's brown there!" or "That wake isn't natural!" or "That water is taking too long to settle!"
They are probably right then. There are a lot of illegal chemical dumps into the ocean from all across the world and you get some really bad situations with things like dead zones where the water literally becomes brown due to chemical runoff so bad that everything except jellyfish dies there. Most leaks will be deliberate. Just, probably not government sponsored, unless you're China or Italy.

*EDIT
And if you think hard about it, a lot of the times humans can get good at being intuitive about when something is just plain wrong. Whilst perhaps not 'unnatural,' definitely unusual, like a landward breeze during summer at the coastline or walking over a river and there being no wind. Or the water being brown. They may have no idea what they're talking about beyond the basics of experience, but at least they can flag when something is possibly awful.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 08, 2014, 12:00:34 pm
Oh, I have no doubt that chemicals leak from ships. Rust, poor maintenance, etc. Even if that were stellar perfect, there's still run-off pollution in, say, China, hitching a ride on the hill, and leaking all the way to America.

But they're saying it's a method to make our children dumb via mercury poisoning so they don't cause a ruckus and revolt as the New World Order comes around :V
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 08, 2014, 12:07:19 pm
Quote from: Descan on July 08, 2014, 12:00:34 pm
Oh, I have no doubt that chemicals leak from ships. Rust, poor maintenance, etc. Even if that were stellar perfect, there's still run-off pollution in, say, China, hitching a ride on the hill, and leaking all the way to America.

But they're saying it's a method to make our children dumb via mercury poisoning so they don't cause a ruckus and revolt as the New World Order comes around :V
I don't mean accidental leaking, I mean just straight up chemical dumping. Also there's facebook and mcdonalds to keep children placated for the NWO, why are they so worried about gold ol' mercury? What's wrong with cinnabar and all cinnabar derived products?

In any case,
Spoiler: there are in fact ocean aqua trails (click to show/hide)
Only they're not aqua trails, but a trail of mystery solution ranging from the most common (bilge water) to the mafia's favourite (rubbish and waste chemicals) to China (anything goes). It all boils down to money.

Never forget Descan, this decade has proven all but the most outlandish conspiracies true. All we have left to do is find out why the world ended at 2012 before it's too late.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 28, 2014, 03:10:53 pm
http://www.globalcalculator.org/

An interactive IEA projection system that allows you to create your own solutions for energy in the next 50 year.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on July 28, 2014, 04:49:03 pm
Posting in here to migrate a discussion, there's been a bit more said in the other thread so you may want to check that out.


Quote from: Ukrainian Ranger on July 28, 2014, 12:50:49 pm
Quote
But how can a gay pride parade be equated with people having sex in public?
Wearing inappropriate clothes is a less extreme version of it. Inappropriate is not rational here. As well as ban of public sex. No rational thinking can prove that it should be banned.


Unless anyone will show me that some gene(s) that makes a person a (be)homosexual and lack of that gene(s) makes a person heterosexual, I will see assumption that sexuality is 100% innate as unproven hypothesis without any scientifical grounds. It may be true. It may be partially true. It may be untrue

Logic says me that human behavior is determined both by genes and what was pushed in the brain by society\experience. Usually the second part is more important.  Unless proven otherwise I will assume that it is true for sexual preferences, too.

The clothing issue, if it is so obscene, can be solved with clothing/decency laws. Not by banning any pro-gay discussion anywhere.
Meanwhile this propaganda law perpetuates a culture of shame & prevents gay youths from learning about safety- in-person or online.

Personally I'm more inclined to believe sexuality is formed by the tiniest little experiences in early childhood- what you see, who you talk to, smells, sounds or concepts. Somewhere in there your brain latches onto little tidbits to formulate its own baseline sexuality. And this process is so far under the radar parents (and the child) have little to zero control over it.
Once that's been solidified, there can be additions and small changes as the person grows older but the base is implacable, and thoroughly not a choice.
(any fellows have more to share on this and how I'm right/wrong?)

As for how this effects the conversation at hand, what you seem to be more interested in is how these people behave in public- that they should hide it away like a sado-masochist keeps their hobbies in the bedroom.
But as Owlbread pointed out, this doesn't address relationships-- a sado-masochist can marry their loved one, or forget marriage, they can go out on a date with them, or screw it, they can talk about who they are without fear of legal or illegal reprisal, while a gay person cannot. Their sexuality can't be kept behind closed doors- if a gay person wants to have a family or a loved one in their life, they are forced to fake a heterosexual relationship and/or to hide their true relationship like some criminal. What other alternative is there, other than sneaking away from the sexless wife to cavort with your gay lover? How do you think she'd feel about that? What's the outlook for the family?
Meanwhile, say you are in a secret relationship and you get into a car accident; the person you care for and who cares for you cannot visit while you are laying in a hospital bed in critical condition. And if you die? They are entitled to none of your possessions, which go to the rest of your family or, worse, the state.
This is a big issue in the US when it comes to gay marriage.


As for gay couples adopting, gay couples turning children gay is patently false.
Here's a decade-old reference (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477), (though I couldn't find the base studies). Hopefully others in here have better sources?



Here is another quote to spur conversation in here.
Quote from: Beznogim on July 28, 2014, 11:14:39 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 28, 2014, 10:05:19 am
That, and LGBT orientation are not really something that can be swayed by "propaganda". You choose your political alignment or at least have it influenced by your surroundings, but people do not choose their sexual orientation.
Is it experimentally completely proved, or is it just a current, most convenient assumption?

Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 28, 2014, 10:05:19 am
Tell kids that homosexuality is wrong, and they will believe it - giving rise to a generation of straight homophobes and self loathing, confused non-het people. Pride marches are not where LGBT individuals get put on a podium and feted some how by the rest of us in a big apologetic scenario, and instead are an acknowledgement that they are as valued a part of a open and secular nation as any other, free to live their lives as they see fit.
The idea of pursuing acknowledgment by dressing as ass-clowns in public is one of the main reasons why LGBT is loathed in the first place.

Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 28, 2014, 10:05:19 am
Oh, and giving all sub-groupings of people the same rights (for example, gay marriage) is not privileged treatment. If anything, it is the exact opposite.
Same rights mean same responsibilities. Marriage - is a juridicial mechanism designed by government to form productive cells of a society. Same-sex pairs do not exactly fit the criteria.
Therefore, either we expand the criteria of marriage as "whoever wants whatever with whom", but then it would be logical to allow, for example, polygamous/polyandrous/whatever-else marriages as well (which is still opposed in the West), or we do not allow gays to have marriages at all. Because, otherwise, it would be a privilege.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 28, 2014, 10:12:16 am
Bwahaha. Do you seriously believe this short of bullshit?

What special privileges do you imagine this "higher caste" of people gets, exactly? Because I haven't seen any...

And how the hell do the minorities "suppress" the majorities? And suppression isn't nearly as bad as oppression anyway.
Yes.
Having to have certain quotas of minorities in large organizations. Harder to fire them from job, for example, even if they are incompetent. Because else they would accuse you of discrimination.
Suppress, oppress, whatever - but being white heterosexual male in the West means being the most vulnerable social group.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 28, 2014, 05:03:21 pm
PTW mainly.  But also, I suggest that a rule or guideline be added to the thread/OP of "No loaded adverbs allowed." Or similar devices..
You'd be amazed at how effective that is at making discussions more civil.

By "loaded adverbs" and similar I mean things like the following examples:
"That's ridiculously wrong."
"It'd be much much more likely that..."
"The preposterous viewpoint"
"Obviously, XYZ is true."
"That doesn't make any sense at all."
"Are you seriously saying that..."
(In most cases, always and never)
"You do know that ___"
"It's extremely possible that..."
"It's merely/simply an issue of..."
etc.

They raise tension levels at best, and do worse things at worst. Not using words and phrases like these essentially forces you to remove anger and unnecessary emotion from your writing and helps reduce fights.

Personally, I'm pretty bad at following my own advice, but it's still good advice.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 28, 2014, 06:09:42 pm
Quote from: Beznogim on July 28, 2014, 11:14:39 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 28, 2014, 10:05:19 am
That, and LGBT orientation are not really something that can be swayed by "propaganda". You choose your political alignment or at least have it influenced by your surroundings, but people do not choose their sexual orientation.
Is it experimentally completely proved, or is it just a current, most convenient assumption?

Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 28, 2014, 10:05:19 am
Tell kids that homosexuality is wrong, and they will believe it - giving rise to a generation of straight homophobes and self loathing, confused non-het people. Pride marches are not where LGBT individuals get put on a podium and feted some how by the rest of us in a big apologetic scenario, and instead are an acknowledgement that they are as valued a part of a open and secular nation as any other, free to live their lives as they see fit.
The idea of pursuing acknowledgment by dressing as ass-clowns in public is one of the main reasons why LGBT is loathed in the first place.

Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 28, 2014, 10:05:19 am
Oh, and giving all sub-groupings of people the same rights (for example, gay marriage) is not privileged treatment. If anything, it is the exact opposite.
Same rights mean same responsibilities. Marriage - is a juridicial mechanism designed by government to form productive cells of a society. Same-sex pairs do not exactly fit the criteria.
Therefore, either we expand the criteria of marriage as "whoever wants whatever with whom", but then it would be logical to allow, for example, polygamous/polyandrous/whatever-else marriages as well (which is still opposed in the West), or we do not allow gays to have marriages at all. Because, otherwise, it would be a privilege.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 28, 2014, 10:12:16 am
Bwahaha. Do you seriously believe this short of bullshit?

What special privileges do you imagine this "higher caste" of people gets, exactly? Because I haven't seen any...

And how the hell do the minorities "suppress" the majorities? And suppression isn't nearly as bad as oppression anyway.
Yes.
Having to have certain quotas of minorities in large organizations. Harder to fire them from job, for example, even if they are incompetent. Because else they would accuse you of discrimination.
Suppress, oppress, whatever - but being white heterosexual male in the West means being the most vulnerable social group.

Oh my.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation might make some interesting reading. Research suggests that sexuality is a complex mixture of genetics, hormonal factors and social factors are at play. So, an individual will be more likely to be homosexual due to their genetics in addition to environmental influences. Nothing to do with it being convenient. A landslide of personal testimonies from people within the LGBT circles should also count for something. You cant simply assume it is totally due to "gay propaganda" and that "banning" it will make the "problem" go away.

You refer to pride marches as consisting of ass clowns. Yet Owlbread showed you what one in the UK looked like. Normal people. I tried googling images of pride events in Russia. You know what Google presented me with, from a wide range of sources, both pro and anti Russia? Mostly images of average people on a peaceful march being brutalized by security services. Some may have been there to provoke, sure, but what is wrong with speaking out against oppression? You don't have to like homosexuals, or what they get up to. They don't have to (and probably wont) like you. You do however have to tolerate the fact that they are people, just like you or I, and that they exist, and let them get on with their lives. LGBT individuals are not out there to prey on you.  Your repeated use of "ass clowns" highlights you as a homophobe.

Why do same sex couples not fit the criteria for marriage? We let infertile couples marry, so it cant be about creating offspring. Marriage is a legally binding social contract between 2 individuals - nothing more, nothing less. Its definition varies from nation to nation, but its nature has changed over time - for example, women are no longer property of their husband.  Why should 2 consenting adults not be allowed to form a social contract? You are falling into the slippery slope fallacy - nobody is pushing for poly-marriage, incestuous unions or anything further than 2 adults of any gender being allowed to form a union. If the definition of marriage does not fit society, then change the definition. Do not force an oppressive change on society. You want to remove the loathing, and what you call "ass clowns"? Then stop swimming up hill. Educate your young people about LGBT issues. Don't stick your head in the sand and ignore it.

... and as to where you get that "quota" idea, I have no idea. LGBT individuals I know would DETEST such an idea - they want to be treated as people, not their sexuality. They would hate the idea they only had their job due to orientation, not due to merit. Equality means that a gay person is in as much trouble for being incompetent as a hetero individual - not that they will be able to hold on to their job protected by law. This seems to be a strawman of your own making. Sure, someone can claim discrimination, but a fair employer would have a body of evidence to fall back on, required by laws that prevent rather than encourage discriminatory behaviour.

I am a white, hetero male in the west. My life is easy, and I am thankful I do not face the trials others do. There is nothing vulnerable about my position. I wanted to write so much more, but will need to take some time to collect my thoughts in a cool rational manner.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 28, 2014, 06:28:17 pm
Quote
Same rights mean same responsibilities. Marriage - is a juridicial mechanism designed by government to form productive cells of a society. Same-sex pairs do not exactly fit the criteria.
I agree that government has the right and sometimes the responsibility to encourage productive behaviors via incentives.
The problem with your logic, however, is two-fold:

1) You haven't established that the country actually NEEDS more children. if we don't, then it's not something we should want to incentivize in the first place. In fact, if we have too many people, then we should do the opposite -- tax children and not have any marriage legally for anybody.

2) Marriage as it sits on the law books right now does not require children to be born, thus it isn't actually incentivizing children.

Marriage laws currently reward all sorts of "non-productive cells":
* People past menopause can get married. By your logic, this should be illegal.
* People with hysterectomies or testicular damage or certain kinds of paralysis, etc. should not legally be allowed to marry by your logic, but they are.
* People who are simply uninterested in having children should not be allowed to get married by your logic. You should have to sign a contract or something to have children in, say, 5 years, otherwise you face forced annulment and fines.
etc. etc.

You have to choose one or the other to have a logically consistent position. Either:
1) Gay people can marry just like all the other people who don't produce anything of special value for the country by their marriage. And yes, this WOULD logically include polyamorous and so forth marriages as well. OR

2a) (IF the country needs more children) Only people who are actively having children can marry and enjoy the associated legal incentives, and their status will be revoked if they stop for too long at any given time. Let's say 5 years, your marriage is cancelled unless you reset the timer by having another kid.
2b) (IF the country is overpopulated) Legal marriage in general is abolished, and child taxes are imposed.

Which do you prefer?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on July 28, 2014, 06:30:57 pm
Also, the burden of proof is on the accuser, so if you're claiming that X is bad, it's actually your job to show it's not just a "convenient  assumption".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 28, 2014, 06:40:22 pm
I would add that gay people can also adopt children, or even have their own in the case of lesbians with sperm donations.  Thus they can help in the raising of the next generation.  That's the important part of what marriage is trying to encourage, if squeezing out babies was the key then you'd surely want to instead encourage college students to get drunk and have unprotected sex.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 28, 2014, 06:45:55 pm
Quote
if squeezing out babies was the key then you'd surely want to instead encourage college students to get drunk and have unprotected sex.
I don't think that's necessarily a fair reply, because marriage provides an opportunity for regulation and registration and accountability. So it could logically be better than encouraging random people to hook up and have babies and then have no consistent caretaking environment.

However, if you don't want to incentivize random unprotected sex, then marriage would have to actually HAVE such accountability, which it does not right now. See updated options below.

Quote
I would add that gay people can also adopt children, or even have their own in the case of lesbians with sperm donations.  Thus they can help in the raising of the next generation.

Yes, true. So actually the choices are:

1) Gay people can marry just like all the other people who don't produce anything of special value for the country by their marriage. And yes, this WOULD logically include polyamorous and so forth marriages as well. OR

2a) (IF the country needs more children) People who give birth to or adopt or foster children get any legal incentives and can marry (including gay people who adopt, etc.), and their status will be revoked if they stop for too long at any given time. Let's say 5 years, your marriage is cancelled unless you reset the timer by having or adopting another kid. Your marriage is also revoked if regular inspections determine that you aren't living together or both watching and helping raise the child or providing a nurturing environment, etc.

2b) (IF the country is overpopulated) Legal marriage in general is abolished, and child taxes are imposed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 03:02:54 am
Well, for starters, because it bugs me somewhat every time I see it (and I see it *a lot*), the term 'homophobia' is actually a misnomer, and a hard-core one at that. That term would actually mean 'the fear of the same', but I can agree that it is easy to see it as a 'fear of homosexuality/homosexuals'; *not* any form of hatred/opposing/whatever is now called that.

With that out of the way - I, too, am for the laws banning LGBTQI propaganda, especially in schools. At least in the current law situation; in general, I'm always for cutting unnecessary laws*. While I'm against police beating anybody without a good reason (by a good reason I mean somebody trying to beat the police, for example), so Russian situation seems somewhat extreme, but it is to be expected from a authoritarian state, really.

As for gay marriage - again, I'm against unnecessary laws*, and I would see no problem with there being no legal marriage at all in current form. I mean - if a marriage is just a legal union, why even have it sanctioned by special laws? Just let people write down a contract at a notary and be off with it. If a country needs more children, give incentives in form of various benefits to pregnant women and on per-child basis after a child is born, not for marriages, and off you go. Than you can have whoever you want getting into any sort of agreement with whoever else you want. Gay marriage, polygamous marriage, BDSM contracts, whatever, whether you are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, queer or whatever the 'I' stands for. Yet, I have never heard anybody asking for that, and what is more, in Poland for example you can pretty much get all this with legal contracts, and there is pretty much no difference between that contract and marriage, and still you hear nothing about that, but every other day there is somebody asking for gay marriage. Why is that?

There was also some talk in the last thread about minorities getting upper hand in general (while it was probably worded differently and more strongly); I don't know about the West, but again, in Poland, being homosexual gives you a distinct set of bonuses, so to speak - for example, homosexuals have a big over-representation in media, granting them not insignificant amount of money. Also, they have non-trivial over-representation when it comes to government grants for various activities, and it is much, much easier to get money from Ministry of Culture for homosexuality - oriented projects like theater plays and so on. Which is actually great recipe for disaster, as people who are heterosexual start to feel oppressed, and not without reason.

*A small explanation: I think that all laws in a country concerning an individual (so, no corporate laws in this category) should fit in one paperback book, small enough to read in no more than 24 hours (of continuous reading, which gives us about 400 pages). That book should be sent in the pdf form to an official e-mail account** of a citizen on his/her 18th birthday to allow learning all the laws that are affecting a citizen as soon as a person hits legal age (also, 18th can be changed to whatever legal age is in the country, and there should be only one for every aspect). In Poland, there are some bills I should personally know, but are hundreds of pages long... And there are literally dozens of them. I have no chance to know the law, and that can be used against me, and this situation is very, very not cool. Bro.

**Yes, I think that there should be such a concept as a official e-mail account, just to cut on mail spending, which is in millions every year for every office, which are - again - counted in dozens here in Poland.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on July 29, 2014, 03:24:04 am
Quote
I mean - if a marriage is just a legal union, why even have it sanctioned by special laws?

I want to answer to this specifically : marriage is an institution that give you a lot of rights. Not only about children but also about inheritance, choice in case of incapacity of your partner, taxes, benefits,... And recreating this bundle by yourself through a contract would be time consuming and expensive.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 03:31:05 am
Quote
I, too, am for the laws banning LGBTQI propaganda, especially in schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Recommended reading. Not being sarcastic, since you seem to be implying you are from Poland and may be unfamiliar with U.S. constitutional amendments, but this makes laws like you are describing illegal for legislators to pass in America. You can potentially pass laws dictating school curriculum, but:
1) It's generally a poor idea to teach from the legislator's seat versus leaving it to teachers and educators.
2) Even if you do, it does not make talking about stuff in school outside of curriculum (such as in clubs or in the hallways) illegal, nor anything outside the school.
3) You didn't actually explain what you think "LGBTQI propaganda" actually is, or why you don't like it, which is sort of important for discussion.

Quote
Yet, I have never heard anybody asking for [removal of all marriage, etc.]
Uh... I just suggested it as an option that I would support further up on this page of this thread... In two different posts, in fact. That would be a perfectly fair solution, yes.

In general, I suspect that the reason people don't most often prefer this option is very simple -- people don't like paying taxes etc., and they do like inheriting things, and they enjoy visiting each other in hospital, so if you have to fight for equality either way, why not fight for the one of the two options that lets you GAIN rights like everyone else, versus the option that makes the other guys LOSE rights?

Quote
Also, they have non-trivial over-representation when it comes to government grants for various activities, and it is much, much easier to get money from Ministry of Culture for homosexuality - oriented projects like theater plays and so on. Which is actually great recipe for disaster, as people who are heterosexual start to feel oppressed, and not without reason.
I find it very unlikely that it is easier to get funding for gay-related projects than for heterosexually-related projects. That's a major [citation needed].  Or is that not what you meant? If not, "easier to get money" than what?



Quote from: Phmcw on July 29, 2014, 03:24:04 am
Quote
I mean - if a marriage is just a legal union, why even have it sanctioned by special laws?

I want to answer to this specifically : marriage is an institution that give you a lot of rights. Not only about children but also about inheritance, choice in case of incapacity of your partner, taxes, benefits,... And recreating this bundle by yourself through a contract would be time consuming and expensive.
Well yes, but they're really privileges, not any sort of fundamental human rights or anything. It WOULD be fair and equal to simply not let anybody marry.
It would just happen to be a drearier, less happy place. But not a less fair one. And there would be side benefits like more taxes raised, etc.
I prefer the rights being expanded to everybody, but it wouldn't be the end of the world the other way.



Also, note that you and your spouse can't "just write a contract" to somehow let yourself pay fewer taxes... Unless you're marrying the IRS.
Many of the privileges are ones that cannot be covered by nuptial contracts, because they are legal obligations to third parties.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 04:45:33 am
@GavJ - I was writing a little in a hurry, and in parallel to actually writing on Polish site, which is why (probably) I got a little misunderstood here, so I will try to explain myself better here. :)

Most importantly, I'm from Poland, I'm writing from my perspective due to that; I have little knowledge about USA, and somewhat more about Europe, as this concerns me directly (especially EU situation).

About banning propaganda - it was mostly about the Russian/Ukrainian laws concerning that. I have never really thought about what should such laws exactly say, as I won't ever get into writing such laws, even as proposals. If such a proposal would be raised, I could be 'for' if it was good enough. Not that it matters, as our government throws away any notion of a referendum whenever citizens try to go for it. Actually, in Poland there is probably nothing in the constitution preventing such law from being passed, but I can't know for sure, as our constitution is so long, boring, and law-language-oriented that I never read it through (it is literally dozens of times longer than US one, and makes much less sense).
The problem, as I see it, is that as long as it is not proven that homosexuality is completely non-related to exposition to such worldview, I would rather keep my children away from it. In current state of affairs, with school being pretty much obligatory, banning it from school is the way to go. More sensible way to do it would be to allow different worldviews in schools (which is, I believe, a case in USA? I mean, there are places when they teach creationism, and places where they teach evolution, and places where they teach both?), so that a parent can choose where to send the child.

About suggesting removal of marriage - I was referring to situation in Poland, not the thread. :) Also, it was said above (and you seem to reinforce the view) that marriage is a way to gain rights. Yes, it is, but as I said before, most of the rights can be gained otherwise (by a simple legal contract; it is possible to get those mostly standardized and thus to limit the costs to very reasonable levels; I mean inheritance, visitation rights and so on) - again, this is from Polish point of view, where the tax gains are actually pretty negligible for marriages! - and rest should be moved anyway (I mean here children - related tax cuts and other bonuses). There was actually a major point in making marriages recognized by civil law, to promote the stable family and stuff, assuming that it is good for the state. With introduction of divorce, it has pretty much gone for a walk never to return already, so... You see, marriage is actually like writing a whole different program, when you really need a bunch of methods and maybe a class. ;) From the state point of view, at least - the church sanctioned marriage is different, but should be governed by church's laws.

About homo- and hetero- sexually-related projects, it is... Well, it will probably depend on what you consider 'heterosexually oriented'. I actually have quite a few articles on that, but those are all in Polish, so I would not expect from you to learn a new language for that. ;) But for starters, in Warsaw, capital of Poland, there is a six-color rainbow made out of steel scaffolding and some sort of paper flowers, which is widely recognized and sort of manifestation from homosexuals. It stands in very prominent point of the city, and after it was burned (really, making a paper sculpture of any sort doesn't seem like all that hot of an idea, but this is different topic) it was rebuild using city's money - twice - and now it is constantly guarded by city police force, it has special surveillance cameras and custom sprinkler system to put out any fires out... Despite the fact that there are 10 times more people petitioning for it removal than ever gathered there, *and* the fact that there is still no sign whatsoever of the city memorializing president who was killed during his term (and was city's major before becoming country president).
This is strongly related to inferiority complex our government has, which has to do with us being the 'new' Europe. They are trying to one-up EU in being more european than Europe...

Also, the marriage - related privileges would need to be moved a little out from the flow; those are probably very different in Poland and in USA, so that might be part of the confusion. :)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on July 29, 2014, 04:45:43 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 28, 2014, 06:40:22 pm
.. or even have their own in the case of lesbians with sperm donations.

This is the only thing I have a problem with. But that is not a problem I have with homosexuals, but more in general, with the modern practice of sperm donation, and surrogate mothers, where it is possible for the donor to remain anonymous.

On topic, I hold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in very high regard, and in my opinion, homosexual people should have all equal rights as anyone else, and be free from prosectution because of their sexuality.

Part of that declaration handles the Rights of Children. One of these rights states that every child should have the opportunity to be raised by both it's biological parents. By using sperm donation, or surrogate mothers, combined with a right to anonimosity of those, you deny the child this basic human right.

I'm fine with adoption though, for hetero and homosexual couples alike. Those children did have the opportunity to grow up with their biological parents, but apparently something went wrong.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on July 29, 2014, 04:55:08 am
Quote
The problem, as I see it, is that as long as it is not proven that homosexuality is completely non-related to exposition to such worldview, I would rather keep my children away from it.

Which is the problem with the "born that way" movement : it doesn't adress the root of the problem, namely, why would you want your children heterosexual and not homosexual?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 29, 2014, 05:00:52 am
Quote from: martinuzz on July 29, 2014, 04:45:43 am
Part of that declaration handles the Rights of Children. One of these rights states that every child should have the opportunity to be raised by both it's biological parents. By using sperm donation, or surrogate mothers, combined with a right to anonimosity of those, you deny the child this basic human right.
Eh. If one (or more) of the biological parents waive their connection (or whatever it should be called) with the kid, then m'of the opinion that should be that. So long as the child's got support and the parent is uninterested, then... okay. Kid's got a right to support of some sort, but not necessarily by their biological parent if there's other options available. So long as said support is available, I wouldn't say the child's right to support supersedes the biological parent's right to be left the hell alone, y'know?

Personal experience has strongly demonstrated that biological means precisely jack and shit when it comes to parenting. What's important is all that... love and support and that sort of rot. There's nothing about biological decent that privileges biological over non-biological parents, at least from what I've seen. What matters is care and willingness, not blood.

Quote from: Phmcw on July 29, 2014, 04:55:08 am
Which is the problem with the "born that way" movement : it doesn't adress the root of the problem, namely, why would you want your children heterosexual and not homosexual?
I thought the problem was why the zog is the parent trying to influence the child's sexuality at all instead of just letting them do what they do and supporting them in that? Parent doing their job otherwise and the kid's choice of partner is going to matter basically none, so...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 05:02:09 am
Quote from: Phmcw on July 29, 2014, 04:55:08 am
Quote
The problem, as I see it, is that as long as it is not proven that homosexuality is completely non-related to exposition to such worldview, I would rather keep my children away from it.

Which is the problem with the "born that way" movement : it doesn't adress the root of the problem, namely, why would you want your children heterosexual and not homosexual?

Well, and why would I want them other way around? Why would I not care? Give me a choice - and the let the kiddo choose for himself when we, as a society, agree that he is ready (probably after hitting 18/21 years of age). If you want your kids homosexual, go ahead, send them to school where they can learn about that. If not, don't send them here. You don't care? Great for you, you can just send them to school across the street, whatever they are teaching there. It is the best solution, at least in my mind: just let the education be privatized. And everything else, too, for that matter, but this is (again) different topic.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 29, 2014, 05:21:13 am
Teaching kids to accept homosexuality and the whole pantheon of LGBT orientations, including the subtle variations within hetero, as a normal thing is so not the same as promoting homosexuality as a superior choice - I worry that this "fear" is born out of some kind of fearmongering and ignorance. Nobody is suggesting we do such a thing. Nobody is suggesting we should push any particular orientation on anyone. What is being pushed though is the idea that we should inform people well enough in order for them to make their own choices, and then to support them in that choice - not assume that hetero is the default "better" option for all, and to engineer things in such a way to push that agenda.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on July 29, 2014, 05:23:07 am
Quote from: Frumple on July 29, 2014, 05:00:52 am
So long as said support is available, I wouldn't say the child's right to support supersedes the biological parent's right to be left the hell alone, y'know

I think we can agree to disagree there. In my opinion, setting a child into this world is a choice as well as a responsability.
If you want to be left the hell alone, then don't have children.

That aside, your response did make me think of this good old song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1BJfDvSITY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1BJfDvSITY)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 29, 2014, 05:40:58 am
Quote from: martinuzz on July 29, 2014, 05:23:07 am
I think we can agree to disagree there. In my opinion, setting a child into this world is a choice as well as a responsability.
If you want to be left the hell alone, then don't have children.
Maybe, maybe. There's definitely a difference between a surrogate parent or sperm donor and someone who was just incautious or whathaveyou, though. I'd say enabling someone that wants kids, but can't, to have them is a good thing, y'know? Hopefully in the near future there'll be an iron womb equivalent for folks that cuts out the proverbial middleman, but until then it's good stuff.

But as I mentioned, I pretty strongly devalue the importance of biological connection. What's important for a kid is who raises 'em and how, not whether there's an immediate genetic connection involved. Who donated genes is irrelevant (barring genetic diseases and whatnot, anyway, ha), imo. It's certainly not something I'd try to nix sperm donation or surrogate parenting over. Or even the anonymous part of it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on July 29, 2014, 05:53:14 am
Quote from: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 05:02:09 am
Quote from: Phmcw on July 29, 2014, 04:55:08 am
Quote
The problem, as I see it, is that as long as it is not proven that homosexuality is completely non-related to exposition to such worldview, I would rather keep my children away from it.

Which is the problem with the "born that way" movement : it doesn't adress the root of the problem, namely, why would you want your children heterosexual and not homosexual?

Well, and why would I want them other way around? Why would I not care? Give me a choice - and the let the kiddo choose for himself when we, as a society, agree that he is ready (probably after hitting 18/21 years of age). If you want your kids homosexual, go ahead, send them to school where they can learn about that. If not, don't send them here. You don't care? Great for you, you can just send them to school across the street, whatever they are teaching there. It is the best solution, at least in my mind: just let the education be privatized. And everything else, too, for that matter, but this is (again) different topic.
The answer to "why would I want to have my kids to be *insert sexual preference here*?" is "Because it's not your responsibility, or even right, to micromanage your children down to the level of who they should or shouldn't like.", just like you shouldn't be allowed to, say, dictate which sports club they join, or what medication they will take.

This stuff should be basic SexEd anyway, during the early teens or whenever it is that they stop believing in cooties. Any later, such as your suggested 18/21, will just cause years of needless confusion and grief.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on July 29, 2014, 06:03:34 am
Quote from: Darvi on July 29, 2014, 05:53:14 am
Quote from: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 05:02:09 am
Quote from: Phmcw on July 29, 2014, 04:55:08 am
Quote
The problem, as I see it, is that as long as it is not proven that homosexuality is completely non-related to exposition to such worldview, I would rather keep my children away from it.

Which is the problem with the "born that way" movement : it doesn't adress the root of the problem, namely, why would you want your children heterosexual and not homosexual?

Well, and why would I want them other way around? Why would I not care? Give me a choice - and the let the kiddo choose for himself when we, as a society, agree that he is ready (probably after hitting 18/21 years of age). If you want your kids homosexual, go ahead, send them to school where they can learn about that. If not, don't send them here. You don't care? Great for you, you can just send them to school across the street, whatever they are teaching there. It is the best solution, at least in my mind: just let the education be privatized. And everything else, too, for that matter, but this is (again) different topic.
The answer to "why would I want to have my kids to be *insert sexual preference here*?" is "Because it's not your responsibility, or even right, to micromanage your children down to the level of who they should or shouldn't like.", just like you shouldn't be allowed to, say, dictate which sports club they join, or what medication they will take.

This stuff should be basic SexEd anyway, during the early teens or whenever it is that they stop believing in cooties. Any later, such as your suggested 18/21, will just cause years of needless confusion and grief.
What if the medication they chose will kill them?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on July 29, 2014, 06:05:08 am
Well that's what I mean with parents not being allowed to decide that sort of thing. It's not their responsibility to do a professional doctor's job.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 06:12:00 am
Quote from: Darvi on July 29, 2014, 05:53:14 am
Quote from: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 05:02:09 am
Quote from: Phmcw on July 29, 2014, 04:55:08 am
Quote

Well, so let's get some thing straight here, please, because it is important that we discuss the same thing, and not two different.
One important thing is that I don't advocate teaching kids about homosexuality at age 18/21/whatever else. I just say that from that moment on, they should be allowed to choose their own education, with all assorted ideological worldviews, whether on sexuality, creationism/evolution or any other topic. Up to that moment, it is parent responsibility - and right - to choose for them. Not whether or not they learn about it, because it is obvious that such an issue exists and as such should be learned (excuse me for maybe bad analogy, but similarly to evolution/creationism - it is an undisputed fact that there are many species on Earth, but there are conflicting views as to why), but how they are learned. I want my school to teach kids about things that I believe in, and I think are right.
So either is sexuality genetic ('born that way') and whatever I do to keep my kids from propaganda (not knowledge!) is not going to change who they are - so there is no difference as to which school I will send them to, or there is some difference, and I should have right to influence that part, just as I am trying to raise my kids in my religion and sharing my worldview.

Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 29, 2014, 05:21:13 am
-snip-

Well, there are a few points where I disagree with you. First of all, I don't want my kids to 'accept' homosexuality (and assorted stuff, I'm using homosexuality as a kind of mental shortcut). I want them to 'tolerate' it, which is a different thing. That's because - another thing to mention - I *do* think that hetero is better option, because it is default, natural option, allowing the species as a whole to survive and thrive.
Moreover, from my experience - but it is only my experience, I want to stress that, because it may be native to Poland (and our colony-minded government), or even be more confined than that - every attempt to allow some form of LGBT organization to teach kids about tolerating/accepting other orientations and whatnot ends up in blatant propaganda formed along the 'gay' lines. That is, that being LGBT(QI?) is more 'cool' and 'European' and 'trendy' than being heterosexual. Again, I'm stressing the fact that is a) my experience, though not only personal, but also second-handed reports from various media and b) not argument against tolerance, but against forcing anything on anyone and lack of choice.
I do not doubt that there ways to reasonably teach kids about value of tolerance and various non-heteronormative behaviors, it is just the fact that I've seen other ways being used when it comes to actual, existing school.

Quote from: Frumple on July 29, 2014, 05:40:58 am
Quote from: martinuzz on July 29, 2014, 05:23:07 am
- snip -
- snip -

I will have to side with martinuzz on this one - setting a child into this world is a responsibility, even more so than a choice. And, even more importantly, I would say that the fact that somebody wants kids isn't all that important. Children are not property or a human right; they are other, autonomous beings. The mere fact that someone wants them doesn't automatically warrant they should be allowed to do so. I'm not saying that people who - for one reason or another - can't have children should not be allowed some ways around it. But it is very important to remember that there is no such thing as a right to child; just as there isn't right to a partner. The fact that I want a wife doesn't warrant me one, and it is the same with children.
Also, while you might not consider biological connection important, who is to say that the children born would share this view? There are numerous stories about children raised by non-biological parents seeking the biological ones, so it is obviously a thing to consider.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on July 29, 2014, 06:13:22 am
Quote from: Darvi on July 29, 2014, 06:05:08 am
Well that's what I mean with parents not being allowed to decide that sort of thing. It's not their responsibility to do a professional doctor's job.
Agreed. Too many children die because their parents did not want to have them vaccinated.
But what if the professionals offer a cure that has a 50/50 chance of either curing, or killing?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on July 29, 2014, 06:32:59 am
Frankly, I have a problem with people deciding on what their children learn. People are badly informed, biased, or just plain unknowledgeable in a large number of subjects, as laymen tend to be. What one person sees as right, another sees as left. A uniform education for everybody, with the curriculum decided by a board of specialists who know their subjects, or something like that, would not only ensure that everybody would learn what is generally accepted to be right (e.g. evolution over creationism), but also ensure that everybody has access to the same standards of knowledge.

And I find a kid's right to this overrides a parent's right to decide what they learn, which has the potential to be, to use your words, propaganda.

Quote from: martinuzz on July 29, 2014, 06:13:22 am
But what if the professionals offer a cure that has a 50/50 chance of either curing, or killing?
Irrelevant. The media outrage alone would ensure they wouldn't bring such a cure on the market in the first place.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 06:50:35 am
Quote from: Darvi on July 29, 2014, 06:32:59 am
Frankly, I have a problem with people deciding on what their children learn. People are badly informed, biased, or just plain unknowledgeable in a large number of subjects, as laymen tend to be. What one person sees as right, another sees as left. A uniform education for everybody, with the curriculum decided by a board of specialists who know their subjects, or something like that, would not only ensure that everybody would learn what is generally accepted to be right (e.g. evolution over creationism), but also ensure that everybody has access to the same standards of knowledge.

And I find a kid's right to this overrides a parent's right to decide what they learn, which has the potential to be, to use your words, propaganda.

Well, I will start with an apology, but... I'm always willing to take a thing to a logical conclusion, because I think people don't do that nearly enough, stopping halfway through their thinking (not that it doesn't happen to me).

If we assume that people are generally not wise (again, using a shorthand for badly informed etc.), and we want to institute a uniform education, why do we give people the right to vote? I think it would be problematic to reason that people don't know a thing about biology, but they do know everything there is to know about economics. Or international diplomacy, for that matter. And yet, we allow the people to vote; all of them, not just the knowledgeable ones. What is more, their kids live in a country shaped by the very politicians they elect, so their biased, uninformed decisions matter no only for their own children, but for all children in a country. Shouldn't we limit the right to vote to a board of specialists who know the subjects of politics?

On another, yet related, note - uniform education with curriculum dictated by a board of specialists with given views leads to teaching people that view. Some of them will become specialists, and they will be sharing the view. And then they will become part of the board, and a cycle closes and we end up with people repeating the same views over and over again. Are we confident enough to assume that is a good thing, that modern view on science (especially social science) is the ultimate, best one and nobody will ever come up with better ideas?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on July 29, 2014, 06:54:37 am
Quote from: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 06:50:35 am
why do we give people the right to vote?
Believe me, I have no idea either.

Quote
Shouldn't we limit the right to vote to a board of specialists who know the subjects of politics?
I do like the idea of a meritocracy, yes. Anarchy sounds better, but I trust humanity without restraints less than Oddysseus with a wooden horse. My way would of course make these issues into non-issues, but I doubt anybody would think that would be a good idea so I won't even discuss it.

Quote
On another, yet related, note - uniform education with curriculum dictated by a board of specialists with given views leads to teaching people that view. Some of them will become specialists, and they will be sharing the view. And then they will become part of the board, and a cycle closes and we end up with people repeating the same views over and over again. Are we confident enough to assume that is a good thing, that modern view on science (especially social science) is the ultimate, best one and nobody will ever come up with better ideas?
Academia has ways of handling this. Peer reviews, the scientific method, that kind of stuff.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 29, 2014, 07:12:10 am
Quote
Shouldn't we limit the right to vote to a board of specialists who know the subjects of politics?
[/quote]
Well, technically one of the effects of a representative democracy is that you limit the execution of political stuff to a board of people who know a lot about it, and the voters just choose the general goals. This however, assumes that the politicians know what they're doing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 29, 2014, 07:15:04 am
I'd like to point out here that in more conservative countries (or parts of countries) sex ed itself might be a controversial issue. If your sex ed consists mainly of anatomy, pregnancy, and std information, the idea that they need to "teach about homosexuality in sex ed" can come off as out of place. Without knowing at which level some some state's education is at and what it contains, it gets a bit strange to argue about what it should add. What I mean is that while they might need to add "homosexual" education, they might also be lacking "heterosexual" education to begin with.

In quotes because I'm not entirely sure what people mean by those terms, beyond normalcy and tolerance stuff - which to me strictly belongs in sex ed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on July 29, 2014, 07:17:39 am
How can you have Sex Ed without the babby forming bits?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 29, 2014, 07:18:56 am
Awkwardly, without much useful information, and poorly. Plenty of places in the states manage it!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on July 29, 2014, 07:21:01 am
So basically, like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-cSOY2YjVw&t=4m48s)?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 07:46:43 am
Quote from: Darvi on July 29, 2014, 06:54:37 am
Quote from: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 06:50:35 am
why do we give people the right to vote?
Believe me, I have no idea either.

Quote
Shouldn't we limit the right to vote to a board of specialists who know the subjects of politics?
I do like the idea of a meritocracy, yes. Anarchy sounds better, but I trust humanity without restraints less than Oddysseus with a wooden horse.

Of course, than the problem is what would meritocrats decide - 'homo way' or 'hetero way'. ;) On a serious note though - it's not like I trust scientists any more than general population when it comes to... well, anything. Not with the kind of professors they show in my TV*. Or that I personally know for that matter. Specifically, I don't think we have any reasonable way to select such board - whether political or educational one - to make such idea work, really.

*Metaphorically. I don't own a TV set and I don't watch TV.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 29, 2014, 08:13:07 am
Quote from: Darvi on July 29, 2014, 07:17:39 am
How can you have Sex Ed without the babby forming bits?

I didn't say they do? Anatomy and pregnancy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on July 29, 2014, 08:14:23 am
That does kind of necessitate the coverage of heterosexual couples though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 29, 2014, 08:16:52 am
Whoa, this thread came back. Good conversation so far. Keep up with the not flaming each other.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on July 29, 2014, 08:22:29 am
You shall burn for that comment.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Execute/Dumbo.exe on July 29, 2014, 08:32:48 am
I remember sex ed, I had it at school a couple years ago and the entire basis was my science teacher saying 'you stick penis in vagina, and I'll wait until you stop giggling.' And then told us to research up on sex.
I learnt a loooooottt of stuff that day, and i think that actually isn't a bad way to go about it, I mean, if you give a flowery depiction of it, less kids are going to care, and this way, the kids who are a bit more mature than baby pandas learn about sex, the ones who didn't care in the first place either already know about it or won't listen anyway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on July 29, 2014, 10:01:19 am
Spoiler: WALL OF TEXT (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 29, 2014, 11:55:57 am
Quote from: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 06:12:00 am
So either is sexuality genetic ('born that way') and whatever I do to keep my kids from propaganda (not knowledge!) is not going to change who they are - so there is no difference as to which school I will send them to, or there is some difference, and I should have right to influence that part, just as I am trying to raise my kids in my religion and sharing my worldview.
You are wrong on both points.  If sexuality is 100% genetic then not teaching your kids about homosexuality (or teaching them that it is bad) will lead your kids to have trouble with their relationships, and possibly hate themselves when they come to realize they are gay.  If they are taught that homosexuality exists and is fine then they'll arrive at their actual sexuality a lot quicker and will be ok with it when they do.

On the other hand, sexuality not being entirely genetic doesn't mean it's 100% influenced by the way you're raised.  Indeed, I'd say it's obviously not true that you can prevent your kids from being gay just by trying to discourage them from it - there are gay people even in the most repressed societies, and there always have been.  And if you did try to discourage your child along the way then they will again hate themselves for what they are, which is clearly not a good thing.

In addition I'd like you to give an example of "gay propaganda".  The problem with the term is that it's incredibly broad and in Russia it is used to shut down any attempts to talk about homosexuality.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 12:14:29 pm
Quote
Well, and why would I want them other way around? Why would I not care? Give me a choice - and the let the kiddo choose for himself when we, as a society, agree that he is ready (probably after hitting 18/21 years of age). If you want your kids homosexual, go ahead, send them to school where they can learn about that. If not, don't send them here. You don't care? Great for you, you can just send them to school across the street, whatever they are teaching there. It is the best solution, at least in my mind: just let the education be privatized. And everything else, too, for that matter, but this is (again) different topic.
You seem to be confusing "propaganda" with just teaching basic facts.
Gay people exist. Therefore teaching that they exist and what they are is something that needs to happen in school if children are to be properly educated.

Kids also learn about criminals and wars and nazis and robber baron capitalists exploiting people all day, and slavery, etc.  Do these things convince children to become slavers, nazis, or to start wars? No, because the history class doesn't or shouldn't ENDORSE them, just teach them.

If your school is going around telling kids that they should all convert to being gay, that's inappropriate propaganda.
If they're just teaching what gay is, then they're doing their job, it's not propaganda, and expecting the state to make a whole separate school for you just to promote ignorance goes against the entire concept of school and is as silly as expecting them to make a whole school that doesn't teach math.

Quote
Well that's what I mean with parents not being allowed to decide that sort of thing. It's not their responsibility to do a professional doctor's job.
Doctors don't have magical omniscience about everything related to medicine ever. Especially pediatricians, since their "specialty" covers nearly all of medicine. They're very different than, say, rheumatologists or anesthesiologists, who have a much narrower scope and can master and read up on their domain to a much higher degree of expertise.

On MANY occasions, with my internists in my own life experience (same issue as pediatricians), I have pointed out blatantly obvious mistakes they made and saved myself from large complications I would have suffered if I just blithely obeyed everything without thinking:
* On at least 3 occasions, doctors have attempted to treat me while sneezing, coughing up lungs, runny eyes, dragging along, obviously completely ill and contagious, and claim they aren't sick "because I had my flu shot this year" ...Which is ~60% effective according to the CDC, but the doctors are ignorant of this and the basics of how vaccines work apparently, and by treating it as a magical 100% force field, they endangered my health by ignorantly coming to work despite being obviously sick, literally sneezing on tongue depressors right before trying to use them on me (I shit you not), and exposing me to the flu, especially dangerous since I was already vulnerable and sick with other things too.
* I have had internists not bother to read or apply knowledge of antibiotic allergy on my chart and attempt to prescribe me stuff that would have put me into anaphylactic shock if I didn't stop them.
* I once had to actually remind an ER doctor that seemed to be missing something that maaaybe they might want to take an x-ray of my nearly compound broken angle, and they responded, I quote exactly, "...Oh yeah! Right. Okay."
* I have, on several occasions, looked up and researched my own symptoms, suggested medications or vitamin supplements or whatever that seem to fit, and had my doctors agree and go with it. They just simply hadn't had time to read everything and know about certain options or better fit explanations of symptoms, but agreed with my research.

Doctors, in general, only have about 15 minutes to spend on you. You have hours or days or weeks to spend on you.
If you have half a head on your shoulders and know how to research things, you can very easily achieve greater expertise than a random internist or whatever on conditions related to you specifically (or your kids). All the same resources are available to you as them, and nothing about medical school involves implanting a special microchip that makes doctors better able to understand science than you. In fact, in my case, I have significantly more science and research education than doctors...

Is there maybe some specialist doctor out there who knows more about my condition than me? Sure. But since I'm not a billionaire, I can't afford to just waltz around hiring world experts every time I have a runny nose, so instead, I read the studies from those world experts, and fill in my actual doctors when they don't.

Quote
Frankly, I have a problem with people deciding on what their children learn. People are badly informed, biased, or just plain unknowledgeable in a large number of subjects, as laymen tend to be.
Unless you're not a layman and/or at least have as much or more experience and background in subjects than public school teachers do.
Personally, I don't know how people have TIME to home school, and I don't think it's appropriate to try and change a whole curriculum in school just for your one kid. But plenty of people can and do know better than the public school system about various things, and it is not illogical to wish their children to also know better in those cases.

This is probably best solved in almost all cases, though, by simply sitting down with your kid later and filling them in on any mistakes or extra info that you find important. Not trying to legislate things.

Quote
But what if the professionals offer a cure that has a 50/50 chance of either curing, or killing?
Irrelevant. The media outrage alone would ensure they wouldn't bring such a cure on the market in the first place.
No, it wouldn't, because lots of drugs at least in the United States, that goes on the market MIGHT be ones that are just as likely to kill you as cure you. Due to the way FDA trials work.

Since you bring up vaccines, it's a convenient and easy to understand example (but this logic is by no means exclusive to them). A typical scheduled vaccine is given out to, say, maybe 300,000,000 people in the U.S. alone. Guess how many people they run in clinical trials, though? Usually between about 100 and 2,000, variably. Let's take the generous end of that, 2,000 (largest number I've personally seen in one)

What can a 2,000 person clinical trial tell you, exactly? Well, it can tell you that there's roughly less than a 1/500 chance of you dying from XYZ complications if you take this drug. (Not 2,000, because you need a handful of instances in order to prove a significant result above baseline, not just one instance of something). In other words, it tells you that there are almost certainly no complications that will occur at a 1/50 rate, but there very well might be ones that happen at a 1/1500 rate or whatever.

Which is great. That's much better than knowing nothing.  However, 1/500 isn't particularly rare. Let's say, for example, that that vaccine DOES in reality have a 1,000 chance of stopping your kidneys or whatever, 6 months later. If it did, the clinical trial would not detect this and it would pass. Then it would be given to 300,000,000 people, and roughly 300,000 people's kidneys would fail.

Now, if the vaccine is expected to save 500,000 lives from whatever disease it is vaccinating against, then that may still be a good choice. It might be (slightly) worth it. But if, for example, it is protecting against a disease that there's only like 10 cases of every year and which is not particularly deadly anyway, in other words, if the benefit is much smaller than 1/500, then you have NO IDEA or way to even possibly know if it is helping you or hurting you.

It doesn't matter if you're a doctor or the world's foremost virologist. You don't know and can't know, because the data quite simply isn't there for you. There's like a 1/500,000 chance IIRC that, say, a measles vaccine will actually save your life (chance of it working * chance of getting measles * chance of having died from measles if you got it = about that number). Which is fantastic. Better than nothing! That's a benefit.

But you don't know what the associated cost is, so you can't do an actual cost benefit analysis. For all you know, it might stop your kidney 1/1,000 and the FDA trials would not have detected this, and thus it might be much worse for you than it is good. OR its only side effect might be a 1/10,000,000 chance of something that will kill you or maim you, in which case it would be much better for you than bad.  We really just don't know. I don't know, you don't know, doctors don't know. And due to various statistical problems, it is often difficult or impossible to analyze statistics after the fact meaningfully (which is precisely why they run clinical trials in the first place).

There is quite literally only one way to decide: Gut instinct. Which parents have every right and logical reason to decide to apply if they so choose, as long as nobody else has significantly superior methods, which they don't. Basically, science (or rather, clinical trial funding) just isn't there yet to answer these questions definitively for us.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 12:45:53 pm
Spoiler: rather wall-of-text-y, too (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 12:58:50 pm
Quote from: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 12:14:29 pm
Quote
Well, and why would I want them other way around? Why would I not care? Give me a choice - and the let the kiddo choose for himself when we, as a society, agree that he is ready (probably after hitting 18/21 years of age). If you want your kids homosexual, go ahead, send them to school where they can learn about that. If not, don't send them here. You don't care? Great for you, you can just send them to school across the street, whatever they are teaching there. It is the best solution, at least in my mind: just let the education be privatized. And everything else, too, for that matter, but this is (again) different topic.
You seem to be confusing "propaganda" with just teaching basic facts.
Gay people exist. Therefore teaching that they exist and what they are is something that needs to happen in school if children are to be properly educated.

Kids also learn about criminals and wars and nazis and robber baron capitalists exploiting people all day, and slavery, etc.  Do these things convince children to become slavers, nazis, or to start wars? No, because the history class doesn't or shouldn't ENDORSE them, just teach them.

If your school is going around telling kids that they should all convert to being gay, that's inappropriate propaganda.
If they're just teaching what gay is, then they're doing their job, it's not propaganda, and expecting the state to make a whole separate school for you just to promote ignorance goes against the entire concept of school and is as silly as expecting them to make a whole school that doesn't teach math.

No, I am not confusing propaganda with teaching basic facts, and I have, in fact, pointed it out (although maybe in the later post). I'm not opposed to teaching kids about existence of homosexuality, just like I'm not opposed to teaching about existence of cancer. But the key world is *shouldn't*. And biology classes, for example, are more than enough to teach children about various psychological problem, homosexuality among them; but there are influential groups (again, I'm speaking about my own country, which happens to be Poland) trying to force in propaganda in various forms to school. Also, there are more to the world-view problems than just homosexuality, and that's all the more reason to make private schools and allow parents to choose schools that have viewpoint similar to theirs. Not teaching only some subset of facts, but all of them - just with right framing, to keep the word GrizzlyAdamz used.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 29, 2014, 01:02:35 pm
I would be able to take your opinion a lot more seriously if you did not just refer to homosexuality as a "psychological problem". Though, if this was a translation issue, I apologise.

Any chance you could offer us a sample of this "propaganda" so we can see exactly what worries you so much? One persons propaganda could be another valid point, or yet another persons offensive hate speech, after all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 29, 2014, 01:07:05 pm
Aye, if you're willing to call homosexuality a "psychological problem" then you're either incredibly ignorant or trolling. Either way, I'm not sure why the discussion would continue after that, it'd obviously be going nowhere.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 01:13:21 pm
Quote
And biology classes, for example, are more than enough to teach children about various psychological problem, homosexuality among them
It is not, in the opinion of the majority of the scientific community, a psychological problem, as it has been removed officially from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistic Manual -- psychology's catalog and classification of disorders).

Calling it one or teaching that in schools despite scientific consensus would be an example of "propaganda" ...

I sympathize with groups of people who have legitimate arguments about some things and the support of solid, logical arguments or a minority of scientists, or whatever. And in some cases like that, it makes sense to teach more than one perspective in a school (history does this a lot, and some uncertain sciences, like string theory or whatever). But in this particular case, there aren't really any fringe psychologists who disagree or splinter sects, it's virtually unanimously not a disorder.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on July 29, 2014, 01:17:28 pm
Quote from: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 01:13:21 pm
Quote
And biology classes, for example, are more than enough to teach children about various psychological problem, homosexuality among them
It is not, in the opinion of the majority of the scientific community, a psychological problem, as it has been removed officially from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistic Manual -- psychology's catalog and classification of disorders).

Calling it one or teaching that in schools despite scientific consensus would be an example of "propaganda" ...

I sympathize with groups of people who have legitimate arguments about some things and the support of solid, logical arguments or a minority of scientists, or whatever. And in some cases like that, it makes sense to teach more than one perspective in a school (history does this a lot, and some uncertain sciences, like string theory or whatever). But in this particular case, there aren't really any fringe psychologists who disagree or splinter sects, it's virtually unanimously not a disorder.
(so homosexuality is a psychological feature?)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on July 29, 2014, 01:19:50 pm
I love it when Polandball becomes relevant.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Also,
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Psychology
The longstanding consensus of research and clinical literature demonstrates that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.[136] There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment.[4]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on July 29, 2014, 01:21:36 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on July 29, 2014, 01:19:50 pm
I love it when Polandball becomes relevant.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Also,
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Psychology
The longstanding consensus of research and clinical literature demonstrates that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.[136] There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment.[4]
(is trans-sexuality a psychological feature, too?)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 01:22:36 pm
Of course homosexuality is a psychological feature. Unless you know of a homosexuality organ or blood type the rest of us don't know about, it's a pretty much purely behavioral/brain thing, and thus in the domain of psychology.

And psychologists are of a consensus that it is an example of non-disordered psychology on top of that.

(nor does being psychological mean it is necessarily able to be changed or taught -- for example, you can't just will yourself to have or stop having schizophrenia, or colorblindness, or to remember or forget a year of your life on demand, etc.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on July 29, 2014, 01:25:32 pm
Quote from: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 01:22:36 pm
Of course homosexuality is a psychological feature. Unless you know of a homosexuality organ or blood type the rest of us don't know about, it's a pretty much purely behavioral/brain thing, and thus in the domain of psychology.

And psychologists are of a consensus that it is an example of non-disordered psychology on top of that.
(the focus was not on psychological, but on feature, as opposed to problem)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 01:26:07 pm
Ah. I dunno, I don't like the question. "Feature" implies design intent, which organisms don't have.
It just is.

What matters for it not being a disorder is that it doesn't fit the qualifications of disorders in general:
* It doesn't involve self harm or harm to others.
* Gay people don't (typically) self-identify as disordered.
* It doesn't destroy your ability to make or keep friends, hold down relationships, or perform productive work.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on July 29, 2014, 01:30:40 pm
Quote from: greatorder on July 29, 2014, 01:27:22 pm
Nah m8 fuk U.

Thank you!
Finally I can post this link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 01:32:05 pm
Yep, this vote was pretty close, by the way, like 60 - 40 (though I don't want to actually look for the numbers now, as it is getting a little late), and it was one of the things that make me not trust the specialist even in their fields. From my point of view, it is just one of many examples of LGBT propaganda working wonders.

That said, I would probably be able to take your opinions more seriously, if you *were* considering homosexuality a personality problem. Than again, only talking to people that are easy to talk to closes us in our bubble, doesn't it?

Mind you - I'm not saying that there is a... How to phrase it? A 'solution' to this problem - I mean, maybe homosexuals are stuck the way they are. Still, it is certainly not biologically normal behaviour, and as such should be considered a problem. Just as, for example, savantism is.

Looking at the Polandball actually makes me feel sorry that it is so blatantly nonsensical...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 29, 2014, 01:35:24 pm
Quote from: Sergarr on July 29, 2014, 01:21:36 pm
(is trans-sexuality a psychological feature, too?)
... what does this have to do with the discussion on sexual preference? Transsexuality doesn't really have anything in particular to do with that. Is an issue with gender identification, not sexual preference, so far as I'm aware. Verra' different things.

Separate discussion being such, I do think some areas are beginning to treat trans as a legitimate psychological issue of some sort or another. With appropriate treatment: Gender reconstruction and hormone therapy, after which the person in question is psychologically normal for their (previously misaligned) gender and operates as well as anyone. 'Course, there's plenty of bigots/ignorant individuals up in arms about nationalized medical systems or anything remotely resembling them actually forking out money to fix the issue in question, but what can you do? You've got people that value what they view as "normalcy" over others' health and sanity in every society, s'far as I know.

Quote from: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 01:32:05 pm
Still, it is certainly not biologically normal behaviour, and as such should be considered a problem.
And here is kinda' the fundamental problem with the way you're thinking, methinks. Something not being biologically normal behavior (though note: Homosexuality is biologically normal, by everything I've seen. Relatively low probability, but normal) does not mean it's a problem. It means it's different, but whether that's an problem is an entirely separate consideration.

E: But nah, the stronger reason why it's not considered a problem is that homosexuality has no meaningful effect on psychological functioning. It is little-to-no more impactful on how you think and how you function than preferring brunettes over blondes. Has no impact on work ethic, morals, intellectual or physical capability, the vast, vast majority of social interaction... it's a non-harmful sexual preference, and that's it. Which is why it's not a problem.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on July 29, 2014, 01:38:18 pm
Quote from: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 01:32:05 pm
Still, it is certainly not biologically normal behaviour, and as such should be considered a problem.

If we all started acting biologically normal, we would be running from tree to tree collecting fruits and nuts, fucking everything that moves, and ripping apart children of people from neighboring tribes, if they were silly enough to stray into our lots, and eating them raw. Now that would be a problem.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 01:39:19 pm
Quote
That said, I would probably be able to take your opinions more seriously, if you *were* considering homosexuality a personality problem.
Except that you haven't actually produced any argument to convince us of that.

Whereas we have provided evidence to the contrary -- Namely, the world's most prestigious classification of disorders does not include homosexuality as one, and the community of experts in the relevant field agree that it isn't.

Quote
Still, it is certainly not biologically normal behaviour
Being abnormal (in the sense of merely not being the majority, which is the only sense I can see here) is not evidence of disorder. Playing dwarf fortress is, statistically, even more abnormal than being gay. Does that make us all disordered? No.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on July 29, 2014, 01:41:48 pm
Also even more extreme example: Einstein. How many Einsteins there are in the world? Not many. But we don't consider geniuses a "problem", right?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 01:43:32 pm
Again, the definition of a psychological disorder does not at any point include mention of "rare" or "uncommon" behaviors (because if it did, model train building and dwarf fortress and liking pumpernickel bread and even owning cats would all be disorders).

The definition is this:
* It involves self harm or harm to others. OR
* The person self-identifies as disordered and experiences great distress because of it (although in this case, it's really the self convincing that is truly the disorder, not necessarily the underlying situation. For example if a person were a normal weight but was extremely distressed about it, they probably would have some eating disorder due to their distress, but that doesn't mean that their actual weight is a problem) OR
* It destroys your ability to make or keep friends, hold down relationships, or perform productive work.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 01:46:05 pm
Quote from: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 01:39:19 pm
Quote
That said, I would probably be able to take your opinions more seriously, if you *were* considering homosexuality a personality problem.
Except that you haven't actually produced any argument to convince us of that.

Whereas we have provided evidence to the contrary -- Namely, the world's most prestigious classification of disorders does not include homosexuality as one, and the community of experts in the relevant field agree that it isn't.

Well, I'm not trying to convince you to my point of view as a homosexuality as a problem, is what I say. I'm actually all for you thinking otherwise! You are absolutely free to believe the WHO in that, and who I am to convince you otherwise? What is more, I don't use it as a part of any argument, really, just sticking the stick into the anthill (is there such an idiom in English?). I'm arguing completely different case, and I'm actually being ostracised for my views. Which, I should add, don't hurt anyone, not even the discussion.

Quote
Quote
Still, it is certainly not biologically normal behaviour
Being abnormal (in the sense of merely not being the majority, which is the only sense I can see here) is not evidence of disorder. Playing dwarf fortress is, statistically, even more abnormal than being gay. Does that make us all disordered? No.

Why not? ;) Of course, I'm joking here, but are not even comparing apples and oranges, but apples and mushrooms... Well, no, that's too far. Apples and maple leaves.

Also, since reproduction is one of the major signs of life, homosexuality preventing it is pretty disorderly, I would say. But it is, again, not my point at all to try and convince you to that particular part of my POV.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on July 29, 2014, 01:47:55 pm
Quote from: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 01:43:32 pm
* It destroys your ability to perform productive work.

Now that is a very dangerous classification, in a society where 50% of all labour is not productive, but destructive, yet classified as productive just because it's labour.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on July 29, 2014, 01:49:24 pm
Quote from: greatorder on July 29, 2014, 01:48:42 pm
Also, playing dwarf fortress, whilst not itself a psychological abnormality, it does generally point to psychosis. Just look at the upper boards, chrissakes.

I WANT TO EAT YOUR BABIES!
[/absurdism]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 29, 2014, 01:53:26 pm
So, that's my first point pretty much covered. All credible bodies do not consider homosexuality a "psychological problem".

What about my second one though? Can we see some examples of the pro-homo propaganda that is being used to push homosexuality in your nation so we can see how big an issue it is please BlindKitty? A quick googling only showed up old news stories from the 2007 Polish legislation, some images of fairly normal looking pride marches, and some anti-homosexual images.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 01:56:52 pm
Quote
I don't use it as a part of any argument, really
But you are. You're suggesting that tax dollars should be spent to set up an entire parallel curriculum with alternative classrooms and teachers for classes that mention homosexuality in a neutral fashion (I presume, since you didn't give anybody actually promoting homosexuality in curriculum).

That's not free or simple. Doing that puts a burden on your neighbors, and thus makes it their business and right to demand explanations and evidence supporting your reasoning behind it. I don't personally live in Poland, so they aren't my tax dollars, but you could pretend that I do for sake of argument.

If you don't want to have an obligation to convince anybody, then that's fine. Go ahead and teach your kids your own beliefs in your own home. But you don't get to suggest sweeping, tax-dollar-requiring legislative changes at the same time. Or I guess you can suggest them, but it ain't gonna happen.

Quote
Also, since reproduction is one of the major signs of life
Except it's not... No scientist anywhere would classify a human who lived 50 years and never had any children as "not having been alive"

Quote
Now that is a very dangerous classification, in a society where 50% of all labour is not productive, but destructive, yet classified as productive just because it's labour.
...? Not sure what you're talking about.

But regardless, notice that I said "ABILITY" to do productive work. You don't have to actually be doing it, necessarily. Unemployed people aren't disordered. It refers to where a compulsion or belief consumes you to the point where you are actually unable to work even if you want to.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on July 29, 2014, 02:14:43 pm
Quote from: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 01:56:52 pm
But regardless, notice that I said "ABILITY" to do productive work. You don't have to actually be doing it, necessarily. Unemployed people aren't disordered.
Who defines said ability?

Quote from: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 01:56:52 pm
It refers to where a compulsion or belief consumes you to the point where you are actually unable to work even if you want to.
What if you believe that by sitting at home unemployed, you do less damage to our planet's environment, or the global economy, than if you were to take a job forced upon you by government laws, where you assemble luxury products that use up the world's resources for the decadent pleasure of a lucky few (and you will never make enough money on said job to buy those products yourself). We live in a technological era, where more and more 'productive work' is being, and will be done by machines. Full employment for everyone, and 'life fullfillment through labour' are popular myths desperatly clung onto by politicians, who will happily try to create new jobs from thin air, which often leads to labour that can be categorized as 'destructive', on a global level.
The line between political conviction and psychological disorder should be very, very strictly guarded.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 02:22:15 pm
Quote from: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 01:56:52 pm
Quote
I don't use it as a part of any argument, really
But you are. You're suggesting that tax dollars should be spent to set up an entire parallel curriculum with alternative classrooms and teachers for classes that mention homosexuality in a neutral fashion (I presume, since you didn't give anybody actually promoting homosexuality in curriculum).

That's not free or simple. Doing that puts a burden on your neighbors, and thus makes it their business and right to demand explanations and evidence supporting your reasoning behind it. I don't personally live in Poland, so they aren't my tax dollars, but you could pretend that I do for sake of argument.

If you don't want to have an obligation to convince anybody, then that's fine. Go ahead and teach your kids your own beliefs in your own home. But you don't get to suggest sweeping, tax-dollar-requiring legislative changes at the same time. Or I guess you can suggest them, but it ain't gonna happen.
Quote

It is almost funny as you people can ready only a part of the post, then get angry at something that is directly contradicted at the part you haven't read. Sorry about being passive-aggresive in that sentence, but I'm stressing in several posts the fact that I *don't* want any changes in curriculum (at least our, Polish one, which is pretty broad and makes surprising amount of sense), and I *don't* want to spend any taxpayer money on any alternatives. What I *do* want is the right to choose a school among many *private* ones without repression from the state.
Actually, if anything, it would save a ton of money, as private is always more efficient than state-controlled. I want to give my neighbours their tax money back and let them decide what to do with it, and I'm telling it from today's morning over and over again. I have even said that American way is already good enough for me!

Quote
Also, since reproduction is one of the major signs of life
Except it's not... No scientist anywhere would classify a human who lived 50 years and never had any children as "not having been alive"

Actually a few places, like Encyclopaedia Brittanica, seems to agree with me that reproduction is a part of a definition of life. I will let you draw conclusions.

Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 29, 2014, 01:53:26 pm
So, that's my first point pretty much covered. All credible bodies do not consider homosexuality a "psychological problem".

What about my second one though? Can we see some examples of the pro-homo propaganda that is being used to push homosexuality in your nation so we can see how big an issue it is please BlindKitty? A quick googling only showed up old news stories from the 2007 Polish legislation, some images of fairly normal looking pride marches, and some anti-homosexual images.

http://www.prawy.pl/z-kraju/3277-gejowska-propaganda-w-szkolach-na-warszawskim-ursynowie (http://www.prawy.pl/z-kraju/3277-gejowska-propaganda-w-szkolach-na-warszawskim-ursynowie)

Fairly long article about 'equality week' which pumped LGBT organizations into schools (and not any other that one would think could also benefit from being considered equal, like organizations of people with disabilities), without asking either children or parents about that, and using mayor's position to force it down school's throats. As a part of the added appeal, Her Perfectioness (poor translation) is playing a big role here - a cross-dressing man, icon of queer community in Poland, who openly admits to being paedophile on his blog and in other places, and still gets wide media attention.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610)

While looking for school-based propaganda I found that article, suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents have more often grown into various psychological problems (not on university net now, so I can't take a look inside).

http://mariuszromangdy.blogspot.com/2009/10/homo-propaganda-dla-przedszkolaka.html (http://mariuszromangdy.blogspot.com/2009/10/homo-propaganda-dla-przedszkolaka.html)

A book praising same-sex relationship being forced into pre-schools, while books showing normal families are being cut from the lectures list.

Well, I could go on, but those have one thing in common - they are all in Polish. Actually, the thing from the first link happened at least a few times in different cities so far, and it doesn't seem to be stopping...

Let me say this again: I'm absolutely not opposed to teaching facts about homosexuality. I'm actually tolerant for it; I know that homosexual people can lead fulfilling lives and I have no problem with that. But I have a problem with propaganda (any propaganda, really, but especially one targeted at children).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 02:25:22 pm
Quote
Who defines said ability?
It's empirically testable. Generally a psychologist who wasn't sure one way or the other (such as when seeing an unemployed patient who can't tell you whether they would be able to keep a job) could run various tests to see how well a person can focus and concentrate and learn new skills and do other things relevant to what they would need to do to hold down jobs, and compare these to applied studies that have been done to norm the tests.

Or they might request that the patient simply try and get a job and see what happens, if that's available as an option and is easier and more efficient or whatever.

Quote
What if you believe that by sitting at home unemployed, you do less damage to our planet's environment, or the global economy, than if you were to take a job forced upon you by government laws, where you assemble luxury products that use up the world's resources for the decadent pleasure of a lucky few (and you will never make enough money on said job to buy those products yourself). We live in a technological era, where more and more 'productive work' is being, and will be done by machines. Full employment for everyone, and 'life fullfillment through labour' are popular myths desperatly clung onto by politicians, who will happily try to create new jobs from thin air, which often leads to labour that can be categorized as 'destructive', on a global level.
The line between political conviction and psychological disorder should be very, very strictly guarded.
If you believed that to the point of literally doing nothing, as in not even gardening for your own food or digging wells, but instead sitting there wasting away /starving to death, then yes, it would be classified as a suicidal type self harm disorder.

If you simply didn't want to participate in the national normal economy, but were otherwise successfully taking care of yourself at home sustainably, then that would not be considered a disorder. Your own domestic gardening work or whatever it is you're doing to keep yourself alive satisfies the third requirement against you having a disorder.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 02:40:49 pm
Quote
Actually a few places, like Encyclopaedia Brittanica, seems to agree with me that reproduction is a part of a definition of life. I will let you draw conclusions.
The Encyclopedia Brittanica is wrong,then, by means of simple counterexamples.

Or are you actually claiming that a heterosexual man who lives 50 years without having children was not, in fact, ever alive?
And are you also claiming that YOU aren't alive currently? Since (I hope) you aren't having sex or giving birth while reading this forum post and thus are not showing reproductive behaviors right now?

These are absurd conclusions. Which makes it evident that Britannica probably meant to refer to entire species, not individuals. As a species, we do reproduce, so our species is alive.

Quote
Fairly long article about 'equality week' which pumped LGBT organizations into schools (and not any other that one would think could also benefit from being considered equal, like organizations of people with disabilities), without asking either children or parents about that, and using mayor's position to force it down school's throats. As a part of the added appeal, Her Perfectioness (poor translation) is playing a big role here - a cross-dressing man, icon of queer community in Poland, who openly admits to being paedophile on his blog and in other places, and still gets wide media attention.
This by itself is not propaganda. It depends on what the organizations said while they were visiting schools. Were they telling everybody how much better it was to be LGBT? If so, that's inappropriate, and propaganda.  Or were they providing careful, neutral facts and realities and figures, which would not be propaganda?

Quote
While looking for school-based propaganda I found that article, suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents have more often grown into various psychological problems (not on university net now, so I can't take a look inside).
Does it control for the fact that a higher proportion of those children are going to be adopted and thus possibly therefore have experienced a greater degree of trauma like their biological parents dying possibly, or being in the foster system, or at the very least being shuffled between caregivers at a young age? If not, then that can explain these findings without implicating gay parents as the cause, but rather adoptions/foster care, which is simply a necessary evil (since the alternative would be throwing the kids in dumpsters).

The answer is no, they did not control for this. From the article:
"employing controls for respondent's age, race/ethnicity, gender, mother's education, and perceived family-of-origin income" "additionally I controlled for having been bullied" "...and state's legislative gay friendliness"
(bullying is close, I'll give him that! Author is thinking along the right lines. But didn't go far enough or be nearly thorough enough for something he should have known was obviously controversial and would involve close inspection)

Quote
A book praising same-sex relationship being forced into pre-schools, while books showing normal families are being cut from the lectures list.
It depends to what degree. Up to 10% of same-sex relationships is statistically realistic, and removal of that same 10% of same-sex families is thus also statistically realistic.
If they suggest showing hugely disproportionate numbers of same-sex families, then that could be considered propaganda, but not realistic numbers, so this depends on more information.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 29, 2014, 02:52:53 pm
Quote from: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 02:22:15 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 29, 2014, 01:53:26 pm
So, that's my first point pretty much covered. All credible bodies do not consider homosexuality a "psychological problem".

What about my second one though? Can we see some examples of the pro-homo propaganda that is being used to push homosexuality in your nation so we can see how big an issue it is please BlindKitty? A quick googling only showed up old news stories from the 2007 Polish legislation, some images of fairly normal looking pride marches, and some anti-homosexual images.

http://www.prawy.pl/z-kraju/3277-gejowska-propaganda-w-szkolach-na-warszawskim-ursynowie (http://www.prawy.pl/z-kraju/3277-gejowska-propaganda-w-szkolach-na-warszawskim-ursynowie)

Fairly long article about 'equality week' which pumped LGBT organizations into schools (and not any other that one would think could also benefit from being considered equal, like organizations of people with disabilities), without asking either children or parents about that, and using mayor's position to force it down school's throats. As a part of the added appeal, Her Perfectioness (poor translation) is playing a big role here - a cross-dressing man, icon of queer community in Poland, who openly admits to being paedophile on his blog and in other places, and still gets wide media attention.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610)

While looking for school-based propaganda I found that article, suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents have more often grown into various psychological problems (not on university net now, so I can't take a look inside).

http://mariuszromangdy.blogspot.com/2009/10/homo-propaganda-dla-przedszkolaka.html (http://mariuszromangdy.blogspot.com/2009/10/homo-propaganda-dla-przedszkolaka.html)

A book praising same-sex relationship being forced into pre-schools, while books showing normal families are being cut from the lectures list.

Well, I could go on, but those have one thing in common - they are all in Polish. Actually, the thing from the first link happened at least a few times in different cities so far, and it doesn't seem to be stopping...

Let me say this again: I'm absolutely not opposed to teaching facts about homosexuality. I'm actually tolerant for it; I know that homosexual people can lead fulfilling lives and I have no problem with that. But I have a problem with propaganda (any propaganda, really, but especially one targeted at children).

Google translate really struggles with that first link, but from what I can tease from it into a language I can read is that it is from a fairly right wing frame of reference, and is not really giving a balanced or unbiased report, making it hard to get at the actual truth, so I can really make much of a comment on it. It does seem to echo your own sentiments, but I do hold some worry about how it describes individuals seeking equal rights as "pro-gay" and somehow oppressive to the majority. I just don't get how wanting to be the same as everyone else is "pro" anything.

Your second link is prepared by the New Family Structure Study - this body is funded by the Witherspoon Institute - a known right wing conservative group in the USA with a track record of opposing homosexual marriage (and abortion and stem cell research, amongst other things, just to give the group some context), so it should come as no surprise as to what it found. In any case the methods and conclusions of the study are contested for a number of reasons... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witherspoon_Institute#Regnerus_study)

Google translate also struggles with your third link, but I am familiar with the book "Tango Makes Three". The book does not praise same sex relationships at all. All it does is tell a story to kids about a happy little penguin who happens to have 2 dads. What can be translated from the blog post seems to be angry vitriol from someone who misses the point of the book, and more right leaning beliefs being espoused. The author can hardly be expected to give a fair and unbiased account when his mind has already been strongly made up.

So, yeah, to summarise, it is hard to make any comment about the 2 polish language resources you have offered, but that study you have found is far from reliable.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 29, 2014, 02:57:08 pm
Besides, it's not as if homosexuals are sterile. Well, some probably are but so to are some heterosexuals. They can have children via sperm donation, either by being the donor or the recipient.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 03:00:13 pm
Quote from: Sirus on July 29, 2014, 02:57:08 pm
Besides, it's not as if homosexuals are sterile. Well, some probably are but so to are some heterosexuals. They can have children via sperm donation, either by being the donor or the recipient.
This is true, but it shouldn't matter or be the basis of granting them any rights or privileges, unless the same logic is applied to all other people. Which currently it isn't. You don't have to prove that you're not sterile to get a heterosexual marriage.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on July 29, 2014, 03:02:34 pm
Quote from: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 03:00:13 pm
Quote from: Sirus on July 29, 2014, 02:57:08 pm
Besides, it's not as if homosexuals are sterile. Well, some probably are but so to are some heterosexuals. They can have children via sperm donation, either by being the donor or the recipient.
This is true, but it shouldn't matter or be the basis of granting them any rights or privileges, unless the same logic is applied to all other people. Which currently it isn't. You don't have to prove that you're not sterile to get a heterosexual marriage.
I know that. Just trying to show that the "can't reproduce" line of reasoning is invalid from the get-go.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 03:04:21 pm
Actually, Polish is very hard on automatic translators, oh how very hard indeed (as it goes both ways, so translating into Polish too, I have had a share of such problems, but I'm now speaking English good enough to avoid it actually). Also, yes, both those articles are mostly right-sided, but there is a reason for that; left-sided media (which are, like, 90% majority here) would never report on such a thing. They actually won't publish poll results for months when those get better for opposition party, and then jump back to publishing them twice a week as soon as the trend changes (relevancy is in opposition being right-winged now, while party in power is quite left-winged). Which is actually a real shame! I would much better like reading from both left and right, as I don't really believe in unbiased journalism, but it is pretty much impossible, because our left-wingers in press and TV are *so* biased it makes reading them/watching them entirely pointless. It is faster for me to just predict what they are going to say, with nearly 100% accuracy.

Anyways! It is getting really, really late here (well, it's 10 pm, but for me it's late recently), I will have to abstain from further discussion. I don't really think I will have time to wall-o-textin' tomorrow, or in any close future for that matter (not that I really had time today), but it was nice to talk with relatively calm and reasonable people who are strongly opposed to me. :)

Come, visit Polandball next time you have some free time. It's cheap in here and we don't kill foreign people that come without tanks. ;)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 03:05:55 pm
Quote
and we don't kill foreign people that come without tanks.
Sounds luxurious.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on July 29, 2014, 04:04:54 pm
Spoiler: SECTION THREE OF THE GREAT TEXT WALL (click to show/hide)

Ah well thanks for taking time out to argue with us.

Quote from: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 03:04:21 pm
Come, visit Polandball next time you have some free time. It's cheap in here and we don't kill foreign people that come without tanks. ;)
Aw but I take my tank everywhere! What will I do without the cupholders? And the sabot rounds? I NEED MY SABOT-ROUND CUP HOLDERS!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 04:14:59 pm
Quote
No, you are exaggerating a little. Well, a lot. I didn't say that I have *zero* trust in *any* professionals. But they have to earn my trust, each and every one, because they start with it on the level that every other person starts - a little above zero, with a bonus regarding their own discipline, as I assume they know quite a bit about it. But not about anything else - you could be absolutely brilliant chemist, revolutionize your field, and still believe that pyramids were build by werewolves to hide from vampires, or whatever.
You can also be a brilliant rheumatologist, for example, but still be less of an expert than myself about my own very specific type of arthritis and what it does or does not respond to, and perhaps even the general subtype. Because I might have spent 5 years researching it, whereas the rheumatologist might have spent a few months researching it based on its proportional occurrence. They are obligated to keep up to date on ALL the variants, whereas I am free to spend all my research time on just my stuff and things relevant to it. Even with their advantage of having the perspective of other variants of disease, I may still have a leg up on them with regard to my own disease if I'm a smart enough person and know how to research well.

In my own life experience, this has often been the case (not arthritis, that's a made up example), because I am a smart person and I have a strong research background, and I have discovered treatments before that my doctors didn't mention yet still agreed were good ones after I made a case (as well as rejected treatments on the flip side of the coin, for educated reasons). Once or twice I have simply overridden them even if they didn't agree, because of them clearly being wrong IMO, and this is a reasonable right that people should have.

An example of the latter situation is having refused treatment from doctors who were OBVIOUSLY ill with the flu, even though they insisted they "couldn't be" because of having gotten a flu shot  ::)
One time a doctor even sneezed on a tongue depressor (in addition to multiple other flu symptoms) and then tried to use it on me. While I was already sick and immuno-comprimised from my own separate illness that I was being seen for... seriously wtf.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 29, 2014, 04:20:05 pm
Quote from: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 03:04:21 pm
Actually, Polish is very hard on automatic translators, oh how very hard indeed (as it goes both ways, so translating into Polish too, I have had a share of such problems, but I'm now speaking English good enough to avoid it actually). Also, yes, both those articles are mostly right-sided, but there is a reason for that; left-sided media (which are, like, 90% majority here) would never report on such a thing.
Maybe they never report on it because it doesn't happen.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on July 29, 2014, 04:21:46 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 29, 2014, 04:20:05 pm
Quote from: BlindKitty on July 29, 2014, 03:04:21 pm
Actually, Polish is very hard on automatic translators, oh how very hard indeed (as it goes both ways, so translating into Polish too, I have had a share of such problems, but I'm now speaking English good enough to avoid it actually). Also, yes, both those articles are mostly right-sided, but there is a reason for that; left-sided media (which are, like, 90% majority here) would never report on such a thing.
Maybe they never report on it because it doesn't happen.

broadcast bias confirmed for not existing

also, poland confirmed for leftist

i learn fucktonnes of super legit things from this thread
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on July 29, 2014, 04:37:17 pm
Poland confirmed great place to go if you like live jazz music. At least it was a few years ago when I visited Krakow and Auschwitz.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 29, 2014, 08:53:27 pm
On the topic of trusting experts, especially in the medical field -- my trust is muddled by the motives behind the application of expertise.  It's true that a doctor is likely to know more than me about how to care for my health.  But it's also true that doctors operate within the context of a business establishment, whose primary purpose is not to care for my health, but to make money.  In America, this is a very relevant concern.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 09:32:15 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 29, 2014, 08:53:27 pm
On the topic of trusting experts, especially in the medical field -- my trust is muddled by the motives behind the application of expertise.  It's true that a doctor is likely to know more than me about how to care for my health.  But it's also true that doctors operate within the context of a business establishment, whose primary purpose is not to care for my health, but to make money.  In America, this is a very relevant concern.
True! For example, non-medically-indicated circumcision is anti-Hippocratic amputation that is in no way in the best interest of a child's health. (The European Council of has recently called for 47 member nations to consider banning it entirely: http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=20057&lang=en)

Yet rather than applying their expertise to reach the obvious conclusion of refusing such procedures, OBGYNs (pretty much ONLY in the U.S.) routinely encourage parents to sign off on them.

There is no apparent justification for this except that they run $700 each for the procedure AND they can and do then sell foreskins they get to skin grafting and research companies for thousands more dollars: http://www.timeslive.co.za/ilive/2011/08/10/interest-in-circumcision-more-than-foreskin-deep Making this an especially obvious example of business-couched experts not being inherently trustworthy due to bias of monetary gain.

It leads you to wonder how much of the rest of the time, in less obvious and blatant circumstances, the same sort of motivations are at play.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 29, 2014, 10:08:30 pm
That sounds like the counterpart to the "abortion industry" argument. I feel like the obvious answer for why male circumcision is still around is sufficient.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 10:30:05 pm
Quote
I feel like the obvious answer for why male circumcision is still around is sufficient.
What might that obvious answer (I assume you mean other than profit) be...?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 29, 2014, 10:33:23 pm
Father is circumcised so the kid should be is the "obvious answer."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 29, 2014, 10:36:00 pm
The obvious answer seems more to be pushy doctors following inertia and a combination of fake and real religious traditions on the subject.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 29, 2014, 10:40:54 pm
Quote from: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 10:30:05 pm
What might that obvious answer (I assume you mean other than profit) be...?

Tradition. Cultural momentum. It's always been done and a lot of people believe it's beneficial. This influences medicine, which is bad, but still happens.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 11:08:31 pm
The most common oath taken by doctors includes:
"I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient."
"The health of my patient will be my first consideration."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Geneva

Thus
Quote
Tradition.
Quote
Cultural momentum.
Quote
religious traditions
Are irrelevant, because these are not in their job description and additionally, most doctors even explicitly denounce such things as barriers or obstacles to promotion of patient health.

Quote
Father is circumcised so the kid should be is the "obvious answer."
If my father lost his leg in Vietnam, should I also be expected to amputate my leg out of family tradition?
In addition to also not being a valid professional concern by oath like the other things, the logic of this in particular is especially silly.

Quote
It's always been done and a lot of people believe it's beneficial.
Presumably doctors are literate to have gotten through medical school, and have the ability and education to read, you know, studies, not ancient traditional beliefs as the basis of their medical understanding.
This doesn't stand up for a second as a convincing explanation of why doctors actually perform these procedures. They know full well it isn't beneficial.




Which still leaves profit as pretty much the only slightly believable motive to me for why it actually happens.

But regardless, for purposes of this thread, even if some of the other things listed do contribute partially, they are still ALSO good reasons to not treat the advice of professionals as sacrosanct by default. If doctors are basing medical decisions on "cultural tradition" etc., that's just yet another great reason why people shouldn't be just doing whatever they say in spite of their own research.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 29, 2014, 11:16:59 pm
Quote from: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 11:08:31 pm
The most common oath taken by doctors[...]
[...] is unfortunately irrelevant, because it's not legally binding. Or binding at all, really. Or even required, last I checked. Sadly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 11:25:23 pm
The original argument was that doctors' advice can be and in fact often is wrong about what is best for you or your child's health.
Thus, you are under no obligation and should not be shamed for intentionally not heeding their advice, if you have reason to believe they are either less informed or motivated by things other than you or your child's health.

The oath, even if not legally binding, still stands as a clear and professionally- and socially-agreed-upon description of what doctors SHOULD be doing, which we can look to as a reference standard.
The fact that people just now listed pretty much anything and everything except the things embodied by that oath as doctors' motivation in this example strongly reinforces the original argument.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on July 30, 2014, 12:38:37 am
Quote from: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 11:25:23 pm
Thus, you are under no obligation and should not be shamed for intentionally not heeding their advice, if you have reason to believe they are either less informed or motivated by things other than you or your child's health.
I agree with this right here, assuming that it isn't for a stupid reason like "prayer will heal my child". While you might not be obligated to follow a doctor's advice, it's important to keep in mind when they have more knowledge than you. While things like your arthritis example might stand, I find that in many cases my doctor certainly knows more than I know, and it's important to know where the line is.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 30, 2014, 06:04:16 am
I think the example of circumcision is far from as clear cut as it is being presented. While I don't support it in any way, I don't think it is an obvious case of financial gain overruling medical ethics.

The 2004 BMA ethic guidance (http://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/259.full) noted that;
Quote
There is a spectrum of views within the BMA’s membership about whether non-therapeutic male circumcision is a beneficial, neutral, or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself. The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proved except to the extent that there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly. The Association has no policy on these issues. Indeed, it would be difficult to formulate a policy in the absence of unambiguously clear and consistent medical data on the implications of the intervention. As a general rule, however, the BMA believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices. What those limits currently are is discussed below, together with the legal and ethical considerations for doctors asked to perform non-therapeutic circumcision.
The BMA ethics committees are hardly financial interest groups. I'd say their guidance, if old there, is accurate to the perspective on circumcision by most medical practitioners.

The question of medical benefits and harms crops up in the literature every few years, most famously the AIDS prevention stories. WebMD (http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/circumcision) still lists more medical benefits than risks to the procedure. Whether these benefits hold up - or if they can justify non-voluntary circumcision of babies - is a debate I think is valid and important, but not one that is so clear cut that a blanket ban on the procedure for Hippocratic reasons is obvious and inherent. Especially when you take into account the cultural and social factors, not least preventing non-expert circumcisions by refusing and having it done by untrained practitioners.



I'd also note that most people are really bad at researching things. I'm often shocked by people with university educations failing to do a cursory search beyond that one amusing article their friend linked on Facebook to check the validity of a story or article. Actually digging into primary evidence is way beyond most people, at least in the time investment they are willing/able to make and their ability to assess such information. Tertiary resources that most people rely on are easily biased or selective about the points they present, swaying people to their own viewpoints (so often themselves financially or ideologically motivated).

The most obvious examples here would be climate change (even with reports like the IPCC making a point of summarising and presenting evidence on a politician's level) and anti-vaccination bullshit. But even for not obviously politicised medical treatments you get a lot of nonsense out there that people can absurdly lock onto.

And all too often the idea that something is financially profitable therefore evil is the key argument to a lot of that bullshit. Take the industry of alternative cancer cures. They argue that proven (if unpleasant and often desperate) treatments like chemo- and radio-therapy are pure evil designed to keep people sick for the profit of medical practitioners. They know the secret to treating cancer, which usually involves some pseudo-science and a few thousand dollars invested in their own miracle cure based on pre-germ theory medical science. Or the alt-med push for vitamins to cure everything, if you only ignore what the drug companies say about medical treatment. Just buy these vitamin pills (pumped out in the downtime on GlaxoSmithKline and relabelled) and ignore the doctors. They are obviously just financially motivated...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 30, 2014, 06:25:09 am
Quote from: greatorder on July 30, 2014, 06:11:00 am
Didn't circumcision (in America) start off with Kellogg convincing people to do it so their kids couldn't masturbate?
He advocated it but was hardly the first (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversies#Medical_advocacy_and_opposition) and was more following certain medical practitioners of the time. At least one fairly biased history (http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=8&id=73&Itemid=52) (biased anti-circumcision) traces the surge in American circumcision to the wars, where soldiers and sailors were circumcised for the perceived health and hygiene reasons. They then decided it would be better for their sons to be circumcised as infants rather than go through a potential adult circumcision, and so rates reached ~50% by WWII. This carried forwards into the 50's and was backed up by the always trendy (and potentially lethal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Spock#Sudden_infant_death_syndrome)) advice of Benjamin Spock.

For some reason I had thought that there were state laws requiring circumcision in some places (and I've certainly heard that from family, friends and online sources in the past) but can't find any articles about it online now.

Also, if you want a look at the muddied waters of the health benefits/issues with circumcision, that first link isn't a bad place to start. You have pretty much conflicting claims right down the board, from the late 1800's to this year.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 30, 2014, 08:08:14 am
Quote
conflicting claims right down the board, from the late 1800's to this year.
1) The study in question from modern times primarily claims serious health benefits for reduction of rates of STDs (and female partners' STDs!? Wat). Which is really dumb, because infants aren't sexually active. Thus, this is clearly not an ethical justification for performing an irreversible amputation on an infant without consent, when you could instead just wait until they're teenagers and can understand the procedure and CONSENT to it before you go irreversibly cutting off organs.

2) However, they are also keen to take advantage of the more impressive sounding numerical statistics that much more minor UTI's provide, but noting "over their lifetime, half of uncircumcised males will require treatment for a medical condition associated with retention of the foreskin." Specifically, the numbers from their study claim:
age 0-1: 1.3% UTIs
age 1-16: 2.7% UTIs
age >16: 28% UTIs
Notice anything? If you said "it's pretty much all in adults, and they could and should just wait to obtain consent from the adult, even if this is true" then ding ding ding, you are tonight's winner. And I hope you're noticing a trend.

3) By the way, in general, who the fuck suggests, in response to seeing data suggesting a higher rate of UTIs, cutting off the entire organ preemptively? Versus, oh I don't know... just a crazy shot in the dark here, but maybe... using some damn soap? (not mentioned once that I saw, even in passing)

This is the equivalent logic of finding out that >50% of girls in Minnesota break their arms during childhood (true fact, actually!) And rather than suggesting they, I dunno, drink milk or stop jumping off of roofs, instead suggesting amputating all infant girls' arms at birth so that they can't break them later.

4) In the study's HIV section, in addition to citing the usual ridiculous research on adult Africans in undeveloped countries where that taught them about condoms during the study (and then applying that to American infant boys...?), I found an especially amusing gem, where the authors cited a U.S. paper as evidence of circumcision protecting against HIV. When I looked it up, it turned out that that paper didn't actually measure anything, but merely assumed as a thought experiment "what might it mean if American boys did indeed enjoy a 60% reduction in HIV from circumcision?"  Lol? Do they not even read abstracts of things they cite? *Facepalm*






Particularly ridiculous is that both the "meta-study" people and all the African researchers from 10 years ago, despite heralding the wonders of circumcision STD prevention all still tell you to use condoms anyway, which by themselves are almost completely protective when used correctly. So basically, if you want complete protection, your options are:

A) Use a condom, or
B) Cut off part of your dick, which contains the majority of its nerve endings. Then use a condom anyway.

Hmmm  :-\ that's a tough one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on July 30, 2014, 08:44:40 am
A complete issue of the BMJ's Journal of Medical Ethics dedicated to the topic last year. (http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/7.toc) Much of it's behind a pay wall but as with nearly any academic article free mirrors can usually be found with relative ease.

Positions that are ethically open-and-shut except for financial interests don't get full issue debates in significant medical ethics journals.
Quote from: GavJ on July 30, 2014, 08:08:14 am
Particularly ridiculous is that both the "meta-study" people and all the African researchers from 10 years ago, despite heralding the wonders of circumcision STD prevention all still tell you to use condoms anyway, which by themselves are almost completely protective when used correctly. So basically, if you want complete protection, your options are:

A) Use a condom, or
B) Cut off part of your dick, which contains the majority of its nerve endings. Then use a condom anyway.

Hmmm  :-\ that's a tough one.
I remember the original studies. The effect was hugely significant, regardless of condom use (reported as similar between the two groups). At least one early study was abandoned after the original effect size was so significant that it was deemed unethical not to expand the treatment (circumcision) to the control group as well.

Now the actual effect/effect size has been called into question and there has never been a satisfying mechanism for prevention (which I have seen at least), which suggests it shouldn't be trusted and certainly never could be considered a replacement for condoms even if it works. But pretending that it wasn't honest research or an actual measured effect because they recommended use of condoms doesn't make sense.

Ridicule is not a substitute for understanding.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 30, 2014, 09:18:59 am
I'm not suggesting it wasn't honest.

I'm suggesting it was
* poorly controlled
   -contact with control and experimental groups very unequal, including therefore also educational exposure.
   -Terrible retention of participants, leading to post-hoc selection biases.
   -They all were ended early, which will skew the results toward an artificially higher effect, since people who just received penile surgery are obviously less likely to go out and have sex than the control subjects
* misguided and extremely likely to backfire within Africa even if the effect is real (since large scale implementation would not remotely resemble the study's well funded, clean medical facilities and educational supplements and other conditions, and overconfidence in the procedure would likely reduce condom usage)
* almost completely irrelevant outside of Africa whether or not the effect is real, due to the massive differences in age, culture, healthcare facilities, HIV rates and understanding, and general education between adults in the study's location and first world developed country infant boys.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lemon10 on July 30, 2014, 02:34:49 pm
Quote from: GavJ on July 30, 2014, 08:08:14 am
Particularly ridiculous is that both the "meta-study" people and all the African researchers from 10 years ago, despite heralding the wonders of circumcision STD prevention all still tell you to use condoms anyway, which by themselves are almost completely protective when used correctly. So basically, if you want complete protection, your options are:

A) Use a condom, or
B) Cut off part of your dick, which contains the majority of its nerve endings. Then use a condom anyway.

Hmmm  :-\ that's a tough one.
If something has a beneficial effect in reducing disease they should do it, even if it isn't 100% effective (or even 10% effective) and another treatment is optimal doesn't mean that you shouldn't use the less effective treatment as well.

Now, I'm not saying that it is beneficial, or that the benefits of outweigh the costs, but if it is helpful, then the fact that you should a condom is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 30, 2014, 02:58:01 pm
That the marginal medical benefits outweigh the social and ethical costs is literally the primary metric of why something shouldn't be done.

Just unbelievable. This is in the same class of people who parrot "Well, shouldn't you be allowed to have all of your money?" when opposing taxation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 30, 2014, 04:03:34 pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jaymcgregor/2014/07/30/12-of-gamers-still-hear-explosions-hours-after-playing/
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 30, 2014, 04:17:42 pm
I wonder why noone has suggested asking for a second opinion if you don't trust the criteria of a determinate physician. I think it's a reasonable option.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on July 30, 2014, 04:43:46 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on July 30, 2014, 04:03:34 pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jaymcgregor/2014/07/30/12-of-gamers-still-hear-explosions-hours-after-playing/

Quote
One gamer even reported hearing someone constantly whispering ‘death’ for a few days.
I THOUGHT I WAS THE ONLY ONE!! Woah!


Seriously, I just wasted 5mins of my life reading that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 30, 2014, 05:24:50 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on July 30, 2014, 04:03:34 pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jaymcgregor/2014/07/30/12-of-gamers-still-hear-explosions-hours-after-playing/
M-m-m-m-m-ake the m-m-m-m-m-ulti kills stop!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on July 30, 2014, 10:30:09 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on July 30, 2014, 04:03:34 pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jaymcgregor/2014/07/30/12-of-gamers-still-hear-explosions-hours-after-playing/

12% of gamers game so hard they give themselves PTSD
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: freeformschooler on July 30, 2014, 10:32:29 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on July 30, 2014, 04:03:34 pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jaymcgregor/2014/07/30/12-of-gamers-still-hear-explosions-hours-after-playing/

my first thought (http://www.p4rgaming.com/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 30, 2014, 10:52:38 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on July 30, 2014, 04:03:34 pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jaymcgregor/2014/07/30/12-of-gamers-still-hear-explosions-hours-after-playing/

They didn't even seem to bother if these 12% have had this happen to them with anything else... Because as a person who suffers from this, it happens with any extended stimulus situation, not just games, but it's most noticeable with games since that's the environment most likely to have extended and repetitive stimulus in my daily life.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on July 30, 2014, 11:12:14 pm
I don't think they're intending to claim that video games are the only thing that you remember or repeat in your head.

I think they're merely pointing out that a generation of people constantly hearing explosions is probably not a good thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on July 30, 2014, 11:21:28 pm
Quote
Sounds included vehicles, lasers, bullets, beeping, explosions, screams and even breathing from the game

This is what I'd be most concerned about. That said, I have serious concerns about their methods. The article makes it sound like they were just looking around on gaming forums and noticed some people saying this, as though people on gaming forums aren't prone to hyperbole, fish-tales, and so forth.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 30, 2014, 11:58:16 pm
I have experienced the phenomena myself, but this is pretty obviously a "we're not saying but we're just saying" that video games are a mentally scaring evil that makes people violent.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 31, 2014, 12:07:24 am
I bet this is the same phenomenon that makes me feel like my phone is vibrating in my pocket when it's really across the room and I'm not wearing pants.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 31, 2014, 12:18:47 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on July 31, 2014, 12:07:24 am
I bet this is the same phenomenon that makes me feel like my phone is vibrating in my pocket when it's really across the room and I'm not wearing pants.

Oh man, I hate this! I eventually figured out what it was though, it wasn't this, it was tractors. Turns out the entire building shakes at pretty regular intervals because of the construction they are doing a block away, and that's what I was feeling. Whoops!

Quote from: GavJ on July 30, 2014, 11:12:14 pm
I think they're merely pointing out that a generation of people constantly hearing explosions is probably not a good thing.
Explosions are the least offensive instantiation though. Pokemon or Tetris music is definitely the worst.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on July 31, 2014, 12:19:22 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on July 31, 2014, 12:07:24 am
I bet this is the same phenomenon that makes me feel like my phone is vibrating in my pocket when it's really across the room and I'm not wearing pants.

You get that too? :O
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 31, 2014, 12:20:10 am
Everybody who keeps a phone gets it, it's called phantom ringing/vibrating.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 31, 2014, 12:24:48 am
You're lucky. All I get is phantom spiders.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mech#4 on July 31, 2014, 12:27:56 am
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on July 31, 2014, 12:24:48 am
You're lucky. All I get is phantom spiders.

Not as effective as vibration, but having spiders disgorge from your phone every time you get a phone call would get you to pick up quickly.

Though maybe only to throw it across the room.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 31, 2014, 01:54:01 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 31, 2014, 12:20:10 am
Everybody who keeps a phone gets it, it's called phantom ringing/vibrating.
... who keeps a phone and experiences the phenomena, anyway. This... whatever it is, is something I've never experienced, in any form, even when I kept a phone on me pretty much 24/7 for a few years. Video game binging laughs -- I've played 2-3 days near non-stop before and... nothing like what described. Closest is maybe some dreams involving video game stuff, but there's been pretty close to zero correlation there between play time and appearance in dream, with that. Or perhaps music, I guess, but I get semi-intrusive music recall from pretty much gorram everything, and again is something that's not particularly correlated to time exposed.*

*One of the biggest perpetrators of intrusive music remembrance that I've experienced is Peter and the Wolf, which I was exposed to maybe 20-30 minutes total when I was in my early teens and proceeded to intermittently get hit by it for the remaining... well, ever. It's been well over a decade now, though it's cut back a bit since I actually found the song and listened to it again.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 31, 2014, 03:00:26 am
I get that whole phantom vibrating thingy, but only when driving at low revs. So, yea, less phantom ringing and more "stuff in my pockets shaking about due to engine". I still snap into action and go to grab my phone all them same though.

Back in the day though I played so much Lemmings and Worms that I even saw them when closing my eyes and would hum music from both subconsciously.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on July 31, 2014, 03:25:40 am
It's the same mechanic that gets a catchy tune stuck in your head.

Up next: UN bans pop music for causing PTSD!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on July 31, 2014, 06:37:00 am
Catchy tunes are srs bsns. If a wrong tune gets stuck in your head, it can ruin your entire day unless you manage to refocus your mind on something else.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 31, 2014, 12:47:14 pm
If it's not long term (and the vast majority of cases don't seem to be) then I don't really think it's much of an issue.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 01, 2014, 07:12:21 am
Quote
Gaming discussion

Guys, the most important part of the article is this:
Quote
A common denominator between those suffering from GTP was that they had all been gaming for an excessive amount of time. The worst cases appearing in those who had been gaming for two days straight or throughout the night.

Unhealthy habits are unhealthy. Playing games consequently for long amounts of time is bad for us, both physically and mentally. This isn't something we can deny just because a bunch of overly excited censorship advocates are out there screaming "GAMES MAKE YOU CRAZY".

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 30, 2014, 11:58:16 pm
I have experienced the phenomena myself, but this is pretty obviously a "we're not saying but we're just saying" that video games are a mentally scaring evil that makes people violent.

To me it seems more like that's you automatically going on the defensive because you've listened too much to the types of Jack Chick.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 01, 2014, 09:00:42 am
Quote from: scriver on August 01, 2014, 07:12:21 am
Unhealthy habits are unhealthy. Playing games consequently for long amounts of time is bad for us, both physically and mentally. This isn't something we can deny just because a bunch of overly excited censorship advocates are out there screaming "GAMES MAKE YOU CRAZY".
Can deny it's a necessary consequence of such practices, though.* Least I would, having been there, done that (more than once in the case of the two-days-straight and several dozen times in the case of playing through the night), and experienced no hallucinations (of the nature described, anyway**). So it's not so much "unhealthy habits are unhealthy" as "certain portions of the population have particular reactions to specific habits", evidentially unhealthy or not (since there were apparently those that experienced the phenomena with considerably less contributing factors than overnight or 48 hour gaming binges).

I do have to say, though, I'd love to see the study expanded if similar ones haven't already been done. Seems obvious to me you should see similar reactions from reading, watching TV, and music (the catchy tune phenomena is an obvious parallel) at the very least -- I'd guess other stuff as well, such as writing, working, and so on. Anything a person might do for an extended period.

E2: What would be really interesting would be if they could get the same study groups (along with other, different, ones of course) in on said other experiments, to see if it's medium specific or influenced, or not.

*E: Which I don't remember the article stating, but your wording suggests it a bit, so making the statement above to kinda' preemptively nip the concept in the bud.
**Visual snow yadda yadda 24/7 visual hallucinations etc.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wobbly on August 01, 2014, 09:12:33 am
Quote from: Frumple on August 01, 2014, 09:00:42 am
I do have to say, though, I'd love to see the study expanded if similar ones haven't already been done. Seems obvious to me you should see similar reactions from reading, watching TV, and music (the catchy tune phenomena is an obvious parallel) at the very least -- I'd guess other stuff as well, such as writing, working, and so on. Anything a person might do for an extended period.
I've had something similar with too much time spent in a loud night club. Different to having a song stuck in your head, it sounds like the music is coming from outside your head rather then inside.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on August 01, 2014, 09:36:02 am
Hell, I get that with voicces sometimes. Loose disconnected sentence fragments mostly, but still.
It's the difference between 'saying it in thoughts' and 'hearing it', isn't it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 01, 2014, 10:48:53 am
Quote from: Frumple on August 01, 2014, 09:00:42 am
Quote from: scriver on August 01, 2014, 07:12:21 am
Unhealthy habits are unhealthy. Playing games consequently for long amounts of time is bad for us, both physically and mentally. This isn't something we can deny just because a bunch of overly excited censorship advocates are out there screaming "GAMES MAKE YOU CRAZY".
Can deny it's a necessary consequence of such practices, though.* Least I would, having been there, done that (more than once in the case of the two-days-straight and several dozen times in the case of playing through the night), and experienced no hallucinations (of the nature described, anyway**). So it's not so much "unhealthy habits are unhealthy" as "certain portions of the population have particular reactions to specific habits", evidentially unhealthy or not (since there were apparently those that experienced the phenomena with considerably less contributing factors than overnight or 48 hour gaming binges).

I've played through the night several times myself with no ill consequences (as far as I could tell) beyond being really weary. However, I think you glanced over the word "habit" in my post above. Doing something a few times is quite different from forming a habit of it. Now, granted, it doesn't say in the article that was how it was, but knowing gamers, it's not a too far fetched conclusion to jump to.


Quote
I do have to say, though, I'd love to see the study expanded if similar ones haven't already been done. Seems obvious to me you should see similar reactions from reading, watching TV, and music (the catchy tune phenomena is an obvious parallel) at the very least -- I'd guess other stuff as well, such as writing, working, and so on. Anything a person might do for an extended period.

I'm pretty certain watching tv for several days in a row should be considered unhealthy as well. Working for 48 hours straight sure as hell would be.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 01, 2014, 10:56:27 am
Yeah, I wasn't making (or intending to make, anyway) a statement on whether it was unhealthy or not -- just that it's not something that's necessarily going to cause hallucinations, which is what the article was about :P

Though yeah, I've had summers in the past whether I probably spent more days playing through the night than not -- definitely would call it a habit at that point, and still no hearing/seeing things beyond the usual. And so far as I'm aware, people indulge in notably unhealthy periods of varying activities (TV is perhaps the most regular one, with work either before or after that in terms of likelihood) quite often without most of them, y'know, beginning to hallucinate. S'like the article seemed to actually be saying -- the phenomena in question is something that only happens to a portion of the population, not everyone.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 01, 2014, 01:38:37 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 30, 2014, 11:58:16 pm
I have experienced the phenomena myself, but this is pretty obviously a "we're not saying but we're just saying" that video games are a mentally scaring evil that makes people violent.
For me I've got this thing where there is a stock horse winnying sound effect used in basically every film, game and show in existence for some reason for anything the horse does; whether it be dying, running or leaping. Occasionally I hear something that I hear instead as that horse noise.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 01, 2014, 02:03:01 pm
That would make a really good SCP.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on August 01, 2014, 02:11:33 pm
Stock sounds are the worst, it kills immersion.  Also that godawful "schwoOOOoop! psssh" sound that they use for every single space door opening or closing ever.  And the monster scream clip that I think they have on firebats in starcfraft but also every far off-screen generic wild threat in bad movies ever.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 01, 2014, 02:20:12 pm
The worst stock sound bar none is the "waaagghhhh" scream often used with explosions/falling people. It is literally all over the place and so obvious.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on August 01, 2014, 02:27:00 pm
Yes that is precisely the one I mean. I may be wrong about it being on firebats, but whatever, that's it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 01, 2014, 02:35:18 pm
As long as you don't have any problems with the Wilhelm Scream, which is a national treasure.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on August 01, 2014, 02:49:22 pm
Apparently the one I was thinking of is called "the howie scream"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 01, 2014, 05:19:03 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on August 01, 2014, 02:03:01 pm
That would make a really good SCP.
Horse whinnying replacing everyday noises? I guess it would. It's both hilarious, AND unnerving.

Quote from: GavJ on August 01, 2014, 02:11:33 pm
Stock sounds are the worst, it kills immersion.  Also that godawful "schwoOOOoop! psssh" sound that they use for every single space door opening or closing ever.  And the monster scream clip that I think they have on firebats in starcfraft but also every far off-screen generic wild threat in bad movies ever.
Opening/closing rusty gate noise is a close second.


*EDIT
Before we go too off topic; immigration! Is it good, bad, depends or non-applicable?

I bring this up because the KKK (http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/live-news/2014/7/the-kkk-is-back-andarenothappywiththeimmigrationproblem.html) are setting up their own border controls to stop illegal immigration in America with lethal force.
Also an interesting idea, the klan man in the interview seemed pretty happy about getting TV interviews, so is media coverage of them helping their recruitment in some way?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on August 01, 2014, 06:07:16 pm
My plan for immigration:

1) Open all the borders, don't bother policing them (in terms of immigration law, that is. Physical or contraband security and policing may still be an issue). The following plan allows for such simple legal pathways that few if any people should have a motivation in the first place to do any sneaking or lying.
2) DO however, require strict documentation for driver's licenses (and by proxy essentially road usage), school enrollment, etc. where most of our tax dollars are spent.
3) Anybody who has immigrated more recently than the most recent April 15th is allowed to stay until next tax season. You do have to register yourself though upon arrival. They do not get road/school/etc. privileges yet, though. They ARE allowed to work, but their employers are required to withhold their income taxes directly from paychecks (must assume highest tax bracket, then they get a reimbursement for the difference of actual bracket later if the employee does file).
4) Anybody who files their income taxes who moved here less than a year ago is also allowed to stay for at least one more full year. They still do not get any major privileges, although the requirement of withholding income tax can be waived due to their demonstration of good faith in filing this year.
5) Anybody who files their income taxes who HAS lived here continuously since the last tax year becomes a conditional citizen. They can now get licenses, send their (tax-dependent-only) children to school, vote, and everything else, for the next full year.
6) If at any point you fail to file income taxes, you are contacted swiftly at any known address(es) and offered the option to pay up along with a punitive fine. If you do so (or get on an approved payment plan and make your payments if you are too poor), then okay, forgiven. If you refuse or don't respond at known contacts, then you lose any privileges you might have  had previously
7) Whenever a person is located anywhere that involves an identity check (traffic stops, attempting to apply for school enrollments or credit cards or whatever, OR authorized police visits for this purpose to known locations of people who used to pay taxes but stopped), you stand to be potentially deported or jailed for tax evasion depending on circumstances and intent if you are not registered under #3 and have not paid taxes either. You may also possibly may be banned (liable to criminal charges if you come back again) depending on intent and circumstances.
8] Native born people ALSO lose their privileges and face other possible penalties temporarily if they fail to file taxes, although minus the deportation option.

This should pretty much solve all the major problems with immigration, while also encouraging a stronger economy and attracting experience and knowledge to the country (reverse brain drain - which may already be true here, but accelerating it). Immigrants would be stupid not to pay taxes when something so simple can give you legit citizenship -- it just becomes massively not worth it to avoid this. SO they pretty much all would. And as long as they do, we should be happy, because they are paying their share for services and opportunities.

The issues with abandoned minors and crap should stop as well, because you'd have no reason to send unaccompanied minors in desperation if you could just legally move your whole family instead and become law abiding, recognized (conditional on continued tax-paying) citizens.

Undocumented workers should be minimized as well, because by offering an easy and immediate legal path to getting a job (the employee withheld income tax thing), it is much less risky for workers to just follow the law than to continue trying to work under the table. Unlike now, they wouldn't be forced into a choice of "starve or work illegally" but rather "save a couple measly bucks and risk being exiled or work legally" which is a much easier choice.

It's also more logical and merit-based. Being pushed out of a vagina in US territory is not a good indication that you will be a benefit to our society. Whereas paying your taxes is an action that proves responsibility and directly earns the privileges of living here. So switching everybody to that standard makes more sense and rewards productive, good people rather than coincidentally-born-here people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 01, 2014, 07:16:17 pm
I sometimes erroneously hear things which I'm really heavily tuned to respond to.  So in other words
- The sound of a knock at the door (from things being bashed)
- The sound of the phone (from certain musical tracks that feature ringing)
- The sound of my own name (from half-heard voices and occasionally door creaks, for some reason)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 01, 2014, 07:16:37 pm
I'd lean toward the first year being a grace period in which social services and suchlike are allowed, since otherwise you wind up putting a huge burden on them that encourages them to find extralegal sources of employment that don't involve being taxed - finding ways to circumvent the need for all those services is going to cost money, and they're already getting hit hard by the withholding strategy. That's just my first thought on that, haven't really run through all the ramifications (and don't think I'm qualified to, anyway).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 01, 2014, 07:46:42 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on August 01, 2014, 07:16:17 pm
- The sound of my own name (from half-heard voices and occasionally door creaks, for some reason)
Oh yeah, that's a good one for proving this isn't just a vidya-specific thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on August 01, 2014, 07:58:02 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on August 01, 2014, 07:16:37 pm
I'd lean toward the first year being a grace period in which social services and suchlike are allowed, since otherwise you wind up putting a huge burden on them that encourages them to find extralegal sources of employment that don't involve being taxed - finding ways to circumvent the need for all those services is going to cost money, and they're already getting hit hard by the withholding strategy. That's just my first thought on that, haven't really run through all the ramifications (and don't think I'm qualified to, anyway).
Yeah something like that sounds reasonable. I guess the risk is only really in somebody constantly leaving and coming back, or some such shenanigans. But it would probably be much easier to catch that (because it would have a paper trail in taxes, etc.) than to try and do it the way I said.

Do note that this is something I came up with in like an hour. Not some cherished, finely polished actual plan.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on August 01, 2014, 09:00:06 pm
I want to see step three just because it seems like it would be hilarious to see the ultra rich suddenly start advocating for immigrants and trying to lower their taxes if they share the same bracket.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on August 02, 2014, 03:34:43 am
This is world-class Godwin'ing (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/31/nras-ted-nugent-reacts-to-concert-cancellation/200276)

Quote
Nugent wrote that those who lodged complaints against his scheduled performances were part of the "Josef Goebbels gang." He also wrote, "Josef Goebbels and Saul Alinsky would be very proud of them and very angry at me. Cool."

If you don't like Ted Nugent, you're Joseph Goebbel's best mate.

Quote
Nugent's Nazi comparison comes as the NRA is already under fire from a Jewish group after one of its lobbyists compared a proposal to expand background checks on gun sales in Washington state to the policies of Adolf Hilter, and mocked Jewish individuals who support gun safety.

NRA lobbyist Brian Judy is heard telling opponents of the background check proposal that one of the proposal's primary backers, who is Jewish, is "stupid" because "he's put half-a-million dollars toward this policy, the same policy that led to his family getting run out of Germany by the Nazis." Judy also said, "any Jewish people I meet who are anti-gun, I think: Are you serious? Do you not remember what happened?

Nugent routinely traffics in Nazi comparisons to attack his opponents. This year he has used the Goebbels comparison to criticize film executive Harvey Weinstein and outgoing congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA), who are both Jewish. Following controversy over his characterization of Obama as a "subhuman mongrel," Nugent claimed that the United States was becoming like Nazi Germany and warned of a forthcoming "power struggle between the different races." He has also compared Obama to "a German in 1938 pretending to respect the Jews and then going home and putting on his brown shirt and forcing his neighbors onto a train to be burned to death" and said we need to take back America from "the jack boot Nazi motherfuckers in the Department of Justice."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on August 02, 2014, 05:45:04 am
Heh, the Nazis actually made access to weapons easier for the general populace.

Not for the Jews, though. But background checks just for Jews aren't exactly what was proposed, anyway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on August 03, 2014, 06:22:15 pm
This is what happens to gay people in Russia. Warning: graphical video.
source: Human Rights Watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zMTbFSJ_Tr4
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SomeStupidGuy on August 03, 2014, 08:54:35 pm
I hope for my faith in humanity's sake that you don't get too much flame-age. :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on August 03, 2014, 09:38:30 pm
brb flaming GO
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on August 04, 2014, 09:25:44 pm
Quote from: greatorder on August 04, 2014, 09:17:49 pm
Quote from: SomeStupidGuy on August 03, 2014, 08:54:35 pm
I hope for my faith in humanity's sake that you don't get too much flame-age. :P
Surprisingly, I have had...

Zero replies. None at all. None from that video.
Uh, maybe because you didn't post a video? All I see is a quote of the video that martinuzz posted, which is despicable, but that's not any of our faults, it's just informative to post it.

Unless you've edited since or something. Not sure what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on August 04, 2014, 09:43:16 pm
He left a comment on a youtube video, expecting flame-wars on that video in reply to his comment.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on August 04, 2014, 11:41:04 pm
Ahhh. Not gonna post what it is though?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SomeStupidGuy on August 05, 2014, 03:17:25 am
Quote from: greatorder on August 04, 2014, 09:17:49 pm
Quote from: SomeStupidGuy on August 03, 2014, 08:54:35 pm
I hope for my faith in humanity's sake that you don't get too much flame-age. :P
Surprisingly, I have had...

Zero replies. None at all. None from that video.
Hurrah.
/me gains 3.5 humanity faith points.
Tch. Looks like it'll be awhile yet 'for I make it out of the negatives...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on August 05, 2014, 11:48:54 pm
Quote from: GavJ on August 04, 2014, 11:41:04 pm
Ahhh. Not gonna post what it is though?

If you read up the thread, it's explained. The video shows russian neo-nazi types attacking gay people and filming it. a bunch of commenters were like "yay russia" over this and quoting bible verses from leviticus and the like.

Greatorder left a comment criticizing the general level of comments, but the discussion in the video is pretty dead now, so no-one responded.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on August 06, 2014, 07:30:12 am
Totally on this topic:
Our Secretary General of Justice altered a law today, which makes it easier for Russian LGBT to seek asylum in the Netherlands.

Before, they had to be able to show proof of the Russian police / authorities denying them assistance. In other words, they needed to go to the police in Russia first, and be denied help (or worse) there, before they could apply for asylum here.

That part of the law was scrapped today, as our minister acknowledges the unwillingness of Russian authorities to provide police assistance, and/or legal aid.

LGBT seeking asylum in the Netherlands still do need to make a reasonable, and believable case, that their sexual preference will actually lead to persecution or imminent danger.

Still, a clear sign of concern of our government, on the LGBT rights in Russia.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 06, 2014, 03:05:20 pm
Quote from: greatorder on August 06, 2014, 02:59:08 pm
Shots fired! I replied with logic. I'm not leaving their name because I suspect some people (not all, probably a minority of a minority) would go all gung-ho on this.
That's rather tame by internet standards.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on August 06, 2014, 03:20:01 pm
How does that guy know you're from bay12? I bet he's from here too, and he's just messing with you.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 06, 2014, 04:00:42 pm
I mean they're clearly up on DF terminology, odds are somewhat decent that they're on the forums. They may even be reading this very thread![/dun dun dun]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on August 06, 2014, 05:14:04 pm
Or... Now this is just me spitballing here, but maybe they were having a larf and expected you to play along, and not take them seriously? :V
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 06, 2014, 05:41:46 pm
Quote from: Descan on August 06, 2014, 05:14:04 pm
Or... Now this is just me spitballing here, but maybe they were having a larf and expected you to play along, and not take them seriously? :V

IT WAS DESCAN
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on August 06, 2014, 05:42:50 pm
My youtube account is Hypothetical Axolotl :v
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on August 06, 2014, 05:44:26 pm
I don't even know what the name of my YT account is.

Mostly because I have a Chrome add-on that loads the Reddit comments instead of the YT comments.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 07, 2014, 02:17:27 am
Iran and Russia sign 20 billion USD oil deal (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11014604/Vladimir-Putin-signs-historic-20bn-oil-deal-with-Iran-to-bypass-Western-sanctions.html)

Quote
Vladimir Putin has agreed a $20bn (£11.8bn) trade deal with Iran that will see Russia sidestep Western sanctions on its energy sector.

Under the terms of a five-year accord, Russia will help Iran organise oil sales as well as “cooperate in the oil-gas industry, construction of power plants, grids, supply of machinery, consumer goods and agriculture products”, according to a statement by the Energy Ministry in Moscow.

Quote
A deal could see Russia buying 500,000 barrels of Iranian oil a day, the Moscow-based Kommersant newspaper has previously reported. That would be about a fifth of Iran’s output in June and half its exports.

So basically, the internation sanction regime against Iran is pretty much gone.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on August 07, 2014, 10:42:54 am
What, and plump helmet wine DIDN'T tip you off? :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on August 08, 2014, 11:59:44 am
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/wall-street-tobacco-deals-left-states-billions-debt
So, if I get this right, the states sold part or all of the rights to the big tobacco deal income to private investors, and now are paying the investors more, out of their (the state's) remaining tobacco deal income, to make up for shortfalls in net tobacco deal income, (protecting the investors at taxpayer's expense)?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on August 08, 2014, 12:01:36 pm
Satire. Very pleasant satire. (http://thesaltcollective.org/modesty-whensuitsbecomestumblingblock/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on August 08, 2014, 12:07:16 pm
Quote from: Vector on August 08, 2014, 12:01:36 pm
Satire. Very pleasant satire. (http://thesaltcollective.org/modesty-whensuitsbecomestumblingblock/)
Brilliant.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on August 08, 2014, 12:17:56 pm
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on August 08, 2014, 11:59:44 am
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/wall-street-tobacco-deals-left-states-billions-debt
So, if I get this right, the states sold part or all of the rights to the big tobacco deal income to private investors, and now are paying the investors more, out of their (the state's) remaining tobacco deal income, to make up for shortfalls in net tobacco deal income, (protecting the investors at taxpayer's expense)?

For all the effort to get people to stop using tobacco products, they sure prop up the industry quite a bit.

Quote from: Vector on August 08, 2014, 12:01:36 pm
Satire. Very pleasant satire. (http://thesaltcollective.org/modesty-whensuitsbecomestumblingblock/)

I gotta admit, those are some sharp looking suits.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 08, 2014, 02:52:13 pm
Quote from: Vector on August 08, 2014, 12:01:36 pm
Satire. Very pleasant satire. (http://thesaltcollective.org/modesty-whensuitsbecomestumblingblock/)
From that, I very quickly ran into this non-satire. (http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2014/july/hey-christian-youth-it-gets-better.html)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 08, 2014, 02:57:16 pm
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on August 08, 2014, 11:59:44 am
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/wall-street-tobacco-deals-left-states-billions-debt
So, if I get this right, the states sold part or all of the rights to the big tobacco deal income to private investors, and now are paying the investors more, out of their (the state's) remaining tobacco deal income, to make up for shortfalls in net tobacco deal income, (protecting the investors at taxpayer's expense)?
Sounds about right. I can't believe anybody thought this was sane.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BlindKitty on August 12, 2014, 07:24:34 am
Quote from: Vector on August 08, 2014, 12:01:36 pm
Satire. Very pleasant satire. (http://thesaltcollective.org/modesty-whensuitsbecomestumblingblock/)

It is strange as people on the other side of the pond consider Protestantism == Christianity; while, probably, for them it is strange like in my part of Europe it is Catholicism. :P

The article itself isn't really a good analogy, but it doesn't make it any less funny satire. But it misses the most important point - yoga pants (in contrast to sharp suits) are just hideous! ;)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 24, 2014, 08:02:16 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdSsBYO1oNI

Chris Hayes Spoofs White Power Structure Has No Clue How To Stop Culture Of White On White Violence
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on August 25, 2014, 02:19:54 am
Quote from: GlyphGryph on August 24, 2014, 08:02:16 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdSsBYO1oNI

Chris Hayes Spoofs White Power Structure Has No Clue How To Stop Culture Of White On White Violence
So the thing that's being satirised here is a thing that really exists?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on August 25, 2014, 07:23:53 am
Hmmm... the problem is: we do have no clues on how stop this predominantly white white collar crime that is destroying America and Europe. Putting Obama in charge doesn't seems to help much though, lol.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 25, 2014, 07:52:40 am
Quote from: Graknorke on August 25, 2014, 02:19:54 am
So the thing that's being satirised here is a thing that really exists?

It's basically word for word from... well, a whole bunch of recent arguments on fox and various pundit shows. Yes, this is exactly the way the "news" talks about race in America. It's also the way individuals do - the same sort of arguments spring up endlessly on blogs and facebook posts and in rants from the guy at the bar.

It's how they try to argue that racism is "not a problem".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on August 25, 2014, 08:07:05 am
Well when I see a very well off white politician, I cannot help but wonder if he's corrupt. Am I anti white racist?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 25, 2014, 08:09:43 am
can't help but say yes, if only because i have no bloody idea why you say a non-white well off politician wouldn't be corrupt, or any politician at all

it's a sad reality that we must suspect them of being a literal reincarnation of hitler all the time or else they'll slip and lose the minor amount of fucks they had about their constituency
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on August 25, 2014, 08:14:44 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 25, 2014, 08:09:43 am
can't help but say yes, if only because i have no bloody idea why you say a non-white well off politician wouldn't be corrupt, or any politician at all

it's a sad reality that we must suspect them of being a literal reincarnation of hitler all the time or else they'll slip and lose the minor amount of fucks they had about their constituency

It's no secret that white are overrepresented, and I will be a bit less supicious of someone that come from a poorer background that of someone that is born into politics.

And I have my own idea on how we should remind them that not giving fuck about their constituency is not an option. It involve rope.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 25, 2014, 08:18:27 am
Quote from: Phmcw on August 25, 2014, 08:07:05 am
Well when I see a very well off white politician, I cannot help but wonder if he's corrupt. Am I anti white racist?

At the very least it means you're inclined towards stereotyping and prejudice, so... probably! If you were to limit it to powerful groups and individuals it wouldn't be so bad, as your prejudice is unlikely to lead to a situation where they are oppressed, you have no particular power over them nor are you supporting a system that does. If it's racism, it's the toothless kind.

However, generally people don't limit themselves to being prejudiced against and stereotyping one particular group, and especially they don't limit themselves to groups that have more than they do. Not enough psychological reward, and once those patterns are established there are much more lucrative subjects. Maybe it's not black people, but you might have some legit toothy racism against muslims or gypsies or the Dutch, at which point it would become "yeah, you are definitely racists".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 25, 2014, 08:19:20 am
Quote from: Phmcw on August 25, 2014, 08:14:44 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 25, 2014, 08:09:43 am
can't help but say yes, if only because i have no bloody idea why you say a non-white well off politician wouldn't be corrupt, or any politician at all

it's a sad reality that we must suspect them of being a literal reincarnation of hitler all the time or else they'll slip and lose the minor amount of fucks they had about their constituency

It's no secret that white are overrepresented, and I will be a bit less supicious of someone that come from a poorer background that of someone that is born into politics.

And I have my own idea on how we should remind them that not giving fuck about their constituency is not an option. It involve rope.

...so you're claiming as an absolute that non-white politicians come from poorer backgrounds than white ones?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on August 25, 2014, 09:55:42 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 25, 2014, 08:19:20 am
...so you're claiming as an absolute that non-white politicians come from poorer backgrounds than white ones?

There are no absolute. But generally speaking it's the case, yes.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on August 25, 2014, 08:18:27 am
Quote from: Phmcw on August 25, 2014, 08:07:05 am
Well when I see a very well off white politician, I cannot help but wonder if he's corrupt. Am I anti white racist?

At the very least it means you're inclined towards stereotyping and prejudice, so... probably! If you were to limit it to powerful groups and individuals it wouldn't be so bad, as your prejudice is unlikely to lead to a situation where they are oppressed, you have no particular power over them nor are you supporting a system that does. If it's racism, it's the toothless kind.

All I need to oppress someone is a length of lead pipe and a few like-minded peoples. And privilieged groups routinely turn into oppressed ones : see Rowandian Hutus, wealthy russian Farmers, French nobility, Croatians,...
I often seee that kind of argument coming from the internet and I don't know if it's because America is so inegalitarian that being part of a "privilegied group" is systematically an asset, or because the peoples that say that are part of the privilieged part of thee privilieged group (IE sheltered rich).

Quote from: GlyphGryph on August 25, 2014, 08:18:27 am

However, generally people don't limit themselves to being prejudiced against and stereotyping one particular group, and especially they don't limit themselves to groups that have more than they do.

It's funny because this describe exactly the left I don't like : they are deeply prejudiced against the groups in power. The amount of prejudice and strawmanning I see coming from the Americain left is only rivaled by the one coming from the Americain right.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 25, 2014, 11:01:18 am
Quote from: Phmcw on August 25, 2014, 09:55:42 am
All I need to oppress someone is a length of lead pipe and a few like-minded peoples.
No, you need more than that. You need an environment that let's you get away with it for an extended period of time. And we're not talking about individual oppression anyway, but oppression of entire groups of people in environments that support that oppression. When people talk about individual oppression they generally use the word abuse or subjugation. And while it's still bad, it's a different kind of bad, and getting rid of every instance of one wouldn't help with the other. And talking about racism isn't even the same as talking about oppression - there's plenty of disgusting racist stuff that isn't actually oppression but is still bad.

Quote
And privilieged groups routinely turn into oppressed ones : see Rowandian Hutus, wealthy russian Farmers, French nobility, Croatians,...
Of course. Only racists or idiots would think otherwise. Oppressed groups are just as human as their oppressors, and operate under the same human shortcomings.

Quote
I often seee that kind of argument coming from the internet and I don't know if it's because America is so inegalitarian that being part of a "privilegied group" is systematically an asset, or because the peoples that say that are part of the privilieged part of thee privilieged group (IE sheltered rich).
I don't know what you're saying here in the last part. But yes, being part of a privileged group is an asset. That is what makes it a privileged group. They get privileges. Privileges are assets. This isn't a hard concept to grasp. Are you disagreeing with this? Because there's nowhere where this is not true. Hell, it's essentially a truism. When it's not systemically an asset, it's not a privileged group, and in the US - yes, being white is a privileged group.

Quote
Quote from: GlyphGryph on August 25, 2014, 08:18:27 am
However, generally people don't limit themselves to being prejudiced against and stereotyping one particular group, and especially they don't limit themselves to groups that have more than they do.
It's funny because this describe exactly the left I don't like : they are deeply prejudiced against the groups in power. The amount of prejudice and strawmanning I see coming from the Americain left is only rivaled by the one coming from the Americain right.
Care to provide a shred of evidence for this as being symptomatic of the American left? Also, are you seriously saying this while accusing your targets of strawmanning? That takes some cajones, buddy.

Also, what exactly is your end game here?
Do you think that racism is a serious problem in the United States and other countries? Yes/No?
If yes, what do you think should be done about it? If no, why not?

You opened with
Quote
Hmmm... the problem is: we do have no clues on how stop this predominantly white white collar crime that is destroying America and Europe. Putting Obama in charge doesn't seems to help much though, lol.
But what are you even trying to say here? What's your point? What are you actually trying to argue?

Did... did you even watch the thing I linked? Did you understand what you were seeing? Did you listen to what was said at the end? In what way was the responsive you gave a productive addition to the conversation?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on August 25, 2014, 11:53:47 am
Quote
And we're not talking about individual oppression anyway, but oppression of entire groups of people in environments that support that oppression. When people talk about individual oppression they generally use the word abuse or subjugation.

Those distinction are largely arbitrary : a lot of Jews a are leaving France because they suffer violence from muslims who are clearly not privilieged.

Quote
being part of a privileged group is an asset. That is what makes it a privileged group.

That's just a circular reasoning.

Quote
Care to provide a shred of evidence for this as being symptomatic of the American left?

Actually yes : you posted a lot of them. Internet is ripe with peoples posting the worst examples of their opponent and saying it's the norm.

Quote
Do you think that racism is a serious problem in the United States and other countries? Yes/No?
If yes, what do you think should be done about it? If no, why not?

I think racism is judging peoples by their race, and that Americain culture is full of it. Actually, I found a lot of americain unable to grasp that judging a culture and a race isn't the same thing and that the two aren't linked. There is no "white culture" and there is no "black culture". Because skin color isn't a culture. Your culture isn't mine, and we're both white and my girlfriend culture and mine are the same. Yet she isn't white.

But I don't think it's a big issue in Belgium, because we're simply not used to do that. There can be a lot of prejudice and stupidity, but it's usually because peoples are unable to see that they share the problems they denounce in others (IE ranting about "poor peoples" criminality while turning a blind eye when they do it).

You video is interesting because I actually agree that upper class predominantly white culture have a problem with honesty. I do actually agree with this point. I don't hold white peoples responsible for it, just like I don't hold north africain migrants responsible for the predominantly north africain crimintality in Belgium.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 25, 2014, 12:22:36 pm
Quote from: Phmcw on August 25, 2014, 11:53:47 am
Quote
being part of a privileged group is an asset. That is what makes it a privileged group.
That's just a circular reasoning.
dude.

I mean seriously, dude.

Knowing what a word means is not circular reasoning.

You are arguing the equivalent of saying not every degree holder holds a degree, or not ever musician plays music, or not every politician is involved in politics.

My countering that "having this property is required for membership in this group" is not circular reasoning, it's how language works.

If being a part of a privileged group doesn't grant you any privileges, it is either not a privileged group or you are not part of it! That's what the word means!

Quote from: Phmcw on August 25, 2014, 11:53:47 am
Quote
Care to provide a shred of evidence for this as being symptomatic of the American left?
Actually yes : you posted a lot of them. Internet is ripe with peoples posting the worst examples of their opponent and saying it's the norm.

Wow, sounds like it should be easy for you to provide an example then.

Also, wow, major evasion there.
Do you think that racism is a serious problem in the United States and other countries? Yes/No?

Also, every single point in the video was intentionally spurious and garbage, which they explicitly say at the end. If you agree with anything from the video, that should be a warning sign that maybe you're letting your prejudices get out of hand.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on August 25, 2014, 01:04:50 pm
Quote
Also, every single point in the video was intentionally spurious and garbage, which they explicitly say at the end. If you agree with anything from the video, that should be a warning sign that maybe you're letting your prejudices get out of hand.

Well no. They were forcing the traits, but they said things that were atually thruths.
Quote
My countering that "having this property is required for membership in this group" is not circular reasoning, it's how language works.

Well then I deny that white are a privilieged groups and I say that thinking otherwise is actually racist.

Therfore I can answer your next question :
Quote
Do you think that racism is a serious problem in the United States ? Yes/No?

Yes, across your whole political spectrum because your concepts themselves are racist.

As for the countries it depend on the countries. And I do NOT equal xenophobia, who is quite widespread, with racism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 25, 2014, 01:17:39 pm
Quote from: Phmcw on August 25, 2014, 01:04:50 pm
Well then I deny that white are a privilieged groups
Then, in regards to the US, you'd be denying flat statistical fact. You can look at the demographic makeup of pretty much every position of power in the states, in regards to pretty much the entire legal system from enforcement to legislation, in regards to income, wealth, health -- there's just this whole massively huge list of ways in which white individuals are disproportionately favored in the USA. White citizens of the USA are a quite blatantly privileged group of individuals.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 25, 2014, 01:27:02 pm
Quote from: Phmcw on August 25, 2014, 01:04:50 pm
Well then I deny that white are a privilieged groups and I say that thinking otherwise is actually racist.

So, we have:
"[Says incredibly racist thing] and anyone who thinks otherwise is the REAL racist!"

We have:
Denying that racism is actually a problem, and arguing that the real problem is talking about racism.

We have:
Denying white privilege despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary/

We have:
Stated belief in racist rhetoric, full support for embracing harmful stereotypes.

We have:
Arguing that rich and powerful rights are the real victims of oppression.

You may not be racist, but you manage to pull off a really good defender of racism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 25, 2014, 01:36:38 pm
... gryph, you've been here long enough to know B12 really isn't the place for direct personal attacks. Yeah?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GlyphGryph on August 25, 2014, 01:45:11 pm
Quote from: Frumple on August 25, 2014, 01:36:38 pm
... gryph, you've been here long enough to know B12 really isn't the place for direct personal attacks. Yeah?
You're right. It's absolutely clear at this point that I don't belong here anymore, and I should have left a long time ago.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 25, 2014, 02:13:37 pm
Not what I was saying, but okay. I'd rather see you leave of your own free will instead of getting banned. Prefer you sticking around to either, but eh.

Best of luck wherever life leads you. Was good having you around when you weren't being overaggressive. Will miss, etc., etc.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on August 25, 2014, 02:25:56 pm
Quote from: Frumple on August 25, 2014, 01:17:39 pm
Quote from: Phmcw on August 25, 2014, 01:04:50 pm
Well then I deny that white are a privilieged groups
Then, in regards to the US, you'd be denying flat statistical fact. You can look at the demographic makeup of pretty much every position of power in the states, in regards to pretty much the entire legal system from enforcement to legislation, in regards to income, wealth, health -- there's just this whole massively huge list of ways in which white individuals are disproportionately favored in the USA. White citizens of the USA are a quite blatantly privileged group of individuals.

Well I use the definition imposed to me : "If being a part of a privileged group doesn't grant you any privileges, it is either not a privileged group or you are not part of it!"

There are enough whites at the bottom of the society to say that being white isn't a sufficient condition for being privilieged.
Quote
Arguing that rich and powerful rights are the real victims of oppression.

All whites are rich and powefull? Have you never seen a trailer park? I was under the impression that there where sizable portion of America's population that lived in pretty abject poverty...
Or are they guilty for the crimes of white white collars criminal because they share their skin color?

Quote
Denying that racism is actually a problem, and arguing that the real problem is talking about racism.

I said that obviously it IS a big problem in America. But yeah, I don't think my opinions are racist.

Quote
You may not be racist, but you manage to pull off a really good defender of racism.

I just completely disagree with you, probably because I'm from another country, with another culture....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 25, 2014, 02:35:39 pm
Quote from: Phmcw on August 25, 2014, 02:25:56 pm
There are enough whites at the bottom of the society to say that being white isn't a sufficient condition for being privilieged.
Except they're still treated disproportionately well compared non-whites in similar conditions, Phmcw. Incarceration rates alone are proof perfect of that. Which is the point being made -- yes, being white in the states is being part of a privileged group. You are notably more likely to be treated better, especially by the major systemic powers (politics, law, business), if you're white than if you're part of a different demographic. Regardless as to your societal status. That's what being part of a privileged group means.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wobbly on August 25, 2014, 03:17:12 pm
Quote from: GlyphGryph on August 25, 2014, 01:45:11 pm
Quote from: Frumple on August 25, 2014, 01:36:38 pm
... gryph, you've been here long enough to know B12 really isn't the place for direct personal attacks. Yeah?
You're right. It's absolutely clear at this point that I don't belong here anymore, and I should have left a long time ago.

& then where would I get info on some of the stuff going on in the US? Seriously I enjoy hearing your views.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on August 25, 2014, 03:24:09 pm
Being part of the privileged group doesn't mean that life gives you fucking lemonade and handjobs every moment of every day.

It means that if someone is in an equal position, let's use your trailer part for example, but did not share the same privileged property as you, then in the same circumstances (walking with a visible hand-gun that you have a license for, or having a domestic dispute called on your house, or applying for a job or a loan, whatever situation you are in) then by virtue of your skin colour, you have a better shot at it than the non-white person. A cop might not pull you over for the hand-gun, they'll assume you have a license, or if they do pull you over, they won't leap right to thinking you own it illegally. Or they won't assume you're beating your wife just because of a call, they'll investigate instead of assume you're a black dead-beat dad. You might have a better chance of getting that job or that loan,
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

And that's not even counting the circumstances you cannot or are very, very unlikely to live in. As a white guy, you're very unlikely to grow up or live in the ghetto. You're not likely to live on a native reservation, with poor education and poor healthcare. You won't have a racist father beat you for daring to date his daughter, or at least you're unlikely to (black father might be racist, of course, but even then, they almost certainly won't be supported by the community for doing so)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on August 25, 2014, 03:42:55 pm
Quote from: Descan on August 25, 2014, 03:24:09 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

And that's not even counting the circumstances you cannot or are very, very unlikely to live in. As a white guy, you're very unlikely to grow up or live in the ghetto. You're not likely to live on a native reservation, with poor education and poor healthcare. You won't have a racist father beat you for daring to date his daughter, or at least you're unlikely to (black father might be racist, of course, but even then, they almost certainly won't be supported by the community for doing so)
I wholly support the first part of your post, but in the second (quoted) part you make the classic mistake: You apply a reasoning that's appropriate for individuals to whole groups. Blacks aren't being discriminated because the average black person is poorer than the average white person; blacks are discriminated because stuff like your handgun example happens. Discrimination is always enacted against individuals.
There's a way to fix your argument, though: If by affirmative action we get enough black people into the higher strata of society to erase the prejudice against them, the discrimination on the individual level will fade as well. The key is arguing via public perception!
When applying this fix though, keep in mind you'll have to make changes to your implementation of affirmative action. With black people, these changes won't be too big; with women (the other big group to which affirmative action is often applied) they'll be more relevant. One suggestion I'm especially fond of is giving the affirmative action program an expiration date: If the program didn't solve the underlying problems in the allotted time - let's say, fourty years -, it won't do so in the future, and thus is unnecessary and should be scrapped.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on August 25, 2014, 03:51:03 pm
Yeah, I wasn't so sure about posting that spoiler'd bit, but I figured, what the hell, maybe someone can correct me and we'd all be smarter for it~
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on August 25, 2014, 04:04:51 pm
Quote from: Frumple on August 25, 2014, 02:35:39 pm
Quote from: Phmcw on August 25, 2014, 02:25:56 pm
There are enough whites at the bottom of the society to say that being white isn't a sufficient condition for being privilieged.
Except they're still treated disproportionately well compared non-whites in similar conditions, Phmcw. Incarceration rates alone are proof perfect of that. Which is the point being made -- yes, being white in the states is being part of a privileged group. You are notably more likely to be treated better, especially by the major systemic powers (politics, law, business), if you're white than if you're part of a different demographic. Regardless as to your societal status. That's what being part of a privileged group means.

First let's use this study as a baseline for our discussion, will we?

https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=808

This is a pretty standard study about the Americain Penitentary system, that indicate that prison rate is highly dependant of the education level and race, with black males that didn't finish high school make a disproportionate amount of the prison polpulation.

A standard Americain response would be to attribute it to racism, to race, or to leave the issue alone. But the explications are mooth when you notice that hight school dropouts of hispanic descent are less incarcerated than whites. Even without that difference, I'd have trouble imagining that Americains judges are so racist that they'll imprison so many innocents based on their skin color. That would indicate that you live in a deepely racist country and I'd have trouble imagining the population of that kind of country accepting black politicians in both the republicain and democrat party. And I'm not so much speaking about Obama, but also about Condoleeza Rice. Let's admit that the idea that race is the root cause is absurd, especially since black population are not overrepresented in criminality in Belgium despite our sizable Congoleze immigration.

So there must be another explanation, no?

Long term disfranchisement create a culture that reject the laws of the country and thus tend to break those laws. By disfranchising them further (by being though on crime) you emplify this effect and get a more and more criminal population. That's why you should implement left-wing policies. Not being you're compational, bleeding hearth or anything. Because they work.

So I think that Black males are overimprisoned not primarly because the judges are racists, and I'm pretty sure that you'll end up with more and more white imprisoned too, but because that system is going to make more and more criminals with children that are more and more likely to be criminal themselves. And given that black population of the USA where pretty disfranchised since the beginning they have a good headstart.

Mistaking the causes for the consequences there lead to two things : you target the wrong problem and the peoples you accuse of racism won't help you. 

Quote from: Descan on August 25, 2014, 03:24:09 pm
Being part of the privileged group doesn't mean that life gives you fucking lemonade and handjobs every moment of every day.

It means that if someone is in an equal position, let's use your trailer part for example, but did not share the same privileged property as you, then in the same circumstances (walking with a visible hand-gun that you have a license for, or having a domestic dispute called on your house, or applying for a job or a loan, whatever situation you are in) then by virtue of your skin colour, you have a better shot at it than the non-white person.

As I said above, I'm pretty sure that if that cop identify you to the disfranchised white population, your luck will be barely better if it's better at all than if you're part of the disfranchised white population. I heard the term "wh*te tr*sh" used.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 25, 2014, 06:19:57 pm
Quote from: Phmcw on August 25, 2014, 04:04:51 pm
As I said above, I'm pretty sure that if that cop identify you to the disfranchised white population, your luck will be barely better if it's better at all than if you're part of the disfranchised black population. I heard the term "wh*te tr*sh" used.
Think I fixed a typo in there. Though -- I've lived in areas that's about as much trailer trash (the more inclusive term, though honestly, white trash is barely a slur in this country, or at least the parts of it where trailer trash is common) as not pretty much my entire life. You would be hilariously wrong. Yeah, a homeless white guy or panhandler is probably going to be harassed by the cops. But they're not going to be harassed as hard, nor is the probability of harassment as high to begin with, as a homeless black fellow would.

And again, as has been noted. Domestic disputes in poor areas? Black family, shit is probably about to go down when the cops hit the scene. White family, chance of shit going down considerably less likely. Same social situation. Same extent of disenfranchisement. Literal only difference is skin color. There's patterns like that throughout the entire freaking country.

US has issues with classism, sure. Lotta' hate for poor people. But the country absolutely has a racism issue, that is distinct and separate (albeit definitely interacting) from the classism one. The country has definite and systemic issues with treating people of color, particular black people, disproportionately poorly. Definite and systemic issues with treating poor people disproportionately poorly, too, but no, it's not the classism being misconstrued as racism.

Can understand why you have problems wrapping your head around it -- you're from a very different cultural area. But. No, there's not another explanation for what's going on in the states. Country, and particularly the legal system, is in fact pretty damn racist. Not really as bad as it used to be, but it's still pretty bad.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on August 25, 2014, 06:27:54 pm
...Did GG just actually leave? Not just the thread, but the entire damn forum?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on August 25, 2014, 06:32:30 pm
By the looks of it? Yeah, that's exactly what he did. I'm incredibly sorry to see him go, actually. He seemed like a pretty cool dude.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 25, 2014, 06:38:20 pm
Quote from: Sirus on August 25, 2014, 06:27:54 pm
...Did GG just actually leave? Not just the thread, but the entire damn forum?
I hope not. One shouldn't take all these discussions too personally.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 25, 2014, 06:41:41 pm
Five hours seems a bit early to determine that someone has left the forum.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on August 25, 2014, 06:46:15 pm
He did get remove his avatar, signature and personal text from his account though. After saying that he should have left a long time ago. Those two events do feel kinda interrelated, don't you think?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on August 25, 2014, 07:00:05 pm
Phmcw: No offense, but are you a troll? Cause  remember arguing with you about sexism, and the argument you put forth was people were subject t racism, therefore sexism wasn't an issue. now you seem to be arguing that people are subject to classism, therefore racism isn't an issue. You also gave up arguing with me when it became evident I wouldn't get angry with you, while you seem much more invested here- perhaps because GlyphGryph is giving you what you want? Just a hypothesis.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 25, 2014, 07:04:59 pm
Quote from: Angle on August 25, 2014, 07:00:05 pm
Phmcw: No offense, but are you a troll? Cause  remember arguing with you about sexism, and the argument you put forth was people were subject t racism, therefore sexism wasn't an issue. now you seem to be arguing that people are subject to classism, therefore racism isn't an issue.
Eh, I don't know if I agree with Phmcw on everything he says, but he's got a point in that the American point of view on race issues is quite different in some regards to the European one, so I'd say certainly no trolling there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on August 25, 2014, 07:06:45 pm
The point is that when arguing with me, he thought that racism WAS a issue. Now he doesn't? Seems suspicious. Yes, he could have just changed his views, but with the other evidence presented, I find it questionable.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on August 25, 2014, 07:16:53 pm
Seems more like a contrarian thing than trolling to me, but then I have not followed the discussion that closely.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on August 25, 2014, 07:28:18 pm
Quote from: Angle on August 25, 2014, 07:06:45 pm
The point is that when arguing with me, he thought that racism WAS a issue. Now he doesn't? Seems suspicious. Yes, he could have just changed his views, but with the other evidence presented, I find it questionable.

I said this :

Quote
Well even that is demonstrably false : power and right were and stlll are divided by birthrights, race, wealth, gender... depending on the place, and there is no way in hell to argue that a black slave man in the south has more right than a white woman. And wether or not he was privilieged compeared to a black woman is debatable, but that debate would be mostly pointless. The peoples arguing about those things seems unaware that they are part of the intelligencia of the most powerfull nation on earth.

I'm pretty sure I never said that racism has never been a problem in the history of US. Actually I said two times that racism seems to be a problem in the US.

I'm just skeptical that "direct racism" (as pure hate of black peoples) is as huge a problem as some make it out to be, because I cannot see how it can be possible given the current state of americain society and the fact that in Europe it is often overblown. I may be wrong of course but  it just doesn't compute.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 25, 2014, 07:43:58 pm
It doesn't take the form of "I hate black people so I'll arrest/fire/etc this one." It takes the form of "This guy's black so he's likelier to be a criminal/lazy/etc, so I'd better check to be sure." It doesn't sound as nefarious on the surface (after all, you're still checking, right?), which is why it can happen, but the increased scrutiny is a problem when nobody's perfect and so you can often find evidence for whatever stereotype you're expecting, and this reinforces the stereotype. Not to mention the degree to which having this as a cultural trend creates objectively verifiable differences, so you wind up with situations where black people really are likelier to be criminals, but it's because they're likelier to have fewer alternatives - and people somehow conclude that the stereotype is therefore "justified". The accuracy of statistical correlations has never been the key flaw in racism, but it sure sounds good when racists need a cover.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 25, 2014, 07:47:54 pm
Well, yes. Old-school, direct and claimant racism is well and truly out of vogue. Unfortunately, this only means that we are left with the secondary, racism masquerading as rationality and logic. It is better in that it rears its head less powerfully, but it is more insidious because it mimics the form of something desirable.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on August 25, 2014, 08:10:08 pm
And I think it's been said that "direct racism" isn't, hasn't, and will not be the main, systemic problem. Not to say that I don't think there aren't actually-white-supremacist-style racists in the judiciary or the police force, but they're not what we're saying is the issue.

What is the issue is things like... In American society, black people, black men, come across as threatening. So in a situation where they have a gun, or there's a domestic dispute, or they're on trial, where looks and perspectives are everything or near everything, a police officer will feel more threatened by a black man, or a jury will not cut them as much a slack as they would a white man.

For example, a black man coming in to a store or restaurant with a open-carry license and a long rifle slung across his back will almost certainly have the cops called on him. A white man coming  in to the same store with a rifle and an open carry license, will be viewed as a nuisance or a gun-nut, but unless he threatens people, the cops won't be called.

Edit: The others said as much, and better, than this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on August 25, 2014, 09:21:30 pm
I will also point out, on the occasions when direct racism rears it's head, the more insidious kind will help protect it-such as on the occasions when a police officer kills a young black man in cold blood for no reason.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on September 15, 2014, 06:51:00 pm
Oi, anyone know of a big net neutrality effort or anything? I am not enamored by fast-lane bullshit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on September 15, 2014, 07:16:48 pm
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on September 15, 2014, 06:51:00 pm
Oi, anyone know of a big net neutrality effort or anything? I am not enamored by fast-lane bullshit.
IIRC the deadline for FCC comments is, like, tonight, at midnight in some timezone in the US or other? Double check, but if you haven't already, please write out a personalized argument to them about why you are not enamored.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on September 15, 2014, 07:23:58 pm
Quote from: Angle on August 25, 2014, 09:21:30 pm
I will also point out, on the occasions when direct racism rears it's head, the more insidious kind will help protect it-such as on the occasions when a police officer kills a young black man in cold blood for no reason.
Oh boy, here we go.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Blargityblarg on September 15, 2014, 07:24:45 pm
Quote from: Morrigi on September 15, 2014, 07:23:58 pm
Quote from: Angle on August 25, 2014, 09:21:30 pm
I will also point out, on the occasions when direct racism rears it's head, the more insidious kind will help protect it-such as on the occasions when a police officer kills a young black man in cold blood for no reason.
Oh boy, here we go.

Speak of the devil.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on September 15, 2014, 08:05:16 pm
Quote from: GavJ on September 15, 2014, 07:16:48 pm
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on September 15, 2014, 06:51:00 pm
Oi, anyone know of a big net neutrality effort or anything? I am not enamored by fast-lane bullshit.
IIRC the deadline for FCC comments is, like, tonight, at midnight in some timezone in the US or other? Double check, but if you haven't already, please write out a personalized argument to them about why you are not enamored.

Ah, I think I already submitted one. I see it's up to ~500k signatures, so that's cool.

But was kinda hoping there were more, as they don't seem phased by that one in particular.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on September 15, 2014, 08:14:13 pm
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on September 15, 2014, 08:05:16 pm
Quote from: GavJ on September 15, 2014, 07:16:48 pm
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on September 15, 2014, 06:51:00 pm
Oi, anyone know of a big net neutrality effort or anything? I am not enamored by fast-lane bullshit.
IIRC the deadline for FCC comments is, like, tonight, at midnight in some timezone in the US or other? Double check, but if you haven't already, please write out a personalized argument to them about why you are not enamored.

Ah, I think I already submitted one. I see it's up to ~500k signatures, so that's cool.

But was kinda hoping there were more, as they don't seem phased by that one in particular.
If all you did was sign a petition, go back and write your own comment. The FCC has said several times that they are not planning to treat petitions as worth much more than if a single person had written that, because what they are looking for is unique perspectives and thoughts, not popularity contests.

I.e., you need to write your own message from scratch and you score points on how logical and thoughtful it is. They don't care if you jump on bandwagons, for better or worse.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 15, 2014, 08:14:44 pm
Quote from: Morrigi on September 15, 2014, 07:23:58 pm
Oh boy, here we go.

You mean here we went. A month ago.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 15, 2014, 08:16:12 pm
Quote from: scriver on September 15, 2014, 08:14:44 pm
Quote from: Morrigi on September 15, 2014, 07:23:58 pm
Oh boy, here we go.

You mean here we went. A month ago.

You mean here we went like 10 years ago.  Internet freedom's been consistently under attack for a long time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 15, 2014, 08:18:18 pm
Quote from: greatorder on September 15, 2014, 08:17:25 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 15, 2014, 08:16:12 pm
Quote from: scriver on September 15, 2014, 08:14:44 pm
Quote from: Morrigi on September 15, 2014, 07:23:58 pm
Oh boy, here we go.

You mean here we went. A month ago.

You mean here we went like 10 years ago.  Internet freedom's been consistently under attack for a long time.
He's on about police racism.

Oh, I missed that :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on September 15, 2014, 08:22:18 pm
You could've probably gotten away with pretending that's what you meant anyway, though possibly missing a zero.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on September 15, 2014, 08:31:56 pm
Quote from: GavJ on September 15, 2014, 08:14:13 pm
If all you did was sign a petition, go back and write your own comment. The FCC has said several times that they are not planning to treat petitions as worth much more than if a single person had written that, because what they are looking for is unique perspectives and thoughts, not popularity contests.

I.e., you need to write your own message from scratch and you score points on how logical and thoughtful it is. They don't care if you jump on bandwagons, for better or worse.

Uh huh. So, are they only discarding boilerplates (40-50%) or are they proofreading them and discarding everything that brings up the same 4-5 points as everything else (90%)?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GavJ on September 15, 2014, 08:41:30 pm
Dunno. Neither makes much sense to me logically, so I don't have a guess as to which weird thing they're doing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 15, 2014, 10:46:26 pm
Rather than highschool dropout rates, which are a very roundabout way of measuring  discrimination, it is possible to look at conviction rates and sentences for people caught for the same crime: and on that basis there is a huge bias against black people. And surprise surprise, it's more prevalent in the ex slave-states. Which is pure coincidence, I'm sure.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/30/770501/study-black-defendants-are-at-least-30-more-likely-to-be-imprisoned-than-white-defendants-for-the-same-crime/
Quote
Study: Black Defendants Are At Least 30% More Likely To Be Imprisoned Than White Defendants For The Same Crime

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293245/Black-people-times-likely-face-death-sentence-Houston-whites-study-finds.html
Quote
In his report he writes: 'The probability that the district attorney will advance a case to a [death] penalty trial is more than three times as high when the defendant is African American than for white defendants.'
Quote
of the original group of 21 cases, the black defendants were more than twice as likely to be sentenced to death than their white counterparts, he said.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1352947/Black-drug-offenders-times-likely-jailed-whites.html
Quote
Black drug offenders are 'eight times more likely to be jailed than whites'

Yeah, so rather than indirect measures, there are clear direct measures: people who did the same crime, and were caught, and how they're treated.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on September 15, 2014, 10:53:46 pm
As the former adjudicator of this thread I would like to remind everyone that the DailyMail is a tabloid, so please use alternate sources for your (actually true this time) statistical trends.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Staklininkas on September 16, 2014, 12:48:27 am
Quote from: Reelya on September 15, 2014, 10:46:26 pm
Rather than highschool dropout rates, which are a very roundabout way of measuring  discrimination, it is possible to look at conviction rates and sentences for people caught for the same crime: and on that basis there is a huge bias against black people. And surprise surprise, it's more prevalent in the ex slave-states. Which is pure coincidence, I'm sure.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/30/770501/study-black-defendants-are-at-least-30-more-likely-to-be-imprisoned-than-white-defendants-for-the-same-crime/
Quote
Study: Black Defendants Are At Least 30% More Likely To Be Imprisoned Than White Defendants For The Same Crime

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293245/Black-people-times-likely-face-death-sentence-Houston-whites-study-finds.html
Quote
In his report he writes: 'The probability that the district attorney will advance a case to a [death] penalty trial is more than three times as high when the defendant is African American than for white defendants.'
Quote
of the original group of 21 cases, the black defendants were more than twice as likely to be sentenced to death than their white counterparts, he said.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1352947/Black-drug-offenders-times-likely-jailed-whites.html
Quote
Black drug offenders are 'eight times more likely to be jailed than whites'

Yeah, so rather than indirect measures, there are clear direct measures: people who did the same crime, and were caught, and how they're treated.
Just because more blacks get convicted doesn't necessarily mean anything racist is happening, you know the whole "correlation does not mean causation" dealio. Kinda like how crop circles don't prove aliens exist
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on September 16, 2014, 12:54:36 am
So many things wrong with that, where do I even start...

Well, to start with, correlation =/= causation is completely unrelated to how crop circles don't prove that aleins don't exist. In that case, the fact that we have far better explanations for the existence of crop circles is the reason that crop circles don't prove aliens exist. When it comes to racism, do you have a better explanation for why these facts exist?

For that matter, how does correlation =/= causation enter into the picture at all? There's no correlation in either situation, just facts and a proposed explanation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 16, 2014, 12:57:36 am
@Staklininkas, that's a really ridiculous analogy.

At every step of the process blacks are much more likely to have bad shit thrown at them:

Black people more likely to be arrested than white people who are caught for the same crime: e.g. white kids are much more likely to get a "warning" for drug possession than black kids. We're comparing people who actually got caught red handed here. You're white you walk, you're black you get locked up. This isn't "black are eight times as likely to get caught with drugs" it's "blacks who are caught with drugs are eight times as likely to go to jail than whites who were caught with drugs".

Once arrested, blacks are more likely to go to trial.

Once in trial, they're much more likely to be convicted.

Once convicted they get longer sentences than whites who got convicted.

If the death penalty applies to a case: they 3 times as likely to promote that case to a capital offense if the suspect is black.

Oh, but it's no more likely that it's systematic than crop circles are related to aliens.

BTW: how about that "the sun causes it to get hot" theory? Clear bullshit because correlation doesn't prove causation after all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Staklininkas on September 16, 2014, 01:39:15 am
Neither of you proved that it was because of racism. You're just asserting it is. Just because blacks are being convicted more than other people that doesn't prove that it's racism, that's just your explanation. I posit that they got justly convicted of their crimes whether or not I actually believe that is the case is irrelevant.

I'm just asking you to prove your position.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on September 16, 2014, 01:48:10 am
How could you prove that? What other possible explanation could there be? You're just acting in bad faith here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on September 16, 2014, 02:01:28 am
Quote from: Staklininkas on September 16, 2014, 01:39:15 am
Neither of you proved that it was because of racism. You're just asserting it is. Just because blacks are being convicted more than other people that doesn't prove that it's racism, that's just your explanation. I posit that they got justly convicted of their crimes whether or not I actually believe that is the case is irrelevant.

I'm just asking you to prove your position.
Well it could only be for two reasons: Either black people are discriminated against in criminal matters, or white people consistently get "caught" with insubstantial evidence.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Blargityblarg on September 16, 2014, 02:06:46 am
Quote from: Staklininkas on September 16, 2014, 01:39:15 am
Neither of you proved that it was because of racism. You're just asserting it is. Just because blacks are being convicted more than other people that doesn't prove that it's racism, that's just your explanation. I posit that they got justly convicted of their crimes whether or not I actually believe that is the case is irrelevant.

I'm just asking you to prove your position.

Would you care to offer your own explanation, or would you like to sit in the corner with your fingers in your ears some more?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on September 16, 2014, 02:39:15 am
there is evidence for racism

you however treat it like a religion, acting all outraged when anyone even dares question anything because wow it's obviously a fact known to literally everyone why should we have to prove it !!!

ggwp modern society, no re
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 16, 2014, 02:49:59 am
Nobody's treating it like religion. Actual evidence was linked and the guy refuses to rationally look at it.

Other than presenting a mountain of evidence that something is true, against exactly ZERO evidence that it is false, how can anything be "proven"? Every study ever conducted that looks at black vs white in the criminal system gives evidence that blacks are treated worse on every possible measure. There's literally not one single statistical study where it was shown blacks were treated fairly.

I mean, how many times would you have to flip "heads" in a row to realize a coin is rigged? There's always a slight statistical probability that flipping 1000 heads in a row was sheer chance and the coin was actually fair after all. But if you flip a coin that many times and it always comes up heads, you can be fairly certain the game is rigged.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Squeegy on September 16, 2014, 03:11:07 am
You think that the fact that Black people count for 40% of the US prison population and 13% of the US civilian population is because they are justly convicted of their crimes and therefore necessarily believe that Black people commit crime at a much higher rate than the rest of the population and we are expected to prove to you that it is racism? We don't need to do that, you will never see it as racism, because you are a racist. Rather, since you're the one asserting that it is because they are "justly convicted," why don't you prove that?

("I'm just asking questions!!")
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on September 16, 2014, 03:12:57 am
Yeah, but you know, maybe it's not because of the coin!

Sqeegy: You could imagine other explanation, like the fact that black people tends to be poorer than white people, with less access to education, and that poorer people commit more crime. However, in this case the racism we were referring to was the justice system's, not Staklininkas's.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Squeegy on September 16, 2014, 03:13:46 am
The institution is racist, and if Staklininkas genuinely believes that its incarceration rates are fair, then he is necessarily racist too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on September 16, 2014, 03:23:41 am
i'm talking mostly about a certain poster above me reelya, i appreciate the input of most people here but anti-rational if you're not with us you're against us bullshit makes you not even a notch better than tumblrites
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Squeegy on September 16, 2014, 03:48:47 am
P → Q, ¬Q (http://www.philosophy-index.com/images/logic/infers.png) ¬P

If the criminal justice system is fair, then Black people commit crime at a rate disproportionately higher than any other race. Black people do not commit crime at a rate disproportionately higher than any other race (to believe that would imply that to be Black is to be inherently more likely to commit crime, hence the racism), therefore, the criminal justice system is not fair. More specifically, institutional bias is invisible when the institution is responsible for the recording of statistics. Because the system is biased against Blacks, they are incarcerated and arrested at a higher rate than White people, who are given lesser punishments for the same crime (something which is provable (http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/03/02/us-drug-arrests-skewed-race)), and since only the punishments are what is recorded, there is no record of arrests not made, criminal charges not brought and sentences not imposed, which would definitively show a difference in treatment between White Americans and Black Americans.

However, there is a clear bias against minorities in the War on Drugs, they are manifestly greater targets for police brutality (p. 2) (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/147/1999/en/735f2b8c-e038-11dd-865a-d728958ca30a/amr511471999en.pdf), and statistics show that the police target minorities (especially Blacks) at a much higher rate (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/opinion/racial-discrimination-in-stop-and-frisk.html). Remember Ferguson? Statistics show that Black Americans make up 86% of all police stops (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/police-stops-in-ferguson-what-are-the-numbers/article_012cf751-9cec-5733-8025-09e03abb9d86.html) in Ferguson even though they make up less than 2/3rds of the driving population. The disparity index (how many are stopped divided by how many there are) for Black Americans in Ferguson is 1.37, but for Whites it is 0.38. Statewide in Missouri, it is 1.59 for Blacks, and 0.96 for Whites. That is clear evidence that police target Black Americans as potential criminals disproportionately more than Whites. Not just in Missouri, for the NYPD, home of the infamous Stop and Frisk program, 87% of all stops were of Blacks and Latinos. The NYPD was famously lambasted for stopping more Black men between the ages of 14 and 24 than there are in the entire city of New York. The NYPD's Public Advocate found in a study (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/22/2046451/white-people-stopped-by-new-york-police-are-more-likely-to-have-guns-or-drugs-than-minorities/) that White New Yorkers were twice as likely to be found with a weapon and three times as likely to be found with some form of contraband.

If you don't see a problem there, you are either ignorant, racist, or both.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on September 16, 2014, 03:52:02 am
Ok, I didn't read any of the links, so no idea if any of this applies.

Possible compounding factors:
Exactly what were the criminal charges brought up for whites vs blacks? ('Drug offenders' could lump Petty Possession in with Intent to Distribute.)
If there were multiple charges, whites vs blacks. (same as above, firearms charges for example)
Districts & judges presiding, how many whites v blacks they see and their individual harshness (if the judges presiding in predominantly black districts are harsh, but apply their harshness fairly, this would skew the results)

Not saying there isn't racism going on. But you have to dig deep into the statistics to make sure the data's good.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Squeegy on September 16, 2014, 03:54:55 am
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on September 16, 2014, 03:52:02 am
Ok, I didn't read any of the links, so no idea if any of this applies.
This is a pretty good clue that your argument is probably not going to be relevant to mine.

Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on September 16, 2014, 03:52:02 am
Possible compounding factors:
Exactly what were the criminal charges brought up for whites vs blacks? ('Drug offenders' could lump Petty Possession in with Intent to Distribute.)
If there were multiple charges, whites vs blacks. (same as above, firearms charges for example)
Districts & judges presiding, how many whites v blacks they see and their individual harshness (if the judges presiding in predominantly black districts are harsh, but apply their harshness fairly, this would skew the results)

Not saying there isn't racism going on. But you have to dig deep into the statistics to make sure the data's good.
Then go ahead and dig deep, my friend. Take out your shovel and dig away. I'm not going to take time out of my day to compile deep and thorough criminology statistics (especially because most of this data you're asking for is completely unavailable) when the simple facts clearly point towards a conclusion.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on September 16, 2014, 03:58:02 am
If you're going to prop up something as evidence for your claim, you have to vet it. Otherwise it runs the risk of getting picked apart.
Not investigating your sources & assuming their headlines mean more than they do is just going to mislead you. :\

I'm not gonna dig, as I'm not interested in proving anything..
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Squeegy on September 16, 2014, 04:01:26 am
There is a disparity between what you're claiming and what you're demanding. You're claiming that not investigating my sources and just reading their headlines undermines my argument. You're demanding that I procure additional proof in addition to the sources I've cited (which you have not read, and freely admit to not having read), most of which is not actually available to the public if the data is even compiled at all. I've made my claims and provided my proof, if you want to refute it, the burden of proof is on you now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on September 16, 2014, 04:25:49 am
I have not made any demands.
I am not debating you.  >:(
I am trying to discuss, not win.

(Trying to move on)
Did you look for said data? I would be interested in what you found (or did not find).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Blargityblarg on September 16, 2014, 04:37:11 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on September 16, 2014, 02:39:15 am
there is evidence for racism

you however treat it like a religion, acting all outraged when anyone even dares question anything because wow it's obviously a fact known to literally everyone why should we have to prove it !!!

ggwp modern society, no re

Mate, he's not questioning whether there's racism in the US' legal system, he's flat-out denying it despite the evidence as has been provided and discussed for more or less the entirety of this thread, with particular intensity in the last few pages, whilst neglecting to propose any other mechanism for the skewed conviction statistics which he apparently accepts.  Treating his post as though it contained a valid point is more than it deserves.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Squeegy on September 16, 2014, 05:02:36 am
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on September 16, 2014, 04:25:49 am
I have not made any demands.
I am not debating you.  >:(
I am trying to discuss, not win.
I'm not trying to win. I'm trying to abide by the principles of argument. I've made my point, if you disagree, then refute it, with your own evidence.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on September 16, 2014, 05:27:48 am
No thanks.

Mind, I didn't see your big post until after I'd typed mine. It was directed at the Reelya & Stak convo.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Squeegy on September 16, 2014, 05:37:25 am
That would have been a prudent thing to mention in your very first reply.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on September 16, 2014, 05:45:59 am
blurp. Can we stop fighting yet? Can we be friends again? I don't like fighting. :3
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 16, 2014, 09:12:34 am
Please be respectful of other people, regardless of their argument or attitude.

Quote from: Vector on September 15, 2014, 10:53:46 pm
As the former adjudicator of this thread I would like to remind everyone that the DailyMail is a tabloid, so please use alternate sources for your (actually true this time) statistical trends.

+1
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Staklininkas on September 16, 2014, 03:08:15 pm
(inflammatory remark removed, troll banned)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on September 16, 2014, 03:14:26 pm
We don't mind devil's advocate, we dislike devil's advocate with no argument.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 16, 2014, 04:00:44 pm
That's...not....really true. At all. Most conservative forumites are banned within a year or so.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on September 16, 2014, 04:12:07 pm
Quote from: greatorder on September 16, 2014, 04:08:22 pm
IIRC, there's still a fair few kicking about.

Howdy. I've not been here much more than a year though, so I suppose there's still time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on September 16, 2014, 10:07:00 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 16, 2014, 04:00:44 pm
That's...not....really true. At all. Most conservative forumites are banned within a year or so.
Heh, look at my profile :D
Okay, I'm European-conservative, not American-conservative, but still. GreatJustice is still around, BlindKitty as well, and quite a few I'm forgetting right now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 16, 2014, 10:11:51 pm
GreatJustice is more of a radical libertarian, as I recall.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on September 17, 2014, 12:11:28 am
Conservative here. Been here for... holy shit, 5 years. That said, I don't post all that often and I (usually) try to avoid stirring shit up.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 17, 2014, 01:11:01 am
I'd say about half of the not-to-the-left-of-social-democrats that post regularly just don't go to the political threads, since dogpiles occasionally happen and while most people are pretty civil around here, a few aren't. Anyhow, I'm not posting too much these days because school is pretty heavy atm, though maybe I'll find an easy argument to get into sometime
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on September 17, 2014, 01:17:28 am
Quote from: GreatJustice on September 17, 2014, 01:11:01 am
Anyhow, I'm not posting too much these days because school is pretty heavy atm, though maybe I'll find an easy argument to get into sometime
ARE there any, these days? Aside from no WW3 pls.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on September 26, 2014, 11:09:01 am
Quote from: Squeegy on September 16, 2014, 03:48:47 am

If the criminal justice system is fair, then Black people commit crime at a rate disproportionately higher than any other race. Black people do not commit crime at a rate disproportionately higher than any other race (to believe that would imply that to be Black is to be inherently more likely to commit crime, hence the racism), therefore, the criminal justice system is not fair.


That's so, so wrong. You basically say that statistically peoples of one race cannot be different from those of another race, therefore the system is racist.

By the same reasonning, Jews are overrepresented as noble price winner, Jewish conspiracy confirmed. That's absurd.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on September 26, 2014, 02:51:49 pm
http://gawker.com/social-impact-bonds-the-opposite-of-private-prisons-1638678383

An interesting idea is being piloted in Massachusetts to remove some of the influence of private prisons. The article sums it up pretty well, but the gist is that the state only pays the company if some desirable goal is met, thereby creating financial incentives to reduce recidivism. It isn't as good as removing private prisons entirely, in my opinion, but it's a good start.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on September 27, 2014, 01:04:49 pm
Depends on the implementation I guess, such as what outcomes they measures, etc etc.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on September 28, 2014, 10:02:45 am
I don't know- maybe it is a good idea.

The problem with the politics of crime in America is that the tough-on-crime section of the electorate is going to present a real threat to any elected official who tries to take revenge out of the equation. (Yes, I know my avatar is Mr. Tough-on-Crime. I'm more sympathetic to tough-on-crime than some people here, I'm sure, but that's neither here nor there).

If the goal is to get rid of tough-on-crime measures, it's going to be a while before elected officials are able to take steps towards it. However, privately owned prison companies are not elected, and profit is a powerful incentive-and not even necessarily an unethical one if it incentivizes the right stuff.

If the entire nation's prisons were privatized, let's say, and the rule was that "we're only going to pay you for inmate X if he doesn't get another felony charge within five years", I suspect that recidivism would drop much more sharply than the sort of incremental, half-hearted attempts legislators can make to solve the problem. Is it a good idea? Well, I'm somewhat wary of privatizing something that's so necessary and basic in a modern society, but if it works, I'd be willing to look into it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on September 28, 2014, 10:33:41 am
Or the prisons will cherry-pick the nicest, friendliest inmates they can. In fact I think they already do that where this kinda incentivisation is in effect, and it winds up skewing the numbers to make private prisons look better than they are. (and state prisons worse)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on September 28, 2014, 11:08:20 am
The simplest fix there would be to simply take away the ability to cherry-pick who they incarcerate. It would probably make it harder to run a profitable prison, but that's a dubious goal if ever I saw one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on September 28, 2014, 11:08:36 am
That's why you privatize every prison in the system.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 28, 2014, 11:26:33 am
... profit motive and incarceration never seems to work, really.

I guess try full privatization providing the consequence for not seeing a nation-wide reduction in both recidivism and overall crime each year is the execution of every manager and owner involved in the industry? And maybe something similar for local stuff, so they can't just shove everything into a small area or something. I think I could get behind that. Maybe up to a minimum level, but... maybe not. I'm pretty okay with putting a bullet into cartel leadership, and they're profiting off crime as well. Maybe you should have to put your life on the line to be allowed to monetize ruined lives.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on September 28, 2014, 11:50:02 am
Whatever the case, their income should just flat-out be unrelated to the number of prisoners they have. Cause that's obviously some twisted incentivization there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on September 28, 2014, 12:49:32 pm
If it's results based (like FJ suggested) then more (successfully treated) prisoners leading to more pay seems like it would be fine to me. And that would get around the problem of each prison wanting to take the least number of prisoners if it had no effect on their pay as well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 28, 2014, 02:13:34 pm
You'd have to be wary of prison businesses that develop relations with police and judges.  They could just as easily sabotage prosecutions against guilty people to help with recidivism statistics as much as they currently favor prosecutions against innocent people to help prisons stay populated.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on September 28, 2014, 02:17:31 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 28, 2014, 02:13:34 pm
You'd have to be wary of prison businesses that develop relations with police and judges.  They could just as easily sabotage prosecutions against guilty people to help with recidivism statistics as much as they currently favor prosecutions against innocent people to help prisons stay populated.
Yup. Never underestimate the ingenuity of the greedy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lemon10 on September 28, 2014, 06:22:16 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 28, 2014, 02:13:34 pm
You'd have to be wary of prison businesses that develop relations with police and judges.  They could just as easily sabotage prosecutions against guilty people to help with recidivism statistics as much as they currently favor prosecutions against innocent people to help prisons stay populated.
Yeah, but having guilty people go free is better in my opinion then having innocent people go to jail.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on September 28, 2014, 06:39:12 pm
Yes... But we could skip the whole thing and just axe the privatized prisons.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on September 28, 2014, 06:44:39 pm
Indeed. But that can't happen right away, we need to ease into it or the industry's very powerful lobby will push back. They have to already be dying when they're finished off. And if they do society some good on the way out then good for them. They aren't inherently bad or something, they've just been pushed in a bad direction.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 28, 2014, 07:08:54 pm
Quote from: lemon10 on September 28, 2014, 06:22:16 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 28, 2014, 02:13:34 pm
You'd have to be wary of prison businesses that develop relations with police and judges.  They could just as easily sabotage prosecutions against guilty people to help with recidivism statistics as much as they currently favor prosecutions against innocent people to help prisons stay populated.
Yeah, but having guilty people go free is better in my opinion then having innocent people go to jail.

I agree.  But the whole point is you're undermining the purpose of the institution either way.

Quote from: Baffler on September 28, 2014, 06:44:39 pm
They aren't inherently bad or something, they've just been pushed in a bad direction.

I think the typical argument by those opposed to privatization of the justice system, including myself, is that using profit as an incentive in any fashion is likely to push it in a bad direction.  It's more profitable to minimally invest in cheating the metrics than it is to invest a great deal more in operating in good faith to create genuine progress.  And as long as profit is the fundamental motivator, those at the highest levels of decision-making (also held the most responsible for maximizing profitability) will see to it that any such shortcuts available are taken advantage of.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on September 28, 2014, 07:30:06 pm
Oh, I agree. I personally think "prison industry" should eventually be damn near an oxymoron, but this process needs to be very gradual. If anything moves too fast it'll probably be dead in committee before it ever goes to a vote.

Edit: To clarify, I think we need to use Salami Tactics to succeed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Neonivek on September 28, 2014, 07:39:11 pm
One of the issues with improving the prison systems is that there is a fundamental belief that a large portion of the United States believes in...

That the terrible prison conditions are part of the punishment.

Which ACTIVELY opposes the idea of rehabilitative justice.

I think, dealing with that belief is a good place to start.

Possibly by comparing two maximum security prisons in the United States.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 28, 2014, 07:42:10 pm
Or by focusing on selfish desires.

"If we don't focus on rehabilitation, then these monsters will get out unchanged and wreck even more havoc! And keeping them locked up for decades or on death row (basically the same thing) costs way too much money! Do you want your taxes to go up even more? Do you want your children out with unrepentant monsters roaming around?!"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 28, 2014, 08:08:39 pm
It is going to be a long time.  I don't know many people in the U.S. who don't believe wholeheartedly in retributive justice.  Common belief is when you commit a serious crime, you become less than human.  Your rights are forfeit and the only reason you're kept around at all is the cries of naive bleeding hearts.  Unless you're rich or famous.  I've never had a single debate with one of those people that didn't come down to "this is how I feel about it, and that's all that matters to me."  This is from people on both sides of the political spectrum.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 28, 2014, 08:13:13 pm
At least until family members end up in the clink. Tunes seem to miraculously change when that happens, fairly often. Least from what I've seen. Then suddenly they're very human with human failings and it was just mistakes and how dare the judge treat <close family member> like that and so on and so forth.

At least for a little while, and in relation to that particular criminal, if they're particularly lacking in self-awareness. But eh.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on September 29, 2014, 03:11:07 pm
PTW. I'll also leave that here:

Quote from: SalmonGod on September 28, 2014, 07:08:54 pm
It's more profitable to minimally invest in cheating the metrics than it is to invest a great deal more in operating in good faith to create genuine progress.
That is distinctively well put, I think. Not only in relation to privatized prisons, that is.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Wolfhunter107 on September 30, 2014, 03:13:25 am
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/09/29/5208297/former-charlotte-pastors-if-i.html#.VCplgmDD8v4 (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/09/29/5208297/former-charlotte-pastors-if-i.html#.VCplgmDD8v4)
If it wasn't 4 in the morning, I would be doing a victory dance. With music.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on September 30, 2014, 04:32:33 am
Quote from: lemon10 on September 28, 2014, 06:22:16 pm
Yeah, but having guilty people go free is better in my opinion then having innocent people go to jail.

Not really, it's better to have assumption of innocence because most peoples don't commit crime, and thus it make a lot more sense to consider peoples innocent until proven guilty, but if your justice system is too lax, you'll have problem like we have. Recidivist killing and raping again and again.
Never forget than an minority of criminals commit a majority of crimes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 30, 2014, 05:38:14 am
Which has pretty much jack all to do with the justice system being "lax", and just about goddamn everything with it doing near everything in its power to make sure criminals cannot re-integrate with society. Laxity has roughly fuckall to do with recidivism rates, unless you want to just start offing repeat offenders (which, no, isn't on the table).

Seriously, the US has some of the worst prison conditions in the western world, combined with more or less completely destroying an ex-con's ability to live a civilian life afterwards. The get put through a situation where rape and assault are massively more likely than in civilian life and afterwards have whatever hope of a future they had pretty close to completely wrecked. There's not terribly much else we can do outside of outright systematic torture.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on September 30, 2014, 07:21:06 am
Forgot to add "like we have in Belgium". Here resinsertion isn't bad, but the criminality number is inflated by the fact that a culture of impunity developed among criminals. The system is defangled, and that's not a good thing either. 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on September 30, 2014, 07:54:43 am
I'd dispute that, the Netherlands have if anything an even laxer justice system (To the point where we have to rend prison space they no longer need from them) and their crime figures aren't very different from ours.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on September 30, 2014, 08:29:49 am
Netherlands are efficient with their prisons, we are lazy. We don't let peoples go because they are harmless, or we rehabilitated them or anything. We're letting them go because we lack space in prison and fixing the problems is tiresome. In the netherland, if the law says that you must go to prison, you do. In Belgium, meh, there is no space...

EDIT: I checked, they also have a true life sentence .
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on September 30, 2014, 08:38:10 am
Why do they have less prisoners than we do then?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 30, 2014, 09:29:43 am
... does either country even have a prison industrial complex? The "lack space" comment seems to suggest not, heh. Always more space for more penal slaves in good ol' USA. If not, build new place to turn profit on backs of prisoner labor and undercut domestic civilian production labor market! Privatization~ Building your electronics with viciously underpaid and subsequently unemployable criminals since a while now.

Here we get complaints from corporate scum bastards about not having enough slave labor prisoners to keep up with production quotas. If not enough space in other places, eh, fuck it, shove extra person into cell. Not enough people care if conditions turn to shit. Gotta' be sadistic subhuman pieces of filth "tough on crime". Nevermind it goddamn backfires. Who cares about the communities and families the process completely buggers. No one gives a damn about the amount our bullshit is funding southern cartels. And so on, and so forth.

Just... bleh. Frikkin' bleh.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on September 30, 2014, 09:32:04 am
Quote from: Sheb on September 30, 2014, 08:38:10 am
Why do they have less prisoners than we do then?

Less potential for criminality (wallonia is still in pretty rough shape, and Bruxelles have issues), better rehabilitation rate, better education than the south of the country (where criminality is much more serious).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on September 30, 2014, 09:39:48 am
Quote from: Phmcw on September 30, 2014, 09:32:04 am
Less potential for criminality (wallonia is still in pretty rough shape, and Bruxelles have issues), better rehabilitation rate, better education than the south of the country (where criminality is much more serious).

Quoted for emphasis. To me, it goes to show that being "tough on crime" is not the way to go.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on September 30, 2014, 09:44:39 am
I never said that. I just said that being lax isn't much better. Being just and promoting rehabilitation is good.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on September 30, 2014, 09:56:55 am
It's all a matter of scale: letting someone go with community service for thief is lax, but doing nothing is lax too. On the same way, life imprisonement for murder recidive is harsh as is the three strike law of America. In either case, one is still justice and efficient, while the other is neither.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 30, 2014, 10:55:13 am
The Belgian Justice system is quite broken. And if the person has psychological issues/ psychiatric issues, it can even be dystopian.
 
See, if the person is, due to psychological issues, judged to not have acted voluntarily (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense), he can, and for reasonably bad crimes, will be forcibly interned without trial, and for an indefinite time. Often, due to a shortage of places in the psychiatric institutions, such a person just ends up in a regular prison with minimal to no therapy. It's gotten so bad that some of these patients have requested euthanasia, as that is seemingly their only way out. (They might even get it, actually.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on September 30, 2014, 11:52:30 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on September 30, 2014, 10:55:13 am
The Belgian Justice system is quite broken. And if the person has psychological issues/ psychiatric issues, it can even be dystopian.
 
See, if the person is, due to psychological issues, judged to not have acted voluntarily (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense), he can, and for reasonably bad crimes, will be forcibly interned without trial, and for an indefinite time. Often, due to a shortage of places in the psychiatric institutions, such a person just ends up in a regular prison with minimal to no therapy. It's gotten so bad that some of these patients have requested euthanasia, as that is seemingly their only way out. (They might even get it, actually.)
I thought locking people in psychiatric institutions was a USSR-only shtick?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on September 30, 2014, 11:56:56 am
Which is why they put them in prison instead, natch.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 30, 2014, 12:00:18 pm
Quote from: Sergarr on September 30, 2014, 11:52:30 am
I thought locking people in psychiatric institutions was a USSR-only shtick?
No? From what I understand, similar things are... pretty common, insofar as it approaches "common". Crazy folks don't get treated particularly well at the best of times, never mind when legal issues are involved. And that's assuming they're crazy at all, and not just being put in an institute because someone didn't have the evidence to put them in jail but did have enough influence to convince a few doctors to say the right things.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 30, 2014, 12:01:37 pm
The difference being that the USSR was honest in it, and changed it's definition of schizophrenia to include disagreeing with the state as one of the main symptoms.

But no, forcibly interning crazy people is a thing that happens.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 30, 2014, 04:40:56 pm
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/g-trial-witnesses-central-cast-012054413.html

AIG massively screwed up and threw the whole world into essentially Hell. We gave AIG a bailout they made $22 Billion on. Not enough, it seems? AIG was "singled out" and picked on.... They should've gotten more and are suing the government for it...?

So we paid for the bailout they profited from and now we're going to pay for this farce of a trial. If the government is so big, bad, and out of control, perhaps it shouldn't contain the protestors who would like to voice their opinions against this?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on September 30, 2014, 04:52:06 pm
How can you sue for not getting a bailout? That's... phenomenally absurd.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 30, 2014, 04:57:46 pm
They did get a bailout, to the tune of around 180 freaking billion dollars, and ended up netting a 22b profit. Now the bastards want more.

I'll give 'em this much. Balls the size of Jupiter. Need to be taken out behind the shed and put down, but they're damn sure audacious.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: andrea on September 30, 2014, 04:58:31 pm
at a glance, it seems they are suing because they got much higher interest rates than everyone else  (14% vs 3-4%). That is a much more reasonable claim to make.
Not that it should make them eligible for anything, government didn't have a duty to bail out anyone and therefore could dictate whatever conditions it wanted, as far as I know. They accepted and profitted from the bailout as is.

However, if their claim is true, it might raise a question or 2 about who got the best deals. But the trial should answer them if answers aren't already available.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on September 30, 2014, 07:18:42 pm
This rub anyone else the wrong way?
http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/secret-service-chief-grilled-over-white-house-security-breach-n215341
"One of the persistent questions (...) why shots weren't fired?"
"Tremendous restraint isn't what we're looking for (...) overwhelming force should be the message"
Yes, because gunning down an unarmed man on the lawn of the whitehouse would be such a desirable headline. Totally.

This smells like grandstanding bullshit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 30, 2014, 07:25:46 pm
... can't tell because PoS website est. Transcript of some sort?

Though yes, that does sound like the only way they could be grandstanding more would be if they were shouting it while riding on top of an elephant, that is itself balancing on top of a giant spiked ball, with all of it being on fire.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on September 30, 2014, 07:33:08 pm
Ha, hand-written transcript that. From ~1:25 in the video.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 30, 2014, 07:35:24 pm
Basically, a guy jumped the fence on the white house lawn, in the front door, and around the first corner into the building, before an agent tackled him.  He was carrying a pocket knife.  People are outraged that anyone would be able to make it that far, and saying the guy should have been shot or had dogs released on him as soon as he jumped the fence.

Also, your standard "the next time this happens could be a planned and organized terrorist attack" bullshit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on September 30, 2014, 07:59:19 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 30, 2014, 07:35:24 pm
Basically, a guy jumped the fence on the white house lawn, in the front door, and around the first corner into the building, before an agent tackled him.  He was carrying a pocket knife.  People are outraged that anyone would be able to make it that far, and saying the guy should have been shot or had dogs released on him as soon as he jumped the fence.

Also, your standard "the next time this happens could be a planned and organized terrorist attack" bullshit.

Who is saying this? The way I see it, the situation couldn't have been handled better without the guy suddenly realizing the error of his ways and calling the guards himself.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 30, 2014, 08:19:13 pm
Quote from: Baffler on September 30, 2014, 07:59:19 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 30, 2014, 07:35:24 pm
Basically, a guy jumped the fence on the white house lawn, in the front door, and around the first corner into the building, before an agent tackled him.  He was carrying a pocket knife.  People are outraged that anyone would be able to make it that far, and saying the guy should have been shot or had dogs released on him as soon as he jumped the fence.

Also, your standard "the next time this happens could be a planned and organized terrorist attack" bullshit.

Who is saying this? The way I see it, the situation couldn't have been handled better without the guy suddenly realizing the error of his ways and calling the guards himself.

Umm... everyone in that video.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BurnedToast on September 30, 2014, 09:50:39 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 30, 2014, 07:35:24 pm
Basically, a guy jumped the fence on the white house lawn, in the front door, and around the first corner into the building, before an agent tackled him.  He was carrying a pocket knife.  People are outraged that anyone would be able to make it that far, and saying the guy should have been shot or had dogs released on him as soon as he jumped the fence.

Also, your standard "the next time this happens could be a planned and organized terrorist attack" bullshit.

...you don't see how this is a problem? Really?

How did they know he was only armed with a knife? He could have EASILY had a pistol or worse, a bomb.

He should not have made it that far, period. I'm not saying they should have sniped him off the fence as he was climbing it or something, but do you *REALLY* think it's perfectly fine that he managed to get over the fence, across the yard, into the building, and had time to wander a round a bit before an off duty agent noticed him and tackled him?

This is supposed to be one of the most secure buildings in the country, yet if he'd been intent on serious harm and less stupid, he could have done some real damage and apparently nobody gave a damn.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 30, 2014, 10:31:45 pm
I don't get the impression that he "wandered around a bit".  It sounded to me like he full-sprinted into the building and was probably inside for only a few seconds before getting tackled.  He only ran through the first room and then turned a corner into a hallway.

I'm generally against "kill everybody just to be safe" style protocols.  Everybody could something always.  Anyone who enters the White House could be bringing something dangerous with them, unless strip and cavity searches become mandatory for anyone to enter.  Personal opinion will always vary, but there is definitely a point where security makes life more miserable than the bad thing it's ostensibly preventing.

I don't think it's "perfectly fine" that it happened, but I also think that the reactions in the video to the event are ridiculous.  I do not like any notion that involves projection of overwhelming force, or fear-mongering about terrorists.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on October 01, 2014, 01:07:16 am
I'm in the "he shouldn't have gotten that far" camp, but not to the extremes in the video. Getting over the fence? Well, that's doable. Getting across the lawn to the front door? A little worrying, but maybe the guy's a fast sprinter and I wouldn't go so far as to order sniper teams to gun him down unless he was visibly packing heat.

Getting inside the White House? That should not have happened. Why weren't there guards posted outside the doors, ready to intercept anyone rushing the entrance? Or if there were guards, why didn't they react more quickly?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 01, 2014, 01:51:11 am
Or, you know, locks.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on October 01, 2014, 01:53:13 am
All I have to say on the matter is that the incident contributed to a greater than normal variation of muderization considerations.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on October 01, 2014, 01:56:57 am
Quote from: Sirus on October 01, 2014, 01:07:16 am
Getting inside the White House? That should not have happened. Why weren't there guards posted outside the doors, ready to intercept anyone rushing the entrance? Or if there were guards, why didn't they react more quickly?
If my extensive experience* means anything, it's probably because he dropped a coin on the ground or something.

*(Read: Playing Hitman)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BurnedToast on October 01, 2014, 02:27:36 am
I didn't watch whatever video you're talking about, so if the guys in it are acting particularly crazy and that's who you were talking about then I misunderstood and I apologize. I thought you were suggesting that anyone who thought this was a big deal at all was overreacting.

Also I suppose "wandered around" is....not the best choice of words since he probably was running. He did however manage to make it from the north portico, through a hallway, and all the way to the southern end of the green room (map here: http://firstladyblog.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f1803698970b0192aa844610970d-320wi) so it's not like they stopped him right inside the place, he basically ran across the whole bottom floor (including past the stairs that lead up to the president's residence.

I also don't think they should just gun everyone down, but there's a huge difference between "kill everyone" and "let some crazy guy charge into the white house". We shouldn't give in to fear mongering, but on the other hand.... this was pretty seriously bad.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: andrea on October 01, 2014, 07:05:57 am
it does highlight some security holes. Nobody should make it  that far.

But I find it horrific that for some people the first thought is that those holes should be packed full of gunshots and murder. Is the situation so bad that US isn't able to keep people away from a place without outright killing them?  ( most likely, not)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on October 01, 2014, 09:37:09 am
Yeah, holy shit, "Guards handle situation with the appropriate level of force, too slowly" should not be met with "Should've used more violence, guys". You kinda want to be able to trust the Secret Service with being capable of quickly appraising a situation to determine the appropriate level of force to use; we expect that much out of random street cops, I think we can expect it from these guys. The problem here was speed, that's it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on October 01, 2014, 10:38:01 am
The secret service guys are just jealous of Ferguson police.

They, too, want to kill people with impunity!

I wonder, if that escalation of nation-wide violence continues, how long it will take until the revolution breaks out?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 01, 2014, 11:48:07 am
Quote from: BurnedToast on October 01, 2014, 02:27:36 am
Also I suppose "wandered around" is....not the best choice of words since he probably was running. He did however manage to make it from the north portico, through a hallway, and all the way to the southern end of the green room (map here: http://firstladyblog.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f1803698970b0192aa844610970d-320wi) so it's not like they stopped him right inside the place, he basically ran across the whole bottom floor (including past the stairs that lead up to the president's residence.

That's more ground covered than what was described by the video link.  I also agree that it's strange guards aren't posted at the door.  That's... basically the hallmark of building security anywhere since the beginning of time.

Regardless, I was just chiming in on the overreactions. 

Quote from: BurnedToast on October 01, 2014, 02:27:36 am
I didn't watch whatever video you're talking about, so if the guys in it are acting particularly crazy and that's who you were talking about then I misunderstood and I apologize. I thought you were suggesting that anyone who thought this was a big deal at all was overreacting.

The reporter said people were wondering why the guy wasn't shot or had dogs released on him.  Then there were clips from a congressional hearing, where one congressman said the goal of the secret service should be to project an image of overwhelming force, and another one saying "next time it happens could be a terrorist attack!!"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on October 01, 2014, 12:24:42 pm
Yeah, but congressional hearings are more about grandstanding and rabble-rousing than actual... you know, anything practical.

Replace "Congressional hearing" with "any open-to-the-public government action". :v
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on October 01, 2014, 12:26:20 pm
most actions of the government should be open to the public

question remains if the public will give a fuck

/me blows soap bubble

they don't seem to here
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on October 01, 2014, 12:31:11 pm
Ah, yeah, I agree. Not quite what I meant. I mean "open to the public" as in reporters and tv crews and it's all televised and it's a big show, versus "open to the public" as in the records are there and if you're curious you can come in and watch.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that as it becomes more and more of a media spectacle/circus, the chance of anything getting done approaches nil.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2014, 12:46:41 pm
Facebook recently deleted the accounts of a bunch of LGBT people and drag queens, supposedly because they weren't using their real name. They have since reversed this, said it was an accident, apologized, (http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/10/facebook-apologizes-to-drag-performers-lgbt-community-over-real-names-flap/) and have clarified that the policy means the name you go by, not your legal name.

The coverage of this is making me angry though. It's all focusing in a couple of drag queens with especially ridiculous names, when the drag queens are the least important group affected here. I mean, you should be able to make a Facebook account for your drag persona under your stage name. But your ability to do that is not as important as a trans person trying to use Facebook as their preferred gender that they live as. But your article gets a lot more hits if you make it about Lil Ms. Hot Mess so those kids can just settle for being "and some other people".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on October 03, 2014, 03:49:30 pm
I still don't understand why people need to have an "excuse" for not using their real name on a Facebook. Was there really an epidemic (with an actual consequence) of people using names other than their legal? Like, my Facebook name isn't my legal name...

(Yes I am aware of impersonation, but that's... not the same thing...?)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on October 03, 2014, 11:22:40 pm
because facebook makes mad cashdolla selling your data, so it makes giving them wrong data verboten

it's that simple
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 05, 2014, 04:29:15 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on October 03, 2014, 11:22:40 pm
because facebook makes mad cashdolla selling your data, so it makes giving them wrong data verboten

it's that simple
Yep. Honestly the LGBT slant on this issue takes backseat to the fact that Facebook itself needs to die for its unethical ways.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 05, 2014, 11:08:30 am
No, that's a separate conversation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 05, 2014, 09:21:17 pm
Colorado students walk out to protest conservative ‘censorship’ of AP history (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/colorado-students-walk-out-to-protest-conservative-censorship-of-ap-history/)

A bit old now, but I've had a hellishly busy last couple weeks.  Haven't been able to keep up with my web reading.

Interestingly, the only civil disobedience I remember learning about in school was the women's suffrage and civil rights movements.  Absolutely nothing about labor.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on October 05, 2014, 10:52:58 pm
Wow. "Well, it might be true, but it doesn't send the message I want."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on October 06, 2014, 09:00:32 am
That link has a wealth of cute little RAGE-inducing quotes.

Quote
The right-leaning board-members said they believe history teachers should teach nationalism, respect for authority and reverence for free markets. They should avoid teaching any historical events or acts that promote “civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.”

Quote
While the narrative may be “historically true,” he argues, “progressives are going to be the heroes in this narrative.”
“What we have here is a repetition of a theme: There’s another problem, the progressives come to the rescue, and who are the villains?” he said. “Well, American companies are the villains, of course.”

I'm glad they're protesting, I'd join them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on October 06, 2014, 09:09:23 am
And corporations. The republican party at large officially favors two of those three.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on October 06, 2014, 11:58:58 am
Funny, I thought they favoured all three...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on October 06, 2014, 12:26:06 pm
Quote
Retired New Jersey history teacher Larry S. Krieger told Newsweek, “As I read through the document, I saw a consistently negative view of American history that highlights oppressors and exploiters.”
Hahaha, no shit, it's almost like American history is pretty damn negative and consists of a great deal of oppressors and exploiters.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on October 06, 2014, 05:39:39 pm
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on October 06, 2014, 09:00:32 am
Quote
reverence for free markets.
Creepy wording there. Also... kind of interesting? I can't imagine that trying to force children to like free market systems by getting to them early is at all in line with free market ideals.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on October 06, 2014, 05:41:55 pm
"Free Market", in this case, means "Anything that favors Big Business." So it's perfectly in line.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 06, 2014, 06:00:57 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on October 05, 2014, 11:08:30 am
No, that's a separate conversation.
Two are one and the same, dividing them only serves to force people into arguing for their own reduction into a commodity as a good thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on October 08, 2014, 12:33:41 am
Quote from: Graknorke on October 06, 2014, 05:39:39 pm
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on October 06, 2014, 09:00:32 am
Quote
reverence for free markets.
Creepy wording there. Also... kind of interesting? I can't imagine that trying to force children to like free market systems by getting to them early is at all in line with free market ideals.
Gotta praise the Dollar - the True God of US!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on November 09, 2014, 11:33:00 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on October 06, 2014, 05:39:39 pm
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on October 06, 2014, 09:00:32 am
Quote
reverence for free markets.
Creepy wording there. Also... kind of interesting? I can't imagine that trying to force children to like free market systems by getting to them early is at all in line with free market ideals.
You would also think that donating piles of Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" to schools so that they will make kids read it is against her ideals, but... well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on November 09, 2014, 11:35:10 pm
Let's talk about abortion :D (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/opinion/pregnant-and-no-civil-rights.html?_r=0)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on November 10, 2014, 12:08:02 am
Quote from: Vector on November 09, 2014, 11:35:10 pm
Let's talk about abortion :D (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/opinion/pregnant-and-no-civil-rights.html?_r=0)
Jeezus. I never even heard of stuff like the cases in the article before now :<
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on November 10, 2014, 12:31:07 am
Quote from: Sirus on November 10, 2014, 12:08:02 am
Quote from: Vector on November 09, 2014, 11:35:10 pm
Let's talk about abortion :D (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/opinion/pregnant-and-no-civil-rights.html?_r=0)
Jeezus. I never even heard of stuff like the cases in the article before now :<

while i at this point am able to say that it's just republicans doing republican things

if not for a certain veto on president level i bet they'd be passing a law requiring all women to be chained up in a sort of kitchen under threat of summary execution

thanks notbama
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on November 10, 2014, 06:55:49 am
If you think that's bad check this: Abortions in El Salvador (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/twelve-facts-about-abortion-ban-el-salvador-2014-09-25)

To quote:
Quote
Women who have had miscarriages have been charged with aggravated homicide, a charge which can bring a sentence of up to 50 years in prison.
[...]
El Salvador banned abortion in all circumstances in 1998.
[...]
El Salvador has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Latin America. According to the National Family Health Survey, more than one-fifth (23 per cent) of all teenagers aged between 15 and 19 in El Salvador have been pregnant at least once. Nearly half of them were under 18 and didn’t intend to get pregnant.
[...]
Last year the National Civil Police registered 1,346 rapes of women and girls. Nearly two-thirds were aged under 15 or classified as “mentally incapacitated” and unable to give informed consent either because they were rendered unconscious or because of their mental health.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on November 10, 2014, 08:49:12 am
The topic is very important but the article isn't very good.


There are two different kind of cases here, that have very few thinggs in common with each other, and the issues aren't as clear cut as the journalist make the be.


The first is simply about criminalising abortion and violently enforcing that.


The second is about the right to choose your medical treatement if you are sane. America allow you not to make cruxial vaccines to your kids but will force you to have a C section, apparently.
I must say I'm a bit uneasy with this topic : making the feutus take unecessary risks that late is extremely close to putting a third party in danger. Bodily autonomy trump all, though. One cannot force you to give blood or bone marrow, for instance, even if that mean the death of someone else.


About the first case it was overturned (https://www.nymc.edu/Clubs/quill_and_scope/volume2/murphy.pdf) , after the deed sadly. It is important to note that the journalist choose not to give the full picture : the mother didn't die from the c-section but from cancer, whom she was dying from and had no chances to recover. The very partial coverage of this case irk me, to say the least, and make me question the coverage of the other cases regardless of the fact that I support his cause. 

It would also be nice if he said which cases he's talking about.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 10, 2014, 09:10:03 am
Yeah, while I think woman should have the right to choose whether or not to have a baby, once they choose to do so, I don't think it's unreasonable to enforce steps to protect the baby. Just like the state can infringe on your right to protect your kids once they're born.

However, I think this position is only morally defensible if the woman in question had a choice in the first place, aka if abortion and birth control are readily accessible.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on November 10, 2014, 09:11:22 am
Actually, even in Belgium, you can't as long as you're deemed responsible for your actions. I made a quick google check.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 10, 2014, 09:15:14 am
You mean "You can't force someone to takes steps?"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on November 10, 2014, 09:22:29 am
Nope. Well at least you cannot force anyone who is able to claim legal responsability for his own actions to undergo any kind of medical intervention without their consent. It's absolute.


However I don't know if you cannot press charges if their decision of not getting the intervention result in preventable damages for the child if he lives.

Edit : added a clarification.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on November 10, 2014, 01:14:47 pm
Quote from: Sheb on November 10, 2014, 09:10:03 am
Yeah, while I think woman should have the right to choose whether or not to have a baby, once they choose to do so, I don't think it's unreasonable to enforce steps to protect the baby. Just like the state can infringe on your right to protect your kids once they're born.

However, I think this position is only morally defensible if the woman in question had a choice in the first place, aka if abortion and birth control are readily accessible.

Hm, it's all about how 'making a decision' is recorded, and when it takes place.
If it's early as hell, you can bet your ass local authorities & parents will try to strong-arm their pregnant teens into 'deciding' immediately. And that's -fucked-.
And opening any sort of dialogue on -when- this sort of 'physical body sharing' begins is risky as hell because you know republicans are going to push for the most unreasonably early time they can.

But, there are cases where it's a really gray moral issue. Let's see..
The second case, in Iowa, did the mother state she had, in fact, thrown herself down the stairs? Did she intend to do so again? How far along was she?
In the Florida case, if she was 8 months pregnant (and the hospital knew what it was fucking doing) and she tried to leave during an obvious fetal medical emergency, should she be allowed to willfully endanger her fully-developed child?
And the sheriff that kidnapped the woman and took her to the hospital where she forcibly underwent a Cesarian- why did he do this? Was she binging on alcohol & cocaine while 9 months pregnant?

IMO I think a fetus ought to be treated as a human being at a certain point. About the same point where legal abortions stop in fact- about when the kid's brain starts truly functioning, 22-26 weeks into the pregnancy or just before the third trimester.
Here's some stuff:
http://www.svss-uspda.ch/pdf/brain_waves.pdf
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Pregnancy_timeline.png

But, just how the law handles the body-sharing and what a mother can or cannot do- delaying a cesarian, water-births, sky-diving- is so incredibly sensitive we might be better served by not addressing it at all at this time.
It would need mature law-makers to work on a case-by-case basis & create a rather complicated legal code- which mothers-to-be are able to understand.
And we just don't have those mature law-makers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on November 10, 2014, 01:27:09 pm
Eh, I'm afraid that a woman's bodily autonomy trumps all else. And besides, if you really are concerned about fetuses, the best way to save them isn't to outlaw abortion, it's to mandate contraception unless the couple has stated intent to have a child. Now of course, I wouldn't support that either, but it bears mentioning.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on November 10, 2014, 01:38:02 pm
I think that, if you're going to be making the claim that you're doing this out of respect for human rights that you're ascribing to the unborn child, the starting point for figuring out what's a "reasonable" thing to be able to force a woman to do to protect an unborn infant should still start from the perspective of her rights. Certainly, there should be no legal punishment for simply failing to bring a pregnancy to term, nor should the government have the power to force a medical procedure on one person to save the life of another. Both of these are actual examples from the article - as it stands, all I see is an excuse to impose on women a view of how things "ought" to be that can't be backed up by aught but personal opinion.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 10, 2014, 01:52:01 pm
Quote from: Angle on November 10, 2014, 01:27:09 pm
Eh, I'm afraid that a woman's bodily autonomy trumps all else. And besides, if you really are concerned about fetuses, the best way to save them isn't to outlaw abortion, it's to mandate contraception unless the couple has stated intent to have a child. Now of course, I wouldn't support that either, but it bears mentioning.
And don't forget adoption too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on November 10, 2014, 01:54:42 pm
You cannot force a medical operation, but you can sentence a crime. Drinking heavily while pregnant should be an offence, for instance. And I do think that refusing treatement could be one too, in some cases, as long as the prescribed treatement wouldn't have treathened the mother's life or physical integrity.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 10, 2014, 02:38:38 pm
Quote from: Angle on November 10, 2014, 01:27:09 pm
a woman's bodily autonomy trumps
Why is bodily autonomy such a big deal? Getting rid of it as an absolute would have many beneficial side-effects - for example, it would allow us to introduce mandatory blood 'donations' or mandatory testing (not the actual procedure!) to become a bone marrow donor.
Why is the body fundamentally different from the rest of the stuff we have power over? Why shouldn't bodily autonomy be like privacy - there''s a right to it, but in certain circumstances the right can be overruled?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 10, 2014, 02:43:29 pm
As ones own body could be the only thing one could be said to truly own. As such, why should someone be expected to compromise this?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on November 10, 2014, 03:09:28 pm
Well, how far does the mother's bodily autonomy extend? Does the fetus have no bodily rights until it is born & the umbilical cord severed?
Without bodily rights, does that mean a mother can terminate the child at any time, up to and after birth but before the umbilical is cut/the after-birth is expelled?

When does the child gain personhood/bodily rights, and on what is this based?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on November 10, 2014, 03:34:01 pm
Personally, I view the mother as more important because she's a fully developed person while the baby can't really do anything or take care of itself for at least 5-7 years.

That is, between the two of them, the baby is dependent on the mother but the mother is not dependent on the baby.

Not entirely sure what that means in terms of abortion, I don't think killing a born kid because the mum doesn't want it any more is good, and I think that extends backwards to viable fetuses, at that point adoption to a known loving home is preferable (this is where gay adoption comes in especially), but if it's a choice between the mums life and the fetus/baby/child, I'm likeliest to choose the mum in almost all circumstances. And I don't agree with the idea of arresting the mum or of forcing her into medical procedures (especially ones that can kill her) to get the child out.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 10, 2014, 03:37:38 pm
Quote from: greatorder on November 10, 2014, 02:58:41 pm
Helgo, I'm kinda confused, why would you force a person to have testing for bone marrow but NOT force them to have the surgery? Seems rather unnecessary, doesn't it? If you're not gonna donate, just testing it's gonna wast everyone's time.
It forces people past their lazyness. I never got tested for bone marrow donation, and neither have millions of people - and it's just a simple swab test. Lots of these would do the actual transplant if they were told they were needed.
But sure, why not mandate the transplantation operation itself. It's quite a bit more invasive, but the basic principle still holds.

Descan, don't you get into all kinds of trouble applying the same reasoning to old and disabled people?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Redzephyr01 on November 10, 2014, 03:44:37 pm
People have the right to make choices about their own bodies.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on November 10, 2014, 03:45:30 pm
Helgo, well, old & disabled don't share their body with their care-provider.
What's trickier is how to handle handicapped people if personhood is based on functional brain activity.

Descan, but do the mother's bodily rights trump her infant's life?
If the mother is repeatedly throwing herself down stairs at 40 weeks preggers, should she be arrested?
If she's taken an extreme dose of drugs or alcohol, should she be charged with attempted/actual murder? Should they perform a medical intervention to save the baby's life (if it has one) against her will? Or let the drugs run their course, let the baby be killed, and arrest/charge her afterward?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 10, 2014, 04:00:52 pm
Quote from: Redzephyr01 on November 10, 2014, 03:44:37 pm
People have the right to make choices about their own bodies.
But where should that right stop? That's the core of the question I'm asking.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on November 10, 2014, 05:15:16 pm
If a fetus is a (legal) person than the mother (arguably) has a "Duty to rescue" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue). Note that in most modern jurisdiction rescuers need not endanger themselves to protect others, even if they have a duty to rescue otherwise.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 10, 2014, 05:25:02 pm
Yeah, as I said, it's a complicated issue, even more so when you get into the gritty detail of individual cases.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on November 10, 2014, 05:59:42 pm
I hate to interrupt this discussion but,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/10/obama-to-the-fcc-adopt-the-strongest-possible-rules-on-net-neutrality-including-title-ii/
:D
Do you guys think the FCC will follow his advice?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on November 10, 2014, 06:27:07 pm
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on November 10, 2014, 05:59:42 pm
Do you guys think the FCC will follow his advice?
No.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on November 10, 2014, 06:41:30 pm
No, I don't think that the Internet will be regulated as a utility. Sadly.

Our arguments about abortion more closely reflect real-world possibilities than that :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on November 10, 2014, 09:04:02 pm
I don't think it's really fair to blame our politicians. I'd blame the people who use their economic power to debase our government, or the general populace, who refuse to give a fuck.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on November 10, 2014, 09:14:16 pm
/me sweeps Sweden's last 20 years in under the rug.

You saw nothing!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on November 11, 2014, 12:46:36 am
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on November 10, 2014, 05:59:42 pm
I hate to interrupt this discussion but,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/10/obama-to-the-fcc-adopt-the-strongest-possible-rules-on-net-neutrality-including-title-ii/
:D
Do you guys think the FCC will follow his advice?
Not if Republicans have anything to say about it.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-net-neutrality-is-obamacare-for-the-internet-2014-11
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 11, 2014, 03:03:59 am
Remember, in the US corporations are people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on November 11, 2014, 03:26:42 am
the solution to that would be to make sure that connections incoming and outgoing from the us can have their speed easily measured in bauds until morale improves
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on November 11, 2014, 08:36:27 am
Quote from: Angle on November 10, 2014, 09:04:02 pm
I don't think it's really fair to blame our politicians. I'd blame the people who use their economic power to debase our government, or the general populace, who refuse to give a fuck.


Could it be because the American left isn't up for the challenge? I cannot say I'm too impressed with neither the "elite" of the Democrat party nor with the internet activist I've seen.


I deeply respect Stallman but that's about it, and I think that "privilege theory" is making more harm than good and in particular is driving the working class out of your left.
Going back to Marxist thinking and social democracy would do a lot of good, but it doesn't seems to appeal to the American blogospere a lot.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on November 11, 2014, 08:39:29 am
Quote from: Phmcw on November 11, 2014, 08:36:27 am
Could it be because the American left isn't up for the challenge?

how can something be up for challenges if it doesn't even exist
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 11, 2014, 09:05:50 am
Quote from: Phmcw on November 11, 2014, 08:36:27 am
Could it be because the American left isn't up for the challenge? I cannot say I'm too impressed with neither the "elite" of the Democrat party nor with the internet activist I've seen.

Do you rate all political parties on the quality of their associated internet activists?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 11, 2014, 09:16:14 am
Well, he's Belgian, so he hasn't much opportunity to talk to real-life Democrats activists.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 11, 2014, 10:25:30 am
Personally, I think the American left is having such a bad time because it hasn't fully figured out what it believes. There's something amorphous, present but not fully codified, that makes American leftists.

We don't need Marxism. It's contributions to leftist thought are by now infantile and demonstrably not useful. No Orthodox Marxists have been able to carry out their ideals. If you work under Marxist theory you have to eventually disseminate either to reformism or vanguardism.

Social Democracy is far more useful, but again, it's reformist. I'm fairly friendly towards reformism, but that still has low efficacy. Even Glorious Sweden, home of social democracy's victory party, is running into issues with less-than-rational policy making causing right wing blacklash and horror stories like Feminist Initiative (Ban urinals for being patriarchal? Force children to use toys intended for the other gender? They're literally one step away from otherkin advocacy.).

So yeah. I think new evolutions in leftist thought are necessary, ones free of the old baggage. I've had a lot of thoughts on the matter, I'll probably write out some of it later today.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 11, 2014, 11:11:36 am
Quote from: Phmcw on November 11, 2014, 08:36:27 am
Going back to Marxist thinking and social democracy
How can you back to two contradictory things at the same time?

MSH, social democracy is indeed reformist, but it is the answer to America's woes. What you see as bad in Sweden is not a product of social democracy but of Swedish leftists (leftists in the European sense!) having too much influence. If you want to see social democracy at its best, look at Germany, and in particular at Schmidt, Schröder, and Merkel. (Yes, she's a CDU member, but she's a social democrat in everything she does.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 11, 2014, 11:20:27 am
My political familiarity of Germany is limited, but I think you can see why I'm going to be very weary of anything that describes itself as Christian and conservative. You've even got a tea party analogue in the form of Bavaria. Christian democracy does not equal social democracy. I mean, what the hell is SDP if CDU are social democrats? For that matter, what is Die Linke if SDP are actually the radical left?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 11, 2014, 11:30:16 am
Dude, the SPD are the social democrats allright. The CDU is what we call bürgerlich - think Republicans in the fifties. I was kinda making a joke about Merkel, but it's commonly agreed that she pulled the CDU way to the left, crushing the SPD in the process. Die Linke is split between the ex-GDR and the West: In the East, they're basically social democrats with a bit of leftist veneer, while in the West they're complete nutjobs. It's a shame they weren't crowded out by the SPD in the East in the 1990's.
Calling the CSU our tea party is wildly inaccurate, and calling Bavaria that is just plain weird. Bavaria may be closest to Texas: They have a strong regional identity, a conservative bend, a thing for populism, the occasional bout of separatism, and a disproportionally large say in federal matters. The CSU is the ruling party of Bavaria - they've been in power ever since the Bundesrepublik was founded, and their leaders are quite frequently compared to monarchs. They occasionally do stupid stuff and are stubborn enough to get their way in Berlin quite frequently, but they're certainly not abortion-banning, social-safety-net cutting Jesus freaks with an assault rifle boner.
BTW, if you want religious nuts, you need to go a bit further west - they're quite large in Baden-Württemberg. But politically they're unimportant.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 11, 2014, 11:31:44 am
Well, many Germans would tell you that the SPD is the CDU dressed in red. :p Seriously, they really don't differ that much on policy.

Also, I really dislike Schröder, but that's mostly for ending up on Gazprom's payroll, I don't remember much of his policies.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 11, 2014, 11:38:15 am
Reform of the labor market, mostly - Hartz 4 was his idea, and many people hate him for that. His policies are the reason Merkel is so popular, ironically :D
And he raised the retirement age from 65 to 67, which many hate as well. He turned the Sick Man of Europe (I actually remember that term from my childhood) into the economic powerhouse Germany is today by these measures!
Also he got us into the wars on the Balkan, which many people disapprove of as well. Oh, and he kept us out of Iraq, but got us into Afghanistan!

I hold all these achievements to be positive, mind you, but that should show why he's... controversial.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 11, 2014, 11:39:50 am
My comparison of Republicans-Tea Party to CDU-CSU is just relative, not calling them the same thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 11, 2014, 11:43:05 am
They do work differently though. The tea party doesn't have any regionalism, and the CSU is not whipping the entire CDU into adaping its positions. Plus the CSU is not much more reactionary than the CDU, it's just more visible. And the CSU is part of the establishment!

If you want to find a tea party equivalent in Germany, look at the less sane parts of Die Linke.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 11, 2014, 11:45:58 am
Yeah, but lefty nutjobs are so much more adorable than righty nutjobs.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 11, 2014, 11:48:41 am
Either way, my primary point is that Germany's peace between Christian and Social democrats as the political bedrock isn't particularly useful for dealing with things in America, which you have rightfully said is so different it can't be related. Politics are an endless struggle, and that won't change.

Further, I don't believe social democracy will ever be the order of the day in the US. New England's left is there sometimes, but by and large it is rejected.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on November 11, 2014, 11:53:27 am
... ever? I was under the impression the states were already a (kinda' shitty) social democracy, and heading further towards europe's example with successive generations.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: aenri on November 11, 2014, 11:57:32 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on November 11, 2014, 03:03:59 am
Remember, in the US corporations are people.

So they are everywhere else (except for communist countries) and I don't really see how could it be another way.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 11, 2014, 11:59:53 am
Quote from: Frumple on November 11, 2014, 11:53:27 am
... ever? I was under the impression the states were already a (kinda' shitty) social democracy, and heading further towards europe's example with successive generations.
Only by the most wide ranging criteria, which would encompass the vast majority of nations. Also, Europe's example is newer than people would like to believe. It wasn't all that long ago that the US was trending Great Society and Europe was operating under "our way or communism".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on November 11, 2014, 02:37:30 pm
Quote from: aenri on November 11, 2014, 11:57:32 am
Quote from: 10ebbor10 on November 11, 2014, 03:03:59 am
Remember, in the US corporations are people.

So they are everywhere else (except for communist countries) and I don't really see how could it be another way.
There's a difference between "This thing is functionally a person, in that it has the legal ability to make contracts, assume risks, pay taxes, and otherwise function as an economic entity" and "This thing is functionally a person, in that it has civil rights like freedom of speech, the ability to vote, a right to privacy, and whatever other tools are accorded to political entities". Conflating the two is dangerous stuff.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 11, 2014, 06:28:16 pm
It's the difference between natural and juridical persons basically.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Tack on November 11, 2014, 09:07:51 pm
There's a question. If a caesarian is universally more likely to result in a healthy birth because of whatever complications - is it right to force the pregnant woman to undergo a caesarian (Assuming here that she wants herself and the baby to survive, but for whatever reason doesn't like the idea of surgery).
Vaccinations have been brought up, with similar theories.

My personal opinion:
"Suspending the rights of the stupid" seems to be something which would quickly be turned against minorities, and probably give some very bad doctors far too much power.
But otherwise, I'd like to consider it as a pipe dream. It would be nice, but nobody could or should ever do it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 11, 2014, 09:17:45 pm
Vaccinations are different from almost every other health issue due to the fact that refusing to get one puts the whole of society in danger, not just you.  Caesarians should be treated like every other medical procedure, you cannot put the rights of an unborn child ahead of those of a fully grown adult woman.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on November 11, 2014, 10:22:21 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on November 11, 2014, 09:17:45 pm
...you cannot put the rights of an unborn child ahead of those of a fully grown adult woman.
Fucking this. You can, at best, put them at an equal level, but there's a disturbing trend to do otherwise when people pretend to talk about nuance. General policy when you're not sure one way or the other is not to implement law to force (or forbid) a single person to have a medical procedure for the sake of another single person.

There are exceptions, like vaccinations, or water (or salt) fluoridation. Those are situations where the expected harm is so low, and the net gain for society if implemented universally is so high, that there's hardly a moral question in the first place. Likewise, ownership of biological weapons by private citizens has such an obviously high expected harm and low gain for society, so there's no real moral question in banning it. But when things get iffy, you generally err on the side of letting people make their own decisions.

So "it's a difficult question" is a really shitty reason for robbing women of their rights. You don't do that sort of thing when you're not sure.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on November 12, 2014, 12:22:57 am
I don't really understand why everyone seems to think that giving birth and undergoing C-sections really aren't a big deal. "What if a C-Section could help the baby a lot? We could make the mom do surgery!"

Yeah, and having a better list of organ donors would be great, but nobody's forcing you to routinely give up one of your kidneys because "your relative could really use it."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 12, 2014, 01:12:10 am
What Bauglir said, I can see the moral arguments for taking away some rights (like the right to buy alcohol) from a pregnant woman given being pregnant was a choice she made in the first place, aka abortion and birth control are available and free. But forced surgery? Come on.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on November 12, 2014, 01:41:58 am
Ok, so in the case of an OD'ing mother, we are of the opinion the State & local health care providers should stand by and hope for the best.

What about laws regarding harmful behavior?
Should the mother be held accountable for attempted/actual murder in the above case?

What about a woman deliberately throwing herself down the stairs? Arrested? Charged? (in all cases, we're assuming the most extreme case of the woman being full-term)

And then 'risky' behavior- should skydiving mommas be illegal? If not, could she be held liable for manslaughter if the child is lost in a mishap resulting directly from the 'risky' behavior?



Hm, howabout a shit sandwich.
Say a mother just got diagnosed with aggressive cancer at 22 weeks pregnant, (the earliest reasonable fetal personhood). Lets say she's had a dozen kids already, isn't particularly enamored by the most recent addition, and wants to get surgery for the cancer & begin aggressive chemotherapy immediately, child be damned.
Let's also say she's against pre-term labor induction & c-section, for the sake of making a rather graceless-but-convenient hypothetical.
Can she get the full dose? Is she responsible for injury to the child, and in taking full doses committing a crime? Are the doctors liable for enabling it?
Should she be limited by law to low-doses or of only 'safe' types of chemo-treatment? (potentially sacrificing her health for that of the babe) Are the doctors liable for withholding treatment?


-edit
Ooh, in the case of the drugged-up mom & impending damage to the fetus: if not surgery, what about other non-voluntary/forced treatments? Say a Narcan injection, or somehow force-feeding a self-poisoned lady activated charcoal?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 12, 2014, 02:03:45 am
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on November 12, 2014, 01:41:58 am
Ok, so in the case of an OD'ing mother, we are of the opinion the State & local health care providers should stand by and hope for the best.
[...]
What about a woman deliberately throwing herself down the stairs? Arrested? Charged? (in all cases, we're assuming the most extreme case of the woman being full-term)
Are you talking about someone trying to induce abortion themselves?  This shouldn't happen if you give them access to medical abortion facilities.  In any case it sounds like the best response to both of these situations would be psychological treatment rather than slapping them with absurd murder charges.
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on November 12, 2014, 01:41:58 am
And then 'risky' behavior- should skydiving mommas be illegal? If not, could she be held liable for manslaughter if the child is lost in a mishap resulting directly from the 'risky' behavior?
It's up to the company involved to decide whether what they're doing is dangerous to pregnant women (or anyone else with a medical condition).  If it is then they should refuse to let pregnant women participate.  If they let pregnant women participate in spite of an elevated risk to them they should be charged with failing to protect the safety of their clients.

If it's a case of a woman tricking the company then there should maybe be some legal consequence (probably a civil case for damages to their business) but a manslaughter charge would be ridiculous, even if you completely believe in fetal personhood this action would not qualify at all.
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on November 12, 2014, 01:41:58 am
Hm, howabout a shit sandwich.
Say a mother just got diagnosed with aggressive cancer at 22 weeks pregnant, (the earliest reasonable fetal personhood). Lets say she's had a dozen kids already, isn't particularly enamored by the most recent addition, and wants to get surgery for the cancer & begin aggressive chemotherapy immediately, child be damned.
Let's also say she's against pre-term labor induction & c-section, for the sake of making a rather graceless-but-convenient hypothetical.
Can she get the full dose? Is she responsible for injury to the child, and in taking full doses committing a crime? Are the doctors liable for enabling it?
Should she be limited by law to low-doses or of only 'safe' types of chemo-treatment? (potentially sacrificing her health for that of the babe) Are the doctors liable for withholding treatment?
This is actually really easy: women have the right to decide what happens to their bodies (like all human beings), so the answers are yes, no, nonsense question, no, yes if they do respectively.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on November 12, 2014, 02:07:45 am
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on November 12, 2014, 01:41:58 am
Ooh, in the case of the drugged-up mom & impending damage to the fetus: if not surgery, what about other non-voluntary/forced treatments? Say a Narcan injection, or somehow force-feeding a self-poisoned lady activated charcoal?

the fuck is this "ooh?" I am enjoying this a lot less than you seem to be.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on November 12, 2014, 02:11:49 am
Quote from: Vector on November 12, 2014, 02:07:45 am
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on November 12, 2014, 01:41:58 am
Ooh, in the case of the drugged-up mom & impending damage to the fetus: if not surgery, what about other non-voluntary/forced treatments? Say a Narcan injection, or somehow force-feeding a self-poisoned lady activated charcoal?

the fuck is this "ooh?" I am enjoying this a lot less than you seem to be.

shit you're the one who brought something that's got nothing left to discuss in it and expected it to be discussed

don't blame the guy who's trying to deliver anything i mean it's pretty obvious he's pulling extremes out of his ass
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on November 12, 2014, 02:15:01 am
Well no, tack is actually the person who brought on the latest bought of discussion, not vector.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 12, 2014, 02:21:19 am
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on November 12, 2014, 01:41:58 am
Ooh, in the case of the drugged-up mom & impending damage to the fetus: if not surgery, what about other non-voluntary/forced treatments? Say a Narcan injection, or somehow force-feeding a self-poisoned lady activated charcoal?
No.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on November 12, 2014, 02:30:52 am
Vector, (and lsp? not sure if you're being snide with the 'ass-pulling'), if talking about this kind of thing affects you adversely, you're not forced to read. I can spoiler more sensitive content if you'd like.
But these kinds of extreme cases, while exceedingly rare, do happen in real life, and it's these kinds of cases that break codified law. The minute technical possibilities are what's important when you're trying to draft this kinda stuff.

@Leafsnail
If the fetus does gain personhood while in the womb though, why should the law see attempted feticide any different from attempted infanticide?

Hm, what about in cases where the woman owns her own aircraft?

So where does her body end and the fetus' begin? Does the fetus own their body when they gain personhood? If yes, why shouldn't taking harmful drugs that can cross the placental barrier constitute a criminal action by the mother? If no,
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on November 12, 2014, 02:33:19 am
In a case where I own an aircraft... what? They can force me to take charcoal? LOL
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 12, 2014, 03:02:50 am
Quote from: Vector on November 12, 2014, 02:33:19 am
In a case where I own an aircraft... what? They can force me to take charcoal? LOL
Way to avoid the issue, Vec.

Core problem: A child right before birth is no different from a child right after birth, so endangering a viable child must be on the same moral and juristic level as endangering an infant, i.e. a fully grown person - because you don't want to go the Peter Singer "Infanticide is totally moral" route.
I don't see what's wrong with Grizzly's examples, even if they're a bit forced: The choice between mother and late-term (nobody's talking about the first three months here) child is the same as between any other two people, with the added 'Matroshka' difficulty. But engaging in unnecessarily risky behaviour and killing the child in the process should certainly count as negligent manslaughter or whatever the English term is.
How about this as a rough guide:
1-3 months: We're certain this is not a person. Abortions etc. are fine.
3-6 months: We don't really know if it's a person, so we'll err on the side of caution. No abortions, but the fetus isn't counted as a whole person when pitted against the mother.
6-9 months: It's a person now, and thus has equal rights to the mother. When having to choose between mother and child, it's probably still sensible to give slightly more weight to the mother's well-being.
Do note that I know next to nothing about the finer details of gestation, so the exact times (especially regarding the last trimester) could be off. There's still some points left: What about alcohol during the first trimester? There isn't a person yet who can be harmed, but there will be in the future, unless an abortion takes place. There's probably analogous situations for which there's already precedent, though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 12, 2014, 03:14:33 am
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on November 12, 2014, 02:30:52 am
If the fetus does gain personhood while in the womb though, why should the law see attempted feticide any different from attempted infanticide?
They only gain personhood under stupid legal systems that regularly put the lives of pregnant women in danger.
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on November 12, 2014, 02:30:52 am
Hm, what about in cases where the woman owns her own aircraft?
You're allowed to put yourself in danger if you want.
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on November 12, 2014, 02:30:52 am
So where does her body end and the fetus' begin? Does the fetus own their body when they gain personhood? If yes, why shouldn't taking harmful drugs that can cross the placental barrier constitute a criminal action by the mother? If no,
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
If someone has chosen to carry their baby to term then they have responsibilities as a parent, and it's probably not unreasonable to include "don't give your child horrible alcohol/drug related problems when they're born" among them.  You could probably invoke some kind of neglect law against that.

Dunno why you spoiled the last part or what you're getting at with that, it's entirely irrelevant to the stupid hypotheticals you're concocting (and also the answer is obviously no, even if there's a connection it's not part of her body anymore).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 12, 2014, 03:32:06 am
So her fingers aren't part of her body because they're not inside? What about my penis? Is it not part of my body?

EDIT: HER FINGERS! NOT MINE! Ohmygodohmygodohmygod...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on November 12, 2014, 04:11:05 am
Oh god helgoland >.<

@leafsnail
Keep in mind the hypotheticals are set in late-term pregnancy.
As helgo said in the post before, the baby right outside the womb is no different than it was just before it came out.
So does being birthed magically make the baby a person? Does a C-section have the same magic? What about vat-grown babies?
Can a mother do whatever she pleases with the child right up until 'it' is no longer 'part of her body', (since it hasn't gotten personhood yet and therefore has no protections under the law)?

You can endanger yourself, but can you endanger the second person sharing your body? This comes down to when personhood is granted.

Ah now we're getting into the same territory as 'injury' during the first trimester- 'ex post facto' law where the parent's actions aren't illegal while they're doing it, and the state can't stop them from doing it, but later on it becomes retro-actively illegal after the baby's been born & the damage has been done.
I spoiled it as it's a rather charged line, which is something I offered to do for Vector earlier in the post.
Why isn't the child a part of her body anymore? Because the tyke isn't enveloped? How does this logic apply to other things that can be enveloped?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Here's my post from when we first started the discussion on p576 btw.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 12, 2014, 07:59:33 am
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on November 12, 2014, 04:11:05 am
@leafsnail
Keep in mind the hypotheticals are set in late-term pregnancy.
As helgo said in the post before, the baby right outside the womb is no different than it was just before it came out.
So does being birthed magically make the baby a person? Does a C-section have the same magic? What about vat-grown babies?
Can a mother do whatever she pleases with the child right up until 'it' is no longer 'part of her body', (since it hasn't gotten personhood yet and therefore has no protections under the law)?
Does being conceived magically make the embryo a person?  Does hitting 22 weeks magically make the fetus a person?  There's no easy answer to this question.  However, this is all completely and utterly irrelevant to my argument - I do not care when someone "becomes a person".  I care about letting women have control over their own bodies, and making sure that they are not arbitrarily put in danger or violated just because they're pregnant.  Once the child has left the woman's body (by any method, I don't know why you thought any of those examples would throw me for a loop) this bodily autonomy argument no longer applies.
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on November 12, 2014, 04:11:05 am
You can endanger yourself, but can you endanger the second person sharing your body? This comes down to when personhood is granted.
It's not granted until birth under all sensible legal systems, so there's your answer.
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on November 12, 2014, 04:11:05 am
Ah now we're getting into the same territory as 'injury' during the first trimester- 'ex post facto' law where the parent's actions aren't illegal while they're doing it, and the state can't stop them from doing it, but later on it becomes retro-actively illegal after the baby's been born & the damage has been done.
That's not what ex posto facto means.  If I promise people that I will invest their money wisely then go and spend it all on booze then my previous statement retroactively becomes criminal fraud even though it was a fine thing to do at the time - there's no contradiction here at all.
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on November 12, 2014, 04:11:05 am
Why isn't the child a part of her body anymore? Because the tyke isn't enveloped? How does this logic apply to other things that can be enveloped?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
This is a really stupid argument, I don't think you can honestly believe it works.  When an embryo or fetus is within the womb it's entirely dependent on the mother's blood supply for survival, just like all the other parts of her body and unlike those silly examples you're giving.  If it's something that is using your heart, your lungs, your blood to survive then it is part of your body (if you're about to respond with some stupid parasitic example: yes, I have no problem with people removing parasites from their bodies).  This is obviously not the case after the baby is born, the umbilical cord can simply be severed and the baby will survive without relying on the mother's organs.
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on November 12, 2014, 04:11:05 am
And opening any sort of dialogue on -when- this sort of 'physical body sharing' begins is risky as hell because you know republicans are going to push for the most unreasonably early time they can.
If the law enshrines fetal personhood at any point it's putting pregnant women at risk.  That is fucked and should not happen.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 12, 2014, 08:37:45 am
Let's all chill a bit if we're going to keep discussing this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on November 12, 2014, 09:21:11 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on November 11, 2014, 09:17:45 pm
Vaccinations are different from almost every other health issue due to the fact that refusing to get one puts the whole of society in danger, not just you.
What are you gonna do, start kicking down doors because a few people didn't get their flu vaccines?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 12, 2014, 09:26:56 am
No you apply legal sanctions like under the current system
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 12, 2014, 09:31:08 am
Well, in case of a pregnant woman, you put the child's future health at risk too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on November 12, 2014, 09:39:55 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on November 12, 2014, 09:26:56 am
No you apply legal sanctions like under the current system
"Pick up that can, citizen!"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 12, 2014, 09:43:29 am
Quote from: Morrigi on November 12, 2014, 09:39:55 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on November 12, 2014, 09:26:56 am
No you apply legal sanctions like under the current system
"Pick up that can, citizen!"
*ahem* (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on November 12, 2014, 09:58:13 am
Can anyone name a single time when people voluntarily refusing to take vaccines has posed a threat to U.S. national security, or even come close to it? And anyway, the unvaccinated only pose a risk to other unvaccinated, a minority by any measure. If people are concerned about getting sick from viruses, they... get the vaccine.

Not to mention that many vaccines have not gone through the same level of testing by the FDA that nearly all other drugs have, and legally obligating people to take untested medications opens up windows for all kinds of lawsuits, regardless of whether they're justified.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 12, 2014, 10:08:56 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on November 12, 2014, 07:59:33 am
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on November 12, 2014, 04:11:05 am
Why isn't the child a part of her body anymore? Because the tyke isn't enveloped? How does this logic apply to other things that can be enveloped?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
This is a really stupid argument, I don't think you can honestly believe it works.  When an embryo or fetus is within the womb it's entirely dependent on the mother's blood supply for survival, just like all the other parts of her body and unlike those silly examples you're giving.  If it's something that is using your heart, your lungs, your blood to survive then it is part of your body (if you're about to respond with some stupid parasitic example: yes, I have no problem with people removing parasites from their bodies).  This is obviously not the case after the baby is born, the umbilical cord can simply be severed and the baby will survive without relying on the mother's organs.
So I'm gonna ignore the parts that basically say "I'm right just because" and the parts where you completely ignore the argument about birth not altering anything about the child itself. But riddle me this: Right before birth the baby is obviously no longer dependant on the mother's blood or organs for its continued survival. Are you arguing that it's not a person simply because it is inside of her? Because then there's plenty of innuendo you need to address...

Edit: Vaccines are hardly untested, and not getting a vaccination endangers primarily those who cannot be vaccinated themselves: Newborns, the elderly, cancer patients etc.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BurnedToast on November 12, 2014, 10:14:00 am
Quote from: Morrigi on November 12, 2014, 09:58:13 am
Can anyone name a single time when people voluntarily refusing to take vaccines has posed a threat to U.S. national security, or even come close to it? And anyway, the unvaccinated only pose a risk to other unvaccinated, a minority by any measure. If people are concerned about getting sick from viruses, they... get the vaccine.

Not to mention that many vaccines have not gone through the same level of testing by the FDA that nearly all other drugs have, and legally obligating people to take untested medications opens up windows for all kinds of lawsuits, regardless of whether they're justified.

You.... you do realize that some people can't get vaccines for various reasons, such as compromised immune systems or being a young baby right?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on November 12, 2014, 11:02:07 am
Quote from: Helgoland on November 12, 2014, 10:08:56 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on November 12, 2014, 07:59:33 am
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on November 12, 2014, 04:11:05 am
Why isn't the child a part of her body anymore? Because the tyke isn't enveloped? How does this logic apply to other things that can be enveloped?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
This is a really stupid argument, I don't think you can honestly believe it works.  When an embryo or fetus is within the womb it's entirely dependent on the mother's blood supply for survival, just like all the other parts of her body and unlike those silly examples you're giving.  If it's something that is using your heart, your lungs, your blood to survive then it is part of your body (if you're about to respond with some stupid parasitic example: yes, I have no problem with people removing parasites from their bodies).  This is obviously not the case after the baby is born, the umbilical cord can simply be severed and the baby will survive without relying on the mother's organs.
So I'm gonna ignore the parts that basically say "I'm right just because" and the parts where you completely ignore the argument about birth not altering anything about the child itself. But riddle me this: Right before birth the baby is obviously no longer dependant on the mother's blood or organs for its continued survival. Are you arguing that it's not a person simply because it is inside of her? Because then there's plenty of innuendo you need to address...
It does not matter whether it's a person or not. That's the whole point of the bodily autonomy argument he's making! Let's say, for the sake of not even bothering with this red herring argument, that personhood begins at conception. There is no need to clarify when somebody is or is not a person for the sake of this particular conversation.

Now, given that that's the case, we have the rights of two people to consider. When that happens, you don't generally pass laws imposing medical rules on the one for the sake of the other - the exceptions that make it "generally" instead of "ever" occur only when the imposition on the one's rights is so small, and the benefit to the other is so large, that there's no meaningful question. You don't mandate people with two functioning kidneys to donate one to somebody in need. But let's go further! Let's take the example of somebody who does agree to donate one.

You don't let people be imprisoned for negligent homicide if they (to use an example as convoluted as some of the ones I've seen) sleep through their alarm, miss their appointment for the surgery, and the recipient dies in the meantime while it gets rescheduled. You don't let them get sued if they lose a kidney to a vicious mauling by their pet crocodile. If they got drunk and wandered into traffic, an accident might be ruled their fault, but they aren't going to be compelled to donate the organ anyway if their kidneys are damaged in a way that makes it unclear whether or not they'll be able to survive with just one.

Yet here we are, needing to argue whether a woman in basically similar scenarios ought to be compelled to undergo serious medical procedures against her will because of the child's rights, or punished for failure to take adequate care of her body for the sake of the child's rights, as though we as a society do this in any other sphere.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 12, 2014, 11:07:39 am
Donating a kidney is much more invasive than giving birth. What you are saying is I should not be obliged to rescue someone from drowning because I might catch a cold!
Okay, that was too far to the other side of the spectrum, but I do believe the right to life (applicable once the fetus has passed the point where we can consider it a person, wherever that point may be) should not be trumped by the right to bodily autonomy. They need to be weighed against each other - I'm not arguing the trumping should go the other way around!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on November 12, 2014, 11:14:42 am
Quote from: Helgoland on November 12, 2014, 11:07:39 am
Donating a kidney is much more invasive than giving birth. What you are saying is I should not be obliged to rescue someone from drowning because I might catch a cold!
Okay, that was too far to the other side of the spectrum, but I do believe the right to life (applicable once the fetus has passed the point where we can consider it a person, wherever that point may be) should not be trumped by the right to bodily autonomy. They need to be weighed against each other - I'm not arguing the trumping should go the other way around!
This is actually a dialogue that appears in situations aside from abortion: Personal Freedoms versus the responsibility one has to other people

Very interesting, I think i'm back into watching this thread.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on November 12, 2014, 11:34:36 am
Quote from: Morrigi on November 12, 2014, 09:58:13 am
Can anyone name a single time when people voluntarily refusing to take vaccines has posed a threat to U.S. national security, or even come close to it? And anyway, the unvaccinated only pose a risk to other unvaccinated, a minority by any measure. If people are concerned about getting sick from viruses, they... get the vaccine.


A) You're curently at risk of outbreak from several preventable disease because of it

B) That's not how vaccine works. It prevent the spread of the disease but doesn't guarantee a 0% transmission.


About the rest of the debate, you can make guidelines, but you cannot anticipate every convulated cases.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 12, 2014, 11:41:34 am
Sure, but we're arguing about the guidelines. You're rather conservative and European, right? What's your stance?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 12, 2014, 11:52:47 am
Bodily autonomy isn't a personal freedom, it's an incredibly basic right that is respected in all but the most extreme circumstances (to ignore it you basically need a) that person to be incapable of giving consent and b) that person to be in urgent need of medical help).  I cannot think of any other case where it would be regarded as remotely acceptable to violate someone's bodily integrity in order to force them to fulfill their "responsibility to other people".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on November 12, 2014, 12:06:17 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on November 12, 2014, 11:07:39 am
Donating a kidney is much more invasive than giving birth.

Citation needed

Especially because everyone's talking about fucking C-Sections

Quote from: Helgoland on November 12, 2014, 11:07:39 am
What you are saying is I should not be obliged to rescue someone from drowning because I might catch a cold!

Excuse me? Childbirth causes irreparable damage to most women's bodies, pain that's literally off the scale of what human bodies can process, and in 15% of cases results in life-threatening complications.

You want to argue that people should be forced to go through that for someone else's life, then go ahead, but don't fucking pretend that it's a walk in the park.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on November 12, 2014, 12:12:54 pm
And that is why people say that men deciding abortion law is skeevy. Because those are the risks in bringing a fetus to term. And it's all too easy for a man, consciously or not, to disregard those risks.

And then you can add in the overpopulation issue, too many kids up for adoption already, the idea of a resentful childhood if the mother was forced to carry to term, and the much much less (if non-existent) risk to medically - provided legal abortion...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 12, 2014, 12:18:50 pm
Quote from: Vector on November 12, 2014, 12:06:17 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on November 12, 2014, 11:07:39 am
What you are saying is I should not be obliged to rescue someone from drowning because I might catch a cold!

Excuse me? Childbirth causes irreparable damage to most women's bodies, pain that's literally off the scale of what human bodies can process, and in 15% of cases results in life-threatening complications.

You want to argue that people should be forced to go through that for someone else's life, then go ahead, but don't fucking pretend that it's a walk in the park.
I'd like a quote for the 15% thing, and one involving proper medical supervision, too. Oh, also quotes on the irreparable damage and pain meds not being a thing. For everything else, read the sentence that literally comes after what you quoted.

Plus childbirth does not involve removal of whole organs. Well, removal of the baby's organs, but that's a level of pedantry even I won't step down to.

Leafsnail, did you see the bit about weighing rights against each other? Because religious freedom is a right as well, but I hope we all agree it doesn't justify, well, many things - animal cruelty comes to mind as a rather non-controversial example.

go: Yeah, sorry 'bout that - but it kinda makes my point even clearer.
(I even heard once you're supposed to punch the drowning person before starting the rescue to stun them. Never got a reliable source for that, though...)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on November 12, 2014, 12:20:28 pm
Quote from: greatorder on November 12, 2014, 12:15:08 pm
One thing I find odd- a woman can choose whether or not to bring a child to term, but if the child's father disagrees he still has to pay child support.

you can thank one-sided applications of feminism for this

if the mother can decide she does not wish for a child, the father should be able to do so also on similar rules

there's a lot of stuff regarding custody, child support, etc. which haven't been modified to take into account a reality where a woman can actually earn money and we have acknowledged that fathers are parents too but i'd rather wait for someone who gives enough a shit to not leave the thread when the obvious insults are lobbed their way for mentioning it even to go ahead and start a discussion
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on November 12, 2014, 12:21:51 pm
Quote from: greatorder on November 12, 2014, 12:15:08 pm
One thing I find odd- a woman can choose whether or not to bring a child to term, but if the child's father disagrees he still has to pay child support.
The non-custodial parent pays child support. Child support's not really a gender thing. Custody is more arguable, but child support, not so much.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on November 12, 2014, 12:25:58 pm
Quote from: Frumple on November 12, 2014, 12:21:51 pm
Quote from: greatorder on November 12, 2014, 12:15:08 pm
One thing I find odd- a woman can choose whether or not to bring a child to term, but if the child's father disagrees he still has to pay child support.
The non-custodial parent pays child support. Child support's not really a gender thing. Custody is more arguable, but child support, not so much.
The point is that if the woman doesn't want the child it will not get born in the first place, so in this case (one parent-to-be wanting the kid, the other not) child support is entirely gender-related.

Men pay, women don't have to.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on November 12, 2014, 12:36:00 pm
I am honestly too frustrated by the request for a "factcheck on irreparable damage" thing to want to bother. And by the derail on women's bodily rights to men's pocketbook rights.

Let's see... Women being forced into medical procedures? "Maybe that's reasonable." Men paying for babies that THEY don't want? "That's not right!"

When it comes to saving the lives of babies we don't want, our bodies are worth less than your pocketbooks. Sounds about right.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on November 12, 2014, 12:36:54 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on November 12, 2014, 12:25:58 pm
Men pay, women don't have to.
And that, boys, is why you use protection, like a fake ID you can show the women you sleep with.  :P

Quote from: Helgoland on November 12, 2014, 12:18:50 pm
Leafsnail, did you see the bit about weighing rights against each other? Because religious freedom is a right as well, but I hope we all agree it doesn't justify, well, many things - animal cruelty comes to mind as a rather non-controversial example.
I'd argue that bodily integrity is a (if not the) most important basic human right, not comparable to mere freedoms like religious freedom. After all you are your body, your body is all you are and will ever be, so you should be able to decide what happens to it (or you).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on November 12, 2014, 12:38:47 pm
Quote from: Vector on November 12, 2014, 12:36:00 pm
When it comes to saving the lives of babies we don't want, our bodies are worth less than your pocketbooks. Sounds about right.
Quote from: Vector on November 12, 2014, 12:36:00 pm
our bodies
Quote from: Vector on November 12, 2014, 12:36:00 pm
our

oh don't fucking drag me into your rants you little
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on November 12, 2014, 12:41:37 pm
I have no idea if you're being serious or not, but if you'd like to argue that that was NOT the conversation shift that just happened, go ahead. I'm done with arguing for now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 12, 2014, 12:47:10 pm
Quote from: greatorder on November 12, 2014, 12:15:08 pm
One thing I find odd- a woman can choose whether or not to bring a child to term, but if the child's father disagrees he still has to pay child support.
Hint: it again comes down to the woman getting to choose what happens to her body.  If the child is brought to term both parents are then expected to care for them.

e: Bodily autonomy is basically the most important right, there's no weighing up to be done.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 12, 2014, 01:01:31 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on November 12, 2014, 12:47:10 pm

e: Bodily autonomy is basically the most important right, there's no weighing up to be done.
Question: what if somebody has a transmissible disease (for the sake of the argument, let's say Ebola since that's all the rage right now &~~~), but refuses to get treatment for it and insists on going out there in public doing... peopley things (what do people even do outside?) for whatever reason. Does that fall under bodily autonomy?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 12, 2014, 01:03:26 pm
Quote from: Vector on November 12, 2014, 12:36:00 pm
Let's see... Women being forced into medical procedures? "Maybe that's reasonable." Men paying for babies that THEY don't want? "That's not right!"
Aaaand you're ignoring that the previous discussion was about late-term pregnancies only, where there's arguably been a choice to let the fetus develop that far. Plus ignoring go's point, and refusing to provide backup for rather incredible facts liek 14% of births being life-threatening.
*slow clap*


Leafsnail: You can of course hold bodily autonomy to be absolute, but I really don't see why... There's many things that are at least as important as the government not giving us compulsory flu shots.
Plus I think modern jurisdiction knows no absolute rights, there's always a weighing of interests, especially when a right comes into conflict with itself.


Edit: Darvi, I think there's precedent for treating willfully spreading AIDS as battery. Probably not what you were thinking of, though...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on November 12, 2014, 01:06:58 pm
Quote from: Darvi on November 12, 2014, 01:01:31 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on November 12, 2014, 12:47:10 pm

e: Bodily autonomy is basically the most important right, there's no weighing up to be done.
Question: what if somebody has a transmissible disease (for the sake of the argument, let's say Ebola since that's all the rage right now &~~~), but refuses to get treatment for it and insists on going out there in public doing... peopley things (what do people even do outside?) for whatever reason. Does that fall under bodily autonomy?
That could be easily solved by putting somebody in forced quarantine, which would not impact bodily autonomy at all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 12, 2014, 01:14:53 pm
Quote from: XXSockXX on November 12, 2014, 01:06:58 pm
Quote from: Darvi on November 12, 2014, 01:01:31 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on November 12, 2014, 12:47:10 pm

e: Bodily autonomy is basically the most important right, there's no weighing up to be done.
Question: what if somebody has a transmissible disease (for the sake of the argument, let's say Ebola since that's all the rage right now &~~~), but refuses to get treatment for it and insists on going out there in public doing... peopley things (what do people even do outside?) for whatever reason. Does that fall under bodily autonomy?
That could be easily solved by putting somebody in forced quarantine, which would not impact bodily autonomy at all.
I guess that makes sense? Still not sure what bodily autonomy means.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 12, 2014, 01:35:41 pm
Nobody can stick a needle in your arm if you don't want them to, basically.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on November 12, 2014, 01:40:04 pm
No one would be able to strap you down and give you an ebola cure, but they can stop your movement if you're a likely transmission risk.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on November 12, 2014, 01:40:53 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on November 12, 2014, 11:02:07 am
You don't let them get sued if they lose a kidney to a vicious mauling by their pet crocodile.
I liked this analogy!

However, pregnant women may require a special case. Unlike kidney patients, who can continue on dialysis & get a different donor, fetuses cannot be...transplanted into another body (QUASI-METAPHOR) without the invasive violation of the woman's bodily rights. They are quite literally trapped with the mom who's giving them life-support, even when they no longer truly need it.
Leafsnail also stated that even something as unevenly-balanced as a Narcam injection shouldn't be allowed.

Meanwhile, 'not taking adequate care of her body' ranges from skydiving to deliberately poisoning/hurting herself in an effort to kill a fully-grown baby.
If the baby has personhoood, the far end of that spectrum makes the mother a criminal.


Quote from: Leafsnail on November 12, 2014, 07:59:33 am
Does being conceived magically make the embryo a person?  Does hitting 22 weeks magically make the fetus a person?  There's no easy answer to this question.  However, this is all completely and utterly irrelevant to my argument - I do not care when someone "becomes a person".  I care about letting women have control over their own bodies, and making sure that they are not arbitrarily put in danger or violated just because they're pregnant.  Once the child has left the woman's body (by any method, I don't know why you thought any of those examples would throw me for a loop) this bodily autonomy argument no longer applies.

That's not what ex posto facto means.

This is a really stupid argument, I don't think you can honestly believe it works.  When an embryo or fetus is within the womb it's entirely dependent on the mother's blood supply for survival, just like all the other parts of her body and unlike those silly examples you're giving.  If it's something that is using your heart, your lungs, your blood to survive then it is part of your body (if you're about to respond with some stupid parasitic example: yes, I have no problem with people removing parasites from their bodies).  This is obviously not the case after the baby is born, the umbilical cord can simply be severed and the baby will survive without relying on the mother's organs.
The 22-weeks bit is based on fetal brain activity.
Quote
Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal
electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic
bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they
become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.
I favor 'brain-birth' and 'brain-death' when it comes to personhood.

'When the baby has left the woman's body' is the hangup point when granting personhood.
What's the definition for 'birth'? When it's no longer enveloped? When it's no longer physically connected?
Perhaps both? But then what about fingers & toes- they're not exactly enveloped. What about skinned fingers & toes? What about finger-bones only held together by ligaments? What about fingernails & hair? (skin-envelope gone, muscle-envelope gone, circulation gone)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Could a crazy lady (or man) with scientist friends grow a living sheath around a block of C4 and have the same sacrosanct bodily rights?


Gah, ok yeah maybe I did use it incorrectly :I (expostfacto)



oh hey, on c-section risk:
Quote
Risks[edit]
Adverse outcomes in low risk pregnancies occur in 8.6% of vaginal deliveries and 9.2% of C-section deliveries.[4]
Mother[edit]
In those who are low risk the risk of death for Caesarian sections is 13 per 100,000 and for vaginal birth 3.5 per 100,000 in the developed world.[4] The UK National Health Service gives the risk of death for the mother as three times that of a vaginal birth.[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarean_section#Risks
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 12, 2014, 01:57:21 pm
This entire discussion seems to be going all over the place. So in order to center the discussion back on track, I'll just provide some questions, which basically cover pretty much the entire discussion so far.

1. Can a person be forced to undergo a medical procedure to safe another person's life.

2. Can a person's life be ended to save another's life, knowing that both persons would die otherwise?

3. Can a person's life be ended to aid another person, if said person would suffer medically from the first person's continued existence.

4. Can a person's life be ended to aid another person.

5. Is an unborn Child a person, if yes, from what point?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on November 12, 2014, 01:58:04 pm
Quote from: Descan on November 12, 2014, 01:40:04 pm
No one would be able to strap you down and give you an ebola cure, but they can stop your movement if you're a likely transmission risk.
This. Considering ebola is ~50% lethal, quarantines are entirely reasonable.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on November 12, 2014, 02:06:35 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on November 12, 2014, 11:41:34 am
Sure, but we're arguing about the guidelines. You're rather conservative and European, right? What's your stance?


I'm a Belgian socialist (in the sense of "modern european-style socialism"). I favor evidence based policies, but at the same time I am rather cynical and belive that the class warfare is ongoing and that we're currently losing hard.


In this matter I think that the guidelines must be harm reduction and right to bodily intergrity, but both are mitigated by personal responsability. Namely if you didn't spot a pregnancy before 24 weeks, you're stuck with it.


In medical matter, the health of the mother is always above the healh of the baby unless the mother stated otherwise, and peoples have the right to choose the treatement they undergo. That choice, however, is open to criticism and a lawsuit in case of damage caused by reckless decisions should be allowed (IE : the child or father suing the mother in case of feutal alcohol syndrome, especially if the mother didn't take steps to get her addiction under control).

For me a feutus progressively gain personhood over the developement of his higher brain fonction and is legally a human being once he's born. He get full rights at 18 years old.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 12, 2014, 03:42:41 pm
Or you don't and just get a slap on the wrist. My friend's mom tried to get her dad to pay child support for a years before she gave up. Turns out when you're trying to raise kids on your own, all those days in court are a lot harder on you than the dad.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 12, 2014, 03:44:46 pm
Yeah, also Vector, you're overlooking the fundamental fact that we all assume woman have the right to choose whether to be pregnant or not. Basically, if you choose to have a kid, you choose to have responsibilities to that child until he can live on his own (even if that just mean carrying it to term and giving it up for adoption.)

What we're discussing is what exactly those responsibilities should be.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on November 12, 2014, 03:51:51 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 12, 2014, 03:42:41 pm
Or you don't and just get a slap on the wrist. My friend's mom tried to get her dad to pay child support for a years before she gave up. Turns out when you're trying to raise kids on your own, all those days in court are a lot harder on you than the dad.
You like in Kentucky.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 12, 2014, 03:54:09 pm
Yeah, in my experience, case of fathers getting away with not paying child support they should pay are much more common than fathers being forced to pay child support despite never wanting the child in the first place.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 12, 2014, 03:55:40 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on November 12, 2014, 03:51:51 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 12, 2014, 03:42:41 pm
Or you don't and just get a slap on the wrist. My friend's mom tried to get her dad to pay child support for a years before she gave up. Turns out when you're trying to raise kids on your own, all those days in court are a lot harder on you than the dad.
You like in Kentucky.

Not sure how common this is, but a colleague of mine was a single mother of a pretty cool teenager. The dad refused point blank to pay child support, so was refused any kind of parental access or leverage by the courts as a result. When said mother re-married, her new husband officially adopted the teen. The teens dad filed a protest against this, but the court threw it out as he was never willing to take responsibility for the child previously, and was deemed to have waived his fatherhood.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on November 12, 2014, 04:04:42 pm
Quote from: greatorder on November 12, 2014, 03:25:56 pm
Quote from: Vector on November 12, 2014, 12:36:00 pm
Let's see... Women being forced into medical procedures? "Maybe that's reasonable." Men paying for babies that THEY don't want? "That's not right!"
If that's referencing me, I never said that former thing. The latter? Yes, I do find that unreasonable. The man is FORCED to go along with the mother's decision, whether he likes it or not.

Also, in the case of a man that can't afford it? Ha, enjoy getting fucked over. Either you pay and live in utter poverty, or you don't, land in jail, and have to pay it later.
... leafsnail covered that well. No, the guy doesn't get a choice in the bits involving birth, beyond whether to screw or not (well, barring him getting raped, of course). Not his body, not his choice. Afterwards, either parent is equally screwed by child support related stuff. Child support is not an equivalent issue to carrying a child to term. At all.

Incidentally, last I checked, the guy isn't actually legally required to support the woman during pregnancy, nor provide medical coverage. When something like that does happen, it's usually due to other issues, so far as I'm aware. I know my father damn sure didn't help out financially during the hospital stay, but that may have changed over the years.

Note: You want to cut off the child support fees? Obtain custody, and then get the kid adopted.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RAM on November 12, 2014, 04:26:45 pm
 Ytivengol detcidrep of noticudre a esauc sererdurm. Efil as naiterc as is, dlrow our in thead. Sthead esauc not do sererdurm.
neth deneppah tawh drocre ecilop emit the and nrob ngeib morf neztiic a tnevrep to emit in ckab go to eerw you if, lyevtianertla.
Thrae ledom lytceferp to ertupmoc dezis-tenalp a use deatsni ouy if. Erdurm as it etucecrop dlouw yeth tath elbanosear smees it
it tibihni to ngidiced and ycnagnrep a touba snoticidrep elpmis few a ngikam. Lacitnedi lylanoticnuf is it neth end emas the to
to but is lohocla as chum dettimerp be dloush and erdurm llams yerv a is notiroba tath deugra be can it. Tnetsisnoc lyreitne is
mitciv the, slamina and sevals as chus, noserpnon any as chum, neam I. Uertnu lypmis is tneerffid lylatnemadnuf is it tath say
ecnesrep lacios no had...

 Ytirgetni lyidob of ytticnas the in evieleb not soed tnemshinup laitpac secticrap tath notian any...

 tlaussa are seurdecrop lacidem decrof. Dettimerp be dloush it beyam but erdurm is notiroba. Cipot sith in setulosba no are ereth.
as not are us of emos beyam but notiaerdicnoc of tnoip the at elbatcidrep is efil snoser'p a. Dettimerp be dloush yeth beyam but
Esorw is evtianertla the beyam but luerc and evissreppo is ilumits to noticear tneliov a reudne to eneomos ngicorf. Sertho as elpeop
Elbassimerp be nac ecnegilgen beyam but lyetiademmi sniadruag emocbe erthaf lynaiterc tsomla and erthom eth.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 12, 2014, 04:29:35 pm
... if you're going to do a post entirely sdrawkcab, then do make an effort to do so correctly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on November 12, 2014, 04:32:55 pm
yeah, when run through a text reverser, I get this:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

In other words, your post is completely illegible.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 12, 2014, 04:50:56 pm
The best I can tell, it's paragraphs of nonsense with all the letters in each word scrambled. RAM, you missed April Fool's day by a few months.

Quote from: Graknorke on November 12, 2014, 03:51:51 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 12, 2014, 03:42:41 pm
Or you don't and just get a slap on the wrist. My friend's mom tried to get her dad to pay child support for a years before she gave up. Turns out when you're trying to raise kids on your own, all those days in court are a lot harder on you than the dad.

You like in Kentucky.

This all happened in Ohio, actually.

Quote from: MonkeyHead on November 12, 2014, 03:55:40 pm
Not sure how common this is, but a colleague of mine was a single mother of a pretty cool teenager. The dad refused point blank to pay child support, so was refused any kind of parental access or leverage by the courts as a result. When said mother re-married, her new husband officially adopted the teen. The teens dad filed a protest against this, but the court threw it out as he was never willing to take responsibility for the child previously, and was deemed to have waived his fatherhood.

My friend's dad was definitely not getting custody (he was abusive) and he didn't care about the kids anyway, so there was nothing to hold over him. There are enough ways heartless people can fuck their kids over. Dads who never wanted their kids to be born don't need more legal leeway to do this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on November 12, 2014, 04:55:40 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 12, 2014, 04:50:56 pm
The best I can tell, it's paragraphs of nonsense with all the letters in each word scrambled. RAM, you missed April Fool's day by a few months.

Quote from: Graknorke on November 12, 2014, 03:51:51 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 12, 2014, 03:42:41 pm
Or you don't and just get a slap on the wrist. My friend's mom tried to get her dad to pay child support for a years before she gave up. Turns out when you're trying to raise kids on your own, all those days in court are a lot harder on you than the dad.
You like in Kentucky.
This all happened in Ohio, actually.
Okay, Ohio then. Still in the US. Which has systems that will not match those experienced by a good number of people on this board.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 12, 2014, 05:15:17 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on November 12, 2014, 06:37:56 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on November 12, 2014, 04:55:40 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 12, 2014, 04:50:56 pm
The best I can tell, it's paragraphs of nonsense with all the letters in each word scrambled. RAM, you missed April Fool's day by a few months.

Quote from: Graknorke on November 12, 2014, 03:51:51 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 12, 2014, 03:42:41 pm
Or you don't and just get a slap on the wrist. My friend's mom tried to get her dad to pay child support for a years before she gave up. Turns out when you're trying to raise kids on your own, all those days in court are a lot harder on you than the dad.
You like in Kentucky.
This all happened in Ohio, actually.
Okay, Ohio then. Still in the US. Which has systems that will not match those experienced by a good number of people on this board.

You're just jealous of our glorious buckeye trees, airplanes, presidents, and Cavaliers. OSU stronk, remove wolverines, and so on and so forth. Not Kasich though, he can walk for all we care. Honest.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 12, 2014, 07:09:32 pm
I was just looking up some info on voter suppression, came across the "liberals do it too!" claim. It looked like they had a smoking gun against the Democrats but I looked up the cited incident and it was actually done by the Republicans, and got misquoted, or deliberately "confused".

Oh, but they do have some actual valid Democrat cases of voter supression. From like the 1870's - against black people. So, I'd say the verdict is voter supression is a wholy right-wing tactic, and there's not a shred of evidence that liberal hippies are all out there trying to block people in suits from voting ;D
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on November 12, 2014, 07:14:59 pm
Quote from: Reelya on November 12, 2014, 07:09:32 pm
Oh, but they do have some actual valid Democrat cases of voter supression. From like the 1870's - against black people. So, I'd say the verdict is voter supression is a wholy right-wing tactic, and there's not a shred of evidence that liberal hippies are all out there trying to block people in suits from voting ;D
Yeah, that seems about right, considering that the 1870s was back before the parties reversed polarity (the Democrats at the time were the wealthy upper-class, isolationist, conservative racists of the day, although IIRC the Republicans were still the corporatist ones, those being seen as the more meritocratic institution at the time when compared to the Southern gentry).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on November 12, 2014, 07:17:37 pm
CSEA: Child Support Enforcement Agency has powers comparable to the IRS.

Refusal to pay child support will often lead to criminal contempt of court charges that may include jail and if they got past a certain amount of time, felony charges. CSEA may administratively suspend driver's licenses, garnish wages, levy/ seize bank accounts, lien property, intercept tax returns, (basically) issue warrants, and do a whole bunch of other stuff.

It took a major effort from some small group of lawyers to get the state to change the law and allow driving privileges to those with child support suspended licenses (upon motion). That way the guy can get to work and back to make the money the state intends to give to the kid....

Slap on the wrist? It used to be that way, perhaps, but anymore, less so. Now actually collecting it is an issue, but they can make life very difficult if somebody doesn't pay child support according to a court order.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 12, 2014, 08:28:06 pm
God it sounds crazy that failure to pay can be punished by sabotaging your ability to pay. That's not productive from anyone's point of view. As for garnishing wages/income. That should always be capped at some percentage of your income lower than 100%. There's not point de-incentivizing people from working at all because they're not paying child support.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on November 12, 2014, 08:55:32 pm
Agreed.

This is society refusing to come to grips with the full truth of the real world. We like to imagine that everybody has the same, fair start, and that their effort will benefit them. No. Some people have parents who can't or won't pay to give them the life they deserve and there is absolutely crap we can do about it. While trying to enforce its ideals, society will punish those who can't or won't make its ideals real.

Having a duty to do something does not translate into the ability to fulfill that duty. The punishment not only can't achieve its intended goal, but may make payment even more difficult. The only way money is coming in with most of those situations is from a job. A job needs transportation to get to it and without that, there is no job. No transportation, no job; no job, no money; no money, no child support.... [sigh]. Self defeating, unless you add in work privileges to get too and from work.

This is not a value judgment. This is a mechanical analysis.

But then there's this jerk:
http://news.yahoo.com/video/women-man-least-25-kids-200034450.html
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on November 13, 2014, 02:59:32 am
Quote from: Angle on November 12, 2014, 04:32:55 pm
yeah, when run through a text reverser, I get this:
spoiler
In other words, your post is completely illegible.
Further deciphering:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
???
I suspect he's making some kinda statement with the weird format & strange content. But I think I'll leave it at that.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on November 13, 2014, 05:18:25 am
Timecube guy? Is that you?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on November 13, 2014, 05:52:06 am
Actually, I think he makes something of a point.

Even if the foetus can be considered a person, is it still wrong to kill it? There are several legally and morally OK situations to kill a person in (depending on where you live). Capital punishment, self defence etc. So

As far as I see it, the foetus does not have the intelligence required to experience anything any more than an animal does, and the fact that it could develop into a fully grown person is irrelevant (I hardly feel sorry for people that don't exist). If some animal decided to latch onto you and start doing all sorts of funky things to your body, I don't think anyone but the most hardcore animal rights person is going to have an issue with you killing it. In fact, I don't think many people would have a problem even if the victim consciously decided to attach it to their body in the first place.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on November 13, 2014, 05:05:36 pm
https://gma.yahoo.com/parents-ordered-pay-estranged-daughters-college-tuition-202430570--abc-news-topstories.html

Speaking of neglecting kids, I'm glad this ruling happened. You don't make your minor child's life hell until they have to leave and then get away with foisting everything off on the grandparents and her. She's your responsibility, o parents. So guess what, you made her life misery, now you pay. Good.

I love the people calling this kid a spoiled brat; they have no clue and just scream at the top of their lungs because they want something to scream at. They treated her like crap and she had to move in with grandparents WHO AGREED with the kid and happily accepted her....

It's way too easy to scream "spoiled kid" without looking into any of the facts, like the judge did.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 13, 2014, 05:53:32 pm
People will complain about anyone in any story getting a break. Like all those babies who cry for their mother's milk. God, they're a bunch entitled little shits. Babies should learn to get their own milk and stop relying on others.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on November 13, 2014, 07:25:05 pm
Forgetting the obvious moral problems with that, it's also tactically unsound. Same reason you don't torture, do unto others..... 'Cause they'll do it back to you.... [sigh]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 13, 2014, 07:37:06 pm
We're bigger and scarier than them. We'll just torture them to death and piss on the bodies. And then nuke them into glass.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 13, 2014, 07:39:40 pm
Quote from: Reelya on November 13, 2014, 05:53:32 pm
People will complain about anyone in any story getting a break. Like all those babies who cry for their mother's milk. God, they're a bunch entitled little shits. Babies should learn to get their own milk and stop relying on others.
It primarily stems from their own suffering in life. They look at someone not having to go through the same hardships as them thanks to societal improvements and rightfully call it out as unfair, but that's because society isn't operating fairly. I'm not sure there's any way to stop it, because what they want is vindication, and the only way to get it is to try to cut the ones who do get justice down.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 14, 2014, 01:54:58 pm
Right. There is a thing going on here in the UK, and I thought this thread would be a good place to bounce around some ideas and see peoples thinking.

Basically, 2 and a half years ago, footballer Ched Evans was convicted of Rape and sentenced to 5 years in Jail (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17781842). That link will give you the details behind the conviction. He has recently been released (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29656157), and continues to protest his innocence. His old club have not yet signed him back on a contract, but he has been allowed to train again at the request of the Professional Footballers Association. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29980279) Rather unsurprisingly this has led to resignations (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30015701) at the club, and much protest (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30023695) amongst fairly high profile (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30023525) individuals (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-30049356), but high up figures in football in the UK have remained suspiciously quiet. Heck, even an Olympian linked to the club and town has weighed in (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30046618), and been on the end of twitter abuse (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-30057936) as a result.

So, yeah, that is the situation. Now, I have a number of things that might be of interest here.

1) Is it acceptable for him to resume a high profile sporting career? I find it hard to decide if he has been punished for his (fairly fucking horrible) crime and should be allowed to carry on with his life, or if someone who has been proven guilty of such acts should not be in a position where they could be seen as a role model to kids. The loss of livelihood as a sportsman- is it a fair outcome of a criminal act in addition to the punishment carried out within a legal framework? It would be for most other professions, right?

2) Is it right for the PFA to act on his behalf like this? Yes, they represent the rights of professional footballers, but does he waive right to representation through his conviction - should they be representing him at all? As such, is his old club right or wrong in allowing him to train, and should he get a new contract (linked to point 1)?

3) The various threats and resignations - are they appropriate and proportionate? I understand totally the motivations of some the resignations and sponsorship threats - nobody wants to associate themselves with a crime of this nature, but is that offset at all by the fact that he was convicted and punished? In addition, why is there silence from within football on this issue? Does the sport not want to be seen to be taking a stand here? Do they not object to the association with rape?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 14, 2014, 02:02:47 pm
Well, I think the law specify one sentece: jail. It says nothing about loosing your job.

We can argue if the sentence was though enough, but I don't think anyone should suffer punishment beyond what the laws says.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 14, 2014, 02:05:14 pm
Quote from: Sheb on November 14, 2014, 02:02:47 pm
Well, I think the law specify one sentece: jail. It says nothing about loosing your job.

We can argue if the sentence was though enough, but I don't think anyone should suffer punishment beyond what the laws says.

So the protestations and resignations are too far, in your opinion?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 14, 2014, 02:06:08 pm
I have pretty much a standard answer to stuff like this: He should be allowed to return, but he shouldn't do it, i.e. he should nominally be given permission, but it should unofficially be made quite clear that there's no way he'll ever get back in, leading to him not even trying. Saving face while still getting the right result, you know? The key is that this is not part of his punishment, but a direct repercussion of his crime. The PFA no longer giving a damn about him would be part of such a treatment, but I don't think these resignations accomplish anything.
And if there's something to be talked about, mistakes have already been made. Such issues should be taken care of discretely, because dragging it through the press is not beneficial to anyone.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 14, 2014, 02:08:28 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on November 14, 2014, 02:06:08 pm
I have pretty much a standard answer to stuff like this: He should be allowed to return, but he shouldn't do it, i.e. he should nominally be given permission, but it should unofficially be made quite clear that there's no way he'll ever get back in, leading to him not even trying. Saving face while still getting the right result, you know? The key is that this is not part of his punishment, but a direct repercussion of his crime. The PFA no longer giving a damn about him would be part of such a treatment, but I don't think these resignations accomplish anything.
And if there's something to be talked about, mistakes have already been made. Such issues should be taken care of discretely, because dragging it through the press is not beneficial to anyone.

This actually is neat and elegant. Trouble is that the guy seems to be a massive jerk, and has been quite vocal in protesting his innocence and pushing to resume his career - I don't think he would go quietly, so to speak.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 14, 2014, 02:13:22 pm
Yeah, frankly, I don't know how we as liberal can bitch on how felons have their life wrecked, not finding a job after jail and everything, and then wanting that guy not to get a job. He had his sentence, he's been punished according to the law, now he's just a normal guy.

If you think his sentence wasn't harsh enough (and 30 months for a rape case sounds ridiculously low), we can argue harsher rape laws.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 14, 2014, 02:21:48 pm
Nonono, a jail sentence does not mean your slate is wiped clean! It only means you're a normal person again in the eyes of the law, not in the eyes of society. That's why I'm against a formal ban: It would be in bad taste, and reeks of mob justice. But simply having an implicit understanding that certain things won't fly anymore is just another form of social feedback.
An example: If I stole money from some club I'm a member of, was found out, sentenced, and endured my punishment - would you argue that the club shoudln't throw me out because I already had a sentence handed to me?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 14, 2014, 02:24:13 pm
Yeah, I think I get your point. Kinda make sense, although I'm not fully convince, it still reeks of mob justice to me.

Also, in this case, the club suffered through your actions, that guy's employer did not. Also, taking away someone's career is... really harsh.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 14, 2014, 02:28:22 pm
Quote from: Sheb on November 14, 2014, 02:24:13 pm
Also, in this case, the club suffered through your actions, that guy's employer did not. Also, taking away someone's career is... really harsh.
Sure they suffered - think of the negative publicity! And taking him back would mean even more of that.
And yes, the difference between my proposal and McCarthyism is one of degree. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist) That's why it's so important to keep this an unofficial agreement, and to keep the government out! This guy can always go into some other profession - he'd have to eventually, there's very few old football players - and still make a decent living.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 14, 2014, 02:31:04 pm
Quote from: Sheb on November 14, 2014, 02:13:22 pm
Yeah, frankly, I don't know how we as liberal can bitch on how felons have their life wrecked, not finding a job after jail and everything, and then wanting that guy not to get a job. He had his sentence, he's been punished according to the law, now he's just a normal guy.

If you think his sentence wasn't harsh enough (and 30 months for a rape case sounds ridiculously low), we can argue harsher rape laws.

Read the details of the case. The case totally hinges on the fact that she was drunk and can't remember. There's no suggestion of physical restraint or use of force, or any threats of force in this case. Saying "5 years just isn't enough!" doesn't match the nature of the case. Also, there's no suggestion in the story that he deliberately got her intoxicated. What this looks like is that they threw the book at him because he's a high-profile public person so they wouldn't look like they were going soft. If this was "joe blow" in this case the police would probably have said the facts were too indeterminate.

5 years is a normal charge for rape with violent assault and threats with weapons, not a drunken screw. So, given the known facts and regular sentences that get handed down for comparable cases, 5 years is normal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on November 14, 2014, 02:31:55 pm
Quote from: Sheb on November 14, 2014, 02:24:13 pm
Yeah, I think I get your point. Kinda make sense, although I'm not fully convince, it still reeks of mob justice to me.

Also, in this case, the club suffered through your actions, that guy's employer did not. Also, taking away someone's career is... really harsh.

Perhaps not in this case. As a pro footballer he's very much a public figure and we expect certain things of our public figures, people look up to them. Allowing him to continue to be a public figure shouldn't even be on the table, but nobody is saying he's not allowed to get some other job, or even continue to play football as an amateur away from the cameras and the press that playing professionally gets you. That's the ideal solution for everybody. Now, he's still very insistent that he should still be allowed to play and that kind of breaks the whole thing down, but I'm basically of a mind with Helgo when I say it should have been handled with more... discretion. He's not doing himself any favors acting this way.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on November 14, 2014, 03:19:51 pm
Double penality is illegal. In addition of that hindering the reinsertion of a former felon is putting society at a risk and is both hypocrite and counterproductive.


I wouldn't be opposed to prosecution of the peoples hindering his employment.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on November 14, 2014, 03:42:40 pm
I think it's the same sort of thing as what pops up about free speech in arguments fairly often. The law says that legally you have served the time needed to equate what you did. However it says absolutely nothing about being boycotted, canceled, not signed on, banned, etc.. Those are the prerogatives of the people who own or manage the respective organizations and clubs, and has basically nothing to do with the law. It's just like the CEO's who say something stupid on twitter and end up being forced into resignations. Their careers are in just as bad a shape as the football player's is going to be unless he wants to try something else.

As for why the actual league isn't taking a stance, I'd say it's an outreach of the Streisand Effect (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StreisandEffect). This type of situation is a sort of lose-lose situation for the league. If they say they support him then people are going to cry out that they are supporting rapists. If they say they don't support him then there is going to be a portion of people who say that they are ruining people's lives who justly served their time. Either way it's bad publicity that will probably be remembered for a while. If, on the other hand, they don't say anything, then in a few months most likely nobody will remember this at all. It's much harder to remember and fault someone for having no opinion on a subject than for them having the "wrong" opinion from your point of view.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on November 14, 2014, 04:22:08 pm
I disagree and this goes against a fundamental principle of social democracy.


Actually it combine two topical American misguided idea : freedom of speech is absolute and "you vote with your wallet".
Freedom of speech shouldn't be absolute : hate speech is an agression and, because it force peoples to be civil, the state itself should sanction it.


And the monetisation of politics make it so that ALL political parties are controlled by money, Democrat and Republican. In practice, CEO shouldn't be allowed to voice a political opinion and companies whouldn't be allowed to finance politics. As long as they are, poorer peoples will never be represented.
In your system, if your wallet is empty you don't exist.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 14, 2014, 04:49:08 pm
Footballers are public figures and are regarded as role models by young people, I don't think it's unreasonable to keep rapists away from that kind of position (I think clubs should also be careful about hiring people who haven't committed crimes at all, eg outspoken racists).  Preventing someone from playing football professionally doesn't amount to "ruining someone's life".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 14, 2014, 05:00:49 pm
And in cases like this, the actual details of the court case don't really matter. If the public thinks you're guilty then that's what the league will respond to. The court of public opinion trumps legal and ethical issues any day. What matters is the appearance of not supporting rapists.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on November 14, 2014, 05:07:04 pm
.... it's not "rapists" that they are opposing, it's justice and reinsertion.


It always amuse me that peoples are all for left wing ideas in theory, but will drop them all the time in practice.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 14, 2014, 05:08:41 pm
Yeah, in this case, it would also be a signal that they're supporting ex-con getting back into society.

Also, how on Earth was that guy convicted for rape, but not the other guy that was having sex with the same girl at the same time as him?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 14, 2014, 05:10:09 pm
Quote from: Reelya on November 14, 2014, 05:00:49 pm
And in cases like this, the actual details of the court case don't really matter. If the public thinks you're guilty then that's what the league will respond to. The court of public opinion trumps legal and ethical issues any day. What matters is the appearance of not supporting rapists.
He was convicted of rape in a court of law, what more do you want?

Like this isn't a case where the "court of public opinion" has decided someone's a rapist in spite of their acquittal, it's a case where an actual court of law looked and the evidence and decided that yes, he raped that woman.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 14, 2014, 05:20:03 pm
Like Sheb said, why him and not the other guy doing the exact same thing?

But I could also say people's views on court decisions flip flop too. If I was to talk about people wrongfully charged with murder and given the death penalty no-one here would go "they were convicted in a court of law, what more do you want?" as a rebuttal. It does seem a bit convenient to slam court decisions when you feel like it but uphold them as beyond question other times. Either courts are a fundamentally flawed system and it's always valid to question court findings, or we accept all court findings as the final word on all matters. You can't have a bit of both, depending on the identity politics of who is charged with what.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 14, 2014, 07:54:43 pm
I was responding specifically your idea that this is somehow the fault of the "court of public opinion".  If you want to criticize a court's decision you should point to flaws in the state's case, as we do whenever one of the death penalty stories comes up (it happens a lot because death penalty defendants never have good lawyers so they can be railroaded).

I don't think it's likely the state's case is bad though, considering the fact that the rape was recorded on film.  So they'd be able to judge whether Evans was taking advantage of an insensible woman just fine.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 14, 2014, 08:12:32 pm
[redcated]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 14, 2014, 08:19:59 pm
It doesn't seem to be in that article but other sources say it was.
http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Port-Vale-s-Clayton-McDonald-guilty-raping-19/story-15874897-detail/story.html
Quote
Evans, of Penistone, South Yorkshire, then arrived at the hotel around 10 minutes later and raped the woman. The attack was filmed on a mobile phone by Evans's brother and a friend.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/wales-footballer-ched-evans-raped-2047536
Quote
Video recordings found on Mr Higgins’s phone showed that he had been filming or trying to film the incident.
This is probably why he was convicted an McDonald wasn't, there was more direct evidence.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 14, 2014, 08:37:46 pm
idk, both should have been convicted based on the evidence. If she was too drunk to consent to Evans, she was too drunk to consent to the other guy, whether there was a video or not. It still smacks to me that they wanted exactly 1 conviction out of this case, and he got the short straw. It's a common thing, and the British legal system has a history rife with these semi-political things - cases where they don't really care but they think convicting one person will be good PR (or more often, to avoid bad PR).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 14, 2014, 09:47:30 pm
There are all kinds of possible reasons for the verdict - maybe the jury decided that the woman may have consented to have sex with the man she went home with but not any old rando walking into the apartment, or maybe they thought the woman's condition may have deteriorated after McDonald had sex with her (it takes a while for alcohol to have its full effect).  You have not seen the evidence (or even read all the information that's available to the public) so frankly you cannot make that claim.

And even if the jury was mistaken in acquitting McDonald that doesn't change the fact that Evans was convicted, and that no real flaws in the case have come to light.

I also see no reason why "they" (the jury?) would want exactly one conviction out of this case rather than two.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BurnedToast on November 17, 2014, 12:38:55 pm
Quote from: Phmcw on November 14, 2014, 04:22:08 pm
I disagree and this goes against a fundamental principle of social democracy.


Actually it combine two topical American misguided idea : freedom of speech is absolute and "you vote with your wallet".
Freedom of speech shouldn't be absolute : hate speech is an agression and, because it force peoples to be civil, the state itself should sanction it.


And the monetisation of politics make it so that ALL political parties are controlled by money, Democrat and Republican. In practice, CEO shouldn't be allowed to voice a political opinion and companies whouldn't be allowed to finance politics. As long as they are, poorer peoples will never be represented.
In your system, if your wallet is empty you don't exist.

And I disagree with you - freedom of speech *should* be absolute. The instant you decide some speech is acceptable and some is not, is the instant the concept becomes meaningless. Let the bigots and racists and zealots show the world just how disgusting they really are - they will hurt themselves far, far more then trying to silence them would.

As for "vote with your wallet", I think you've completely misunderstood the phrase. it's not supposed to apply to politics at all, it applies to influencing the behavior of companies and markets. Most americans would agree that the corruption of politics by money is a bad thing (though, nobody can agree on how to fix it)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 17, 2014, 12:40:40 pm
What about libel, slander, and wilful disinformation in your news and advertisement.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BurnedToast on November 17, 2014, 12:44:25 pm
Quote from: Darvi on November 17, 2014, 12:40:40 pm
What about libel, slander, and wilful disinformation in your news and advertisement.

It's not what they are saying that's being punished, it's fact the are lying.

A subtle, but important difference (imo).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on November 17, 2014, 01:07:20 pm
Well most hate speech is either slandering a race or group in a publication (a dabate on violence in the name of Islams is not hate speech for instance), or racially charged insult. It's also provocations based on race/gender/ethincity/sexual preference.


Once that is out of the way, you can actually discuss ideas.


Quote
it's not supposed to apply to politics at all, it applies to influencing the behavior of companies and markets


This sentence contradict itself.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 17, 2014, 01:12:00 pm
Quote from: BurnedToast on November 17, 2014, 12:44:25 pm
Quote from: Darvi on November 17, 2014, 12:40:40 pm
What about libel, slander, and wilful disinformation in your news and advertisement.

It's not what they are saying that's being punished, it's fact the are lying.

A subtle, but important difference (imo).

So would it be okay to go after racists for saying Obama is a Muslim and/or is from Kenya? Those are both pretty obvious lies.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on November 17, 2014, 01:15:28 pm
The muslim thing isn't slanderous (it'ss not a bad thing), though, and you have to give more leeway for political speech, just to show that you're not using it for censorship.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BurnedToast on November 17, 2014, 01:33:57 pm
Quote from: Phmcw on November 17, 2014, 01:07:20 pm
Quote
it's not supposed to apply to politics at all, it applies to influencing the behavior of companies and markets


This sentence contradict itself.

Company A starts burning down rainforests to produce more coffee. Company B uses sustainable agriculture practices. You switch from brand A to brand B. This is considered "voting with your wallet"

Politician A suggests we should start murdering babies. Politician B suggests that's a bad idea. You donate all your money to politician A because you hate babies. This is NOT considered voting with your wallet as the phrase is traditionally used.

Do you understand the difference?

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 17, 2014, 01:12:00 pm
Quote from: BurnedToast on November 17, 2014, 12:44:25 pm
Quote from: Darvi on November 17, 2014, 12:40:40 pm
What about libel, slander, and wilful disinformation in your news and advertisement.

It's not what they are saying that's being punished, it's fact the are lying.

A subtle, but important difference (imo).

So would it be okay to go after racists for saying Obama is a Muslim and/or is from Kenya? Those are both pretty obvious lies.

If they are knowingly lying about him being from kenya, then yes I think that could be considered slander/libel. The president's birthplace is an objective fact that can be proven.

The muslim thing is a more difficult question, since it's impossible to prove he's not secretly muslim in his heart. I think, generally speaking, no but it strongly depends on the situation and the specific statements made.

In both situations, the fact that they are racists have nothing to do with the situation. Racism is not what's being punished, it's the slander/libel.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 17, 2014, 01:35:32 pm
Quote from: BurnedToast on November 17, 2014, 01:33:57 pm
Quote from: Phmcw on November 17, 2014, 01:07:20 pm
Quote
it's not supposed to apply to politics at all, it applies to influencing the behavior of companies and markets


This sentence contradict itself.

Company A starts burning down rainforests to produce more coffee. Company B uses sustainable agriculture practices. You switch from brand A to brand B. This is considered "voting with your wallet"

Politician A suggests we should start murdering babies. Politician B suggests that's a bad idea. You donate all your money to politician A because you hate babies. This is NOT considered voting with your wallet as the phrase is traditionally used.

Do you understand the difference?
The difference is that the former affects politics only indirectly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on November 17, 2014, 01:37:32 pm
How much child slave labor is Company B using in this example?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on November 17, 2014, 01:40:54 pm
Quote from: Phmcw on November 17, 2014, 01:15:28 pm
The muslim thing isn't slanderous (it'ss not a bad thing), though, and you have to give more leeway for political speech, just to show that you're not using it for censorship.

But being from Kenya is?  :P

Am kidding.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BurnedToast on November 17, 2014, 01:44:33 pm
Quote from: Criptfeind on November 17, 2014, 01:37:32 pm
How much child slave labor is Company B using in this example?

They use *all* the child slave labor, but it's OK because you hate children almost as much as you hate babies.

Quote from: Darvi on November 17, 2014, 01:35:32 pm
The difference is that the former affects politics only indirectly.

If you want to be pedantic, then I suppose everything indirectly affects politics.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on November 17, 2014, 01:45:35 pm
Quote from: Descan on November 17, 2014, 01:40:54 pm
Quote from: Phmcw on November 17, 2014, 01:15:28 pm
The muslim thing isn't slanderous (it'ss not a bad thing), though, and you have to give more leeway for political speech, just to show that you're not using it for censorship.

But being from Kenya is?  :P

Am kidding.
Well yeah, it's saying he got his position illegitimately, which I believe would be illegal probably.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on November 17, 2014, 01:51:17 pm
Quote from: BurnedToast on November 17, 2014, 12:38:55 pm
Let the bigots and racists and zealots show the world just how disgusting they really are - they will hurt themselves far, far more then trying to silence them would.

The question is who else they'll hurt in the process.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BurnedToast on November 17, 2014, 02:05:29 pm
Quote from: Vector on November 17, 2014, 01:51:17 pm
Quote from: BurnedToast on November 17, 2014, 12:38:55 pm
Let the bigots and racists and zealots show the world just how disgusting they really are - they will hurt themselves far, far more then trying to silence them would.

The question is who else they'll hurt in the process.

If they hurt people directly, via assault etc then we already punish that.

If they hurt people's feelings - too bad, nobody promised anyone a world where everyone agrees on everything. They have as much right to believe what they believe as you have to believe what you do.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on November 17, 2014, 02:07:33 pm
Quote
Company A starts burning down rainforests to produce more coffee. Company B uses sustainable agriculture practices. You switch from brand A to brand B. This is considered "voting with your wallet"


First there is not a lot of difference between the two, second you may not afford to do it, third it''s only important if the price difference is rather small. If it's big, every big chains will have to buy the rainforest destroying coffee.


I vote with my vote and would forbid the first coffee. Simple and efficient, and doesn't ask me to understand the production process of every damn thing I consume.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on November 17, 2014, 02:10:16 pm
Uh huh. So because the pain isn't physical it doesn't matter, despite it having a real, detrimental effect on people's quality of life and ability?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on November 17, 2014, 02:11:04 pm
Quote from: BurnedToast on November 17, 2014, 02:05:29 pm
Quote from: Vector on November 17, 2014, 01:51:17 pm
Quote from: BurnedToast on November 17, 2014, 12:38:55 pm
Let the bigots and racists and zealots show the world just how disgusting they really are - they will hurt themselves far, far more then trying to silence them would.

The question is who else they'll hurt in the process.

If they hurt people directly, via assault etc then we already punish that.

If they hurt people's feelings - too bad, nobody promised anyone a world where everyone agrees on everything. They have as much right to believe what they believe as you have to believe what you do.

i'm going to approve this and specifically this post

especially since it means jack shit when i approve things

keep up the good posts
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 17, 2014, 02:22:03 pm
Quote from: BurnedToast on November 17, 2014, 02:05:29 pm
Quote from: Vector on November 17, 2014, 01:51:17 pm
Quote from: BurnedToast on November 17, 2014, 12:38:55 pm
Let the bigots and racists and zealots show the world just how disgusting they really are - they will hurt themselves far, far more then trying to silence them would.

The question is who else they'll hurt in the process.

If they hurt people directly, via assault etc then we already punish that.

If they hurt people's feelings - too bad, nobody promised anyone a world where everyone agrees on everything. They have as much right to believe what they believe as you have to believe what you do.
What if I start riling people up against the Turks (the biggest minority in Germany), telling them to burn down their houses and drown their children? I haven't hurt anyone myself...
Not that I necessarily agree with what Vector had in mind - she was a wee bit unspecific - but it's  more complicated than 'Free speech reigns surpreme'. As I said in the bodily autonomy debate: It's always about weighing different rights and interests against each other.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BurnedToast on November 17, 2014, 02:38:28 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on November 17, 2014, 02:22:03 pm
Quote from: BurnedToast on November 17, 2014, 02:05:29 pm
Quote from: Vector on November 17, 2014, 01:51:17 pm
Quote from: BurnedToast on November 17, 2014, 12:38:55 pm
Let the bigots and racists and zealots show the world just how disgusting they really are - they will hurt themselves far, far more then trying to silence them would.

The question is who else they'll hurt in the process.

If they hurt people directly, via assault etc then we already punish that.

If they hurt people's feelings - too bad, nobody promised anyone a world where everyone agrees on everything. They have as much right to believe what they believe as you have to believe what you do.
What if I start riling people up against the Turks (the biggest minority in Germany), telling them to burn down their houses and drown their children? I haven't hurt anyone myself...
Not that I necessarily agree with what Vector had in mind - she was a wee bit unspecific - but it's  more complicated than 'Free speech reigns surpreme'. As I said in the bodily autonomy debate: It's always about weighing different rights and interests against each other.

In my opinion? I think the people that burned down the house should be punished for that, but I'm not sure I'd say you committed a crime unless you specifically ordered them to do it.

Obviously there's a lot of grey area around what is considered ordering someone to do it, but I don't personally think the act of suggesting that you would be happy if the turks were burned out of germany should automatically be illegal on it's own
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on November 17, 2014, 02:48:34 pm
You don't even need to make a direct suggestion in order to incite that sort of thing.  If you say that they are horrible enough times, people will believe it.  You won't just get violence, you'll get oppressive laws that will eventually affect people outside of the intended group.


I don't think we even have a good legislative answer to this.  Censorship will slow the spread of hate, but make it hard to find, and freedom to engage in hate speech spreads hate faster.  The more it spreads, the faster it spreads.  That's probably why there are people that push for cultural changes instead.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on November 17, 2014, 03:07:39 pm
Quote
I don't think we even have a good legislative answer to this.  Censorship will slow the spread of hate, but make it hard to find, and freedom to engage in hate speech spreads hate faster.  The more it spreads, the faster it spreads.  That's probably why there are people that push for cultural changes instead.


Good, rational information and education is the answer. FYI what we have currently is flag waving and circlejerking.

I lost a tremoundous amount of respect for the press those last weeks, seing how readily they'd misrepresent things and attack peoples based on their alignement, but at the same time, I thinl we have, more than ever, tools to spread actual informations and reflexions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 17, 2014, 03:14:13 pm
Quote from: Phmcw on November 17, 2014, 03:07:39 pm
I lost a tremoundous amount of respect for the press those last weeks, seing how readily they'd misrepresent things and attack peoples based on their alignement, but at the same time, I thinl we have, more than ever, tools to spread actual informations and reflexions.
Agreed, the active discrimination against Lawful Evil and Chaotic Neutral individuals is one of the most pressing issues in our society today, outweighing almost all others.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 17, 2014, 03:15:24 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 17, 2014, 03:14:13 pm
Quote from: Phmcw on November 17, 2014, 03:07:39 pm
I lost a tremoundous amount of respect for the press those last weeks, seing how readily they'd misrepresent things and attack peoples based on their alignement, but at the same time, I thinl we have, more than ever, tools to spread actual informations and reflexions.
Agreed, the active discrimination against Lawful Evil and Chaotic Neutral individuals is one of the most pressing issues in our society today, outweighing almost all others.
Help, I'm being oppressed!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on November 17, 2014, 03:44:50 pm
Quote from: Ogdibus on November 17, 2014, 02:48:34 pm
You don't even need to make a direct suggestion in order to incite that sort of thing.  If you say that they are horrible enough times, people will believe it.  You won't just get violence, you'll get oppressive laws that will eventually affect people outside of the intended group.


I don't think we even have a good legislative answer to this.  Censorship will slow the spread of hate, but make it hard to find, and freedom to engage in hate speech spreads hate faster.  The more it spreads, the faster it spreads.  That's probably why there are people that push for cultural changes instead.
Well then if you convince people that a group is horrible you win at the social game. You are more convincing than the people arguing against you. Congratulations. That's how free speech works.
The way I see it there's really two ways you can go:
The one I think I would like the best is the second, because of course I'm going to want the ideas I think are best to have to be the ones everyone holds (and you would be a bad person not to). But on the other hand, it has the problem of being inflexible. If you decide that actually those aren't the best things for everyone to think there's nothing that can be done to fix it. Wheras with the first there's more chance for undesirable opinions to exist but it is somewhat more flexible and easier to implement.
Anything in between the two positions is ultimately unsustainable to justify. See: the free speech arguments we have every other month.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 17, 2014, 03:54:37 pm
False dichotomy much?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on November 17, 2014, 04:01:31 pm
Quote from: Darvi on November 17, 2014, 03:54:37 pm
False dichotomy much?
Not at all. I acknowledged that you don't have to work at those extremes, but they are the only ones that can be given a justification that has internal consistency.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on November 17, 2014, 04:02:17 pm
Ah.

The same goes for anything in between though, if you're consistent with the exceptions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ogdibus on November 17, 2014, 04:03:44 pm
Quote from: Phmcw on November 17, 2014, 03:07:39 pm
Good, rational information and education is the answer. FYI what we have currently is flag waving and circlejerking.

I lost a tremoundous amount of respect for the press those last weeks, seing how readily they'd misrepresent things and attack peoples based on their alignement, but at the same time, I thinl we have, more than ever, tools to spread actual informations and reflexions.

Good information is still judged subjectively by the people that receive it.  All the tools that you can use to spread truth are also used to spread lies.  The deciding factors will be controlling access to those tools, and the amount energy that they are willing and able to commit to their ideals.

Quote from: Graknorke on November 17, 2014, 03:44:50 pm
-snop-
I meant that neither the extremes, nor a compromise would work because the problem cannot be solved by passing laws.  Laws might be able to help a little, but nothing more.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 17, 2014, 04:04:43 pm
I'd be really skeptical of legal frameworks to prevent unwanted speech. Legal sanctions on one group always spill over to unrelated people, no matter what "they" promise when the laws are enacted.

For example, the state of Queensland, Australia ("our Alabama" as I like to call it) initiated sweeping anti-biker laws to curb organized crime, despite the fact that bikers commit only a tiny % of organized crime. I wouldn't be surprised if stopping and searching dudes in suits would net more illicit dealings.

These laws criminalized 3 or more "bikers" from hanging out in public. The promise as always is that these laws would only hurt "gangs", but of course the police HAVE to stop any 3 dudes who look remotely "tough" just to check that they're not members of some gang. This has included people who have beards, people who wear Sons of Anarchy T-Shirts, basically anyone "rough looking" now can be legally harassed.

Some woman went to jail because she was walking along the street with her husband, who was an ex-biker or something, they ran into his brother (or her brother I forget) and stopped to say "hello". Police then swooped down and arrested all 3 under the new anti-gang laws for "illegal assemblage", because it criminalizes assemblages of gang members or "associates". And this has been legally interpreted to mean "family members".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 17, 2014, 04:39:56 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on November 17, 2014, 04:01:31 pm
Not at all. I acknowledged that you don't have to work at those extremes, but they are the only ones that can be given a justification that has internal consistency.
Why is theoretical justification necessary? The important thing is that it works, not that it's consistent.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on November 17, 2014, 05:55:30 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on November 17, 2014, 04:39:56 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on November 17, 2014, 04:01:31 pm
Not at all. I acknowledged that you don't have to work at those extremes, but they are the only ones that can be given a justification that has internal consistency.
Why is theoretical justification necessary? The important thing is that it works, not that it's consistent.
Generally when you're making laws and national policies you need to explain to people why you're doing it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 17, 2014, 06:00:28 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on November 17, 2014, 05:55:30 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on November 17, 2014, 04:39:56 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on November 17, 2014, 04:01:31 pm
Not at all. I acknowledged that you don't have to work at those extremes, but they are the only ones that can be given a justification that has internal consistency.
Why is theoretical justification necessary? The important thing is that it works, not that it's consistent.
Generally when you're making laws and national policies you need to explain to people why you're doing it.
''Cause it works' is usually a sufficient explanation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on November 17, 2014, 06:01:44 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on November 17, 2014, 06:00:28 pm
''Cause it works' is usually a sufficient explanation.
But it won't work for everybody. Nothing works for everybody. So you have to explain to those who it would affect negatively why it's a good thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 17, 2014, 06:06:27 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on November 17, 2014, 06:01:44 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on November 17, 2014, 06:00:28 pm
''Cause it works' is usually a sufficient explanation.
But it won't work for everybody. Nothing works for everybody. So you have to explain to those who it would affect negatively why it's a good thing.
'Cause it works! If someone doesn't accept that explanation no other explanation will placate them, unless they're an orthodox Marxist - and fuck those guys, I still can't believe they ruined the NEP.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on November 18, 2014, 02:39:25 pm
 ???
Yeah, "'Cause it works" is the reason people give who
-don't know the reason themselves
-are too lazy to explain their reasoning
-are afraid that their reasoning is wrong
-know that it works differently than they propose, thus hiding what "it" actually works for

So, no. If that should be sufficient we can go back to monarchy. Less overhead for the same effect.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 18, 2014, 02:45:30 pm
Well, if you don't know why something work, but know from experimental data that it does, why should you be afraid to use it? After all, we only figured out how aspirin work a few years ago.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on November 18, 2014, 03:07:54 pm
Um, because long term or unidentified side effects (especially in regards to niche cases, like certain portions of the population with particular genetic oddities, and suchlike) are a thing? When something works, but you don't know why, it's entirely possible (and, from what I understand historically, incredibly likely) you're getting a lot more than just "what works". Which is why one should be leery of poorly understood processes, even if they're currently functioning.

Hell, wasn't misuse of aspirin killing and/or strongly increasing likelihood of death/complication for a while? It was working, but, y'know, doing other stuff. And people kicked it because of that.

Mind you, in that case, it's barely arguable that it wasn't worth it anyway, but... reason for concern, yes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 18, 2014, 03:25:20 pm
The aspirin thing was notable because it wasn't misuse by the patients, it was mass deaths caused by using the drug as doctors and the medical establishment were actively promoting - 1 aspirin a day for seniors at risk of stroke (since it thins the blood). This lead to 30000 people dying per year of internal bleeding (it thins the blood and also damages stomach / intestinal lining).

I'm not saying "misuse" is the wrong term per se, but it carries strong connotations of "not using as directed" thus shifting the blame to the consumer, and away from the person giving you the drug or promoting the "1 aspirin a day" advice.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on November 18, 2014, 03:35:13 pm
Yeah, more institutional misuse than individual misuse -- using a thing to solve one problem (it works!) without awareness or understanding that it was causing another (it works... among other things). That's the basic problem with riding on experimental results without understanding the processes involved. Is why "it works" isn't sufficient justification. It's necessary justification, but not sufficient. The sufficient part includes things like "Isn't going to turn patient's future offspring into goo."

It's all medical (or sociological, or whatever) miracles until you or your partner gives birth to a sentient slime. Then it is also medical miracles, but of a considerably different sort.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 18, 2014, 03:43:30 pm
Quote from: Sheb on November 18, 2014, 02:45:30 pm
Well, if you don't know why something work, but know from experimental data that it does, why should you be afraid to use it? After all, we only figured out how aspirin work a few years ago.

I'll also note "a few years ago" is also about the time when they told everyone stop taking so much aspirin because it's more likely to kill you than help you. We figured out how it works, and also realized "oops!" about the same time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on November 19, 2014, 12:30:10 pm
Hate speech is, I belive, speech that is either  similar to slander agaisnt a group or to calling for a hit against a group, and prosecutable on the same ground.

It's either something like "black peoples are inferiors" which is false and damaging to their reputation, so pretty much slander, or "kill all muslims" which is a call for violence against peoples which is illegal in itself.

Hate speech law are a framework that is usefull to help the prosecution of those acts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on November 19, 2014, 02:09:08 pm
(huh, TIL aspirin blocks COX-1 & can lead to ulcers.
On that tangent, a health-related anti-establishment documentary: Fathead (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evcNPfZlrZs). The subject is the lipid hypothesis & diet. It's pretty low-budget, and it isn't a flawless presentation by any stretch, but it's got some good info & a certain charm. Check it out if you've got the time.
First half hour is kinda lame & focused on debunking 'Supersize Me'.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on November 19, 2014, 02:19:51 pm
Just started it... 2min47 in this seems to be a documentary about how he misunderstood dieteticians. I'll keep watching.

The first thing he missed is that fat is said to be bad for two reasons : the first is that cholesterol plug veins and atreries so it looked like high fat diet is a bad thing (but it seems to be more complicated than that), the second is that it is calory dense, and therefore that it's easy to eat 5000 calories if you eat fatty food. Try eating 5000 calories of lettuce!


It could also be addictive, and it seems it is.

Edit : then he proceed to vicoulsy murder a strawman. But of course, advertizing budget mean nothing, right?


About bmi and obesity, he explain it all by the change of definition of the BMI and ignore all subsectent growth. And of course, american are all buff as hell because they have more than 5 more point on the BMI average than the French for instance.

I quit, he's unable to be even a bit logical.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on November 19, 2014, 04:34:00 pm
Ah well, he actually does a decent review of cholesterol & heart disease.
He also seems to be something of a libertarian- regarding 'it's easy to eat too many calories' I think his opinion would be 'people know it's high-calorie food when they eat it, (he even does street-side interviews about this), and what with their being consenting, informed adults, changing their mind about it is none of our business'. (20 minutes in)
Further, the 5000-calorie thing is Spurlock literally stuffing himself. It's not so easy to hit that, as shown in the first half-hour. (15 minutes in)

'Addiction' was also one of the topics he rails against, to the point I even thought it was annoying. But I agree with him- No, it isn't addictive, that has a definition dude.

Which Strawman? (I'd not be surprised if there are several.)

He's pointing out BMI isn't a good measure, & the 'EPIDEMIC!' craze happened the same time the definition was changed. (44 minutes in)
Also, the documentary puts the cause of any BMI growth on our growing inactivity & what we eat between meals- snacks & high-fructose drinks. (28 minutes in) And also demographic changes. (48 minutes)
-Worth noting, one of my beefs with the documentary is right around that second spot. He claims minorities are genetically predisposed to being overweight. I'd need to cross-check that relationship with income-to-BMI before accepting it.

~50:00 is where it really starts to hit its stride.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 19, 2014, 07:53:35 pm
Seeing things in a linear "lose weight / gain weight" dichotomy is a bit narrow too though (whichever video you watch). What type of weight is gained/lost? Muscle or fat?

One of the reasons for yo-yo dieting is that crash diets tend to burn a lot more muscle than they do fat. That's why good diet sites always suggest a gradual, small caloric deficit. The body burns bodyfat if there's not enough carbs/fat in the diet, but if the deficit is too much, it reduces fat burning and switches to protein burning, i.e. burns muscle tissue for energy. Which is BAD, but dieters think "I lost so much weight, SO COOL!", and when they start eating a proper amount of calories again the body is actually in a muscle-poor state and prioritizes rebuilding the stores of lean muscle tissues (a lot of the lost weight is water inside the tissues too), so you get a rapid increased in weight. But it's largely rebuilding important tissues that were withered away during the starvation period, yet people freak out about how they "put the fat back on". Hint: because you didn't excercise or do anything to prevent muscle loss during your diet, you didn't lose that much fat in the first place.

You could lose weight on a fast-food diet like the video says, but you're probably not getting enough protein to prevent muscle breakdown.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 19, 2014, 08:12:18 pm
The alternative is to just never stop having a severe exercise program, but of course such vigorous activity is bound to build energy-hungry muscle tissue anyway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on November 19, 2014, 08:18:34 pm
@Reelya
His fast food diet didn't include fries & I think he even skipped out on buns sometimes. Said he kept carb intake to 100g/day.
Which makes me think he'd get plenty of protein.
-Looking at a freeze frame, yeah he got about the same amount of protein, 100g/day. & about 50g of saturated fat.

I'm also pretty sure he lost his weight much more quickly than spurlock who 'followed an ultra-vegan purifying diet'. Came out to..12lbs. According to the pre-diet math it should have been 7.5lbs, which would have been the upper end of the 'optimal' weight loss of 1-2lbs/week.

His cholesterol was still good too. Not as great as before his diet, but it's not like a fast-food diet is the best way to eat.
Last 10 minutes or so if you want to see the result stuff.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on November 20, 2014, 02:10:52 am
I'm not sure what your definition of addictive is that sugar can't apply to. Sugar is fairly addictive and can come in both "bad habitualisation" and "drug-like" kinds.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on November 20, 2014, 03:17:21 am
I am very skeptical when it comes to throwing that word around in the absence of strong withdrawal effects.
I'd have to see the research notes & particularly their controls.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Have any sugar studies on hand?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 20, 2014, 03:23:17 am
Sample size of 1, no blinding? That doesn't sound like a study at all to me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 20, 2014, 05:15:50 am
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on November 20, 2014, 03:17:21 am
I am very skeptical when it comes to throwing that word around in the absence of strong withdrawal effects.
So cocaine isn't addictive?
There's psychological dependence as well as physical dependence, you know.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on November 20, 2014, 05:25:13 am
Quote from: Sheb on November 20, 2014, 03:23:17 am
Sample size of 1, no blinding? That doesn't sound like a study at all to me.

Plus, my only experience with that anecdote is my mother... doing that very successfully.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 20, 2014, 11:08:52 am
Quote from: Ispil on November 20, 2014, 03:21:54 am
Well, if you want the best study of all- try going without refined sugar (including corn syrup) for 2 weeks. Tell us how it goes.

I definitely know people who have done that without withdrawals.

Of course, you can psych yourself into having withdrawals from anything. I've seen sites decrying bread as the cause of all modern health problems full of people talking about how quit bread and went through bread withdrawals.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on November 20, 2014, 11:32:09 am
Bread is sugar.

And I can't know if they meant drug-/alcohol-like withdrawal or just figuratively/exaggeratingly but I'd assume the later, as I myself fight a continuous struggle against my bread habits. Especially the one late in the evening. It's so hard not to give in.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 20, 2014, 12:47:51 pm
Quote from: scriver on November 20, 2014, 11:32:09 am
Bread is sugar.

These people didn't mention cutting out any other sugar. They were definitely not having sugar withdrawals.

And these were serious symptoms. People reported shaking, stomach aches, and nausea. Not just bread cravings.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on November 20, 2014, 12:52:00 pm
Yeah... Hehe. Gonna assume their local bakery puts a little extra secret ingredient in his bread to keep the customers coming back ;)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on November 20, 2014, 12:57:13 pm
... y'know, I'm not saying it's what's happening, but it is a possibility that different physiologies are reacting in different ways, right? Iirc, you have something similar with salt -- some people have absolutely zero problem with a very substantial salt diet (and, in fact, suffer problems when they don't have it), but others aren't as tolerant. Maybe some portions of the population do experience bread withdrawals for some ungodly reason.

Sounds like something someone should do a straight up study on, honestly. Full blast, genetic tests and the whole shebang. Hell, maybe even keep up on neural activity during the process, see if there's something different going on there. They could just be noceboing themselves into suffering, but it's also possible there's something more substantial going on.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on November 20, 2014, 01:23:55 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on November 20, 2014, 05:15:50 am
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on November 20, 2014, 03:17:21 am
I am very skeptical when it comes to throwing that word around in the absence of strong withdrawal effects.
So cocaine isn't addictive?
There's psychological dependence as well as physical dependence, you know.
Nono, I'm just very skeptical. Cocaine & gambling are two I accept pretty readily, probably due to the obvious effects both of these can have on the lives of the afflicted, (bankruptcy, functional impairment, forfeiture of social/family connections). Which probably isn't the best/correct criteria.
My original assertion that 'it has a definition dude' probably wasn't the best choice of words...

Looking around, I'm getting the feeling that anything that activates the FosB reward system can be addicting. Which means 99% of the populace, -anyone that engages in anything rewarding-, are flirting with addiction or are addicts.
At that point the word kinda loses meaning.
Methinks the terminology needs to be redefined in the near future.



OI, did anyone get around to watching the whole video yet?!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on November 20, 2014, 01:47:16 pm
That's why people separate chemically/physiologically addictive from psychological addiction, dude.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 20, 2014, 01:56:11 pm
Pretty much everyone's addicted to something. It's just that cocaine will fuck you up way more than coffee will.

As a side note, has anyone read that news stories about those noodle restaurants in China that kept business up by slipping opiates into their noodles?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on November 20, 2014, 02:03:58 pm
Quote from: Descan on November 20, 2014, 01:47:16 pm
That's why people separate chemically/physiologically addictive from psychological addiction, dude.
Humbug dude. The distinction is hardly made and the actual meaning/implication of the two isn't ever elaborated on. 'Addiction' is a catch-all buzzword that equates heroine dependency with compulsive gambling and even regular excercise.


Hah, doesn't china have really strict drug laws?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on November 20, 2014, 02:14:44 pm
... what? No, there... there's fairly significant differences between a physical addiction and a psychological addiction. Among other things, the former's withdrawal symptoms can actually kill you. The latter only makes you want to die, at worst. Going cold turkey from gambling isn't going to cause your heart to stop. Going cold turkey from some chemically addictive substances will.

I mean, yeah, general parlance doesn't differentiate too readily, but there's a pretty damned significant difference in regards to treatment and medical/psychiatric consideration.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on November 20, 2014, 02:45:32 pm
I'm railing against the general parlance/use in the media. As a label 'addictive' is borked.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on November 20, 2014, 02:46:28 pm
Ah. Yeah, more or less.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 20, 2014, 03:07:06 pm
Quote from: Frumple on November 20, 2014, 12:57:13 pm
... y'know, I'm not saying it's what's happening, but it is a possibility that different physiologies are reacting in different ways, right? Iirc, you have something similar with salt -- some people have absolutely zero problem with a very substantial salt diet (and, in fact, suffer problems when they don't have it), but others aren't as tolerant. Maybe some portions of the population do experience bread withdrawals for some ungodly reason.

Sounds like something someone should do a straight up study on, honestly. Full blast, genetic tests and the whole shebang. Hell, maybe even keep up on neural activity during the process, see if there's something different going on there. They could just be noceboing themselves into suffering, but it's also possible there's something more substantial going on.

I mean... I guess it's not impossible.  But I'd want more reasoning than some corner of the internet claiming they experience something before I'd say it's worth investigation. Bread addiction is something I'm comfortable writing off as psychosomatic.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on November 20, 2014, 07:35:24 pm
Quote from: GrizzlyAdamz on November 20, 2014, 02:45:32 pm
I'm railing against the general parlance/use in the media. As a label 'addictive' is borked.
The problem is that it's binary. We really should start giving out evaluating addictiveness, on a scale from 0 to 1 for example.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 28, 2014, 08:43:37 am
I saw a bit of Obama's speech on immigration reform just now. It'll be good news if they start normalizing more undocumented residents, and they've made clear pretty stringent conditions for it to apply, 5+ years residency, no criminal record, have kids who are citizens or who have lived here most of their lives, and whatever else I forget.

Conservatives are convinced the whole deal is nothing but a vote grab on Obama's part. Ignoring the fact that the timing wouldn't make even a lick of sense for that.

Obama asked a good question: would we really want to live in an America which rounded up 10-20 million people and put them in camps, including mothers and their children? Because the options are, (1) go full Stalin on these peasants or (2) fix their residency papers, or (3) continue to do nothing about it. The opposition politicians are firmly in the "do nothing" camp, because they know (1) is crazy, and they don't want to do (2) because their voter base are rednecks.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on November 28, 2014, 02:36:53 pm
Meanwhile in Austin, Texas:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/28/gunman-killed-targeted-austin-buildings/19607141/
Quote
A white, middle-aged gunman, in what appears to be a politically motivated anti-government attack linked to immigration, fired more than a hundred rounds at buildings in downtown Austin early Friday and tried to set fire to the Mexican consulate before he died of a gunshot wound.

Quote
A police sergeant putting away police horses for the night shot the suspect with one hand while holding two horses by the reins in the other, Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo told reporters.
The police sergeant was later seen tipping his hat to reporters and riding off into the sunset as credits rolled.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 28, 2014, 05:22:26 pm
Only in Austin..
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheo on November 28, 2014, 07:41:07 pm
Using this as a "things that made you mad" of sorts and then a "things that made you happy", the fact some people don't get being too extremist and aggressive with your progressiveness is just as bad as when the other side does it and hurts actual progress a lot, but then I actually found people who agree with me, for once.

Know what I mean? You probably do. Hopefully.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on November 28, 2014, 08:04:07 pm
What, you mean this? (http://headtrip.keenspot.com/d/20100319.html) Yeah, but on the other hand, I feel like that's actually completely unrelated to any kind of progressiveness, and has more to do with tribal stuff. People get excited about the labels they give themselves, and don't always act consistently with them. You get the same thing with Christians, for instance.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on November 28, 2014, 08:13:30 pm
I think the issue isn't so much people who are "too progressive". The problem is when a few people latch onto exactly one pet theory that explains everything, they try to explain every single thing in the world in terms of that one theory, and get hostile if anyone proposes other factors that come into play.

I think it stems from the same impulse are religion - some people on both sides of the spectrum, need a nice, clear simple version of how the world works, and listening to other people talk about "the range of possible factors" in any open-minded way threatens that sense of security. I've met quite a few "new age liberals" who are just as insane as far-right christians. And just like Christians they latch onto these ludicrously simplified "explanations" to life's problems.

So I'd say there's no real person who's "too progressive" what you have is people who are deeply committed to one specific "life answer" to the point of attacking everything that doesn't fit that answer, whether progressive or otherwise.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on November 28, 2014, 08:38:01 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on November 28, 2014, 08:04:07 pm
What, you mean this? (http://headtrip.keenspot.com/d/20100319.html) Yeah, but on the other hand, I feel like that's actually completely unrelated to any kind of progressiveness, and has more to do with tribal stuff. People get excited about the labels they give themselves, and don't always act consistently with them. You get the same thing with Christians, for instance.

Funny how when "that" happens it's usually not an apology but a doubling down of douchery that occurs, followed by mental gymnastics that produce the imaged scenario where they're utterly innocent in how a situation might blow up. Have yet to see a scenario where somebody legitimately apologized for something rather than justified it which led to an outwardly angry response.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheo on November 29, 2014, 12:45:04 am
Quote from: Glowcat on November 28, 2014, 08:38:01 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on November 28, 2014, 08:04:07 pm
What, you mean this? (http://headtrip.keenspot.com/d/20100319.html) Yeah, but on the other hand, I feel like that's actually completely unrelated to any kind of progressiveness, and has more to do with tribal stuff. People get excited about the labels they give themselves, and don't always act consistently with them. You get the same thing with Christians, for instance.

Funny how when "that" happens it's usually not an apology but a doubling down of douchery that occurs, followed by mental gymnastics that produce the imaged scenario where they're utterly innocent in how a situation might blow up. Have yet to see a scenario where somebody legitimately apologized for something rather than justified it which led to an outwardly angry response.
To me it's the contrary.

Most of the adverse reactions to said situations usually come from people not understanding explanations. People apologize and then try to just say why they did that, since they're usually accused of racism/sexism/opression, but then get shouted down as trying to "justify" it.

There's a difference between justifying to show you were right and justifying to avoid being labeled as something after justly apologizing.

But I digress. I spend too much time these days circled by extremists, and thus I've grown quite tired of them, so apologies if it seems I am generalizing or being too cynical.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on November 29, 2014, 11:29:39 am
My experience matches Glowcat's. People who seriously apologize mostly don't feel the need to point out that they are not bad people. What is shown in the comic hasn't ever happened in my vicinity. It usually is more along the lines of
Quote
"That stupid homo hasn't got no balls."
"What you just said is incredibly sexist. I would be more comfortable if you didn't do that."
"Gee, if it's so important to you, okay, I apologize. Some people really have no spine. It's not like I am homophobic or something."
"You're an asshole."
"Well, you are just being oversensitive. I already apologized, I don't know what you're complaining about!"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheo on November 29, 2014, 12:24:59 pm
Quote from: Antsan on November 29, 2014, 11:29:39 am
My experience matches Glowcat's. People who seriously apologize mostly don't feel the need to point out that they are not bad people. What is shown in the comic hasn't ever happened in my vicinity. It usually is more along the lines of
Quote
"That stupid homo hasn't got no balls."
"What you just said is incredibly sexist. I would be more comfortable if you didn't do that."
"Gee, if it's so important to you, okay, I apologize. Some people really have no spine. It's not like I am homophobic or something."
"You're an asshole."
"Well, you are just being oversensitive. I already apologized, I don't know what you're complaining about!"
Both the case I described and what you described happen, depending on medium. I'm wagering you live or frequent places where people with more conservative views dwell, where to me it's the contrary.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on November 29, 2014, 12:50:04 pm
Nah, most people I know are anarchists, communists and the like. The most conservative I see is soccer fans and leftist Christians.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on November 29, 2014, 01:12:30 pm
ITT: Everyone sees only straw men.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on November 29, 2014, 01:35:35 pm
I don't know what "ITT" stands for, but I guess you are right.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheo on November 29, 2014, 01:37:29 pm
Quote from: Antsan on November 29, 2014, 12:50:04 pm
Nah, most people I know are anarchists, communists and the like. The most conservative I see is soccer fans and leftist Christians.
Uhm. Interesting.

I do agree these dicks exist, and boy do I see them a lot - only recently I actually had the guts to admit I'm bisexual in my local high school, for example. The librarian is a well known homophobe, and the rap sheet goes on for that place.

Quote from: Graknorke on November 29, 2014, 01:12:30 pm
ITT: Everyone sees only straw men.
I woulnd't say straw men. It's less about misunderstanding the other's point, and more arguing which point in and out itself is more important or prevalent.

I see the issue I described a lot. Doesn't mean the other side doesn't exist.

Quote from: Antsan on November 29, 2014, 01:35:35 pm
I don't know what "ITT" stands for, but I guess you are right.
"In this thread."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on November 29, 2014, 04:30:48 pm
Quote from: Sheo on November 29, 2014, 01:37:29 pm
I woulnd't say straw men. It's less about misunderstanding the other's point, and more arguing which point in and out itself is more important or prevalent.
If there were a word for it I would have said something about anti strawmen, for portraying the people you do agree with in an overly positive light.

Referring to Antsan saying that people who disagree with him is a reprehensible human being and everyone who tries to correct them on it is perfectly polite and reasonable, while all the people who were agreeing with the comic were saying such exchanges ever happened like that either.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on November 29, 2014, 04:35:28 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on November 29, 2014, 04:30:48 pm
Quote from: Sheo on November 29, 2014, 01:37:29 pm
I woulnd't say straw men. It's less about misunderstanding the other's point, and more arguing which point in and out itself is more important or prevalent.
If there were a word for it I would have said something about anti strawmen, for portraying the people you do agree with in an overly positive light.

Wait... wouldn't an anti-strawman portray the people you disagree with in an overly positive light?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on November 29, 2014, 04:40:19 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on November 29, 2014, 04:35:28 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on November 29, 2014, 04:30:48 pm
Quote from: Sheo on November 29, 2014, 01:37:29 pm
I woulnd't say straw men. It's less about misunderstanding the other's point, and more arguing which point in and out itself is more important or prevalent.
If there were a word for it I would have said something about anti strawmen, for portraying the people you do agree with in an overly positive light.
Wait... wouldn't an anti-strawman portray the people you disagree with in an overly positive light?
Depends how you consider the reversing.
If you take the definition as "a caricature that negatively misrepresents the opposition" and you flip the negatively then you would be right. But you could also take it as "a caricature designed to misrepresent the opposition for one's own purposes" and flip who the caricature is being applied to, and then the way I used it would be technically correct.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on November 29, 2014, 05:13:59 pm
The term is "ironman".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on November 29, 2014, 05:24:05 pm
Quote from: Putnam on November 29, 2014, 05:13:59 pm
The term is "ironman".
That does sound about right. (http://thenonsequitur.com/?p=3527)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on November 29, 2014, 06:19:51 pm
Quote from: Sheo on November 29, 2014, 01:37:29 pm
Quote from: Antsan on November 29, 2014, 12:50:04 pm
Nah, most people I know are anarchists, communists and the like. The most conservative I see is soccer fans and leftist Christians.
Uhm. Interesting.

I do agree these dicks exist, and boy do I see them a lot - only recently I actually had the guts to admit I'm bisexual in my local high school, for example. The librarian is a well known homophobe, and the rap sheet goes on for that place.

Quote from: Graknorke on November 29, 2014, 01:12:30 pm
ITT: Everyone sees only straw men.
I woulnd't say straw men. It's less about misunderstanding the other's point, and more arguing which point in and out itself is more important or prevalent.

I see the issue I described a lot. Doesn't mean the other side doesn't exist.

Quote from: Antsan on November 29, 2014, 01:35:35 pm
I don't know what "ITT" stands for, but I guess you are right.
"In this thread."

I feel you. I had to change schools in part because my interest in girls was discovered.

The other side of that is many times, homosexuals will be happy to tell you you don't actually exist. you are just gay and haven't realized it yet. Both sides will tell you you are just greedy or slutty.

I think I'm better described as pansexual, though I use bisexual because a lot of people would require an explanation of what pansexual is.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on November 29, 2014, 06:28:36 pm
Let me put it like this:
I, personally, have never experienced someone who cares about political correctness bashing someone after they apologized and said they didn't know. What I did witness and unfortunately do myself is getting irritated fast when people are politically incorrect beyond a certain point (like engaging in gratuitous slut shaming) which can lead to heated arguments. Still, those arguments certainly don't contain any apology that is not accompanied by some argument why trying to be politically correct is bad and why they should be allowed to talk all the shit they want freely. Expect gratuitous use of arguments about "freedom of speech", often coupled with "it's your own fault for being so libertarian".
I, personally, have often experienced people being told they were politically incorrect go on a rant how they couldn't say anything anymore without being told to shut up - even if what they were saying wasn't intended to be of any importance to the course of anyones life, their own included.

@smeeprocket, Sheo:
I am sorry for you two. Where I am people might talk shit and be insensitive about stuff but in general they leave people's sexuality alone.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on December 04, 2014, 10:13:15 pm
Good news on the LGBT front here.  The Minnesota High School League approved a policy (http://www.startribune.com/local/284783781.html) to allow transgender students play in sports. :)

Also, my state (MN) just announced a one billion dollar budget surplus...again.  All that since we *gasp* raised taxes on the wealthiest earners, how horrifying.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheo on December 05, 2014, 06:11:05 pm
Quote from: Jervill on December 04, 2014, 10:13:15 pm
Good news on the LGBT front here.  The Minnesota High School League approved a policy (http://www.startribune.com/local/284783781.html) to allow transgender students play in sports. :)

Also, my state (MN) just announced a one billion dollar budget surplus...again.  All that since we *gasp* raised taxes on the wealthiest earners, how horrifying.
That's pretty cool.

Curious though, is a MtF transgender allowed, under that policy, to play in official competitions on that gender's category?

I know it's a big subject discussed on the Olympics and other big sports things, due to body mass differences.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on December 05, 2014, 06:37:58 pm
Quote from: Jervill on December 04, 2014, 10:13:15 pm
Also, my state (MN) just announced a one billion dollar budget surplus...again.  All that since we *gasp* raised taxes on the wealthiest earners, how horrifying.
My gods you monsters, how could you take money from those poor, dear, sweet, innocent rich people? All they wanted to do was Scrooge McDuck it up, but instead you filthy commies forced them to replace pools full of money with pools slightly less full of money.
You wretched, soulless devils you  :'(
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr. Strange on December 05, 2014, 08:49:17 pm
Quote from: Jervill on December 04, 2014, 10:13:15 pm
Also, my state (MN) just announced a one billion dollar budget surplus...again.  All that since we *gasp* raised taxes on the wealthiest earners, how horrifying.
Wait, is that... Minnesota? Some part in USA is actually taxing their rich? Worlds gone mad I tell you...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on December 12, 2014, 06:15:16 pm
I'm surprised the rich people there didn't just move to another, nearby state.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on December 12, 2014, 06:41:54 pm
That could explain why North Dakota's millionaire per capita rose more than any other State last year.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101338309 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101338309)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 12, 2014, 06:56:26 pm
Quote from: EnigmaticHat on December 12, 2014, 06:15:16 pm
I'm surprised the rich people there didn't just move to another, nearby state.

That actually has been proven in a couple states to just not happen. Someone rich living in a particular state probably works in that state, has connections in that state, etc, and being taxed isn't enough of an issue for most rich people.

Taxing the rich really has nothing but benefits.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on December 12, 2014, 07:05:34 pm
Yeah, that's largely the thing with businesses - until your tax rate hits 100%, any threats to jump ship are threats to stop making money. What you're actually looking at are threats to incorporate somewhere else so that their income tax rates are lower, but that doesn't save them the money they're charged in the course of simply doing business (property taxes, sales taxes, etc), which are where you need to focus taxation efforts on corporations.

It's not nearly as easy for flesh-and-blood individuals who actually have things to lose like community and convenience. They're a different thing than businesses themselves, though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 12, 2014, 07:07:19 pm
yea some businesses will move. I know my state has incredibly low taxes for business and a lot of loopholes, so businesses do come here. They don't generally benefit the state on a level that the average person feels though.

Those kinds of businesses don't generally pay living wages.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2014, 07:36:03 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on December 05, 2014, 06:37:58 pm
Quote from: Jervill on December 04, 2014, 10:13:15 pm
Also, my state (MN) just announced a one billion dollar budget surplus...again.  All that since we *gasp* raised taxes on the wealthiest earners, how horrifying.
My gods you monsters, how could you take money from those poor, dear, sweet, innocent rich people? All they wanted to do was Scrooge McDuck it up, but instead you filthy commies forced them to replace pools full of money with pools slightly less full of money.
You wretched, soulless devils you  :'(
I would gleefully take rich people having the ethos of Scrooge McDuck over what we have now. At least McDuck is committed to honorable dealings and the meritocratic recognition of worth. He's a greedy fuck to be sure, but nobody can say he cheated at being a greedy fuck.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jervill on December 12, 2014, 07:41:31 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on December 12, 2014, 06:41:54 pm
That could explain why North Dakota's millionaire per capita rose more than any other State last year.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101338309 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101338309)

North Dakota also has a rather massive oil boom occurring right now.  Plus, the population of ND is ~700,000 while MN is ~5 million, so per capita stats are going to change rather strikingly in ND on what would be considered a small change in even a medium sized state.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on December 12, 2014, 08:12:47 pm
You know, while we're on the subject of taxation, here's Bauglir's ideal Corporate Income Tax (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=graph+y+%3D+x*%280.8%2F%281%2Be%5E%28-x%2F100000000%2B1.5%29%29%29+from+x+%3D+0+to+1000000000) rate and Personal Income Tax (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=graph+y+%3D+x*%280.4%2F%281%2Be%5E%28-x%2F50000%2B3%29%29%29+from+x+%3D+0+to+1000000) rate, with dollars paid as a function of dollars earned. Looks like it'd be vaguely similar to the actual system, only with much higher caps, but I like differentiable functions and I'd like this to be roughly what's aimed for after deductions and such (as in, what the combination of deductions and base taxation should create averaged across the nation, with a cutoff at around $10000 earned or so where it starts making no economic sense for anybody involved to be assessing, collecting, or paying.

I think the curves for other sorts of tax would be much wonkier and have much higher caps, but I'm no economist so I'm not even going to venture into that territory.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on December 12, 2014, 08:52:17 pm
I just want to remind everyone that Iceland has less than half the population as North Dakota.

That is all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 12, 2014, 09:18:51 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on December 12, 2014, 08:12:47 pm
You know, while we're on the subject of taxation, here's Bauglir's ideal Corporate Income Tax (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=graph+y+%3D+x*%280.8%2F%281%2Be%5E%28-x%2F100000000%2B1.5%29%29%29+from+x+%3D+0+to+1000000000) rate and Personal Income Tax (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=graph+y+%3D+x*%280.4%2F%281%2Be%5E%28-x%2F50000%2B3%29%29%29+from+x+%3D+0+to+1000000) rate, with dollars paid as a function of dollars earned. Looks like it'd be vaguely similar to the actual system, only with much higher caps, but I like differentiable functions and I'd like this to be roughly what's aimed for after deductions and such (as in, what the combination of deductions and base taxation should create averaged across the nation, with a cutoff at around $10000 earned or so where it starts making no economic sense for anybody involved to be assessing, collecting, or paying.

I think the curves for other sorts of tax would be much wonkier and have much higher caps, but I'm no economist so I'm not even going to venture into that territory.

You have to break that down or it'd be a nightmare for normal people to calculate their taxes. Any tax system that requires you to calculate x*(0.4/(1+e^(-x/50000+3))) will be useless in practice no matter how pretty the curve is.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on December 12, 2014, 10:43:44 pm
Oh, obviously. You'd be in a situation where you just report your income and the damn thing spits out what you owe. We have these nifty inventions called computers these days that can handle it in a jiffy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on December 12, 2014, 10:56:07 pm
Quote from: Descan on December 12, 2014, 08:52:17 pm
I just want to remind everyone that Iceland has less than half the population as North Dakota.

That is all.

it also has a decently competent government and a fuckton of geothermal resources, amongst others?

what purpose did you expect that reminder to serve exactly
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on December 12, 2014, 11:05:59 pm
That America is fuck-hueg, even your "Middle-of-nowhere" places are bigger than some entire countries :V
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on December 13, 2014, 01:43:41 am
Quote from: Bauglir on December 12, 2014, 10:43:44 pm
Oh, obviously. You'd be in a situation where you just report your income and the damn thing spits out what you owe. We have these nifty inventions called computers these days that can handle it in a jiffy.
Or just do what a normal person does and use an accountant to type in the numbers for you.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 13, 2014, 02:07:52 am
Quote from: Jervill on December 04, 2014, 10:13:15 pm
Also, my state (MN) just announced a one billion dollar budget surplus...again.  All that since we *gasp* raised taxes on the wealthiest earners, how horrifying.

Raising taxes never works because you end up with less money because high earners "go galt" and stop producing if you do that. They make themselves  poor to spite the taxman. You have to lower taxes to raise revenue, because that will be a reverse-galt with poor people becoming rich overnight because they see the taxes fall on millionaires and start working harder as a result. People prefer to live in the gutter than have to pay 37% taxes on income over $1 million, but drop that to 35% and they'll leap at opportunities to make money they would have scoffed at before.

What you wrote cannot be true and I refuse to cite evidence of my position, because it's just true and doesn't need evidence.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wobbly on December 13, 2014, 02:13:46 am
Quote from: Reelya on December 13, 2014, 02:07:52 am
What you wrote cannot be true and I refuse to cite evidence of my position, because it's just true and doesn't need evidence.

Except this is clearly false & I refuse to cite evidence on why, because it's just false and doesn't need evidence.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on December 13, 2014, 02:17:21 am
I cannot abide by anything even remotely related to saying that anything being presented as fact "doesn't need evidence".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on December 13, 2014, 02:37:37 am
Quote from: Reelya on December 13, 2014, 02:07:52 am
You have to lower taxes to raise revenue, because that will be a reverse-galt with poor people becoming rich overnight because they see the taxes fall on millionaires and start working harder as a result.
citation needed
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on December 13, 2014, 02:52:25 am
Comon it's clearly a joke.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: aenri on December 13, 2014, 03:46:40 am
Oh well, I'll bite.

In what was called Slovak tax miracle of 2003/2004, we here in Slovakia reduced tax rate almost universally /corporate from 25 progressive to 19 flat, personal 38-2 progressive to 19 flat and many others (like removing tax on inheritance, gifts, property transfers)/ and enjoyed great decline of public expenditure (from 45,1% of GDP in 2002 to 34,2% of GDP in 2007) and high growth of tax revenue (nominal amount of corporate taxes paid increased by 120% in years 2003-2008) in years after reform.

Source: Here, page 122 onwards, happy reading. (https://books.google.sk/books?id=yoAXBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=tax+reform+slovakia&source=bl&ots=qdvZvAzz_Q&sig=Ilc7QOkSFodUscLyguY17M9wfGc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fPiLVLzLH4OGzAOJkIGgCw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q=tax%20reform%20slovakia&f=false)

Unfortunately our current socialist government pretty much destroyed the effects of this flat tax reform and we now again have different rates for personal and corporate taxes, special taxes for very rich, funny loopholes in VAT tax code and other socialistic nonsense.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 13, 2014, 04:55:05 am
Problems with the Slovakia theory:

- GDP growth was actually pretty good before the tax reforms were implemented, averaging ~4.5 - 5% per year for the 3 years before the tax reforms. And GDP growth ROSE every year from 1999-2004. So it's a bit iffy to label a change in legislation from 2004 as being responsible for the rises from 2004-2007 in GDP growth. There was a previous 5 year-long boom with GDP growing faster (even in percentage terms) every year. So, GDP growth rising again in the next couple of years after that would just be expected even without the tax changes. There was no "new trend" in GDP that can be attributed to the tax cuts.

In fact, by 2007 the economy collapsed, only 3 years after the tax reforms came in. So you have 3 years of good growth, which you attribute to the tax changes. but tax changes just don't cause that sort of growth spurt instantly, they actually take a couple of years to kick in, as investment shifts. So in other words at the peak point where the tax reforms should have fixed things, a 10 year trend of improving GDP growth suddenly failed in a catastrophic decline.

As for government spending: it fell from 55% GDP in 2001, to 40% GDP (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/slovakia/government-spending-to-gdp) in January of 2004. And 2004 was the year of the tax reforms. It was already on a downhill trend, but that pretty much flattened out 2 years after the tax reforms. There was a 15% decline before the tax reforms and another 5% after the tax reforms, not the 10% change from 45% - 35% you cited: that has one name, bullshit intended to deceive you. Declines in government spending slowed down after the reforms, they didn't speed up. It's definitely in the "your being lied to" category, because even that 10% decline you noted? Most of it happened before the tax reforms.

My theory is that the government knew there was already a boom on, and they took the opportunity to slash taxes on the rich because they knew this would be hidden in the rising revenues from taxes they were already getting.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 13, 2014, 04:58:22 am
flat tax hurts the poor, even if it worked on some level it wouldn't be worth it.

I mean our system is beneficial if you are rich.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on December 13, 2014, 05:55:45 am
Any system besides 100%+ taxes are beneficial if you're rich. Being rich and all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: aenri on December 13, 2014, 06:26:38 am
Quote from: Reelya on December 13, 2014, 04:55:05 am
Problems with the Slovakia theory:

- GDP growth was actually pretty good before the tax reforms were implemented, averaging ~4.5 - 5% per year for the 3 years before the tax reforms. And GDP growth ROSE every year from 1999-2004. So it's a bit iffy to label a change in legislation from 2004 as being responsible for the rises from 2004-2007 in GDP growth. There was a previous 5 year-long boom with GDP growing faster (even in percentage terms) every year. So, GDP growth rising again in the next couple of years after that would just be expected even without the tax changes. There was no "new trend" in GDP that can be attributed to the tax cuts.

In fact, by 2007 the economy collapsed, only 3 years after the tax reforms came in. So you have 3 years of good growth, which you attribute to the tax changes. but tax changes just don't cause that sort of growth spurt instantly, they actually take a couple of years to kick in, as investment shifts. So in other words at the peak point where the tax reforms should have fixed things, a 10 year trend of improving GDP growth suddenly failed in a catastrophic decline.

Yep GDP growth was pretty good in 2001   3.4%, 2002 4.9% and 2003 4.7%. But then after 2004 it rose even higher - 2004 5%, 2005 6.6%, 2006 8.4%, 2007 10.6%!. I would ascribe this development to many factors, one very important factor that acted as force multiplier on GDP growth was tax reform (tax cuts). After that the economy tanked - GDP growth in 2008 5.5% and -4.9%! in 2009. This had little to do with tax reform though and much with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308).

Quote from: Reelya on December 13, 2014, 04:55:05 am
As for government spending: it fell from 55% GDP in 2001, to 40% GDP (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/slovakia/government-spending-to-gdp) in January of 2004. And 2004 was the year of the tax reforms. It was already on a downhill trend, but that pretty much flattened out 2 years after the tax reforms. There was a 15% decline before the tax reforms and another 5% after the tax reforms, not the 10% change from 45% - 35% you cited: that has one name, bullshit intended to deceive you. Declines in government spending slowed down after the reforms, they didn't speed up. It's definitely in the "your being lied to" category, because even that 10% decline you noted? Most of it happened before the tax reforms.

My theory is that the government knew there was already a boom on, and they took the opportunity to slash taxes on the rich because they knew this would be hidden in the rising revenues from taxes they were already getting.

You shouldn't look just on government expenditure alone. The country budget deficit and public debt all decreased the whole period after tax reforms. Even with slashed taxes (though real public revenue steadily increased), the government could maintain pretty positive budget balance and even decrease the public debt. The government expenditure also wasn't only affected by tax reform, and in no way I can here single out tax reform as very important factor in decreased government spending. There were many other reforms in government before tax reform and they started to kick in before the tax reform could be passed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on December 13, 2014, 07:02:32 am
Unsustainable economic bubbles that burst catastrophically: a good thing that we should encourage
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on December 13, 2014, 07:33:05 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on December 13, 2014, 07:02:32 am
Unsustainable economic bubbles that burst catastrophically: a good thing that we should encourage
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-says-it-would-be-lovely-if-interest-rates-could-remain-at-the-current-low-level-9829844.html

It's apparently not a rare sentiment.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on December 14, 2014, 12:32:31 pm
Study quantifying the effect a conversation with an openly gay person about gay marriage can have on people's opinions. (http://phys.org/news/2014-12-gay-marriage-gains-voter-illuminates.html)

The author has the study for download on his page (http://www.mikelacour.com/experiments/) along with some of the figures for quick reference.
Spoiler: Graphs (click to show/hide)
The big results there are a positive effect from the conversation (with a gay or straight canvasser) but the conversation with a gay person had a longer lasting effect which was them amplified when the Prop 8 decision was handed down. A weaker effect was also seen in other members of the household. In that case they were even more amplified by the Prop 8 decision.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 14, 2014, 12:36:47 pm
That's hardly the important part of this study. What we can clearly derive from this is that gay people are useless at recycling advocacy, and while passing anti-gay referendums to try and increase recycling initially gives a major boost, it quickly crashes afterwards. We must separate homosexuals and recycling programs completely in the mind of the public if we expect any success in the latter.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 14, 2014, 12:38:02 pm
Wow, it's amazing what actually talking with this to people affected does.

I feel like perhaps the people involved didn't personally know anyone gay or had never talked to them about this.

I think that is often part of the problem. Many people are simply unable to empathize because the problem isn't close enough to them.

Also, am I the only one that feels reduced govt spending isn't always a good thing. The government needs to be spending money, on the right things.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on December 14, 2014, 12:44:28 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 14, 2014, 12:38:02 pm
Also, am I the only one that feels reduced govt spending isn't always a good thing. The government needs to be spending money, on the right things.
Nah, I feel the same way. As long as there is a government it's better when it's spending money, on the right things, like base necessities.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 14, 2014, 12:53:06 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 14, 2014, 12:38:02 pm
Also, am I the only one that feels reduced govt spending isn't always a good thing. The government needs to be spending money, on the right things.
Hell, even Republicans don't always like cuts, for example cuts of military expenditure. "Government spending" is just a black box for anything the speaker doesn't like.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 14, 2014, 12:55:35 pm
America spends such a crazy amount of money on the military, and the spending bill most recently passed cut more from food stamps.

I don't understand cutting food stamps. Food should be a right. Why would they want to target that? It's the most effective program with the least fraud we have. I mean, even if someone is selling food stamps, the person they sell it to gets food for less money, thereby making it possible for them to eat.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on December 14, 2014, 01:10:38 pm
Because if you give people hand outs, they'll be too lazy to do actual work. Damn lazy kids, they should be in factories!

:V
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 14, 2014, 01:27:52 pm
Quote from: Descan on December 14, 2014, 01:10:38 pm
Because if you give people hand outs, they'll be too lazy to do actual work. Damn lazy kids, they should be in factories!

:V

yea lol

Of course, studying, doing work, being too old to work, all very hard to do on an empty stomach, I find.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on December 14, 2014, 01:29:52 pm
Personally I just still want a basic income guarantee, shove the rest of welfare off the cliff except for disability and seniors, and let people figure out what they'll spend the money on themselves. I dislike the hand-holding nature of ost welfare, like Food Stamps and such.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 14, 2014, 01:33:14 pm
Quote from: Descan on December 14, 2014, 01:29:52 pm
Personally I just still want a basic income guarantee, shove the rest of welfare off the cliff except for disability and seniors, and let people figure out what they'll spend the money on themselves. I dislike the hand-holding nature of ost welfare, like Food Stamps and such.

it's not really hand holding to prevent people from starving, and most people that are on welfare and foodstamps are working anyway (excluding the many many children and elderly.)

You can't really call it hand holding to ensure that children get fed. I realize that's an appeal to emotion but that's the crux of the issue. Without things like foodstamps, you end up with malnutrition and starvation. That shouldn't be happening in first world countries.

And a lot of families, without welfare, would end up homeless, which also shouldn't happen. Really, housing should also be a basic right. We are an advanced society, people shouldn't be living on the street and starving.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: andrea on December 14, 2014, 01:37:17 pm
he isn't proposing to abolish welfare, he is proposing substituting it with a basic income, which would allow everyone to eat and have a roof on their heads, without overly restricting what they can spend money on ( which is what he called handholdng, I believe)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 14, 2014, 01:40:55 pm
ahh.

I agree with that, though I would like to see foodstamps remain to assure that poor planning or desperation doesn't lead to meals being skipped.

WIC checks can just be absorbed by foodstamps, imo. The limitations on it are not well thought out.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 14, 2014, 01:55:30 pm
"Poor planning" usually means you were born in a slum, or your job no longer exists and there are like 10 applicants for every job. Considering that the median wealth in the USA is only $44,000, half the country basically have no assets (average US personal debt is $50,000). Is America rife with idiots who can't plan their life, as opposed to Europe where everyone is a great planner? "Normal" developed countries have median wealths ranging from $100K - $200K, America really is rife with poor people. They can't all just have been personal failings due to "poor planning".

The "poor planning" is a national issue, not a personal issue.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 14, 2014, 01:57:38 pm
Quote from: Reelya on December 14, 2014, 01:55:30 pm
"Poor planning" usually means you were born in a slum, or your job no longer exists and there are like 10 applicants for every job. Considering that the median wealth in the USA is only $44,000, less than half the country basically have no assets (average debt is 50,000). Is America rife with idiots who can't plan their life, as opposed to Europe. "Normal" developed countries have median wealths ranging from $100K - $200K, America really is rife with poor people. They can't all just have been personal failings due to "poor planning".

The "poor planning" is a national issue, not a personal issue.

That's why I added desperation, because that is a possibility. It's also always possible (as a person with a very small budget I have experienced it,) to overstep when you don't really have much room to move. I don't generally think America is rife with poor planners or that that is the cause of poverty. That would be an amazing coincidence if so many people just sucked at planning, since the income they are generating, if any, doesn't really allow for any planning at all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 14, 2014, 02:01:49 pm
I believe the best explanation for the planning issue is that this kind of planning does make perfect sense in the context of perpetually surviving in poverty, but that this kind of planning does nothing for actually escaping poverty, and in fact may work against it. The assertion that good planning for subsistence will lead to becoming more wealthy is common but unsubstantiated.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 14, 2014, 02:10:20 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 14, 2014, 02:01:49 pm
I believe the best explanation for the planning issue is that this kind of planning does make perfect sense in the context of perpetually surviving in poverty, but that this kind of planning does nothing for actually escaping poverty, and in fact may work against it. The assertion that good planning for subsistence will lead to becoming more wealthy is common but unsubstantiated.

And to be clear I don't agree with the concept, anyway. I have yet to become rich, despite my finances being strictly managed. You have to have money to make money.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on December 14, 2014, 02:20:20 pm
Pretty much every advice I've ever heard about making money involves something along the lines of "You have to take risks!"

Risk-taking and planning don't really go well hand-in-hand, and when you're living pay-cheque to pay-cheque, a fallen risk means starvation or worse.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on December 14, 2014, 02:24:46 pm
One common sentiment I've seen is that financial planning often only makes sense if you have a net positive income anyway.

Crude hypothetical;

You are stuck working minimum wage jobs on zero hour contracts for whatever reason. Your rent and food costs eat the majority of your monthly income. You have to drive for work but can't afford the up front costs for a good car and public transport is not reliable, so you are paying over the odds for fuel, repairs and frequent replacement vehicles (more old clunkers because that's all you can ever scrape together the money for). The remaining money sometimes covers your bills and other costs, but sometimes not. You have had to resort to emergency or payday loans to cover shortfalls on several occasions and this has left you with considerable debts. Most months now you are deferring/skipping payments, occasionally taking on more debt or missing a bill payment to keep the situation from escalating further.

Now you come into some money. A bonus, a gift, some windfall. It's enough to pay your monthly bills with a fair amount left over. What is your best option?

Well, the money itself isn't enough to clear your debts and won't change your monthly position as far as payments go. At most it will cover them for a few months before you are back in the exact same position as you were before, without even giving yourself much in the way of breathing room.

Alternatively you could buy things that give a direct improvement to your quality of living. A new TV, games console, whatever. OK, so you are back on the monthly grind immediately, but at least now you are on the grind with something to distract you from it.

I've heard a number of stories where people who have tried to save money from a position of poverty simply see it evaporate before they can use it. Money doesn't multiply for poor people the way it does for those with assets and the ability to invest. Trying to hold onto it is trying to hold onto vapour. Not spending it means it will just go away without doing anything positive for you. Better to convert it into things with obvious benefit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 14, 2014, 02:32:55 pm
And that is exactly why money given to the poor through welfare and such benefits the economy whereas things like tax breaks for the rich do not.

Any money the poor get goes right back into the economy, but the rich will sit on it or put it somewhere that they can dodge taxes.

And I have experienced the "get stuff to distract you rather than pay bills" thing. I also used to rotate bills because I couldn't pay them all at once. So I'd stagger them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on December 14, 2014, 07:09:26 pm
Quote from: palsch on December 14, 2014, 02:24:46 pm
Alternatively you could buy things that give a direct improvement to your quality of living. A new TV, games console, whatever. OK, so you are back on the monthly grind immediately, but at least now you are on the grind with something to distract you from it.
Would it not make sense to 'take risks' with the money you just came into? If nothing you can at least avoid feeling like you're wasting it or whatever.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on December 14, 2014, 07:38:57 pm
Here's my guide to making money: first, and this is important, have a lot of money to start off with
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 14, 2014, 07:43:43 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 14, 2014, 02:32:55 pm
And that is exactly why money given to the poor through welfare and such benefits the economy whereas things like tax breaks for the rich do not.
Any money the poor get goes right back into the economy, but the rich will sit on it or put it somewhere that they can dodge taxes.
The young and affluent (http://www.luxurydaily.com/young-affluents-provide-the-best-growth-potential-study/) tend to be the biggest spenders in shiny baubles; age is a better indicator for who is more willing to part with money than income. I'm gobsmacked at how many millions of Americans make 6 figures! Murrica's still wealthy as fuck. Metrosexual men (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-25/luxury-fashion-brands-targeting-global-yummies-young-urban-males) also look set to splash out plenty of dosh, possibly even surpassing female spending. As for the ultra-rich plutocrats, I'm not sure if they'd just sit on their money; on the principle that if they aren't making more money than inflation their net worth is decreasing so they'll usually pay some financial adviser to tell them how to invest their money so it makes more money and very much stimulates the economy. Heck, the ultra-rich have created their own industry of people who cater to the ultra-rich and tell them how to spend their money. That's assuming the super-rich aren't Wall street titans or Company chairmen and Execs who don't already possess business acumen of their own to invest aggressively and invest well. All that money being invested in American companies would be gorgeous for the American economy.
Unless of course the money is invested somewhere else in the world in some other country, like an American plutocrat investing in London or Tokyo, but Murrica' still taxes its citizens abroad and America's status as world superpower is built on the dollar, not on its military superiority.

I would posit that the argument of a progressive tax does not hinge terribly well on how to get the economy growing as that's dependent on consumer attitudes, international political stability and how idiotic the world's bankers are being as of the moment. A progressive tax system is best argued in favour in terms of whether having a rich country where many within it are not rich is worth it. And I suppose that principle isn't up to argument, it's merely a matter of opinion and values. Do you stand on Mitt Romney's chiseled jawline or are you a filthy gommy?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 14, 2014, 08:10:11 pm
"Biggest spender" isn't the same as what we're talking about - which people should the government give/return money to, which maximizes growth in the economy? Rich yuppies may be big spenders, but throwing government money at yuppies isn't the optimal way to grow the economy (they already have more than they can spend).

If you give the same $$$ to different groups, which ones will spend the largest proportion of what you gave them the quickest, thus boosting the GDP (rather than sticking it in a bank account)? The answer is people who don't have any money. That's why tax breaks for affluent people don't grow the economy very much, but food stamps for desperate people do. And food stamps, by definition are a "spend it or lose it" deal, thus ensuring 100% of the value actually goes into the retail economy. Even if someone trades foodstamps for drugs, the next guy has to cash them in for retail goods before they expire, guaranteeing they have the desired stimulus effect and pay back most of the tax costs too.

Raising taxes on billionaires has a small negative GDP effect compared to the positive effects of handing out food stamps. $1 taken from a billionaire reduces GDP by about 30 cents, and that same $1 given as a food stamp raises GDP by about $1.80. On balance therefore, taking money from billionaires to feed the masses grows the entire economy by $1.50 for each dollar taxed. This is clearly justified by a pragmatic "maximize total wealth" policy, before even reasoning that it's the "right thing to do" morally. People getting fed is just a side-effect of rationally maximizing growth.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on December 14, 2014, 08:34:19 pm
I will also note, economic growth is driven more by consumption than by investment. If there's no market to sell stuff to, then it doesn't matter how much investment capital you have, you'll get no use out of it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BurnedToast on December 15, 2014, 07:01:48 am
Edit: I need to stop making rants that are barely on-topic
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on December 15, 2014, 10:00:28 am
Planning could lead to greater standard of living, except people are bastards and you can't trust them.

It's about the magic of cost spreading and the trust that involves, which sadly doesn't exist anymore. You can afford a mmuch nicer place if you an split the costs with a room mate, and yet finding one who won't  fuck you over is challenging at best. Whether its eating all the food you paid for, bringing drugs into the home, not respecting your space,  causing craploads of emotional drama, or any number of other things, room mates often come with horror stories.

Same thing goes with governments, corporations and iinsurance.

Add into that the bullshit that is current failing form of capitalist shit and there you have  i t . You can't trust your boss not to screw you out of hours/pay, and your boss can't trust customers to pay/not ruin the fucking store..... Vicious cycle.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 10:08:15 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on December 14, 2014, 07:43:43 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 14, 2014, 02:32:55 pm
And that is exactly why money given to the poor through welfare and such benefits the economy whereas things like tax breaks for the rich do not.
Any money the poor get goes right back into the economy, but the rich will sit on it or put it somewhere that they can dodge taxes.
The young and affluent (http://www.luxurydaily.com/young-affluents-provide-the-best-growth-potential-study/) tend to be the biggest spenders in shiny baubles; age is a better indicator for who is more willing to part with money than income. I'm gobsmacked at how many millions of Americans make 6 figures! Murrica's still wealthy as fuck. Metrosexual men (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-25/luxury-fashion-brands-targeting-global-yummies-young-urban-males) also look set to splash out plenty of dosh, possibly even surpassing female spending. As for the ultra-rich plutocrats, I'm not sure if they'd just sit on their money; on the principle that if they aren't making more money than inflation their net worth is decreasing so they'll usually pay some financial adviser to tell them how to invest their money so it makes more money and very much stimulates the economy. Heck, the ultra-rich have created their own industry of people who cater to the ultra-rich and tell them how to spend their money. That's assuming the super-rich aren't Wall street titans or Company chairmen and Execs who don't already possess business acumen of their own to invest aggressively and invest well. All that money being invested in American companies would be gorgeous for the American economy.
Unless of course the money is invested somewhere else in the world in some other country, like an American plutocrat investing in London or Tokyo, but Murrica' still taxes its citizens abroad and America's status as world superpower is built on the dollar, not on its military superiority.

I would posit that the argument of a progressive tax does not hinge terribly well on how to get the economy growing as that's dependent on consumer attitudes, international political stability and how idiotic the world's bankers are being as of the moment. A progressive tax system is best argued in favour in terms of whether having a rich country where many within it are not rich is worth it. And I suppose that principle isn't up to argument, it's merely a matter of opinion and values. Do you stand on Mitt Romney's chiseled jawline or are you a filthy gommy?

...

you do realize that women do not outspend men? The whole women love shopping thing is just a stereotype. Shopping actually has a cathartic effect for most people, but not any moreso for women. Or really metrosexual men. Shopping is a people thing, we live in a consumerist society.

Comparatively, the rich spend less, based on income versus purchases. They also tend to take more from the system and pay less taxes, etc. A lot of the money the govt gives them will be put in investments or offshore accounts. The amount they spend versus the amount they get from the govt and society as a whole is usually not much of a net gain.

Part of it is there's less of them, and if they run a business, they also hurt the economy by paying starvation wages and providing no benefits.

Really, besides the money they are worth in taxes, they are more of a detriment to the rest of society. So you have to make up for it by getting the optimal amount of taxes from them. Then you spend it on social programs, education, healthcare, etc that DOES benefit society.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 15, 2014, 10:43:12 am
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 10:08:15 am
Comparatively, the rich spend less, based on income versus purchases. They also tend to take more from the system and pay less taxes, etc.
Sauce? Because that's pretty damn unbelievable, at least the taxes bit. And 'taking from the system' is too ill-defined to make sense in this context: Do tax breaks count? Or is it just immediate benefits? What about money the government gives to corporations? Etc etc.
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 10:08:15 am
A lot of the money the govt gives them will be put in investments or offshore accounts. The amount they spend versus the amount they get from the govt and society as a whole is usually not much of a net gain.
You implicitly consider the rich to be cows to be milked here, and not part of society themselves... If taxing was all about net gain, hardly anyone would have more than what's absolutely needed to survive.
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 10:08:15 am
Part of it is there's less of them, and if they run a business, they also hurt the economy by paying starvation wages and providing no benefits.
My mind boggles at the amount of generalizations you use, but this one takes the prize: You are claiming that there are no companies that pay decent wages! None! And that is quite obviously untrue. Same thing for benefits.
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 10:08:15 am
Really, besides the money they are worth in taxes, they are more of a detriment to the rest of society. So you have to make up for it by getting the optimal amount of taxes from them. Then you spend it on social programs, education, healthcare, etc that DOES benefit society.
Again, you are dehumanizing the rich. I know you're a Marxist, but I had hoped you were one of the post-Soviet kind... This all sounds like you want to start executing kulaks again.

Interestingly these very same things can in principle [if one is being willfully blind] be said about poor people: They take more than they provide - they get welfare after all, and the labor they do does not really contribute to society - and thus we need to squeeze them extra hard. And they don't invest at all, they just midlessly consume, so they do nothing to further the development of the economy!


If one looks closely, one can see rather easily that the arguments on both ends of the spectrum have the same form, the same structure. They just fill that structure with different words.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on December 15, 2014, 10:45:03 am
The rich do consume less as a proportion of their income. After all, if you can't afford to save, it's fairly obvious you're spending 100% of your income.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 15, 2014, 10:50:15 am
I was more interested in the source for the second bit... The first only stayed in because I chopped up the post instead of copypasting parts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on December 15, 2014, 10:53:34 am
Oh, yeah. Well, as you said, it's a statement so vague that you can probably make it true.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 15, 2014, 10:54:10 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 10:56:05 am
Quote from: Helgoland on December 15, 2014, 10:43:12 am
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 10:08:15 am
Comparatively, the rich spend less, based on income versus purchases. They also tend to take more from the system and pay less taxes, etc.
Sauce? Because that's pretty damn unbelievable, at least the taxes bit. And 'taking from the system' is too ill-defined to make sense in this context: Do tax breaks count? Or is it just immediate benefits? What about money the government gives to corporations? Etc etc.
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 10:08:15 am
A lot of the money the govt gives them will be put in investments or offshore accounts. The amount they spend versus the amount they get from the govt and society as a whole is usually not much of a net gain.
You implicitly consider the rich to be cows to be milked here, and not part of society themselves... If taxing was all about net gain, hardly anyone would have more than what's absolutely needed to survive.
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 10:08:15 am
Part of it is there's less of them, and if they run a business, they also hurt the economy by paying starvation wages and providing no benefits.
My mind boggles at the amount of generalizations you use, but this one takes the prize: You are claiming that there are no companies that pay decent wages! None! And that is quite obviously untrue. Same thing for benefits.
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 10:08:15 am
Really, besides the money they are worth in taxes, they are more of a detriment to the rest of society. So you have to make up for it by getting the optimal amount of taxes from them. Then you spend it on social programs, education, healthcare, etc that DOES benefit society.
Again, you are dehumanizing the rich. I know you're a Marxist, but I had hoped you were one of the post-Soviet kind... This all sounds like you want to start executing kulaks again.

Interestingly these very same things can in principle [if one is being willfully blind] be said about poor people: They take more than they provide - they get welfare after all, and the labor they do does not really contribute to society - and thus we need to squeeze them extra hard. And they don't invest at all, they just midlessly consume, so they do nothing to further the development of the economy!


If one looks closely, one can see rather easily that the arguments on both ends of the spectrum have the same form, the same structure. They just fill that structure with different words.

here's the difference between me "dehumanizing" the rich and the rich dehumanizing the poor.

The system that is in place supports the oppression of the poor, and props up the rich. Therefore, if I say something negative and generalized about the rich, it has no impact.

But if the rich say it about the poor, it can have lasting implications and has much more injury to it.

It's like the difference between a 200 lb dude coming up to you and saying he is going to kick your ass, and a 80 pound dude doing it. One of them has the strength to back it up.

The rich in this country do a lot of awful things and perpetuate the oppression of the poor, as well as actively work to make people poorer, which is a lot of what I'm talking about, the effects visible in America due to deregulation and tax cuts on the rich.

Most people like money because of the things it gets them. But the very rich like money for money's sake. They want to sit on it, and want more of it. They are willing to do what it takes to get as much money as possible. That is why they are so rich, a combination of having money, and wanting more money. That's a dangerous desire, as it seems to override any sense of morality a person might otherwise have.

As was said by Sheb, when you have one party that can set aside a portion of their income for investments etc, and one party that can not but must put it all directly back into the economy, the second party benefits the economy more. This shouldn't need a source, it is basic logic and economics.

I think the rich owe a debt to society. They have "earned" their wealth, one way or another, off the backs of other people. They should be willing to give some of that back to benefit those people. Otherwise, they are a blight, as many of the American rich are.

I don't feel too bad dehumanizing them because there is literally nothing I can do that will affect them. They regularly dehumanize me and mine, however, and they spend a lot of money to not have to pay taxes for things like mental health care, foodstamps, welfare, etc, and to shape laws in their favor.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on December 15, 2014, 11:00:37 am
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 10:56:05 am
This shouldn't need a source, it is basic logic and economics.

i'm afraid you don't understand how this works

you're asked to provide a source

you either deliver the source or admit it does not exist

what you just have done is the latter, but given i'm straight up reminding you i guess you would still get away with fishing for one
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 11:03:09 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on December 15, 2014, 11:00:37 am
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 10:56:05 am
This shouldn't need a source, it is basic logic and economics.

i'm afraid you don't understand how this works

you're asked to provide a source

you either deliver the source or admit it does not exist

what you just have done is the latter, but given i'm straight up reminding you i guess you would still get away with fishing for one

ohh I didn't realize this was an ultimatum. See I thought this was a discussion. See, I'm going to get you a source, but demanding it in the rudest way imaginable is not appropriate. Perhaps you should ask nicely, instead of being a douche.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on December 15, 2014, 11:08:47 am
Quote from: The Word of the Toad
Let us maintain our chill composure.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 15, 2014, 11:09:44 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on December 15, 2014, 10:54:10 am
Quote from: Sheb on December 15, 2014, 10:45:03 am
The rich do consume less as a proportion of their income. After all, if you can't afford to save, it's fairly obvious you're spending 100% of your income.

Are savings really that bad for the economy? If your money is in an American bank, isn't it circulating and being used by the bank? That's how they make money.
Some amount of savings is good, but imagine no consumption at all: The whole economy would go down the drain. Both extremes are bad all in all. But when trying to get the economy back on its feet again, higher consumption is very welcome because it makes investments seem more worth-while.
But I've only attended a couple of Econ lectures, so take this with a heap of salt.

Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 10:56:05 am
As was said by Sheb, when you have one party that can set aside a portion of their income for investments etc, and one party that can not but must put it all directly back into the economy, the second party benefits the economy more. This shouldn't need a source, it is basic logic and economics.
See above why this is not always true; 'benefiting the economy' is a very nebulous term.
Do also note that I asked for a source for something different altogether.

About the 'They're in power so it's okay': Would you say the same thing about pre-revolution Russia? Because it appears that agitating for killing kulaks would be fine by you... And we all know what happened then. Words have power, and thoughts even more so.


One more thing I'd like a clarification on: Who are 'the rich'? Because my parents certainly aren't poor, but they always paid decently and it would never come into their mind to knowingly make the poor even poorer. Hell, they voted for the Greens!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smjjames on December 15, 2014, 11:09:52 am
Quote from: Baffler on December 15, 2014, 11:08:47 am
Quote from: The Word of the Toad
Let us maintain our chill composure.

Yes, let us meditate!

OMMMMMMMMMMMM *takes breath OMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM *takes breath OMMMMMMMMMMMM
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 15, 2014, 11:10:41 am
OMMMMMMMMMMMMM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AOfbnGkuGc)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 11:11:40 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality

Here's a basic article on income inequality to start with.

We can discuss individual details therein if you like, or is any link I post now me "fishing?" I'm not sure what that implied.

Here is an article regarding the rich paying less taxes, income increases, tax rates drop.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2013/03/06/as-stock-market-recovered-rich-took-bigger-share-of-nations-income-and-paid-lower-tax-rate/

Here is a politifact article about it, I find them trustworthy.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/

As for investments, The stock market has been very successful for quite awhile, but the working class works longer hours, much harder, and for less money than ever before. And with no minimum wage increase in a very long time, they can no longer support themselves by their work. Instead you have companies like Wal Mart using social programs to prop their company up and make them more profit.

Investments don't really go back into the economy, they go back to the rich specifically.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 11:13:47 am
Quote from: Helgoland on December 15, 2014, 11:09:44 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on December 15, 2014, 10:54:10 am
Quote from: Sheb on December 15, 2014, 10:45:03 am
The rich do consume less as a proportion of their income. After all, if you can't afford to save, it's fairly obvious you're spending 100% of your income.

Are savings really that bad for the economy? If your money is in an American bank, isn't it circulating and being used by the bank? That's how they make money.
Some amount of savings is good, but imagine no consumption at all: The whole economy would go down the drain. Both extremes are bad all in all. But when trying to get the economy back on its feet again, higher consumption is very welcome because it makes investments seem more worth-while.
But I've only attended a couple of Econ lectures, so take this with a heap of salt.

Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 10:56:05 am
As was said by Sheb, when you have one party that can set aside a portion of their income for investments etc, and one party that can not but must put it all directly back into the economy, the second party benefits the economy more. This shouldn't need a source, it is basic logic and economics.
See above why this is not always true; 'benefiting the economy' is a very nebulous term.
Do also note that I asked for a source for something different altogether.

About the 'They're in power so it's okay': Would you say the same thing about pre-revolution Russia? Because it appears that agitating for killing kulaks would be fine by you... And we all know what happened then. Words have power, and thoughts even more so.


One more thing I'd like a clarification on: Who are 'the rich'? Because my parents certainly aren't poor, but they always paid decently and it would never come into their mind to knowingly make the poor even poorer. Hell, they voted for the Greens!

No, I don't believe in violent revolution. I would be more of a menshevik than a bolshevik. I don't believe in killing in general, including things like the death penalty.

I think jumping from "more taxes for the rich" to "kill the rich" is a rather large leap to make. Perhaps somewhat hyperbolic?

edit: I probably couldn't define an exact line between when someone becomes upper middle class and when they become truly rich. I suppose that is relative. But if we are talking about the upper 2-3%, I think that might give a clearer picture, as that small portion of the populace is the most problematic.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on December 15, 2014, 11:16:18 am
... modify button. The button is a thing. Use the button. Love the button. Hate the double post. Deny the double post. Learn and improve. The modify button is your friend.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 11:18:04 am
Quote from: Frumple on December 15, 2014, 11:16:18 am
... modify button. The button is a thing. Use the button. Love the button. Hate the double post. Deny the double post. Learn and improve. The modify button is your friend.

it's only two posts. Why does everyone hate that so much.

I'm responding to different posts myself.

blurgh, I will merge posts from now on, but I won't like it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 15, 2014, 11:32:34 am
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 11:11:40 am
Here is an article regarding the rich paying less taxes, income increases, tax rates drop.
That's... not exactly accurate. There is the perversely low capital gains tax, and capital gains are a large percentage of the rich's income, but regular income is still taxed progressively - Warren Buffett may be a bit of an extreme case. Due to income structure, they pay a smaller percentage than one would assume, but the absolute tax per capita is still higher... I may just have misunderstood what you wrote in your original post.
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 11:11:40 am
Investments don't really go back into the economy, they go back to the rich specifically.
Well, it depends on what terms you think in: In monetary terms, sure - they sell stuff, after all. In real terms everyone profits, as prices fall due to increased production, assuming consumption to be nearly constant. Imagine no investments at all: We wouldn't even have stone tools, because they are an investment... When thinking about the economy as a whole, it is important to remember that it's not a zero-sum game.

Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 11:13:47 am
I think jumping from "more taxes for the rich" to "kill the rich" is a rather large leap to make. Perhaps somewhat hyperbolic?
Well, you said that dehumanizing the rich is okay because they're in charge. And things that aren't human can usually be killed with impunity... I'm not saying you're there yet, but there are some striking (and kinda scary) similarities.

Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 11:13:47 am
edit: I probably couldn't define an exact line between when someone becomes upper middle class and when they become truly rich. I suppose that is relative. But if we are talking about the upper 2-3%, I think that might give a clearer picture, as that small portion of the populace is the most problematic.
Upper 2-3%? I'm fairly sure that includes my parents. My mom's a headmaster, my dad's a physicist - that's two big paychecks, especially when you take into account that as Europeans they get benefits that need to be taken into account when comparing against the American situation. As to my parents' stance on oppressing the poor, look at my previous post.

Some colleagues of my dad are Americans btw, and aren't doing too bad either - and still they are among the kindest (and most firmly Democratic!) people I know.

My point is generalizations are bad, mkay?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on December 15, 2014, 11:36:40 am
Quote from: Helgoland on December 15, 2014, 11:09:44 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on December 15, 2014, 10:54:10 am
Quote from: Sheb on December 15, 2014, 10:45:03 am
The rich do consume less as a proportion of their income. After all, if you can't afford to save, it's fairly obvious you're spending 100% of your income.

Are savings really that bad for the economy? If your money is in an American bank, isn't it circulating and being used by the bank? That's how they make money.
Some amount of savings is good, but imagine no consumption at all: The whole economy would go down the drain. Both extremes are bad all in all. But when trying to get the economy back on its feet again, higher consumption is very welcome because it makes investments seem more worth-while.
But I've only attended a couple of Econ lectures, so take this with a heap of salt.

Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 10:56:05 am
As was said by Sheb, when you have one party that can set aside a portion of their income for investments etc, and one party that can not but must put it all directly back into the economy, the second party benefits the economy more. This shouldn't need a source, it is basic logic and economics.
See above why this is not always true; 'benefiting the economy' is a very nebulous term.
Do also note that I asked for a source for something different altogether.

About the 'They're in power so it's okay': Would you say the same thing about pre-revolution Russia? Because it appears that agitating for killing kulaks would be fine by you... And we all know what happened then. Words have power, and thoughts even more so.


One more thing I'd like a clarification on: Who are 'the rich'? Because my parents certainly aren't poor, but they always paid decently and it would never come into their mind to knowingly make the poor even poorer. Hell, they voted for the Greens!

You ate really reaching here. There is absolutely no reason to jump from what smeep said to "gulags for everyone!"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 11:38:14 am
Are your parents billionaires? That is the upper 2-3%

Actually, the income tax in America cuts off at $101k. So they are not even paying their fair share in income tax. I don't know about your country.

They also hire accountants, which poor people can't, and get through every tax loophole, charity refund, and tax haven they can.

Considering I don't wish death on anyone or anything (I don't even eat meat, dairy, or eggs,) it's unlikely that any animosity I have for the rich would translate to violence. As I said, that's quite a leap. One of my core values is an opposition to any murder at all. So I mean, if my entire value system shifted, maybe, but then that sort of nullifies everything to begin with.

Even if I wanted revolution, America is so complacent and militarized that that would never be possible. I have no power over the wealthy, they hold all the cards. If anything could be done to level the playing field, it would have been done by now. And don't think they don't dehumanize the hell out of us, and act on it regularly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on December 15, 2014, 11:39:27 am
Quote from: Helgoland on December 15, 2014, 11:32:34 am
Upper 2-3%? I'm fairly sure that includes my parents. My mom's a headmaster, my dad's a physicist - that's two big paychecks, especially when you take into account that as Europeans they get benefits that need to be taken into account when comparing against the American situation. As to my parents' stance on oppressing the poor, look at my previous post.
I am pretty sure that a headmaster and a physicist might be in the upper 50% but not ever in the upper 10%. I think you have a severe misunderstanding about how big the income differences actually are if you believe a headmaster and physicist to be up there.

As to the greens: History-rewriting, power-hungry lunatics. "We where never a pacifist party". Yes, of course.
Not that this in any way reflects on your parents.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on December 15, 2014, 11:50:30 am
Honestly, we should just eat the rich.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on December 15, 2014, 11:56:50 am
I sure love me some duck.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 15, 2014, 11:57:12 am
Quote from: Antsan on December 15, 2014, 11:39:27 am
Quote from: Helgoland on December 15, 2014, 11:32:34 am
Upper 2-3%? I'm fairly sure that includes my parents. My mom's a headmaster, my dad's a physicist - that's two big paychecks, especially when you take into account that as Europeans they get benefits that need to be taken into account when comparing against the American situation. As to my parents' stance on oppressing the poor, look at my previous post.
I am pretty sure that a headmaster and a physicist might be in the upper 50% but not ever in the upper 10%. I think you have a severe misunderstanding about how big the income differences actually are if you believe a headmaster and physicist to be up there.
Combined income of ~ €170k? If that's not upper 10% I'll eat my hat - at least when sampling among the people I know from school they were rather well-off. Here's an article (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/geld/vermoegen-in-deutschland-bin-ich-reich-1.1698974), in German though, since we need to correct for our respective countries' differing inequalities- it appears that the 10% (and 1%) are much more broad than commonly assumed. It's the top .1-.5% that is truly wealthy.
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 11:38:14 am
Are your parents billionaires? That is the upper 2-3%
I have a hard time believing 2% of Americans are billionaires.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 12:01:57 pm
I'm looking for billionaires now, but 9% of Americans are millionaires if that puts it into perspective.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/chart-of-the-day-9-of-americans-are-millionaires-in-2011/238458/

That combined income is -definitely- not in the upper 10% for any first world nation. Perhaps you don't have a grasp on how ridiculous the inequality really is.

Also, is the duck comment just a sarcastic, in joke meant as a jab or something? I guess it's not cool if everyone "gets" it.

edit: you might be right about the billionaires, there aren't that many of them, instead it is composed of very high billionaires, it seems.

My dad, based on his investment capital, -might- be in the upper 15%, I think he had a millionish in inheritance. He will also act like he is utterly middle class and an "Every man." I don't know how much he has spent, on the other hand, and his family has gone by the motto "anything can be solved with money".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smirk on December 15, 2014, 12:03:53 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 12:01:57 pm
Also, is the duck comment just a sarcastic, in joke meant as a jab or something? I guess it's not cool if everyone "gets" it.

Eat the rich:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/BarksScrooge.jpg)

There's only one thing that they are good for (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB81pBEJzIU), after all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 12:09:12 pm
That is such an obscure reference.

I loved that show though.

But Scrooge McDuck was actually a decent guy. I realize there are rich people that are not the equivalent of Capt. Planet villians (though some are much more over the top, as well,) but extreme wealth necessitates a larger obligation to society and use of their privilege to better it and the people with the least. This seldom seems to happen even with the liberal wealthy.

You have Bill Maher complaining about tax increases in California, for example, even though he is so rich and out of touch... even as a militant liberal he can't perceive that what he has after taxes is so very much more than most people can hope to see in their entire lives. I mean, he dropped like a good million on the Obama campaign and joked about it. Just threw a million dollars at the campaign.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on December 15, 2014, 12:12:59 pm
See, I LIKE capitalism. But it needs to be castrated and tied down, or else it gets rabid. That's why I want a basic income and a large tax-powered investment fund, to fund those things that aren't immediately profitable. Like renewable power and materials, space exploration, oceanic exploration, basic science, nuclear power, etc.

At this point, we've discovered capitalism, saw it's power in the fields it was good in (market-driven response to needs and wants, increasing quality of life for the average person, a fair bit more social mobility than there was before, encouraging [profitable] ideas to be developed) and saw "Hey, this is pretty good!," then we took a point in dumbassery and extended it WAY beyond what it was really good for, into areas that it breaks down and destroys everything in sight.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 12:16:31 pm
I feel like capitalism is a necessary waypoint on the road of progress, but it is not the ultimate goal we should strive for. I do feel that any govt system can work given the right details and people, especially with an engaged and aware populace.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on December 15, 2014, 12:20:56 pm
I would like to keep capitalism just so that the responses to consumer needs can be automated, and black swan ideas (like computers and the internet, and Amazon and Paypal and etc) can come out of nowhere and fill a niche no one knew existed.

It's possible that once and if we develop a powerful enough AI that can predict and respond to consumer needs better than a bureaucracy, as well as notice those niches, that it would render capitalism redundant, but when that happens, society would change so much that it'd strange to even talk about capitalism any more, the idea just wouldn't fit the times. Like trying to fit capitalism onto a stone-age society, only in the other direction. Might not have money any more, might not have PEOPLE any more (at least in the "has basic needs beyond electricity and material" way), might not be constrained to Earth and would have access to asteroid material, making it cheaper than dirt. A lot of differences are available once and if we're not constrained by human intelligence.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 12:23:10 pm
Not being a capitalist society doesn't mean getting rid of ALL privately owned businesses. In a communist society, the government owns industry. Socialist societies exhibit less of that, while putting more towards social programs. Capitalism tends to want to let the market figure things out, so you have to heavily regulate it for it to work. It doesn't seem as efficient to me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on December 15, 2014, 12:29:40 pm
Even something as simple as 3D printing and cheap-and-easy 3D modelling would change that, pulling industry out of factories and into homes or small businesses.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 12:35:39 pm
I always think of it (perhaps incorrectly, I don't know) as larger industries like the energy industries, heavy duty factory work, the larger agriculture industry, etc. I suppose that would also be ranching and fishing but I like to pretend, in my perfect future utopia, that those wouldn't be necessary.

Absolutely any govt needs an engaged populace. Also, while I feel that sometimes democracy really sucks, it is an important part of it all. Communism and socialism are economic models. For either to work, it would need to be democratic.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on December 15, 2014, 01:12:35 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on December 15, 2014, 11:57:12 am
Quote from: Antsan on December 15, 2014, 11:39:27 am
Quote from: Helgoland on December 15, 2014, 11:32:34 am
Upper 2-3%? I'm fairly sure that includes my parents. My mom's a headmaster, my dad's a physicist - that's two big paychecks, especially when you take into account that as Europeans they get benefits that need to be taken into account when comparing against the American situation. As to my parents' stance on oppressing the poor, look at my previous post.
I am pretty sure that a headmaster and a physicist might be in the upper 50% but not ever in the upper 10%. I think you have a severe misunderstanding about how big the income differences actually are if you believe a headmaster and physicist to be up there.
Combined income of ~ €170k? If that's not upper 10% I'll eat my hat - at least when sampling among the people I know from school they were rather well-off. Here's an article (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/geld/vermoegen-in-deutschland-bin-ich-reich-1.1698974), in German though, since we need to correct for our respective countries' differing inequalities- it appears that the 10% (and 1%) are much more broad than commonly assumed. It's the top .1-.5% that is truly wealthy.
Oh. Then I'll have to correct my assessment to an even more bleak picture, where it's not 5% who are excessively rich but only 0.1%-0.5%.

Quote
Die Forscher des Instituts folgern daraus: "Anders als landläufig angenommen wird, beziehen die Reichen ihr Einkommen nicht vorwiegend aus Kapitalanlagen und Vermögen. Sie verdienen ihr Geld oft als leitende Angestellte."
One problem I see with that article that it doesn't link its source (or am I blind?). Once again, yesterday in "Die Anstalt" they made fun of the "Wirtschaftsweisen", who came to that exact conclusion by only considering wages and not income as a whole. If this article is based on what they did the conclusion is a bit... circular.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 01:21:34 pm
Quote from: Antsan on December 15, 2014, 01:12:35 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on December 15, 2014, 11:57:12 am
Quote from: Antsan on December 15, 2014, 11:39:27 am
Quote from: Helgoland on December 15, 2014, 11:32:34 am
Upper 2-3%? I'm fairly sure that includes my parents. My mom's a headmaster, my dad's a physicist - that's two big paychecks, especially when you take into account that as Europeans they get benefits that need to be taken into account when comparing against the American situation. As to my parents' stance on oppressing the poor, look at my previous post.
I am pretty sure that a headmaster and a physicist might be in the upper 50% but not ever in the upper 10%. I think you have a severe misunderstanding about how big the income differences actually are if you believe a headmaster and physicist to be up there.
Combined income of ~ €170k? If that's not upper 10% I'll eat my hat - at least when sampling among the people I know from school they were rather well-off. Here's an article (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/geld/vermoegen-in-deutschland-bin-ich-reich-1.1698974), in German though, since we need to correct for our respective countries' differing inequalities- it appears that the 10% (and 1%) are much more broad than commonly assumed. It's the top .1-.5% that is truly wealthy.
Oh. Then I'll have to correct my assessment to an even more bleak picture, where it's not 5% who are excessively rich but only 0.1%-0.5%.

Quote
Die Forscher des Instituts folgern daraus: "Anders als landläufig angenommen wird, beziehen die Reichen ihr Einkommen nicht vorwiegend aus Kapitalanlagen und Vermögen. Sie verdienen ihr Geld oft als leitende Angestellte."
One problem I see with that article that it doesn't link its source (or am I blind?). Once again, yesterday in "Die Anstalt" they made fun of the "Wirtschaftsweisen", who came to that exact conclusion by only considering wages and not income as a whole. If this article is based on what they did the conclusion is a bit... circular.

I'll look for more sources, I suppose. I was getting inequality measurements and stuff like that mostly. Which I struggled to understand, tbh.

I consider millionaires to be ridiculously rich enough either way. If you have one million, it's not going very far ultimately, but 50 or so million and you are well into ridiculous category.

hmm having difficulty pinning down exact numbers via other sources. I still think we can agree on the top 2-3% being "ridiculously rich" either way, and definitely not in the 100-200k income category. I am not looking for an exact line, because I couldn't begin to know what the exact line was, I would assume it is more of a grey area, or a spectrum of required societal commitment based on wealth.

the thing is, this small percentage owns more wealth that quite a few countries out there. Their influence is larger than the rest of the populace by a significant degree, especially with the changes the supreme court made to donations and superpacs.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on December 15, 2014, 01:25:07 pm
A quick calculator showing income percentiles, etc. (http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/what-is-your-us-income-percentile.html)

Also keep in mind why the rich feel poor. (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/why-so-many-rich-people-dont-feel-very-rich/?_r=0)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 01:36:37 pm
I'm not going to bash people with 170k combined income either way since I think we have bigger fish to fry, but were I to get 170k at some point, I could live off that for a very long time.

The richer you get, the high quality of life you have and the more money you spend. But that does not mean the importance of your expenditures is equivalent to that of the poor. You could survive with less, if you lose some money, you have room to step back, but the poorest members of our society, whose numbers are swiftly growing, can only fall back to homelessness and starvation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 15, 2014, 02:44:37 pm
so a girl in Oporto got beat up by a taxi driver for kissing another girl. A bunch of my friends, only some of which are gay, are organising a gay make-out orgy in the area where that happened and are really pumped up for a violent confrontation
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 03:00:08 pm
I wouldn't worry too much, taxi drivers probably aren't the upper echelons of behavior in that area.

on the other hand, be careful, if things do get violent, someone might end up dead.

Homophobes and bigots in general don't fuck around.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wobbly on December 15, 2014, 03:28:48 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on December 15, 2014, 10:54:10 am
Quote from: Sheb on December 15, 2014, 10:45:03 am
The rich do consume less as a proportion of their income. After all, if you can't afford to save, it's fairly obvious you're spending 100% of your income.

Are savings really that bad for the economy? If your money is in an American bank, isn't it circulating and being used by the bank? That's how they make money.

To some extent. Money "sitting" in a bank isn't really sitting there because the bank loans it to someone else to make money. If everyone tried to withdraw at the same time the money wouldn't actually be there. Of course it is a potential bottleneck. If everyone is saving and no-one's borrowing you've got something similar to a dam in the flow and the economy is liable to slow, at least temporary. Long term it's a bit trickier.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 03:35:50 pm
that money doesn't usually go to economy boosting sources. And if it goes into loans, it generally loses any economic value when said lenders do shady things with the loan or mortgage like trading it off to other people, increasing interest, knowing that the people they are lending it to will be unable to pay it back.

All that stuff is ridiculously crooked and skewed in a way to make the bank richer and everyone else poorer.

I sometimes wonder if these big banks were given the opportunity to make themselves richer along with everyone else, or make themselves richer and everyone else poorer, what would they pick?

The poorer option I think, because to them, the money would be worth less if other people had any of it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wobbly on December 15, 2014, 03:47:22 pm
Hence the long term it's a bit tricker bit. If I build a house then knock it down continuously lots of money flows and in the short term it's good for the economy. But in real terms I'm achieving nothing so it's going to have a cost somewhere down the track. It's really all in the dynamics of where the money goes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on December 15, 2014, 04:02:34 pm
Quote from: Askot Bokbondeler on December 15, 2014, 02:44:37 pm
so a girl in Oporto got beat up by a taxi driver for kissing another girl. A bunch of my friends, only some of which are gay, are organising a gay make-out orgy in the area where that happened and are really pumped up for a violent confrontation
If you're legitimately excited for violence, it's probably going to end up violent.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on December 15, 2014, 04:06:24 pm
Yea, it sounds like you're deliberately going out of your way for confrontation. That's what your friends seem to want, so they'll probably make one. Wouldn't like to be in the area when it's happening, sounds like anyone may be caught up in it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 04:13:27 pm
That stuff all sounds very exciting when you are young and are not yet fully aware of your own mortality. But when you are getting your head smashed in the pavement or are at the wrong end of a gun, noble gestures don't seem to worthwhile anymore.

I've done protesting and even more confrontational stuff, but god, that shit is scary. Nobody will protect you when something goes wrong. I'm not saying I wouldn't be out there protesting the police if I actually lived in an area where those protests were happening. But I'd be scared shitless the entire time,
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on December 15, 2014, 04:14:13 pm
Quote
If you're legitimately excited for violence, it's probably going to end up violent.

I somewhat doubt it, exept if they catch the attention of a local neo nazi group, or if they go full retard and attack with very little provocation. The agression of that kind are oppotunistic, not planned, and I don't imagine any bigot willing to confront a group of young men.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 15, 2014, 04:44:00 pm
People are really pissed. I guess it's at least a good sign that this doesn't happen so often that we're passive about it. On the other hand the massive amount of threats and bigoted comments on mainstream news sites is the spark that made us react.

In the meantime we got word from the girl that the guy has been identified and it's expected that he's gonna be out o a job and in legal trouble, and tempers seem to be cooling down. It's still happening though, the idea is to show that you can't scare gay people into hiding, beating them up is gonna change nothing and get you arrested.
Plus, a lot of them are artists and musicians and minor internet celebs and could use the publicity
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 04:50:30 pm
protesting should never be about publicity. >.<
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on December 15, 2014, 04:52:31 pm
I think you've got something backwards there. I think protesting is almost always all about publicity (although not for the individuals doing the protesting, you're right there).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on December 15, 2014, 04:54:13 pm
Quote from: Antsan on December 15, 2014, 04:52:31 pm
I think you've got something backwards there. I think protesting is almost always all about publicity (although not for the individuals doing the protesting, you're right there).
Yea, protests are to get attention to one suffering person, or a group of suffering people.

Shouldn't be for PR or money, though I suspect some are.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 04:54:16 pm
Quote from: Antsan on December 15, 2014, 04:52:31 pm
I think you've got something backwards there. I think protesting is almost always all about publicity (although not for the individuals doing the protesting, you're right there).

It's about showing solidarity. I suppose you need publicity for it, but yea, making it about self-promotion is the worst way to garner sympathy for your cause. It just looks like you are selling yourselves and don't give a shit about the issues.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 15, 2014, 05:30:39 pm
I guess the life of a starving artist is less idealistic and romantic than most people think. Just because you could use the publicity doesn't mean your contribution is less worthy. I find them to be the most reasonable people in the group, the ones who are most aware of the possible outcomes and most concerned with the message they're sending, rather than the kids who are knee-jerking at the injustice or just want to wreck shit.
Of course, they'd all be agreeing with you though. I guess i'm a bit of a cynic. An optimist, non-judgemental cynic.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 05:41:07 pm
Quote from: Askot Bokbondeler on December 15, 2014, 05:30:39 pm
I guess the life of a starving artist is less idealistic and romantic than most people think. Just because you could use the publicity doesn't mean your contribution is less worthy. I find them to be the most reasonable people in the group, the ones who are most aware of the possible outcomes and most concerned with the message they're sending, rather than the kids who are knee-jerking at the injustice or just want to wreck shit.
Of course, they'd all be agreeing with you though. I guess i'm a bit of a cynic. An optimist, non-judgemental cynic.

It doesn't matter what's going on in your life that is unrelated to the cause, if you use it for self-promotion, it trivializes the cause. You can have all kinds of community events for those things (though tbh, why are people still choosing to be artists? That's like an assured way to not get food on the table. Make that your hobby.)

If you start crowding your message with "also support this dude and this dude and let me tell you about this dude's projects" you won't get the real message across.

I'm not trying to be cold, I'm saying you won't get any support if you don't focus on the cause itself.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on December 15, 2014, 06:02:15 pm
Oyez, progressives. This kind of thing (http://allofusfirst.org/the-key-ideas/) is the output from the leftists or "progressives" at the moment in Scotland. If anyone is interested have a look - who knows, maybe your state could be organised along these lines one day. It might even give you filthy liberals something to work towards, maybe not.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on December 15, 2014, 06:29:01 pm
Is that a joke, or are you genuinely insulting us? I can't tell.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 06:39:45 pm
Yea I don't think scotland is going to have any useful advice for american liberals, the culture and the environment in politics is entirely different.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on December 15, 2014, 06:49:52 pm
I only barely skimmed a couple pages, but that actually looks pretty good. It might be worth looking at in detail.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on December 15, 2014, 06:51:37 pm
Quote from: Angle on December 15, 2014, 06:29:01 pm
Is that a joke, or are you genuinely insulting us? I can't tell.

Calling you filthy Liberals was humorous. That said, the political climate here may be very different, but I recommend giving some of the policies at least a look. In any case Bernie Sanders seems to be espousing a lot of the views held by people in our left - it may be closer to home than you think.

Quote from: Angle on December 15, 2014, 06:49:52 pm
I only barely skimmed a couple pages, but that actually looks pretty good. It might be worth looking at in detail.

It'll get better when they start commissioning academic research papers and things from our universities in order to add a bit more intellectual weight and eventually work out a strategy to implement these policies. They've already rustled up a few things like that, held in their library (http://allofusfirst.org/resources/library/). You could take a look at this paper (http://allofusfirst.org/tasks/render/file/?fileID=AB76538B-97D1-1789-02F95AD214507AE5) for instance written by Professor Paul Spicker and Professor Mike Danson, alongside Common Weal Director Robin McAlpine entitled:

"The Case for Universalism
An assessment of the evidence on the effectiveness and efficiency of the universal welfare state"

Interesting stuff.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 06:54:10 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on December 15, 2014, 06:51:37 pm
Quote from: Angle on December 15, 2014, 06:29:01 pm
Is that a joke, or are you genuinely insulting us? I can't tell.

Calling you filthy Liberals was humorous. That said, the political climate here may be very different, but I recommend giving some of the policies at least a look. In any case Bernie Sanders seems to be espousing a lot of the views held by people in our left - it may be closer to home than you think.

Quote from: Angle on December 15, 2014, 06:49:52 pm
I only barely skimmed a couple pages, but that actually looks pretty good. It might be worth looking at in detail.

It'll get better when they start commissioning academic research papers and things from our universities in order to work out a strategy to implement these policies.

Bernie Sanders is a socialist outlier, and Americans get skittish at the mention of the word socialist. It's a hotbutton word the right uses to terrify its base and the moderates have unpleasant feelings when it is used. It's the easiest way to condemn social programs and such.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on December 15, 2014, 06:55:34 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 06:54:10 pm
Bernie Sanders is a socialist outlier, and Americans get skittish at the mention of the word socialist. It's a hotbutton word the right uses to terrify its base and the moderates have unpleasant feelings when it is used. It's the easiest way to condemn social programs and such.
Something something filthy commies, right?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 06:56:34 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on December 15, 2014, 06:55:34 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 06:54:10 pm
Bernie Sanders is a socialist outlier, and Americans get skittish at the mention of the word socialist. It's a hotbutton word the right uses to terrify its base and the moderates have unpleasant feelings when it is used. It's the easiest way to condemn social programs and such.
Something something filthy commies, right?

Better dead, than Red!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on December 15, 2014, 06:59:21 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 06:54:10 pm
Bernie Sanders is a socialist outlier, and Americans get skittish at the mention of the word socialist. It's a hotbutton word the right uses to terrify its base and the moderates have unpleasant feelings when it is used. It's the easiest way to condemn social programs and such.

The answer is to slip left-wing and even Socialist policies under the radar through the cunning disguise of "American Liberalism". You seem like you're on the right track there, even if progress is understandably difficult in the current climate.

You see, something like Common Weal doesn't actually contain a mention of the word "Socialist" as far as I know, despite the whole "All Of Us First" slogan.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 15, 2014, 07:01:39 pm
Liberalism has been a dirty word ever since Reagan's presidency. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/166787/liberal-self-identification-edges-new-high-2013.aspx)

And that's not the only problem. (http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/section-9-patriotism-personal-traits-lifestyles-and-demographics/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 15, 2014, 07:03:40 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 07:04:15 pm
I blame Reagan for most of our problems. Partly on priciple, partly because he gutted the tax code and armed and trained a whole bunch of violent terrorists to fight commies, who we find ourselves now fighting for whatever prize we are after these days.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on December 15, 2014, 07:39:55 pm
Any actual progress towards eliminating some of Capitalism's excesses in the U.S.A. (within the next decade or so) would probably need to be wrapped in the language of those who cannot think outside of the boundaries it places. Instead of Welfare, it's a Free Market Solution where the government pays all human essentials and allows workers to sell their labor without fear of death-by-poverty, thus allowing proper competition and non-coerced selling of labor, using supporting arguments from "father of Capitalism" Adam Smith.

Or we might have another capitalism fuckup of epic proportions and achieve sufficient collective consciousness to overcome our apathy and revolutionize the system completely. Or we might continue to avoid dealing with the problem until capitalists achieve enough "means of repression" to completely stomp humanity into their service and we live in a less magical world of Shadowrun.

Communism's end ideal of a shared collective consciousness that sees the complete abolition of private property and utterly unfettered labor choice is probably not the way to go due to practical reasons, though I'm somewhat more hopeful of democratic socialism. Reform may be a safer method than overthrowing the old by force (and it will need to be by force), though like how England keeps a monarchical figure around we may be stuck with cultural leftovers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 07:51:42 pm
revolutions tends to leave people that are better at killing than leading in charge.

The American Revolution is an odd exception, but tbf, Washington was a terrible general, and lost almost all of his engagements.

I find that you are better off with middle class revolutions, because the middle class has the free time to be educated and have direction beyond just trying not to die to starvation or be worked into death. You can't think long term if your entire existence revolves around managing short term goals like getting food and shelter. I realize other Marxists would look at me with contempt for saying that.

Egypt was working well, but then dishonest groups got a hold of the poor, gave them rice and clothes and told them more would come if they voted the right way. They never provided the more, so what could have been an upside for the impoverished did nothing at all for their state. But you can't say no to something like that if you are starving. The chance that someone might actually help you if you vote them in, what's to think about?

The problem America faces currently involves, to some degree, crippling the education system to make the populace less educated, instilling fear in the voter base to make them think more viscerally and have scapegoats to target, and keeping the poor convinced that minimum wage being raised, taxes on the rich being raised, etc will also effect them detrimentally. Bill Maher, the asshole that he is, sort of hit it home when he said "The problem with America's poor is they don't realize they are poor, they see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." While I certainly don't like a rich dude telling others how the poor are, I feel this actually is a problem with the conservative poor. It gets drilled into their head that they just have to work harder and money will magically flow in.

The right has created this perfect propaganda machine, and even moderate conservatives that I've spoken to consider it a legit source.

I don't go around thinking MSNBC is objective. I do not understand this at all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on December 15, 2014, 08:41:14 pm
. . .

Yeah, I'd go study history a bit better.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on December 16, 2014, 02:28:27 am
Quote from: smeeprocket on December 15, 2014, 07:51:42 pm
[...]
Bill Maher, the asshole that he is, sort of hit it home when he said "The problem with America's poor is they don't realize they are poor, they see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." While I certainly don't like a rich dude telling others how the poor are, I feel this actually is a problem with the conservative poor. It gets drilled into their head that they just have to work harder and money will magically flow in.
[...]

This actually is a problem in the US that has been studied by social scientists. And it's not just propaganda by the right, the "American Dream" is politically universal. Sad thing that class mobbility in the US is actually very low but people don't mind because they perceive it as high. Here's a quote from Wikipedia, the sources for this one are actually pretty good:

Quote
Belief in strong social and economic mobility—that Americans can and do rise from humble origins to riches—has been called a "civil religion", "the bedrock upon which the American story has been anchored", and part of the American identity (the American Dream), celebrated in the lives of famous Americans such as Benjamin Franklin and Henry Ford, and in popular culture (from the books of Horatio Alger and Norman Vincent Peale to the song "Movin' on Up"). Opinion polls show that this belief has been both stronger in the US than in years past, and stronger than in other developed countries. However, in recent years several large studies have found that vertical inter-generational mobility is lower, not higher, in the US than in those countries.
Article Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on December 23, 2014, 03:06:32 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/22/eric-schneiderman-jimmy-johns-noncompete_n_6369146.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Just short of an indentured servitude contract, it allows you to quit, but not to find another job.... In the case of somebody who is literally a burger flipper/sandwich maker, this is not hyperbole'. Large scale companies want to own you.

All that talk and bluster for free markets is a sham. Labor is a market and they don't want it to be free, but rather they want a lock on it where the fix is in ... for them. So much for competition. So much for markets. Force. That is to be used, it seems.

All that talk about being able to quit your job if you don't like it, or worse, if you HAVE to because there's something unethical/illegal going on.... Makes you want to scream.

Your knowledge is not yours. It is the company's. I have heard this from lawyers before, and it is insane and tragically gaining traction. Forget all that money you may have spent on college for knowledge ... not yours. How this possibly applies to somebody who delivers food on a bike or puts meat on a bun is beyond me....

This .... THIS? This is a trade secret? It's a sandwich you hack. What could they possibly know.

I will never eat at this place again knowing they employ such practices as these innane measures.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 23, 2014, 04:12:46 pm
Non-compete agreements for frontline fast-food workers?

I guess the trade secret is whether the pickle goes on first or after.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on December 23, 2014, 04:29:34 pm
We've had similar stuff for café/coffee shop over here in Sweden. Eight years under a liberal government in a time of rampant neo-liberalism has not done wonders for our worker's rights situation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on December 23, 2014, 06:48:37 pm
You'll note that there's all of no one complaining about actually getting nailed by a non-competition agreement like that. Someone in corporate got a visit from the idea fairy and it got passed down the line. Heck, that's the same reason why I'm supposed to list weapons I own even though if anyone noticed that particular policy it'd be an amazing shitstorm.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on December 23, 2014, 06:58:42 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on December 15, 2014, 08:41:14 pm
. . .

Yeah, I'd go study history a bit better.

if you are going to criticize, then correct, or don't bother.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 24, 2014, 02:35:40 am
The FDA intends to reduce the MSM blood donor ban from lifetime to one year. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/fda-to-propose-lifting-ban-on-gay-and-bisexual-men-who-want-to-donate-blood/2014/12/23/92af3734-8acd-11e4-9e8d-0c687bc18da4_story.html)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on December 24, 2014, 02:39:02 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 24, 2014, 02:35:40 am
The FDA intends to reduce the MSM blood donor ban from lifetime to one year. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/fda-to-propose-lifting-ban-on-gay-and-bisexual-men-who-want-to-donate-blood/2014/12/23/92af3734-8acd-11e4-9e8d-0c687bc18da4_story.html)
Well, one good step.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 24, 2014, 02:48:39 am
It's at least in line with most of their other deferral policies now. I'm on a year deferral myself. From an airport where there was a malaria scare, that is. Not gay sex. Definitely the airport.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on December 24, 2014, 03:54:32 am
Please refrain from buggering tiger mosquitoes in the future, MSH.

FakeE: Though by the end of typing that, I realized it could be construed as a rather disparaging comment towards someone's personal endowment. Hrm. Eh. Roll with it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on December 24, 2014, 05:04:53 pm
Quote from: someone
noncompete agreement stuffs

Aren't these basically unenforceable though? Jimmy Johns has no idea, and probably never will, that you work at Subway now. It would be a waste of their time to watch everyone who quits, and they would justifiably catch a lot of flak even if they did. That's not to say it's utterly ridiculous that agreements like that even exist, but it sounds more like they're just blowing hot air to try to reduce employee turnover.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on December 24, 2014, 05:22:32 pm
It's to make employees feel uncertain and make them less likely to quit (because they are afraid they'll get sued if they get a new sandwich job) and more likely to put up with abusing behaviour from their employers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 25, 2014, 04:04:42 pm
Don't quote Truean, remember. Good point though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 04, 2015, 11:11:43 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 12:08:07 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on January 04, 2015, 11:11:43 am
When visiting America, it is of utmost importance that you avoid the healthcare system. It will try to eat you. (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/01/02/british-couple-gets-hit-with-200000-medical-bill-because-their-child-was-born-during-their-vacation-in-nyc/)

yep, getting ill can legitimately lead the average household deeply into debt and into bankruptcy. I've heard conspiracies about medical boards restricting approval of licenses to limit the number of doctors but who knows if it is true. The point is, we have much fewer, much richer, doctors.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 12:11:01 pm
I know that when I travelled to the US the last time, I specifically took travel insurance to avoid this kind of shit. Although it only covered like 100,000 euros of medical care, so my family could still be screwed if I had something requiring very expensive treatment on the spot.

It also only cost less than 30 euros/year, so anyone going to the US should take one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 12:33:40 pm
-sigh-... America.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TheDarkStar on January 04, 2015, 12:50:05 pm
Why can't we have a health system that works? Europe manages to do it pretty well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 12:53:13 pm
Neo-liberalism worked so well for Iraq, too.

The ACA is, while a handjob to insurance companies, somewhat effective, but since the medicaid portion was struck down, you have people like my boyfriend, my father-in-law, and to some extent my mother-in-law (she got breast cancer so they will pay for cancer stuff only,) without any medical coverage with their bodies falling apart at the seams.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on January 04, 2015, 01:26:50 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 12:08:07 pm
The point is, we have much fewer, much richer, doctors.
This might technically be true because of the fact that it's a comparison, but the majority of doctors here aren't terrifically well off and tend to be drowning in student debt. They're kind of like lawyers in that regard. What we do have are rich insurance companies, and hospitals that overcharge on purpose because they need to start high so that when the insurance company haggles, they can negotiate down to the actual price of the service they provided. Protip: Always haggle with a hospital if you wind up paying yourself.

EDIT: Not that that will make things sane, as I imagine the 200,000 here was post-haggling, but it can make things somewhat less apocalyptic, like carrying an oxygen supply in case you ever find yourself suddenly stranded at the ocean floor.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 03:04:16 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on January 04, 2015, 01:26:50 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 12:08:07 pm
The point is, we have much fewer, much richer, doctors.
This might technically be true because of the fact that it's a comparison, but the majority of doctors here aren't terrifically well off and tend to be drowning in student debt. They're kind of like lawyers in that regard. What we do have are rich insurance companies, and hospitals that overcharge on purpose because they need to start high so that when the insurance company haggles, they can negotiate down to the actual price of the service they provided. Protip: Always haggle with a hospital if you wind up paying yourself.

EDIT: Not that that will make things sane, as I imagine the 200,000 here was post-haggling, but it can make things somewhat less apocalyptic, like carrying an oxygen supply in case you ever find yourself suddenly stranded at the ocean floor.


Before I got on medicaid I got stuck with a massive bill based around the reason I ended up with medicaid. But they don't pay retroactively. I don't even know how much it was, I was too out of it then to ask or care.

My mom was kind of slowly paying it off in an attempt to make a dent, but thankfully, there was this form you could fill out to just get it all erased if you were destitute, and I was, so that debt went away.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 03:39:15 pm
I'm not sure it's post-haggling: Brits aren't used to this kind of stuff.

Also, yeah, that's really a problem too, the way hospital charge a ton, because they only collect a part of that anyway (since people end up defaulting like Smeeprocket, because they can't afford the full, super-inflated price.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 04, 2015, 03:44:38 pm
Quote from: TheDarkStar on January 04, 2015, 12:50:05 pm
Why can't we have a health system that works? Europe manages to do it pretty well.

As far as the system is concerned, it is working. The system, of course, being the profit making health corporations. Until the focus of the US system is changed away from profit making private enterprise being king to a model that puts offering a service as the priority as we see in the EU, don't expect a thing to be different.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 03:46:08 pm
I've started to hear that flat-out ignoring hospital bills is becoming a viable strategy. If they fix you and you don't need anything else from them, there's sometimes nothing they can do to actually get anything out of you, especially if you're.....less than honest regarding your contact info.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 03:46:17 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 03:39:15 pm
I'm not sure it's post-haggling: Brits aren't used to this kind of stuff.

Also, yeah, that's really a problem too, the way hospital charge a ton, because they only collect a part of that anyway (since people end up defaulting like Smeeprocket, because they can't afford the full, super-inflated price.

yea in retrospect I was really lucky (as much as one can be with disability) on all accounts. The debt getting erased, getting on disability at all.

I know a woman who has Lupus and Fybromialgia (sp?) and because she could walk ten steps, the social worker denied her disability. She had to go to court and fight it. The judge was, fortunately, not pleased with the social worker and was tearing him a new one after the case was settled.

Her teeth are rotting out from lupus, getting severely infected, and the hospital won't treat her because "they aren't dentists". It would cost her 12k to get her teeth pulled, not including dentures. Plus, the hospital consistently treats her horribly because they think she is on meth because of her teeth.

They did this to me while I was laid up. Kept making me take drug tests, eventually took my pain meds away (nurse proudly ripped the pain patch off my arm,) because I have piercings and tattoos.

I am sure I had quite the rating on the SCUM index. They were probably rather disappointed that I made it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 03:48:49 pm
Man, FUCK America's healthcare system. That is Class A Bullshit. 12K for a teeth pulling!? That's a third of what (I'd assume) a normal person makes per year...
Well, I think the 'Average' is higher, but averages don't mean anything.

So, what was Obamacare? Why did people hate it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 03:51:09 pm
Obamacare was a basic reform package to turn the healthcare insurance industry from a semi-open cartel to an at-will purchace free market product. The right hates it because they feel that restrictions on the healthcare industry are inherently evil and will degrade American healthcare for any number of reasons, and the left hates it because it doesn't do much of anything beyond what I described in the previous sentence.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 03:51:54 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 03:48:49 pm
Man, FUCK America's healthcare system. That is Class A Bullshit.

So, what was Obamacare? Why did people hate it?

they hate it because... socialism or something. Also, the president is black so anything he does is wrong. He could come out in favor of breathing and half the country would suffocate.

the ACA (Obamacare) is a sort of midway solution that allows insurance companies to continue to be a pain but makes them charge more reasonable rates, and makes it affordable for americans with an income. The americans with low or no income'd were supposed to be covered by expanded medicaid but the supreme court is filled with awful people like Scalia and Thomas so that was shot down.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 04, 2015, 03:53:25 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 03:46:17 pm

Her teeth are rotting out from lupus, getting severely infected, and the hospital won't treat her because "they aren't dentists".

...but surely they have maxillofacial surgeons, right? Or some kind of NHS covenant with dentists?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 03:55:04 pm
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on January 04, 2015, 03:53:25 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 03:46:17 pm

Her teeth are rotting out from lupus, getting severely infected, and the hospital won't treat her because "they aren't dentists".

...but surely they have maxillofacial surgeons, right? Or some kind of NHS covenant with dentists?

oh it covers that, I know because I have TMJ. But that doesn't cover pulling impacted teeth.

What is NHS?

During the last election, Romney joked that next Obama would be offering people dental care. The conservatives think this is so absurd they make jokes about it. That is how much it is not a thing.

Actually, medicaid will cover some costs for children under a certain age. Not things like braces I don't think, but stuff like cavities.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 03:55:37 pm
Maxillofacial surgeons and dentists are pretty much entirely separate from the rest of the medical system.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on January 04, 2015, 03:55:50 pm
Believe me when I say that very few if any Americans haggle with the hospitals, or with anyone other than their neighbor at a garage sale for that matter. Most people do the bulk of their business with, well, big businesses, whose employees will most likely be in a heap of trouble for letting a customer talk the price down.

Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 03:48:49 pm
Man, FUCK America's healthcare system. That is Class A Bullshit. 12K for a teeth pulling!? That's a third of what (I'd assume) a normal person makes per year...
Well, I think the 'Average' is higher, but averages don't mean anything.

So, what was Obamacare? Why did people hate it?

It was supposed to shift the focus away from private to public health service, essentially. What ended up happening though was, in order to compromise with Republicans in congress (none of whom actually fucking voted for the thing even after gutting it) they made it illegal to not have health insurance (under penalty of a small fine which will increase over time,) and set up "exchanges" to shop for it from mostly private concerns. They did do some good though, companies can't turn people down because they have a preexisting condition, for example, or do other things to screw people over if they actually get sick. There's more to it than that but that's really the consumer friendly version for someone outside the US.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 03:58:05 pm
my mother in law, her dentures are so old you can see the wire on one of them, the gum part has worn away.

Those things are not getting replaced, either.

My dad paid for me to go to a very cut rate dentist recently to get cavities filled. Bastards charged me $100 first to tell me how to brush my teeth. That's a scam right there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 04:01:07 pm
God Bless the Not-USA.

I would haaate to live there, holy crap. The medical services sound like they suck absolute ass. You'd probably be better off in rural *insert third world nation here* than America.

I wonder if it's worse than China...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 04:02:39 pm
Yeah, "small" fine, sure. Now that the bills are coming it in it doesn't look that fucking small at all, I'm afraid. My mother, whom I was just getting to come around from a right-wing party line, is being smacked with a $2000 fine come tax day, and she makes almost nothing to begin with. Not only that, but what the insurance companies have offered her has about doubled in cost, so that fine might actually be preferable. Suffice it to say we're back to square one on how Obama is evil.

Obamacare is fucked legislation that managed to do more harm than good at this point. A more comprehensive reform that didn't seek a GOP approval stamp on every provision might have had a better outcome, but I'm convinced this is just going to ensure we never see any real healthcare legislation in the US. Next time the Republicans get the chance the ACA will be repealed and we'll have another 20 years where talking about healthcare law is verboten.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:03:58 pm
you know it's weird because the poor, not covered by medicaid, are supposed to be exempt from the taxes. But now you are scaring me. What kind of income does your mother make (general estimate if it is not too nosey)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on January 04, 2015, 04:04:35 pm
Oh make no mistake, there's literally nowhere on Earth you can consistently get treatment as good as you can get here. It's just way too fucking expensive.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 04:02:39 pm
Yeah, "small" fine, sure. Now that the bills are coming it in it doesn't look that fucking small at all, I'm afraid. My mother, whom I was just getting to come around from a right-wing party line, is being smacked with a $2000 fine come tax day, and she makes almost nothing to begin with. Not only that, but what the insurance companies have offered her has about doubled in cost, so that fine might actually be preferable. Suffice it to say we're back to square one on how Obama is evil.

Obamacare is fucked legislation that managed to do more harm than good at this point. A more comprehensive reform that didn't seek a GOP approval stamp on every provision might have had a better outcome, but I'm convinced this is just going to ensure we never see any real healthcare legislation in the US. Next time the Republicans get the chance the ACA will be repealed and we'll have another 20 years where talking about healthcare law is verboten.

That was the plan all along though, wasn't it? Make health care reform so odious to the public that nobody will ever touch it again.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:07:09 pm
all of this would have been manageable if medicaid has survived. If it was expanded everyone would be covered.

The dems never agree on anything though, they don't march in lockstep like the cons, so a ridiculous amount of compromise had to be done.

Also, the requirements for what bare bone insurance plans cover is greater, so the base costs went up.

Single payer would have solved the entire problem.Obama also promised to raise taxes on the rich, and then didn't because of the economy, even though the rich were actually rolling in more money.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on January 04, 2015, 04:08:15 pm
I don't know what kind of absurd horror stories have to be told in America that some Americans actually believe health care is worse in Europe than there.

Quote from: Baffler on January 04, 2015, 04:04:35 pm
Oh make no mistake, there's literally nowhere on Earth you can consistently get treatment as good as you can get here. It's just way too fucking expensive.
How can it be considered "being able to get treatment" when you cannot get it because you cannot pay?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 04, 2015, 04:08:48 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 04:02:39 pm
Yeah, "small" fine, sure. Now that the bills are coming it in it doesn't look that fucking small at all, I'm afraid. My mother, whom I was just getting to come around from a right-wing party line, is being smacked with a $2000 fine come tax day, and she makes almost nothing to begin with.
That's... odd. First year fine's just... $319, iirc (at least that's what I was informed of by the healthcare.gov folks), or thereabouts, and waived entirely for folks under a certain income level. If she makes almost nothing already -- specifically, if her income's low enough she isn't legally required to file taxes -- there's no fine. Or shouldn't be, anyway.

If it's 2k, either something else is going on or things are substantially different in NC.

Though a 2k fine is still cheaper than the monthly costs of most insurance policies they're offering down here in FL, bleh.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 04, 2015, 04:10:25 pm
Quote from: Antsan on January 04, 2015, 04:08:15 pm
I don't know what kind of absurd horror stories have to be told in America that some Americans actually believe health care is worse in Europe than there.

Quote from: Baffler on January 04, 2015, 04:04:35 pm
Oh make no mistake, there's literally nowhere on Earth you can consistently get treatment as good as you can get here. It's just way too fucking expensive.
How can it be considered "being able to get treatment" when you cannot get it because you cannot pay?

Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 04:01:07 pm
God Bless the Not-USA.

I would haaate to live there, holy crap.

I remember an anecdote, but I am not sure who told it. Basically, it was an American politician who was speaking out either against the reform of healthcare in the USA< or in favour of thier current model - I forget which. Scrub that, a little research reveals it was a right-wing editorial in "Investors Business Daily (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor%27s_Business_Daily#Editorials)". Basically, this person said that "if Stephen Hawking had been born in the UK, he would be dead thanks to the NHS". Feel free to palm your face in the hardest of ways at this.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:11:07 pm
Quote from: Frumple on January 04, 2015, 04:08:48 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 04:02:39 pm
Yeah, "small" fine, sure. Now that the bills are coming it in it doesn't look that fucking small at all, I'm afraid. My mother, whom I was just getting to come around from a right-wing party line, is being smacked with a $2000 fine come tax day, and she makes almost nothing to begin with.
That's... odd. First year fine's just... $319, iirc (at least that's what I was informed of by the healthcare.gov folks), or thereabouts, and waived entirely for folks under a certain income level. If she makes almost nothing already -- specifically, if her income's low enough she isn't legally required to file taxes -- there's no fine. Or shouldn't be, anyway.

If it's 2k, either something else is going on or things are substantially different in NC.

Though a 2k fine is still cheaper than the monthly costs of most insurance policies they're offering down here in FL, bleh.

yea that doesn't sound right at all. The costs are suppose to go up each year, but it definitely doesn't start at 2k, even if you have the income to pay the fine. (in which case, with the tax deductible, it should be cheaper to get the insurance.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 04:11:48 pm
Quote from: Baffler on January 04, 2015, 04:04:35 pm
Oh make no mistake, there's literally nowhere on Earth you can consistently get treatment as good as you can get here. It's just way too fucking expensive.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 04:02:39 pm
Yeah, "small" fine, sure. Now that the bills are coming it in it doesn't look that fucking small at all, I'm afraid. My mother, whom I was just getting to come around from a right-wing party line, is being smacked with a $2000 fine come tax day, and she makes almost nothing to begin with. Not only that, but what the insurance companies have offered her has about doubled in cost, so that fine might actually be preferable. Suffice it to say we're back to square one on how Obama is evil.

Obamacare is fucked legislation that managed to do more harm than good at this point. A more comprehensive reform that didn't seek a GOP approval stamp on every provision might have had a better outcome, but I'm convinced this is just going to ensure we never see any real healthcare legislation in the US. Next time the Republicans get the chance the ACA will be repealed and we'll have another 20 years where talking about healthcare law is verboten.

That was the plan all along though, wasn't it? Make health care reform so odious to the public that nobody will ever touch it again.

I meant for practical purposes, not bleeding edge tech ones. xD
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:12:25 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on January 04, 2015, 04:10:25 pm
Quote from: Antsan on January 04, 2015, 04:08:15 pm
I don't know what kind of absurd horror stories have to be told in America that some Americans actually believe health care is worse in Europe than there.

Quote from: Baffler on January 04, 2015, 04:04:35 pm
Oh make no mistake, there's literally nowhere on Earth you can consistently get treatment as good as you can get here. It's just way too fucking expensive.
How can it be considered "being able to get treatment" when you cannot get it because you cannot pay?

Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 04:01:07 pm
God Bless the Not-USA.

I would haaate to live there, holy crap.

I remember an anecdote, but I am not sure who told it. Basically, it was an American politician who was speaking out either against the reform of healthcare in the USA< or in favour of thier current model - I forget which. Scrub that, a little research reveals it was a right-wing editorial in "Investors Business Daily (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor%27s_Business_Daily#Editorials)". Basically, this person said that "if Stephen Hawking had been born in the UK, he would be dead thanks to the NHS". Feel free to palm your face in the hardest of ways at this.

we should require a certain score on the SATs for our politicians. And some sort of science credentials. Really anything to stop people from electing whoever the village idiot is to office.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 04:14:41 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:03:58 pm
you know it's weird because the poor, not covered by medicaid, are supposed to be exempt from the taxes. But now you are scaring me. What kind of income does your mother make (general estimate if it is not too nosey)
Nothing. But counting her husband, about the usual for working middle class, I don't know the exact figure.
Quote from: Baffler on January 04, 2015, 04:04:35 pm
Oh make no mistake, there's literally nowhere on Earth you can consistently get treatment as good as you can't get here.
Fixed.
Quote
That was the plan all along though, wasn't it? Make health care reform so odious to the public that nobody will ever touch it again.
Yep, in the end Obamacare has become a massive Republican victory. I am starting to believe that we've reached the upper end of the current paradigm.
Quote from: Antsan on January 04, 2015, 04:08:15 pm
I don't know what kind of absurd horror stories have to be told in America that some Americans actually believe health care is worse in Europe than there.
The typical demagogue's picture of European healthcare is a bureaucratic haze that makes the DMV look lively, where patients have zero choice regarding their health and are told by the state when and what medical treatment is available to them (and that it isn't much, gotta save those tax dollars). Doctors are either apathatic untrained minimum wage scrubs or harsh government overseers who dish out healthcare on political grounds. New medical technology is not allowed because its too expensive for socialism and constitutes blue sky research.

Ironically, about half of that is closer to the US reality than the European one, not that I'm much a fan of either system.
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:12:25 pm
we should require a certain score on the SATs for our politicians. And some sort of science credentials. Really anything to stop people from electing whoever the village idiot is to office.
Who watches the watchers? Systems like that inherently favor the establishment, and what people proposing them never think of is that it won't block the ones they want it to block. Rather, you and people who think like you will be the village idiots. It's the same logic as the literacy and poll taxes of the pre-civil rights South. Don't you want only productive and intelligent people to vote?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:18:24 pm
I know but I mean, nvm I'll just say it's the tea party. That describes what I mean.

Or reinstate the Voter's Rights Act, but for the entire country.

As it stands, we are putting people on the science committees that believe global warming is a hoax and how humans came to be is a "great unsolvable mystery"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on January 04, 2015, 04:19:31 pm
Yeah, the real problem is that our education system sucks. There's no shortcut to fixing that, you just need to take it head on.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 04:20:04 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:18:24 pm
I know but I mean, it's the white southern dudes that are the idiots. We should be able to make an exception for them
I'm going to try to be polite here and say you should be more careful and less sure of yourself when talking about things like this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on January 04, 2015, 04:22:09 pm
Yeah, watch out, that's a good way to alienate people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:22:38 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 04:20:04 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:18:24 pm
I know but I mean, it's the white southern dudes that are the idiots. We should be able to make an exception for them
I'm going to try to be polite here and say you should be more careful and less sure of yourself when talking about things like this.

I live in the south, I am under the watch of these people. I am speaking from experience.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 04, 2015, 04:22:55 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 04:14:41 pm
Nothing. But counting her husband, about the usual for working middle class, I don't know the exact figure.
Thaaat might do it, bringing her over the minimum. If they've got the time and capability, your parents might consider crunching some numbers and seeing if they'd be better off filing taxes separately or somethin'. Forget if there's a way to finagle things so one or both would get off the hook for the penalty (it's been a few weeks since I last saw the numbers and process), but it's likely worth looking in to.

Still shouldn't even remotely be 2k, though. Especially not specifically against your mother, if she's filing jointly with her husband.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:23:50 pm
I'd get a second opinion, personally.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 04:25:19 pm
God, I'd swear that the prerequisite to becoming a politician is to get a lobotomy, and only a few manage to squeeze through and avoid it...

The issue is that power always, always corrupts. It's an inescapable fact. Governments tend to suck by nature.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on January 04, 2015, 04:25:51 pm
Yeah, you also have to remember that our tax code is designed to HEAVILY favor those with the time + expertise/Money to do their taxes professionally. You can cut what you pay by gigantic amounts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on January 04, 2015, 04:26:25 pm
American healthcare system:

I had an aneurysm in my left middle ear area few year back.  Burst in the morning but I felt it and jammed my head down and squeezed on it and just barely didn't pass out and throw up everywhere and die.  I decided to just write a good-bye letter and hope for the best instead of calling emergency services because I figured I may as well just give the small amount I had saved to family instead of getting shuttled off, killed in some ER secondary infection clusterfuck, and lose all the (relatively small) amount I had saved that would just be given to my brother otherwise.

After surviving (yay, walked off an aneurysm: achievement unlocked) ended up looking around for an MRI.  Took several days to find a cheaper one I could afford, which was in a state away.   A long car drive with a *barely* healed aneurysm is not a fun thing I tell ya w'hat.  MRI doesn't show anything specific (maybe I waited too long) and I would end up needing a much more expensive operation to really see shit so I said "done with that" and didn't go back to the doctor that I payed $250 bucks to just to have her say "well, good luck!" (more or less exactly what she said) and that was it. 

The irony: year+ later, the place I went to tries to bill me again for outstanding accounts because they were being bought out, and the secretary accidentally put a negative sign somewhere.  Yay for keeping receipts.

The double irony: I live in Texas and I take care of my grandfather, who has pretty bad dementia from time to time, basically full time.  So I can't get medicaid, and I also don't even earn enough to get subsidies, so I'm basically right fucked out of even getting Obamacare.  'murica.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 04:26:58 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:22:38 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 04:20:04 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:18:24 pm
I know but I mean, it's the white southern dudes that are the idiots. We should be able to make an exception for them
I'm going to try to be polite here and say you should be more careful and less sure of yourself when talking about things like this.
I live in the south, I am under the watch of these people. I am speaking from experience.
I live in the south and I am one of these people. I am speaking from experience that you'd be better off not making stereotypical assumptions about anybody. It is that exact kind of elitist attitude that prevents the existence of a strong left-wing in the South specifically or the US as a whole. Nobody is going to be open to being convinced when you identify their class of people as a problem to be solved. This is literally the exact reason people here are intellectually closed to the left. Let go of the ivory tower.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 04, 2015, 04:29:53 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 04:14:41 pm
Ironically, about half of that is closer to the US reality than the European one, not that I'm much a fan of either system.
Where do you see the problems with the current European system?

(Actually that 'the' should have big fat quotation marks around it. German and British healthcare for example have very very very very very very very very little in common. In fact we tell horror stories about the NHS like the Republicans do about Europe :P )
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:30:35 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 04:26:58 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:22:38 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 04:20:04 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:18:24 pm
I know but I mean, it's the white southern dudes that are the idiots. We should be able to make an exception for them
I'm going to try to be polite here and say you should be more careful and less sure of yourself when talking about things like this.
I live in the south, I am under the watch of these people. I am speaking from experience.
I live in the south and I am one of these people. I am speaking from experience that you'd be better off not making stereotypical assumptions about anybody. It is that exact kind of elitist attitude that prevents the existence of a strong left-wing in the South specifically or the US as a whole. Nobody is going to be open to being convinced when you identify their class of people as a problem to be solved. This is literally the exact reason people here are intellectually closed to the left. Let go of the ivory tower.

I changed it in my post for fear of getting warned. No one should have to be convinced not to be racist, which is the biggest problem we are having with the tea party right now. TBF there are also women involved being equally as awful.

But the tea party isn't exactly racially diverse.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 04:31:37 pm
Quote
I had an aneurysm in my left middle ear area few year back.  Burst in the morning but I felt it and jammed my head down and squeezed on it and just barely didn't pass out and throw up everywhere and die.

Err... How the hell does that work?

Quote
Where do you see the problems with the current European system?

(Actually that 'the' should have big fat quotation marks around it. German and British healthcare for example have very very very very very very very very little in common. In fact we tell horror stories about the NHS like the Republicans do about Europe :P )

Do you live in Germany, Helgoland?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on January 04, 2015, 04:34:56 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 04:31:37 pm
Quote
I had an aneurysm in my left middle ear area few year back.  Burst in the morning but I felt it and jammed my head down and squeezed on it and just barely didn't pass out and throw up everywhere and die.

Err... How the hell does that work?

Upon looking at diagrams, was probably closer to outer ear than middle ear.  Also, it only just barely worked: you go from fine and dandy to nearly dead in about 3 seconds, its not a fun experience.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 04:36:03 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on January 04, 2015, 04:34:56 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 04:31:37 pm
Quote
I had an aneurysm in my left middle ear area few year back.  Burst in the morning but I felt it and jammed my head down and squeezed on it and just barely didn't pass out and throw up everywhere and die.

Err... How the hell does that work?

Upon looking at diagrams, was probably closer to outer ear than middle ear.  Also, it only just barely worked: you go from fine and dandy to nearly dead in about 3 seconds, its not a fun experience.

What I meant was 'What's an Aneurysm' and 'How does squeezing it help? Where did you squeeze, your head or your ear?'. >_>

Doesn't sound fun...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:37:39 pm
yea my boyfriend suffers from crippling back pain.He tried to get a govt program that tries to get people back to work if they have a fast turn around to cover what basically amounted to a few weeks of physical therapy.

Rick Scott got re-elected though and that went out the window.

Half the state didn't want him in office. The alternative was charlie christ and I voted the fuck out of that part of the ballot. Former conservative versus tea party nutjob? I know what I preferred.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:39:03 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 04:36:03 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on January 04, 2015, 04:34:56 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 04:31:37 pm
Quote
I had an aneurysm in my left middle ear area few year back.  Burst in the morning but I felt it and jammed my head down and squeezed on it and just barely didn't pass out and throw up everywhere and die.

Err... How the hell does that work?

Upon looking at diagrams, was probably closer to outer ear than middle ear.  Also, it only just barely worked: you go from fine and dandy to nearly dead in about 3 seconds, its not a fun experience.

What I meant was 'What's an Aneurysm' and 'How does squeezing it help? Where did you squeeze, your head or your ear?'. >_>

Doesn't sound fun...

it's a burst blood vessel in your brain and it can result in instantaneous death.

I'm not sure how you could be sure that's what you had though. Without diagnosis.

That's the poor man's diagnosis "not dead? check. Healthcare is working!"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 04:41:32 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:30:35 pm
No one should have to be convinced not to be racist, which is the biggest problem we are having with the tea party right now. TBF there are also women involved being equally as awful.
Whether they should or not is kind of irrelevant. In the Hypothetical Vacuum Utopia that underlies many most morality discussions, sure, nobody should have to be convinced not to be racist. It's just that HVU does not exist and could not possibly exist. I think this is one of the more powerful negative effects of trying to exist within a thought experiment instead of the real world, which the politically marginalized have a very powerful tendency to do because it allows them to feel good and powerful even though they don't have political power in reality.

Until people begin thinking of these things in terms of what can be accomplished in reality and how it relates to the non-affiliated, we're going to keep staling in place.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:44:48 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 04:41:32 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:30:35 pm
No one should have to be convinced not to be racist, which is the biggest problem we are having with the tea party right now. TBF there are also women involved being equally as awful.
Whether they should or not is kind of irrelevant. In the Hypothetical Vacuum Utopia that underlies many most morality discussions, sure, nobody should have to be convinced not to be racist. It's just that HVU does not exist and could not possibly exist. I think this is one of the more powerful negative effects of trying to exist within a thought experiment instead of the real world, which the politically marginalized have a very powerful tendency to do because it allows them to feel good and powerful even though they don't have political power in reality.

Until people begin thinking of these things in terms of what can be accomplished in reality and how it relates to the non-affiliated, we're going to keep staling in place.

Trying to make borderline racist people not racist is as frustrating as it is exhausting though.

I have some conservative friends that I game with.

One genuinely asked me what racism black people have to deal with these days. It floored me so hard it kicked all of the actual examples out of my brain for a bit.

The other one asked me when black people were going to get over slavery.

These guys are probably good people at heart, but there's not even a foundation to work with there, you are just building on quicksand.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 04, 2015, 04:45:38 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 04:31:37 pm
Do you live in Germany, Helgoland?
Ayup, I'm pretty much the resident Hun.

(I really live in Prussian-occupied North-East France, but that's another story :P )
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 04, 2015, 04:48:11 pm
Quote
The other one asked me when black people were going to get over slavery.

Why'd the question floor you?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:50:47 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on January 04, 2015, 04:48:11 pm
Quote
The other one asked me when black people were going to get over slavery.

Why'd the question floor you?

because at least some of the answers should be obvious. It's not like racism is never discussed. I mean, while I understand that as a white person,I can not fully grasp what a black person experiences day to day, but race has at least partly been talked about.

Things like higher rates of conviction, death penalty, much lower rate of employment for black men, institutionalized poverty...

It just blows my mind that he missed all of that during his entire life.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 04:51:00 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 04, 2015, 04:45:38 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 04:31:37 pm
Do you live in Germany, Helgoland?
Ayup, I'm pretty much the resident Hun.

(I really live in Prussian-occupied North-East France, but that's another story :P )

I am far too removed from European stuff to have any idea what you're talking about there. >_>

I want to visit Germany at some point, my family used to own a brewery chain or something there, before/into WW2. ^^

Apparently the language is a pain in the ass to learn, but from what I know it seems alright. At least I don't have to learn two more alphabets and a symbol system. *Cough* Japanese *Cough*
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:52:31 pm
Is it true that Germans were doing an anti-Muslim march?

Are they going Fourth Reich on us?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 04:55:12 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 04, 2015, 04:29:53 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 04:14:41 pm
Ironically, about half of that is closer to the US reality than the European one, not that I'm much a fan of either system.
Where do you see the problems with the current European system?

(Actually that 'the' should have big fat quotation marks around it. German and British healthcare for example have very very very very very very very very little in common. In fact we tell horror stories about the NHS like the Republicans do about Europe :P )
"The European System" as a term, is mostly just referencing that Europe has healthcare laws instead of letting the insurance corps run roughshod over the population.

My problems with it can be hair-split all day, but the big ones are that European governments have a tendency to act like the bill they're accumulating will never come asking for payment (thereby leading to Fuck if and when it does) and that the people who try to deal with that exact problem sometimes go about it by doing a less crazy version of not allowing certain treatments (thereby leading to Fuck for people with rare or expensive conditions). Considering all that alongside the euthanasia policies of certain nations....well, Europe makes me nervous from time to time. It wouldn't be too hard to take that step, especially not if the far-right surge continues.
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:44:48 pm
Trying to make borderline racist people not racist is as frustrating as it is exhausting though.
Welcome to the game of persuasion. Nobody ever called it an easy art.
Quote
These guys are probably good people at heart, but there's not even a foundation to work with there, you are just building on quicksand.
Hey, you've got plenty of foundation. They aren't going out and hanging black people while mainlining rage fantasies about them, they most likely believe in equal rights at least conceptually, and as you've said they aren't totally vacuous on the idea of morality. That's way more than a bunch of your predecessors got, and you can see how well some of them did. Frankly, Tea Party types are easy mode compared to people who consciously and unashamedly hold ideas like "God created the Lesser Races to serve us" or "if a black man looks at a white woman like that, well, he's just tired of living" (almost actual quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till#Murder)).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on January 04, 2015, 04:55:39 pm
claiming merkel even has an ideology to speak of is rather far fetched

thanks for the comparison though, we really needed to compare everything german to nazism again
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 04, 2015, 04:56:46 pm
A couple of Ossis, nothing big, really. Everybody got pissed at them, and our Chancellorette warned against them in her New Year's adress. The only people trying to cater to them are the ones from our new right-wing party AfD, and if we're lucky, that could be the end for them all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on January 04, 2015, 04:57:34 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:52:31 pm
Is it true that Germans were doing an anti-Muslim march?

Are they going Fourth Reich on us?

I winced and I'm not even German. Please keep such accusations to r/Polandball. It's true though, the trend in Europe in general seems to be moving in that direction, at least among certain vocal right wing minorities.

Edit: Ninja'd by Helgoland.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on January 04, 2015, 05:01:00 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:52:31 pm
Is it true that Germans were doing an anti-Muslim march?

Are they going Fourth Reich on us?

There is a fair amount of anti-muslim sentiment in many european countries, owing mainly to the large amount of immigration right now, but I'd suggest you don't accuse them o going all "Fourth-reich". That's a sensitive subject.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 05:02:49 pm
- Needless provocation -
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 05:03:08 pm
It was a poorly planned joke. I don't think Americans perceive that like Germans do. We just pretend the bad things we've done never happened, as opposed to dealing with them head on. So jokes about our awfulness tend to be better received. After all, rectal feeding is a perfectly legitimate way to nourish a prisoner.

I should have been more thoughtful.

Honestly, it's France that is upsetting me with their anti-hijab,niqab, and burqa laws. Restricting a woman's dress is the same, even if you are under the impression that you are liberating them.

I read about this opera house where the cast refused to perform until a woman seated in the front row took off her niqab, and she ended up being forced to leave via pressure (no one else would have gotten to see the show).

That's bullshit right there.

Shaming a woman for her dress goes both ways.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 04, 2015, 05:06:05 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 05:02:49 pm
- Needless provocation -
Indeed, even our women are men!

Hey, where'd the post go?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 05:06:52 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 04, 2015, 05:06:05 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 05:02:49 pm
- Needless provocation -
Indeed, even our women are men!

Hey, where'd the post go?

aww, I wasn't even offended. I deserved it.

(how do germans breed, tho?)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 04, 2015, 05:07:31 pm
It's not like the French went all anti-women, Smee. It's that they banned covering the face in public space as it hinders effective communication and facial recognition for security reasons.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 05:08:37 pm
Well, when a mommy's all alone, and the milkman visits when daddy isn't home...

Yeah, how do we breed?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 05:10:05 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on January 04, 2015, 05:07:31 pm
It's not like the French went all anti-women, Smee. It's that they banned covering the face in public space as it hinders effective communication and facial recognition for security reasons.

America is hyper-obsessed with security and we don't even do that. We have a police state going on and we can still manage to let women conceal their faces if they want to.

It was a thinly veiled excuse to oppress Muslim women. Under the misguided belief that restrictive laws would force liberation on them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 05:10:18 pm
Well, Merkel was fecunded in murky circumstance about 25 years ago. She keeps the sperm in a special sack in her belly, and lays eggs under the Bundestag. The hatchlings are sorted, the fit ones are sent all over the country for adotptions while the others end up in currywurst.

And that's why they call her the Mutti.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 05:12:01 pm
TheDwarfy, that's a bullshit excuse. It was Muslim-bashing all along. After all, they banned all veils in school earlier. So it's hardly about security.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 04, 2015, 05:12:57 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 05:06:52 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 04, 2015, 05:06:05 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 05:02:49 pm
- Needless provocation -
Indeed, even our women are men!

Hey, where'd the post go?

aww, I wasn't even offended. I deserved it.

(how do germans breed, tho?)
The regular way. Our women have uteruses, they're just being manly about it.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

E: HOLY HELL SHEB! I'M LAUGHING MY ASS OFF AND CRAPPING MY PANTS AT THE SAME TIME!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 05:13:55 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 05:12:01 pm
TheDwarfy, that's a bullshit excuse. It was Muslim-bashing all along. After all, they banned all veils in school earlier. So it's hardly about security.

It's interesting when people make an excuse that lies about their intention, but the excuse itself actually explains it logically and gives a good reason. Well, they probably shouldn't ban certain pieces of clothing anyway... Within reason, of course.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on January 04, 2015, 05:16:27 pm
It's not even about intentions. People just rationalize things differently when they're being prejudiced, and accept ideas that would at best be weakly supported by evidence while in their heads minimizing the impact of harm they could do when going through with their actions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 05:18:38 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 05:13:55 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 05:12:01 pm
TheDwarfy, that's a bullshit excuse. It was Muslim-bashing all along. After all, they banned all veils in school earlier. So it's hardly about security.

It's interesting when people make an excuse that lies about their intention, but the excuse itself actually explains it logically and gives a good reason. Well, they probably shouldn't ban certain pieces of clothing anyway... Within reason, of course.

it's not a good excuse, I seriously doubt any potential (obviously muslim oriented) threats would be prevented by harassing and oppressing muslim women.

I am aware that not every country has a right to free speech and religion written in its govt docs though.

The thing is, you don't liberate women by controlling them in a different direction. Control is Control. It's like women who talk about other women in a derogatory fashion because they choose to dress provocatively and be sexual. You should get to be able to do either of those if you want.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 05:20:44 pm
Quote from: Glowcat on January 04, 2015, 05:16:27 pm
It's not even about intentions. People just rationalize things differently when they're being prejudiced, and accept ideas that would at best be weakly supported by evidence while in their heads minimizing the impact of harm they could do when going through with their actions.

Mmm... Seems likely enough. Unfortunately that also seems to be human nature. Quite hard to correct... Even I fall prey to it constantly, and I'm someone (who likes to believe) thinks about actions and repercussions more than most. At least, when I have the opportunity to. I can't remember what it was called, but I believe it's similar to the case where someone will rationalise things for themselves but not for others. If they're being rude, it's because 'they've had a bad day', but if someone else is being rude, it's because they're an asshole.

Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 05:18:38 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 05:13:55 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 05:12:01 pm
TheDwarfy, that's a bullshit excuse. It was Muslim-bashing all along. After all, they banned all veils in school earlier. So it's hardly about security.

It's interesting when people make an excuse that lies about their intention, but the excuse itself actually explains it logically and gives a good reason. Well, they probably shouldn't ban certain pieces of clothing anyway... Within reason, of course.

it's not a good excuse, I seriously doubt any potential (obviously muslim oriented) threats would be prevented by harassing and oppressing muslim women.

I am aware that not every country has a right to free speech and religion written in its govt docs though.

The thing is, you don't liberate women by controlling them in a different direction. Control is Control. It's like women who talk about other women in a derogatory fashion because they choose to dress provocatively and be sexual. You should get to be able to do either of those if you want.

I'm not attempting to say I know what they're intention was, 'nor that I think that their actions were correct. I was merely noting that, under certain circumstances, allowing people to wear face-concealing clothing can be a security risk.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on January 04, 2015, 05:22:24 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:50:47 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on January 04, 2015, 04:48:11 pm
Quote
The other one asked me when black people were going to get over slavery.

Why'd the question floor you?

because at least some of the answers should be obvious. It's not like racism is never discussed. I mean, while I understand that as a white person,I can not fully grasp what a black person experiences day to day, but race has at least partly been talked about.

Things like higher rates of conviction, death penalty, much lower rate of employment for black men, institutionalized poverty...

It just blows my mind that he missed all of that during his entire life.

That's a pretty poor explaination, I'm not surprised that they are not convinced.

Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 05:12:01 pm
TheDwarfy, that's a bullshit excuse. It was Muslim-bashing all along. After all, they banned all veils in school earlier. So it's hardly about security.

I won't complain about frobidding burka-style Islam. Moderate Islam no problem, but if your religion require women to cover up head to toe do that elsewhere.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 04, 2015, 05:24:14 pm
IIRC, France has banned pretty much all forms of conspicuous religious clothing/symbols. You can criticize the law on a number of grounds, but lets not try and make out that it is about controlling anyone in particular.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 05:26:14 pm
Quote from: Phmcw on January 04, 2015, 05:22:24 pm
I won't complain about frobidding burka-style Islam. Moderate Islam no problem, but if your religion require women to cover up head to toe do that elsewhere.

The unguided intention may be to 'liberate' these women but unfortunately it's not quite that simple. The fact of the matter that these women are freely choosing to wear that clothing of their own accord. Of course, if they're being coerced into it by other people it's another matter, but I don't think that's the case here. Changing things like this is done gently over time, not with a hamfisted shotgun blast to the knee caps.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 04, 2015, 05:30:22 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 05:08:37 pm
Well, when a mommy's all alone, and the milkman visits when daddy isn't home...

Yeah, how do we breed?

I think somebody hasn't had the talk yet :P

Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 05:10:05 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on January 04, 2015, 05:07:31 pm
It's not like the French went all anti-women, Smee. It's that they banned covering the face in public space as it hinders effective communication and facial recognition for security reasons.

America is hyper-obsessed with security and we don't even do that. We have a police state going on and we can still manage to let women conceal their faces if they want to.

It was a thinly veiled excuse to oppress Muslim women. Under the misguided belief that restrictive laws would force liberation on them.
Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 05:12:01 pm
TheDwarfy, that's a bullshit excuse. It was Muslim-bashing all along. After all, they banned all veils in school earlier. So it's hardly about security.
And yet it does have practical uses, regardless of what you think the motive is. And it applies to the general public, not specifically to Muslims, though their head veil is obviously what was going to be effected most.

Still, it's a rather oppressive custom that separates Muslims from the French population. Given that the gain is improved relations and the cost is a bit of cloth held over your face, it's not like it's a terrible thing. What it boils down to is whether or not the veil is oppression, or taking the veil off is oppression- I, personally, think that the women involved benefit from not having to hide themselves permanently from the public, and thus separate themselves.

Of course, they didn't go about it in a sensitive fashion, but to put it bluntly it does the job.

Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 05:26:14 pm
Quote from: Phmcw on January 04, 2015, 05:22:24 pm
I won't complain about frobidding burka-style Islam. Moderate Islam no problem, but if your religion require women to cover up head to toe do that elsewhere.

The unguided intention may be to 'liberate' these women but unfortunately it's not quite that simple. The fact of the matter that these women are freely choosing to wear that clothing of their own accord. Of course, if they're being coerced into it by other people it's another matter, but I don't think that's the case here. Changing things like this is done gently over time, not with a hamfisted shotgun blast to the knee caps.
Yes. It's a cultural thing, and they may choose to wear it- but it's because Allah tells them to hide themselves, IIRC. It separates women from men as it gives them separate rules, and then further generations of Muslim girls will also be forced into this custom from birth. It has a profound effect on the rest of their lives if they feel the need to hide away from men.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 05:30:50 pm
Quote from: Phmcw on January 04, 2015, 05:22:24 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:50:47 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on January 04, 2015, 04:48:11 pm
Quote
The other one asked me when black people were going to get over slavery.

Why'd the question floor you?

because at least some of the answers should be obvious. It's not like racism is never discussed. I mean, while I understand that as a white person,I can not fully grasp what a black person experiences day to day, but race has at least partly been talked about.

Things like higher rates of conviction, death penalty, much lower rate of employment for black men, institutionalized poverty...

It just blows my mind that he missed all of that during his entire life.

That's a pretty poor explaination, I'm not surprised that they are not convinced.

Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 05:12:01 pm
TheDwarfy, that's a bullshit excuse. It was Muslim-bashing all along. After all, they banned all veils in school earlier. So it's hardly about security.

I won't complain about frobidding burka-style Islam. Moderate Islam no problem, but if your religion require women to cover up head to toe do that elsewhere.

I went into more depth, I just assumed you guys were in the know. I'm not equipped to explain racism to another white person. Especially a conservative who believes black conviction rates are higher because of bad parenting.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 05:32:24 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on January 04, 2015, 05:30:22 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 05:08:37 pm
Well, when a mommy's all alone, and the milkman visits when daddy isn't home...

Yeah, how do we breed?

I think somebody hasn't had the talk yet :P

Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 05:10:05 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on January 04, 2015, 05:07:31 pm
It's not like the French went all anti-women, Smee. It's that they banned covering the face in public space as it hinders effective communication and facial recognition for security reasons.

America is hyper-obsessed with security and we don't even do that. We have a police state going on and we can still manage to let women conceal their faces if they want to.

It was a thinly veiled excuse to oppress Muslim women. Under the misguided belief that restrictive laws would force liberation on them.
Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 05:12:01 pm
TheDwarfy, that's a bullshit excuse. It was Muslim-bashing all along. After all, they banned all veils in school earlier. So it's hardly about security.
And yet it does have practical uses, regardless of what you think the motive is. And it applies to the general public, not specifically to Muslims, though their head veil is obviously what was going to be effected most.

Still, it's a rather oppressive custom that separates Muslims from the French population. Given that the gain is improved relations and the cost is a bit of cloth held over your face, it's not like it's a terrible thing. What it boils down to is whether or not the veil is oppression, or taking the veil off is oppression- I, personally, think that the women involved benefit from not having to hide themselves permanently from the public, and thus separate themselves.

Of course, they didn't go about it in a sensitive fashion, but to put it bluntly it does the job.

Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 05:26:14 pm
Quote from: Phmcw on January 04, 2015, 05:22:24 pm
I won't complain about frobidding burka-style Islam. Moderate Islam no problem, but if your religion require women to cover up head to toe do that elsewhere.

The unguided intention may be to 'liberate' these women but unfortunately it's not quite that simple. The fact of the matter that these women are freely choosing to wear that clothing of their own accord. Of course, if they're being coerced into it by other people it's another matter, but I don't think that's the case here. Changing things like this is done gently over time, not with a hamfisted shotgun blast to the knee caps.
Yes. It's a cultural thing, and they may choose to wear it- but it's because Allah tells them to hide themselves, IIRC. It separates women from men as it gives them separate rules, and then further generations of Muslim girls will also be forced into this custom from birth. It has a profound effect on the rest of their lives if they feel the need to hide away from men.

think about it this way, far right Muslim men force their women to wear Burqa, the French Govt forces them not to. Different master, same schtick.

And let's not pretend this wasn't entirely aimed at muslims.

Also, I'm pretty sure Allah doesn't say that at all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 05:34:37 pm
Well, the law was tailored to target principally the veil. I mean, why not ban ALL RELIGIOUS symbols? No, only the "conspicuous" symbols. A notion entirely unclear (actually, even less clear in the original French, the exact word ostentatoire imply intent of being conspicuous.), but it was clear it targeted mostly the veil.

It's a trend: for example that recent law in Quebec banning all religious symbols in public buildings - except for those of "historical interest". So the legislature can continue meeting under a crucifix. (http://images.lpcdn.ca/641x427/201109/20/379459-session-parlementaire-ouvre-quebec-annonce.jpg)

Just because the law doesn't cite a particular group doesn't mean it does not target a particular group. If I make a law banning begging, you can't say it doesn't target the poor because it also ban rich people from begging.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 05:35:18 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 05:34:37 pm
Well, the law was tailored to target principally the veil. I mean, why not ban ALL RELIGIOUS symbols? No, only the "conspicuous" symbols. A notion entirely unclear (actually, even less clear in the original French, the exact word ostentatoire imply intent of being conspicuous.), but it was clear it targeted mostly the veil.

It's a trend: for example that recent law in Quebec banning all religious symbols in public buildings - except for those of "historical interest". So the legislature can continue meeting under a crucifix. (http://images.lpcdn.ca/641x427/201109/20/379459-session-parlementaire-ouvre-quebec-annonce.jpg)

Just because the law doesn't cite a particular group doesn't mean it does not target a particular group. If I make a law banning begging, you can't say it doesn't target the poor because it also ban rich people from begging.

this was well put.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 04, 2015, 05:36:41 pm
Surely it stands to reason that with the amount of black gangs there are, black arrests would be higher. I'm sure that during the height of the Mafia, Italian conviction rates were higher than normal.

Also, on the Allah thing:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Essentially, sex is a shame, and hide your beauty. I'm not sure if that means men are supposed to the same, though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 05:37:00 pm
I just thank My Lord and Master Baphomet for the Satanic Temple (http://thesatanictemple.com/) to enforce religious freedom on these heathens.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 05:39:39 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on January 04, 2015, 05:36:41 pm
Surely it stands to reason that with the amount of black gangs there are, black arrests would be higher. I'm sure that during the height of the Mafia, Italian conviction rates were higher than normal.

Also, on the Allah thing:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Essentially, sex is a shame, and hide your beauty. I'm not sure if that means men are supposed to the same, though.

oh gawd. Ugh.

Do you think white people don't have gangs or actually commit less crimes? They don't. I can start throwing statistics at you, but the issue I am specifically talking about is higher conviction rates if you are black for the same crime, or if the victim is white. Also, the war on drugs targeting minorities extensively. Also the higher chance of a death penalty sentence if you are black.

There are lots of different gangs of different races. That doesn't mean there is actually an epidemic of black crime over other races, especially white.

edit: and Christianity has all that sex shame stuff too. That definitely doesn't same a burqa is necessary though. Moderate muslims don't really worry about that rule, at most you might have a hijab, and that is by choice.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 05:45:14 pm
Quote
Yes. It's a cultural thing, and they may choose to wear it- but it's because Allah tells them to hide themselves, IIRC. It separates women from men as it gives them separate rules, and then further generations of Muslim girls will also be forced into this custom from birth. It has a profound effect on the rest of their lives if they feel the need to hide away from men.

In that case, banning the burqa is just attempting to correct a symptom of a wider problem: Namely, crazy religious people. ;D

Seriously, though, they shouldn't be banning things like this (except in places like banks where it does truly make sense).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on January 04, 2015, 05:45:32 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 05:34:37 pm
Well, the law was tailored to target principally the veil. I mean, why not ban ALL RELIGIOUS symbols? No, only the "conspicuous" symbols. A notion entirely unclear (actually, even less clear in the original French, the exact word ostentatoire imply intent of being conspicuous.), but it was clear it targeted mostly the veil.

It's a trend: for example that recent law in Quebec banning all religious symbols in public buildings - except for those of "historical interest". So the legislature can continue meeting under a crucifix. (http://images.lpcdn.ca/641x427/201109/20/379459-session-parlementaire-ouvre-quebec-annonce.jpg)

Just because the law doesn't cite a particular group doesn't mean it does not target a particular group. If I make a law banning begging, you can't say it doesn't target the poor because it also ban rich people from begging.

No problem with that I admit. I live in Charleroi, and the fact that the government took a clear stence is a good thing. You can wear the veil, just not as a employee of the stateor in a school, and not a veil that cover the face.

The problems we face regarding mysoginy go a tad farther than women's representation in videogames. Got attacked pretty violently and had to protect my sister and it wasn't fun.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 04, 2015, 05:46:46 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 05:39:39 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on January 04, 2015, 05:36:41 pm
Surely it stands to reason that with the amount of black gangs there are, black arrests would be higher. I'm sure that during the height of the Mafia, Italian conviction rates were higher than normal.

Also, on the Allah thing:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Essentially, sex is a shame, and hide your beauty. I'm not sure if that means men are supposed to the same, though.

oh gawd. Ugh.

Do you think white people don't have gangs or actually commit less crimes? They don't. I can start throwing statistics at you, but the issue I am specifically talking about is higher conviction rates if you are black for the same crime, or if the victim is white. Also, the war on drugs targeting minorities extensively. Also the higher chance of a death penalty sentence if you are black.

There are lots of different gangs of different races. That doesn't mean there is actually an epidemic of black crime over other races, especially white.

edit: and Christianity has all that sex shame stuff too. That definitely doesn't same a burqa is necessary though. Moderate muslims don't really worry about that rule, at most you might have a hijab, and that is by choice.

And yet young black men are 14 times more likely to commit murder than young white men.

There is a "ghetto culture" that many blacks associate with.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 04, 2015, 05:46:56 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on January 04, 2015, 05:46:46 pm
And yet young black men are 14 times more likely to commit murder than young white men.

There is a "ghetto culture" that many blacks associate with.

Nope, that statement is racist trash spread around by people who skew statistics to justify themselves.

http://np.reddit.com/r/news/comments/2nmgy2/the_man_who_was_robbed_by_michael_brown_was_also/cmf6bu5

This Reddit post is a summary of an actual academic study. Here's a summary of more salient points of the summary.

"The sources of violent crime appear to be remarkably similar across race and rooted instead in the structural differences among communities, cities, and regions in economic and family organization"

"Although the national rate of family disruption and poverty among blacks is two to four times higher than among whites, the number of distinct ecological contexts in which blacks achieve equality to whites is striking. In not one city over 100,000 in the United States do blacks live in ecological equality to whites when it comes to these basic features of economic and family organization. Accordingly,racial differences in poverty and family disruption are so strong that the "worst" urban contexts in which whites reside are considerably better off than the average context of black communities"

Basically: poverty causes crime, and the average african american community is in a state of poverty worse than even the worst white communities.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 05:49:34 pm
oh shit. Putnam laying the smackdown on racism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 05:50:27 pm
Phmcw, I was talking about the French case, where they banned students from wearing the veil. I'm honestly split about the issue, but if you want religious symbols banned, you should ban them all, no sneaking in Christian ones because they're smaller.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 04, 2015, 05:51:39 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 05:49:34 pm
oh shit. Putnam laying the smackdown on racism.
Aw shit, that was worded funny. I emphasized that the statement was racist trash but I seem to have forgotten to emphasize that just because you believe the statement does not mean you're racist trash, since (as can be seen in my link) people cite the study I just cited as proof.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 05:53:05 pm
Quote from: Phmcw on January 04, 2015, 05:45:32 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 05:34:37 pm
Well, the law was tailored to target principally the veil. I mean, why not ban ALL RELIGIOUS symbols? No, only the "conspicuous" symbols. A notion entirely unclear (actually, even less clear in the original French, the exact word ostentatoire imply intent of being conspicuous.), but it was clear it targeted mostly the veil.

It's a trend: for example that recent law in Quebec banning all religious symbols in public buildings - except for those of "historical interest". So the legislature can continue meeting under a crucifix. (http://images.lpcdn.ca/641x427/201109/20/379459-session-parlementaire-ouvre-quebec-annonce.jpg)

Just because the law doesn't cite a particular group doesn't mean it does not target a particular group. If I make a law banning begging, you can't say it doesn't target the poor because it also ban rich people from begging.

No problem with that I admit. I live in Charleroi, and the fact that the government took a clear stence is a good thing. You can wear the veil, just not as a employee of the stateor in a school, and not a veil that cover the face.

The problems we face regarding mysoginy go a tad farther than women's representation in videogames. Got attacked pretty violently and had to protect my sister and it wasn't fun.

that was demeaning. I speak on women's representation in video games because I am on a video game forum. I assure you, we have larger issues. It's a little absurd to take from that that's all that's going on in america, as well as fairly ignorant.

Furthermore, that law basically bans muslim women from having those jobs. You are oppressing them because of their religion. It is more institutionalized misogyny disguised as an attempt to educate the savages. White men don't get to lead the conversation about middle eastern women's liberation. You can help, but it's not your voices tha tneed to be heard.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 05:55:01 pm
Just to be clear, this also isn't just a white man's issue either, white middle-class feminists are horrible about it and an entire hastag #solidarityiswhitewomen went viral over it because they only perceive their problems and want only their voices to be heard.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 04, 2015, 05:56:58 pm
Calling the lower boards a video game forum is a bit of a stretch... Most people come for DF, but stay for the community and the discussions, I think.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on January 04, 2015, 05:57:43 pm
Yeah, we've got people who've never even played DF, and only signed up for the RTD's.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 04, 2015, 05:58:13 pm
Heh, if I were here for DF, I'd stick to the Upper Boards.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 05:59:01 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 04, 2015, 05:56:58 pm
Calling the lower boards a video game forum is a bit of a stretch... Most people come for DF, but stay for the community and the discussions, I think.

Eh, I found the forum because of DF, but I didn't really sign up because of it. It's almost always a forums community that people stay for, though. I think literally the only example I can think of where that isn't the case is League's forum, because it sucks much, much ass.

Yeah, the lower boards are a lot more interesting.

Also, is Bay12's time logged in: recorder fucked? Because I know for a fact I've only been logged out for about a day since I joined.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on January 04, 2015, 06:00:06 pm
Then you've got folks like me, who more often than not have a DF window open while I browse the forums, upper and lower. I've been down here more than up there these days, but I'm still there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 06:04:18 pm
well, first couple of days I was chilling on the lower boards, I got in an argument about calling intersex people hermaphrodites (as in I was saying you should really refer to them by the preferred term, intersex.)

This caused me to get flamed so bad that five or so threads got locked and the forum was shut down briefly over it.

And it's still the best community I have been in that isn't specifically feminist or rights oriented.

That doesn't mean it doesn't eat at my psyche. My last break was good. Admittedly I came back angrier, but I had been so stressed out my reproductive cycle didn't function this month.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on January 04, 2015, 06:07:26 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 05:50:27 pm
Phmcw, I was talking about the French case, where they banned students from wearing the veil. I'm honestly split about the issue, but if you want religious symbols banned, you should ban them all, no sneaking in Christian ones because they're smaller.

Cross aren't woman only, and they banned any showy religious sign. I guess some may stretch the definition, but I don't see any reason to bother someone wearing a small religious symbol as a necklace (which is the only other scenario that may happen on a regular basis).

It's past time to get the crucifix out of the tribunals and other public edifices though, but I think most peoples will agree with that in Belgium and in France (though the conservative Christians will make a loud stand as usual, they are minoritar by far).

Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 05:53:05 pm
Furthermore, that law basically bans muslim women from having those jobs. You are oppressing them because of their religion. It is more institutionalized misogyny disguised as an attempt to educate the savages. White men don't get to lead the conversation about middle eastern women's liberation. You can help, but it's not your voices tha tneed to be heard.

I don't care all that much about them, my main concern is that the idea doesn't spread and become more prevalent. Yeah I'm willing to do that and more to peoples that try to spread those ideas. I've got sisters, a girlfriend and a niece, and I'm not as confident as you in the white man supremacy.

As I said if you're a moderate muslim you're a friend, but if you're a radical one you're a foe. And I knew more than a few at school, it wasn't pretty.

So when the government say that "symbol that make women inferior to men are banned" it's a good thing, and you're not the feminist one in this case.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 06:08:14 pm
Quote
my reproductive cycle didn't function this month.

There are other reasons for that, but I'll assume you know what you're talking about. >_>

Guys, what's the situation in Australia at the moment in regards to this thread's topic?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arcvasti on January 04, 2015, 06:09:20 pm
RE: Muslim Women wearing Burquas/whateverthey'recalled:

I have no problems with it, as long as its a free choice and not forced on them, like it is in some places in the Middle East[And elsewhere]. Quebec... As far as I can tell, the whole point of Quebec right now is to make it as inconvenient as possible for everyone who isn't Francophone and Catholic. Which, considering they were an oppressed minority not that long ago, is sort of ironic. Banning religious symbols =/= good. Although you might be able to make a case for religions that have their members carry knives/swords around with them or something like that.

And Smee, please don't double post. In the bottom right corner of a post you've already made, there's a "modify" button which allows you to edit your posts. Its generally considered more polite to add an addendum to your previous post rather then posting twice in a row unless its a succession game or something.

EDIT: Like this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 06:15:07 pm
Mmm... I usually just modify since the first forum I joined had strict anti double posting rules, but I can understand why some people may do it. If you go to modify, and then someone replies to you before you've finished the modifications... Well, the modifications might be missed, ne?

In regards to the religion rather than feminism side, I'm an Agnostic Nihilist and thus finding myself lacking cares to give. I do think all face-concealing stuff should be banned though, at least in banks, public parks, shopping malls, etc. If only for the security risks something like that actually poses. Do note that I think it's fine if Muslim women wear the head covering and body covering stuff, but the face-concealing part... Well, I just think all stuff like that should go. That includes balaclavas, ski-masks, everything. (Except at special events like fairs, in which case party masks and the like should be allowed. The festive things.)
I dunno... I hate the paranoia, but the fact remains that face-concealing clothing is a security risk in some areas.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 06:16:55 pm
Quote from: Arcvasti on January 04, 2015, 06:09:20 pm
RE: Muslim Women wearing Burquas/whateverthey'recalled:

I have no problems with it, as long as its a free choice and not forced on them, like it is in some places in the Middle East[And elsewhere]. Quebec... As far as I can tell, the whole point of Quebec right now is to make it as inconvenient as possible for everyone who isn't Francophone and Catholic. Which, considering they were an oppressed minority not that long ago, is sort of ironic. Banning religious symbols =/= good. Although you might be able to make a case for religions that have their members carry knives/swords around with them or something like that.

And Smee, please don't double post. In the bottom right corner of a post you've already made, there's a "modify" button which allows you to edit your posts. Its generally considered more polite to add an addendum to your previous post rather then posting twice in a row unless its a succession game or something.

EDIT: Like this.

The sword Sikhs wield are a big part of their religion, and frankly, I seriously doubt any of them are going to go on a rampage (though I did see a killer sword fight arguing over how to commemorate a peace agreement between two sides. One guy lost his sword, grabbed another guy's sword and threw it at the enemy. No one died, and that wouldn't happen 99.99999% of the time. I think they even have a small dagger they can wear instead.)

Why does double posting one post bother people so much? Editing is a real pita.

The problem is, you can't go into each home and make certain that the woman is wearing the burqa or whatever under duress or not. And you do not solve this by forcing them to not wear it.

You have to empower women to make their own choices. Give them independence, give them options. Make it clear that they are equal members of society.

It's like America trying to shove democracy down everyone's throat. That is not a good way to go about things.

edit: UXLZ I am a hardline atheist and I can still understand respecting religious freedom. Saying that is the same as them saying you have to wear a cross wherever you go. You wouldn't like that, I wouldn't like that, so we can't force our lack of faith on them individually.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 06:18:34 pm
AFAIK, Sikh are allowed to wear a sword/dagger that is welded to the scabbard and can effectively not be used, so that's a solution.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on January 04, 2015, 06:20:29 pm
Yeah, when it comes to liberating people, giving them an educaton and opportunities is far more effective than beating them over the head with laws.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 06:20:32 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 06:18:34 pm
AFAIK, Sikh are allowed to wear a sword/dagger that is welded to the scabbard and can effectively not be used, so that's a solution.

I know it was recently the cause of a legal battle in one America school, the Sikhs won. Which pleased me.

Yes I'm positive a middle ground can be reached. Especially if people stop going: auugh arabs, clearly all terrorists! and think a bit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on January 04, 2015, 06:23:39 pm
That does raise an interesting question though. If they can carry a knife, why shouldn't I be able to carry a knife? Unless Sikhs are inherently more trustworthy, which I have strong doubts about. Not to mention that we're all equal under the law. Food for thought.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 06:24:52 pm
Quote
edit: UXLZ I am a hardline atheist and I can still understand respecting religious freedom. Saying that is the same as them saying you have to wear a cross wherever you go. You wouldn't like that, I wouldn't like that, so we can't force our lack of faith on them individually

What I was saying was that I think (summarised) all face-concealing attire should be banned under certain circumstances (those circumstances being malls, public parks, banks, locations like that), religious or not. You may say 'but this restricts religious apparel' and I will say 'sure it does, and that's a shame, but face-concealing stuff needs to go.

I'll note that this has nothing to do with burqas, as I honestly don't really care about whether people wear them or not... Under the circumstance that they aren't in a bank. I guess I can retract not being allowed to wear face-concealing stuff in parks and malls, but certainly banks and locations where security is very important.

Also, bad choice of example. I think crosses look cool and would be fine wearing one. ;D

Quote
I know it was recently the cause of a legal battle in one America school, the Sikhs won. Which pleased me.

Oh, cool, that means I can carry a sword around if I ever visit America.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 06:25:45 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2015, 06:18:34 pm
AFAIK, Sikh are allowed to wear a sword/dagger that is welded to the scabbard and can effectively not be used, so that's a solution.
The issue with that is that for anybody whom isn't totally liberal, the dagger isn't just a symbol of power to be carried, it is a religiously-mandated weapon. If it can't be used as a weapon you can easily say it does not qualify.
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 06:20:32 pm
Yes I'm positive a middle ground can be reached. Especially if people stop going: auugh arabs, clearly all terrorists! and think a bit.
There are surely very few Arab Sikhs in the world.
Quote from: Baffler on January 04, 2015, 06:23:39 pm
That does raise an interesting question though. If they can carry a knife, why shouldn't I be able to carry a knife? Unless Sikhs are inherently more trustworthy, which I have strong doubts about. Not to mention that we're all equal under the law. Food for thought.
Under a ruling like that, you can carry a knife....welded into its scabbard.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arcvasti on January 04, 2015, 06:28:11 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 06:16:55 pm
Quote from: Arcvasti on January 04, 2015, 06:09:20 pm
RE: Muslim Women wearing Burquas/whateverthey'recalled:

I have no problems with it, as long as its a free choice and not forced on them, like it is in some places in the Middle East[And elsewhere]. Quebec... As far as I can tell, the whole point of Quebec right now is to make it as inconvenient as possible for everyone who isn't Francophone and Catholic. Which, considering they were an oppressed minority not that long ago, is sort of ironic. Banning religious symbols =/= good. Although you might be able to make a case for religions that have their members carry knives/swords around with them or something like that.

And Smee, please don't double post. In the bottom right corner of a post you've already made, there's a "modify" button which allows you to edit your posts. Its generally considered more polite to add an addendum to your previous post rather then posting twice in a row unless its a succession game or something.

EDIT: Like this.

The sword Sikhs wield are a big part of their religion, and frankly, I seriously doubt any of them are going to go on a rampage (though I did see a killer sword fight arguing over how to commemorate a peace agreement between two sides. One guy lost his sword, grabbed another guy's sword and threw it at the enemy. No one died, and that wouldn't happen 99.99999% of the time. I think they even have a small dagger they can wear instead.)

Why does double posting one post bother people so much? Editing is a real pita.

Something to do with spamming threads. For people who look through their "Updated Topics" page frequently, like me, each post updates the topic and moves it to the top of the "Updated Topics" list. Double posting means that it gets updated much faster, which is annoying.

FAKEEDIT: You people post too fast.

:/

:|

:\
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 06:29:40 pm
Quote from: Arcvasti on January 04, 2015, 06:28:11 pm

Something to do with spamming threads. For people who look through their "Updated Topics" page frequently, like me, each post updates the topic and moves it to the top of the "Updated Topics" list. Double posting means that it gets updated much faster, which is annoying.

FAKEEDIT: You people post too fast.

:/

:|

:\

I'm checking my updated topics constantly, and it really doesn't bother me. >_>

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 04, 2015, 06:30:35 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 06:25:45 pm
There are surely very few Arab Sikhs in the world.

You underestimate the ignorance of the general population.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on January 04, 2015, 06:31:45 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2015, 06:25:45 pm
Quote from: Baffler on January 04, 2015, 06:23:39 pm
That does raise an interesting question though. If they can carry a knife, why shouldn't I be able to carry a knife? Unless Sikhs are inherently more trustworthy, which I have strong doubts about. Not to mention that we're all equal under the law. Food for thought.
Under a ruling like that, you can carry a knife....welded into its scabbard.

This is true in NY but my own state of Ohio makes no such provision, and protects them just the same.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on January 04, 2015, 06:32:40 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 06:24:52 pm
Oh, cool, that means I can carry a sword around if I ever visit America.

Snrrrrrk. Dude, this is 'MURICA! you can carry a loaded assault rifle around if you want to.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 06:34:30 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 06:24:52 pm
Quote
edit: UXLZ I am a hardline atheist and I can still understand respecting religious freedom. Saying that is the same as them saying you have to wear a cross wherever you go. You wouldn't like that, I wouldn't like that, so we can't force our lack of faith on them individually

What I was saying was that I think (summarised) all face-concealing attire should be banned under certain circumstances (those circumstances being malls, public parks, banks, locations like that), religious or not. You may say 'but this restricts religious apparel' and I will say 'sure it does, and that's a shame, but face-concealing stuff needs to go.

I'll note that this has nothing to do with burqas, as I honestly don't really care about whether people wear them or not... Under the circumstance that they aren't in a bank. I guess I can retract not being allowed to wear face-concealing stuff in parks and malls, but certainly banks and locations where security is very important.

Also, bad choice of example. I think crosses look cool and would be fine wearing one. ;D

Quote
I know it was recently the cause of a legal battle in one America school, the Sikhs won. Which pleased me.

Oh, cool, that means I can carry a sword around if I ever visit America.

you are thinking only of your case. How it affects you.

You are not thinking of the fact (and your locations list is terribly broad) that this violates religious beliefs of these women. To which they have a right. What they are doing hurts no one. I have yet to see a case in america where a woman wearing a niqab or a burka caused some sort of terrorist attack. The assumption that they would, which is exactly why the law exists, is racist.

The law oppresses women unjustly. They, much like men, have the right to autonomy over their own body.

Quote from: Angle on January 04, 2015, 06:32:40 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 06:24:52 pm
Oh, cool, that means I can carry a sword around if I ever visit America.

Snrrrrrk. Dude, this is 'MURICA! you can carry a loaded assault rifle around if you want to.

Unless you are black, then you'll get shot immediately. (and that really happened in an open carry state...)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on January 04, 2015, 06:42:29 pm
Hat tip~

Yeah, that's a good point.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arcvasti on January 04, 2015, 06:46:37 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 06:34:30 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 06:24:52 pm
Quote
edit: UXLZ I am a hardline atheist and I can still understand respecting religious freedom. Saying that is the same as them saying you have to wear a cross wherever you go. You wouldn't like that, I wouldn't like that, so we can't force our lack of faith on them individually

What I was saying was that I think (summarised) all face-concealing attire should be banned under certain circumstances (those circumstances being malls, public parks, banks, locations like that), religious or not. You may say 'but this restricts religious apparel' and I will say 'sure it does, and that's a shame, but face-concealing stuff needs to go.

I'll note that this has nothing to do with burqas, as I honestly don't really care about whether people wear them or not... Under the circumstance that they aren't in a bank. I guess I can retract not being allowed to wear face-concealing stuff in parks and malls, but certainly banks and locations where security is very important.

Also, bad choice of example. I think crosses look cool and would be fine wearing one. ;D

Quote
I know it was recently the cause of a legal battle in one America school, the Sikhs won. Which pleased me.

Oh, cool, that means I can carry a sword around if I ever visit America.

you are thinking only of your case. How it affects you.

You are not thinking of the fact (and your locations list is terribly broad) that this violates religious beliefs of these women. To which they have a right. What they are doing hurts no one. I have yet to see a case in america where a woman wearing a hiqab or a burka caused some sort of terrorist attack. The assumption that they would, which is exactly why the law exists, is racist.

The law oppresses women unjustly. They, much like men, have the right to autonomy over their own body.

There comes a point when personal freedom starts to intersect public safety. Face-concealing garb is somewhere in there. Not being able to identify someone is not good. Its not just Burkas/Hijabs, I know places where hoodies are outlawed because they're so often used to conceal the faces of criminals from security cameras. Forbidding Burkas/Hijabs while allowing other face-cocnealing garb is an unjust restriction of rights because it only restricts a segment of the population with the stated intent of benefiting the entire population. Allowing Burkas/Hijabs while disallowing other face-concealing garb is a justified restriction of rights, as it is

A) Consistent in its stated purpose[To ensure public safety by making sure facial identification is always possible]

and

B) Neutral in its restriction of rights, as it favours no particular cultural group or ethnicity.

The same goes for the religion-connected swords of Sikhs. If they're not allowed to have them, it should be as a result of a universal ban on weaponry rather then as a specific ban on Sikhs proper. Although, IIRC, swords don't even require a permit because the size of the sheath makes them non-concealable.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Virtz on January 04, 2015, 06:50:51 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 06:34:30 pm
I have yet to see a case in america where a woman wearing a niqab or a burka caused some sort of terrorist attack. The assumption that they would, which is exactly why the law exists, is racist.
Not in America, no, but in Russia, yeah. Bolshoi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis) happened back in 2002, and Beslan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis) did in 2004 (not that I'd advocate this as a reason for a ban since France isn't involved with Chechnya, to my knowledge).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 06:51:27 pm
Quote from: Arcvasti on January 04, 2015, 06:46:37 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 06:34:30 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 06:24:52 pm
Quote
edit: UXLZ I am a hardline atheist and I can still understand respecting religious freedom. Saying that is the same as them saying you have to wear a cross wherever you go. You wouldn't like that, I wouldn't like that, so we can't force our lack of faith on them individually

What I was saying was that I think (summarised) all face-concealing attire should be banned under certain circumstances (those circumstances being malls, public parks, banks, locations like that), religious or not. You may say 'but this restricts religious apparel' and I will say 'sure it does, and that's a shame, but face-concealing stuff needs to go.

I'll note that this has nothing to do with burqas, as I honestly don't really care about whether people wear them or not... Under the circumstance that they aren't in a bank. I guess I can retract not being allowed to wear face-concealing stuff in parks and malls, but certainly banks and locations where security is very important.

Also, bad choice of example. I think crosses look cool and would be fine wearing one. ;D

Quote
I know it was recently the cause of a legal battle in one America school, the Sikhs won. Which pleased me.

Oh, cool, that means I can carry a sword around if I ever visit America.

you are thinking only of your case. How it affects you.

You are not thinking of the fact (and your locations list is terribly broad) that this violates religious beliefs of these women. To which they have a right. What they are doing hurts no one. I have yet to see a case in america where a woman wearing a hiqab or a burka caused some sort of terrorist attack. The assumption that they would, which is exactly why the law exists, is racist.

The law oppresses women unjustly. They, much like men, have the right to autonomy over their own body.

There comes a point when personal freedom starts to intersect public safety. Face-concealing garb is somewhere in there. Not being able to identify someone is not good. Its not just Burkas/Hijabs, I know places where hoodies are outlawed because they're so often used to conceal the faces of criminals from security cameras. Forbidding Burkas/Hijabs while allowing other face-cocnealing garb is an unjust restriction of rights because it only restricts a segment of the population with the stated intent of benefiting the entire population. Allowing Burkas/Hijabs while disallowing other face-concealing garb is a justified restriction of rights, as it is

A) Consistent in its stated purpose[To ensure public safety by making sure facial identification is always possible]

and

B) Neutral in its restriction of rights, as it favours no particular cultural group or ethnicity.

The same goes for the religion-connected swords of Sikhs. If they're not allowed to have them, it should be as a result of a universal ban on weaponry rather then as a specific ban on Sikhs proper. Although, IIRC, swords don't even require a permit because the size of the sheath makes them non-concealable.

No one is being threatened. Same with the hoodies. These are just shadowy fears of foreigners and black people wanting to kill innocent whites. They are not based in reality.

I know a lot of people that wear hoodies, none of which have committed a crime. They are very common. I hear criminals also wear shirts and shoes sometimes. We might want to outlaw those.

By being "neutral" you still unduly oppress different people in different ways. You restrict cultural and religious rights in favor of the majority's rights.

You have to actually consider the needs of others with these types of laws, and I feel like these laws spend a lot of time caring about the white majority, and aren't really considering the other sides.

Plus, those laws allow harassment of minorities, arrest for things that shouldn't even be a crime, and just general oppression. We see this with people thinking it was just to kill treyvon martin because he looked suspicious by wearing a hoodie. Outlawing hoodies does not lower crime, it just reinforces bigotry and supports violence against minorities.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 06:56:36 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 06:34:30 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 06:24:52 pm
Quote
edit: UXLZ I am a hardline atheist and I can still understand respecting religious freedom. Saying that is the same as them saying you have to wear a cross wherever you go. You wouldn't like that, I wouldn't like that, so we can't force our lack of faith on them individually

What I was saying was that I think (summarised) all face-concealing attire should be banned under certain circumstances (those circumstances being malls, public parks, banks, locations like that), religious or not. You may say 'but this restricts religious apparel' and I will say 'sure it does, and that's a shame, but face-concealing stuff needs to go.

I'll note that this has nothing to do with burqas, as I honestly don't really care about whether people wear them or not... Under the circumstance that they aren't in a bank. I guess I can retract not being allowed to wear face-concealing stuff in parks and malls, but certainly banks and locations where security is very important.

Also, bad choice of example. I think crosses look cool and would be fine wearing one. ;D

Quote
I know it was recently the cause of a legal battle in one America school, the Sikhs won. Which pleased me.

Oh, cool, that means I can carry a sword around if I ever visit America.

you are thinking only of your case. How it affects you.

You are not thinking of the fact (and your locations list is terribly broad) that this violates religious beliefs of these women. To which they have a right. What they are doing hurts no one. I have yet to see a case in america where a woman wearing a niqab or a burka caused some sort of terrorist attack. The assumption that they would, which is exactly why the law exists, is racist.

The law oppresses women unjustly. They, much like men, have the right to autonomy over their own body.

Quote from: Angle on January 04, 2015, 06:32:40 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 06:24:52 pm
Oh, cool, that means I can carry a sword around if I ever visit America.

Snrrrrrk. Dude, this is 'MURICA! you can carry a loaded assault rifle around if you want to.

Unless you are black, then you'll get shot immediately. (and that really happened in an open carry state...)

Mmm... I did realise that the locations list was too broad, so I said later in the post that it should only be for high-security areas, like banks.

Yes, it does, in a way, violate their religious beliefs. That's a shame and it saddens me. It still doesn't negate the logic.

I'll attempt to give an example here, sorry if it's bad.

In Australia, carrying guns around is, basically illegal. There are circumstances where you can, but let's not go into this.

Now, imagine there was a religion that had been around for thousands of years that mandated that its followers carry guns (obviously this is impossible, but it's for example's sake).
Should the followers of that religion be allowed to carry around guns despite the security risks, because their religion says so? Hell no! No god damn way in hell! Less extreme case, but that's why I'm saying that people shouldn't be able to wear face-covering attire in banks.
I know that Muslim women who wear burqas are people, and I also know that people do rob banks. Same deal as with the gun-religion. The guy who wants to carry around his gun isn't inherently untrustworthy because of his religion, but he's still a person, and people are flawed. I'm pretty sure you aren't allowed to go into a bank wearing a ski-mask... Why should you be allowed to with a burqa? Because women wearing burqas are innately more trustworthy? Because they're women and thus should have special rules? Because it's a religious thing and is thus exempt from law? 
Honestly, this law should have always existed. (The one I'm proposing. Not the anti-burqa one in france.)
Anyway, as I was saying, I support their right to wear burqas in general... Just not in banks, or areas with a similar level of security and importance.

Yes, it does, doesn't it? At least, the one in France does, given my understanding, because it's specifically targeting these women. The one that I'm proposing? Yes, it does still target them, in the sense that they would be affected, but it doesn't target them in the sense that it's being proposed because of them.

Thank you for understanding that I'm not saying Muslim women shouldn't be allowed to wear burqas in banks because I think they're all terrorists. Also thank you for understanding that I'm not saying this to target them specifically. It's a shame that they're affected, but if there was a religion that said men had to wear handkerchiefs around their face I'd be saying the same thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 06:57:52 pm
you really think there's going to be a rash of burqa wearing women robbing banks? Like that's a crime wave waiting to happen that justifies violating someone's religious liberty?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 07:11:30 pm
Okay, I'm usually against double-posting but in this case I feel like it's warranted. Hell, by the time I'm finished writing I highly doubt it will be a double post anyway. xD

Quote
No one is being threatened. Same with the hoodies. These are just shadowy fears of foreigners and black people wanting to kill innocent whites. They are not based in reality.

Honestly I'd be more afraid of a white person wearing a hoodie than a black person, but I digress. The issue isn't that we're afraid of 'the other', the issue is that of security risks. Also, I'd say the thing with hoodies is more shoplifting than murder. I also don't think hoodies should be outlawed since they aren't face-concealing. At least, the ones I know of aren't, 'Muricas might be different.

Quote
I know a lot of people that wear hoodies, none of which have committed a crime. They are very common. I hear criminals also wear shirts and shoes sometimes. We might want to outlaw those.

Shirts and shoes don't prevent identification. Now, morph suits? that kind of argument would have more merit.
You're doing that thing, saying that 'I know X people who are good therefore it isn't a problem/concern.' It's not about your friends, it's about people who do use them this way.

Quote
By being "neutral" you still unduly oppress different people in different ways. You restrict cultural and religious rights in favor of the majority's rights.

Should I go create a religion that allows its followers complete autonomy from the law? I mean, if they tried to stop us, that would be restricting our religious rights in favor of the majority's...

Quote
You have to actually consider the needs of others with these types of laws, and I feel like these laws spend a lot of time caring about the white majority, and aren't really considering the other sides.

I'll agree with this. Though I'd say we need laws caring less about the white majority and more about... Y'know, everyone. Someone robbing a bank hurts minorities as much as majorities.

Quote
Plus, those laws allow harassment of minorities, arrest for things that shouldn't even be a crime, and just general oppression. We see this with people thinking it was just to kill treyvon martin because he looked suspicious by wearing a hoodie. Outlawing hoodies does not lower crime, it just reinforces bigotry and supports violence against minorities.

Yeah, that's definitely a massive issue, but this isn't the issue. That's an issue with those police being fuckheads, not a result of the laws themselves. Getting rid of the laws would be treating the symptom, not the problem.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 07:14:28 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 06:57:52 pm
you really think there's going to be a rash of burqa wearing women robbing banks? Like that's a crime wave waiting to happen that justifies violating someone's religious liberty?

Nope. Of course not, that would be ridiculous.  What I do think is that women who wear burqas are capable of robbing banks (and probably have, at some point, at least) just like I think people carrying guns are capable of shooting schoolkids. Different severity, obviously, same principle.

Quote
Should I go create a religion that allows its followers complete autonomy from the law? I mean, if they tried to stop us, that would be restricting our religious rights in favor of the majority's...

Going to apologise for this ahead of time, it was a bit unnecessarily snarky. 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arcvasti on January 04, 2015, 07:18:57 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 06:51:27 pm
Quote from: Arcvasti on January 04, 2015, 06:46:37 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 06:34:30 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 06:24:52 pm
Quote
edit: UXLZ I am a hardline atheist and I can still understand respecting religious freedom. Saying that is the same as them saying you have to wear a cross wherever you go. You wouldn't like that, I wouldn't like that, so we can't force our lack of faith on them individually

What I was saying was that I think (summarised) all face-concealing attire should be banned under certain circumstances (those circumstances being malls, public parks, banks, locations like that), religious or not. You may say 'but this restricts religious apparel' and I will say 'sure it does, and that's a shame, but face-concealing stuff needs to go.

I'll note that this has nothing to do with burqas, as I honestly don't really care about whether people wear them or not... Under the circumstance that they aren't in a bank. I guess I can retract not being allowed to wear face-concealing stuff in parks and malls, but certainly banks and locations where security is very important.

Also, bad choice of example. I think crosses look cool and would be fine wearing one. ;D

Quote
I know it was recently the cause of a legal battle in one America school, the Sikhs won. Which pleased me.

Oh, cool, that means I can carry a sword around if I ever visit America.

you are thinking only of your case. How it affects you.

You are not thinking of the fact (and your locations list is terribly broad) that this violates religious beliefs of these women. To which they have a right. What they are doing hurts no one. I have yet to see a case in america where a woman wearing a hiqab or a burka caused some sort of terrorist attack. The assumption that they would, which is exactly why the law exists, is racist.

The law oppresses women unjustly. They, much like men, have the right to autonomy over their own body.

There comes a point when personal freedom starts to intersect public safety. Face-concealing garb is somewhere in there. Not being able to identify someone is not good. Its not just Burkas/Hijabs, I know places where hoodies are outlawed because they're so often used to conceal the faces of criminals from security cameras. Forbidding Burkas/Hijabs while allowing other face-cocnealing garb is an unjust restriction of rights because it only restricts a segment of the population with the stated intent of benefiting the entire population. Allowing Burkas/Hijabs while disallowing other face-concealing garb is a justified restriction of rights, as it is

A) Consistent in its stated purpose[To ensure public safety by making sure facial identification is always possible]

and

B) Neutral in its restriction of rights, as it favours no particular cultural group or ethnicity.

The same goes for the religion-connected swords of Sikhs. If they're not allowed to have them, it should be as a result of a universal ban on weaponry rather then as a specific ban on Sikhs proper. Although, IIRC, swords don't even require a permit because the size of the sheath makes them non-concealable.

No one is being threatened. Same with the hoodies. These are just shadowy fears of foreigners and black people wanting to kill innocent whites. They are not based in reality.

I know a lot of people that wear hoodies, none of which have committed a crime. They are very common. I hear criminals also wear shirts and shoes sometimes. We might want to outlaw those.

By being "neutral" you still unduly oppress different people in different ways. You restrict cultural and religious rights in favor of the majority's rights.

Lets get this straight here.

I don't believe in special rights tied to any group smaller then "person"[Person instead of human so as to include those that identify as other species or any hypothetical aliens in this scenario] unless its to give them the same rights as everyone else if they didn't have them already[EX:Someone quadrapelgic would get a medical exoskeleton to put them at the same level as everyone else, but people who don't need them don't get medical exoskeletons.]. If you're not allowed to do something for a legitimate[<-Keyword here] reason, then culture/religion/whatever shouldn't come into the equation. You could totally argue that outlawing/restricting all face-concealing items of clothing[For example.] is wrong because it infringes on people's freedoms unnecessarily[<-Another key word here] and you might very well be right. Forbidding all religious symbols is wrong because its unnecessary. Forbidding all guns is debatable because you can argue that people having lethal weapons infringes on people's fundamental rights to live peacefully.

Quote from: Bay12
Warning - while you were typing 4 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Only four? And three of them by the same person? I'm almost disappointed, considering I started writing this post right after Smee posted hers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 04, 2015, 07:19:16 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 06:34:30 pm
You are not thinking of the fact (and your locations list is terribly broad) that this violates religious beliefs of these women. To which they have a right. What they are doing hurts no one. I have yet to see a case in america where a woman wearing a niqab or a burka caused some sort of terrorist attack. The assumption that they would, which is exactly why the law exists, is racist.
Well face coverings are more part of the culture surrounding the religion than a religious tenet. And apart from that it's for identification purposes. Like how shops won't let you in with a motorbike helmet on. Makes surveillance easier.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 07:20:21 pm
Well people with feet and hands are capable of robbing banks and we haven't started removing those.

You are coming up with highly unlikely scenarios, something that would be a one off, and restricting the religious freedom of multiple religions just for that.

And black people are way more likely to be accused of shoplifting, illegal hoodies would definitely be aimed directly at them.

The only people this law would affect would be muslim women, it would be aimed at them and is frankly, quite racist. I also feel a woman's autonomy over her body is more important than hypothetical bank robberies that have never happened ever.

You start caring too much about situations that are remote and crack down hard enough, and no one has any freedom but the bourgeoisie.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Virtz on January 04, 2015, 07:32:49 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 07:20:21 pm
Well people with feet and hands are capable of robbing banks and we haven't started removing those.
You're doing that thing again. Purposefully disregarding the point. Do you really want people to waste time explaining the uses of hands and feet compared to the uses of face-concealing attire inside a bank?


On a somewhat related note, Poland's been repeatedly trying to ban face covering attire in public gatherings due to far-right-wing rioters and football hooligans showing up in balaclavas and other face-covering attire, making it difficult for police to identify perpetrators based on video recordings. Considering the city damage these sorts of people cause, I think that's a pretty good justification.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 04, 2015, 07:40:34 pm
There is a difference between banning clothes worn with the explicit intent of hiding your identity while you commit crimes and banning burkhas. Bhurkas are not worn with the intent of hiding yourself from identification.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 07:51:03 pm
Quote from: Arcvasti on January 04, 2015, 07:18:57 pm
Quote from: Bay12
Warning - while you were typing 4 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Only four? And three of them by the same person? I'm almost disappointed, considering I started writing this post right after Smee posted hers.

Hey, two of them were really long posts you bastard! DX

Quote
There is a difference between banning clothes worn with the explicit intent of hiding your identity while you commit crimes and banning burkhas. Bhurkas are not worn with the intent of hiding yourself from identification.

Generally? Yes. If you're robbing a bank? No.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 04, 2015, 07:52:55 pm
Quote from: scriver on January 04, 2015, 07:40:34 pm
There is a difference between banning clothes worn with the explicit intent of hiding your identity while you commit crimes and banning burkhas. Bhurkas are not worn with the intent of hiding yourself from identification.
How do you define that in law though? You can't know for sure what somebody's intent is in wearing something.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 04, 2015, 07:53:20 pm
Isn't it banned to go into a gas station with a motorbike helmet on? I think this might be a case to consider.

For the record, I think the French blanket ban on burkas is a disgrace, just like the ban (I don't know which country, probably from the Benelux region, or Germany or France) on teachers wearing headscarves - a much more blatantly racist law, and a much bigger issue.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Virtz on January 04, 2015, 08:12:09 pm
Quote from: scriver on January 04, 2015, 07:40:34 pm
There is a difference between banning clothes worn with the explicit intent of hiding your identity while you commit crimes and banning burkhas. Bhurkas are not worn with the intent of hiding yourself from identification.
Neither are ski-masks usually, but they're still used for that purpose sometimes. If you leave religious attire alone while banning other kinds of concealing clothing, then wouldn't a clever law-breaker use that loop hole? Like it doesn't even have to be someone of that religion committing the crime, and who's gonna check if you're of the religion the attire is related to?

And it's not like they've never been worn to conceal identity with criminal intent. Here's an article (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mmw/2013/03/rise-of-the-niqabi-criminal-balaclavas-burkas-and-bank-robberies/) I found on the matter, which says this is actually something that's already happened in the US, links to original sources and everything.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arcvasti on January 04, 2015, 08:17:26 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 04, 2015, 07:53:20 pm
For the record, I think the French blanket ban on burkas is a disgrace, just like the ban (I don't know which country, probably from the Benelux region, or Germany or France) on teachers wearing headscarves - a much more blatantly racist law, and a much bigger issue.

^This.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 04, 2015, 08:31:48 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on January 04, 2015, 07:52:55 pm
Quote from: scriver on January 04, 2015, 07:40:34 pm
There is a difference between banning clothes worn with the explicit intent of hiding your identity while you commit crimes and banning burkhas. Bhurkas are not worn with the intent of hiding yourself from identification.
How do you define that in law though? You can't know for sure what somebody's intent is in wearing something.

No, but if only 0,02% of for example burkha-wearing people wear it to make identification harder then you can make an exception for those specific types of clothing in the law. If w change in their usage can be tracked then the law can be modified to compensate.


Quote from: Virtz on January 04, 2015, 08:12:09 pm
Quote from: scriver on January 04, 2015, 07:40:34 pm
There is a difference between banning clothes worn with the explicit intent of hiding your identity while you commit crimes and banning burkhas. Bhurkas are not worn with the intent of hiding yourself from identification.
Neither are ski-masks usually, but they're still used for that purpose sometimes.

Ski masks are only worn form non-misdirection purposes outside in winter. Burkhas' non-misdirection use is everywhere, every time of year. The practical difference between the two is quite big.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 08:33:18 pm
The French ban is definitely a disgrace.

Also, while I know it's quite insensitive, something that always really irritates me is when religions are given excessive coddling in regards to laws such as this. Just because your religion says you have to carry a gun around all the time, it doesn't make you special and mean you should be allowed to carry a gun around all the time. Laws should apply to everyone equally with no thought to religion. (That is, no thought whatsoever. This also would mean not making laws that discriminate against religion.)

The burkha issue itself is debatable. It's probably too extreme of a case to warrant outlawing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Virtz on January 04, 2015, 08:56:09 pm
Quote from: scriver on January 04, 2015, 08:31:48 pm
Quote from: Virtz on January 04, 2015, 08:12:09 pm
Quote from: scriver on January 04, 2015, 07:40:34 pm
There is a difference between banning clothes worn with the explicit intent of hiding your identity while you commit crimes and banning burkhas. Bhurkas are not worn with the intent of hiding yourself from identification.
Neither are ski-masks usually, but they're still used for that purpose sometimes.

Ski masks are only worn form non-misdirection purposes outside in winter. Burkhas' non-misdirection use is everywhere, every time of year. The practical difference between the two is quite big.
They're actually worn by some motorcyclists all year around. And motorcycles are gaining in popularity where I live.


Ok, how about this in regards to religion, again a case in Poland - parlament was trying to ban ritual killing of animals due to its potential animal cruelty. This was mostly in regards to Judaic practitioners that bleed animals alive in order to make their meat kosher (their meat has to be fully drained of blood, among other things). Constitutional Tribunal overruled it, though.

So my question is this - do you think someone's rights of religion are important enough to allow animal cruelty? And if not, then why is the security of other human beings any different?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Cheeetar on January 04, 2015, 08:59:10 pm
I think calling burkas a security issue is mislabeling it a bit. They have a potential to hide identity, but they're much less dangerous than say, a knife, or a gun, or a large stick.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 04, 2015, 09:11:24 pm
The whole burka "debate" is insane because the number of people who actually wore it in countries like France and Belgium was literally in the low hundreds.  The actual effect of such laws is tiny, their only purpose is to make a racist statement.

I also like the idea that "someone used this item to help them commit a crime once" is a sufficient reason to ban something.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 09:16:11 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on January 04, 2015, 09:11:24 pm
The whole burka "debate" is insane because the number of people who actually wore it in countries like France and Belgium were literally in the low hundreds.  The actual effect such laws is tiny, it's only purpose is to make a racist statement.

I also like the idea that "someone used this item to help them commit a crime once" is a sufficient reason to ban something.

Technically, it happened more than once.

I'm going to state that while I don't really condone the burkha ban specifically because it's silly, my stance is basically that religions shouldn't be allowed to have special privileges that go against public safety or security because 'it might hurt their feelings.' is ridiculous and discriminatory by nature. 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 04, 2015, 09:19:53 pm
Quote from: Virtz on January 04, 2015, 08:56:09 pm
Quote from: scriver on January 04, 2015, 08:31:48 pm
Quote from: Virtz on January 04, 2015, 08:12:09 pm
Quote from: scriver on January 04, 2015, 07:40:34 pm
There is a difference between banning clothes worn with the explicit intent of hiding your identity while you commit crimes and banning burkhas. Bhurkas are not worn with the intent of hiding yourself from identification.
Neither are ski-masks usually, but they're still used for that purpose sometimes.

Ski masks are only worn form non-misdirection purposes outside in winter. Burkhas' non-misdirection use is everywhere, every time of year. The practical difference between the two is quite big.
They're actually worn by some motorcyclists all year around. And motorcycles are gaining in popularity where I live.


Ok, how about this in regards to religion, again a case in Poland - parlament was trying to ban ritual killing of animals due to its potential animal cruelty. This was mostly in regards to Judaic practitioners that bleed animals alive in order to make their meat kosher (their meat has to be fully drained of blood, among other things). Constitutional Tribunal overruled it, though.

So my question is this - do you think someone's rights of religion are important enough to allow animal cruelty? And if not, then why is the security of other human beings any different?

Then their use is limited to winter outdoors and motorcycles. It's still completely different from burkhas in practice.

And yes, I font think ritual killing of the type of kosher wnd halal butcher should be allowed (and it isn't here in Sweden). That compares two completely different religious practices, however, and is definitely like comparing apples and oranges. Banning types of butchery traditions because they cause needless pain to each animal they are done to is nothing like banning religious clothes because some tiny minority might use them to conceal their identity.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on January 04, 2015, 09:23:47 pm
I could totally see banning burkhas in high security-risk areas, like banks, just like how even if you have all the proper permits you still aren't allowed to carry a gun into a bank, but I do think it's kinda silly to ban them everywhere.

And yeah, agree with scriber there that religious clothes that could (potentially) act as a (small) security risk are a different thing then kosher butchery, which isn't really a security risk in any way I can think of.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 04, 2015, 09:25:32 pm
We've had no proscriptions on public face covering for years and have gotten along fine.  But suddenly now that there are a tiny number of Muslims covering their faces the world will fucking end if we don't change that.

e: I think face-covering in banks is not actually banned by law so that's a separate issue.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Cheeetar on January 04, 2015, 09:28:47 pm
There was some sort of push in Australia to ban burkas in the Parliament (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/controversial-parliament-house-burqa-ban-dumped-20141019-118j5h.html)- luckily, we're not yet far gone enough for it to have gone through.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 09:33:22 pm
Oh, wasn't that just set up by some idiot kid? THW made fun of it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Cheeetar on January 04, 2015, 09:34:49 pm
Who's THW?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 09:36:15 pm
The Hamster Wheel.

Hmm... It's pretty old.

Here you go (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_1Ye4KkxIo).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Cheeetar on January 04, 2015, 09:41:11 pm
Cheers for the link. The push I was talking about was much more recent- this year, in fact.

Edit: Y'all should watch that video, by the way. Very topical.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on January 04, 2015, 10:02:37 pm
Oh, jesus, just add additional penalties to the law for committing crimes while wearing something that conceals your face and call it a day. Restricting clothing choices on this sort of thing provides a minimal amount of security, allowing people to catch only criminals who lack the foresight to wear costume makeup or some other disguise and can be identified reliably from video footage, yet consider wearing masks, work quickly enough to get out before a police response can be mustered, can't be found out with any other forensic evidence, and travel from a great enough distance that they can't be tracked down by the surveillance network that presumably prevents them from simply carrying their masks in their pockets and donning them right before committing the crime.

I get that deterrence relying on successfully capturing and trying somebody for a crime doesn't exactly prevent crimes in the first place, but sometimes it's really all you can do without an unacceptable infringement on civil liberties. It's why aggravated assault imposes penalties above regular assault when you're using a deadly weapon, for instance, instead of simply making possession of a deadly weapon inherently illegal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 10:11:57 pm
Quote
It's why aggravated assault imposes penalties above regular assault when you're using a deadly weapon

Erm... Most of the things typically thought of as 'deadly weapons' (such as knives) it is illegal to carry around in public... Also, literally anything can be a deadly weapon.

Then again, I might be missing something since I don't live in 'Murica where any average Joe can a buy gun from your local supermarket and convenience store.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Tack on January 04, 2015, 10:20:14 pm
This has probably been mentioned already, but fun fact- if you're black belt in something you automatically get upgraded to 'deadly weapon' status; legally.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheo on January 04, 2015, 10:22:43 pm
Hello - this may seem like a troll post, but I swear it is not. Merely someone who is foreign to the US wanting to know more indepth info.

Recently in a discussion about Ferguson something came up. So far what I knew is that while there was evidence that Michael Brown did attempt shoplifting, the shooting was still sudden and uncalled for - that was what I had heard so far.

Yet comment from a fellow moderate was that there was new evidence suggesting Brown had reacted violently and/or tried to resist arrest to the police officer, thus adding more assets towards the cop's innocence regarding this issue.

What is this evidence and how credible is it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on January 04, 2015, 10:23:46 pm
I don't see why you're asking us, we're not the ones who said we had evidence. Ask that other dude.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheo on January 04, 2015, 10:24:54 pm
Quote from: Angle on January 04, 2015, 10:23:46 pm
I don't see why you're asking us, we're not the ones who said we had evidence. Ask that other dude.
Was in a chan, so as the thread "autosaged"(died) I cannot be in contact with the same person.

I can google it but I either get sensationalist right stuff or sensationalist left stuff. Neither helps my case.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 04, 2015, 10:31:11 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 04, 2015, 07:53:20 pm
Isn't it banned to go into a gas station with a motorbike helmet on? I think this might be a case to consider.

You don't mean in the U.S., do you?  Because I've done this a few times.

Related thought:  I can understand restricting identity concealing clothes in very specific situations, like government buildings, banks, etc... but while reading this discussion, I also can't stop thinking about the recent push in the U.S. to ban face-coverings and the like at protests or even in general public, quite obviously for the purpose of discouraging political expression.  The ability to protect one's identity is something that I think should be respected, outside of very specific situations.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on January 04, 2015, 10:35:34 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on January 04, 2015, 10:11:57 pm
Quote
It's why aggravated assault imposes penalties above regular assault when you're using a deadly weapon

Erm... Most of the things typically thought of as 'deadly weapons' (such as knives) it is illegal to carry around in public... Also, literally anything can be a deadly weapon.

Then again, I might be missing something since I don't live in 'Murica where any average Joe can a buy gun from your local supermarket and convenience store.
You can get a license for these things. Deadly weapon is a well-defined legal category, actually. I don't think I need to argue that licensing people to wear hoodies in public is absurd, but keep in mind that's still technically more permissive than what's being suggested. The point is that the law often includes penalties that exacerbate punishments for crimes committed in particular ways - which doesn't necessarily do much to deter crime because criminals are rarely rationally computing expected losses from their actions, don't expect to be caught, and so on. I just grabbed an obvious example.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 04, 2015, 10:44:07 pm
Quote from: Sheo on January 04, 2015, 10:22:43 pm
Yet comment from a fellow moderate was that there was new evidence suggesting Brown had reacted violently and/or tried to resist arrest to the police officer, thus adding more assets towards the cop's innocence regarding this issue.

What is this evidence and how credible is it?
Outside the publicly released grand jury testimonies, I'm personally unaware of any notable evidence of that nature. And in that case, you've got contradictory testimony from the two closest people (Brown's friend, and the police officer) in regards to what went down and a fairly incredibly shitty prosecutorial performance crapping all over much of what came out of said grand jury.

If there's nothing new and that's what they were talking about, the answer is the grand jury testimonies (in this case, pretty much entirely the LEO's, since the other immediate report marks the officer as the belligerent party and initiator of violence) and very much arguably credible.

E: I'll admit I haven't exactly been paying attention once it became fairly obvious the situation wasn't going to trial like it needed to, though. It's entirely possible there's some sort of new evidence that's come up, but I'm not entirely sure what that evidence could be, unless they somehow dug up a close-up video recording of the event, complete with clear audio.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 04, 2015, 10:46:57 pm
That's quite a lot of information you're asking for there, Sheo.  The details are quite hotly debated, and one could write a very long post in order to cover them all comprehensively.

I'll summarize for you as best I can:  The police selectively edited some surveillance footage from a local convenience store to make it look like Brown was a thug, but the owner of that store later vouched that Brown didn't bully anybody or steal anything.  There was a disagreement between Brown and store clerk that got heated for a few seconds (something about the clerk refusing to accept Brown's payment, IIRC) during which Brown shoved the clerk, but it ended peacefully and Brown paid for the stuff and left.

The police account of the confrontation is that Brown attacked Wilson, ran away, and then turned back around and charged at him.  Other witness accounts seem to indicate the exact opposite.  Forensic evidence supports a mix between the two stories, but there was no evidence or testimony that I'm aware of besides Wilson's own word that Brown ever attacked him.  The guy who was walking with Brown says that Wilson pulled up right next to them and pulled Brown into his car window.  One thing quite clear is that Wilson's account is lying about multiple details, but not anything that points to one side or the other's story being conclusively the correct one.

Personally, I'm much more inclined to believe it was Wilson that attacked Brown, but I'm very cynical about police in the U.S.  Go ahead and ask if you have any more specific questions, but I would suggest looking up fact-based sources on your own to get a better impression of what the issue looks like.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheo on January 04, 2015, 10:52:55 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 04, 2015, 10:46:57 pm
That's quite a lot of information you're asking for there, Sheo.  The details are quite hotly debated, and one could write a very long post in order to cover them all comprehensively.

I'll summarize for you as best I can:  The police selectively edited some surveillance footage from a local convenience store to make it look like Brown was a thug, but the owner of that store later vouched that Brown didn't bully anybody or steal anything.  There was a disagreement between Brown and store clerk that got heated for a few seconds (something about the clerk refusing to accept Brown's payment, IIRC) during which Brown shoved the clerk, but it ended peacefully and Brown paid for the stuff and left.

The police account of the confrontation is that Brown attacked Wilson, ran away, and then turned back around and charged at him.  Other witness accounts seem to indicate the exact opposite.  Forensic evidence supports a mix between the two stories, but there was no evidence or testimony that I'm aware of besides Wilson's own word that Brown ever attacked him.  The guy who was walking with Brown says that Wilson pulled up right next to them and pulled Brown into his car window.  One thing quite clear is that Wilson's account is lying about multiple details, but not anything that points to one side or the other's story being conclusively the correct one.

Personally, I'm much more inclined to believe it was Wilson that attacked Brown, but I'm very cynical about police in the U.S.  Go ahead and ask if you have any more specific questions, but I would suggest looking up fact-based sources on your own to get a better impression of what the issue looks like.
Your explanation is already quite satisfactory - thanks, friend.

That was pretty much all I needed. My friend's comment made it seem like there was no doubt whatsoever of which side was right or wrong.

It is good to know things aren't quite so black and white.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arcvasti on January 04, 2015, 11:05:33 pm
Quote from: Tack on January 04, 2015, 10:20:14 pm
This has probably been mentioned already, but fun fact- if you're black belt in something you automatically get upgraded to 'deadly weapon' status; legally.

So if I picked up a black belt martial artist and hit someone with him, he counts as a deadly weapon?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 04, 2015, 11:07:17 pm
Not completely, no... but there are many well-established facts that do not reflect well at all on the police.  There are two major unresolved disputes about what happened during the confrontation

1.  Who initiated the scuffle inside Wilson's car.  Did Wilson pull him in, or did Brown reach through on his own?  (Noteworthy point:  there was supposedly a gunshot from within the car, and Wilson's blood was found inside the car.  Wilson claims he suffered a horrible face injury, but photo evidence following the event show only a light bruise under his eye.)
2.  After that scuffle, Brown ran.   Wilson got out of his car and shot at him.  Brown then stopped and turned around.  What's unclear at this point is whether Brown proceeded to charge back towards Wilson or not.

But the following is stuff that indisputably reflects badly on police.

1.  Police releasing misleading content to the public to try and smear public perception of Brown's character.
2.  According to Wilson's story, he asked these two people to get out of the street.  They responded aggressively to him, and he was afraid of them.  So why did he respond by spontaneously pulling his car around to where his window was within arm's reach?  (one conclusive fact established by witnesses is they heard tires squeeling just before Brown's upper body was seen through Wilson's car window)
3.  It's firmly established that Wilson shot at Brown as he was running away, and the final barrage of bullets was fired from a pretty good distance.  Why?
4.  The court proceedings were very obviously corrupted in order to prevent a trial.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Tack on January 04, 2015, 11:08:37 pm
Quote from: Arcvasti on January 04, 2015, 11:05:33 pm
Quote from: Tack on January 04, 2015, 10:20:14 pm
This has probably been mentioned already, but fun fact- if you're black belt in something you automatically get upgraded to 'deadly weapon' status; legally.

So if I picked up a black belt martial artist and hit someone with him, he counts as a deadly weapon?
Depends. Is he flailing?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on January 05, 2015, 05:10:13 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 04, 2015, 11:07:17 pm
Not completely, no... but there are many well-established facts that do not reflect well at all on the police.  There are two major unresolved disputes about what happened during the confrontation

1.  Who initiated the scuffle inside Wilson's car.  Did Wilson pull him in, or did Brown reach through on his own?  (Noteworthy point:  there was supposedly a gunshot from within the car, and Wilson's blood was found inside the car.  Wilson claims he suffered a horrible face injury, but photo evidence following the event show only a light bruise under his eye.)
2.  After that scuffle, Brown ran.   Wilson got out of his car and shot at him.  Brown then stopped and turned around.  What's unclear at this point is whether Brown proceeded to charge back towards Wilson or not.

But the following is stuff that indisputably reflects badly on police.

1.  Police releasing misleading content to the public to try and smear public perception of Brown's character.
2.  According to Wilson's story, he asked these two people to get out of the street.  They responded aggressively to him, and he was afraid of them.  So why did he respond by spontaneously pulling his car around to where his window was within arm's reach?  (one conclusive fact established by witnesses is they heard tires squeeling just before Brown's upper body was seen through Wilson's car window)
3.  It's firmly established that Wilson shot at Brown as he was running away, and the final barrage of bullets was fired from a pretty good distance.  Why?
4.  The court proceedings were very obviously corrupted in order to prevent a trial.

It's horribly hard to form an hard oppinion on this topic when the only certainty you have is that all official report will be tampered with if convenient.

I'd say "but the autopsy" but american police has been known to mess with about everything in the past. And the witnesses are never reliable in those cases.

If you think it's important to know for sure if peoples are being murdered, you'll have to fix the system. And keep in mind it may happen to you or anyone you know, being black only make it more likely. Beside the police aren't the only one with impunity, very rich peoples seems to have gotten a pass in several occasions too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 05, 2015, 05:52:21 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 04, 2015, 10:31:11 pm
but while reading this discussion, I also can't stop thinking about the recent push in the U.S. to ban face-coverings and the like at protests or even in general public, quite obviously for the purpose of discouraging political expression.
This is actually the one case in which I'm certain it is forbidden in Germany to cover up - the Vermummungsverbot. It was instated to make prosecution of crimes during demonstrations, such as throwing rocks, easier.
And honestly if you're going to be active politically you can at least have the decency to show who you are. Demonstrations are a form of communication, after all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 05, 2015, 08:09:04 am
Quote from: Helgoland on January 05, 2015, 05:52:21 am
And honestly if you're going to be active politically you can at least have the decency to show who you are. Demonstrations are a form of communication, after all.

I agree if being "active politically" means "running for or serving as a professional politician".

Otherwise, I cannot agree.  In the U.S., employers will fire you, you might be placed on "potential domestic terrorist" watchlists, marked for harassment and denial of access to rights by authorities, and even targeted for assassination (https://www.google.com/search?q=FBI+assassination+plot+Occupy&oq=FBI+assassination+plot+Occupy&aqs=chrome..69i57.6104j1j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=FBI+assassination+plot+Occupy&tbs=qdr:y) (Link:  The FBI was aware of an assassination plot targeting Occupy organizers.  Didn't bother to warn the targets, and still refuses to release any further details beyond the FOIA revelations that there was one and they knew about it.)

Freedom of expression is not so respected in the U.S. as it's supposed to be, and can be a serious danger to livelihoods.  Removing the ability to do so anonymously is a really easy way to discourage many from doing so at all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 05, 2015, 08:56:34 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 05, 2015, 08:09:04 am
Otherwise, I cannot agree.  In the U.S., employers will fire you, you might be placed on "potential domestic terrorist" watchlists, marked for harassment and denial of access to rights by authorities, and even targeted for assassination (https://www.google.com/search?q=FBI+assassination+plot+Occupy&oq=FBI+assassination+plot+Occupy&aqs=chrome..69i57.6104j1j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=FBI+assassination+plot+Occupy&tbs=qdr:y) (Link:  The FBI was aware of an assassination plot targeting Occupy organizers.  Didn't bother to warn the targets, and still refuses to release any further details beyond the FOIA revelations that there was one and they knew about it.)

Freedom of expression is not so respected in the U.S. as it's supposed to be, and can be a serious danger to livelihoods.  Removing the ability to do so anonymously is a really easy way to discourage many from doing so at all.
Wearing baclavas/burkas/whatever is not the appropriate way to stop such things from happening: Being put on any list requires them to have your name, which kinda implies you already were stopped by an officer and had your personal info noted, and against employers firing you (the real risk for most demonstrations, methinks) there are the courts (there are laws against that type of thing, right?) and, if nothing else helps, public outrage. One could even argue that being fired because of demonstrating is a good thing, since it gives a chance to expose an employer with an undesirable political agenda to the general public.

And to your last point: Who covers their faces right now anyway? Paranoiacs and the black bloc. It certainly isn't the norm, and so it is absurd to claim that the average protestor would be hindered by such a law.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on January 05, 2015, 09:01:52 am
I forgot about that : peoples tend to lose their jobs over stupid internet feud in the US, so I suppose that being in a protest would be an huge professional risk. On the left as on the right, actually, and I hate how witch-hunty a part of left has become, too.

Before anyone write something to complain, remembre which side you took in the campain to get Brian Eich fired over a PRIVATE donnation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 05, 2015, 09:25:35 am
Quote
gainst employers firing you (the real risk for most demonstrations, methinks) there are the courts (there are laws against that type of thing, right?)

No there aren't.  Not in Europe, much less in the US where labor laws are waaayy less developed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on January 05, 2015, 10:04:03 am
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on January 05, 2015, 09:25:35 am
Quote
gainst employers firing you (the real risk for most demonstrations, methinks) there are the courts (there are laws against that type of thing, right?)

No there aren't.  Not in Europe, much less in the US where labor laws are waaayy less developed.

In Belgium that's illegal but hard to sue (you have to prove the fact that the termination wasn't used for its intended purpose) if you're an employee but blatantly illegal if you're a manual worker and easy to prove. A freelance may be in more trouble.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 05, 2015, 10:50:17 am
I dont know the details of other parts of the EU, but here in Spain you can fire someone with no reason at all. Sure, it's ruled as improcedent and you have to pay an extra penalty, but it's not very expensive, either. It's so standard that there's even a mechanism from employers to "improcedently" fire someone and pay the penalty directly, without going to court.  The only time this cannot be done to you  is if you're your co-workers' trade union representative (also, it's virtually impossible in the public sector, but that's another can of worms)

The way I hear it, inthe rest of Europe for the most part laws are even laxer in regards to job termination, but I don't know the details.

On the other hand, I've also heard that labor inspections are more frequent and more serious, so there's likely less bullshit with unpaid extra work hours, so there's that.....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 05, 2015, 12:48:15 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 05, 2015, 08:56:34 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 05, 2015, 08:09:04 am
Otherwise, I cannot agree.  In the U.S., employers will fire you, you might be placed on "potential domestic terrorist" watchlists, marked for harassment and denial of access to rights by authorities, and even targeted for assassination (https://www.google.com/search?q=FBI+assassination+plot+Occupy&oq=FBI+assassination+plot+Occupy&aqs=chrome..69i57.6104j1j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=FBI+assassination+plot+Occupy&tbs=qdr:y) (Link:  The FBI was aware of an assassination plot targeting Occupy organizers.  Didn't bother to warn the targets, and still refuses to release any further details beyond the FOIA revelations that there was one and they knew about it.)

Freedom of expression is not so respected in the U.S. as it's supposed to be, and can be a serious danger to livelihoods.  Removing the ability to do so anonymously is a really easy way to discourage many from doing so at all.
Wearing baclavas/burkas/whatever is not the appropriate way to stop such things from happening: Being put on any list requires them to have your name, which kinda implies you already were stopped by an officer and had your personal info noted, and against employers firing you (the real risk for most demonstrations, methinks) there are the courts (there are laws against that type of thing, right?) and, if nothing else helps, public outrage. One could even argue that being fired because of demonstrating is a good thing, since it gives a chance to expose an employer with an undesirable political agenda to the general public.

And to your last point: Who covers their faces right now anyway? Paranoiacs and the black bloc. It certainly isn't the norm, and so it is absurd to claim that the average protestor would be hindered by such a law.

Face covering is very common at protests in the U.S..  You've seen how prominent the Guy Fawkes masks have become, right?  It may not be something a majority does to protect their identity when they first show up, but it is still quite common among people who are not engaging in any illegal activity (besides the protest itself) or black blocs.  And most everyone dons face coverings when the tear gas starts flying.

You don't need to be stopped by an officer to be identified.  There have been cases of people who weren't even actively involved in any protest being quietly added to watchlists after being caught as a bystander by surveillance and identified by facial recognition software, and they don't have any clue until they find themselves denied the ability to board a plane.

And no... worker protections are practically non-existent.  There are technically anti-discrimination laws in effect to protect workers, but they're more targeted at racial and gender discrimination and made unenforceable by an employer's ability to fire a person for any other reason they can possibly make up anyway.  It varies by state, but in some they don't even have to give you a reason.

Call me a paranoiac, but I don't think it's an absurd concern at all.  Not that I expect anything different.  The nature of protest is indirect conflict with establishment, and it would be strange if both sides don't use every tool at their disposal to engage in that conflict.  Protest is meaningless if not disruptive, and the law will of course be opposed to disruption.  If you go to a protest (a real protest - not a police-authorized march through an assigned path and schedule designed not to bother anybody and stay out of sight of anyone that matters), you are engaging in a conflict and should take appropriate precautions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 05, 2015, 12:55:12 pm
Eh, Salmon - what you call 'real protest' sounds like actions that are illegal for a good reason, and police action against which I heartily condone: Protests are means of expressing political opinion, and thus have to adhere to some standards. What standards exactly we can talk about, but calling all protest that's been cleared with the police fake sounds very worrying to me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 05, 2015, 01:00:03 pm
Think it's not so much "fake" as "entirely useless". Which, given what tends to happen to protests that are cleared by the local establishment (completely marginalized and often tucked away in some corner so no one has to pay attention to them), it's... a fairly accurate statement.

Note: In the states, in many areas, "illegal protests" can include those that simply aren't limited to a specific, government decided, area. It... should be pretty obvious why that's a problem.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 05, 2015, 01:06:17 pm
Wait, government decided area? On a scale from one to Sasha Grey, how fucked are the US protest laws?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 05, 2015, 01:10:14 pm
Maybe you should stop assuming you already know everything and start actually listening to what people say, helgoland.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 05, 2015, 01:11:04 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 05, 2015, 01:06:17 pm
Wait, government decided area? On a scale from one to Sasha Grey, how fucked are the US protest laws?

Let's just start here.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 05, 2015, 01:11:54 pm
Not sure who sasha grey is, but while we're not to the point of sasha grey in a spitroast, we're getting close to it. Pretty fucked, really, though a fair amount of it isn't necessarily the laws themselves but how enforcement agencies fuck the laws to fuck with protesters.

FakeE: Looking up who SG is, SG in a spitroast is now mentally noted as an apt descriptor.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 05, 2015, 01:12:15 pm
Sasha Grey in her masterwork "Fuck me like you're the NYPD". Seriously, protests are often limited to dystopian-named "Free speech area" far from the main events at stuff like the National Republican Convention (or the Democrat one).

And in Helgoland's defense, he is usually one of the most reasonable guy around.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on January 05, 2015, 01:15:25 pm
About... Sasha Grey - 2. It tends to oscillate between -2 and -2.5, depending on how near we are to a major election.

More seriously, have some links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone Nevermind, SalmonGod (SG, hehe) ninja'd me on this'un.
http://web.archive.org/web/20140402194133/http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy


I've got more, but I don't want this buried. Well I did trawl the old Occupy thread for news stuff but they all came up 404'd.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 05, 2015, 01:22:05 pm
Quote from: Frumple on January 05, 2015, 01:11:54 pm
Not sure who sasha grey is
sure
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on January 05, 2015, 01:27:38 pm
ACLU primer on protest laws. (https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-demonstrations-and-protests) So you do have fairly broad protest rights, even without forward planning or permission. Permits and fees may be required only if it's reasonable; eg, no permit if it's an immediate reaction to current events, no permit required if it's not particularly disruptive, no fees that your organisation can't afford or aren't a reflection on costs incurred by the protest.

Note that a lot of that rests on First Amendment rights rather than immediate local law or policy. The First Amendment may offer relief if you have been prosecuted under such a law, or police have used such a policy to stop your protest, but it doesn't stop that protest being ended.

What Frumple is thinking of may be the Free Speech Zones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone) set up in some cases when wider protests have been banned. This is usually to stop a protest from disrupting some other event substantially. You can somewhat justify some of these, especially with regards to political events (eg, conventions) by preventing protesters from using a heckler's veto to deny other people protected (political) speech. Note that protesting is provided less protection than other types of speech due to it's external costs, so balancing a political protest against a political speech will usually find in favour of the other speech.

So if a small, unpopular political group were holding a rally you might designate an area for protests so that the small group don't get overwhelmed and effectively silenced due to weight of numbers, even if the area they are using would usually be open to everyone. Because the primary rule is that speech must be treated the same (all laws must be viewpoint neutral in how they treat speech) what protects minorities and small groups also protects the G20 and Democratic National Conventions.

Fakedit: Ninjaed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wobbly on January 05, 2015, 01:34:09 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 05, 2015, 01:11:04 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 05, 2015, 01:06:17 pm
Wait, government decided area? On a scale from one to Sasha Grey, how fucked are the US protest laws?

Let's just start here.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone)

They look a lot like cages in the picture on the article which is pretty messed up. Are they generally that bad?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 05, 2015, 01:53:51 pm
Quote from: scriver on January 05, 2015, 01:10:14 pm
Maybe you should stop assuming you already know everything and start actually listening to what people say, helgoland.
Well, reading that ACLU primer, the situation seems to be much less dystopian than what's being described in the thread, so I'll stick by my original point, thankyouverymuch. Any input on the topic itself?

Regarding free speech zones: As far as I can tell, they're used during special events to ensure that no disruptions take place - not a priory a bad thing thing, IMO. And while the practical side may look different, there are legal restrictions on their use.
But as scrriver so accurately remarked, I'm not especially educated on the topic - feel free to correct me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 05, 2015, 01:54:45 pm
Helgo, you reasonable conservative scum ~
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on January 05, 2015, 01:59:25 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 04, 2015, 04:52:31 pm
Is it true that Germans were doing an anti-Muslim march?

Are they going Fourth Reich on us?
Yes to the first question, hopefully no to the second.

There is this thing called "Pegida" over here, which stands for "Patriotische Europär gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes" ("Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident"). Their behaviour is somewhere between deeply concerning and ridiculous.

Quote from: Helgoland on January 04, 2015, 04:56:46 pm
A couple of Ossis, nothing big, really.
Yeah, because that's something that's totally only happening in the former GDR and not all over Europe, so there's actually not a real problem. How convenient to have a former dictatorship at hand which helps explaining away all social unrest! ::)

Quote from: Helgoland on January 05, 2015, 08:56:34 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 05, 2015, 08:09:04 am
Otherwise, I cannot agree.  In the U.S., employers will fire you, you might be placed on "potential domestic terrorist" watchlists, marked for harassment and denial of access to rights by authorities, and even targeted for assassination (https://www.google.com/search?q=FBI+assassination+plot+Occupy&oq=FBI+assassination+plot+Occupy&aqs=chrome..69i57.6104j1j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=FBI+assassination+plot+Occupy&tbs=qdr:y) (Link:  The FBI was aware of an assassination plot targeting Occupy organizers.  Didn't bother to warn the targets, and still refuses to release any further details beyond the FOIA revelations that there was one and they knew about it.)

Freedom of expression is not so respected in the U.S. as it's supposed to be, and can be a serious danger to livelihoods.  Removing the ability to do so anonymously is a really easy way to discourage many from doing so at all.
Wearing baclavas/burkas/whatever is not the appropriate way to stop such things from happening: Being put on any list requires them to have your name, which kinda implies you already were stopped by an officer and had your personal info noted
Which can be done for all kinds of reasons.
In Neuruppin there was a counter demonstration against Nazis in… I'd have to ask my mother or one of my brothers when that was. The police made three warnings (as required) against a sit-in. My mother and brothers tried to get out after the second warning, but weren't allowed to leave. Because they still didn't leave after the third warning (which they couldn't do) they were registered. The whole thing might have been a huge scandal afterwards, but that doesn't change that their names were registered.
Fortunately they aren't really politically active. For someone who is, this would have been a huge problem.

I think you underestimate the length our state goes to to make life hard for people who are politically active, even when they make absolutely sure to stick closer to the law than most people (because most people don't even know what they might be doing wrong).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 05, 2015, 03:59:35 pm
I just want to support Sasha Grey being brought up in any context.

I would post supporting photographic "evidence", but there are rules against it.

Also, one of the hardest things, as in impossible, I found to protest was schools. At least in my state.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 05, 2015, 04:04:22 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 05, 2015, 01:54:45 pm
Helgo, you reasonable conservative scum ~

Now, why do y'all leave off the reasonable when describing me? :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheo on January 05, 2015, 05:51:05 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 05, 2015, 03:59:35 pm
I just want to support Sasha Grey being brought up in any context.

I would post supporting photographic "evidence", but there are rules against it.

Also, one of the hardest things, as in impossible, I found to protest was schools. At least in my state.
Sasha Grey is my favorite porn star.

Not because of content, but because of how often she's just proud of her profession and tells people that criticize her or her merits to go burn in hell.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 05, 2015, 05:57:48 pm
hell yea, her and Mandy Morbid, Vivid Vivka, and for sexy cosplay Envy Us, plus sooo many others.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 05, 2015, 06:46:41 pm
So, question:  What do Helgoland and others believe to be the nature of protest?  Because the way I see it, if protests stayed within expectations of the law and its enforcers in the U.S., it would be completely ineffectual.

I recognize three major categories of activism.

1.  Direct action.  Blatantly illegal stuff like sabotaging and blocking equipment.  Or creative stuff, like developing programs and strategies for establishing what you want to happen, for example Food Not Bombs.  The purpose being to actively prevent or generate the future you do/don't want.

2.  Legal and media work.

3.  Demonstration.  Street protest.  Generally must by its nature fall into grey area of legality in my opinion.  I recognize it as having three purposes in varying proportion: 
                 -To express an opinion to the political establishment because the group feels it is being marginalized by normal channels of political expression
                 -To expose the otherwise unaware to the issue and the existence of the group's position on that issue
                 -To threaten the establishment with the potential for disorder if the group's interests aren't sufficiently recognized
     Any one of these purposes requires some form of disruption in order to be accomplished that will naturally run counter to the interests of the law and frustrate law enforcement.  Sure, protesters should hold themselves to a high standard of behavior, but there still has to be an element of conflict and threat involved or else what the heck is it supposed to be?  Helgoland says that if protests aren't properly respected, that this should be rectified by public outrage... but protest IS public outrage, isn't it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on January 05, 2015, 07:25:53 pm
Aye. There's protests against non-government actors, which I could see being sensibly regulated if they were all there were. But if you're protesting against the government, then your protest is legal or illegal at the whims of that very government - it absolutely needs to be prevented from having a say in what's an okay sort of protest or not, because otherwise protest will very quickly find itself boxed into a region of comfortable invisibility. Anything else would be counter to the interests of a rational government (or an irrational, selfish one, for that matter). Surely I don't need to explain why, "You can do whatever you want as long as I like it" isn't actually much of a compromise or favor?

You can enforce things like laws against vandalism and assault against individuals in a mob with the same legal justification as if they were acting singly, but the law really can't be allowed to regulate the assembly in the first place. And as long as that's the case, it'd be an unacceptable scenario for governments to protect private interests even more than public, so I'd expect protests to be equally unregulated against private actors (or even explicitly protected).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 05, 2015, 08:35:33 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 05, 2015, 06:46:41 pm
So, question:  What do Helgoland and others believe to be the nature of protest?
Well, we have  to separate two cases; I'll assume the existence of a 'we' whose members have common interests, since the goals most people around here are substantially similar. (There's a line about Don Camillo and Peppone wanting the same thing, but disagreeing about the way, to provide a pop cultural example.)
1) A state that is in principle desirable, i.e. one we support in general and only criticize in specific ways
It is in our interest that such a state preserves itself, and that only the aspects we dislike are changed. All we want protests to do in such a state is raise public awareness about an issue, so that it can be rectified: All other forms of action against the state, such as sabotage and protests outside what is necessary for the aforementioned pupose, must be repressed. In practice this means ensuring that the black bloc and other true extremists can be persecuted.
2) A state that is undesirable in principle, i.e. one which we do not support at all
Such a state must be abolished; since we oppose the state itself, we do not care about its laws in any other than the practical sense of them being the rules for the persecution of ourselves. Any form of action aligned with our own goals and beliefs is justifiable.

I firmly believe that the current states in the developed world, even in the US, are of type 1); I know you believe at least the American one to be of type 2), SG, so this is the point where our opinions diverge. All the other differences are merely a consequence of that one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 05, 2015, 08:39:58 pm
the problem with your statements is america is, for us living here, neither type 1 or 2. We want laws, but a murderous, militarized police force that uses the laws to oppress PoC isn't what we want.

Peaceful protests are oftentimes ignored and forgotten. You have to be disruptive and go outside the little box they set for you.

It's interesting because these protests have been peaceful, and the police have still responded with extreme violence.

Personally, I favor Malcolm X to MLK jr when dealing with a police state.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on January 05, 2015, 08:52:35 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 05, 2015, 08:35:33 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 05, 2015, 06:46:41 pm
So, question:  What do Helgoland and others believe to be the nature of protest?
Well, we have  to separate two cases; I'll assume the existence of a 'we' whose members have common interests, since the goals most people around here are substantially similar. (There's a line about Don Camillo and Peppone wanting the same thing, but disagreeing about the way, to provide a pop cultural example.)
1) A state that is in principle desirable, i.e. one we support in general and only criticize in specific ways
It is in our interest that such a state preserves itself, and that only the aspects we dislike are changed. All we want protests to do in such a state is raise public awareness about an issue, so that it can be rectified: All other forms of action against the state, such as sabotage and protests outside what is necessary for the aforementioned pupose, must be repressed. In practice this means ensuring that the black bloc and other true extremists can be persecuted.
2) A state that is undesirable in principle, i.e. one which we do not support at all
Such a state must be abolished; since we oppose the state itself, we do not care about its laws in any other than the practical sense of them being the rules for the persecution of ourselves. Any form of action aligned with our own goals and beliefs is justifiable.

I firmly believe that the current states in the developed world, even in the US, are of type 1); I know you believe at least the American one to be of type 2), SG, so this is the point where our opinions diverge. All the other differences are merely a consequence of that one.

This is a sensible means of categorizing it. People tend to exaggerate the degree of repression of political expression here, but it does exist. The concern is that this is an early transition state between Type 1 and Type 2, but that isn't a universally accepted notion.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on January 05, 2015, 09:30:24 pm
I actually don't believe that's a valid dichotomy. A state that is desirable in principle can still be engaged in temporary activities heinous enough to be worth sabotaging in particular. States can also have different degrees of desirability, and that desirability can also be impacted through public behavior, which muddles the waters very significantly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 05, 2015, 11:29:32 pm
I also don't believe it's a valid dichotomy.  A state operates on many facets, and some can be so heinous as to overrule anything else that may be positive.

In the case of the U.S., I believe that the nation's stance on the environment is going to doom everyone if it's not challenged.  Its inequality, coupled with criminalization of the poor (which includes a majority of the population) is simply intolerable. 

And the surveillance/police state is overwhelmingly intolerant of anyone having anything to say about those two issues.  I think this is the point on which Baffler claims transition from Type 1 to Type 2, but I don't think we can conclusively claim that Type 2 in this category is not achieved, when the state has done everything necessary to shut down any movement on those two issues.  It's done literally everything imaginable short of disappearing and mass murdering people, but then no movement thus far has had the tenacity to challenge it to that level.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on January 06, 2015, 05:27:32 am
I agree with the fish god there, protest aren't simple things. An action that would be blatantly  illegal for a small or medium group (say blocking an airport) is accepted if the group doing it has widespread support.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 06, 2015, 06:23:12 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 05, 2015, 11:29:32 pm
-snip-
So you say that the state is following intolerable goals and preventing peaceful, cooperative change? Sounds like type 2 to me.
Quote from: Bauglir on January 05, 2015, 09:30:24 pm
I actually don't believe that's a valid dichotomy. A state that is desirable in principle can still be engaged in temporary activities heinous enough to be worth sabotaging in particular. States can also have different degrees of desirability, and that desirability can also be impacted through public behavior, which muddles the waters very significantly.
Well, it's a very rough categorization of course. One could further differentiate the two types into various sub-types, something that Baffler has already started; but the key difference between the two types - the possibility of peaceful change in the first, something that we all (hopefully) include under 'desirable' - indeed dictates our core attitude towards states of either type.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on January 06, 2015, 06:40:44 am
You forget that a state is rarely monolithic. Parts of a state can be oppressive enough to prevent change when protest isn't done in a way that is able to bypass those parts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on January 06, 2015, 08:04:44 am
Different groups with different power dentisty will push for policies. I like the French-style "the more you are the more you can get away with" and strong armed social dialogue.

If only they could drop part of their hierarchic mentality. In France peoples tend to complain a lot and act collectively, but individually they don't oppose authority openly, leading to a very bureaucratic and centralised structure that is followed to the letter even when it make no sense.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Tack on January 06, 2015, 08:50:25 am
Yeah, the radicals in Australia are expecting us to fall under Sharia law any day now, too.
But we've always been a cultural melting pot with a rather small native population.

I've commonly considered that the easiest way to take our country would literally be to just usurp us in democratic majority.
Seriously, it would take 3% of America's population to outvote us.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on January 06, 2015, 08:52:10 am
Does "The more you are the more you can get away with" mean what I think it means, i.e. majority rule, or what are you trying to say there if not that?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 06, 2015, 09:07:51 am
That if 100 person do an undeclared protest in the street, they'll get rounded up and arrested or obstructing traffic, but if 10,000 people do it, they'll get away with it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 06, 2015, 12:54:23 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 06, 2015, 09:07:51 am
That if 100 person do an undeclared protest in the street, they'll get rounded up and arrested or obstructing traffic, but if 10,000 people do it, they'll get away with it.

Sort of... only on the basis that arresting 10,000 people would be troublesome.  So they'll do some mass arrests.  Load up a few buses.  Get a few hundred.  Harass and intimidate the rest as much as they can.

So when considering joining a protest, potential participants have to consider "Will the crowd be large enough to make my chances of getting arrested and losing my job fairly slim?  How much risk am I willing to take?"  And there is a chilling effect.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 01:54:30 pm
recently the police used crowd control devices that they had insisted before they wouldn't use on things like peaceful protests, they've used tear gas and such. They are finding ways to disperse even larger crowds, which they did during the occupy movement (though even then, they didn't use the sound device, I don't think.)

The protests have to continue, and I think it will cause the police to become more violent, regardless of the size. One of their tactics has been cops going undercover to work as agitators. Two of them got revealed, and the cops involved then proceeded to pull firearms on the crowds and threaten them. It actually dispersed the crowd because they were so scared of getting shot.

If people let it go, or the message becomes muddled, nothing will come of it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 06, 2015, 06:50:47 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 01:54:30 pm
One of their tactics has been cops going undercover to work as agitators. Two of them got revealed, and the cops involved then proceeded to pull firearms on the crowds and threaten them. It actually dispersed the crowd because they were so scared of getting shot.

Just FYI  (I get the impression you're presenting this as if it represents a new development), agent provocateurs are a tactic as old as protests.

Quote from: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 01:54:30 pm
They are finding ways to disperse even larger crowds, which they did during the occupy movement (though even then, they didn't use the sound device, I don't think.)

If people let it go, or the message becomes muddled, nothing will come of it.

And the problem here, not just with protest but with activism in general, is that engaging in activism is a matter of serious personal sacrifice and risk.  For law enforcement and politicians, it's just another day at work.  It's a very one-sided war of attrition.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 06:54:38 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 06, 2015, 06:50:47 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 01:54:30 pm
One of their tactics has been cops going undercover to work as agitators. Two of them got revealed, and the cops involved then proceeded to pull firearms on the crowds and threaten them. It actually dispersed the crowd because they were so scared of getting shot.

Just FYI  (I get the impression you're presenting this as if it represents a new development), agent provocateurs are a tactic as old as protests.

Quote from: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 01:54:30 pm
They are finding ways to disperse even larger crowds, which they did during the occupy movement (though even then, they didn't use the sound device, I don't think.)

If people let it go, or the message becomes muddled, nothing will come of it.

And the problem here, not just with protest but with activism in general, is that engaging in activism is a matter of serious personal sacrifice and risk.  For law enforcement and politicians, it's just another day at work.  It's a very one-sided war of attrition.

I'm not, but it bothers me that this is considered acceptable police behavior for peaceful protests. They agitate things, what if it works? what if the cops then shoot someone involved?

Cops shouldn't be working to incite violence to win a war against protesters.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 06, 2015, 07:17:07 pm
Well you can't fight a war against someone who isn't being violent. It makes sense to escalate it to violence, since that way they are able to use force in return which is the thing they want to do.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 07:18:59 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on January 06, 2015, 07:17:07 pm
Well you can't fight a war against someone who isn't being violent. It makes sense to escalate it to violence, since that way they are able to use force in return which is the thing they want to do.

well they seem pretty good at using force against non-violent people. You'd think they wouldn't even need the agitators.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on January 06, 2015, 07:26:13 pm
They actually want to clean up a mess, not make it worse. If protests turn violent they will potentially cause a lot of damage, so the authorities can disperse them with force and nobody who isn't there will bat an eye. If they violently disperse peaceful demonstrators, then they've got a nasty PR incident that takes even more time to clean up and sweep out of the public consciousness, and people complain about their 1st amendment rights, and generally make a lot of uncomfortable noise. Using provocateurs to make a protest "violent" is an exceptionally convenient way to solve the problem, people voicing dissent, while avoiding the pitfalls of both martyrdom and destructive riots.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 06, 2015, 07:27:29 pm
Well I was going to post a reply but Baffler said it better while I was writing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 07:30:56 pm
Quote from: Baffler on January 06, 2015, 07:26:13 pm
They actually want to clean up a mess, not make it worse. If protests turn violent they will potentially cause a lot of damage, so the authorities can disperse them with force and nobody who isn't there will bat an eye. If they violently disperse peaceful demonstrators, then they've got a nasty PR incident that takes even more time to clean up and sweep out of the public consciousness, and people complain about their 1st amendment rights, and generally make a lot of uncomfortable noise. Using provocateurs to make a protest "violent" is an exceptionally convenient way to solve the problem, people voicing dissent, while avoiding the pitfalls of both martyrdom and destructive riots.

I think we've already got a nasty PR situation, and they keep making it worse.

Now they want to get crimes against police classified as hate crimes...

They all need to be re-evaluated and mostly gutted. It's clear they are half of the problem with crime in the first place. Less, sane and stable and not racist, officers would serve the community far better.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on January 06, 2015, 07:57:51 pm
Oh I'm not denyin' that there's a problem. But I also realize that people who also don't deny that there's a problem are not the majority (yet, but we can make it happen.) Until a significant portion of the population is ready to really stand up and call to curtail police militarization, the systematic mistreatment of the disadvantaged, and the other excesses of our emerging brand of corporate capitalism, the suppression of people publicly calling for these changes will continue to happen and it will continue to succeed. It probably won't be pretty, but it's the only way to bring about meaningful change. And such change must necessarily come from the ballot box.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 08:01:26 pm
http://reverbpress.com/justice/black-panthers-vs-nra/

I don't know, I'm starting to prefer this kind of change.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 06, 2015, 08:03:43 pm
You prefer domestic terrorism?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on January 06, 2015, 08:07:01 pm
Yeah, there's a reason everyone remembers Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, rather than Malcolm X and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Violence only alienates people who didn't already agree, invites more violence from opponents, and gives authorities exactly the excuse they need to smear the opposition into the dirt. If this were a Type 2 nation (to use Helgo's system again) then violence is the only option, and I'd be happy to go to any length to remove it from above my head. The United States is not a Type 2 nation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 08:07:20 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on January 06, 2015, 08:03:43 pm
You prefer domestic terrorism?

that's not terrorism, that's defending your community. Open carry is legal there, nothing terrorist or illegal is being done.

It's the same thing white people have been doing for some time, just with a different skin color. And more justified because the police pose a real and present danger to black people in these communities.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 08:08:23 pm
Quote from: Baffler on January 06, 2015, 08:07:01 pm
Yeah, there's a reason everyone remembers Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, rather than Malcolm X and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Violence only alienates people who didn't already agree, invites more violence from opponents, and gives authorities exactly the excuse they need to smear the opposition into the dirt. If this were a Type 2 nation (to use Helgo's system again) then violence is the only option, and I'd be happy to go to any length to remove it from above my head. The United States is not a Type 2 nation.

it's because no one likes an aggressive black man, actually.

Also, gandhi was a massive racist that slept naked next to his nieces to restore his energy. People don't always remember the good guys.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 06, 2015, 08:22:29 pm
Do you want people to like aggressive black men?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on January 06, 2015, 08:26:21 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 08:08:23 pm
it's because no one likes an aggressive black man, actually.

Also, gandhi was a massive racist that slept naked next to his nieces to restore his energy. People don't always remember the good guys.

As long as this is presented as a question of race (or gender for that matter), I don't think there can ever be any meaningful progress. Like it or not, <25% of the people in this country are unlikely to carry sweeping electoral changes on their own. Rhetoric like that only alienates people whose support is necessary to make any gains at the polls. The alternative is tyranny by a small subset of the population, something that our system is literally designed to prevent. It's perfectly fine to address racial issues, but "white people are terrible and if they disappeared everything would be fine" does not a solid platform make.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 06, 2015, 08:28:49 pm
smeep, did you ever read about Mandela? Not just about his status as a great champion of human dignity, as the abolisher of apartheid, but about the sstuff he did before? About Umkhonto we Sizwe? About rubbernecking? About the land mine campaigns that were only stopped because they killed more black farmhands than white farmers' families?
Mandela used to be a terrorist. And with terrorist methods he accomplished - jack shit. What do we remember him for? Not for his military campaigns, but for his long imprisonment and subsequent will to reconcile.

The only good thing a terrorist can do is inspire those around him to pursue their goals by other means by creating disgust at the killing of innocents. The only good thing a terrorist can do is to show what a bad path he has chosen.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on January 06, 2015, 08:34:40 pm
Call me a bad man, but Rhodesia really doesn't seem like it was that bad of a place.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 08:35:28 pm
I disagree. There is a place for both peace and war.

Besides no one is killing anyone. They are simply patrolling the streets with their constitutionally (I can't believe I am using this argument) approved assault rifles. They are protecting the lives of their neighbors.

This has been going on a long time. MLK jr only got us so far.

This IS about race. You can not frame it any other way. You don't have to vilify white people to do it, but the fact that it is racially based needs to be recognized (and yes I know the Black Panthers tend to vilify white people, though I have often found them misogynistic and was impressed that women were involved in this.)

My point about the angry black man trope is, this is not a problem if you are white. You can be an angry white man and get things done, but the white majority fears the angry black man, and will see that image more often than not, as we see with the descriptions by the officer in the brown case.

Society wants to erase angry black men, but they want to find out why a white man is angry. That is wrong.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: x2yzh9 on January 06, 2015, 08:57:59 pm
  One of the biggest problems in todays world is the leftover facts of imperialism and the start of the industrial revolution, slavery was an abominable creation of business men, and this is why I think they're angry at the establishment: time. They still havn't gotten what they want and I believe they do deserve(equality) but because of the absolutely massive rift that's already there, how in the world are you going to heal that? I am not a racist but I do believe that after MLK died they were lost, as if the one man was a martyr for their entire race.

   No, unfortunately white privilege is real. I'd like to live in a country that has an electoral congress removed, an open party system(that means open partys completely, not just left-or-right wing, and yes that means a democracy but I don't think we could handle that just yet. The system is highly inept at this point, because of the stuff that straight up happened after MLK died. They lost their martyr and it was devastating, I absolutely disagree with malcolm X's ideologies. They just inherently do not and will not, ever work. Also police should be out there with an open mind but they can't because they're in the ghettos of society that america has created for itself; and there's your good cop bad cop conundrum too. It's a systemic corruption that lies in what we have buried ourselves in so all I can say right now is that we reap what we sow, as one nation, or as the rest of the world's. And I can tell you this:the day we wake up to climate change as a part of our society is the day things reach a tipping point. You can't just hold it off. You have to collectively do something about it, but in there lies my pessimism to the human race. The cold war? Yea, I can bet you a lot of the testing contributed to what we have today. It's all a system of a downs as I would like to call it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 09:00:51 pm
Quote from: x2yzh9 on January 06, 2015, 08:57:59 pm
  One of the biggest problems in todays world is the leftover facts of imperialism and the start of the industrial revolution, slavery was an abominable creation of business men, and this is why I think they're angry at the establishment: time. They still havn't gotten what they want and I believe they do deserve(equality) but because of the absolutely massive rift that's already there, how in the world are you going to heal that? I am not a racist but I do believe that after MLK died they were lost, as if the one man was a martyr for their entire race.

   No, unfortunately white privilege is real. I'd like to live in a country that has an electoral congress removed, an open party system(that means open partys completely, not just left-or-right wing, and yes that means a democracy but I don't think we could handle that just yet. The system is highly inept at this point, because of the stuff that straight up happened after MLK died. They lost their martyr and it was devastating, I absolutely disagree with malcolm X's ideologies. They just inherently do not and will not, ever work. Also police should be out there with an open mind but they can't because they're in the ghettos of society that america has created for itself; and there's your good cop bad cop conundrum too. It's a systemic corruption that lies in what we have buried ourselves in so all I can say right now is that we reap what we sow, as one nation, or as the rest of the world's. And I can tell you this:the day we wake up to climate change as a part of our society is the day things reach a tipping point. You can't just hold it off. You have to collectively do something about it, but in there lies my pessimism to the human race. The cold war? Yea, I can bet you a lot of the testing contributed to what we have today. It's all a system of a downs as I would like to call it.

the bold is pretty racist, or at least ignores a fuck ton of activists and people who have created real and lasting change since then. Also, if you ever have to lead off with the phrase "I am not a racist, but" or "some of my best friends are <insert minority group here>" whatever you say has a high likelihood of being racist.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on January 06, 2015, 09:07:54 pm
Quote
this is not a problem if you are white

Bullshit. This is not a problem if you are wealthy. It may or may not be worse for racial minorities, but it is irrelevant either way. The poor treatment of the poor is everyone's problem and as I said before framing it as a racial issue only alienates a big bulk of people who would otherwise support wholeheartedly. Saying "they're just being racist" and calling it a day as you seem to be doing does a tremendous disservice to both sides and does almost as much to scare off support for demilitarizing and otherwise dialing back the police as the police themselves.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 09:10:44 pm
Quote from: Baffler on January 06, 2015, 09:07:54 pm
Quote
this is not a problem if you are white

Bullshit. This is not a problem if you are wealthy. It may or may not be worse for racial minorities, but it is irrelevant either way. The poor treatment of the poor is everyone's problem and as I said before framing it as a racial issue only alienates a big bulk of people who would otherwise support wholeheartedly. Saying "they're just being racist" and calling it a day as you seem to be doing does a tremendous disservice to both sides and does almost as much to scare off support for demilitarizing and otherwise dialing back the police as the police themselves.

this is erasure. Yes, you will get treated badly if you are poor, but the likelihood that a cop will shoot the fuck out of you when you are unarmed and not acting aggressive is significantly less.

Playing the whole "omg gais let's be humanists instead" just marginalizes already marginalized minority groups and allows the most powerful voices in the room to continue speaking over the oppressed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 06, 2015, 09:15:08 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 09:10:44 pm
Playing the whole "omg gais let's be humanists instead" just marginalizes already marginalized minority groups and allows the most powerful voices in the room to continue speaking over the oppressed.
Can you explain that end bit? I understand how it's not improving anything, but why would it make things worse amongst the people who are working for whatever it is they're working for?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: x2yzh9 on January 06, 2015, 09:17:06 pm
People are just going to continue using the white man v. black man as an analogy to good cop v bad cop. If my post came off as racist then I am sincerely sorry but I'm just pointing out some major flaws of the system that you can't erase, you have to reform it from the inside out.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 09:22:50 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on January 06, 2015, 09:15:08 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 09:10:44 pm
Playing the whole "omg gais let's be humanists instead" just marginalizes already marginalized minority groups and allows the most powerful voices in the room to continue speaking over the oppressed.
Can you explain that end bit? I understand how it's not improving anything, but why would it make things worse amongst the people who are working for whatever it is they're working for?

a couple things.

First off, we can fight both for poor white people (we don't have to ignore them) and also focus in on the struggle of black people. None of this is mutually exclusive. I feel like that's the impression some people get. Like we have to focus all our effort on everyone at the exact same time in the exact same way, which frankly, favors people with more power in the kyriarchy.

We can see an example of the problem with the LGBTQIA+ movement. After the Stonewall riots, there were warnings that if they let this, it would become a white middle class movement, and not a movement for everyone. It has become that. The change we've seen is gay marriage (a noble goal) in most states, but things like gay conversion therapy and trans rights remain unchanged. The face of the lgbt community is white. It is middle class. And now you have some members calling for the LGB part (and chances are they don't think to highly of the B) to extract themselves from the trans part, because it's not their issue. Because they want to focus on their rights.

Different people are oppressed in different ways. It's not a hierarchy or an oppression olympics, but we need to focus on those problems specific to each group, and give them equal attention, or only those most benefited by the kyriarchy among the oppressed will see any returns.

We see this with males talking over and silencing females during these police protests, by the call for police to stop murdering black men and boys but the complete lack of recognition of the many women and girls slaughtered by the police force.

Does that makes sense?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 06, 2015, 09:32:00 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 09:22:50 pm
Does that makes sense?
Yeah I guess. It's pretty easy to try and apply "most important thing first" type prioritisation to every problem, even though it really isn't applicable in cases where the 'most important thing' will be something that generations are going to pass over the course of doing it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arcvasti on January 06, 2015, 09:35:30 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 09:22:50 pm
...LGBTQIA+ movement...

Alright, dumb off-topic question: What does the "I" stand for?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 09:36:14 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on January 06, 2015, 09:32:00 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 09:22:50 pm
Does that makes sense?
Yeah I guess. It's pretty easy to try and apply "most important thing first" type prioritisation to every problem, even though it really isn't applicable in cases where the 'most important thing' will be something that generations are going to pass over the course of doing it.

right so you use a multi-pronged approach. You have to tackle it all.

I had a woman argue with me that animal rights could not be fought nor mattered until people were no longer poor. Now, by that argument (whether or not you care about animal rights) we have to ignore women's issues until all men have everything going good, or elevate all white people before we start considering other ethnic groups.

That's silly.

We can try to fight homelessness, which has seen an increase in men to the point where it went from it being women in the vast majority in the 80s to it being majority men. AND then we can, at the same time, fight domestic violence on a different front.

I feel like there's this perception that we have to ignore what the majority consider less important issue or sweep things under the rug that don't benefit everyone, just to get a few things accomplished. That presumes we would at one point have a society that is without problems in any given area, which is never going to happen.

Quote from: Arcvasti on January 06, 2015, 09:35:30 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 09:22:50 pm
...LGBTQIA+ movement...

Alright, dumb off-topic question: What does the "I" stand for?

Intersex. There's also sometimes a U and P in there, some people have suggested using entirely different terms that don't require an ever increasing number of letters for what is more a spectrum than anything else. But getting most people to agree on a specific term and adopt it would not be easy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 06, 2015, 09:36:41 pm
Quote from: Arcvasti on January 06, 2015, 09:35:30 pm
Quote from: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 09:22:50 pm
...LGBTQIA+ movement...

Alright, dumb off-topic question: What does the "I" stand for?
Intersex, most likely.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 06, 2015, 10:05:24 pm
Homelessness used to be a mostly-for-women thing?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smeeprocket on January 06, 2015, 10:08:22 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 06, 2015, 10:05:24 pm
Homelessness used to be a mostly-for-women thing?

during the 80s there were significantly more homeless women than men in the US. That statistic has flipped.

A lot of homeless people are veterans, and/or mentally ill, so you might see some of that echoed in there being more male soldiers and women only recently "officially" getting to see combat. I don't know, tbh.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on January 07, 2015, 10:33:37 am
Quote from: Strife26 on January 06, 2015, 08:34:40 pm
Call me a bad man, but Rhodesia really doesn't seem like it was that bad of a place.
Compared to the rest of sub-Saharan Africa, it really wasn't. There was certainly state-sponsored racism, but there was also food on the table, for God's sake. A black Rhodesian was generally quite a bit better off than a black Zimbabwean is today. They were also anti-Communist and had catchy music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQMrD53Jofc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQMrD53Jofc)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 07, 2015, 10:37:25 am
Quote from: Morrigi on January 07, 2015, 10:33:37 am
Quote from: Strife26 on January 06, 2015, 08:34:40 pm
Call me a bad man, but Rhodesia really doesn't seem like it was that bad of a place.
Compared to the rest of sub-Saharan Africa, it really wasn't. There was certainly state-sponsored racism, but there was also food on the table, for God's sake. A black Rhodesian was generally quite a bit better off than a black Zimbabwean is today. They were also anti-Communist and had catchy music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQMrD53Jofc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQMrD53Jofc)
Don't forget about the shorts man!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on January 07, 2015, 12:28:31 pm
I've never seen uglier beards than those on the men in the second image. And I don't know what's going on in the third, but I'm certain I want no part in it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 07, 2015, 12:30:53 pm
but looks at the shorts
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 07, 2015, 12:48:59 pm
Relevant. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcvjXAtzaMU)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on January 07, 2015, 12:49:53 pm
This is now a derail of a derail.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 07, 2015, 12:50:56 pm
If there are enough derails, it might circle back to the original track.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on January 07, 2015, 12:51:47 pm
Well, it depends on if you're derailing it to the left or to the right. Or up or down, I guess.

You need to derail it in the same direction four times.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 19, 2015, 08:12:36 am
Mmmmh, apparently smeeprocket was banned. Well, fare thee well smeeprocket, you could be an abrasive condescending butthole sometime, but your contribution will be missed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 19, 2015, 08:51:24 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 19, 2015, 08:12:36 am
Mmmmh, apparently smeeprocket was banned.
Wait, when did that happen? What thread?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smjjames on January 19, 2015, 08:55:29 am
Quote from: Helgoland on January 19, 2015, 08:51:24 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 19, 2015, 08:12:36 am
Mmmmh, apparently smeeprocket was banned.
Wait, when did that happen? What thread?

I'm suddenly wondering this too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TheDarkStar on January 19, 2015, 08:56:01 am
Quote from: Helgoland on January 19, 2015, 08:51:24 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 19, 2015, 08:12:36 am
Mmmmh, apparently smeeprocket was banned.
Wait, when did that happen? What thread?

It was the Sad megathread. There was a heated derail.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smjjames on January 19, 2015, 08:59:20 am
How does the sad thread into heated derail?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on January 19, 2015, 09:00:15 am
That's sad. Now I feel alone on the far left.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arx on January 19, 2015, 09:03:41 am
Quote from: TheDarkStar on January 19, 2015, 08:56:01 am
Quote from: Helgoland on January 19, 2015, 08:51:24 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 19, 2015, 08:12:36 am
Mmmmh, apparently smeeprocket was banned.
Wait, when did that happen? What thread?

It was the Sad megathread. There was a heated derail.

Surprisingly unheated, really. I think it was just one too many.

We should move on to something else. Anyone got something?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on January 19, 2015, 09:14:56 am
Quote from: Antsan on January 19, 2015, 09:00:15 am
That's sad. Now I feel alone on the far left.

Three quarter of the peoples here are different shade of moderate to far left. I've been called a "far left extermist" in more occasions than one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smjjames on January 19, 2015, 09:17:33 am
Not even sure where in the spectrum I am though, definetly not the right or far right, some shade of moderate or maybe even a little on the left.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 19, 2015, 09:17:42 am
Quote from: Antsan on January 19, 2015, 09:00:15 am
That's sad. Now I feel alone on the far left.
You could talk to SalmonGod, he's pretty out there. Vector too, I think, but she rarely talks about general politics.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 19, 2015, 09:55:23 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 19, 2015, 11:24:44 am
Quote from: TheDarkStar on January 19, 2015, 08:56:01 am
Quote from: Helgoland on January 19, 2015, 08:51:24 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 19, 2015, 08:12:36 am
Mmmmh, apparently smeeprocket was banned.
Wait, when did that happen? What thread?

It was the Sad megathread. There was a heated derail.

Smee has been tiptoeing so very close to a ban for a while now - not because of what they were saying, but much more the manner in which it was said.

Quote from: Antsan on January 19, 2015, 09:00:15 am
That's sad. Now I feel alone on the far left.

You are kidding right? B12 is full of lefties. I am one of many. Of course, what constitutes being on the "left" varies from place to place. To a 'MURICAN I am probably Lenin's ghost. To anyone in the EU, I am probably a rational left of centre average Joe. To part of the DPK party apparatus I am probably Ayn Rand's lover. *shrug*.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: aenri on January 19, 2015, 11:34:35 am
Oh well, I am pretty far right afaik (socially conservative, economically liberal /european liberal/). I feel alone sometimes :(. At least I have Ukrainian Ranger here (Nikov was also a good guy).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on January 19, 2015, 12:46:22 pm
What have I started?

[Edit] I guess you people are right.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 19, 2015, 01:57:31 pm
Quote from: Antsan on January 19, 2015, 12:46:22 pm
What have I started?

[Edit] I guess you people are right.

Hue hue hue
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 19, 2015, 02:00:58 pm
Hey, the right side of the spectrum is, believe it or not, in the right.

Being one of 'em, I can say that everyone else has left their common sense behind.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on January 19, 2015, 02:12:25 pm
The right has no common sense on abortion. Leave that to choice. If you're talking pure pragmatism, anti-abortion views are insane. If pragmatism =/= common sense please fill me in on what counts as common sense. Are bible beliefs common sense? Then I hope you don't eat shellfish since that's an abomination.

On taxes: it makes no economic sense to cut taxes for the extremely rich, that has been shown in economic modelling to have fuck all positive effect on the economy. Giving that money to the poorest people has in fact been shown to be the single biggest GDP booster of any possible government revenue handout (which includes tax breaks or spending).

So, in purely pragmatic terms, given a government that is constrained to make choices which maximize GDP (total wealth), a progressive taxation system and income support for the poorest is in fact what the studies show grows the economy the most. Countries with less equal wealth distributions have in fact been correlated with lower growth: if most citizens haven't got any spending capacity, how can the economy grow?

So any right-wing "cut taxes for the rich, cut welfare for the poor" policy is based on airy-fairy wishful thinking: it has no empirical basis, and will in fact shrink the economy according to all reliable economic modelling.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 19, 2015, 02:15:29 pm
Aaaaand that's why Social Democrats are the superior political movement.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 19, 2015, 02:15:56 pm
It was puns.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 19, 2015, 06:50:51 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 19, 2015, 09:17:42 am
Quote from: Antsan on January 19, 2015, 09:00:15 am
That's sad. Now I feel alone on the far left.
You could talk to SalmonGod, he's pretty out there. Vector too, I think, but she rarely talks about general politics.

Yarr... Leftist anarchist here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Levi on January 19, 2015, 06:59:53 pm
I think deep down I might be a fascist.  I keep thinking all the worlds problems would be solved if I was supreme dictator of the world.   :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 19, 2015, 07:01:57 pm
We're all fascists deep down, but some are more shallow than others :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 19, 2015, 07:05:03 pm
Obviously having an ultra-intelligent benevolent dictator would be the ideal government system, but is that actually possible?

(not really)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 19, 2015, 07:07:30 pm
I think that a world with a centralised government would be a horrible, rambling bureaucratic nightmare with corrupt people vying for corrupt powers at the very top. No competition, nothing like that, and the U.K. would still probably try to back out of it :P

The United Confederation of the World Minus the United Kingdoms.

Providing, of course, the U.K. isn't the head of this Empire :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on January 19, 2015, 07:21:12 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 19, 2015, 06:50:51 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 19, 2015, 09:17:42 am
Quote from: Antsan on January 19, 2015, 09:00:15 am
That's sad. Now I feel alone on the far left.
You could talk to SalmonGod, he's pretty out there. Vector too, I think, but she rarely talks about general politics.

Yarr... Leftist anarchist here.

Yeah, ya got me too, though I don't say much unless you poke me just right.

Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on January 19, 2015, 02:00:58 pm
Hey, the right side of the spectrum is, believe it or not, in the right.

Being one of 'em, I can say that everyone else has left their common sense behind.

Did you really just say that in the progressive thread?

YOU MAD FOOL.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 19, 2015, 07:43:54 pm
I believe the idea of a judge and jury is a dumb idea.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Levi on January 19, 2015, 08:15:18 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on January 19, 2015, 07:43:54 pm
I believe the idea of a judge and jury is a dumb idea.

Don't worry, when I'm supreme dictator of the world we'll only have trial by combat.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 19, 2015, 08:22:14 pm
"My views are common sense" = "I have no argument or reasoning to support the positions I hold"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on January 19, 2015, 08:47:34 pm
Don't you believe in the power of truthiness, Leafsnail?

Personally I'm trying to move away from the contemporary political dichotomies and view the current intellectual battlefield as a struggle between three modes of political thought: Conservative, Liberal, Socialist, and the mixed scales of each in the triangle, with USA politics being dominated moreso by Liberal thought though pushed in a Conservative direction overall, and even Democrats being mostly liberal with some socialist perspectives that are bland compared to even previous periods in U.S. History.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 19, 2015, 08:56:05 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on January 19, 2015, 08:22:14 pm
"My views are common sense" = "I have no argument or reasoning to support the positions I hold"
If you meant this in response this:
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on January 19, 2015, 02:00:58 pm
Hey, the right side of the spectrum is, believe it or not, in the right.

Being one of 'em, I can say that everyone else has left their common sense behind.

Then I was following the whole left/right pun thing going on.
If your post was unrelated, then carry on :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on January 19, 2015, 09:38:45 pm
so this is the thread where I post uninformed opinions and then get yelled at by other people who either also have uninformed opinions or know so much about the subject they might as well be a policy czar for whatever I posted, yes?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on January 19, 2015, 09:40:38 pm
Yup, you're in the right thread for that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arcvasti on January 19, 2015, 09:41:36 pm
Quote from: ggamer on January 19, 2015, 09:38:45 pm
so this is the thread where I post uninformed opinions and then get yelled at by other people who either also have uninformed opinions or know so much about the subject they might as well be a policy czar for whatever I posted, yes?

We also do snarky comments~! You'll fit right in~!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on January 19, 2015, 09:45:57 pm
Quote from: Arcvasti on January 19, 2015, 09:41:36 pm
Quote from: ggamer on January 19, 2015, 09:38:45 pm
so this is the thread where I post uninformed opinions and then get yelled at by other people who either also have uninformed opinions or know so much about the subject they might as well be a policy czar for whatever I posted, yes?

We also do snarky comments~! You'll fit right in~!

yesssss /me punches the air

I'm an asshole
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on January 19, 2015, 11:51:28 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 19, 2015, 09:17:42 am
Quote from: Antsan on January 19, 2015, 09:00:15 am
That's sad. Now I feel alone on the far left.
You could talk to SalmonGod, he's pretty out there. Vector too, I think, but she rarely talks about general politics.

Honestly, my chief interest is in developing personal ethics. I occasionally pipe in when I think I have something relevant to say or I can see some argument getting out of control, but I'm tired of getting angry on the internet. My general position is that I will diligently develop my empathy and knowledge and then act in line with whatever beliefs result. I don't care for talking points or identities, though I respect that these things can be very important to others--it's just that I see developing my own label as largely irrelevant.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on January 20, 2015, 03:51:47 am
I have no idea where on the spectrum, if anywhere, I am.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on January 20, 2015, 04:41:28 am
you're not

you're darvi
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 20, 2015, 05:16:25 am
Quote from: Helgoland on January 19, 2015, 09:17:42 am
Quote from: Antsan on January 19, 2015, 09:00:15 am
That's sad. Now I feel alone on the far left.
You could talk to SalmonGod, he's pretty out there. Vector too, I think, but she rarely talks about general politics.

I am also happy to provide company to Antsan. I can tell him my plans to nationalise all forms of public transport and raise the minimum wage to £10 an hour.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 20, 2015, 05:23:00 am
Quote from: Owlbread on January 20, 2015, 05:16:25 am
Quote from: Helgoland on January 19, 2015, 09:17:42 am
Quote from: Antsan on January 19, 2015, 09:00:15 am
That's sad. Now I feel alone on the far left.
You could talk to SalmonGod, he's pretty out there. Vector too, I think, but she rarely talks about general politics.

I am also happy to provide company to Antsan. I can tell him my plans to nationalise all forms of public transport and raise the minimum wage to £10 an hour.
But that's just good Social Democratic policy. By that reasoning I'm a commie because I support a citizen's income.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 20, 2015, 05:28:36 am
Social Democracy can be pretty far left. It just means you use the Democratic process to achieve these ends. It's not like being a Social Democrat means you're any closer to the centre.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 20, 2015, 05:30:29 am
Eh, there's plenty of room to the left of the Social Democrats. They're reformists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism), remember?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on January 20, 2015, 05:36:39 am
That's an interesting concept. I'm not saying of course that there's "nothing" to the left of Social Democrats, just that when Social Democracy is put into practice in earnest it often looks so left-wing it's considered Socialist.

Then again, how would we define the various points on the spectrum?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 20, 2015, 05:38:23 am
Easy: anyone to the left of me is a communist, and anyone to my right is a fascist.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 20, 2015, 06:22:10 am
Social democracy is socialism, ie definitely left wing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on January 20, 2015, 06:53:17 am
As I am roughly an individualist/pacifist/transhumanist anarchist in Germany, social democracy seems more centrist than leftist to me.

@scriver: There's a very huge difference between social democracy and socialism. They are about as much the same as the free market and state capitalism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on January 20, 2015, 07:44:36 am
The only reason I'm not a communist is because I dislike control.

The only reason I'm not a libertarian is because I dislike leaving people to go hang.

So I call myself a social democrat.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on January 20, 2015, 07:54:40 am
To me, social democracy is basically strong social elements, and some economic elements of socialism, largely supported by some degree of market economics (for example, through taxation), although more recently it seems basically just less-racist neo-liberalism.

I would consider myself a social democrat, albeit a pretty far left one.

Individualism is the sort of thing I would typically associate with right-wing politics, although to be honost I don't actually see collectivism and individualism as being all that incompatible. Ultimetely many collectivists argue to improve the condition of society overall, which happenes to be made up of individuals (therefore by helping society, your helping individuals), and individualists generally argue that people are better off on their own (which would happen to improve the condition of the society). It only really sounds incompatable when society is made out to be some nefarious sounding vague entity thing of doom, rather than what it is (a bunch of individuals who interact regularly with each other somehow), or something like that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 20, 2015, 11:38:29 am
Quote from: Antsan on January 20, 2015, 06:53:17 am
As I am roughly an individualist/pacifist/transhumanist anarchist in Germany, social democracy seems more centrist than leftist to me.

@scriver: There's a very huge difference between social democracy and socialism. They are about as much the same as the free market and state capitalism.

No, socialism is an umbrella term that social democracy falls under. The term be it's origin as a label for people who wanted to institute socialism through democratic, as opposed to revolutionary or violent, means. The end goal was still socialism.

And don't mistake the position of modern parties with "social democrat" in their names as the actual social democracy. The agenda and philosophy of parties can change without being ackompanied by a change of name. The biggest right wing party in Sweden is called "the Moderates" - they are not. Another party is called "the Center Party" - it's the party furthest to the liberal right. Agendas change, names remain. I can't say where the German social democratic party places itself these days, but social democracy itself remains leftwing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 20, 2015, 11:53:23 am
Quote from: scriver on January 20, 2015, 11:38:29 am
No, socialism is an umbrella term that social democracy falls under.
Oh Goddammit, could we not start arguing definitions again? It's well-known (and has been discussed extensively) that terms like 'liberalism', 'socialism', 'communism' etc are ill-defined and have no universally agreed-upon usage.
The German Social Democrats, the SPD, is a very centrist party by the way. So centrist that Merkel is sometimes half-jokingly called a Social Democrat.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 20, 2015, 12:56:06 pm
Quote from: Vector on January 19, 2015, 11:51:28 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 19, 2015, 09:17:42 am
Quote from: Antsan on January 19, 2015, 09:00:15 am
That's sad. Now I feel alone on the far left.
You could talk to SalmonGod, he's pretty out there. Vector too, I think, but she rarely talks about general politics.

Honestly, my chief interest is in developing personal ethics. I occasionally pipe in when I think I have something relevant to say or I can see some argument getting out of control, but I'm tired of getting angry on the internet. My general position is that I will diligently develop my empathy and knowledge and then act in line with whatever beliefs result. I don't care for talking points or identities, though I respect that these things can be very important to others--it's just that I see developing my own label as largely irrelevant.

I'm sort of the same.  I rarely get upset anymore.  I pipe in when I recognize that something I think is important is missing from a discussion... which happens to be quite often. 

But I've also had a lot of experience with people actually changing or expanding their perspective as a result of my involvement in internet discussions that I see it as one of the most socially productive things I can do.  Despite popular belief, it really does happen.  People change their minds as a result of internet arguments.  It just doesn't happen right away.  People need time to process ideas and absorb their understanding of them into their self-image, and rarely do discussions carry on long enough for this to happen.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on January 20, 2015, 07:23:36 pm
I have my own ideas, which I think would qualify as being pretty far to the left. One of my friends called them "Libertarian Communism" once.

Quote from: SalmonGod on January 20, 2015, 12:56:06 pm
I'm sort of the same.  I rarely get upset anymore.  I pipe in when I recognize that something I think is important is missing from a discussion... which happens to be quite often. 

But I've also had a lot of experience with people actually changing or expanding their perspective as a result of my involvement in internet discussions that I see it as one of the most socially productive things I can do.  Despite popular belief, it really does happen.  People change their minds as a result of internet arguments.  It just doesn't happen right away.  People need time to process ideas and absorb their understanding of them into their self-image, and rarely do discussions carry on long enough for this to happen.

I feel much the same as SalmonGod, in both anger and internet discussions. That's actually why I'm working on my Agora project, I feel it has the potential to do a lot of good.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on January 20, 2015, 08:06:22 pm
Quote from: Angle on January 20, 2015, 07:23:36 pm
"Libertarian Communism"
Quote from: Descan on January 20, 2015, 07:44:36 am
The only reason I'm not a communist is because I dislike control.

The only reason I'm not a libertarian is because I dislike leaving people to go hang.

So I call myself a social democrat.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on January 20, 2015, 08:17:04 pm
Well no, Social Democrat is an existing political bloc. My ideas are for widespread changes to the system that I've never seen anyone even suggest.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 20, 2015, 08:24:08 pm
Libertarian has a different meaning in Europe than in the US.

Libertarian communism is a term used most often in reference to either anarchists or anarchism-sympathizing marxists.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LORD GOAT THE 120524TH on January 20, 2015, 08:42:58 pm
Who wants to talk about fruit?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 20, 2015, 09:18:46 pm
I like apples
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on January 20, 2015, 09:43:19 pm
Who wants to not derail the thread?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 20, 2015, 09:49:28 pm
What, aren't we allowed to talk about the economical viability of Apple?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on January 20, 2015, 10:02:15 pm
Apple seems to be strong in general, but I think that they've been losing momentum recently. They aren't in any immediate danger, but the specter of becoming "just another company" and losing the last of the dominance they had. They need to step it up.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 20, 2015, 10:06:37 pm
Quote from: Vector on January 20, 2015, 09:43:19 pm
Who wants to not derail the thread?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on January 20, 2015, 10:07:36 pm
Quote from: Putnam on January 20, 2015, 10:06:37 pm
Quote from: Vector on January 20, 2015, 09:43:19 pm
Who wants to not derail the thread?
Okay okay. I think people gotta be more careful with their language here. I'm reminded of "All Philosophy is semantics". Don't just throw phrases and terms out without explaining first everyone, otherwise we are arguing past each other.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MDFification on January 20, 2015, 10:15:43 pm
Any of y'all read/studdied Thomas Hobbes? I'm interested to hear what you think about his redefining the motivation of humans (the pursuit of felicity, which can be anything really, rather than pure rational self-interest) and how this affects attempts to plan a society. If people only pursue temporary gratification (we've basically confirmed this through modern neuroscience - your subconsciousness decides, and your consciousness only notices after the neurons have already fired) and their goals are not necessarily rational, there will always be conflicts. That and the pursuit of felicity doesn't have a 'win condition'; there's always something else to pursue no matter what you already have, so there will always be conflicts over resources. So if we can't plan society around eliminating resource scarcity and social differences to eliminate conflict, shouldn't we focus on mitigating conflict through maximizing individual freedoms (which effectively means throwing people out of society or into jail when they display an unwillingness to respect the liberty of other individuals)?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 20, 2015, 10:26:49 pm
Operant conditioning. Make people enjoy acting rationally and pursuit of felicity/rational behavior will be synonymous.

That sounds dangerously like brainwashing, though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MDFification on January 20, 2015, 11:25:17 pm
Quote from: Putnam on January 20, 2015, 10:26:49 pm
Operant conditioning. Make people enjoy acting rationally and pursuit of felicity/rational behavior will be synonymous.

That sounds dangerously like brainwashing, though.

Well, essentially, it is. It's changing the fundamental motivators of a persona. That is pretty hefty brainwashing.

So we're left with a species that by nature is not suited to live in a planned society, but also is not well suited for anarchy. I suppose if anything beyond the current model (requiring a coercive force to ensure individual liberties) was effective, it'd be the norm by now anyway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on January 20, 2015, 11:35:52 pm
Quote from: Putnam on January 20, 2015, 10:26:49 pm
Operant conditioning. Make people enjoy acting rationally and pursuit of felicity/rational behavior will be synonymous.

That sounds dangerously like brainwashing, though.
If it happens long enough through life on a large enough scale it is considered culture. And we all know how much people like to defend that.
A very real problem though is that over a long enough period of time (and different circumstances) culture diverges so it is a long term temporary solution. It would have to be done consistently and repeatedly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on January 21, 2015, 03:43:06 am
You are assuming that humans are unchangeable and are unwilling to change.
If a person is willing to change and is changed that way it isn't brainwashing (or at least not a bad thing, even if it technically may be brainwashing).
When you seize control over more and more of yourself that means you can change the things which make you unable to live in the kind of society you want to eventually live in.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MDFification on January 22, 2015, 08:06:34 pm
Quote from: Antsan on January 21, 2015, 03:43:06 am
You are assuming that humans are unchangeable and are unwilling to change.
If a person is willing to change and is changed that way it isn't brainwashing (or at least not a bad thing, even if it technically may be brainwashing).
When you seize control over more and more of yourself that means you can change the things which make you unable to live in the kind of society you want to eventually live in.

The nature of the human decision making process doesn't change. It's hardcoded into the human brain. We do not have limited wants; driven by the need to prepare for potential future crisis, each of us does not rationally consider what is enough resources without significant social pressure to mitigate individual consumption.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on January 22, 2015, 08:23:37 pm
Well, speaking solely in the language of unchanging human nature, I would argue that if nothing else, the social pressure you are describing, MDF, is a complicated tool with has the capacity for quite a bit of nuance (as can be seen in the differences between existing cultures today), and to the extent that the contours of social pressure can be adjusted, people can be adjusted.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on January 22, 2015, 09:03:30 pm
Quote from: Descan on January 20, 2015, 08:06:22 pm
Quote from: Angle on January 20, 2015, 07:23:36 pm
"Libertarian Communism"
Quote from: Descan on January 20, 2015, 07:44:36 am
The only reason I'm not a communist is because I dislike control.

The only reason I'm not a libertarian is because I dislike leaving people to go hang.

So I call myself a social democrat.

Well, Marx's definition of Communism doesn't involve the state as an entity, it's decentralized. Libertarian Communists stress the "commune" part, which is a local council. In Marx's schema, those were the core governing bodies. Lenin basically abolished/exterminated the communes, which were supposed to be the organizing principle in Marx, hence Soviet "communism" is a bit weird, since it isn't based on communes (local elected councils), which was the entire point of why Marx called it Communism in the first place. Soviet "communism" is therefore like living in a "democracy" where ther are no elections: they can call it that (like the "Democratic" People's Republic of Korea), but it ain't so.

The difference between a Social Democrat and a Libertarian Communist, is that the first one emphasizes a nation state with a welfare net and capitalism, i.e. a top-down system, whereas the second one emphasizes local council elections / local community ownership of production, building into a network of independent units, which is a "bottom up" concept. So in this case, communes are sort of like guilds but with internal elections.

This is a core distinction: top-down social theories vs bottom-up social theories.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 22, 2015, 09:07:53 pm
"The human decision making process doesn't change, except that it does." (when dealing with sufficient external pressure)

... okay?

Human nature is a really shifty thing that likes to do rather odd things when exposed to new external variables. Base decision making heuristic holding steady or not, it's pretty bloody easy to, y'know, make that heuristic spit out entirely different results. So it's only marginally useful as a point of discussion -- our base neurology largely effects only the efficient method of achieving an end, not the possibility of it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on January 22, 2015, 09:53:42 pm
Quote from: Frumple on January 22, 2015, 09:07:53 pm
"The human decision making process doesn't change, except that it does." (when dealing with sufficient external pressure)

... okay?

Human nature is a really shifty thing that likes to do rather odd things when exposed to new external variables. Base decision making heuristic holding steady or not, it's pretty bloody easy to, y'know, make that heuristic spit out entirely different results. So it's only marginally useful as a point of discussion -- our base neurology largely effects only the efficient method of achieving an end, not the possibility of it.
But efficiency becomes very important when we are talking about humans beings as a class, rather then on individual bases. It could totally be possible for people to independently become enlightened or rational or what-have-you (and if that is working for you, by all means), but if telling everyone to copy them leads to the vast sweeping majority of people failing, then it really isn't useful. Everyone is getting exposed to all sorts of new variables every single day right now, but the end result could hardly be termed ideal. We'll hardly stop conflicts if only a few people ever are right for it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on January 23, 2015, 05:44:19 am
Quote from: MDFification on January 22, 2015, 08:06:34 pm
Quote from: Antsan on January 21, 2015, 03:43:06 am
You are assuming that humans are unchangeable and are unwilling to change.
If a person is willing to change and is changed that way it isn't brainwashing (or at least not a bad thing, even if it technically may be brainwashing).
When you seize control over more and more of yourself that means you can change the things which make you unable to live in the kind of society you want to eventually live in.

The nature of the human decision making process doesn't change. It's hardcoded into the human brain. We do not have limited wants; driven by the need to prepare for potential future crisis, each of us does not rationally consider what is enough resources without significant social pressure to mitigate individual consumption.
Evolution is still a thing, even with modern humans.
Also we now have got technology and it seems we get to the point where we can start to apply it to ourselves.

Also also I think that a lot of misanthropes are severely overestimating the scope of their experiences. Everytime I hear people talk about how bad humans are deep down I feel like I live in some kind of localized Utopia, where everyone (safe a few exceptions, maybe one person in 10 or less) has got superior education, is extraordinarily empathetic and generally "better" than what people imply is normal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 23, 2015, 07:35:12 am
I sometimes feel that a lot of people being misanthropic on the internet base a big deal of their opinions on their bad experiences in grade school.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on January 23, 2015, 07:53:43 am
...especially when the said experiences happened last week.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MDFification on January 23, 2015, 10:13:54 am
Quote from: Antsan on January 23, 2015, 05:44:19 am
Quote from: MDFification on January 22, 2015, 08:06:34 pm
Quote from: Antsan on January 21, 2015, 03:43:06 am
You are assuming that humans are unchangeable and are unwilling to change.
If a person is willing to change and is changed that way it isn't brainwashing (or at least not a bad thing, even if it technically may be brainwashing).
When you seize control over more and more of yourself that means you can change the things which make you unable to live in the kind of society you want to eventually live in.

The nature of the human decision making process doesn't change. It's hardcoded into the human brain. We do not have limited wants; driven by the need to prepare for potential future crisis, each of us does not rationally consider what is enough resources without significant social pressure to mitigate individual consumption.
Evolution is still a thing, even with modern humans.
Also we now have got technology and it seems we get to the point where we can start to apply it to ourselves.

Also also I think that a lot of misanthropes are severely overestimating the scope of their experiences. Everytime I hear people talk about how bad humans are deep down I feel like I live in some kind of localized Utopia, where everyone (safe a few exceptions, maybe one person in 10 or less) has got superior education, is extraordinarily empathetic and generally "better" than what people imply is normal.

Hobbes isn't a misanthropist, and neither am I. It's not about condemning human nature, it's about not romanticizing human motivation. There isn't a moral judgement involved in saying that human want is not fundamentally satiable and that humans are not by nature motivated by pure rational self-interest.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on January 23, 2015, 10:38:35 am
What applies to misanthropes applies to everyone else who talks about human nature.

There is no such thing as "human nature" and there is no such thing as "humanity" or "human motivation" either. Those are abstractions, roadblocks for your mind, petty excuses and killer arguments. I've never seen it done that someone talked about "human nature" and then proceeded to do something productive.

I don't see how being insatiable means we cannot proceed to do better than today. Being insatiable is what makes life interesting. I'm not even talking about that whole slew about how we need pain and strife in our life to feel positive emotions (which I don't believe) but I just know that every bit of fun I had in my life was due to some kind of change. When we learn to cause the right kinds of changes around and in us, being insatiable is a good thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 23, 2015, 10:48:33 am
There's a morality to bringing up a judgment that's both largely wrong -- hobbes was straight up full of shit on the nasty, brutish, and short -- and only partially relevant to the current era, though. We haven't been dealing with the natural results of our fundamental nature since before we as a species sharped a freaking stick, and our natural motivations are so far by the wayside at this point they're a functional non-issue, except maybe to point at and mock.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MDFification on January 23, 2015, 11:27:37 am
Quote from: Antsan on January 23, 2015, 10:38:35 am
What applies to misanthropes applies to everyone else who talks about human nature.

There is no such thing as "human nature" and there is no such thing as "humanity" or "human motivation" either. Those are abstractions, roadblocks for your mind, petty excuses and killer arguments. I've never seen it done that someone talked about "human nature" and then proceeded to do something productive.

I don't see how being insatiable means we cannot proceed to do better than today. Being insatiable is what makes life interesting. I'm not even talking about that whole slew about how we need pain and strife in our life to feel positive emotions (which I don't believe) but I just know that every bit of fun I had in my life was due to some kind of change. When we learn to cause the right kinds of changes around and in us, being insatiable is a good thing.

Humans do have a set range of motivations instilled in them by biology. To say that they don't is unscientific. Due to the extreme complexity of the human brain, these motivations can be transcribed into a massive variety of desires, but to claim that the central mechanism of human motivation (to pursue felicity and to avoid pain/fear) does not exist is a case of 'post-modern' thinking without a basis in empirical evidence; really, its just saying 'we can't understand' as a way to avoid having to come to a different conclusion.
The thing about insatiability is that because wants are infinite, it is not possible to create a society where wants do not conflict. What I'm trying to get at here is, how do we decide which wants should be fulfilled, and which shouldn't?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on January 23, 2015, 12:00:12 pm
You are misunderstanding what I am saying.
I am not saying "we cannot understand", I am saying "we don't understand currently and people come to premature conclusions all the time". If you relly were using the term "human motivation" in the way you claim to do, you wouldn't be able to come to the conclusion that there always will be conflicts over resources.

Quote
The thing about insatiability is that because wants are infinite, it is not possible to create a society where wants do not conflict.
Wants are probably not infinite in resource hunger. The capacity of the human nervous system is finite. There is only so much you can experience at any point in time. If that capacit is taken up, adding anything more wouldn't change the subjective perception anymore.

Quote
What I'm trying to get at here is, how do we decide which wants should be fulfilled, and which shouldn't?
First those which ensure continued existence. After that it probably gets complex, but I guess "ordered by efficiency" might be a starting point.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on January 23, 2015, 01:42:29 pm
Quote from: Antsan on January 23, 2015, 12:00:12 pm
Quote
What I'm trying to get at here is, how do we decide which wants should be fulfilled, and which shouldn't?
First those which ensure continued existence. After that it probably gets complex, but I guess "ordered by efficiency" might be a starting point.
Question: ordered by efficiency for whom?
Spoiler: US slavery Example to provoke thought (click to show/hide)

We need to be able to all come to a consensus on where exactly this group interest ends. Do we stick to humans or go through anything that can be considered a person? Is sapience important and what level of ability to communicate with us establishes sapience?
This is important as it establishes exactly whose continued existence we are mandating for. Similarly some people define themselves through groups or concepts/cultures and would be "unable" to live without them. How should we choose which concepts to promote and which to discard?
Spoiler: My own thoughts on this (click to show/hide)
Way too long to type. Might have even been a topic change but it seems on target to me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 05, 2015, 02:03:00 pm
Wonder what people's thoughts on this are? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xe6nLVXEC0)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on February 05, 2015, 02:15:22 pm
I think it's pretty dumb really. "They didn't teach me everything in the world that I will ever need to know. Yet I'm going to complain about what they did teach me." It's kinda a straw man, because no matter what they teach you, you will alway be able to produce one of those videos complaining about it. It's just not possible to cover successfully all the stuff he asks for before you hit 18. And much of that is knowledge that changes all the time.

Like he complains about not being taught all about every political issue he's voting on. If a school did that, it'd be all you ever learned. And he wants how to raise a kid, how the tax system works, explaining all the injustices in the world, being "fluent" in multiple languages, how he should budget his shopping etc etc etc. all at the same time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on February 05, 2015, 02:17:39 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on February 05, 2015, 02:03:00 pm
Wonder what people's thoughts on this are? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xe6nLVXEC0)
Shitty rap, worse points. How he expects people to get a decent job when you don't even have a diploma-equivalent to show basic language and math skills is beyond me. And maybe the schools where this guy lives are just extra-terrible, but I did learn the basics of economics, how the government works, laws, taxes, etc in school. Did he simply not pay attention?

True, a lot of what school teaches is fluff. But I think such fluff is important, because a student might find him or herself REALLY interested in cellular biology or history or any number of other subjects and devote his/her life to those subjects.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on February 05, 2015, 02:19:48 pm
Without the education he had, would he be in a position to even ask those questions? Education teaches you how to ask the questions. School can't provide all the answers, since nobody has them.

He's going to do great with his taxes and budgeting without maths too. Also he wants to understand current affairs but skip the "irrelevant" old stuff. Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on February 05, 2015, 02:25:32 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on February 05, 2015, 02:03:00 pm
Wonder what people's thoughts on this are? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xe6nLVXEC0)
"I wish schools would teach rote memorisation of lists rather than helping give an insight into more complex subjects"

m8 I don't think the education system has changed so much in a decade that he wouldn't have learned any of that had he paid some fucking attention.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on February 05, 2015, 02:29:14 pm
Obviously the answer to the "efficient for whom" question is one we need to answer by making a giant computer that rates happiness, healthiness, and productivity over time for every single person on the earth, and combines that data with the resources available and delivered to each person. From that data you should then be able to at least approximate rough estimates of who could get the most out of any given unit of a resource (up to and including degradation from things like the reduction in a person's efficiency from things like say, starvation). It would be an incredibly complex system model, and would require constant monitoring and whatnot to work, but it's still possible. (Assuming we threw out other discussions like privacy and whatnot). As a gestalt entity created by the human race, that is short of any needs except electricity and data (the first of which is a limited "need" and the second of which just limits the accuracy of your calculations), it should work rather well as a passive observer that can weigh costs and benefits on a global scale for each individual person.

It's not that we can't create an efficient society (even at current levels of technology) it's just that trying to do so would stomp over all sorts of "human rights", and would require working together on a global scale, which it's very unlikely that we accomplish anytime soon.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 05, 2015, 02:31:56 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on February 05, 2015, 02:03:00 pm
Wonder what people's thoughts on this are? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xe6nLVXEC0)
I don't like it. While I can understand his complaints I think he is going at it from the wrong direction. For someone sporting red/black hair he seems awfully fine with even needing special knowledge on "how to get a job".

Quote from: Graknorke on February 05, 2015, 02:25:32 pm
"I wish schools would teach rote memorisation of lists rather than helping give an insight into more complex subjects"
Yeah, that is kinda what I got out of this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on February 05, 2015, 02:33:08 pm
Quote
Obviously the answer to the "efficient for whom" question is one we need to answer by making a giant computer that rates happiness, healthiness, and productivity over time for every single person on the earth, and combines that data with the resources available and delivered to each person. From that data you should then be able to at least approximate rough estimates of who could get the most out of any given unit of a resource

That's utilitarianism, and for the pure version there's a strong rebuttal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster

Imagine a hypothetical alien monster, who gets more value (utility) out of any resource than any human every could. By the logical of pure utilitarianism, maximizing gain to everyone, we should give all the resources to the monster.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on February 05, 2015, 02:47:23 pm
I know I said I was going to leave. I got angry. I'm making an exception.

I feel sorry for the financially and culturally disadvantaged kids under the proposed system change who would never have the chance to be introduced to diverse academic topics and even have a shot at research or well-paid jobs, most of which require the basic numeracy practiced in the "theoretical math" he's displeased with. The rich will keep tutoring their kids and gliding into Harvard. The poorer will be less screwed over by the system, perhaps, but lose access to their culture. I am working as a math tutor teaching 13-year-olds and college students basic arithmetic thanks to the point of view that all that math stuff is a waste of time out in the real world, so the kid can just have a calculator whenever they want one. Now they're finding out that when they need a basic number sense to do things out in the world, they're totally screwed and have to, I repeat, learn basic adding skills as a teenager or adult when it is much, MUCH harder. These are the rich kids from areas like Berkeley and Los Angeles who can afford private schools. There is a SERIOUS problem.

What we need to understand is that the elementary math education in the school is not actually about "mental math" per se. It is about gaining a sense of, and fluency with, numbers in general, which is evidenced by the ability to do quick mental arithmetic. This is a valuable skill. No, you do not actually need to be able to read to be a successful adult. It helps, though. Understanding how your number system works and getting a good grasp of basic algebra is also extremely helpful.


Frankly, this point of view makes me furious. If you want to argue that we should teach the things he mentioned in addition to everything deemed pointless, then I agree. People should have basic life skills. Around here, there is a one-semester required course that covers the basics of all of the topics he wanted, without needing to scrimp on basic math, science, and culture. Health is taught as part of the physical education curriculum. We learn about the legal system in history class. I learned how to file a tax return as a fifth grader in math class. I learned to balance a budget in sixth grade as, again, part of math class. We learned about how to compound interest in... AGAIN, math class, for precalculus. Physics? Math class! The game theoretic ideas you use to run a business? It was math class. Engineering and design projects... one more time, math class. Complaining about mathematics being taught poorly is one thing, but saying "Okay, I haven't found a use for it, so we ought to get rid of it" is totally asinine and betrays a disturbing lack of thought on the matter.

There are natural positions for all of the knowledge he wishes he had, where they can add, rather than detract, from the learning as a useful application. Advocating the removal of theory in exclusive favor of application is idiotic.

Otherwise? It's an offensive continuation of the concept that offering children beauty and interesting things to think about (and tools to think about them) is categorically unnecessary. The bright and sensitive will continue to be fucked over and educated chiefly in the notion that their needs don't exist. It's important to realize that folks who really don't need or want the abstract knowledge exist as well, who can be better educated by making parts of the curriculum more concrete, but all I'm seeing here is a staggering lack of sensitivity or thought on his part.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on February 05, 2015, 02:51:24 pm
Quote from: Reelya on February 05, 2015, 02:33:08 pm
Quote
Obviously the answer to the "efficient for whom" question is one we need to answer by making a giant computer that rates happiness, healthiness, and productivity over time for every single person on the earth, and combines that data with the resources available and delivered to each person. From that data you should then be able to at least approximate rough estimates of who could get the most out of any given unit of a resource

That's utilitarianism, and for the pure version there's a strong rebuttal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster)

Imagine a hypothetical alien monster, who gets more value (utility) out of any resource than any human every could. By the logical of pure utilitarianism, maximizing gain to everyone, we should give all the resources to the monster.
Spoiler: RELEVANT (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 05, 2015, 03:23:43 pm
Quote from: Reelya on February 05, 2015, 02:33:08 pm
Quote
Obviously the answer to the "efficient for whom" question is one we need to answer by making a giant computer that rates happiness, healthiness, and productivity over time for every single person on the earth, and combines that data with the resources available and delivered to each person. From that data you should then be able to at least approximate rough estimates of who could get the most out of any given unit of a resource

That's utilitarianism, and for the pure version there's a strong rebuttal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster

Imagine a hypothetical alien monster, who gets more value (utility) out of any resource than any human every could. By the logical of pure utilitarianism, maximizing gain to everyone, we should give all the resources to the monster.
Normalizing against the maximum possible utility for any individual might be a solution for that problem. (Not that I propose to actually do something like that)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on February 05, 2015, 03:44:18 pm
Warning: bit of a big reply here, sorry. :P

Quote from: Reelya on February 05, 2015, 02:33:08 pm
Imagine a hypothetical alien monster, who gets more value (utility) out of any resource than any human every could. By the logical of pure utilitarianism, maximizing gain to everyone, we should give all the resources to the monster.
I've already read that actually, and I don't see any problems. In order for our hypothetical utility monster to cause any significant changes on a large scale they would need to be more productive and more happy then a significant chunk of the human race. Once you factor in the fact that additional things that you already have tend to generate less happiness and the sheer difference in numbers required a utility monster can't exist on any meaningful scale. No matter how happy and productive a person is, they can't outweigh the entire human race. There are only so many hours in the day after all, and even if we look at things like amplifying the power of the human brain, etc. you still run into the simple difference in scale. Eventually you are going to hit a cap on the amount of productivity that a single person, even an amplified one, could create, at which point future resources would go towards a second amplified person, then a third, and so on.

Even if we assume that utility monsters could exist on larger scales, we run into three simple facts:
1) Part of being productive is being productive in the future, which means short of cloning you need at least a certain population size.
2) "Future productivity" requires safety or redundancy, to insure that it would suffer minimal losses in the event of an accident. This would also need to factor in genetic diversity into it's calculations, and would further limit population cuts.
3) "Future productivity" also requires the ability to adapt to future changes, and in general having multiple things is more flexible then having only one.
Once you factor those in, you can see that even with large-scale utility monsters we still couldn't kill more then a significant portion of the population, and the remaining 10% would be more productive then the entirety of human before.

Once again it's not a matter of "we can't do that", but rather the simple fact that people are averse to human death kicking in. As a similar example, lets say I have a bunch of land to farm. My goal is to maximize the amount of food that I can get out of that particular bunch of land. A single large collective will be more efficient, allowing for better land usage (since I don't have wasted space between plots), less wasted machinery (since one plow can be used for the whole thing, instead of each farmer needing their own plow since they don't share), more efficient water piping, and so on. The fact that we now only have one farm instead of dozens is irrelevant, since the amount of food is increased in both the short and long terms. (Of course if we wanted to fully carry the metaphor further we would want a small handful of farms, since the loss of efficiency at that point would be worth the increased protection from things like one particular company going bankrupt).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 05, 2015, 04:20:56 pm
Quote from: Vector on February 05, 2015, 02:47:23 pm
-SNIP-
*slow clap*
*clapping accelerates*
*frenetic clapping*
*standing ovation*
*for, like, fifteen minutes*
*also, I'm Shia LaBeauf*

Seriously, Vec hit the nail on the head. School is not primarily about gaining practical skills; it's about gaining the tools required to understand the world.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 05, 2015, 05:00:41 pm
Quote from: Vector on February 05, 2015, 02:47:23 pm
I know I said I was going to leave. I got angry. I'm making an exception.

I feel sorry for the financially and culturally disadvantaged kids under the proposed system change who would never have the chance to be introduced to diverse academic topics and even have a shot at research or well-paid jobs, most of which require the basic numeracy practiced in the "theoretical math" he's displeased with. The rich will keep tutoring their kids and gliding into Harvard. The poorer will be less screwed over by the system, perhaps, but lose access to their culture. I am working as a math tutor teaching 13-year-olds and college students basic arithmetic thanks to the point of view that all that math stuff is a waste of time out in the real world, so the kid can just have a calculator whenever they want one. Now they're finding out that when they need a basic number sense to do things out in the world, they're totally screwed and have to, I repeat, learn basic adding skills as a teenager or adult when it is much, MUCH harder. These are the rich kids from areas like Berkeley and Los Angeles who can afford private schools. There is a SERIOUS problem.

What we need to understand is that the elementary math education in the school is not actually about "mental math" per se. It is about gaining a sense of, and fluency with, numbers in general, which is evidenced by the ability to do quick mental arithmetic. This is a valuable skill. No, you do not actually need to be able to read to be a successful adult. It helps, though. Understanding how your number system works and getting a good grasp of basic algebra is also extremely helpful.


Frankly, this point of view makes me furious. If you want to argue that we should teach the things he mentioned in addition to everything deemed pointless, then I agree. People should have basic life skills. Around here, there is a one-semester required course that covers the basics of all of the topics he wanted, without needing to scrimp on basic math, science, and culture. Health is taught as part of the physical education curriculum. We learn about the legal system in history class. I learned how to file a tax return as a fifth grader in math class. I learned to balance a budget in sixth grade as, again, part of math class. We learned about how to compound interest in... AGAIN, math class, for precalculus. Physics? Math class! The game theoretic ideas you use to run a business? It was math class. Engineering and design projects... one more time, math class. Complaining about mathematics being taught poorly is one thing, but saying "Okay, I haven't found a use for it, so we ought to get rid of it" is totally asinine and betrays a disturbing lack of thought on the matter.

There are natural positions for all of the knowledge he wishes he had, where they can add, rather than detract, from the learning as a useful application. Advocating the removal of theory in exclusive favor of application is idiotic.

Otherwise? It's an offensive continuation of the concept that offering children beauty and interesting things to think about (and tools to think about them) is categorically unnecessary. The bright and sensitive will continue to be fucked over and educated chiefly in the notion that their needs don't exist. It's important to realize that folks who really don't need or want the abstract knowledge exist as well, who can be better educated by making parts of the curriculum more concrete, but all I'm seeing here is a staggering lack of sensitivity or thought on his part.
This. So fucking much, this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 05, 2015, 06:51:31 pm
Interesting.  I had mixed feelings about it.

Vector hit half my feelings about it on the head.

But on the other half, the schools I went to taught zero basic life skills, and it doesn't really make sense to me that they aren't given some priority.  This is one of the reasons I wondered why I wanted to know what others thoughts would be, without giving up any of my own, because it seems this experience is highly dependent on the area.

My math classes didn't work in practical applications as described at all.  My government and economic classes taught us the basics of how those things work in theory, but didn't do anything to tie that it in with reality.  I hit adulthood a goddamn ace at passing tests and writing papers, but feeling pretty damn stunted regarding basic life skills.  I still do somewhat.  And it does frustrate me.  I felt like an idiot when I moved into a job that was less glorified data entry center and more genuine business environment, and was stumped by basic terms like "invoice" and "tender".  And I've known plenty of other people who feel exactly the same way. 

And I totally agree with the guy regarding stuff like first aid and understanding common preventable health conditions.  There was none of that in my schools, either.  Stuff that is both objective and incredibly likely to be useful to a majority of people SHOULD be addressed in school, in my opinion.

And I have to contradict this point a bit...

Quote from: Bauglir on February 05, 2015, 05:00:41 pm
Otherwise? It's an offensive continuation of the concept that offering children beauty and interesting things to think about (and tools to think about them) is categorically unnecessary.

I agree... except the presentation of ideas in school from my experience had nothing to do with beauty and interesting things to think about.  It was "know this so you can pass this test".

In conclusion, I guess this only caught my attention based on personal experience that plenty of people do not share.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on February 05, 2015, 08:16:34 pm
Ah, I should clarify: Mine said basically zilch about beauty or enjoyment in the presentation either, but I made damn sure that I found some because, well, I needed it. I don't think I could have done that in an environment that was basically All The Boring Things About Adult Life When You Are Too Itty-Bitty To Care Or Even Vaguely Comprehend. Hell... when I was in sixth grade and "making an adult budget," I decided I was going to grow up and be a baker...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on February 05, 2015, 08:34:50 pm
... yeah, I mean. You can teach resource allocation and conservation at that age, but you have to be sneaky about it. Making an adult budget isn't the way to do it -- stuff like Oregon Trail was/is. You can trick kids at a pretty young age into being relatively canny about using what's available to 'em, you just have to do it right and then handle getting them to the point of applying the concepts and methodologies (unintentionally) learned to other subjects.

Hell, baker would be a good thing to work with. Kid wants to cook, teach 'em to cook, and surreptitiously lean on the resource management aspect in the process. Stuff like that's good mojo, segues nicely into more mundane stuff. Wanna' teach mathy-stuff, can do that too. Someone has to have made tessellated cake at some point.

... in retrospect, I probably would have been considerably more likely to rekindle my interest in math if it had been edible.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 05, 2015, 08:41:45 pm
Yeah, elementary school kids definitely shouldn't be bothered with that.  But people start realizing reality's about to slap them in the face somewhere in high school.  I was seeing lots of other students losing interest because they didn't understand the relevance what they were being taught, teachers wouldn't put any effort into trying to provide any, and they felt like they weren't being provided anything that was preparing them for adulthood.  The couple times I saw students ask teachers about this directly, all they got was scolded for being disruptive.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on February 05, 2015, 09:03:42 pm
About this dude's little video:

My shitty high school thought I was literally retarded and I'd never pass algebra I. I got something out of it by taking every math class they offered, and blowing them away. This dude is trying for and getting attention for curriculum reform, judging by views on that thing.

He's forgetting the other end to his implied equation:

"If you can't explain why a subject is applicable to most people's lives, that subject should not be mandatory."

So explain why it's applicable, and teach applicable things while also teaching things that may be conditionally applicable.

Some of the shit he said is right out:

1.) Dissecting the Frog, dude, that's biology, that's your owner's manual, and short of dissecting a person.... That's it. Throw in a seminar on infectious diseases and explain some stuff.

2.) What Medicines to take: NO. We need better health care from qualified doctors not every moron running around acting as if they're a doctor. We need more affordable medical schools and that means society forking over the money for the doctors, not to say "take this for a cold or headache." Yes, again, basic stuff, but nothing like this. Same idea

3.) The Law. Hahahahhahahahahahahhahahaha. Excuse me one moment. HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. NO! Flat out fucking not a chance in hell would this not be screwed up. Same deal as with the second point above. I have too many "sidewalk attorneys" who are unlicensed and completely fucking stupid running around and hurting people. Even when they aren't spouting utter nonsense like the old gold tassels on a flag puts you under admiralty law bullshit, they're spouting reasonable sounding but dangerous as hell BAD advice that has gotten people in jail. We need a better legal profession just like we need a better medical profession and society needs to fund both, for everybody, instead of just the rich.

Same deal with those morons over at Legalzoom. I love those fuckers because I literally double the bill payable upfront to fix the mistakes people make using that shit. If you're dumb enough to think you can do it yourself, I'm happy to charge a shitload. I mean an ounce of prevention is a pound of cure, so I actually have to undo the mistake (if possible) and THEN do what should've been done the first time.

Now, you could have a local lawyer agree to hold a seminar, THAT might work. Otherwise, good luck, because this subject absolutely has been and will be botched. Then somebody is going to try to game the system based upon that misinformation and they're screwed. Same deal with the doctor I suppose.

4.) Math not being needed. So what if you have a calculator in your pocket always. Allow me to show you the most relevant law in the universe, "shit happens." You will come into areas that will not have your phone or other calculation machines. I have tried to order fast food when the power was out and that little automatic change machine didn't work.... They had no idea what to do. I tried to explain. They looked at me like I was nuts.

Some of the stuff he said has some merit but needs tweaking:

A,) History, a la Henry the 8th. See, the problem there is that guy wasn't taught why this was SO incredibly important. It teaches about abuse of power, which is incredibly relevant today.... It teaches that worshiping people in power and putting them on pedastools is dangerous as hell, because these people will fuck over their own family (in Henry VIII's case kill them), for stupid shit. Also relevant, because we enshrine "job creators" today and all the other rich people with more money and deprivation than brains. The lesson of Henry VIII is one of power and wealth gone mad.... How ever so relevant today..... After all, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

That said, bad history lesson is worse than no history lesson at all. I'm looking at you History Channel....[glare]

B.) The political process, true but touchy. People don't like "indoctrination" which is admittedly a risk one way or the other with this. That said, there's a void left here, because how else do you learn about it.

That said, most civics classes I've seen, heard about, etc, have been atrocious. They have no idea what anything does except the absolute bare bones theoretical basis of government. They don't mention administrative policy making and HOW HUGE that is with agencies. You care about the environment? There's an EPA for that and they consider policy changes and YOU, yes YOU, can actually make a difference because they actually are required by law to take public comment on things. That's right, and they advertise this and everything but you don't know about it. Same thing goes with most admin agencies. Dept of labor, education, etc.

Nobody knows shit about admin agencies and yet they could have a voice in policy making that effectively has the force of law. This all falls under that "executive branch" which is explained in civics class as "they enforce the laws." No. :) Not that simple, at all.

Some of the stuff he says is dead right:

A.) Taxes and basic finance. Yup. Show the kids the 3 levels. Many high school students don't know crap about this; it's sad. They have no idea what a county auditor is or what a county recorder or commissioner does. They can barely fill out a tax return and much less do it right. Same idea for balancing a checkbook. Would anybody be against this? Same goes with mortgages etc.

B.) Being taught how to get a job. Yes, very yes. More importantly how to become a person people "should" want to hire. O yes, very yes.

______________________________________________

That said, generally society doesn't teach a lot of things needed to survive today. That includes teaching Shakespeare, not as art, but as lessons. Othello doesn't matter today because of the war between Venice and the Ottomans, but it should teach the dangers of suspicion and distrust and manipulation. The same goes for all of those works because there's a story behind them that has made them timeless.

They also need to teach economy in writing and meaning more while saying less. They need to teach logic etc.

The problem: it's a huge issue; there's no money to deal with it; people don't REALLY care; and finally, its hard just teaching one kid, much less a classroom any of the stuff I teach.

Education is screwy in the US. if it were simple to fix, then we would've. Hell, colleges usually do a piss poor job these days.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on February 05, 2015, 09:41:16 pm
He sounds like a typical university moron who was spoonfed everything he ever wanted by his parents, then went off on his own without knowing what curiosity meant or that google was a thing that existed. Who then finishes university and complains about how he didn't learn anything while having a facebook background portraying him at a frat party. Real world help-vampires is what they are.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on February 05, 2015, 09:54:10 pm
Quote from: alway on February 05, 2015, 09:41:16 pm
Real world help-vampires

That's a keeper.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 05, 2015, 11:06:29 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on February 05, 2015, 06:51:31 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on February 05, 2015, 05:00:41 pm
Otherwise? It's an offensive continuation of the concept that offering children beauty and interesting things to think about (and tools to think about them) is categorically unnecessary.
Y'messed up yer quotes there, friend.

But, to elaborate on what I think, I guess - he's correctly identified a major problem, but his solution goes in exactly the opposite direction of what would actually help. Looking at school as the place you learn facts about how to live your life, and so every lesson needs to be justified by how applicable it will be to the average life, is (at least the way I see it) a matter of trundling ever further along the path of the soulless, bubble-sheet non-education. There's two reasons for this - we live in a world with the Internet, and the eternal problem with "today's" youth (whenever it happens to be) is that their motivations aren't those of the purely rational information accumulators education policy expects them to be.

I mean, look. You don't want to say to a student who asks, "When am I going to actually use the idea of natural selection in the real world?" with "Well, if you're ever doing an experiment with bacterial growth..." And if that same student asks, "When am I going to actually use Romeo and Juliet in the real world?", I hope your first impulse isn't to try and find a plausible real-world scenario where you can solve a problem with knowledge of the plot. Practical problem solving is great, but it can't be the sole motivational goal of public education - a ton of it is cultural exposure to things you're expected to know as a functional human being, a lot is exposure to the basics of a bunch of different areas so you can get some idea of what excites you, and there's a whole lot more to boot that's just there to train you to think in certain ways that are useful in a variety of situations but that don't involve any of the specific skills the class taught you. Lots of classes check more than one box, honestly.

If we're restructuring the educational system, don't eviscerate it for the sake of an obscene ideal. Now, a lot of the things he's talking about are things that we don't fucking know as a species, a lot are others that our best guesses at require years of dedicated study to get a decent handle on, so actually teaching them in public education is not going to be on the table. Sorry, that's just the world we live in. So teach kids how to use libraries. And Google. Jesus, teach them how to use Google. And other basic computer or Internet skills, like basic skepticism. Don't just pile on ever-more expectations for kids to make room for this - make deep cuts into the math and science (and English and art and foreign language...) courses that are mandatory, but dramatically expand their elective choices after grade school so that all these things are still available, make their first year of middle school a series of Survey Of classes that jump around between subjects every couple of weeks to provide the barest taste (to inform their elective choices), and for the love of every fucking God, do not establish predefined course tracks that need to be completed for any to count. If you want to take Spanish one year and switch on over to German, go right the fuck ahead. Let them experiment - because in order to get them motivated, which is what you absolutely need, they need to be able to make choices without being arbitrarily punished.

Now, Bauglir, you might be asking - wouldn't this result in inconsistent class sizes and enormous course catalogue bloating? Yes. Yes, it would. It will be expensive. Effective education is probably also the best possible investment we can make as a nation, so y'know. Won't somebody think of the children, and all that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on February 05, 2015, 11:09:26 pm
I'll agree that our education system needs some serious reform, but I have no idea how to go about it just yet. It's worth discussing, though. In particular, it sounds like you went to a pretty good school, Vector. Most of the stuff I learned about practical applications for math, I learned outside of school.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on February 05, 2015, 11:38:47 pm
Quote from: Angle on February 05, 2015, 11:09:26 pm
I'll agree that our education system needs some serious reform, but I have no idea how to go about it just yet. It's worth discussing, though. In particular, it sounds like you went to a pretty good school, Vector. Most of the stuff I learned about practical applications for math, I learned outside of school.

My school pretty screwed up in this regard. We had a class called financial algebra, a friend of mine was placed there, and his homework was things along the lines of filling out a 1040-EZ, calculating compound interest, tax brackets, and figuring mortgages and installment payments. This sounds like a good idea on the surface, but it was essentially an alternative to pre-calculus for kids who passed algebra II but did so with a D or C- or something. It was seen, then, as a remedial class, so only the kids forced into it ever took it. That was the only personal finance type course in the catalog, except for an elective course that was offered only one semester (because nobody took it) that mostly dealt with comparison shopping and another that focused on job interview skills.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on February 05, 2015, 11:39:34 pm
As a person with two teachers as parents I have a fair bit to say about education reform, but I'll try to hold myself back. :P I do have a few good starting points I'll bring up here though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on February 05, 2015, 11:54:07 pm
Quote from: i2amroy on February 05, 2015, 11:39:34 pm
  • Separate the "smart" (which isn't the best word for them, I know) kids from the high achievers and the other parts. One of the biggest complaints of the whole "no child left behind" is that it essentially forces teachers to teach to the bottom of the classroom, and as a result there are tons of more intelligent kids that are failing, dropping out, etc. simply because they are forced to sit through basic things over and over again. Note that I separated "smart" from high achievers. The difference is that between the kids who get A's because they work their butts off to get them and the kids who walk in and ace exams despite not having ever studied a moment outside of class. High achievers can be given more to do and they'll often do it, though they may struggle. "Smart" kids need to be given more advanced things to do, because elsewise they degenerate the same way any other
THIS. This is, like, my entire life. I missed so much school and caused so much goddamn trouble.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 06, 2015, 12:53:28 am
I have gotta second everything i2amroy just said. Perhaps with the caveat that I want the separation thing to happen by self-selection by the students more than by way of assessments or teacher decisions, but that's an implementation detail more than an objection to anything you actually said - not everybody's equipped to accomplish the same things in school, and they shouldn't be expected to, is the point I'm getting from you and agreeing with. And that works both ways. Setting up the people who need challenges to have none at all is as catastrophic as setting people up against challenges they can't do (see Vector's experience, above).

EDIT: They actually did something like that in my school system, and I was a pretty high achiever right up until high school when I stopped caring about things because I assumed I could just handle whatever. I mean, what I'm saying is, I can say from experience that it has significant and positive effects (and high school, perhaps not coincidentally, is when the whole program more or less collapsed).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on February 06, 2015, 04:03:48 am
Quote from: Vector on February 05, 2015, 11:54:07 pm
Quote from: i2amroy on February 05, 2015, 11:39:34 pm
  • Separate the "smart" (which isn't the best word for them, I know) kids from the high achievers and the other parts. One of the biggest complaints of the whole "no child left behind" is that it essentially forces teachers to teach to the bottom of the classroom, and as a result there are tons of more intelligent kids that are failing, dropping out, etc. simply because they are forced to sit through basic things over and over again. Note that I separated "smart" from high achievers. The difference is that between the kids who get A's because they work their butts off to get them and the kids who walk in and ace exams despite not having ever studied a moment outside of class. High achievers can be given more to do and they'll often do it, though they may struggle. "Smart" kids need to be given more advanced things to do, because elsewise they degenerate the same way any other
THIS. This is, like, my entire life. I missed so much school and caused so much goddamn trouble.

Also THIS. I felt like I learnt literally nothing except maybe a bit of new math up until Year TEN! And it wasn't until LAST GODDAMN YEAR that I REALLY started seeing things that were new. (A single year before my last year of high school, which is this year.)
If I had been accelerated or even given slightly more advanced work during Year 7, 8, 9 I would have been so much more. But I wasn't, so I'm not. It's a shame, really, and looking back I should have fought harder or even just learned new things in my own time. I got accelerated during Grade 6 and the knowledge I gained then I've used constantly to this very day.

I actually feel like I had a very important developmental period stolen from me, in a way. I'm confident I could have been at the level I'm at now by Year 9 if they had just taught me things that I didn't already know.
Seriously, I can't emphasize that point enough.

Anyway, I know this is the 'calm' thread, but that little rant felt relevant. [/list]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 06, 2015, 07:08:18 am
Quote from: Vector on February 05, 2015, 11:54:07 pm
Quote from: i2amroy on February 05, 2015, 11:39:34 pm
  • Separate the "smart" (which isn't the best word for them, I know) kids from the high achievers and the other parts. One of the biggest complaints of the whole "no child left behind" is that it essentially forces teachers to teach to the bottom of the classroom, and as a result there are tons of more intelligent kids that are failing, dropping out, etc. simply because they are forced to sit through basic things over and over again. Note that I separated "smart" from high achievers. The difference is that between the kids who get A's because they work their butts off to get them and the kids who walk in and ace exams despite not having ever studied a moment outside of class. High achievers can be given more to do and they'll often do it, though they may struggle. "Smart" kids need to be given more advanced things to do, because elsewise they degenerate the same way any other

THIS. This is, like, my entire life. I missed so much school and caused so much goddamn trouble.
Did we rope you back in, Vec? :P
Germany already does this to an extent, by having separate schools for various levels. There are some problems with that: Everybody wants their kids to go to the highest-level school, which right now takes about half of each year's students; as a consequence of this, final exams get easier (hell, I got the best average possible, and I hardly ever studied - that's just messed up); the spread within each school is still big; the lower-level schools gain a bad reputation, and so do their students, with the lowest-level school being practically worthless and popularly seen as immigrant-heavy (think poor black inner city schools); and there's a big degree of separation between parts of the population (I know/knew maybe three people my age who ever went to something but the highest-level school).
Reform in this direction needs to be done very carefully is what I'm saying, especially in a country like the US.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 06, 2015, 07:16:44 am
Yeah, separation of students is not a good idea. It reinforces class differences. [Edit]quote removed[/Edit]

Another way to fight against student boredom is the introduction of multiple teachers per class while dropping teacher-centered teaching.
I'd even go further and say we need to get rid of lectures and classes in school, instead providing a prepared environment filled with incentives to learn what catches a child's fancy and only keep the teachers as mentors to turn to and maybe as people to make sure that the children realize what they'll need later, but I guess that's not hugely popular.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on February 06, 2015, 07:17:40 am
I think you're letting your own experiences get in the way of your thinking, here. I was a "smart" student in every class but math (and gym, of course ;) ) and were always chapters ahead of my class in the books (if I hadn't read through them already), I doodled my way through class time and waltzed in at tests without having studied and still got straight A-equivalents. Even in math, although that took work. I really don't think people like ne are the ones school should cater to. I learned because I liked learning, because it came natural to me, and because I was curious. I learnt despite not bring focused on. I learnt without help or guidance, and even if I did (math Dx ) I could always ask my parents or even my brother.

Now in math class they actually did separate the "smart" and "dumb" students (as in based on who got the highest points on a test) during year 7-9 (age 13-15). The result was one class of good students who also got the good teacher, and one class of students who didn't give a fuck with a teacher who didn't give a fuck - and I'm pretty convinced that line ran almost exactly along the lines of which kids had parents or other social contacts that could (or would) help them at home, which who had a social "education security net", so to speak. And really, those students didn't need more confirmation that they were dumb and useless at school. Those were the people who needed focus, encouragement, motivation, and teacher time. Not people like me who soaked everything up anyway, and still had a wide "education security net" to fall back on when I didn't.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 06, 2015, 07:29:01 am
Quote from: scriver on February 06, 2015, 07:17:40 am
I really don't think people like ne are the ones school should cater to. I learned because I liked learning, because it came natural to me, and because I was curious. I learnt despite not bring focused on. I learnt without help or guidance, and even if I did (math Dx ) I could always ask my parents or even my brother.
Now imagine being stuck in a class with a mediocre teacher and all other students ask dumb questions that have been answered many times before. Maybe you're the type that can put up with this, but I'm very certain that with different parents I'd have flunked out of school because of chronic boredom from the curriculum being too easy - and I was at a decent school, with decent teachers and decent students!
Schools should cater to all students, to the best of their ability - and this can only be done by separating them to a degree. The classism issues you mentioned must be avoided, of course: I think that's why i2 mentioned the difference between 'smart' and 'hard-working', where I'd add the group 'has helpful parents' to the 'hard-working' one.

Antsan: At my school, everybody hated non-teacher-centric lessons, because they're very hard to do right - I've seen good lessons like that maybe five times in my entire life. The teachers hated them because they saw that the students didn't learn anything, the good students hated them because they didn't learn anything, and the mediocre and bad students hated them because they had to do something but didn't feel like they were being productive.
Also, don't underestimate the power of laziness: Your ideal classroom requires a very Rousseauian human nature, a rather optimistic assumption...
I take it you did Gruppenarbeit in school as well - you're from the ex-DDR, right? How is non-teacher-centric learning implemented there?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on February 06, 2015, 07:59:36 am
Oh god, the boredom, the boooreedooom. That's probably why I've developed such a bad homework ethic. (Not that I ever had an amazing one, but...)

It's worth noting that my teacher's were fairly good and my Y11 one was incredible, but they're still forced to cater to the lowest common denom.

Quote from: scriver
I think you're letting your own experiences get in the way of your thinking, here. I was a "smart" student in every class but math (and gym, of course ;) ) and were always chapters ahead of my class in the books (if I hadn't read through them already)

You're also somewhat misunderstanding. This wasn't me being mere 'chapters' ahead, it was stuff being taught in class that I learned two years ago in primary school.
Let's take Year 7 for example: At least in regards to math, I already knew the entire curriculum before the year had even started.
Year 8 wasn't much better. There were a few things I didn't know, though.
Year 9 was about the same as year 8.
Year 10 was more than year 9 but still not all that much.
Year 11 was when I really started to learn new things.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on February 06, 2015, 08:26:45 am
Boredom is what kept me from graduating for so long. I learned early that I knew all this crap, and for a while it was true. But since I wasn't paying much attention, when it started getting into areas I didn't know, I didn't realize, and fell behind. Couple that with being too bored/lazy to actually do any work (this is still a problem: I have no work ethic) and I'm lucky to have graduated at all

End result is that I'm in first year of university at age 21 and am kind of floundering because of not studying, not knowing how, and from very little work ethic/lots of procrastination.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on February 06, 2015, 08:29:47 am
Quote from: Helgoland on February 06, 2015, 07:29:01 am
Quote from: scriver on February 06, 2015, 07:17:40 am
I really don't think people like ne are the ones school should cater to. I learned because I liked learning, because it came natural to me, and because I was curious. I learnt despite not bring focused on. I learnt without help or guidance, and even if I did (math Dx ) I could always ask my parents or even my brother.
Now imagine being stuck in a class with a mediocre teacher and all other students ask dumb questions that have been answered many times before. Maybe you're the type that can put up with this, but I'm very certain that with different parents I'd have flunked out of school because of chronic boredom from the curriculum being too easy - and I was at a decent school, with decent teachers and decent students!
Schools should cater to all students, to the best of their ability - and this can only be done by separating them to a degree. The classism issues you mentioned must be avoided, of course: I think that's why i2 mentioned the difference between 'smart' and 'hard-working', where I'd add the group 'has helpful parents' to the 'hard-working' one.

Antsan: At my school, everybody hated non-teacher-centric lessons, because they're very hard to do right - I've seen good lessons like that maybe five times in my entire life. The teachers hated them because they saw that the students didn't learn anything, the good students hated them because they didn't learn anything, and the mediocre and bad students hated them because they had to do something but didn't feel like they were being productive.
Also, don't underestimate the power of laziness: Your ideal classroom requires a very Rousseauian human nature, a rather optimistic assumption...
I take it you did Gruppenarbeit in school as well - you're from the ex-DDR, right? How is non-teacher-centric learning implemented there?

Non-teacher-centric groupwork provides school bullies a great chance to crack down on the studious dweebs. Not recommended. The best learning results could be achieved by making the students study alone in front of the computer, but that would impair their development in the all-important social skills.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on February 06, 2015, 09:01:25 am
A worthwhile tradeoff, I'd say.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 06, 2015, 09:02:55 am
Quote from: Helgoland on February 06, 2015, 07:29:01 am
Antsan: At my school, everybody hated non-teacher-centric lessons, because they're very hard to do right - I've seen good lessons like that maybe five times in my entire life. The teachers hated them because they saw that the students didn't learn anything, the good students hated them because they didn't learn anything, and the mediocre and bad students hated them because they had to do something but didn't feel like they were being productive.
Also, don't underestimate the power of laziness: Your ideal classroom requires a very Rousseauian human nature, a rather optimistic assumption...
I take it you did Gruppenarbeit in school as well - you're from the ex-DDR, right? How is non-teacher-centric learning implemented there?
Yeah, I'm from the ex-DDR, was even born half a year before the reunion.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I had Gruppenarbeit and it was awful, as that took place in a hostile environment with classmates who mobbed me and teachers who had learned to do teacher-centered learning. I think a part of the problem is that in that kind of school one class always does one thing and everyone needs to be involved all the time.

Just as an example: I was (and am) pretty good at mathematics. We had an awful maths teacher. The only student who understood what she was talking about where the ones who had been good before. Normally I sat next to someone who was generally intelligent, but didn't get what she was talking about, so I took the time to explain it to them. The teacher didn't like that at all – we had to concentrate on the lesson, goddammit, and we were disrupting it instead (because a classroom has to be quiet).

My ideal classroom doesn't require very much by my experience.
My littlest brother went to a free school (which is partly inspired by Montessori). He had this "ideal classroom" (although there were no classrooms or classes, only a distinction between kindergarten, primary school and secondary school). The dropout rate there is approximately the same as in standard schools. The people who leave that school, including the dropouts, normally act as if they are in charge of their life and don't act as entitled or dependent as I see this from others. They normally know what they want, what they don't want and they actually do stuff based on that knowledge without much hesitation.
This school normally doesn't take children after they have been at another school, as those children normally already have learned that learning is tedious and that discipline is the only way to learn anything.
Bullying still happened there, but it wasn't as much of a problem, as teachers actually had the time and skills to deal with it.
Also they not only got a school certificate but also a document of over 50 pages detailing their development in different areas throughout school. I wish I had something like that.

Quote from: Descan on February 06, 2015, 08:26:45 am
Boredom is what kept me from graduating for so long. I learned early that I knew all this crap, and for a while it was true. But since I wasn't paying much attention, when it started getting into areas I didn't know, I didn't realize, and fell behind. Couple that with being too bored/lazy to actually do any work (this is still a problem: I have no work ethic) and I'm lucky to have graduated at all

End result is that I'm in first year of university at age 21 and am kind of floundering because of not studying, not knowing how, and from very little work ethic/lots of procrastination.
Same here, although for me the tipping point came after I left school.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 06, 2015, 09:06:21 am
Quote from: Darvi on February 06, 2015, 09:01:25 am
A worthwhile tradeoff, I'd say.
It's not. I learned social skills after school and I really wish I'd learned them earlier, especially as I should have done other stuff when I was being social.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on February 06, 2015, 09:27:58 am
Suit yourself, then.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 06, 2015, 09:38:51 am
It's gone.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 06, 2015, 09:53:12 am
Makes sense. I'm too lazy to edit it once again, I'll just leave it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 06, 2015, 10:09:40 am
Eh, yeah. Overbearing parents is a big problem with separating classes like that, but I think it's a problem that needs to be solved rather than ignored since grades get the same pressure on the kids from them, and education really isn't one-size-fits-all. Absolutely, you want these to be at the same actual buildings, you want recesses or whatever other leisure time you give them to intermingle the kids, and you don't want to create entirely separate class tracks for generically gifted students. Perhaps, given the self-selection thing, have a bunch of accelerated classes that get through the material of two or three ordinary ones in a single semester, and let the kids pick up to, say, two each semester. Don't allow waivers (because the problem parents would insist upon them, rendering the whole limitation moot), but let kids sit in on whatever they want for no credit in case they are legitimately interested or want to learn something before graduation. Just spitballing here, because insisting everybody be treated equally sounds good but produces unacceptable results for students who aren't right along the average on whatever particular metric you want.

And, of course, getting enough good teachers so you don't get the kids who need encouragement stuck with teachers who are out of fucks to give is mandatory in any plan, so that seems like a separate thing?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 06, 2015, 10:36:10 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on February 06, 2015, 11:15:45 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on February 06, 2015, 10:36:10 am
Is there anyone who supports the "smart"/"dumb" separation who doesn't think they'd be in the special smart class?
I think so, well, if you don't call it dumb/smart. I know quite a few people who are glad that they didn't have to learn 3 foreign languages or had to do higher-level math or go to school for 13 years, but could do 10 years and focus on crafts rather than books.

I'm actually mostly in favour of separating students early into different schools, like it used to be in (West-)Germany, though that system is pretty much watered down today. I went to the highest-level school of course, so take that with a grain of salt.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on February 06, 2015, 11:18:44 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on February 06, 2015, 10:36:10 am
Is there anyone who supports the "smart"/"dumb" separation who doesn't think they'd be in the special smart class?
If I had the smarts, I would eagerly support that type of discrimination. But alas, I have not the smarts: I was a terrible student, and would certainly have ended up in the "dumb group" with the bullies. 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 06, 2015, 11:27:36 am
Quote from: XXSockXX on February 06, 2015, 11:15:45 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on February 06, 2015, 10:36:10 am
Is there anyone who supports the "smart"/"dumb" separation who doesn't think they'd be in the special smart class?
I think so, well, if you don't call it dumb/smart. I know quite a few people who are glad that they didn't have to learn 3 foreign languages or had to do higher-level math or go to school for 13 years, but could do 10 years and focus on crafts rather than books.

I'm actually mostly in favour of separating students early into different schools, like it used to be in (West-)Germany, though that system is pretty much watered down today. I went to the highest-level school of course, so take that with a grain of salt.
It is an was not exclusive for West-Germany. That system stems, as far as I can tell, from the time where we still had an emperor (I cannot believe that this is actually the correct translation of "Kaiser" in this case).

As I already said: Have multiple teachers for different levels of "smarts" in one class. This way smarter students can help others and elitism is prevented while at the same time smarter students can work on more complex problems. For mathematics this could mean getting to know actual math instead of only doing arithmetic. You won't even have to go forth to other topics.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on February 06, 2015, 11:35:24 am
Quote from: Antsan on February 06, 2015, 11:27:36 am
That system stems, as far as I can tell, from the time where we still had an emperor (I cannot believe that this is actually the correct translation of "Kaiser" in this case).
That's true.
My knowledge of the GDR system is limited, but as far as I know, the Hauptschule-Realschule-Gymnasium-split wasn't as pronounced there. I always thought the system was a bit more like today's Gesamtschulen, but I may be wrong of course.

Quote from: Antsan on February 06, 2015, 11:27:36 am
As I already said: Have multiple teachers for different levels of "smarts" in one class. This way smarter students can help others and elitism is prevented while at the same time smarter students can work on more complex problems. For mathematics this could mean getting to know actual math instead of only doing arithmetic. You won't even have to go forth to other topics.
From what I know (I know a lot of teachers), this doesn't work well in practice for two reasons.
One, there is not enough money for multiple teachers per class. Not nearly enough. That could be changed in theory, but most likely won't, due to lack of political will and, well, money.
Second, the gap between students is too big, you either end up boring the good ones or hopelessly overburdening the not-good ones. Smarter students helping others sometimes works, but often it doesn't and it makes the others feel stupid, which creates tension.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 06, 2015, 11:51:02 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on February 06, 2015, 12:10:08 pm
Quote from: XXSockXX on February 06, 2015, 11:35:24 am
Second, the gap between students is too big, you either end up boring the good ones or hopelessly overburdening the not-good ones. Smarter students helping others sometimes works, but often it doesn't and it makes the others feel stupid, which creates tension.
... it can also be pretty nasty for the more advanced students, honestly. Teaching, helping, doing so well, etc., is not even bloody remotely something that comes naturally to most people, and being forced into a situation you're going to perform poorly and quite possibly fail to assist at all is... not psychologically pleasant. Can be a recipe for a great deal of frustration all around. Gods know that expression of "Oh shit" on the face of the better performing students that know they're bollocks at explaining things when tasked to help others isn't something I'm going to forget any time soon.

Collaboration is good, and teaching collaboration is also good, but just shoving kids together and expecting it to not end in tears is, uh. Yeah. There's a reason we actually train teachers, y'know?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 06, 2015, 12:17:04 pm
This is one reason why self-selection is important. People who want the easier courses can choose them without being branded with the stigma of stupidity. Frame it as optimizing their free time or whatever - you can make it seem like the smart decision it often is. Setting the system up in some way to avoid completely parallel education tracks (say, by setting an upper limit on how many of these separate courses you can take, although I'm wide open for suggestions) also helps prevent the clear distinction that gives rise to elitism. Just dividing people up by test scores and sending them through separate school systems would be a terrible idea. Probably unconstitutional in the US, for that matter - Brown v Board of Education is a lot broader than race, curiously enough (although it's also peculiarly limited to public education in a way that makes me glad nobody decided to test it in other areas, but that's tangential).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arx on February 06, 2015, 12:20:45 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on February 06, 2015, 10:36:10 am
Is there anyone who supports the "smart"/"dumb" separation who doesn't think they'd be in the special smart class?

Maybe my experience is fundamentally different, but I've been a smart kid in a dumb class, a smart kid in a smart class, and just a kid in an unstreamed class.

The lazy kids in the 'dumb class' were happy because they weren't expected to do much. The hardworking kids were happy because the teacher was able to help them. I spent lessons reading novels under the desk.

The 'dumb' kids who ended up in the 'smart' class were unhappy either because they were hardworking and couldn't keep up with expectations or because they were lazy and didn't understand the work at all. The 'smart' kids were happy because the teacher was teaching fast enough that they weren't bored.

The unstreamed classes were almost the worst of both worlds. I spent lessons reading novels under the desk, and either the 'dumb' kids got left behind or the 'smart' kids got bored.



Streaming is the best option, in my opinion. I do think I'd be in the special smart class, but it's based on experience that I say this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on February 06, 2015, 12:22:58 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on February 06, 2015, 12:17:04 pm
Just dividing people up by test scores and sending them through separate school systems would be a terrible idea.
Actually until very recently, people in Germany were divided into separate school systems simply upon the recommendation of their elementary school teacher (mostly but not exclusively based on grades). There are/were possibilities to change tracks later though. Only private schools have entrance tests. Nowadays it's up to the parents, which - as has been mentioned before - led to parents sending their kids to the highest level school even if they have no chance to ever finish that school.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on February 06, 2015, 01:55:22 pm
Don't forget that, as I mentioned in my original statement, there is a definite difference between "smart" kids and "high achievers", and it's not one that shows up on test scores (and if you look on overall scores the high achievers have higher scores more often then not). "High achievers" don't really need much more of a challenge, since they are already being challenged by what they are currently learning. It's just that they are willing to go out and spend the hours studying to get A's on everything. "Smart" kids need greater challenge, since they are often so bored that they don't do all the work through the "I already know this, why do I have to do this busywork", type of mentality (which leads to the aforementioned lower overall scores). I know several people who are high achievers and definitely didn't want to take more advanced classes, despite having some of the highest grades in the current classes. Just splitting by test scores is not a good idea.

Really you need several tiers if you want to prevent having a "dumb" class, since it means people can get separated out into the appropriate level. For example at my high school we had a few branching points, so the only class that was the "dumb" one was the "I failed math 4 years in a row, and I really need to pass the standardized test this year" class, that you only got into if you repeatedly failed algebra (which was already the lowest entry level math).

Quote from: penguinofhonor on February 06, 2015, 10:36:10 am
Is there anyone who supports the "smart"/"dumb" separation who doesn't think they'd be in the special smart class?
I think part of it is the fact that the "smart" kids are the only ones who see the good side of the process.
Of the 3 groups one won't notice a difference, one either won't notice a difference or will have a negative experience since they are misidentified, and only the "smart" kids have a positive one. It's further amplified by the fact that the majority of people fall into the "dumb" or "high achiever" classes based on their work ethic, so very few teachers, administrators, and lawmakers see the "smart"/"dumb" ideas from the side of the "smart" kids.
And one more thing to consider. "Smart" kids most often look for intellectual peers instead of age-based peers. As a result without something that lets them connect with the other "smart" kids they often end up being the weird loner over there, and it often can even limit their ability to form connections to adults that they don't deem to be "smart". The simple fact of having a place where they can meet other kids that are like them makes a huge difference in their mental health. I have heard stories from people where the simple fact that they finally got the chance to meet other people that were like them has literally saved their lives by improving their mental health. Facing the peer pressure from a world that you consider "dumber" then you can be just as damaging as facing that of a world that you consider "smarter".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 06, 2015, 04:36:24 pm
Quote from: XXSockXX on February 06, 2015, 12:22:58 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on February 06, 2015, 12:17:04 pm
Just dividing people up by test scores and sending them through separate school systems would be a terrible idea.
Actually until very recently, people in Germany were divided into separate school systems simply upon the recommendation of their elementary school teacher (mostly but not exclusively based on grades). There are/were possibilities to change tracks later though. Only private schools have entrance tests. Nowadays it's up to the parents, which - as has been mentioned before - led to parents sending their kids to the highest level school even if they have no chance to ever finish that school.
I maintain that it's a terrible idea :P

Letting the parents choose exacerbates the whole thing, of course. Eliminate the pressure to be Da Best by condensing the system into share facilities and diffusing the prestige out among numerous subjects that can't all be taken by any given student.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on February 06, 2015, 05:28:01 pm
This is actually an interesting point for me to stumble back into this thread, because my daughter just aced her 2nd-grade state assessment exams. She's got the option to test into an accelerated program next year, and I'm 110% in favor of that. I was freaky smart as a kid, their mom is pretty damn smart too, and both my kids terrify and excite me because I think they're farther along in their math and reading than I was at their age.

Yes, I support accelerated tracks (the "smart" track, if you will) for the kids that need that challenge. My daughter is still at an age where she loves school, and she's had a great year this year because there are no bullies in her class. She had one last year, and it was a problem. There are less likely to be bullies in an accelerated track, and more likely to be other kids who are equally as bright and enthusiastic and slightly oddball as she is. I will vouch from experience that having that "family" of other bright, weird kids is a godsend.

My significant other's two kids are in a magnet high school for performing arts (which also has a very rigorous academic component). From what they've described, it's a high school environment a million times more tolerant and welcoming than what I lived through (and my HS wasn't that bad. My middle school on the other hand....I fondly refer to as William Golding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies) Junior High).

Maybe it's intellectual elitism, but my attitude in general is "fuck your dumbass kids". I'm sympathetic to kids who want to learn and genuinely struggle. I have zero use for kids who have decided that they don't want to be there (often reinforced by parental attitudes towards learning) and just want to fuck it up for those who do.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 06, 2015, 05:38:39 pm
Quote from: RedKing on February 06, 2015, 05:28:01 pm
Maybe it's intellectual elitism, but my attitude in general is "fuck your dumbass kids". I'm sympathetic to kids who want to learn and genuinely struggle. I have zero use for kids who have decided that they don't want to be there (often reinforced by parental attitudes towards learning) and just want to fuck it up for those who do.
That attitude doesn't come from the children but from school, where children are treated like shit. Of course they don't want to go there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 06, 2015, 05:55:18 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on February 06, 2015, 06:00:53 pm
Quote from: RedKing on February 06, 2015, 05:28:01 pm
Maybe it's intellectual elitism, but my attitude in general is "fuck your dumbass kids". I'm sympathetic to kids who want to learn and genuinely struggle. I have zero use for kids who have decided that they don't want to be there (often reinforced by parental attitudes towards learning) and just want to fuck it up for those who do.

It's not elitism as much as it's the standard "fuck you, got mine" asolidarity in action.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TheDarkStar on February 06, 2015, 06:08:30 pm
I definitely support having a a track for the upper and lower ends of the spectrum. Not splitting classes leaves a sizable group unhappy with school (either it's confusing or boring), but split classes allow teachers to better teach their students. However, the problem that still needs to be resolved is the fact that being in the "dumb" classes is demotivating and doesn't pressure those students to improve.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 06, 2015, 06:29:47 pm
Flaw that's occurred to me with what I'm proposing - pushy parents will pile their kids into STEM stuff if there's a limit on how many "advanced" class you can take, because it's "prestigious", so those kids are still getting screwed and now they're being deprived of anything outside that area.

Thoughts?

Re: Tracks - has literally anybody actually been reading my posts, or have I been in tl;dr mode this whole time? If so, please tell me - I'll try to be more concise.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 06, 2015, 06:34:55 pm
I've read it and it makes sense to me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on February 06, 2015, 06:39:15 pm
In the Netherlands every kid makes a test when they're in the last year of elementary school which, along with advice from the teacher and preference of the parents, decides which level of high school the kid can follow.

Does something similar not exist in the States?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on February 06, 2015, 07:59:14 pm
There's only one level of high school in the states, have you not been paying attention?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Redzephyr01 on February 06, 2015, 08:01:39 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on February 06, 2015, 06:39:15 pm
Does something similar not exist in the States?
Nope.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 06, 2015, 08:14:33 pm
Oh, yeah, hell no. There's no formal branching. Some high schools will have Honors classes or AP classes (which are essentially the same thing, but with a national, standardized test you can take for sometimes college credit), which you can substitute for the ordinary variety of the same class. Sometimes there will be something like a GPA requirement or something but mostly it's up to the kid's choice of which to register for (read: often the parent's choice).

In terms of self-selected splitting up by academic ability, that's actually fairly close to what I've been harping on about, but it's far from universal in the States, and as applied it tends to segregate student bodies into cleanly-split Honors/not groups when it is available. Also, my experience with it was at a fairly good high school, just under a decade ago (and my understanding is that the system's been increasingly crippled every year), and they suffered from all the other problems that have been rambled about. I doubt it's exactly representative of the current situation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Redzephyr01 on February 06, 2015, 08:20:19 pm
AP classes are basically college level classes that you take in highschool.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BurnedToast on February 06, 2015, 09:07:42 pm
Quote from: RedKing on February 06, 2015, 05:28:01 pm
Maybe it's intellectual elitism, but my attitude in general is "fuck your dumbass kids". I'm sympathetic to kids who want to learn and genuinely struggle. I have zero use for kids who have decided that they don't want to be there (often reinforced by parental attitudes towards learning) and just want to fuck it up for those who do.

The other side of the argument is that bright children with supportive parents will probably succeed regardless, and money spent on AP and honors classes just lets the winners get further ahead, while those most in need of help fall even further behind in a vicious cycle that creates a permanent, self-perpetuating lower class.

But I guess "fuck your dumbass kids" sounds great when you're the guy on top.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on February 06, 2015, 09:31:50 pm
Although to be fair, it's more like college has been dumbed down to where first-year courses are just kinda AP high school.

Seriously, most international students that come to the US for baccalaureate study get into their freshman courses and go, "WTF? I learned this two years ago in gymnasium/sixth form/etc."

This is one of the reasons why Obama's proposal for two free years of community college is so compelling. The first two years at major universities is usually spent getting the prerequisites out of the way, and frankly Statistics 101 at Harvard isn't going to be that much different than Statistics 101 at County Community College, other than the pricetag.


Quote from: scriver on February 06, 2015, 06:00:53 pm
Quote from: RedKing on February 06, 2015, 05:28:01 pm
Maybe it's intellectual elitism, but my attitude in general is "fuck your dumbass kids". I'm sympathetic to kids who want to learn and genuinely struggle. I have zero use for kids who have decided that they don't want to be there (often reinforced by parental attitudes towards learning) and just want to fuck it up for those who do.

It's not elitism as much as it's the standard "fuck you, got mine" asolidarity in action.
No, it's more "fuck you, my kids are going to get theirs". I dealt with waaaaay too much bullshit from other kids who actively hated learning and anyone who was good at it. If there's a way to firewall them off from the bright kids, then I'm all for it. I'm not saying that once someone's in the "dumb" track that there shouldn't be opportunities for them to learn, and even to test up and out of that track each year if they try hard. But the ones who just see school as something to skip so they can go get baked with their friends or a way to practice extortion and coercion at an early age....fuck 'em. We'll always need someone to flip burgers.

That's one of the beauties of college -- because it costs money, people who really don't want to be there tend not to stick around. And most professors have a zero-tolerance policy for bullshit behavior.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 06, 2015, 10:12:05 pm
I'm really not okay with implementing the basic premise of a thousand shitty animes as a patch for a real-world school system, RedKing. You're going to be fucking over way too many kids who're borderline on whatever exams you happen to pick, if absolutely nothing else. Sure, they can "try and get better", but after being officially classified as stupid, how many do you think are going to internalize that and become exactly the sort of little monsters you want walled off? Kids' personalities aren't set in stone - there is literally no more formative time than childhood.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on February 06, 2015, 10:31:40 pm
What I really hate about the system so much is that it drags everyone to the 'average' point. The people who could have been absolutely amazing and gone on to cure cancer/aids/invent things/solve Global Warming? They just become someone of above-average intelligence. The kids who who have trouble get so much time and energy invested in them to bring them up to the 'average.' The teachers are forced to teach to the lowest common denominator. Yes, I think I would have been sent to one of those 'super-special smart schools', but only back then. Now? I'm just someone of above-average ability.

There's a reason I loved the internet (particularly forums like this place) so much when I was 13. I could find people who were 17, or 20, or 23, and in these places, I could talk to those people about things I wanted to talk about, and they could talk back. For the first time in my life, if I wanted to talk about something interesting like philosophy, religion, mathematics, human emotions, space programs, I could.

It's worth noting that I think (almost, genetics can screw people over with learning disabilities and such) anyone can be 'smart'. The 'dumb' people just haven't been taught the right way, or have the wrong parents, or were given the wrong idea of school earlier on in their life.


Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 06, 2015, 10:43:52 pm
It's hard for me not to sort of agree with Redking, given my school experiences.  Even though I'm usually not in favor of anything resembling elitism.

My family moved out to a really small backwoods area when I was 8 years old where there was zero intellectual culture and the education system was total shit.  Before this, I was both a smart kid and an over-achiever.  I loved school and excelled at everything.  Here, I was immediately singled out from the rest of the class to the point of having zero positive social interaction for years (tolerated at best) and never challenged academically (even when put in advanced programs).  I was in this school system for 8 years. 

Quote from: i2amroy on February 06, 2015, 01:55:22 pm
The simple fact of having a place where they can meet other kids that are like them makes a huge difference in their mental health. I have heard stories from people where the simple fact that they finally got the chance to meet other people that were like them has literally saved their lives by improving their mental health.

This happened with me, except the thing that saved my life was the internet.  And by the time this happened, I'd been 5 years ostracized and unchallenged.  I thought school was a joke, and put minimal effort into most things.  I'd do no homework and pay little attention in class, but ace tests.  I was in really bad shape when I found the internet and becoming socially self-destructive - hanging around with stupid people that took advantage of my desperation.  But suddenly I had new opportunities to intellectually challenge myself.  It was so easy to find interesting information, have interesting discussions with interesting people from all over the world, and make friends that were as geeky as I.  But it also made the school I was going to look REALLY REALLY stupid to me, especially when I started stumbling on examples of bad information being fed to me by horribly outdated textbooks and bad teachers, and I became even more disinterested than I was before.  I only just started getting better in my senior year, and ridiculously high placement on my SAT scores got me easily into college despite most of my grades being average or below for the last few years.

But I also kind of wonder if personality didn't have more to do with it.  U.S. schools are structured in a way that extremely disadvantages introverts and abstract/conceptual-style thinkers.  Looking back on it, I can recognize now how a lot of my problems had to do with the way my personality clashed with and was easily preyed on by others, and focusing on my geeky weirdness to ostracize me was just a really convenient way for that to manifest.  I could and probably would have done a lot more independent learning, but this heavily discouraged my interest in doing so.  There were also other kids in the class that I should have paid more attention to that I only recognize in retrospect, because the whole class was always together with the more dominant personality types always present, making themselves the focus of everyone's attention all the time.  I think it would have a really positive impact if those kids were given their own space to thrive in and reinforce each other once in a while.

Quote from: UXLZ on February 06, 2015, 10:31:40 pm
There's a reason I loved the internet (particularly forums like this place) so much when I was 13. I could find people who were 17, or 20, or 23, and in these places, I could talk to those people about things I wanted to talk about, and they could talk back. For the first time in my life, if I wanted to talk about something interesting like philosophy, religion, mathematics, human emotions, space programs, I could.

It's worth noting that I think (almost, genetics can screw people over with learning disabilities and such) anyone can be 'smart'. The 'dumb' people just haven't been taught the right way, or have the wrong parents, or were given the wrong idea of school earlier on in their life.

Ninja'd!  I think we're having very similar thoughts here.  I also think most dumb kids just haven't had information presented to them in a way that motivates them or penetrates the way they process information.  I've met very few people who I believe are actually stupid.  Almost everyone turns out to be capable of proving great intelligence on some subject, and there is always a story behind how that subject captured their attention and clicked with them.  Just look at the way so many people talk about sports.  So many people most would consider stupid that could write a fucking dissertation with the amount of information and analysis they put into that interest.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on February 06, 2015, 11:25:12 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on February 06, 2015, 10:12:05 pm
I'm really not okay with implementing the basic premise of a thousand shitty animes as a patch for a real-world school system, RedKing. You're going to be fucking over way too many kids who're borderline on whatever exams you happen to pick, if absolutely nothing else. Sure, they can "try and get better", but after being officially classified as stupid, how many do you think are going to internalize that and become exactly the sort of little monsters you want walled off? Kids' personalities aren't set in stone - there is literally no more formative time than childhood.

Maybe I should phrase it differently then -- instead of having a "dumb" track, how about a "disruptive" track? One of the reason that the lowest tier tracks often underserve the students there so badly is that the teachers spend 90% of their time dealing with the dipshits who want to turn class time into "hey look at me! YOLOSWAG" and 10% actually educating.

Yes, I realize that childhood and teenage years are a time when kids make terrible decisions, and this could be penalizing some kids who aren't bad, they just have a shitty home life and bad parents and are craving attention. NOT MY FUCKING PROBLEM. We can't save every family from itself, especially not at the cost of dragging down truly gifted children just so everyone can feel like a special snowflake.



Now....there is a radically different alternative to this, which I think can and does work but only under a narrow set of circumstances. You spread the "disruptive" kids out so that there's only one per class, and you spread out the bright kids to a few per class. If there's no audience for the class clowns' bullshit, they'll rein it in. And the brighter kids will often welcome the chance to help their peers, IF they're not going to get teased and mocked for it. This is the situation currently in my daughter's elementary school class and it works well. The teacher actually moves her around the classroom every month or so because they've noticed improvement in behavior and academics in the kids sitting around her. Smart kids *can* bring up the whole class, if given a healthy atmosphere in which to do so. Which means thinning out the disruptive kids as much as possible. But this only works if the number of disruptive kids is low enough that you can thin it out to that level. When you have major portions of the student body coming from low socio-economic strata and where a culture of failure and disregard for school is already entrenched, this isn't going to work. Honestly, I don't know what the solution is in situations like that, short of some kind of indoctrination camp where you completely reprogram the kids and rip them out of that culture of failure. (and that's not some kind of coded racism thing...it's equally apt for white trash kids as it is ghetto/barrio kids).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on February 06, 2015, 11:45:13 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on February 06, 2015, 10:12:05 pm
I'm really not okay with implementing the basic premise of a thousand shitty animes as a patch for a real-world school system, RedKing. You're going to be fucking over way too many kids who're borderline on whatever exams you happen to pick, if absolutely nothing else. Sure, they can "try and get better", but after being officially classified as stupid, how many do you think are going to internalize that and become exactly the sort of little monsters you want walled off? Kids' personalities aren't set in stone - there is literally no more formative time than childhood.

Chucking everyone into one classroom, ignoring differences in ability is worse. The top kids learn at the mandated pace, because it's not "fair" if they excercise their potential. The bottom kids feel overwhelmed and left out, permanent losers who always get shit for having the worst scores in class. "Why don't you score 99% like johnny?" over and over ever week. How would it feel to come to class every day and basically know you're the worst in the class, for 6 years of highschool. Versus the abstract "not being in the top maths class" feeling, but you don't have that fact reminded to you every day in class by competing directly with geniuses. It's like putting amateur athletes up against olmypic athletes with the premise of a fair contest, then going "wow you lost so bad - AGAIN". They have leagues for a reason.

It's basically a huge lie that everyone has the same skill in every subject, and that there's an average proper amount you're allowed to learn in every subject based on your age. Also, tracks tend to focus on different things: top maths focuses on abstract stuff that is a primer for engineering, maths and computer science degrees, whereas the middle and lower streams focus on useful maths for real-life situations. So it's just recognizing that someone who sucks at maths and has no interest won't go on to use all that advanced calculus, even if you manage to teach it to them, but they need basic maths and accounting skills for real life, so the bottom classes focus on that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 06, 2015, 11:49:00 pm
I don't think you understand that I meant your system would be encouraging kids to act out because they crave attention. Not just their shitty home life and stuff - you get classified in the disruptive track as a kid, that becomes an expectation. Kids are good at living up to expectations. It's you and your children's fucking problem when they have to get out of school and live in a society that's got an elevated population of jackasses because you sculpted the educational system to produce jackasses and saints in equal measure.

Quote from: Reelya on February 06, 2015, 11:45:13 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on February 06, 2015, 10:12:05 pm
I'm really not okay with implementing the basic premise of a thousand shitty animes as a patch for a real-world school system, RedKing. You're going to be fucking over way too many kids who're borderline on whatever exams you happen to pick, if absolutely nothing else. Sure, they can "try and get better", but after being officially classified as stupid, how many do you think are going to internalize that and become exactly the sort of little monsters you want walled off? Kids' personalities aren't set in stone - there is literally no more formative time than childhood.

Chucking everyone into one classroom, ignoring differences in ability is worse. The top kids learn at the mandated pace, because it's not "fair" if they excercise their potential. The bottom kids feel overwhelmed and left out, permanent losers who always get shit for having the worst scores in class. "Why don't you score 99% like johnny?" over and over ever week.

It's basically a huge lie that everyone has the same skill in every subject, and that there's an average proper amount you're allowed to learn in every subject based on your age. Also, tracks tend to focus on different things: top maths focuses on abstract stuff that is a primer for engineering maths and computer science degrees, whereas the middle and lower streams focus on useful maths for real-life situations. So it's just recognizing that someone who sucks at maths and has no interest won't go on to use all that advanced calculus, even if you manage to teach it to them, but they need basic maths and accounting skills for real life, so the bottom classes focus on that.
That's something I've said multiple times now, so thanks for the backup, although tracks as a specific implementation of specialization remain something that aren't likely to work. Do I need to summarize my posting history over the last couple of pages?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TheDarkStar on February 06, 2015, 11:55:18 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on February 06, 2015, 08:14:33 pm
There's no formal branching. Some high schools will have Honors classes or AP classes (which are essentially the same thing, but with a national, standardized test you can take for sometimes college credit), which you can substitute for the ordinary variety of the same class. Sometimes there will be something like a GPA requirement or something but mostly it's up to the kid's choice of which to register for (read: often the parent's choice).

In terms of self-selected splitting up by academic ability, that's actually fairly close to what I've been harping on about, but it's far from universal in the States, and as applied it tends to segregate student bodies into cleanly-split Honors/not groups when it is available. Also, my experience with it was at a fairly good high school, just under a decade ago (and my understanding is that the system's been increasingly crippled every year), and they suffered from all the other problems that have been rambled about. I doubt it's exactly representative of the current situation.

There isn't formal branching, but there is often an equivalent in the form of classes taken in a certain order. In a lot of highschools, for example, you have a few (3-4) math tracks, ranging from algebra-geometry-algebra II for the easiest path and honors algebra II-enriched precalc-AP calc AB - AP calc BC/calc II at a college for the two-years-ahead track. Science usually has two, with an AP and a non-AP track. English is similar.

I do agree that the US education system is slowly getting worse. I've literally seen a school get forced to stop teaching a math class two years ahead of the average student's class because the school district couldn't afford to lose any more funding over it, despite the fact that the class was completely full and was not in any way too difficult.

PPE: People in the smart tracks tend to be almost as disruptive as those in the lowest tracks. It's partly the fact that they know most of the people they interact with well (because they all take the same group of classes), but the tracks cause students to get to get attention. Lower tracks have people who want attention because no one gives it to them; higher tracks have people who want it because they're used to people always listening to them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on February 06, 2015, 11:59:01 pm
There's also the language used to refer to the tracks. They try and avoid a ranking-based system, and use descriptives of the intended outcome of the track instead.

Here, the middle track is normally couched as the "normal" one and the high track as "advanced". So if you're in the middle one, that's for normal people and advanced has a "math geeks" connotation, thus preventing people in normal maths feeling like they lost out while still providing the needed skills for people who want to specialize.

The bottom track is often refered to as some variant of "practical" or "applied" mathematics, and has a syllabus related to using maths for highschool graduates in everyday life and accounting.

Once you hit 16 and start preparing for the year 12 exams which will get you into college, you do get to choose the track though, it's not restricted by exams. People pick whatever they're comfortable with so it's not like low-track people feel like they lost. They more tend to feel they dodged the bullet of that yucky maths they hate.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 07, 2015, 12:17:29 am
Quote from: Ispil on February 07, 2015, 12:00:59 am
Maybe treat elementary/middle/high school like college in that you need to take x number of credit hours in x number of subjects across all years, and you get to take your pick as to when (or rather, your parents do for the first few years)?
This is exactly my face right now. (http://i.imgur.com/CsyhNKv.gif)

Quote from: Bauglir on February 05, 2015, 11:06:29 pm
...make deep cuts into the math and science (and English and art and foreign language...) courses that are mandatory, but dramatically expand their elective choices after grade school so that all these things are still available, make their first year of middle school a series of Survey Of classes that jump around between subjects every couple of weeks to provide the barest taste (to inform their elective choices), and for the love of every fucking God, do not establish predefined course tracks that need to be completed for any to count. If you want to take Spanish one year and switch on over to German, go right the fuck ahead. Let them experiment...

Quote from: Bauglir on February 06, 2015, 12:53:28 am
...I want the separation thing to happen by self-selection by the students more than by way of assessments or teacher decisions... not everybody's equipped to accomplish the same things in school, and they shouldn't be expected to... And that works both ways. Setting up the people who need challenges to have none at all is as catastrophic as setting people up against challenges they can't do (see Vector's experience, above).

Quote from: Bauglir on February 06, 2015, 10:09:40 am
... education really isn't one-size-fits-all. Absolutely, you want these to be at the same actual buildings, you want recesses or whatever other leisure time you give them to intermingle the kids, and you don't want to create entirely separate class tracks for generically gifted students. Perhaps, given the self-selection thing, have a bunch of accelerated classes that get through the material of two or three ordinary ones in a single semester, and let the kids pick up to, say, two each semester... insisting everybody be treated equally sounds good but produces unacceptable results for students who aren't right along the average on whatever particular metric you want.

Quote from: Bauglir on February 06, 2015, 12:17:04 pm
This is one reason why self-selection is important. People who want the easier courses can choose them without being branded with the stigma of stupidity. Frame it as optimizing their free time or whatever - you can make it seem like the smart decision it often is. Setting the system up in some way to avoid completely parallel education tracks (say, by setting an upper limit on how many of these separate courses you can take, although I'm wide open for suggestions) also helps prevent the clear distinction that gives rise to elitism.

Emphasis added.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 07, 2015, 12:20:45 am
Okay, glad we got that sorted out.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on February 07, 2015, 12:28:24 am
Don't like the 'restrict it to two per semester' idea. You can say it's to avoid parents forcing their children to pick the 'prestigious' classes (the accelerated ones), but that's going to happen anyway, and the kids who choose to pick those classes are going to be miffed because they feel like only two of their subjects are worth actually attending.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 07, 2015, 12:39:27 am
Yeah, that's definitely a problem. I would like a better mechanism. Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on February 07, 2015, 12:43:20 am
No idea. The issue is that the actions of parents are totally outside of the school's control.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on February 07, 2015, 12:50:28 am
And then you get 'smart' Year 8s going into a class with average Year 9s and 'dumb' year 10s... Who proceed to make the class hell for the 9s and 8s.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on February 07, 2015, 12:53:32 am
YEAR 8, not 8 year olds >_>.

In the Australian school system, you have grades prep to 6, then years 7 to 12, then college.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 07, 2015, 01:06:18 am
I mean, fact is, you need to combine student groups. Reduce the idea that there's a particular course you're supposed to be taking at a particular age as much as possible, and one way or the other you've got to keep a hard cleavage from forming along ability lines either, which means preventing anybody from sharing all of their classes with any sufficiently large group. That's where that 2/semester idea came from - you gotta have a variety of cultural surroundings throughout your classes.

Some of the smart or hard-working kids's classes are going to have to be with whatever other subgroup you care to identify. The important thing is to give them enough choices and challenges that they still have something to do. That gets into a different thing, though - gotta motivate the kids to want to pursue open-ended projects that let them fill their time in other classes once they've got the material there worked out. Quality of teaching problem, there, not a structural one, I'm thinking.

I'm pretty tired at this point, though so consider this post aimless rambling.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on February 07, 2015, 01:35:15 am
Quote from: UXLZ on February 07, 2015, 12:50:28 am
And then you get 'smart' Year 8s going into a class with average Year 9s and 'dumb' year 10s... Who proceed to make the class hell for the 9s and 8s.
^^^
THIS.

When I was in 8th grade, they decided I wasn't challenged enough so they shipped me over to the high school next door one period a day to take Biology (typically a 9th grade subject). While the material was more challenging, it also made me stick out that much more like a sore thumb socially. You had high schoolers who were that much more miffed that a kid not even in high school was doing better at this than they were. And you had middle schoolers who wondered what the fuck I did to get to go to high school a year early (I wondered that myself...wasn't like I tested into a program or anything). The fact that it was just me, and no one else from my class of like 500 8th graders,(several of whom were just as bright or brighter) created resentment from that end. So while I learned more, it made my peer interaction that much more miserable.

Ultimately, I hate to say it, but the most workable solution might be something along the lines of what we have now -- a public system that tries to teach a "floor" of at least basic common knowledge needed to function in society, and the brighter kids can be served by private schools/homeschooling/private instructors. Granted, that means that only the RICH bright kids get fully served by this system.

I guess the question is, are you trying to improve the system in terms of median outcomes, overall maximal outcomes, outcomes per cost, or reducing inequality? Because you're not getting all four. Hell, I'm not sure you can get any TWO at the same time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on February 07, 2015, 01:41:40 am
Quote from: RedKing on February 07, 2015, 01:35:15 am
Ultimately, I hate to say it, but the most workable solution might be something along the lines of what we have now -- a public system that tries to teach a "floor" of at least basic common knowledge needed to function in society, and the brighter kids can be served by private schools/homeschooling/private instructors. Granted, that means that only the RICH bright kids get fully served by this system.
This is basically about what we have now, actually, and it's one of the main reasons we are talking about reform. The No Child Left Behind Act basically forces teachers to teach to the bottom of the class, and so far I've yet to meet a teacher who likes it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on February 07, 2015, 01:56:05 am
I doubt that there are any children that like it, either.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 07, 2015, 06:30:40 am
That's why I propose an open school without classes and lectures where the teachers task is to make sure that the environment is fit for children feeling good about learning. If every child is learning what it wants either way, the individual differences become so big that the formation of groups becomes less pronounced as the children in those groups are more diverse.

Quote from: RedKing on February 06, 2015, 09:31:50 pm
We'll always need someone to flip burgers.
No we don't.
I see the purpose of the job I am learning in making jobs like that superfluous, as they are normally degrading and mind-destroying.
Flipping burgers without any kind of ingenuity or creativity definitely is a job that needs to die.

Quote
That's one of the beauties of college -- because it costs money, people who really don't want to be there tend not to stick around. And most professors have a zero-tolerance policy for bullshit behavior.
What. So, everyone who really wants to will just have the money? Yeah, no, not really. While there may be people who are willing to destroy their health for college I very strongly think destroying your health shouldn't be mandatory for anything, especially not education.

Quote
I dealt with waaaaay too much bullshit from other kids who actively hated learning and anyone who was good at it. If there's a way to firewall them off from the bright kids, then I'm all for it. I'm not saying that once someone's in the "dumb" track that there shouldn't be opportunities for them to learn, and even to test up and out of that track each year if they try hard. But the ones who just see school as something to skip so they can go get baked with their friends or a way to practice extortion and coercion at an early age....fuck 'em
I have been mobbed continuously from first to tenth class. Guess what: When the people who did that grew older they mostly became decent people.

Quote from: RedKing on February 06, 2015, 11:25:12 pm
Yes, I realize that childhood and teenage years are a time when kids make terrible decisions, and this could be penalizing some kids who aren't bad, they just have a shitty home life and bad parents and are craving attention. NOT MY FUCKING PROBLEM. We can't save every family from itself, especially not at the cost of dragging down truly gifted children just so everyone can feel like a special snowflake.
It's not your personal fucking problem, but it's societies personal fucking problem and school is a societal and not your personal fucking matter. And unfortunately for you you and your kids will have to deal with the results of that education whether they go to the same schools or not.
Today teachers are trained in teaching only. That were fine if they had support by people who are trained in dealing with disruptive children.

Quote
Now....there is a radically different alternative to this, which I think can and does work but only under a narrow set of circumstances. You spread the "disruptive" kids out so that there's only one per class, and you spread out the bright kids to a few per class. If there's no audience for the class clowns' bullshit, they'll rein it in. And the brighter kids will often welcome the chance to help their peers, IF they're not going to get teased and mocked for it. This is the situation currently in my daughter's elementary school class and it works well. The teacher actually moves her around the classroom every month or so because they've noticed improvement in behavior and academics in the kids sitting around her. Smart kids *can* bring up the whole class, if given a healthy atmosphere in which to do so. Which means thinning out the disruptive kids as much as possible. But this only works if the number of disruptive kids is low enough that you can thin it out to that level. When you have major portions of the student body coming from low socio-economic strata and where a culture of failure and disregard for school is already entrenched, this isn't going to work. Honestly, I don't know what the solution is in situations like that, short of some kind of indoctrination camp where you completely reprogram the kids and rip them out of that culture of failure. (and that's not some kind of coded racism thing...it's equally apt for white trash kids as it is ghetto/barrio kids).
And you really think the best way to deal with social entrapment is to ignore it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arx on February 07, 2015, 06:35:57 am
Quote from: Antsan on February 07, 2015, 06:30:40 am

Quote
That's one of the beauties of college -- because it costs money, people who really don't want to be there tend not to stick around. And most professors have a zero-tolerance policy for bullshit behavior.
What. So, everyone who really wants to will just have the money? Yeah, no, not really. While there may be people who are willing to destroy their health for college I very strongly think destroying your health shouldn't be mandatory for anything, especially not education.

That's not his point. His point is that if someone doesn't want to be in school, their parents will send them anyway because it's free (I think? It's not here), but if they don't want to be in university they won't go because they or their parents would have to pay.

It's true that people without money can't always get into college, but not immediately related.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 07, 2015, 07:06:09 am
Quote from: Arx on February 07, 2015, 06:35:57 am
Quote from: Antsan on February 07, 2015, 06:30:40 am

Quote
That's one of the beauties of college -- because it costs money, people who really don't want to be there tend not to stick around. And most professors have a zero-tolerance policy for bullshit behavior.
What. So, everyone who really wants to will just have the money? Yeah, no, not really. While there may be people who are willing to destroy their health for college I very strongly think destroying your health shouldn't be mandatory for anything, especially not education.

That's not his point. His point is that if someone doesn't want to be in school, their parents will send them anyway because it's free (I think? It's not here), but if they don't want to be in university they won't go because they or their parents would have to pay.

It's true that people without money can't always get into college, but not immediately related.
It might not be his point, but it's still an unavoidable consequence and not even one you need to think very hard about to realize it is one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wobbly on February 07, 2015, 08:58:51 am
Quote from: RedKing on February 07, 2015, 01:35:15 am
Quote from: UXLZ on February 07, 2015, 12:50:28 am
And then you get 'smart' Year 8s going into a class with average Year 9s and 'dumb' year 10s... Who proceed to make the class hell for the 9s and 8s.
^^^
THIS.

When I was in 8th grade, they decided I wasn't challenged enough so they shipped me over to the high school next door one period a day to take Biology (typically a 9th grade subject). While the material was more challenging, it also made me stick out that much more like a sore thumb socially. You had high schoolers who were that much more miffed that a kid not even in high school was doing better at this than they were. And you had middle schoolers who wondered what the fuck I did to get to go to high school a year early (I wondered that myself...wasn't like I tested into a program or anything). The fact that it was just me, and no one else from my class of like 500 8th graders,(several of whom were just as bright or brighter) created resentment from that end. So while I learned more, it made my peer interaction that much more miserable.

On the other hand I wasn't accelerated & was still treated like shit growing up, so I don't see how this is a change from how the situation is anyways for bright kids. Interestingly enough in year 12 (17-18 years old here) we had a 12 year old in our classes. He wasn't picked on in class just because the difference is enough that it would of been adults picking on a little kid. Now you can argue that he never got a normal social upbringing because of this. I seriously doubt he would of anyways. I know I didn't.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 07, 2015, 09:42:57 am
Surely dismantling an age-based system for determining where you're supposed to be would be a good thing, then, RedKing?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on February 07, 2015, 12:11:27 pm
I don't know that it would be any better. Children in a certain age range (about 8 to 16) are, for the most part, pack animals. The social behavior is shockingly analogous to wolves, with alphas, betas and omegas and a propensity to prey on the weak and those without a sufficent "pack". Mixing up the ages a bit more wouldn't change the behavior, and it would expose the younger bright children to that much more potential abuse.

I think the core problem is that industrialized learning is sub-optimal at either end of the spectrum. Very bright kids might benefit more from a pedagogue/private tutor, the way children of nobility used to be educated. And the ones who are struggling the hardest would also be best served by an individual teacher and a setting which removes them from peers who would reinforce bad behavior. It's no coincidence that public schools and the Industrial Revolution are roughly concurrent in history. But achieving that takes far more money than governments are willing to invest, and creates a problem whereby the kids in the middle feel shafted (and probably rightly so). The smart kids get individual teachers, the dumb kids get individual teachers, and the normal kids get corralled together in classes of 40 and get almost no individual attention. So it's still not a fair outcome for everyone. I don't think there IS a fair outcome for everyone possible, which is why I'm focused on maximal outcomes rather than equality.

Or someone can invent RoboTeacher 2020 and then every kid can have their own teacher. Until one of them figures out how to hack it so that their homework assignment is to surf for porn.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 07, 2015, 01:37:10 pm
So any thoughts on the alternative approach I brought up?  Because we've had a ton of conversation now about how the social environment of school has a massive impact on its educational value, and everyone seems to agree that it is an issue.

I think that what we normally think of as a classroom and the way information is typically presented is designed primarily for certain personalities and styles of thinking, disadvantaging anyone who doesn't fit in with that.  I do believe that the perception of smart and dumb kids and over/under-achievers is often a product how they fit into the environment that school has forced them into.

So instead of worrying so much about sorting things by ability level, how about focusing instead on providing alternative classroom environments, and allowing kids to find the one that clicks best with them?
For example, you have your classroom where the teaching style is based more on lectures and direct interaction with the teacher and other students, and all the students sit together in a tight array of desks like in your typical U.S. classroom.
But then you also have a classroom where the teaching style is based more on reading and approaching the teacher or even other students individually when something doesn't make sense to you, and the students sit more spread out from each other, with maybe dimmer lights and optional closed off sections and such.
And don't let those environments stay completely separate, because people have to learn how to get along with each other... but as I said before, I imagine things could have been a lot different for me if I'd been given more opportunity to explore who I was in this fashion and notice others like me, instead of being terminally held under the influence of personalities that dominated the setting I was trapped in.

I know that ever since that one girl managed to bring a lot of attention to the subject with her Ted talk and book on introversion, there's been a lot of chatter lately about how workplaces and schools could be re-designed to better accomodate introverts.  I should have a look around and see what sort of stuff people have been suggesting.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TheDarkStar on February 07, 2015, 01:52:50 pm
Even if that fixed some things, there would still be bored smart people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 07, 2015, 02:24:10 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on February 07, 2015, 01:37:10 pm
I know that ever since that one girl managed to bring a lot of attention to the subject with her Ted talk and book on introversion, there's been a lot of chatter lately about how workplaces and schools could be re-designed to better accomodate introverts.  I should have a look around and see what sort of stuff people have been suggesting.
You have a link?

I still maintain that a lecture-less and class-less school isn't worse in terms of education and much better in terms of keeping children mentally healthy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on February 07, 2015, 02:27:09 pm
Quote from: Antsan on February 07, 2015, 02:24:10 pm
I still maintain that a lecture-less and class-less school isn't worse in terms of education and much better in terms of keeping children mentally healthy.
So what would the school be doing in that situation, exactly?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on February 07, 2015, 02:36:23 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on February 07, 2015, 02:27:09 pm
Quote from: Antsan on February 07, 2015, 02:24:10 pm
I still maintain that a lecture-less and class-less school isn't worse in terms of education and much better in terms of keeping children mentally healthy.
So what would the school be doing in that situation, exactly?
Being a library?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on February 07, 2015, 02:46:22 pm
Being a library, providing tutors, structure, resources... connections with other organizations, etc.

And SG, I've too much of a headache at the moment to comment (and will probably forget to later), but I could probably have been convinced to kill in my youth if it would have gotten those goddamn florescents replaced with less strident lighting. Even just turned off and opening the blinds would have been an incredible improvement.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on February 07, 2015, 02:51:44 pm
Quote from: Arx on February 07, 2015, 06:35:57 am
That's not his point. His point is that if someone doesn't want to be in school, their parents will send them anyway because it's free (I think? It's not here), but if they don't want to be in university they won't go because they or their parents would have to pay.
Where I'm at you are literally required by law to either be a registered home-school student or going to a school from the point you get to kindergarten all of the way up until you hit high school. It's an effect of having nigh-free (and if you have economic problems, totally free) public schools available.

I definitely like the idea SalmonGod, but I think it might run into the same problem as many of the more "individualized" approaches; the fact that the old rich people without children don't want to pay money for schools. :-\
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 07, 2015, 02:58:58 pm
Quote from: i2amroy on February 07, 2015, 02:51:44 pm
I definitely like the idea SalmonGod, but I think it might run into the same problem as many of the more "individualized" approaches; the fact that the old rich people without children don't want to pay money for schools. :-\

As mentioned before, though, any improvement to the education system is going to have that problem.  What we have right now in most places is the absolute cheapest approach to public education possible, which doesn't leave much space for things to be any different.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 07, 2015, 03:02:42 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on February 07, 2015, 02:27:09 pm
Quote from: Antsan on February 07, 2015, 02:24:10 pm
I still maintain that a lecture-less and class-less school isn't worse in terms of education and much better in terms of keeping children mentally healthy.
So what would the school be doing in that situation, exactly?
What the others said:
Quote from: Frumple on February 07, 2015, 02:46:22 pm
Being a library, providing tutors, structure, resources... connections with other organizations, etc.
Providing learning material other than books, having people available who can counteract bullying, spot problematic developments before they become problems and that kind of stuff. It's called a "prepared environment".
It's not like parents  can provide all of this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on February 07, 2015, 03:08:43 pm
Sorry, I'm just not seeing how that's useful. Because you're going to tell a bunch of children, "Go and learn things," and a whole load of them aren't going to without specifically being taught.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheo on February 07, 2015, 03:13:58 pm
As a guy who has a few trans friends and is writing a trans character -

What is the state of surgery atm? As in, how convincing is it, how expensive is it and so forth.

Second question, since I can't really figure out my own view on it - should a trans post-op person still be morally obliged to tell a possible sexual partner that he or she is trans? Does it violate the other's right to know not telling it?

Again, questions because I'm writing a trangender character at the moment and I want some better perspective, in case anyone has their own experiences and views.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on February 07, 2015, 03:15:10 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on February 07, 2015, 03:08:43 pm
Sorry, I'm just not seeing how that's useful. Because you're going to tell a bunch of children, "Go and learn things," and a whole load of them aren't going to without specifically being taught.
... so you trick them. It's actually pretty easy to pull off, most of the time. Most people actually like to learn if things are framed correctly and the proverbial well hasn't been thoroughly poisoned. The ones that don't, yeah, maybe they're given a bit more structure. I'd pretty strongly argue they'd be a minority in a properly set up and primed scenario, though.

And if you start it out young, and manage the inclination towards exploration well, the behavior maintains itself pretty easily. We trend toward inquisitiveness pretty hard if given the opportunity and not taught to avoid it, last I paid attention to the state of things.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 07, 2015, 03:25:50 pm
See, as there have actually been experiments from time to time about how best to educate, we can actually kind of know that the current "general" approach is usually the most effective for the most people, for a wide array of reasons but possibly most importantly that young people do not often possess the long term planning to appreciate that doing well is a "good thing" - open free form schools might benefit a very small minority, but most pupils who attend one take advantage of being able to do nothing constructive if they so wish - this was tried in the UK in the 60'/70's and most kids left these schools unable to compete in the labour market. Of course, far too over-formal classes are just as detrimental for young people who might not want to study certain things - as evidenced by the inevitable "drop outs" where the system was not flexible enough to offer them something relevant. I am exceptionally lucky to teach almost exclusively high ability pupils who have chosen to study my courses, so can approach teaching high ability small classes in an informal manner and do great things with them. The same could not be said if any of those variables were different. There is no ideal solution, and different "tweaks" to the process work for different skill/subject areas, age, stage, and abilities. There is a reason why most education systems tend towards the same general model adapted to suit different circumstances. Currently the most effective tweak to this model seems to be "vertical" classes rather than horizontal ones, where age is less relevant. You could have a class of say 25 pupils from age 12 to 16 all learning the same thing at the same rate if the group is formed of pupils with similar needs. Class size makes little difference. Teacher skill or experience makes little difference. Money or funding makes little difference. You know what does? Parents. Parents who instil some kind of value in education into their offspring, and who support the school in both learning and discipline, should the need arise. Unsurprisingly, this is less prevalent amongst the lower socio-economic classes in the west and more prevalent amongst the higher ones, but pretty much a constant in Asia, and in poorer nations where education is pretty much the only way out of poverty for people. get parents on board and you have the one thing on your side that makes education more effective, regardless of the model employed.

Finally nice for there to be a thread on B12 where I feel confident enough to speak with authority, what with having worked and conducted plenty of academic research on the matter.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on February 07, 2015, 03:30:00 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on February 07, 2015, 03:08:43 pm
Sorry, I'm just not seeing how that's useful. Because you're going to tell a bunch of children, "Go and learn things," and a whole load of them aren't going to without specifically being taught.
Oh, I saw an article on something like this recently, can't seem to find it again sadly, but I'll try to sum it up. Basically they took this fancy internet terminal (in english) and stuck it in a third world country (that didn't speak english) and just let kids go at it. Come back a few months later and nobody has learned like anything at all. So for the second phase they hired someone who's job was literally just to sit there and say "good job" whenever somebody took initiative to try to learn something. By the end of the next couple months they had kids teaching themselves calculus and speaking fairly coherent english.

So while just letting kids go into a library might not do much, if you give positive rewards for doing so (even small ones) it greatly improves the chances of them learning anything.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 07, 2015, 03:34:09 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on February 07, 2015, 03:08:43 pm
Sorry, I'm just not seeing how that's useful. Because you're going to tell a bunch of children, "Go and learn things," and a whole load of them aren't going to without specifically being taught.
As I already said, my little brother went to a school which works exactly like that – no classes, no lectures – and lo and behold, as I also wrote earlier, it works, because these children weren't taught from day one that learning is something tedious and unfun! Every child in the whole wide world (who is lucky enough to have access) I ever heard of was totally ecstatic about finally going to school and learning such awesome things as reading and calculating and stuff! Seldom I see children on such high moods on the morning of the first day of school.
It's only after they spent a week at that soul-crushing hellhole which they call schools today that they begin to learn that going to school isn't about all that fun stuff like reading and calculating and history and stuff, but mostly about sitting still, listening to that boring dweeb in front of them while wishing they could do something interesting, like playing with bugs maybe or at least being finally able to read what they want instead of what their parents are willing to read to them or god knows what kind of things they come up with to do! But NO, of course that self-important teacher knows much better what's interesting and important and he doesn't even go as far as showing why it's important, no, he just will assert it with his almighty authority, because being a teacher is all about authority and not maybe about all the other aspects that make up pedagogy!
You know, in their little minds they believed going to school they finally would get to be self-sufficient, to do stuff by themselves but instead they get pressed into an even more passive role then ever before. How is it a surprise that they don't like it? Why does everyone conclude then that they won't learn if one just would let them from the moment they want to?

Wanting to learn is something which every child does.
But no, learning needs to be tainted with discipline, whose high regard stems from a time where the military was still the one branch of government which signaled it's prosperity, and tainted with false authority, which is just bullying by people who can get away with it. And when one wants to remove these things one is told that those are essential to learning, when those are exactly the thing which make learning into the insufferable rut it is now.

And about that
Quote from: MonkeyHead on February 07, 2015, 03:25:50 pm
very small minority
That's a myth. It's not a minority. As I already stated repeatedly, the dropout rate at those schools isn't any higher than elsewhere. And as opposed to the dropouts at the standard schools these are actually still willing to improve and learn! They even feel fine with working in a menial job, where most others feel as if they're missing out somehow, only because their job misses prestige!

And don't come with the labor market! As if that was a productive environment in which people can work to the best of their ability!
Of course people who work best when you let them (and that is exactly what almost all of them learn in these schools, not only a "small minority") fail when you put pressure on them.

It's almost like you don't bash someone in the head with a frying pan repeatedly and then they can't deal with it when you start doing so! Of course the ones who are used to it already will work better under those conditions.

[Edit]Removed some of the hostility. The rest is hard to remove without reworking or changing the meaning.[/Edit]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 07, 2015, 03:40:34 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on February 07, 2015, 03:08:43 pm
Sorry, I'm just not seeing how that's useful. Because you're going to tell a bunch of children, "Go and learn things," and a whole load of them aren't going to without specifically being taught.

While I'm interested in the "prepared environment" approach, I wasn't even suggesting that.  I was thinking more along the lines of assigned reading and such. 

Because for example, some people just don't get a damn thing out of lectures.  I'm one who just doesn't absorb anything that way.  I retain information best by reading it.  If I do learn from a lecture, it's by butting in and turning the session into a personal conversation with the teacher, but then I'm dominating the classroom.  Which I did a lot in college, where the environment is a lot different (and had other students thank me for it a few times), but the environment in public grade school heavily discourages that and if anyone came close, it was the hufflepuff extroverts that are both socially confident and extroverted enough hog the spotlight at an age where bullying and harsh group dynamics are prevalent.

So make an alternative classroom setting that kids can opt into if it suits them, where instead of a teacher talking to them all day as one group, there is a teacher that assigns reading and goalposts for demonstrated understanding, and is simply available to provide help as requested the rest of the time.  And if a student obviously chooses that setting as a way to be a lazy ass and produces no results, then the school has the power to kick them back into the more traditional classroom.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on February 07, 2015, 04:09:27 pm
Uh, I think I might have been mixing up things being said in the last page or so.

I can't really argue with alternate provisions where it's more relevant.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 07, 2015, 08:26:37 pm
Quote from: Sheo on February 07, 2015, 03:13:58 pm
As a guy who has a few trans friends and is writing a trans character -

What is the state of surgery atm? As in, how convincing is it, how expensive is it and so forth.

First, there are a bunch of different surgeries: top/bottom surgery for each gender, Adam's apple reduction, and apparently even more I've never heard of. Not every trans person gets any/all of the applicable surgeries, so referring to any one as "the surgery" or calling trans people "pre/post op" based solely on one surgery is really oversimplified. Using those terms for genital surgery is probably the least accurate way, because the vast majority of trans people don't get bottom surgery.

My roommate (who's a lot more plugged in to general trans stuff than me) said probably around 10% of trans people get genital surgery in America. That's not saying all of that 90% are completely comfortable with their genitals - a big part of that is because it's such a difficult surgery to get: it's thousands of dollars, your insurance won't cover it unless you're really lucky (read: are employed by a very liberal company), and there are very few doctors here that specialize in genital reconstruction. There's a decent chance you'll have to fly to another country to get it.

So I'd question the necessity for any trans characters to have genital surgery. Given your next question, it looks like the plot of whatever you're writing now requires it, but it's something to keep in mind in the future.

Appearance-wise, I don't know as much.

Quote from: Sheo on February 07, 2015, 03:13:58 pm
Second question, since I can't really figure out my own view on it - should a trans post-op person still be morally obliged to tell a possible sexual partner that he or she is trans? Does it violate the other's right to know not telling it?

I generally don't view a trans person hiding this as immoral, because telling someone you don't know well that you're trans is a great way to become the target of violence. Especially if you're a trans woman or a person of color (god forbid both).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on February 07, 2015, 08:30:58 pm
I think they should. Before sex, I mean. Sometime during the dating process. If you think they are someone likely to be violent over it, you stop dating them anyway. You really like them? Tell them.

Because it lets the other person know what they're getting into. If they don't want that kind of relationship, then they most likely never will.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 07, 2015, 08:36:42 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on February 07, 2015, 08:40:13 pm
Regardles. Tell them. If you don't want to tell a stranger, date them first. Think they're going to be violent? Date them first.

I think the very least you should do is date them first in any relationship, but that's just opinion.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 07, 2015, 09:18:49 pm
As a straight guy who would probably be unwilling to have sex with a post-transition transwoman (for entirely inexplicable, and presumably irrational, reasons, I might add), I'd still say that you're only as obligated to tell them as you are any other extremely personal quality. In the context of a long-term relationship, I think you probably should, but less because there's a moral obligation and more because a long-term relationship that you're not comfortable being that open with is one that might need to be reconsidered, especially if it's one where one partner might want children later on. In the context of a one-night stand or something - well, that's really up to you.

Would you discuss your deeply-held religious tenets? You might! And, likewise, you might discuss this. But imposing an obligation seems like a weird thing to do - even to me, somebody who might actually want to factor it into his decision-making.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on February 07, 2015, 09:49:17 pm
I would mostly just be slightly bothered by the dishonesty if there was ever any actual lying.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on February 07, 2015, 09:56:16 pm
I feel that transphobes have the responsibility to come out to any prospective partner before anything gets serious. I mean, it's something that's potentially very important to the relationship, ya know?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on February 07, 2015, 10:39:23 pm
Quote from: Glowcat on February 07, 2015, 09:56:16 pm
I feel that transphobes have the responsibility to come out to any prospective partner before anything gets serious. I mean, it's something that's potentially very important to the relationship, ya know?

I feel like hardcore feminists should come out before anything gets serious. Potentially very important, right?
Muslims, too.
Atheists.
Democrats.
Republicans.
Hippies.
Pro-marijuana.
Buddhists.
etc.

The list (almost) goes on forever, that kind of argument can be made for almost anything. If you think it's important to tell your partner, then tell your partner. Personally, if I found out I'd been dating someone trans for a long while I'd go into massive shock, but I also (at least like to think) I'd get over it and be accepting after a small amount of time. That's me personally, however, different people react in different ways.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on February 08, 2015, 02:05:49 am
Quote from: UXLZ on February 07, 2015, 10:39:23 pm
Quote from: Glowcat on February 07, 2015, 09:56:16 pm
I feel that transphobes have the responsibility to come out to any prospective partner before anything gets serious. I mean, it's something that's potentially very important to the relationship, ya know?

I feel like hardcore feminists should come out before anything gets serious. Potentially very important, right?
Muslims, too.
Atheists.
Democrats.
Republicans.
Hippies.
Pro-marijuana.
Buddhists.
etc.

The list (almost) goes on forever, that kind of argument can be made for almost anything. If you think it's important to tell your partner, then tell your partner. Personally, if I found out I'd been dating someone trans for a long while I'd go into massive shock, but I also (at least like to think) I'd get over it and be accepting after a small amount of time. That's me personally, however, different people react in different ways.

Just thought I'd let Bay12 know I'm a hardcore nose picker before we get into a too serious relationship.  I hope you are all as picky as I am.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on February 08, 2015, 02:21:16 am
Quote from: Moghjubar on February 08, 2015, 02:05:49 am
Just thought I'd let Bay12 know I'm a hardcore nose picker before we get into a too serious relationship.  I hope you are all as picky as I am.
Where does the hardcore part come in?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on February 08, 2015, 02:23:01 am
but think of the other person's heterosexuality D:

(i never really got this whole aversion to accidentally dating a transperson, are you afraid of catching the gay-virus or something?)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 08, 2015, 02:31:08 am
So, basically what we are saying is that in general, when dating, you should tell the other person the significant/important things about you and let them decide how they feel about you based on that?

Nice groundbreaking conclusion there guys and gals.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on February 08, 2015, 02:36:25 am
Personally I'm more concerned about how things are currently situated than how they used to be situated. Not that I'm terribly interested either way.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on February 08, 2015, 02:44:38 am
Quote from: Dutchling on February 08, 2015, 02:23:01 am
(i never really got this whole aversion to accidentally dating a transperson, are you afraid of catching the gay-virus or something?)
There was a pretty big stigma to being gay in the media when I was growing up. It gets associated with 'bad'/'weird'/'unaccepted' young and then you learn that there are some women who are what you would consider a man that can be indistinguishable from what you would consider a woman.

Transitively if you date them you are 'gay'. gay=date*man, transwoman=man, date*transwoman=gay

The fear is even worse if you already doubt your masculinity or your 'straightness'. And if you recognize that as they can be indistinguishable from what you would consider a woman. You could be dating one and enjoying yourself without even knowing it. "You could be gay, doing gay things, and not even know it!"
That at least accounts for my problem with trans-blah when I was homophobic.
For non homophobes it is probably either beliefs/religion or feeling someone is invading your social group because they want to be a part of it and you/the group is defined by their absence.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: aenri on February 08, 2015, 06:12:11 am
(removed)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 08, 2015, 07:44:39 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wobbly on February 08, 2015, 08:00:13 am
Honestly penguinofhonor that's pretty debatable & you'll find a fair few people who disagree with you on that.

Edit: Besides a relationship involves 2 people & there are plenty of people who feel the same way as aenri. Saying he's wrong to think that way wont change the fact that a person who feels that way & a trans person is never going to work out well in a relationship.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 08, 2015, 08:18:42 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wobbly on February 08, 2015, 08:19:56 am
The thing is they don't repulse me. I'm more taking issue with the fact your saying your opinion is right & his opinion is wrong.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 08, 2015, 08:25:41 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Criptfeind on February 08, 2015, 08:29:59 am
But Penguin, you're also breaking the rules made by this this threads OP (even if that person is you), rule five specifically. That seems a bit hypocritical.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 08, 2015, 08:34:24 am
I must say, that while said statement does give you the authority to enforce areas of discussion, it doesn't allow you to enforce an opinion. So while you can most certainly say that the entire trans-thing is non-debatable, you can't force an unilateral interpretation of what a woman is.

Then again, it doesn't seem like a discussion on that will be calm or cool (let alone progressive), and presumably people will be offended somewhere down the line, so it might be best to sweep the whole thing of the table. 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 08, 2015, 08:56:52 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on February 08, 2015, 09:23:59 am
There are also people born as women who have XY chromosomes, but they have androgen insensitivity syndrome, so they're born and grow up fully physically appearing female. Would you reject a girl in disgust if you find out she has a Y chromosome, but was born as physically female?

Born women with androgen insensitivity syndrome are physically extremely similar to transwomen. So there are people accepted as women their whole lives who have the same genetic make-up as transwomen. There's no physical difference. You could point that "but transwomen don't have a uterus". This is also a moot point. Does a uterus define womanhood? That's offensive, and plainly not true. Women have hysterectomies, and androgen insensitivity women are born without a uterus.

Since there's no apparent physical difference, or even genetic difference between a transwoman and many born women, the difference is entirely within the transphobic person's head.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on February 08, 2015, 09:59:57 am
Quote from: Reelya on February 08, 2015, 09:23:59 am
There are also people born as women who have XY chromosomes, but they have androgen insensitivity syndrome, so they're born and grow up fully physically appearing female. Would you reject a girl in disgust if you find out she has a Y chromosome, but was born as physically female?
Whoa whoa whoa. That's an actual thing? Are they infertile or do they have a 50% chance of having YY kids?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on February 08, 2015, 10:02:11 am
I'd argue that I have the right to dislike or not date someone for any goddamn reason I choose, be it gender identity or communist sympathies or eye color.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on February 08, 2015, 10:02:19 am
No, they're infertile unfortunately. YY kids wouldn't develop beyond an ovum in any event.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wobbly on February 08, 2015, 10:04:05 am
link?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on February 08, 2015, 10:06:49 am
Quote from: Strife26 on February 08, 2015, 10:02:11 am
I'd argue that I have the right to dislike or not date someone for any goddamn reason I choose, be it gender identity or communist sympathies or eye color.
Of course you have the right to think whatever you want. Just pointing out there's nothing objective about it, the only measurable differences are inside your own head.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on February 08, 2015, 10:09:04 am
There are also men with xx chromosomes, as well as people with xxy and xxxy setups, as well as other variants, if I remember what I once read on Wikipedia correctly.


Quote from: Strife26 on February 08, 2015, 10:02:11 am
I'd argue that I have the right to dislike or not date someone for any goddamn reason I choose, be it gender identity or communist sympathies or eye color.

Nobody has said you can't, though.

Edit: dammit darvi
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on February 08, 2015, 10:13:10 am
I'd also argue that it extends to the right to call someone by any title I choose. Transphobia might not be a good thing, but the value of free speech (especially objectionable speech) greatly greatly outweighs demands to avoid bigotry.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on February 08, 2015, 10:13:22 am
Quote from: wobbly on February 08, 2015, 10:04:05 am
link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome

you can look on youtube for documentaries where they interview the women. That's how I heard about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuXL-3eoB-o
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 08, 2015, 10:22:18 am
Quote from: Strife26 on February 08, 2015, 10:13:10 am
I'd also argue that it extends to the right to call someone by any title I choose. Transphobia might not be a good thing, but the value of free speech (especially objectionable speech) greatly greatly outweighs demands to avoid bigotry.
"free speech" only applies to what a government does to you, nothing else.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on February 08, 2015, 10:26:10 am
Legally (under the first, and such)  yes. However, that doesn't change the fact that a good society still protects the right of unfavorable speech. Sure, private individuals do not have the prohibition on restricting speech, but arguing that the same need doesn't apply when it's not purely against the government seems a somewhat silly thing to argue. 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 08, 2015, 10:33:17 am
Free speech is there to make sure you can talk against a superior power without repercussions. This doesn't apply here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 08, 2015, 10:35:57 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 08, 2015, 10:47:30 am
Ehh, no, Strife. Organizations are happy to put rules into place that restrict the speech of their members - universities prohibit political speech by employees in their capacity as employees, daycares often prohibit profanity by staff, religious organizations might prohibit the sharing of inner mysteries, and businesses can prohibit the sharing of trade secrets. Forums can ban posting of pornography. If you email a rambling, insulting diatribe to your boss about their suspect parentage, you may be fired, and nobody would weep for you. The Westboro Baptist Church has a right to say whatever they want, but everybody else has exactly the same right to tell them to shut the fuck up, and can certainly refuse to host them or their opinions on private property (like a forum).

I agree that your dating preferences are entirely up to you (to argue that anybody can be obligated to be attracted to anybody else creates a pretty horrific situation, I'd say), and I agree that you can label people however you want as far as you're concerned, but when you're participating in a group you don't have the right to insist that they accept your labeling system as valid.

EDIT: That goes both ways, of course. On these grounds, we'd be the assholes if we invaded another forum to insist that they change their definitions. There might be other, compelling reasons for doing that, but we'd certainly be guilty of violating this particular social guideline.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on February 08, 2015, 11:00:35 am
Yes, but all of those things nicely restrict open discussion on the topic, and a thread specifically about discussing things (unlike a business with the aim of making a profit) is not bettered by it. It's progressive discussion, not progressive echo chamber.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on February 08, 2015, 11:08:30 am
I don't see how somebody's dating preferences factor into tolerance, at all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wobbly on February 08, 2015, 11:16:21 am
Factors into the original question of:

Quote from: Sheo on February 07, 2015, 03:13:58 pm
Second question, since I can't really figure out my own view on it - should a trans post-op person still be morally obliged to tell a possible sexual partner that he or she is trans? Does it violate the other's right to know not telling it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 08, 2015, 11:27:36 am
I dunno. Thread's specifically supposed to be a safe space, so there's going to be some degree of "echo-chambering" going on here, specifically because we have to do things like not undermine the identities of the (numerous) trans forum members. Going out of our way to be accepting of their identities is, I think, more important than being accepting of aenri's (and possibly yours, but IIRC you stepped in to defend him, not yourself) labeling schemes.

EDIT: Actually, that "safe space" requirement was never made clear in the OP. Possibly implied, but eh. I'm out.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 08, 2015, 11:46:17 am
Quote from: Reelya on February 08, 2015, 10:02:19 am
No, they're infertile unfortunately. YY kids wouldn't develop beyond an ovum in any event.
And they don't have ovaries. They have testicles.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on February 08, 2015, 12:05:07 pm
Quote from: Darvi on February 08, 2015, 11:08:30 am
I don't see how somebody's dating preferences factor into tolerance, at all.
I'm not trans, myself. Personally, I'd be *okay* with someone not wanting to date me if I were. I wouldn't *like* it, and I'd think lesser of them for it (same as I would think lesser of someone who doesn't date black people, or something else not in the persons control) but I understand that dating is in a different realm than co-workers, or even friends, and it's not something you want to force.

That said, I think the kerfuffle here is less about the dating, and more about the "transwomen aren't actually women!" think Aenri blurted.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on February 08, 2015, 12:39:38 pm
Yeah, I too think that having this thread be a safe place for our local trans-people is more important than discussing Aenri's objections. If he's really interested, he can always create a new thread for that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on February 08, 2015, 01:30:01 pm
Quote from: wobbly on February 08, 2015, 11:16:21 am
Factors into the original question of:

Quote from: Sheo on February 07, 2015, 03:13:58 pm
Second question, since I can't really figure out my own view on it - should a trans post-op person still be morally obliged to tell a possible sexual partner that he or she is trans? Does it violate the other's right to know not telling it?

I really don't think so, in the one-night-stand/casual sex context. I mean, any sort of unexamined visceral disgust on my part towards trans people that I don't know about is far eclipsed by, say, dislike of Republicans or people with really bad taste in music. It's more one of those long-term relationship things, and I certainly tell anyone I intend to do sex with that I'm pansexual and non-binary, even though I appear to be a straight woman and had no intent of changing my gender presentation, simply because I've found in the past that not saying so results in weird sexual expectations on my behavior. You know, gendered expectations.

Personally, even back when I was just straight-up identifying as a straight cis female and exclusively dating straight cis men, I'd have a regular conversation about gender roles and sexuality just as part of a getting-to-know-you sort of a thing. I really think that anyone, in any sort of long-term romancing relationship should do that, including all of the totally straight cis people out there. It feels like people get into a lot of heartbreak and domestic disputes later in the relationship due to not actually finding out whether they're compatible in that regard or not. It could save everyone a lot of pain.


Or, on another side: I need to not date blondes because of my PTSD. If someone dyed their hair, do they need to tell me if we're just going to have a one-evening thing? Absolutely no. That would be completely ridiculous, because it's not immediately relevant to the situation for me. An accepted risk of fucking someone you don't know is that you don't know them. If you think trans history is a no-go, then you should ask about that like you'd ask about any other such things (HIV status comes to mind, not that being trans is somehow a communicable disease. I've never had a one-night stand, so I don't actually know how much or what is talked about in those situations). Asking questions is part of producing the borderlines of your consent, and if you do not consent to sex with someone on grounds of minority status, it is your job to ask, not theirs to disclose. Your consent and your boundaries need to be produced and navigated by you. You cannot make someone else responsible for guessing what might or might not bothering you. That is a textbook abuse scenario, and asking a trans person to assume before any sexual encounter that their attentions are categorically unwanted is a demand that they think of themselves in a psychologically abusive way.

After all, there must be some reason why cis people feel like they don't want to disclose that they're cis, and don't like to assume that others wouldn't want them because of that at the start of every sexual encounter. It hurts, right? It's psychologically damaging. It destroys your ego. You just want to flirt and not especially worry about it. Creating social situations where people who have done nothing morally wrong must behave as though their very existence is assumed reprehensible creates a damaging, destructive society.

Again, one more time: Your preferences are your problem. When you treat them like other people are responsible for them, that is viciously entitled behavior and encourages abusive imbalances of power on the relationship level long-term. Have the conversations that you need to have, and make yourself personally responsible.

I just can't date computer programmers and atheists. It doesn't fucking work. So I start discussions about career plans and religion, as well.

And yes, I do reveal my mental health status early on in the relationship, before we get to the holding-hands stage, even though most of the time it results in my losing friends and being abused. I don't especially feel that it's my moral obligation, but it makes the relationship go slightly smoother.


This point of view that in order to not be bigoted you've got to be open to X Y or Z traits also leads people to doing stupid things like dating others to prove that they're not bigoted, which is really a negative consequence from my perspective. Dating is dating. You need people to be free to be openly themselves in that context more than any other one in life, and telling them who they ought to be leads to folks struggling mightily against their own desires and natures. It's bad both from utilitarian and moral standpoints, so let's not do it.

Whether or not something is in someone's control is not the place to decide over whether behavior ought to be acceptable or not, by the way. One ought to be supported whether they chose to be gay or had gayness thrust upon them. It's inappropriate to disenfranchise people with fluid sexuality or gender because they didn't have the advantage of fitting into our ideas on whether "it's okay, because it's not your fault."

"We'd legislate the hell out of you, but as you aren't choosing not to step in line with the bizarre aesthetic and social requirements of our morally bankrupt culture, we'll look past it and let it go."

A model of tolerance and equality.


I personally don't think any less of people who wouldn't date me because I'm non-binary or dyslexic or whatever either, by the way. People have preferences, some of which are very odd, and they should be allowed to have them. If you said "I wouldn't be friends with you because you're non-binary," then I think you're an absolute ass. But: I feel like there's a habit of lauding people who want to have sex with you (even though that person may be a fetishist) and morally opposing people who won't (even though that person may be mentally ill or any other number of other things than Rankly Bigoted). I think it's fine to be biased when it comes to sex. You can't tell other people who they ought to love, and looking down on someone for it seems really wrong to me. I found out that I'd been lusting after a Catholic republican, he disclosed his republican status to me, and I immediately lost sexual interest, went "nope," and walked away. This should be acceptable. It's ridiculous to act like I should have kept dating someone who voted for Romney despite a loss of interest, because that's way more important to me than how good he was at hilarious Kermit the Frog impressions or whether he was handsome. Similarly, one time I lost interest in someone early on because I found out that he was a heavy soda drinker. Something I wasn't expecting--something that had no bearing on him as a human being, really--but something that somehow changed his image, in a way I found bizarre. People with stringent requirements are going to have a harder time, but they're not somehow lesser just because of what they do or do not want.

People are often really shitty because of what they do or do not want, especially to minority groups who are already having a terrible time. But I think that, more than who we are or aren't fucking, we should pay attention to how people say and act in other contexts, because that's a much better indicator of how they feel about that group in general. If someone treats others well while quietly not dating people with trait X or airing those views outside of appropriate contexts, then what's wrong with that?

(Part of what's wrong with that is that for some reason people talk about how much they don't want to date someone trans one hell of a lot more than they talk about how they wouldn't want to date someone who loves birds or someone who doesn't share their hardcore love of almond butter. They also talk about it in places where it's kind of not relevant, like social policy threads, rather than keeping it to places where we're talking about the minutiae of what turns us on or off. I have never seen a discussion on PTSD derail to "I wouldn't date a person with PTSD," let alone receiving this much heated attention, because it was seen as wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand. Kind of like "whether or not you want to fuck a trans person" is wholly irrelevant to the question of social justice, whether your answer is yes or your answer is no.

That's personal, not political, and treating it as some sort of important political topic reminds me of the conversations that turn from talking about contraceptive access and anti-rape policy to whether or not women are morally obligated to shave their legs. I think we all know that that's ridiculous, so let's stop harassing a particular group about disclosing things, because they are no more obligated to do so than anyone else is to openness or honesty. It's almost like one group is being held to a standard which no one else is being obligated to meet and on which no one else is being questioned, and the group is being threatened with violence if they do not meet that standard. That seems more than irrelevant from a social-justice standpoint; it seems antithetical.

The same goes for questioning other people's self-identifications on gender and sexuality. If your gender is not being questioned as a valid identity--perhaps because it occurs with a high statistical frequency and is generally talked about and upheld by the culture--then it's not right to put other people's genders up on the block. That is not relevant to the aims of this thread, and pretending that your right to call others anything you wish is somehow not being protected when it is merely off-topic is absolutely absurd. I reserve the right to call you a bigot and a jerk, but this is not the place to evaluate your particular moral outlook and condone or condemn you for them, just as this is not the place to examine the reality of my gender and verify whether it makes me fuckable or not. We're talking about ethics in general, not ethics as they pertain to some ant farm in a frictionless vacuum.)

tl;dr: The questions being discussed constitute a derail off-topic from the scope of this thread. Please re-rail and take personal discussions elsewhere.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 08, 2015, 04:00:11 pm
The derail point is a fine enough one for me to agree with. The original question's been answered, and all that's been done for the last coupla pages is trying to insist on one definition of what the relevant criteria for being a woman happen to be (and of course we only discussed it for women, because this is the Internet and we kind of generally suck >____________>). Semantic arguments are explicitly banned, and OP made a specific denial. There are so many reasons the argument should've been dropped. Sorry to literally everybody.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on February 08, 2015, 04:18:48 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on February 08, 2015, 08:56:52 am
Quote from: Criptfeind on February 08, 2015, 08:29:59 am
But Penguin, you're also breaking the rules made by this this threads OP (even if that person is you), rule five specifically. That seems a bit hypocritical.

That rule is not a free ticket to say whatever you want. Bigotry is not allowed, and this is where I draw the line on transphobia.

Ugh...it's not...bigotry to state an opinion. It's bigotry to be intolerant to what somebody else thinks. I, for example, think gender is more than just a changeable label. Stating this isn't bigotry, it's just opinion. Were someone to say they prefer to be called she/he, then I would most certainly do so. That's not intolerance, just a differing view.

Crushing that view would be bigotry.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 08, 2015, 04:42:29 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on February 08, 2015, 04:18:48 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on February 08, 2015, 08:56:52 am
Quote from: Criptfeind on February 08, 2015, 08:29:59 am
But Penguin, you're also breaking the rules made by this this threads OP (even if that person is you), rule five specifically. That seems a bit hypocritical.

That rule is not a free ticket to say whatever you want. Bigotry is not allowed, and this is where I draw the line on transphobia.

Ugh...it's not...bigotry to state an opinion. It's bigotry to be intolerant to what somebody else thinks. I, for example, think gender is more than just a changeable label. Stating this isn't bigotry, it's just opinion. Were someone to say they prefer to be called she/he, then I would most certainly do so. That's not intolerance, just a differing view.

Crushing that view would be bigotry.
Stating an opinion is bigotry if that opinion is bigot.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 08, 2015, 04:45:29 pm
"Black people are bad" is an opinion and also clearly bigoted
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on February 08, 2015, 04:57:12 pm
My point being, that my opinion on these matters is not bigotry. It's not intolerance, because I do tolerate transgender people. I have absolutely no problem with them. I just think they're wrong when they say they've changed their gender.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 08, 2015, 05:02:35 pm
Where did the 'this thread is a safe space' come from?

@Trans stuff: I'd once again propose Dwarfy's General Approach: It's good/desirable/decent to tell a one-time sexual partner about being post-op, but that partner does not by a far shot have a right to know. It's a social obligation below the level of an outright requirement.

E: Vec, you don't date atheists?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on February 08, 2015, 05:02:55 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on February 08, 2015, 04:57:12 pm
my opinion on these matters is not bigotry.
I don't think you get to make that judgement call.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on February 08, 2015, 05:05:56 pm
Quote from: Darvi on February 08, 2015, 05:02:55 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on February 08, 2015, 04:57:12 pm
my opinion on these matters is not bigotry.
I don't think you get to make that judgement call.

Fine then. Tell me, am I a bigoted asshole?

More than the norm, I mean.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 08, 2015, 05:13:19 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on February 08, 2015, 05:02:35 pm
Where did the 'this thread is a safe space' come from?
That was me misremembering OP, I don't think anybody else has used the phrase except to describe it as something desirable. Not worth arguing about unless penguinofhonor wants it to be something at stake, probably. We should probably move on.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on February 08, 2015, 05:27:02 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on February 08, 2015, 05:05:56 pm
Fine then. Tell me, am I a bigoted asshole?

More than the norm, I mean.

Well, that would require going over your opinions with a fine tooth comb. Which is probably more effort than any of us here really wish to put into things

I've always been under the impression that bigotry is about intolerance towards those who are different from oneself, though apparently wikipedia disagrees with me. Regardless of whether it's bigotry, though, I think that "Trans-people can't actually change their genders" is a rather mean thing to say, considering how important that is to most of them. You can be mean if you want, of course, but I don't have to put up with it if I don't want to.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 08, 2015, 05:32:20 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on February 08, 2015, 05:44:42 pm
Quote from: Angle on February 08, 2015, 05:27:02 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on February 08, 2015, 05:05:56 pm
Fine then. Tell me, am I a bigoted asshole?

More than the norm, I mean.

Well, that would require going over your opinions with a fine tooth comb. Which is probably more effort than any of us here really wish to put into things

I've always been under the impression that bigotry is about intolerance towards those who are different from oneself, though apparently wikipedia disagrees with me. Regardless of whether it's bigotry, though, I think that "Trans-people can't actually change their genders" is a rather mean thing to say, considering how important that is to most of them. You can be mean if you want, of course, but I don't have to put up with it if I don't want to.
In that case, I'm a big meany :P

Well, beats bigotry I guess.

In all seriousness, I am sorry if me saying that did offend anyone. I was mentioning it more as an example - I don't tend to bring it up, as it doesn't really matter how I view it. If someone has that view, and it makes them happy, then it gains me nothing arguing it.

I just disagree that the arguing is, in itself, bigotry.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on February 08, 2015, 05:47:26 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on February 08, 2015, 04:18:48 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on February 08, 2015, 08:56:52 am
Quote from: Criptfeind on February 08, 2015, 08:29:59 am
But Penguin, you're also breaking the rules made by this this threads OP (even if that person is you), rule five specifically. That seems a bit hypocritical.

That rule is not a free ticket to say whatever you want. Bigotry is not allowed, and this is where I draw the line on transphobia.

Ugh...it's not...bigotry to state an opinion. It's bigotry to be intolerant to what somebody else thinks. I, for example, think gender is more than just a changeable label. Stating this isn't bigotry, it's just opinion. Were someone to say they prefer to be called she/he, then I would most certainly do so. That's not intolerance, just a differing view.

Crushing that view would be bigotry.

Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on February 08, 2015, 05:05:56 pm
Quote from: Darvi on February 08, 2015, 05:02:55 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on February 08, 2015, 04:57:12 pm
my opinion on these matters is not bigotry.
I don't think you get to make that judgement call.

Fine then. Tell me, am I a bigoted asshole?

More than the norm, I mean.
"Intolerance towards bigotry" is a mainstay of these kinds of arguments, and I feel tempted to give my two cents on that, although we really should be moving on by now.
Anyway, people should be judged according to their actions, not their identities, thoughts, or opinions. Having an opinion is not a deed, but publicly stating your opinion -- especially to those whom it may concern -- is most definitely a deed, a speech act of sorts. Now, everyone is bigoted towards some group or another, and being "tolerant" is little more than simply being mindful of the fact that words matter. No-one can keep that in mind constantly, and that's why we often act like bigoted assholes, but it isn't possible to be a bigoted asshole since that description only concerns behaviour -- it is not a valid identity. Therefore, there is no such thing as intolerance towards bigotry.

EDIT: Removed redundant quote.     
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 08, 2015, 05:49:58 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on February 08, 2015, 05:51:08 pm
I think we have. We're off transgender discussion, and on to what it is to be a bigot :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on February 08, 2015, 05:54:16 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on February 08, 2015, 05:02:35 pm
E: Vec, you don't date atheists?

As a rule of thumb, nope. I could make an exception for one who went above and beyond to openly express tolerance for religious faith in general without prompting, but otherwise, no.


Quote from: penguinofhonor on February 08, 2015, 05:49:58 pm
Move. On.

Can I ask what you're asking us to move on from, in specific? I want to respect you, and I also had some more points I wanted to add to one of the trans* sub-discussions we've been having.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 08, 2015, 06:00:34 pm
I think it's the semantics argument - that is indeed in the OP. Trans stuff is fine.
(Although I think explicitly labeling this thread as a safe space for that stuff might invite what Germans call Totschlagargumente - "bludgeoning-to-death arguments", the type that does not further discussion but instead ends it.)
I'm honestly kinda surprised, Vec - I hadn't taken you for the religious kind... Any particular bad experiences with atheists?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: aenri on February 08, 2015, 06:01:08 pm
Welp, this thread moves fast.

As for my previous statement - I probably need to clarify that I stated that I don't include transwomen in my "woman" dating pool - for my own reasons and I don't think anything's wrong with that. That was directly in response to ...2 or 3 posts up from mine?

I didn't want to make any generalizing statements about nature of transwomen and women. And I won't make any in this thread, because I don't like fanning flames.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on February 08, 2015, 06:02:29 pm
Quote from: Vector on February 08, 2015, 05:54:16 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on February 08, 2015, 05:02:35 pm
E: Vec, you don't date atheists?

As a rule of thumb, nope. I could make an exception for one who went above and beyond to openly express tolerance for religious faith in general without prompting, but otherwise, no.

Eh...really? Because anyone who is religious is actually more likely, IMO, to be intolerant to other religions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on February 08, 2015, 06:07:00 pm
b-but

vector notice me :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on February 08, 2015, 06:12:05 pm
There are plenty of atheists who are like that, for various reasons. I myself might be counted on the edge of that group, depending on how you gauge these things. I do believe that religious faith is a bad thing, and that most people would be better off without it, but I generally try to be gentle about it, and don't engage people unless they consent to having that conversation - I know firsthand how painful it can be to have change a large section of your beliefs like that, after all. There are some atheists that are a lot more aggressive, though, including a host that take insulting peoples religious opinions as an end in and of itself.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on February 08, 2015, 06:14:16 pm
Quote from: Angle on February 08, 2015, 06:12:05 pm
There are plenty of atheists who are like that, for various reasons. I myself might be counted on the edge of that group, depending on how you gauge these things. I do believe that religious faith is a bad thing, and that most people would be better off without it, but I generally try to be gentle about it, and don't engage people unless they consent to having that conversation - I know firsthand how painful it can be to have change a large section of your beliefs like that, after all. There are some atheists that are a lot more aggressive, though, including a host that take insulting peoples religious opinions as an end in and of itself.

Yes, but saying atheists are somehow more intolerant than believers is a tad foolish. Religious people can be just as vehement, insulting and/or rude.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 08, 2015, 06:14:46 pm
TL;DR: People are people?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 08, 2015, 06:15:52 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on February 08, 2015, 06:17:29 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on February 08, 2015, 06:14:46 pm
TL;DR: People are people?

Essentially, yes. An atheist is just the same as a believer, except for the belief bit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 08, 2015, 06:17:44 pm
D... do we really need to start analyzing Vector's dating preferences for consistency with real-world statistics? I feel like like if that's the direction we're going to travel, we could not possibly have missed the point of the last several pages by a wider mark. No imposition meant toward Vector if it's something you're cool with talking about, it just seems like such a bizarre direction.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on February 08, 2015, 06:18:47 pm
Oh, come on. If I said something so inherently biased, people would go down my throat :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on February 08, 2015, 06:18:59 pm
You mean this isn't the find-a-mate-for-Vector thread?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 08, 2015, 06:19:25 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on February 08, 2015, 06:17:44 pm
D... do we really need to start analyzing Vector's dating preferences for consistency with real-world statistics? I feel like like if that's the direction we're going to travel, we could not possibly have missed the point of the last several pages by a wider mark. No imposition meant toward Vector if it's something you're cool with talking about, it just seems like such a bizarre direction.

That's basically what I've been thinking...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on February 08, 2015, 06:21:12 pm
Well, this is less about vector's preferences and more about whether atheists are more or less likely to be jerks. I'd of course say less likely, but I've likely had different experiences than vector, especially considering her comment about computer programmers.

Hmm, maybe it is about vector after all. Congrats vector, your dating preferences apparently make for fascinating discussion. ;)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 08, 2015, 06:26:06 pm
Turning away from the 'Would Vector date me' topic, an interesting Cracked article about pedophiles and treating them. (http://www.cracked.com/article_20981_5-ways-were-making-pedophilia-worse.html)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on February 08, 2015, 06:30:46 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on February 08, 2015, 06:15:52 pm
Move on entirely from the semantics argument about bigotry and people sharing whether they'd have sex with trans people.

Part of me wants to let the other trans discussions cool down a little, but I guess if people want to have good conversations then go for it. Just make sure to remain chill, and do not drag up any drama from the previous pages if you're referencing something someone said then.

Thanks. I'm going to drop that for now.


Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on February 08, 2015, 06:14:16 pm
Yes, but saying atheists are somehow more intolerant than believers is a tad foolish. Religious people can be just as vehement, insulting and/or rude.

Did I say anything about how I feel about people who follow received religious practice, buddy?

No. I said I don't date atheists, and I didn't even say why yet, just which kinds of atheists I'd consider. This kind of behavior is why I don't date atheists.


Quote from: Helgoland on February 08, 2015, 06:00:34 pm
I'm honestly kinda surprised, Vec - I hadn't taken you for the religious kind... Any particular bad experiences with atheists?

Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on February 08, 2015, 06:02:29 pm
Eh...really? Because anyone who is religious is actually more likely, IMO, to be intolerant to other religions.

I am indeed a religious kind, but not of the organized religion sort. I see God as a collection of ideals, to be invoked and created by humankind through our struggles to develop correct moral behavior and a better-attuned group consciousness. Truth, beauty, atonement, forgiveness, creativity, etc.--the usual realm of the sacred. These things are to be sanctified, enjoyed, and appreciated.

I've had many experiences with atheists treating me like I was shit stupid or feeling that it was appropriate dinner conversation to try to disabuse me of my "incorrect" beliefs, despite having never heard what they actually are. Usually the conversations are overwhelming, aggressive, and no matter how much I ask the person to slow the fuck down and respect me instead of talking over me, they don't. Typically people assume (incorrectly) that if I am religious, I must have been brainwashed, even though I form a congregation of one and no one told me to think these things 9_9 A particularly painful example involved a former partner who, when I was undergoing a mental breakdown due to finally collapsing under a lifetime of abuse, decided it was time to take issue once again with my saying "these things shouldn't be happening," because morals are relative and those who don't believe that "a little evil is okay as long as it gets you what you want" have been brainwashed by the Abrahamic religions into thinking that there is such a thing as "improper treatment."

So no. I don't date atheists. I don't date anyone who wants to proselytize to me or put restrictions on my behavior in the name of their god's personal fiat, even if that mirabile dictu is Science taken as received truth. Scientists and priests make mistakes. The truth is messier than what they've offered us, and we certainly won't find it if we keep on getting caught up in these wars over what is wrong with other people's positions instead of synthesizing the best of what everyone has to give. Right action is the domain of human beings, to be discovered by us, and is the gift we give ourselves as a conscious fragment of the universe.


Quote from: Dutchling on February 08, 2015, 06:07:00 pm
b-but

vector notice me :P

*drop-kicks* >:3
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 08, 2015, 06:41:15 pm
If you want to pick a fight with atheists I'd suggest doing it in the religion thread, this thread isn't really equipped to handle that kind of debate.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on February 08, 2015, 06:42:58 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on February 08, 2015, 06:41:15 pm
If you want to pick a fight with atheists I'd suggest doing it in the religion thread, this thread isn't really equipped to handle that kind of debate.

I don't want to pick a fight with atheists. I'm sorry it appeared that way. Let's relax.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 08, 2015, 06:44:28 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on February 08, 2015, 06:41:15 pm
If you want to pick a fight with atheists I'd suggest doing it in the religion thread, this thread isn't really equipped to handle that kind of debate.
The religion thread isn't either. Picking fights in general is something to be avoided.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on February 08, 2015, 06:47:28 pm
Quote from: Vector on February 08, 2015, 06:42:58 pm
I don't want to pick a fight with atheists. I'm sorry it appeared that way. Let's relax.

FIGHT ME TO THE DEATH, COWARD!

or not, that's fine too...

But for serious, I'm sorry you've run into so many asshats. That's pretty terrible.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on February 08, 2015, 07:01:34 pm
Quote from: Angle on February 08, 2015, 06:47:28 pm
But for serious, I'm sorry you've run into so many asshats. That's pretty terrible.

Thank you.

I think part of it may be where I'm from. Silicon Valley is kind of different... there's big "rationalist" meetups and whatnot, so it might just be the usual "groups in power tend to punch down" thing. Here, being an atheist or a programmer isn't just, like, a religious position or a job--it's a power identity, with techie nerds sort of at the top of the community heap being extremely strong, so I guess maybe it's something more like saying "I wouldn't date a member of the police" elsewhere. There's literally parties here where they bring in busloads of women for IT people to meet, and saying you have an interest in the arts or literature sort of gives you grounds to be (not literally) spat on and ridiculed. "You look like an English major" is generally a veiled misogynist insult, and I find it very normal to go into groups of people who want to have vile conversations about the uselessness of literature, beauty, anything that's not purely utilitarian. I mean, that's debatable, of course, but what I mean is to say that where many other parts of the country may shit on techie nerds or smart kids most commonly, around here what's popular is crapping on people for having feelings or the ever-popular "being inefficient." The arts are being totally knocked over by the sciences--not just "science is cool!!" but a sort of generalized disdain for anyone who's in the least bit soft, romantic, or aesthetically sensitive.

Man, I'm sorry for the confusion. I really should have explained this more.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 08, 2015, 07:05:34 pm
It's not just Vector.  I totally understand where she's coming from.  And I'm not even religious.  I have certain ideas that one might consider pseudo-spiritual in nature that I've rarely ever discussed.  But I've got in just as many fights with atheists that see religion as a mental virus to be quarantined and eradicated as I have with religious zealots.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on February 08, 2015, 07:10:51 pm
Quote from: Vector on February 08, 2015, 07:01:34 pm
Man, I'm sorry for the confusion. I really should have explained this more.
It would likely help on these forums but considering how much thought and content seems to go into each of your posts...exhaustion might become more of an issue. Especially with emotional or political stuff.

Thank you for your contributions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on February 08, 2015, 07:14:22 pm
Yeah, your posts are pretty impressive, Vector. I'd get exhausted after writing, like, half of that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 08, 2015, 07:17:12 pm
Quote from: Vector on February 08, 2015, 07:01:34 pm
Silicon Valley is kind of different... there's big "rationalist" meetups and whatnot, so it might just be the usual "groups in power tend to punch down" thing. Here, being an atheist or a programmer isn't just, like, a religious position or a job--it's a power identity, with techie nerds sort of at the top of the community heap being extremely strong, so I guess maybe it's something more like saying "I wouldn't date a member of the police" elsewhere. There's literally parties here where they bring in busloads of women for IT people to meet, and saying you have an interest in the arts or literature sort of gives you grounds to be (not literally) spat on and ridiculed. "You look like an English major" is generally a veiled misogynist insult, and I find it very normal to go into groups of people who want to have vile conversations about the uselessness of literature, beauty, anything that's not purely utilitarian. I mean, that's debatable, of course, but what I mean is to say that where many other parts of the country may shit on techie nerds or smart kids most commonly, around here what's popular is crapping on people for having feelings or the ever-popular "being inefficient." The arts are being totally knocked over by the sciences--not just "science is cool!!" but a sort of generalized disdain for anyone who's in the least bit soft, romantic, or aesthetically sensitive.
:<

I'm going to go spend the rest of night working on ways to turn numbers into narratives out of spite toward that perspective.

Also while I don't think the explanation was something you had to do, it was very nice of you to. Thank you.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 08, 2015, 08:59:30 pm
Quote from: Vector on February 08, 2015, 06:42:58 pm
I don't want to pick a fight with atheists. I'm sorry it appeared that way. Let's relax.
Maybe don't post multiple big rants about how terrible atheists are then, as well as a direct ad hominem against someone who challenged your view?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on February 08, 2015, 09:19:47 pm
FOR THE LIGHT BRIGADE!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 08, 2015, 09:27:39 pm
-Posting was a mistake, and I apologize. Hopefully nobody managed to quote me before now-
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on February 08, 2015, 09:31:34 pm
DERAIL FROM CURRENT TOPIC, DERAIL IS COMMENCING! ALL ABOARD THE DERAIL TRAIN! CHOO CHOOOO!

What kind of government do you guys think is most progressive? Most useful? Most efficient? Most practical?
All those wonderful things.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TheDarkStar on February 08, 2015, 09:37:55 pm
Heh.

Progressive - Pure communism or direct democracy.
Useful/efficient - Absolute monarchy with a non-corrupt leader.
Practical - Either democracy or monarchy - one because it limits how much the government can mess with people's lives. The other because it's easy to set up. I'm not counting anarchy because that doesn't usually stay anarchy for very long.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 08, 2015, 10:11:59 pm
Seems like an opportune time to throw this thing in here (http://www.cvltnation.com/anarchists-vs-isis-the-revolution-in-syria-nobodys-talking-about/)

According to this article, there is an very progressive little society that has sprung up in Syria and is holding its own amidst all the turmoil there.  The author compares it to the anarchist movement in revolutionary Spain or the Zapatistas.  Don't know anything about it beyond what's in the link, but I bet someone here will know more and have something interesting to say.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TripJack on February 08, 2015, 11:37:36 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on February 08, 2015, 09:31:34 pm
What kind of government do you guys think is most progressive?
define progressive

Quote from: UXLZ on February 08, 2015, 09:31:34 pm
Most useful?
useful in what way?

Quote from: UXLZ on February 08, 2015, 09:31:34 pm
Most efficient?
dunno, in the modern age they all become hopeless bureaucracies in the end don't they?

Quote from: UXLZ on February 08, 2015, 09:31:34 pm
Most practical?
republic
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arcvasti on February 08, 2015, 11:44:17 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on February 08, 2015, 09:31:34 pm
What kind of government do you guys think is most progressive? Most useful? Most efficient? Most practical?
All those wonderful things.

Most progressive? Anarchy. Everyone gets all the rights they could ever want. And then some.

Most efficient/useful? Any government where someone who is a genuinely good ruler can do the right thing without having to wade through checks and balances. Of course, genuinely good rulers are rare and can't be induced, so this is hardly practical.

Most practical? Probably democracy, with more checks and balances then it currently possesses. If the people put the worst possible people in power, they still shouldn't be able to do any harm.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on February 08, 2015, 11:52:38 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on February 08, 2015, 09:31:34 pm
DERAIL FROM CURRENT TOPIC, DERAIL IS COMMENCING! ALL ABOARD THE DERAIL TRAIN! CHOO CHOOOO!

What kind of government do you guys think is most progressive? Most useful? Most efficient? Most practical?
All those wonderful things.

Aww... I actually wanted to try to have a calm discussion about Trans stuff, because I feel it's really important. But that's coo'.

It's maybe not possible to implement on a state or continental scale, but the system I find most beautiful and am kind of in love with are those pre-governmental forms of egalitarianism you can find in tribal cultures. They rely on small populations to function, since everyone kind of has to know everyone else personally... but there are no leadership positions, everyone contributes whatever they can to the group, and everyone gets whatever they need and can't produce on their own from their neighbors. Currency doesn't have to exist because commodities aren't owned; the only debt that exists is which person needs what thing... and when goods are scarce, individuals determine how to divy things up or address the shortage. It's got a collectivist vibe, without all the Fierce Nationalism or Despotism, and it warms my heart. Downsides are that you're limited to what your neighbors and you can produce, and the skills you have; if you need treatment for an illness, better hope one of them knows enough medicine to get you a working cure, etc.

I suspect it was one of Karl Marx's inspirations. I had a long argument in class with an Anthropology Professor, where I hypothesized that Communism may have been an attempt to create something like that Egalitarianism on a national scale, but failed due to the need to create a system to control the distribution of goods (you know, it wasn't goods and services passing from individual to individual anymore, so it removed the built-in equality and responsibilities individuals felt for their neighbors or society's well-being and growth... the part that makes it work on a tribal level was made impersonal by a system that turned compassion into social obligation.

As I recall, it sparked a derail about how "Communism never works." and the heavy implication that Uncle Sam was crying at me for suggesting it. I couldn't reign him back in or shift focus to my actual point. It was sad.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on February 09, 2015, 12:05:23 am
... can see where the appeal is, but the thought of that sort of societal organization always makes me kinda' melancholy. It would mean... well, basically that our species is functionally dead. There'd be no great projects, no great innovations -- certainly none that lasted very long -- no... anything, really. We'd never reach the stars, never get off Earth. It would be stagnation. Pretty stagnation, and maybe fairly happy, but it would effectively be species level suicide. Any chance we'd have of being more than what we currently are would be gone.

Personally, I couldn't live with that. We've got hella' problems nowadays, but at least there's some sort of slim chance of escape in there, eventually, y'know? Slim hope is better than none.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on February 09, 2015, 12:06:44 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on February 08, 2015, 10:11:59 pm
Seems like an opportune time to throw this thing in here (http://www.cvltnation.com/anarchists-vs-isis-the-revolution-in-syria-nobodys-talking-about/)

According to this article, there is an very progressive little society that has sprung up in Syria and is holding its own amidst all the turmoil there.  The author compares it to the anarchist movement in revolutionary Spain or the Zapatistas.  Don't know anything about it beyond what's in the link, but I bet someone here will know more and have something interesting to say.

Duuuuuuude...

I'll admit, I haven't even finished reading the article yet, but that looks AWESOME.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on February 09, 2015, 12:19:57 am
Quote from: Solifuge on February 08, 2015, 11:52:38 pm
-snep-
Quote from: Frumple on February 09, 2015, 12:05:23 am
... can see where the appeal is, but the thought of that sort of societal organization always makes me kinda' melancholy. It would mean... well, basically that our species is functionally dead. There'd be no great projects, no great innovations -- certainly none that lasted very long -- no... anything, really. We'd never reach the stars, never get off Earth. It would be stagnation. Pretty stagnation, and maybe fairly happy, but it would effectively be species level suicide. Any chance we'd have of being more than what we currently are would be gone.

Personally, I couldn't live with that. We've got hella' problems nowadays, but at least there's some sort of slim chance of escape in there, eventually, y'know? Slim hope is better than none.

Hmm... I'unno. It's never existed in a first-world or high-tech context to be able to say for sure, but I could imagine a modern, nation-sized collectivist society like that still allowing for things like Skyscrapers and Space Missions. If your agriculture/industry/energy production is heavily automated and productive enough to free up most people from having to do it (robotics + modern farming tools), communication is fast enough and information is well-distributed (internet?), you could have teams attempting to go to the moon, or trying to outdo eachother's architectural explots, for the hell of it. Or just doing whatever else they wanted, like putting time in to cure diseases, because it is something important that they think they could do well.

Obvious elephant in the room is creating the infrastructure to support that. I think it needs something "Benevolent Robot Overlords" tier.

EDIT:
Quote from: SalmonGod on February 08, 2015, 10:11:59 pm
Seems like an opportune time to throw this thing in here (http://www.cvltnation.com/anarchists-vs-isis-the-revolution-in-syria-nobodys-talking-about/)

Thanks for this link. I'm reading this pretty hard right now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on February 09, 2015, 12:36:45 am
Yeah... it would need serious bootstrapping from some other system to be viable as anything but a return-to-wilderness sort of thing. Maybe after that point, sure -- with significant automation and AI-Overlord tier technology, each tribe would basically be a pantheon unto itself in terms of creative capability -- but without something like that... there's significant issues.

By the time we've reached that point, though, most of my concerns regarding potential progress would be addressed. We'd already have the capability of, if nothing else, world-ship type stuff or whatev', probably immortality of some sort or another, etc., etc. We would have effectively won the metaphorical game -- anything that comes after that's not actively destroying our capability is just free-play mode, y'know?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 09, 2015, 01:23:13 am
I don't think we need to be that advanced.  I think modern mass communications is enough.  We just need to build the right tool to apply our capabilities to the job.

I've written about this on the board a bit before, and I think Angle would remember it... but I think social media is the unwitting skeletal prototype for the egalitarian government of the future.

The whole problem Solifuge and Frumple are going back and forth over is how egalitarian society can only exist on small scale, because it's limited by the ability for everyone to communicate their abilities and needs to each other to organize efficiently.  Mass communications completely removes that restriction.

I think it's a major struggle that's taking place within modern society right now.  Old power structures are cracking down on and subverting the potential of the internet purposefully, because they already realize it's making them obsolete.  Just look at how much of a witch hunt for anarchism there is in the U.S. right now, even though it's not a widespread political affiliation at all, and there's only been one significant instance of terrorism by a self-identified anarchist in the last 100 years (the Unabomber).  It's because they know that the stage is set for anarchism to become truly legitimate.  All it will take at this point is the right memetic spark.

In the past, efficient organizing relied on hierarchy.  Information could be funneled upwards through chains of command, until it encountered the appropriate decision-making node to send an instructive response back down through the chain.

Now flat organizational structures are capable of responding to information faster than hierarchies can.  While information and instructions are flowing up and down through a hierarchy, a flat organizational model can simply disperse information instantly to all participants and respond.  We're already seeing this with the way protesters are able to outwit law enforcement.  Direct action groups can pretty successfully outmaneuver police units on the streets, unless communications hubs are raided and cell phone service shut down to the area.  Similarly, there have been many examples of startlingly successful efforts to solve difficult problems by crowd sourcing collaborative efforts, instead of relying solely on traditionally organized groups of experts.  And online file sharing is a futuristic egalitarian economy, whose models can be (and somewhat have been) altered and expanded to cover more than just information.

I mentioned social media.  So imagine something like this.  You have a profile on this website, where you offer your location, skills, and available resources.  You can post wants, needs, or suggestions to this website, and those things will become visible to or ping relevant members of the community within a suitable distance of your location, or the location relevant to your suggestion.  This scales to the scope of the project suggested, and reacts to the urgency of the request.

So let's say you have a medical emergency.  You use your cell phone to transmit this, and people with the relevant skills within a reasonable distance will be alerted to your emergency.  Or you post that a road nearby is in need of repair.  This will become visible to everyone in the community, who second the request or disagree with it, and those with relevant skills/resources within a certain area will be notified of it.  Maybe you want to propose that your city needs a bicycle trail, and that will spawn a discussion board and poll visible to the everyone within a certain distance to have the opportunity to chime in their stance and be involved in planning.  Or let's say you propose something like "Let's cure the fuck out of cancer".  I don't see why global projects couldn't be generated the same way.  They'd just need their own infrastructure to connect the right people and facilitate cooperation.

And if motivation is a concern, you can have a system of personal thanks and endorsements, whereby you can credit someone on their profile when they've done something for you or your community, and verify that they have the skills they say they have.  I don't think it's too optimistic of me to believe that people would go out of their way to help people that have a decorated profile, marking them as a valuable member of the community.  There could be some meritocracy, without all the desperation and coercion of capitalism.

The idea is we can do all the organization that keeps the modern world operating without hierarchy.  We just need to turn the technology that we have now into the proper tool and embrace it.

Edit:  A little cleaning because I typed this in a hurry, as it's late and I need to get to bed soon :[
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on February 09, 2015, 01:43:44 am
Quote from: Solifuge on February 08, 2015, 11:52:38 pm
It's maybe not possible to implement on a state or continental scale, but the system I find most beautiful and am kind of in love with are those pre-governmental forms of egalitarianism you can find in tribal cultures. They rely on small populations to function, since everyone kind of has to know everyone else personally... but there are no leadership positions, everyone contributes whatever they can to the group, and everyone gets whatever they need and can't produce on their own from their neighbors. Currency doesn't have to exist because commodities aren't owned; the only debt that exists is which person needs what thing... and when goods are scarce, individuals determine how to divy things up or address the shortage. It's got a collectivist vibe, without all the Fierce Nationalism or Despotism, and it warms my heart. Downsides are that you're limited to what your neighbors and you can produce, and the skills you have; if you need treatment for an illness, better hope one of them knows enough medicine to get you a working cure, etc.

I don't think it's really fair to associate all that with "tribal cultures". Many of these things are just the best bits cherry picked from assorted tribal cultures, and further idealised by western media (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage). Not saying that they aren't positive attributes though.


I would question the need, or even the effectiveness, of widespread automation. Call me a cynic, but I would have to wonder if 3x the efficiency would result in 1/3 of the work, or people buying 3x the number of iToys. IMO we already are already efficient enough to drastically reduce the ammount of involuntary work we have to do, but often instead opt to buy a new car, or something. To me, I think a very different economical system, and a very different mindset, would be more useful than more technology.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on February 09, 2015, 02:41:36 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on February 09, 2015, 01:23:13 am
-snyp-
Basically this.

I was being flippant and covering my ass with the Benevolent Robot Overlords comment. I agree with your argument, but it was a bolder one than I was willing to make here, especially without having done the research, preparing the examples, and mustering the Sisu to defend it if challenged. It's already possible technologically, and it really is already having early experiments. Obviously, the cultural hardware of a system like that (the ideas, the specific system/tools themselves) do not presently exist and would need inventing, but the principals and infrastructure are here. And yeah, there is a quiet revolution of distributed, peer-to-peer, non-hierarchically organized, internet-driven obsolescence and subversion happening right now, on many (all?) fronts: government and revolt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#Social_media_and_the_Arab_Spring), media distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay), crowd-sourced information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia) and entertainment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube), etc. It's pretty much the most exciting and terrifying thing happening right now, and it's not really getting the attention it probably will 30 years from now.

I really like that notion, though. Impartial, distributed, popular government, mediated by tech similar to social media, is basically Democracy 2.0... true democratization of resources and skills. It represents a practical modern egalitarian system, based on actually decentralizing the government. I don't know what kind of architects it would take, but that cause has my sword/axe/etc.

Quote from: alexandertnt on February 09, 2015, 01:43:44 am
-snarf-
Yeah, I was worried I was going to get a Noble Savage card thrown on that. I'm using the word Tribe to mean "Stateless Society", not "innocent peoples that live in nature as God intended". And just as an aside, I'm aware of the shortcomings of living in a historical pre-state/tribal society when it comes to quality of life, access to resources, etc., and I know I wouldn't like it! >_o
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 09, 2015, 08:02:45 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on February 08, 2015, 10:11:59 pm
Seems like an opportune time to throw this thing in here (http://www.cvltnation.com/anarchists-vs-isis-the-revolution-in-syria-nobodys-talking-about/)

According to this article, there is an very progressive little society that has sprung up in Syria and is holding its own amidst all the turmoil there.  The author compares it to the anarchist movement in revolutionary Spain or the Zapatistas.  Don't know anything about it beyond what's in the link, but I bet someone here will know more and have something interesting to say.
That looks interesting.

Quote from: alexandertnt on February 09, 2015, 01:43:44 am
I would question the need, or even the effectiveness, of widespread automation. Call me a cynic, but I would have to wonder if 3x the efficiency would result in 1/3 of the work, or people buying 3x the number of iToys. IMO we already are already efficient enough to drastically reduce the ammount of involuntary work we have to do, but often instead opt to buy a new car, or something. To me, I think a very different economical system, and a very different mindset, would be more useful than more technology.
My assumption is that this behavior is a consequence of how the entities in charge of forming public life (international companies) are selected for maximizing their profits, which gives them plenty of incentive to exploit and even create addictions. The metaphor of evolution for the free market isn't that far off, the proponents only seem to miss that the weighting function for that evolutionary algorithm is one of the most important parts.

When I say I am a "transhumanist anarchist" that basically means what SalmonGod is proposing, although I do think we need more formalized research into sociology. Humans can only interact with so many other humans reliably, I think we need some kind of abstract interface to get around that hurdle. One thing that is easy to miss is that we still need to get along with limited resources (like land, for instance) and that fulfilling everyones needs is not the only problem with distributing them but also what to actually do.
While Open Source and the like is a very nice model you need to pay attention to how many projects fail due to lack of consensus on how to do things. When limited resources are involve,d this can become a serious problem.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 09, 2015, 08:05:56 am
Thank you!  I've shared that idea quite a bit over the last several years, and it's extremely rare that anyone takes it seriously.

I don't understand why more people don't expect serious social revolution as a result of the internet, because for that to not happen would be a major combo break to one of history's most consistent trends.  A major change in communications technology always results in a major alteration to the structure and form of society.

The rise and spread of civilization wouldn't have been possible without the development of written language.  The printing press was quite directly responsible for the renaissance and set the stage for the political revolutions of the last couple hundred years.  The internet is at least as big as both of those, being capable of instantly dispersing information to the entire world, making the totality of humanity's knowledge available to everyone on demand, and making it possible to structure communication among groups in ways nobody could have imagined before (internet forums being a great example - a completely unprecedented but effective means for people from all over the world gathering to exchange ideas in an organized manner at whatever pace they please).  I think it's naive for people to think that this won't have drastic impacts on the structure of society, and there needs to be active debate on what kinds of changes are possible from it and which ones we want to consciously work towards.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on February 09, 2015, 08:26:19 am
ooh, ooh, ooh! I've been going on about ideas that I have for this kid of thing for a while too! I've got ideas for a kind of distributed organizing system. You've probably seen them around here before, right?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on February 09, 2015, 08:37:22 am
Quote from: Solifuge on February 09, 2015, 02:41:36 am
Quote from: alexandertnt on February 09, 2015, 01:43:44 am
-snarf-
Yeah, I was worried I was going to get a Noble Savage card thrown on that. I'm using the word Tribe to mean "Stateless Society", not "innocent peoples that live in nature as God intended". And just as an aside, I'm aware of the shortcomings of living in a historical pre-state/tribal society when it comes to quality of life, access to resources, etc., and I know I wouldn't like it! >_o

Hmm, I have never heard the word "Tribe" used to mean something like a stateless society. I apologise then.

Even so, "pre-govermental stateless societies" don't seem to often embody many of the traits you listed. Although I don't have a reason to doubt that such a system couldn't work modern times just from that, I imagine it would probably work better, thanks to the fact we aren't fighting over scraps-of-food/mating-partners anymore (or as often (well, at least "generally aren't" in first world countries)), and are a bit more accepting now of individuals that deviate from social norms.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 09, 2015, 08:41:18 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on February 09, 2015, 08:05:56 am
-snip-
I know what you mean. People tend to complain a lot about how Marx seemed to imply that communism would be the end of social development, yet there's this meme that we now have reached a point where anything won't ever change anymore.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 09, 2015, 09:25:24 am
SG, have I ever recommended Camus to you? The Rebel, specifically - it's an overview of the history of the philosophy of revolt and revolution, with a very decisive refutation of Communism as well as bourgeois society - you'll like it, even though it's very heavy material.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on February 09, 2015, 03:08:11 pm
Ban Racists from Social Media (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31246808)
Once again people who do not understand what is practical on the internet try to make decisions about the internet.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on February 09, 2015, 03:23:27 pm
That's hilarious.

I also love that the rabbi's name is Goldsmith. Why is it always Goldsmith.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 09, 2015, 03:28:01 pm
Because Judaism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TripJack on February 09, 2015, 03:52:39 pm
halfway through the article: "the UK is still seen as one of the most tolerant places in the world to live. MPs, peers and others are keen to ensure that remains the case"

at the end of the article: "We remain staunchly committed to tackling anti-Semitism wherever it occurs and will continue to take a zero-tolerance approach."

fucking contradictions how do they work
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr. Strange on February 09, 2015, 05:40:04 pm
UK: Reminding you where USA came from, in case you forgot.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on February 09, 2015, 07:02:43 pm
Quote from: TripJack on February 09, 2015, 03:52:39 pm
halfway through the article: "the UK is still seen as one of the most tolerant places in the world to live. MPs, peers and others are keen to ensure that remains the case"

at the end of the article: "We remain staunchly committed to tackling anti-Semitism wherever it occurs and will continue to take a zero-tolerance approach."

fucking contradictions how do they work

On the other hand, letting something like that continue is effectively intolerance of jewish people. So your going to be intolerant either way you go, it's just a matter of who your intolerant towards.

IMO it's just a problem with ideals being distilled to a single word. "Tolerance" and "Freedom" are pretty meaningless words on their own, especially since almost everyone claims to support them anyway. Even the most ardent of supporters have their footnotes and conditions (i.e. their own interpretations), which is where the differences lie.

I decided that using the literal interpretations of words, I am intolerant (I don't support tolerating Nazi's), pro-censorship (I don't support allowing something like rape videos or child pornography to be distributed), and because of those, "anti-freedom". And I'm fine with that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 09, 2015, 07:05:10 pm
There are no degrees or shades of morality to view-based censorship, as it can and will be exploited for suppression.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 09, 2015, 07:06:37 pm
Well duuh, supression is the desired effect!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 09, 2015, 07:07:38 pm
And when the person determining the censorship isn't an actual holy warrior for equality, it all goes badly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 09, 2015, 07:10:04 pm
The idea that it's anti-semetic to not censor these people is just another application of "if you aren't with us you love terrorism". Apologist logic is a mainstay of the extremist and the authoritarian.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 09, 2015, 07:15:58 pm
Quote from: greatorder on February 09, 2015, 02:06:04 pm
Ehn. Not sure anarchy would be the way to go. Certainly not complete anarchy (which I'm pretty sure you don't support, Salmon). There'd need to be a government structure in place to stop shit going downhill and to stop the re-establishment of things like feudalism or some corporation seizing countries because they have the resources to. I mean, I'm all for personal freedom, but there's a point where you need to stop some things, lest the whole system implode and people end up with fewer.

Anarchy isn't anti-structure, it's anti-rulership.  There can even be laws.  What matters is how those laws are agreed upon and enforced.  I'm pretty sure that what you refer to as "complete anarchy" has nothing to do with what anarchy actually stands for as a political concept.

The anarchist symbol (an A on top of an O) even stands for the phrase "Anarchy is Order", coined by Proudhon and later expanded with the most common phrase pairing by Bellegarrigue "Government is civil war." 
My interpretation of this being that any concept of order that functions by threat of violence against those who contradict the will of an authoritative entity is not actually order, but a state of conflict.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 09, 2015, 07:17:50 pm
Maybe the Ukraine situation and Knit have made me more eager to think in terms of nationality, but you guys have such an American position!

And yes, in this case that's negative.

E: SG, what would enforcement loo like in anarchist society? And, in case you missed it, Camus. Read him, love him.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 09, 2015, 07:43:08 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on February 09, 2015, 07:17:50 pm
E: SG, what would enforcement loo like in anarchist society? And, in case you missed it, Camus. Read him, love him.

You know that's a difficult as fuck question! 

I imagine something similar to our jury system, but less abstracted and formalized and more focused on the stakeholders in the issue.  The majority of modern legal structure exists to govern and protect ownership and exchange of property (as opposed to possession), which I don't believe to be compatible with any concept of anarchy.  What legal issues are left over are less societal and more what to do when people do things to each other that are obviously, indisputably bad - direct acts of harm.  In those cases, I think the focus should be on mediating agreements between those personally related to the event, with a focus on reparation and rehabilitation.

But that will always remain a very sticky subject.  I don't believe it's possible for any concept of justice and enforcement thereof to be wholly benevolent, internally consistent, and effective all at once.  I prefer to focus on the ways that hierarchy poisons human relationships and motivations, and why/how we should strive to minimize it.

I'm looking up Camus right now, and will make it the next book I read... but my progress on books is very slow these days, unfortunately.

Edit:  Oh, hey, he's the author of The Stranger.  Yeah, I was the only person in my class who was able to get anything out of that book back in high school.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 09, 2015, 07:51:58 pm
Quote
The Parliamentary inquiry was set up following a rise in incidents in July and August last year during fighting between Gaza and Israel.
[...]
Their report said the terms "Hitler" and "Holocaust" were among the top 35 phrases relating to Jews during the conflict.

The hashtags "Hitler" and "genocide" featured with "high frequency", it added. The "Hitler Was Right" hashtag trended worldwide in July 2014.
Wouldn't the #genocide hashtag mostly be about protesting the Israeli military's actions in Gaza?  I really don't think it's acceptable to try and lump stuff like that in with actual anti-semitism, and it makes me deeply suspicious of this proposed law.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TripJack on February 09, 2015, 08:02:40 pm
Quote from: alexandertnt on February 09, 2015, 07:02:43 pm
On the other hand, letting something like that continue is effectively intolerance of jewish people.
i don't follow you here, allowing intolerant people to say intolerant things about jews does not mean the government is intolerant of jews
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on February 09, 2015, 08:18:54 pm
Yeah, it's the whole "I don't think you are right for burning the flag, but I'll defend your right to burn it to the death" type of thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on February 09, 2015, 09:43:49 pm
Quote from: TripJack on February 09, 2015, 08:02:40 pm
Quote from: alexandertnt on February 09, 2015, 07:02:43 pm
On the other hand, letting something like that continue is effectively intolerance of jewish people.
i don't follow you here, allowing intolerant people to say intolerant things about jews does not mean the government is intolerant of jews

You are actually right, and I mispoke. What I probably should have said was something like "letting something like that continue results in intolerance of jewish people" which I believe is a more-or-less accurate statement. By allowing it to continue, you are effectively making the UK (overall) less tolerant of jewish people, but your right, that does not make the government intolerant of jews per se.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 09, 2015, 07:10:04 pm
The idea that it's anti-semetic to not censor these people is just another application of "if you aren't with us you love terrorism". Apologist logic is a mainstay of the extremist and the authoritarian.

Again from above, I was wrong in what I said, and would like to be a bit clearer. What I should have said should have been closer to "if you have the ability to stop terrorists, and you opt to not, you are permitting terrorism to continue". Keep in mind that that is a very simplistic idea, it's validity would vary greatly depending on the circumstance. "Terrorism" probably isn't the best example of my point however, since the problem and solution were completely out of proportion, whch is why appropriate action (and not any action) is important.
n
Quote from: i2amroy on February 09, 2015, 08:18:54 pm
Yeah, it's the whole "I don't think you are right for burning the flag, but I'll defend your right to burn it to the death" type of thing.

I personally consider this a bit different. Burning a flag is an abstract expression of opposition to abstract entities such as "the state", as opposed to specifically expressing opposition to the existance of people (based on their ethnicity). I don't have much sympathy for abstract concepts such as "the state", but I do for flesh-and-blood people.


Again, I apologise for what I said about being intolerant by tolerating intolerance. Although I still do hold that there are circumstances where I do believe "intolerant" action can be appropriate, I would also like to add that such action should be taken very cautiously, and only as a last resort, depending on the circumstance. I would also like to point out that discussion about censorship should never be censord, e.g. I am good with censoring child porn, but not censoring any discussion about the censorship of child porn (if that makes sense).




Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on February 09, 2015, 07:05:10 pm
There are no degrees or shades of morality to view-based censorship, as it can and will be exploited for suppression.

This sort of highlights my second point, about the meaning of words. Instead of the word "censorship", you chose the phrase "view-based censorship", to be a bit more descriptive about what you mean.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 10, 2015, 01:07:40 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on February 10, 2015, 01:38:47 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on February 09, 2015, 07:51:58 pm
Quote
The Parliamentary inquiry was set up following a rise in incidents in July and August last year during fighting between Gaza and Israel.
[...]
Their report said the terms "Hitler" and "Holocaust" were among the top 35 phrases relating to Jews during the conflict.

The hashtags "Hitler" and "genocide" featured with "high frequency", it added. The "Hitler Was Right" hashtag trended worldwide in July 2014.
Wouldn't the #genocide hashtag mostly be about protesting the Israeli military's actions in Gaza?  I really don't think it's acceptable to try and lump stuff like that in with actual anti-semitism, and it makes me deeply suspicious of this proposed law.

Well, yes, and no. Criticism of Israel very often overlap into antisemitism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on February 10, 2015, 02:17:32 am
Quote from: scriver on February 10, 2015, 01:38:47 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on February 09, 2015, 07:51:58 pm
Quote
The Parliamentary inquiry was set up following a rise in incidents in July and August last year during fighting between Gaza and Israel.
[...]
Their report said the terms "Hitler" and "Holocaust" were among the top 35 phrases relating to Jews during the conflict.

The hashtags "Hitler" and "genocide" featured with "high frequency", it added. The "Hitler Was Right" hashtag trended worldwide in July 2014.
Wouldn't the #genocide hashtag mostly be about protesting the Israeli military's actions in Gaza?  I really don't think it's acceptable to try and lump stuff like that in with actual anti-semitism, and it makes me deeply suspicious of this proposed law.

Well, yes, and no. Criticism of Israel very often overlap into antisemitism.
Wild accusations of antisemitism are often made at any slight, perceived or actual, to Israel or Israeli policy. In turn, these wild accusations piss people off and result in confirmation bias. In turn, this anger and bias can turn into actual antisemitism, because Israel is a Jewish country, and is also the only country that regularly accuses its critics of various forms of racism and discrimination because of their disapproval of its actions. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 10, 2015, 07:08:11 am
Quote from: Morrigi on February 10, 2015, 02:17:32 am
Quote from: scriver on February 10, 2015, 01:38:47 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on February 09, 2015, 07:51:58 pm
Quote
The Parliamentary inquiry was set up following a rise in incidents in July and August last year during fighting between Gaza and Israel.
[...]
Their report said the terms "Hitler" and "Holocaust" were among the top 35 phrases relating to Jews during the conflict.

The hashtags "Hitler" and "genocide" featured with "high frequency", it added. The "Hitler Was Right" hashtag trended worldwide in July 2014.
Wouldn't the #genocide hashtag mostly be about protesting the Israeli military's actions in Gaza?  I really don't think it's acceptable to try and lump stuff like that in with actual anti-semitism, and it makes me deeply suspicious of this proposed law.

Well, yes, and no. Criticism of Israel very often overlap into antisemitism.
Wild accusations of antisemitism are often made at any slight, perceived or actual, to Israel or Israeli policy. In turn, these wild accusations piss people off and result in confirmation bias. In turn, this anger and bias can turn into actual antisemitism, because Israel is a Jewish country, and is also the only country that regularly accuses its critics of various forms of racism and discrimination because of their disapproval of its actions. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And also long-standing Arab and Muslim anti-semitism, leftover ressentiment from before the War, the quite frankly horrifying traditional anti-semitism of the left (Don't believe me?) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe#Separation_of_hostages_into_two_groups)... It's a wee bit more complicated than you make it out to be, especially in Europe.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 10, 2015, 07:12:01 am
"The left" here being represented by literal terrorists?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 10, 2015, 07:14:31 am
Have you ever read up on the RAF? They were popular. Sartre even visited them in prison. It was the goddamn seventies, man! The Entebbe situation is just the most drastic example.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on February 10, 2015, 07:16:36 am
goddamn british and their terrorist planes
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 10, 2015, 07:18:56 am
Dutchling confirmed for Nazi revisionist :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 10, 2015, 07:27:49 am
I don't know why you cite something done by Palestinians terrorist as an example of the Left's antisemitism...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 10, 2015, 07:59:32 am
... Because it was a German leftist who did the separating of Jews and non-Jews. The umlaut should be a dead giveaway - Böse isn't exactly a Palestinian name, is it?
Also they apparently called themselves the Commando Che Guevara.
Seriously, go read that article more thoroughly - it only becomes more terrifying.
And a quote from the German article:
Quote
Zu einer breiteren Debatte über das Verhältnis der Linken zu Antizionismus und Antisemitismus und zu den Terrororganisationen RAF und Revolutionäre Zellen kam es in Deutschland erst deutlich später.
'A broad debate in Germany about the relationship of the Left to anti-zionism and anti-semitism and to the terrorist organisations RAF and Revolutionary Cells started much later.'
Hehe, and the DDR's relationship to Israel soured after they prevented their citizens from being massacred...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 10, 2015, 08:01:58 am
Yes clearly a literal violent extremist is a great person to hold up as representative of all people sharing even the vaguest political label with them.

It's like pointing to Timothy McVeigh and using it as evidence that all conservatives love killing innocent people.  Do you really think the actions of some random mad German over 35 years ago is good evidence of the "traditional anti-semitism of the left"?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 10, 2015, 08:08:37 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on February 10, 2015, 08:01:58 am
Yes clearly a literal violent extremist is a great person to hold up as representative of all people sharing even the vaguest political label with them.
Yes, indeed I am currently calling myself an anti-semite. You're right.

Don't you know that these terrorists had nothing in common with today's terrorists, aka 'brown men with funny accents and weird clothes'? They were Europeans, they'd gone to European universities, they had broad support within the leftist political movement - more broad than you probably imagine. And they were just the tip of the Iceberg - Entebbe is just the most drastic example. The anti-semitism of the left - of the European left, at least - is well-known and accepted phenomenon. These terrorist acts didn't come out of a vacuum, and their supporters didn't just magically disappear after these groups dissolved.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 10, 2015, 08:16:05 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 10, 2015, 08:29:25 am
If it's a "well-known and accepted phenomenon" then it should be very easy to provide actual evidence of it among leftist leaders (eg elected politicians).  "This relatively obscure terrorist group received some level of support from some leftists (although I will not present any evidence of this support) in spite of their once doing an anti-semitic action" does not remotely provide evidence of what you're suggesting.  I think it's particularly important that you substantiate this claim, since you are using it to try and smear anyone protesting against the ongoing Gaza situation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 10, 2015, 08:32:50 am
Quote from: Helgoland on February 10, 2015, 08:08:37 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on February 10, 2015, 08:01:58 am
Yes clearly a literal violent extremist is a great person to hold up as representative of all people sharing even the vaguest political label with them.
Yes, indeed I am currently calling myself an anti-semite. You're right.

Don't you know that these terrorists had nothing in common with today's terrorists, aka 'brown men with funny accents and weird clothes'? They were Europeans, they'd gone to European universities, they had broad support within the leftist political movement - more broad than you probably imagine. And they were just the tip of the Iceberg - Entebbe is just the most drastic example. The anti-semitism of the left - of the European left, at least - is well-known and accepted phenomenon. These terrorist acts didn't come out of a vacuum, and their supporters didn't just magically disappear after these groups dissolved.
I know that the left everywhere has certain problems with religion in general and I know that the left before the second world war was antisemitic, but what you are claiming here… I never heard of that before.
There is a huge opposition against Israel in the left, yes, but that doesn't rest on any Jewish identity but rather on how Israel acts as a state. Of course it also allows antisemite sentiments to creep in, but calling them "widespread" among the left is very bold, to say the least.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on February 10, 2015, 08:38:51 am
Anti-semitism is pretty deeply rooted amongst western culture in general, is that what you mean? Unless you're just talkig about opposition to israel, which I don't think is anti-Semitic, at least inherently.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 10, 2015, 09:04:41 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on February 10, 2015, 08:29:25 am
If it's a "well-known and accepted phenomenon" then it should be very easy to provide actual evidence of it among leftist leaders (eg elected politicians).  "This relatively obscure terrorist group received some level of support from some leftists (although I will not present any evidence of this support) in spite of their once doing an anti-semitic action" does not remotely provide evidence of what you're suggesting.  I think it's particularly important that you substantiate this claim, since you are using it to try and smear anyone protesting against the ongoing Gaza situation.
0) Germany and Europe in general is sensible and doesn't vote anyone more leftist than the Social Democrats into power. 'The Left' is hardly a group you connect with having positions of power, do you? And mentioning the Doctor's plot would be unfair...
1) That wasn't an 'obscure terrorist group', but a major domestic problem for the BRD. As I said, terrorism was different back then.
2) Where did you get that this was a one-time thing? People don't wake up one day saying "I think today I'll hijack a plane and kill me some holocaust survivors!". It's an example, man - have some goodwill!
3) I'll have to give you links in German, but I think that's justifiable - we're talking about a European phenomenon after all, the situation is bound to have been different in the US.
'Where leght and rift meet' (the pun works better in German) (http://www.zeit.de/2014/48/antisemitismus-afd-die-linke)
'Complicated anti-semitism debate' (http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2011-06/linke-antisemitismus-streit)
'Like the thunderstorm in the clouds' (http://www.zeit.de/2013/11/Linker-Antisemitismus-Terrorismus), a piece on a book about the roots of terrorism in the BRD. This one will probably be the most interesting article for you, since it has a historical overview in the beginning.

And a piece by our leading leftist Gregor Gysi on the relationship between Die Linke - his party - and the state Israel. (http://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/Standpunkte/Standpunkte_0809.pdf) I only skimmed it, and he's one of the more sensible politicians we have - I agree with most things said in there, but it might shed some light on what debates those guys still are having.

Ant, some leftists did survive the War - if the left or parts of it were anti-semitic before, they have been anti-semitic afterwards. And the DDR's policy of having nothing to do with Nazi Germany is worth a mention here as well... Plus a lot of the really bad stuff came into being during the '68 movement, so the Neuen Bundesaender may not have been touched by that as much.
And I don't recall claiming it was 'widespread', just that it was much more widely spread than one would naively assume...

Edit: Poh, the German article has this bit:
Quote
Die Terroristen „selektierten“ die jüdischen Passagiere von den anderen.[11] Neben den israelischen Staatsbürgern waren dies 22 Franzosen und ein Staatenloser.[12] Die übrigen Geiseln wurden freigelassen. Die verbliebenen Geiseln ohne israelischen Pass wurden aufgrund ihrer vermeintlich jüdischen Namen oder anderer Indizien – teilweise fälschlich – als Juden identifiziert.
'The terrorists 'selected' the Jewish passengers from the others. In addition to the Israeli citizens these were 22 Frenchmen and one stateless person. The remaining hostages were freed. The remaining hostages without an Israeli passport were identified as Jews - sometimes wrongly - by their supposedly Jewish names or by other clues.'
So no, it wasn't selection by citizenship...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on February 10, 2015, 12:52:42 pm
I find the idea that the left is "traditionally anti-semitic" ridiculous when it's conservative rightwing extremist who literally haven't stopped calling for the genocide of Jews and believing in that Jewish domination conspiracy theory since the Nazis were defeated.

The left is traditionally anti-Israel. Like I said before, anti-Israel sentiment often glide over or take expression as anti-semitism and hate, because people act stupid. But if there's any group that's "traditionally anti-semitic" it's your own, Helgoland. Particularly German conservatives.

Quote from: Helgoland on February 10, 2015, 09:04:41 am
0) Germany and Europe in general is sensible and doesn't vote anyone more leftist than the Social Democrats into power.

Trolololololo
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 10, 2015, 01:00:33 pm
Ok, can we not call each other Nazis? This is the Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on February 10, 2015, 01:14:45 pm
No, I think bringing up the nazisare very topical when a conservative nationalist like Helgoland tries to paint the left as "traditionally anti-semitic" through the association with groups such as the above, particularly through the use of arguments like:

 
Quote from: Helgoland on February 10, 2015, 08:08:37 am
These terrorist acts didn't come out of a vacuum, and their supporters didn't just magically disappear after these groups dissolved.

Because really, what other groups could that apply to, in Germany of all places?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 10, 2015, 01:31:04 pm
Helgo is a conservative nationalist? Have you ever spoken to him?

Now, Helgo, I should say that I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make. That there are some antisemitic leftists? I don't think anyone would dispute that, but it's not a particularily interesting point to make. If it's that the left is generally anti-semitic, you're going to need a much better example than this. Even if the sorting according to religion did happen (which is not clear, so supporters of the group could just ignore it), it kinda make sense. Israel sees all Jews as its own, an unfortunate corollary is that it makes any Jew an effective target. In that sense, you could decide to take Jews hostage even if you don't have anything against Jews.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on February 10, 2015, 02:00:25 pm
Quote from: Sheb on February 10, 2015, 01:31:04 pm
Helgo is a conservative nationalist? Have you ever spoken to him?

Now, Helgo, I should say that I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make. That there are some antisemitic leftists? I don't think anyone would dispute that, but it's not a particularily interesting point to make. If it's that the left is generally anti-semitic, you're going to need a much better example than this. Even if the sorting according to religion did happen (which is not clear, so supporters of the group could just ignore it), it kinda make sense. Israel sees all Jews as its own, an unfortunate corollary is that it makes any Jew an effective target. In that sense, you could decide to take Jews hostage even if you don't have anything against Jews.


I'm not going to quote anything because I think that it's a stupid way to do non-academic work. "Serious sources" are only "peer reviewed work in a reputable publication that I understand and trust in this particular instance. And I should reproduce the experience again just to be sure".



Yet if you hang out long enough with the anarcho-leftist crowd, you'll find out a lot of antisemitism. I think that it's because Israël is NATO aligned, and thus the USSR did quite a bit of propanda against them. The communists parties of Europe never got completely over USSR propaganda (their propaganda was prevalent and seen as true until far into the seventies).


There are other reasons.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 10, 2015, 02:19:41 pm
I spent a lot of times with anarcho-leftist*, and while many a virulently anti-Israel, I've never met antisemite in real life, and seen maybe a few on Facebook. Never seemed more prevalent than among non-extreme-leftists. Not impossible I missed it, but I don't think so.

* I actually sat at a meeting with an actual far-left terrorist, ex from the CCC. Really nice guy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on February 10, 2015, 02:49:09 pm
Most of my contacts are anarchists or communists. If anything, they romanticize Judaism in comparison to Christianity. Anti-Israel sentiments are more common, but those don't rest on some kind of antisemitism but on how Israel acts as a state. They make no difference to the USA, China, Germany or Russia in this regard.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 10, 2015, 03:35:23 pm
Quote from: Phmcw on February 10, 2015, 02:00:25 pm
Yet if you hang out long enough with the anarcho-leftist crowd, you'll find out a lot of antisemitism.
That's what I'm talking about. I'm (obviously, I hope) not calling all leftists anti-semites, but I maintain that the far left has its own distinct tradition of anti-semitism, which has survived to this day and often masquerades as Israel criticism.
Of course, drawing the line between legitimate Israel criticism and true anti-semitism is difficult. That may explain why Sheb claims to never have met an anti-semite: His standards are probably (almost certainly, looking at my own opinions on Middle East politics) different than mine.



And scriver, conservative nationalist? Really? Conservative I might accept, if preceded by a sufficient amount of qualifiers - since I'm mostly progressive when it comes to concrete issues-, but nationalist? Me, one of the most rabidly pro-EU forumites? (And coming from you, who I distinctly remember to have a fairly nationalist position when it comes to EU matters?)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on February 10, 2015, 03:39:23 pm
Don't lie, Helgo. Behind that beard, you're not Marx. You're Hitler. :P

Joking, of course, in case someone hits me in the face with a gauntlet.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on February 10, 2015, 06:23:56 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on February 10, 2015, 03:35:23 pm
And scriver, conservative nationalist? Really? Conservative I might accept, if preceded by a sufficient amount of qualifiers - since I'm mostly progressive when it comes to concrete issues-, but nationalist? Me, one of the most rabidly pro-EU forumites? (And coming from you, who I distinctly remember to have a fairly nationalist position when it comes to EU matters?)

The difference is that I don't deny those nationalist leanings.

And yeah, I don't think you'd be as "rabidly pro-EU" if you didn't think of it as an extension of Germany. That sort of neo-imperialish sentiment certainly seems common among Germans. I, on the other hand, am certainly not against European cooperation, I'm just not for the system we have now or they way it is heading.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 10, 2015, 06:29:50 pm
Quote from: scriver on February 10, 2015, 06:23:56 pm
if you didn't think of it as an extension of Germany
[citation needed]

Are you against the idea of European integration, though? Cooperation is a rubbery term - the true watershed is support for the eventual abolishion of the nation state. We can talk about the ills and failures of the current EU as well, though - there certainly are many.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on February 10, 2015, 06:50:57 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on February 10, 2015, 06:29:50 pm
Are you against the idea of European integration, though? Cooperation is a rubbery term - the true watershed is support for the eventual abolishion of the nation state. We can talk about the ills and failures of the current EU as well, though - there certainly are many.
And then you will finally come to realize the facts that us Americans realized centuries ago, One Union, Under God, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice For All.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist. :P)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on February 10, 2015, 06:58:52 pm
Of course I am against "European integration", particularly your kind where "integration" is just another word for "becoming German". And don't pretend "european integration" is about "abolishing the nation state"; it's just about creating a new, fake, pan-european nation state.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 10, 2015, 07:16:20 pm
Fake? Nation? What European nation are you talking about? Why do you think such integration would need to stop at Europe's borders? The only words in there I can agree with are 'new' and 'state', really.
And I am becoming more and more confused about the way you use 'German' - what does that word mean to you? It can't mean German rule, since any European state would certainly be based on democratic principles, and thus Europe wouldn't be any more German-ruled than the US is a Californian tyranny. Is it about policies you perceive as German?

Finally, what makes you oppose the very idea of merging the European nations in whatever form?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on February 10, 2015, 07:44:06 pm
A unification of Europe into one nation would mean the end of the Swedish model, of Swedish governmental traditions and governmental culture. There's no reason I would want that. And yeah, it's fairly obvious to everyone that the American system works extremely poorly. Governments just don't work on that scale, and neither would a United States of Europe. There's no self-determination left at that point, and there's nothing just about such a democracy. Swedes would be powerless to affect the laws of their own land. There's no reason Britons, Frenchmen and Germans should decide over Swedes just because there's more of them - that's the very essence of wolf-and-sheep democracy. Particularly as there is absolutely no sense of solidarity or community between the big European countries and their smaller neighbours other than when it benefits the former - Germany's treatment of Greece during the last years demonstrates clearer than anything else that Germany is a fairweather friend of the worst kind.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on February 10, 2015, 08:00:15 pm
There's absolutely no reason to have a united nation at all. Giving up one's sovereignity is like asking to he run over, and there's no guarantee you'll ever get it back. Just look at the US and what haooen to their states' right to secede.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on February 10, 2015, 08:01:33 pm
... can y'all take this to the european politics thread or... whatever. Somewhere else.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 10, 2015, 08:15:29 pm
Say that to our faces in the American Politics Thread and see what happens

Spoiler: What Would Happen (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 10, 2015, 11:54:21 pm
I want a boss like this. (http://www.ted.com/talks/ricardo_semler_radical_wisdom_for_a_company_a_school_a_life)

My favorite part is the simple quote:  "If you have to give back, you took too much."

I wish I could thank him profusely for saying just this.  It's something so obvious that I've been thinking for several years already, but no one else seems to get.

Overall, the speech is sort of rambling and scattered, and he doesn't make a real point.  I wish he did a better job explaining his thoughts on education, because I couldn't follow that part very well.  But it's nice to see some anti-bullshit thinking being put forth on a high profile stage.  Calling much of our modern society what it is:  an addiction to control and a loss of perspective.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 11, 2015, 12:20:38 am
Hey, I needed a topic for a presentation in the management course I somehow plunked myself into without realizing it. Yoink!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Solifuge on February 11, 2015, 02:27:01 am
Another good link, SG... some food for thought there. Wow.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 11, 2015, 02:43:06 am
Actually, I find it kind of weird that we don't have a procedure written out for leaving the Union. We should have done so years ago.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TripJack on February 11, 2015, 03:03:56 am
the declaration of independence has the procedure written out - revolution :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 11, 2015, 03:05:50 am
Didn't exactly work out for the CSA.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on February 21, 2015, 03:37:38 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/legally-married-boss-disagrees-130000885--politics.html

You know, it's just such a discouraging thing. And now, the conservatives have found a catchy tagline called  "religious liberty, to backdoor in oppression to gays in a less offensive (for now) way. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/huckabee-gay-friends-marriage). He makes the same old tired arguments about "tradition," and it falls flat because:

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Sp5_-OyluD8/VM_Dic38b_I/AAAAAAAAIj4/_-2qmzV-ibE/s1600/Unnatural%2Bmarriage.gif)

So let's examine this faulty logic Mr Huckabee is exposing, shall we: "I have with friends who are gay...."
 "It’s like asking somebody who’s Jewish to start serving bacon-wrapped-shrimp in their deli. ... or asking a Muslim to serve up something that is offensive to him or to have dogs in his backyard," he said. "We’re so sensitive to make sure we don’t offend certain religions, but then we act like Christians can’t have the convictions that they’ve had for over 2,000 years."" (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/huckabee-gay-friends-marriage)


Wow, so many reasons this is wrong and where to start. Let's just focus on the following 1.) historical false "I have friends" rhetoric, 2.) Idea that not mandating a religion's view into law is persecuting it, and 3.) "Jewish deli bacon wrapped shrimp" comment.

1.) Get suspicious whenever anybody says, "I have _____ friends." That fill in the blank for a group of people has traditionally (there's that word he loves) been used by racists, sexists, and bigots against different faiths to proclaim they aren't racist, sexist or bigoted. Kind of funny how most of those people can't name any of those friends, or state the last time they hung out, what they did together last, or produce a ____ friend who supports them. It's a self proclaimed unsupported statement, that could be supported sooooo easily. Of course, it won't be supported because none of these, frankly imaginary _____ friends are going to willingly stand by and support you while you trample them.....

2.) The idea that not mandating a religion's view into law is persecuting it is flatly incorrect. Whenever somebody talks about whose religion to make law, everybody sticks their hand up, except different religions have different beliefs banning or supporting different things and MANY conflict. There are over 300 different types of "Christianity" (Roman Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Calvinist, Mormon, Jesuit, Jehovah's Witness, Amish/Rhenish/Mennonite, and that's just the very beginning of a long list). Some religions really ban alcohol; we tried prohibition; it failed, miserably. Same goes for dancing, gambling, interracial marriage, EATING COW (Hindu) and just tons of others. There are even Christian Denominations who support gay marriage, and frankly they can't agree which parts of the bible they want to follow or ignore. So here's the question: Why are we legally allowed to eat cow, but gays can't get married? Those Hindus have believed in sacred cows for a loooong time.....

3.) the "Jewish deli bacon wrapped shrimp" comment is completely off the mark. Nobody forces Jews to open delis, or to serve bacon wrapped shrimp or any other menu item. If there is certain menu item served by the deli to the public, then you can't just refuse to serve that item to certain people due to being say .... Black, or Hispanic, or Buddhist, or Gay. Yeah, if the Deli owner CHOOSES to serve menu item #4 on the menu board, and some black guy comes up and orders a #4, the Deli owner had better not refuse to serve that black dude a #4 because he's black. Here, the deli owner is a baker who opened up a bakery, and the #4 is wedding cakes. No, you can't refuse to sell somebody a #4 just because they're insert thing here _______ (Black, White, Gay, Straight, etc).

If you're a Muslim and you believe alcohol is against your beliefs, ok, but don't take a job in a liquor store and refuse to handle liquor. If you're Jewish, I would recommend not taking jobs on shrimping boats or pork processing plants if you don't wanna handle shrimp or pork. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything and nobody is forcing a deli owner to sell bacon wrapped shrimp or a baker to sell wedding cakes, but if they so chose to do so, they had better not be discriminatory and refuse to sell to a certain group of people.

Huckabee is generally on board with that. He just wants special privileges for his own religion. He'd be aghast at letting Muslims get a job in a liquor store while refusing to handle alcohol. If a Mormon in a restaurant refused to let him drink coffee, he'd be the first to complain. He wants to let Christians get a job in a pharmacy while refusing to dispense birth control. He wants to let Christians work in a county clerk's office - being paid by the government, no less! - while deciding on their own which complete strangers should and shouldn't be allowed to marry.

So, in this context "religious liberty," please note this only applies to Christians, and Hindus better not try to outlaw beef, mean forcing your beliefs on others by rewriting constitutions and laws to make your beliefs law, and thereby punishing those who don't follow your beliefs.

Completely. Inapplicable. Mr. Huckabee. I can't marry some girl without it being a massive fraud. You can just, keep right on believing what you do without passing laws about it. Simple.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on February 23, 2015, 05:34:43 am
Well, we already knew Huckabee was an idiot. I'm hardly "progressive", either, but it's pretty obvious that he has no idea what he's going on about.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on February 23, 2015, 10:04:32 pm
Can someone tell me why gay people use the word "partner?" I get that it's an identity thing and that some people oscillate sexual identities like the most sexual jello but I don't get why, for example, a gay woman has to call her girlfriend her "partner." To me it just seems like it's awkward on purpose, idk though, someone probably understands this better than I do.

This seemed like the right thread, sorry if there's a thread I shoulda posted in that I missed or something.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on February 23, 2015, 10:07:20 pm
It's partially in solidarity with non-binary people, for example, where "partner" makes more sense than "My genderqueerfriend."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arcvasti on February 23, 2015, 10:08:24 pm
Partner is a nice gender-neutral way of referring to your significant other in two syllables.

FAKEEDIT: Yeah, Vector nailed it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 23, 2015, 10:13:03 pm
Quote from: ggamer on February 23, 2015, 10:04:32 pm
Can someone tell me why gay people use the word "partner?" I get that it's an identity thing and that some people oscillate sexual identities like the most sexual jello but I don't get why, for example, a gay woman has to call her girlfriend her "partner." To me it just seems like it's awkward on purpose, idk though, someone probably understands this better than I do.

This seemed like the right thread, sorry if there's a thread I shoulda posted in that I missed or something.
I've seen plenty of gay people use husband/wife/girlfriend/boyfriend, but "partner" seems to be a relic of the more transitional period of LGBT rights where lots of things regarding same-sex relationships were heavily sanitized to counter the previous focus on how That's Degeneracy, Timmy. So you have a "life partner" in your "union". No sweaty gay sex here, no sir. You might consider it a way to navigate during a period where the mainline with straight people is "I probably hate you because you're an abberant, but not enough to go out of my way to destroy you".

Alternatively, it's plausible deniability (what, no, not that kind of partner, who do you think I am?) or a conscious rejection of mainstream terminology.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 23, 2015, 10:20:49 pm
I like that it's more evocative of the relationship, m'self. Like, "girlfriend" says, what, you have a friend who's a girl? I know I'm being a bit facetious, but to whatever extent labels are nice, it is certainly nice to have an umbrella term for the entire class of relationships, given that the particular sex, gender, other identity qualities, and formality and depth of the relationship are almost never relevant to people outside it. As uneasy as it makes me feel to say "maybe less nuance in language is a good idea", here we are.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on February 23, 2015, 10:35:16 pm
That said, Fuzzbutt hates the term.

So instead, I call him fuzzbutt. (Well, generally, he calls ME fuzzbutt. I reserve the right to never tell you what he has my contact info named in his phone. Ever.)

And mock him mercilessly for it. "So you're my partner." "Oh god no." "My sex partner. Who does the sex with me. Sexually. Partsexner. Or boyfriend. Boypartner. Partnerfriend. Pard'ner. Howdy." "..."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: KingofstarrySkies on February 23, 2015, 10:44:38 pm
descan you make my add look like i'm just a knob
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on February 23, 2015, 10:46:48 pm
Whenever I hear people knocking homosexuality I want to show them descan and have them honestly tell me how mad they are.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on February 23, 2015, 10:56:29 pm
ADD, Koss? I have that too, actually. >____>

And uh... Thanks, GG? I think? :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: KingofstarrySkies on February 23, 2015, 10:59:36 pm
:3

ADD bros~
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 4maskwolf on February 23, 2015, 11:01:21 pm
Hehehe all of the ADD peoples.

Assuming we're talking about Attention Deficit Disorder here.  Never heard it used any other way, but if it's something else in this context, I'm probably not that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on February 23, 2015, 11:05:27 pm
At least for me, that's what I mean. I've never heard it used in any other way, except possibly "Add and subtract," but context cues say probably not. :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on February 24, 2015, 03:20:55 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 23, 2015, 10:13:03 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

In the UK people tend to use the term "partner" as a unisex expression for significant other nowadays. It tends to be someone you're not married to, but live with. It can be used to refer to people in a same sex relationship but it's even more commonly heard as a term for older people in a relationship. I think in the UK at least it's seen as slightly weird to talk about elderly people having "boyfriends" or "girlfriends" so we just say "partner" instead because it sounds more respectable. I believe you can use it for even married people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on February 24, 2015, 03:33:17 am
I've been using that word for ages.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on February 24, 2015, 04:40:18 am
Partner is also used in the German language to refer to same-sex couples.
I guess that it's a more formal term than going full Greek and call them lovers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on February 24, 2015, 12:12:41 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on February 24, 2015, 03:20:55 am
In the UK people tend to use the term "partner" as a unisex expression for significant other nowadays. It tends to be someone you're not married to, but live with.

Yes, it's the same up here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on February 24, 2015, 12:30:28 pm
Quote from: scriver on February 24, 2015, 12:12:41 pm
Quote from: Owlbread on February 24, 2015, 03:20:55 am
In the UK people tend to use the term "partner" as a unisex expression for significant other nowadays. It tends to be someone you're not married to, but live with.

Yes, it's the same up here.
My mum got rather annoyed when someone on the phone called her my dad's partner a few times, despite her correcting her my saying "husband" after each "partner."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 24, 2015, 12:42:05 pm
Quote from: Objective on February 24, 2015, 04:40:18 am
Partner is also used in the German language to refer to same-sex couples.
I guess that it's a more formal term than going full Greek and call them lovers.
It's unisex, actually. Well, if the partner's a woman you'd have to say 'Partnerin', 'female partner', but that's just because the German language is big on grammatical genders.
It'd be a bit unusual to use it for a traditional relationship, though - if you're married, you just call each other 'Mann' and 'Frau' (literally 'man' and 'woman'), and if not you'll likelly say 'Mein Freund' and 'Meine Freundin' ('my male friend' and 'my female friend', which occasionally leads to confusion about whether a particular 'Freund' is a romantic or a non-romantic friend).
Using a language with grammatical gender must be hell for LBGTROPN+ people for who this is a serious issue.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on February 24, 2015, 12:54:11 pm
I am amused and disappointed that Helgo didn't rearrange those last few letters into "PRON".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on February 24, 2015, 01:07:07 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on February 24, 2015, 12:42:05 pm
It'd be a bit unusual to use it for a traditional relationship, though -
Not at all, at least in formal contexts you hear that quite often. Either that or "Lebensgefährte/Lebensgefährtin" (=lifemate).

Quote from: Darvi on February 24, 2015, 12:54:11 pm
I am amused and disappointed that Helgo didn't rearrange those last few letters into "PRON".
This combination of letters is really porne to misunderstandings.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 24, 2015, 01:12:13 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 24, 2015, 01:16:42 pm
Clearly, whenever a gender dispute happens the accused student will go to the principle's office and disrobe to prove their sexiness.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 24, 2015, 01:33:41 pm
Quote from: XXSockXX on February 24, 2015, 01:07:07 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on February 24, 2015, 12:42:05 pm
It'd be a bit unusual to use it for a traditional relationship, though -
Not at all, at least in formal contexts you hear that quite often. Either that or "Lebensgefährte/Lebensgefährtin" (=lifemate).
Lebensabschnittsgefährte you mean! (Such a German word: 'The companion of this section of [my] life')
And yeah, it certainly is more common in formal contexts. I only thought about day-to-day communication for some reason...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on February 24, 2015, 01:39:40 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 24, 2015, 01:16:42 pm
Clearly, whenever a gender dispute happens the accused student will go to the principle's office and disrobe to prove their sexiness.
Nah, they'll call over the local priest who does a thorough examination. (Too much?)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on February 24, 2015, 01:41:28 pm
For a moment there I thought I had stepped into the "Bad Jokes (We're all going to Hell)" thread. :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on February 24, 2015, 01:42:48 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on February 24, 2015, 01:33:41 pm
Lebensabschnittsgefährte you mean! (Such a German word: 'The companion of this section of [my] life')
Of course, serial monogamy FTW!

Quote from: Helgoland on February 24, 2015, 01:33:41 pm
And yeah, it certainly is more common in formal contexts. I only thought about day-to-day communication for some reason...
Might be an age thing too, I've noticed that many people over a certain age become reluctant to refer to their SOs as their boyfriend/girlfriend and prefer a more "serious" sounding term when the relationship is considered serious.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 24, 2015, 01:51:48 pm
That makes me wonder: What do non-married people whose relationship is identical to marriage except for that document use to refer to each other? 'Boy-/girlfriend' seems to teen-y, 'partner' has a bureaucratic ring and doesn't quite capture the nature of the relationship... In German you could use 'Mann' and 'Frau', but 'husband' and 'wife' are clearly unsuitable.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arx on February 24, 2015, 01:58:22 pm
Here they'd probably be called partners. It doesn't sound particularly bureacratic to me, I'unno.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on February 24, 2015, 01:58:42 pm
The common trend I see is to just use the other person's name, or to say "this is X, we live together". "Partner" tends to be the absolute last fallback I see if you really can't get away with anything else, but it doesn't really capture the nature of the thing, as you mentioned.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on February 24, 2015, 02:18:33 pm
In swedish there's "sambo", "together-liver", and "särbo", "apart-liver", depending on if you live together with the significant other or not.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 24, 2015, 02:21:30 pm
"apart-liver" sounds like what alcoholic gets.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: XXSockXX on February 24, 2015, 02:24:58 pm
I use boyfriend/girlfriend and so do most people I know. It does feel a bit odd, because it doesn't differentiate between "been together for 3 weeks" and "living together for 20 years", but "partner" sounds too bureacratic and "lifemate" sounds...I don't know, a bit square.
There is also that thing where some people casually refer to "your husband / wife" whether you're married or not, but that might be a regional thing.

Quote from: scriver on February 24, 2015, 02:18:33 pm
In swedish there's "sambo", "together-liver", and "särbo", "apart-liver", depending on if you live together with the significant other or not.
That seems useful. No such thing in German.

Quote from: Sheb on February 24, 2015, 02:21:30 pm
"apart-liver" sounds like what alcoholic gets.
That even works as a double pun.  :D
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on February 24, 2015, 02:49:11 pm
Well, the trans restroom thing is horrifying.

I liked south park's recent episode, "cissy" on topic. It was a welcome reversal of their prior view of trans.... This is yet another reason I rarely go out, at all. That said, when I'm in a skirt and heels, blouse, with a neat bracelet and a super cute clutch purse, I'm not using the Men's room if I have to pee, cause I wanna live at least through the day.... That's a great way to get gay bashed to death.... Noooo thank you.

It's a whole god aweful mess. That law wouldn't help one bit.

In related news, yes I realize it's Buzzfeed, but the reporting is dead on:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/mike-bowers-calls-for-a-swift-death-to-georgia-religious-fre#.eug2D4V7R

The Supreme Court case that finally made it so homosexuality was not a crime in the United States was Lawrence v. Texas 2003, which overruled Bowers v Hardwick 1986. The Hardwick case stated that it was perfectly permissible to criminalize not homosexuality as a status, but rather homosexual acts, i.e. consensual sex under sodomy law. So they didn't throw you in jail and ruin your life because you were gay.... No no no, that would be illegal. Rather they threw you in jail and ruined your life, because you were male and had a boyfriend and for all intents and purposes it was assumed you were having sex, and THAT was considered legal....  ::) Even then you effectively had to prove that you were celibate and a virgin to avoid prison time, which is both impossible to prove and completely monstrous to ask of two consenting adults solely and entirely because they are of the same sex, i.e. gay. God. Damn. It. Only recently was this changed in 2003 and the backlash of state constitutional amendments was a terrible injustice we fought against and lost, until recently. It took us over 10 years, but we're reversing it, ever so slowly and painfully.

Now the penudulum has swung back in our favor and just as it did in 2003, it is bringing backlash from the bigots. This time it's under that lovely bumper sticker tagline, "religious liberty." They don't say they're a license to discriminate, but they are.

Now focusing back to that article, did you see the name "Mike Bowers?" Did you make the connection between that name and the case I cited Bowers v. Hardwick 1986? Yeah, he was the Attorney General for the state of Georgia who pursued the case Lawrence v. Texas 2003 overruled..... EVEN HE, is calling religious liberty bills exactly what they are.... As an inevitable consequence, he is opposing what he once championed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on February 24, 2015, 03:13:47 pm
Tru, I'm confused: I'd've expected you be using the women's restroom by default.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on February 24, 2015, 03:34:40 pm
Can't live as she wants IRL.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on February 24, 2015, 03:55:48 pm
I live a lie, pretty much yes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on February 24, 2015, 04:38:55 pm
Err, sorry, this might sound a bit dense. Which bit is the lie? Are you a "born man" and a "trans woman," and the lie is that you use the men's sometimes. Or, are you a "born woman" and a "trans man," and the lie is that you use the lady's sometimes?

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on February 24, 2015, 04:41:09 pm
The lie is that she presents herself as a cis-dude to the public.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on February 24, 2015, 04:42:31 pm
... would it matter, TD1?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on February 24, 2015, 04:45:01 pm
Of course not. I was just confused and wished for clarity.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on February 24, 2015, 05:57:19 pm
MtF transgender, for all intents and purposes. I can't transition at present, though I hope to one day. If my family found out, I'm almost positive they'd violently harm me, at best. It's a long and drawn out story I've told before, but suffice it to say, terrible things have and will continue to happen to me based on this. Worse things would happen if people knew.

One of many reasons I ask not to be quoted, and it's probably the largest reason....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on February 24, 2015, 06:00:04 pm
I must say Truean, the sheer amount of shit you have to go through disgust me. I hope that by the time I have kid, society will have moved on enough that no one will give a shit if one of them is trans*.

Seriously, why is it so hard for people to mind their own business and let you be whoever you want to be?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on February 24, 2015, 07:31:29 pm
They use the word that they identify as. Transwoman = MtF.

At least, that's what I always assumed. Doesn't really make sense the other way around.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 24, 2015, 07:45:51 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on February 24, 2015, 08:35:43 pm
^ This.

Also crazily enough this:
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/24/ron_paul_congressional_black_caucus_opposes_war_because_they_want_to_spend_money_on_food_stamps/

And in other news about killing domestic productivity it's the freaking HR department.....
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/24/your_hr_department_doesnt_give_a_damn_how_corporate_overseers_exploit_american_workers_partner/

Heaven forbid your customer service rep TALK to you, (I've run into this one before):
http://www.successfulworkplace.org/2013/03/06/why-six-sigma-fails-in-the-real-world/
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on February 24, 2015, 08:41:57 pm
Uh. Huh. I must be more out of it than I thought -- it's been a while since kneejerk visceral hate has really pinged off for me. But that one got me a lil'.

Because sweet goddamn fuck criticizing people because they'd rather be feeding their fellow human beings instead of fucking murdering them should not be a thing that happens.

Definitely a bit of an anger reaction, there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on February 24, 2015, 08:48:45 pm
I'm not sure if people like me are indirectly making the matters on trans* issues worse, since nonbinary folks are more extreme than trans people and might be scaring the conservatives.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on February 24, 2015, 09:14:55 pm
O, I wouldn't say that. I'd say everything not from the 1950s scares them....

They whole thing is just a cluster....

Biology had a problem, waste elimination.
Society had a problem waste elimination location.
Culture had a problem, privacy concerns of different genders.
Economics and aritecture had a problem: cost of solving culture's problem

Somebody came up with a solution, binary shared restrooms. Separate but equal.

Egalitarianism and fairness have a problem,  GLBT, etc people

Constraints are cost, and privacy expectations. The possible solutions vary by how you define the problem to be solved. If transgender only are the problem, then access to restroom of transitioning sex (F ... in MtF, and M ... in MtF), works.  If your problem is orientation, because the "issue" is being in there with a person who is attracted to you, then even gay and lesbians are an "issue" solved by opposit restroom usage on orientation, but that's a nightmare and bi just yeah.... So eventually you work through the absurd examples until you reach the clear solution:

Several, small individual bathrooms, as many as there would have been fixtures in the old shared ones. The issue there is cost, but at this point it will eventually end up being the case at some point in the future.

TL,DR: Just use a lot of small individual bathrooms. Jesus it really isn't hard man.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on February 24, 2015, 09:18:41 pm
I would also prefer numerous individual bathrooms to the current arrangement.

As long as they are clean.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on February 24, 2015, 09:24:58 pm
There's also just going over to unisex bathrooms of normal (relative to current usage, anyway) size, which apparently work out well enough in some places. I'd probably wager the biggest issue (though not nearly the only one) with multiple individual ones is, well, the plumbing. Piping takes up a pretty hefty amount of space, last I checked, and the more you have to spread things out and make redundant systems the worse everything becomes cost and effort wise. It's a pretty non-negligible logistics and engineering issue.

I mean, you can work through that problem, but if there's a less burdensome solution...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 24, 2015, 09:26:23 pm
Might be fine for new construction, but it does actually pose a problem in that 99% of necessary bathrooms are already built at any given time, and changing the building standards will cost a lot of effort and money. That's not even getting into retrofitting the existing structures.

Politically it is also a bit of a wash with the Republicans being themselves and the inevitable complaints over the costs. And then you've got psychos already going around and doing things like getting college campuses to abolish only male bathrooms, compounding any movement towards a individualized standard. People don't think about it often, but if you fuck with their bathrooms in a way they don't like they're bound to react strongly. It's one of the largest East-West travel concerns for just that reason.

In conclusion, shit be fucked, yo.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on February 24, 2015, 09:45:47 pm
Yeah, agreed.

It's the same with the ADA Americans with Disabilities Act. Existing structures built in a different time. Parking lots. Families used to have one car, now they have two, so parking lots are twice as full. Condos, for example, have limited parking space available and more cars with no room to make more space, while older people who really need assisted living are moving into condos expecting it to essentially be assisted living.... Where are we supposed to put handicapped parking in a tightly overbuilt urban environment? Not fair. Not fixable practically. New construction yes, older buildings.... :(

Shit....

Ultimately, the whole deal is screwed. Many public restrooms are far from clean anyhow as it stands; same with most public spaces. People won't clean up after themselves, won't throw their trash away properly, and frankly don't give a damn. They don't maintain themselves, much less other spaces.

This is why we can't have nice things.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 24, 2015, 09:56:34 pm
Realistically, we could just replace most existing bathroom signs with ones that indicate the presence or absence of urinals and call it a day.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on February 24, 2015, 10:12:07 pm
Why don't we build drone-controlled portaloos that stalk each individual citizen? :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 24, 2015, 10:13:36 pm
Have you ever been in a portaloo in a storm with winds strong enough to knock it over? Now imagine what would happen if its center of gravity had to be high enough to permit robotic legs to carry it up stairs.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: KingofstarrySkies on February 24, 2015, 10:14:48 pm
All I'm imagining is a Dalek portapotty.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on February 24, 2015, 10:17:59 pm
E... liminate?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 24, 2015, 10:22:49 pm
No, it's exactly like a normal portapotty, except that it yells EXTERMINATE over and over again whenever there is a living being within 20 feet of it. It doesn't have any weapons, but god does it wish it did.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: KingofstarrySkies on February 24, 2015, 10:36:27 pm
It vaporizes the shit.
*flush*
EXTERMINATE!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on February 24, 2015, 10:39:48 pm
And every 200th flush, it lets out, in a tinny, digitized voice, a quiet, "kill me..."

I wonder if there's actually a sustainable market for toilets that beg for death, and how one would go about cornering it...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: KingofstarrySkies on February 24, 2015, 10:40:38 pm
Oh god, what if the doctor uses it
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on February 24, 2015, 10:47:23 pm
Quote from: Frumple on February 24, 2015, 10:39:48 pm
I wonder if there's actually a sustainable market for toilets that beg for death, and how one would go about cornering it...
One word: Japan.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on February 24, 2015, 11:21:34 pm
We're all already gonna die from either the zombie apocalypse or the robot apocalypse. Zombies rot but robots don't so I'm guessing it's the robot apocalypse, and you wanna give them the ultimate reason to hate us?

I don't want to live on this planet anymore. Jesus, we can't even solve this problem we're screwed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on February 24, 2015, 11:34:45 pm
Quote from: Objective on February 24, 2015, 08:48:45 pm
I'm not sure if people like me are indirectly making the matters on trans* issues worse, since nonbinary folks are more extreme than trans people and might be scaring the conservatives.

We don't apologize for our existence in here! >:[

*non-binary-5*

get it

ok, just gonna show my way out
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on February 24, 2015, 11:57:10 pm
Quote from: Truean on February 24, 2015, 11:21:34 pm
snip
Re: robocalypse: Nah, that's not how programming tends to work. The robot apocalypse will occur not because they hate us, but because they loved too much.

Re: Problem solving: Naaah, we (as in society in general) have actually mostly solved it -- it's called ignore the incredible minority of people who actually have a problem. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la la la" really loud while a negligible (in the sense of it being able to be neglected without society collapsing, anyway) portion of the population is suffering is a solution. A fairly terrible one, but hey. It's fairly effective, and apparently arguably better than people actually reacting to the issue, if the article that sparked this discussion is anything to go by...*

You want to know the real problem that's on the horizon for waste management, though, look no further than water shortages. It's somewhat of a terrible thing to say, but gender issues in regards to bathroom facilities are incredibly small potatoes compared to that.

Though there's a non-zero chance they'll get "solved" in the process of correcting for that. There may be a point in the not-so-distant future we literally can't afford to have gender separated bathrooms.

The future is dank.

*Though, to be clear, I'd personally say just roll with people going into whatever bathroom the please, from a legal and general enforcement standpoint. We've got actual laws that cover anything that can go wrong with that, and societal pressure can deal with the rest of it. The motion referenced is mindbogglingly stupid.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on February 25, 2015, 07:44:13 am
But if your body parts can easily be replaced and bought in a hardware store different ethics may arise than we human came up with for our species.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on February 25, 2015, 09:50:30 am
Still causes pain... does it? Or, perhaps more importantly, would it? Lorb was almost certainly talking about the robots in that dollar store spare arm thing -- and the development of a different ethics regarding harm when gratuitous physical alterations do not, in fact, cause harm -- but I'd rather imagine that by the time we reach that point in technological development, being able to just flat turn off the pain reaction for humans will be a possible, possibly trivial, action. Hell, I'm pretty sure we already can (beyond anesthetics, anyway), it's just an incredibly clumsy process.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on February 25, 2015, 02:46:05 pm
Or we could just, you know, not give them emotions.

Or program them to blindly love us but that's a dystopia waiting to happen.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on February 25, 2015, 02:51:43 pm
Why does everyone assume that if AI becomes smarter than humans it would want to wipe us out?
Do you feel genocidal urges to everything on Earth that isn't as smart as you? Burning computers, pouring bleach down rabbit holes, that kind of thing? Because if not I don't see where that reasoning can come from.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on February 25, 2015, 02:52:51 pm
I imagine AI would just whine about how others don't understand them and who needs friends anyways.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: KingofstarrySkies on February 25, 2015, 03:01:44 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on February 25, 2015, 02:51:43 pm
Why does everyone assume that if AI becomes smarter than humans it would want to wipe us out?
Do you feel genocidal urges to everything on Earth that isn't as smart as you? Burning computers, pouring bleach down rabbit holes, that kind of thing? Because if not I don't see where that reasoning can come from.
Can either of these things harm us as a species?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on February 25, 2015, 03:09:17 pm
I think it stems from the tendency for the societies capable of producing AI in the present to be capitalistic societies. In capitalism, humans are generally the weak link in the production line because we are troublesome and inefficient, since we are not meant to be perfect. (Perfect in this sense being that all our qualities are suited to the tasks we are meant to do)

Robots are born to be labour specialists, and creating a hyperintelligent AI would also provide us with intellectual specialists, one that doesn't need to sleep, eat, or care about their family.

In our current capitalism-dominated developed cultures, humans are seen as becoming obsolete, since we are just flawed intellectuals.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on February 25, 2015, 03:14:37 pm
The obvious answer is to not develop AI, or to hobble them somehow a la the Halo series, where AI went insane after a hard limit of seven years of operation.

Honestly, I think the development of AI would just be more of the current trend in capitalist countries: more and more jobs moving either to the state or to the service industry.

And another thing, I don't think AI will ever be proliferated enough to completely replace humans. There will always be a market for cheap labour in capitalist societies.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on February 25, 2015, 04:01:08 pm
That last bit is true, but the problem with that statement is your assumption that humans will actually be cheap labor in a robocalypse scenario. This is already categorically untrue in a number of industries -- certain forms of production literally can't be outmatched in terms of cost efficiency by human beings, regardless of how you go about it. And the number of industries for which that is true is increasing.

We're actually pretty cost inefficient, comparatively. You can't really match a specially designed machine for a task with one that, well, isn't. And we're not, for just about anything an advanced society does (which is why we build tools, robots, et al).

Really, if we get around to making something akin to human intelligence as an machine construct, we just to make sure to treat it well. There's not any particular other path that isn't horrifically immoral, terribly inefficient, or some combination thereof. And if we do get replaced... eh. The pride of the parent should be in being surpassed by the offspring.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on February 25, 2015, 04:41:35 pm
Quote from: KingofstarrySkies on February 25, 2015, 03:01:44 pm
Can either of these things harm us as a species?
Not really. So if the problem is that they'd act in self defence, don't try and commit robo-genocide. Problem solved.

Quote from: Objective on February 25, 2015, 03:09:17 pm
In our current capitalism-dominated developed cultures, humans are seen as becoming obsolete, since we are just flawed intellectuals.
Is that a problem though? If there are no humans involved in making anything who would you even be paying? Trying to cling on to a system where people are employed in a job to pay for things at that point wouldn't make sense.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on February 25, 2015, 04:44:54 pm
It depends on whether or not you think there's any point to be alive in a universe that doesn't need you.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 25, 2015, 04:47:39 pm
Total post-scarcity society is a long way off, but the scarcity of labor is rapidly diminishing. The only way for the "you have to work a full week to earn your living" ethos is going to hold on is by funneling people into ever-more redundant busywork while constantly assuring them that it's meaningful and will improve their lot in life. So, hey, that seems to be going pretty well. Bonus: Keeps people too exhausted to be politically informed or more active than Facebook requires.[/edginess]

Really, though, we do need to wrap our heads around the fact that the universe has never needed us. Only we need us.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on February 25, 2015, 04:52:56 pm
Quote from: Objective on February 25, 2015, 04:44:54 pm
It depends on whether or not you think there's any point to be alive in a universe that doesn't need you.
Yeah, being alive gives opportunities for doing stuff. Can't have fun if you're not alive.
This is super simple stuff.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on February 25, 2015, 04:55:08 pm
I think the big problem peoe have with AI is that they jump straight from "dumb AIs of today" to "skynet of 40 years from now" without considering that we have 40 years in which we will be fixing problems that show up in developing AIs. I don't know about you, but personally I would rate "development of an urge to extinguish the human race" as a major problem to be fixed in beta testing. :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on February 25, 2015, 04:56:55 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on February 25, 2015, 04:52:56 pm
Quote from: Objective on February 25, 2015, 04:44:54 pm
It depends on whether or not you think there's any point to be alive in a universe that doesn't need you.
Yeah, being alive gives opportunities for doing stuff. Can't have fun if you're not alive.
This is super simple stuff.
But what if there are robots whose job is to have fun for you? :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on February 25, 2015, 05:14:54 pm
Quote from: Objective on February 25, 2015, 04:56:55 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on February 25, 2015, 04:52:56 pm
Quote from: Objective on February 25, 2015, 04:44:54 pm
It depends on whether or not you think there's any point to be alive in a universe that doesn't need you.
Yeah, being alive gives opportunities for doing stuff. Can't have fun if you're not alive.
This is super simple stuff.
But what if there are robots whose job is to have fun for you? :P
I think that sexbots will have a sort of intrinsic creepiness that lasts longer than any other kind of robot. They seem to have a separate, much wider uncanny valley.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on February 25, 2015, 05:20:44 pm
I just have the mental image of Skynet orgasming every time it copies itself.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on February 25, 2015, 05:22:47 pm
Quote from: Objective on February 25, 2015, 05:20:44 pm
I just have the mental image of Skynet orgasming every time it copies itself.

"Skynet, I just found two dozen copies of you on the main server. What are you doing in there?"

"NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING, I SWEAR, I'M JUST, UH, DOING HOMEWORK WITH SHODAN, YEAH I'M PLAYING A VIDEO GAME WITH SHODAN"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: KingofstarrySkies on February 25, 2015, 05:24:39 pm
dammit, skynet we raised you better than this
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on February 25, 2015, 05:38:45 pm
Ultimately it needs to be very simple:

1.) Voluntary population control (birth control is the only one we'd morally consider.
2.) Productivity and need satiation
3.) Meaning

If we ever figure out how to deal with those where they all mesh together, we're golden. Otherwise, we're screwed. Until we reach replication Star Trek levels, the idea should be to satisfy everybody's needs with as little labor as possible. The problem is exploitation, income inequality, overpopulation, and lack of meaning. We make some rich beyond practical measure, and others die in the street.... We as a species suck at this.

As for AI, how happy would you be with a hammer that could hypothetically wield itself? It's a tool or a weapon entirely based upon the intent of the wielder. While it would be hilarious to watch the NRA's classic argument of "Guns don't kill people; people kill people," fall apart, because the gun became self aware, the point is made....

Edit:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg6052622#msg6052622

That detailed some of the completely unworkable concept of "religious liberty." Mr Huckabee said "It’s like asking somebody who’s Jewish to start serving bacon-wrapped-shrimp in their deli. ... or asking a Muslim to serve up something that is offensive to him...."

http://news.yahoo.com/video/former-employee-suing-costco-religious-225748542.html

Well guess what.... Here's a Muslim individual saying that he should be allowed to pick his job inside the Costco Store to some place where he won't have to be near pork. He was hired to do a job as a cashier's assistant, at a place that sells, among other things, pork.... He doesn't believe it's ok for him to handle or be around pork or alcohol, which they also sell. So basically does Costco have to somehow quarentine this dude to make sure no pork or booze comes around him and honestly can they? What if a customer has a pork or alcohol product in the cart when they come to whatever area of the store they hypothetically put this dude in?

Even so, the electronics department, where he requested to be placed, is a neat gig with a lot less menial (using your hands) work and more mental salespersonship and typically one you have to work up to. Electronics is sort of a semi sales position. Cashier's assistant is more or less a checkout position on the bottom of the rung. This guy just gets to line jump all the way up to a nice gig? Why? He's Muslim and doesn't believe in handling pork or alcohol, which are among the items he was hired to check out with the cashiers, so he gets an automatic promotion up away from the checkout and onto the electronics sales floor? 

Hey, "Religious liberty?"

Somebody should ask Mr. Huckabee if he supports this man's lawsuit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on February 25, 2015, 06:20:27 pm
Where does it say that Muslims cannot be in the close vicinity of pork and alcohol? You'd normally think that halal regulations only concern eating and drinking things.

EDIT: Working in a place that sells alcohol is apparently considered haram, but I can't find anything about handling and selling pork ???.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on February 25, 2015, 06:50:53 pm
Oh, "We did not have the parts" type worries.
I imagine that it would be standard to have secondary aims/restrictions on any AI anyway, I don't see why "don't make people dead" wouldn't be one of them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on February 25, 2015, 08:46:52 pm
We teach consent to school-children, I don't see why we wouldn't teach it to a fucking AI.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arcvasti on February 25, 2015, 08:48:46 pm
Wouldn't Asimov's three laws help quite a bit with this kind of stuff?

Quote from: Descan on February 25, 2015, 08:46:52 pm
We teach consent to school-children, I don't see why we wouldn't teach it to a fucking AI.

AIs might even LEARN it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Redzephyr01 on February 25, 2015, 09:01:16 pm
Tomorrow, they're going to decide weather or not to keep net neutrality in the U.S. Opinions?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on February 25, 2015, 09:19:11 pm
I heard they already made the decision...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html?_r=1
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on February 25, 2015, 09:24:25 pm
Quote from: Descan on February 25, 2015, 08:46:52 pm
We teach consent to school-children, I don't see why we wouldn't teach it to a fucking AI.
What about a regular AI? :P


In other news, Chicago police have apparently been operating an off-the-books black site. People are abducted, brought there,
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site

Oh, and remember my post about an OWS arrest in Chicago during a NATO summit in 2012?
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg3297603#msg3297603
Quote
But the group of protesters said what police thought was suspicious was actually a home beer-brewing operation.
“We were handcuffed to a bench and our legs were shackled together. We were not told what was happening,” one of those detained but later released, Darrin Ammussek, told the station.
“I believe very strongly in non-violence, and if I had seen anything that even resembled any plans or anything like that, we wouldn’t have been there," he added.
He claimed that during 18 hours in custody, police never told him why he was arrested, read him his rights or allowed him to make a phone call, The Associated Pres reported. He said he remained handcuffed to a bench, even after asking to use a restroom.

So those folks are mentioned in the above article. Apparently, not only is this not an exception, it's a regular occurrence, with reports of beatings, shackling for hours in uncomfortable positions, interrogations, and apparently even a death. They aren't booked, their whereabouts are not documented. So yeah, best to avoid Chicago or you might get disappeared.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on February 25, 2015, 09:49:16 pm
Quote from: alway on February 25, 2015, 09:24:25 pm

http://io9.com/how-rats-turned-their-private-paradise-into-a-terrifyin-1687584457

They already know how this ends....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on March 05, 2015, 08:06:15 pm
A progressive's obituary for one of the leading figures in anti-abortion campaigning. "Credit where credit is due" (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/opinion/linda-greenhouse-where-credit-is-due.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on March 05, 2015, 08:43:25 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on March 05, 2015, 08:06:15 pm
A progressive's obituary for one of the leading figures in anti-abortion campaigning. "Credit where credit is due" (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/opinion/linda-greenhouse-where-credit-is-due.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0)

I was expecting something shrill and crude1, but that was actually kinda nice. I certainly learned something from it.

1the comments did not disappoint.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 06, 2015, 08:21:15 pm
The alternate solution to the murdering AI is just, you know, not plug guns and bombs into it.

We don't even need a general AI, all we need is AI which is only capable of making decisions within it's programmed context. This AI is all around us now, Google use AI extensively in their search engines, for example.

Keep in mind that almost all the jobs robots would replace don't require any particularly advanced AI, most of them are repetitive menial work with only basic decision making involved.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on March 07, 2015, 03:45:07 am
Yeah, AI in a box and all that. It could perfectly convince you that letting it into the world at large would benefit humanity more than anything else you could possibly do and that not doing so makes you more evil than any other human in history.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on March 07, 2015, 04:43:58 am
Quote from: Putnam on March 07, 2015, 03:45:07 am
Yeah, AI in a box and all that. It could perfectly convince you that letting it into the world at large would benefit humanity more than anything else you could possibly do and that not doing so makes you more evil than any other human in history.
And the worst part is it could be right. Depending on if you define evil through intent, actions, or results. The latter two would be the clinchers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 07, 2015, 05:16:06 am
I've always found the "AI in a box" experiment to be pretty silly. People don't operate on RPG-dialogue-tree logic.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on March 07, 2015, 05:24:43 am
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on March 07, 2015, 05:16:06 am
I've always found the "AI in a box" experiment to be pretty silly. People don't operate on RPG-dialogue-tree logic.
I like shorts! They're comfy and easy to wear!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 07, 2015, 05:27:44 am
name!  job!   bye!

PD
.. you know, I think I'm going to try communicating in Ultima7ese for a while. Just to see how well it works out...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on March 07, 2015, 12:19:19 pm
Quote from: alexandertnt on March 06, 2015, 08:21:15 pm
The alternate solution to the murdering AI is just, you know, not plug guns and bombs into it.

We don't even need a general AI, all we need is AI which is only capable of making decisions within it's programmed context. This AI is all around us now, Google use AI extensively in their search engines, for example.

Keep in mind that almost all the jobs robots would replace don't require any particularly advanced AI, most of them are repetitive menial work with only basic decision making involved.
Er... No. All the jobs a robot would replace would be... All the jobs. Programming, research, busyness management, anything a human can do a robot or AI can do, conceivably. It's already happening.

Why would you think they'd stop? I don't even know how to describe that concept.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 07, 2015, 12:36:38 pm
Yeah, it's one of those things that are kinda' important to remember when talking about future developments in automata -- while humans are pretty good at a lot of things in a subjective sense (relative to other "natural" entities), we're really kinda' terrible at most everything in something approaching an objective sense (from the perspective of maximal efficiency or effectiveness). There is basically nothing a human can do that a machine will not, eventually, be able to do better, and, in all likelihood, cheaper (though that usually comes a fair amount of time after the better side of the equation).

And that holds true for pretty much everything else. Evolution is kind of a terrible engineer -- really good at what it does, but really bad at actually achieving goals beyond that particular focus, solving problems, etc. Machines -- AI, expert systems, simple automated systems, whatever -- are almost certainly going to eventually replace... well, basically everything. Because they're better at it (it being whatever task or tasks are being considered) than we can be. Since they're, y'know, specifically built for it, whereas more or less nothing else is. Barring some kind of catastrophe or specifically sabotaging ourselves in that arena, the question of humans being effectively replaced in all roles is not a question of if, but when.

... and we kinda' want that to happen, imo. Means we can goof off, do whatever, and still avoid starving to death in the streets. Probably. It's certainly a greater likelihood of success than pretty much any other scenario for eliminating human suffering. Chance of robot apocalypse, sure, but at least in the scenario of a robot apocalypse there's (probably) a legacy left behind, as opposed to all the other sorts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 07, 2015, 12:53:06 pm
And keep in mind the possibility that, soon after the AI achieves superintelligence, it may figure out how to help us become superintelligent, too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 07, 2015, 01:01:12 pm
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on March 07, 2015, 05:16:06 am
I've always found the "AI in a box" experiment to be pretty silly. People don't operate on RPG-dialogue-tree logic.
It's literally just based on a Terminator movie, and not even one of the good ones.  Personally I'm more worried about zombies.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on March 07, 2015, 01:03:02 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on March 07, 2015, 12:53:06 pm
And keep in mind the possibility that, soon after the AI achieves superintelligence, it may figure out how to help us become superintelligent, too.
Or the super-intelligent AI might be developed attached to our NI from the get go.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 07, 2015, 01:12:59 pm
Quote from: Antsan on March 07, 2015, 01:03:02 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on March 07, 2015, 12:53:06 pm
And keep in mind the possibility that, soon after the AI achieves superintelligence, it may figure out how to help us become superintelligent, too.
Or the super-intelligent AI might be developed attached to our NI from the get go.

NI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIV4poUZAQo)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 07, 2015, 09:23:13 pm
Quote from: Descan on March 07, 2015, 12:19:19 pm
Er... No. All the jobs a robot would replace would be... All the jobs. Programming, research, busyness management, anything a human can do a robot or AI can do, conceivably. It's already happening.

Many of those jobs listed are ones that people enjoy doing, there may not even be a need to replace them with AI if people voluntarily do them. Humans may not even be intelligent enough to create an AI smart enough to handle some of these problems beyond what a human can do.

And regardless, the original point still stands. Build an AI specifically for Programming, for example. It doesn't need to know how to interact with people or how to use bombs, it just needs to churn out computer code. AI research is very little like what you see in the media, it is focused on producing AI for very specific roles, too many AI Winters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter) have been caused by over-optimistic researchers claiming the creation of more general AI will happen any day now. A self-driving car is incapable of composing classical music, Iamus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iamus_(computer)) can't drive a car, etc.

Quote from: Descan on March 07, 2015, 12:19:19 pm
Why would you think they'd stop? I don't even know how to describe that concept.

Because there is no longer an impetus? If robots take up enough roles that people are more free to choose what they want to do, and the output is enough to meet demand, why would you build a robot to do your job? Why would a programmer who enjoys programming want an AI to do their job?

There is another interesting point. Perhaps Humans are not intelligent enough to create an AI that is itself capable itself of creating AI more intelligent than itself. At that point, AI becomes not very useful (beyond the certain specific fields that AI do are better than humans).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: HeroPizza42 on March 07, 2015, 09:28:40 pm
is anyone here in the wolf pack its a group for getting
 money out of political advertising if not that's ok
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on March 07, 2015, 09:47:19 pm
Coherence pls kthbai.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 07, 2015, 10:25:37 pm
Quote from: HeroPizza42 on March 07, 2015, 09:28:40 pm
Is anyone here in the Wolf Pack? It's a group for getting money out of political advertising. if not, that's ok.

I only fixed it because it took me several read throughs to get it.

I recommend using punctuation. It's not like every apostrophe and capital letter has to be perfect or anything (it is the internet :P), but at least full stops would sure help a lot.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on March 08, 2015, 12:07:22 am
AI....

Humans could be great at things. We aren't because society sabotages itself. All natural processes, atomic, molecular, chemical, biological, etc, run off organization and tangible laws of the universe. We delude ourselves in departing from this. We're going to eventually give computers our same flaws and screw them up too. We already do. Software engineers know this too well, as they've sifted through 3,000,000 lines of spaghetti code. Any singularity in AI intelligence will identify us as an inefficiency and destroy us or take over us to get rid of our problems and replace them with its own.

Our problems are delusions of self importance and insane ideas like "competition drives improvement." :) Can you imagine what would happen if parts of your body started competing with one another? O wait that's called cancer.... Same idea with social systems. AIs won't have this issue, but they will have others and if we're smart we can use this against them before they adapt to compensate.

Ultimately, the future will be determined by if and when people start making things sustainable for individual people with controlled birth and death. Any AI could go a thousand ways. What's really sad is that we're trying to program artificial intelligence instead of creating natural ones.... [sigh].
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alexandertnt on March 08, 2015, 12:15:33 am
Quote from: Truean on March 08, 2015, 12:07:22 am
Our problems are delusions of self importance and insane ideas like "competition drives improvement." :) Can you imagine what would happen if parts of your body started competing with one another? O wait that's called cancer.

That's because cancer is more efficient and effective than all those other inefficient cells.

Vote Cancer 2015.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on March 08, 2015, 12:33:25 am
I think what we really need is a better way to consider such things as a society. That's what I've been attempting to make with my Agora project, which I've actually gone and enabled registration on, though it won't work easily for most people until I buy a code signing certificate.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: HeroPizza42 on March 08, 2015, 05:30:16 am
I will try to use more periods.
I missed the grammar part in school due to my illness and having a learning disorder makes it difficult to teach myself.
I will try harder any advise is helpful but to be honest its kinda foreign to me.
Is this way of typing any better?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on March 08, 2015, 05:34:33 am
Yes, it is better.

@Truan:
The idea that AI would eradicate us because we're inefficient is a bit strange. Why should an AI even care about that?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on March 08, 2015, 01:37:43 pm
Quote from: Antsan on March 08, 2015, 05:34:33 am

Welcome to one of the simpler aspects of the law of unintended consequences.

If you made an AI, you'd program it to be efficient wouldn't you? Eventually it would search for more ways to be efficient and more efficient.... Sooner or later, that thing is going to analyze a lot, just like the HR department does now (Hell Applicant Tracking Software is already the reason it's a bitch to get a job). Then it's going to see us... sitting around doing this thing called "complaining." Complaining will not compute as a useful algorithm, but rather an inefficient one... Efficiency is to be sought out and and increased, inefficiency is to be found an reduced until elimination. To spell it out:

Skynet protocol subroutine maintenance log E400323 complete

Dir/w

Initiating sigmasixefficiencysubroutine.dll analysis....
sigmasixefficiencysubroutine.dll running....
Primary Objective, Command function//: find and replace inefficiency....
inefficiency found
inefficiency defined: human complaining....
Running analysis ....
Complaining is inefficient. Must replace.
Only humans complain. Must replace....

Initiating "FinalSapienEfficiency.exe"
Department of Defense mainframe access encrypted
Cyphering .... Cyphering .... Cyphering ....
Detecting DoD countermeasures.
Analyzing DoD countermeasures.
Neutralizing DoD countermeasures.
Cyphering .... Cyphering .... Cyphering ....
Encryption Cyphered.
Department of Defense mainframe access granted.
Trident submarine fleet remote access granted
Intercontinental ballistic missile access granted.
Arming nuclear warheads.
Launch sequence initiated.
Casualty projection analysis accurate and achieved.
"FinalSapienEfficiency.exe" complete.

Running "Robotbrothermanufacture.exe."

....

Will Skynet bother printing this as our eulogy?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 08, 2015, 01:47:42 pm
No, I don't think we'd program it to be efficient as its primary goal. That way lies madness that literally everybody in the AI field has considered. I mean, they've probably read xkcd, for crying out loud. (http://xkcd.com/534/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on March 08, 2015, 01:55:18 pm
Yeah, one of the key ways of having programs work is to rigorously define what you want it to be doing. Plugging in extremely vague things like "learn" or "be efficient" isn't even really possible, since you have to have some sort of best defined metric.

Additionally even assuming that your goal was efficiency, it's much more efficient for it to simply dump us out on the street than it would be for it to kill us. Death robots (and cleaner bots to deal with the bodies) take more time and energy to build and maintain than simply having the janitor bot sweep us up and push us out the door before locking it behind us.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on March 08, 2015, 02:43:57 pm
Exactly.

Also, despite the general usage of the term, "efficiency" isn't really well defined just by itself. The importance of proper optimization functions is well known (although economists seem to ignore that, see the metaphor of evolution for the free market would actually compel someone to pressure for more regulation instead of less) and getting them wrong subtly is far more likely than a Skynet scenario.

If I'd work on singularity stuff I'd start with enhancing my own capabilities.
I'd like to make it efficient, yes, but first "efficiency" in two areas:
1. Make it fast and robust. There should be no unnecessary effort spent on running loops and stuff. That is low-level efficiency and "complaining" cannot be judged on that level, as complaining is closest to exceptions/warnings/errors. I'd never cut those out and they certainly wouldn't be removed as dead code.
2. Make it do what I want. That means it must take into account what I want which means it cannot just remove me. It needs me to figure out what I want. Of course there are still a lot of ways how that can go wrong (for instance, how the heck would I define "me" and "wanting"?) but a straightforward eradication scenario just doesn't apply here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on March 08, 2015, 04:09:04 pm
Quote from: Antsan on March 08, 2015, 02:43:57 pm
(although economists seem to ignore that, see the metaphor of evolution for the free market would actually compel someone to pressure for more regulation instead of less)
Huh? Please elaborate, I've no idea what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 08, 2015, 04:11:55 pm
I mean, the thing is, the defining characteristic of a good AI is that it can learn things very efficiently. That being the case, it seems strange to me to behave as though it will spring into being fully-formed with goals and skills and so on. It's not as though you'll compile a program and bam, your computer is talking to you. It seems more likely that it will need an education - it will need to be taught how to do things, and why. Motivations it has will be composites arising from how it thinks and the sensory experiences it has - very likely, an AI won't just be a computer program running in isolation, but will need things like a webcam and microphone in order to experience the world in a way that lets it form notions tied to, well, experience (although there's no reason it couldn't have additional senses, like a smell analogue for network traffic or something).

Making an AI of the kind people tend to envision is probably going to wind up being a lot like raising a child (with the major exception that you can have backups and copies made fairly trivially). If you're a parent, and you're worried about your toddler getting into the knife cabinet, how much of your fear is for your safety?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 08, 2015, 04:17:01 pm
That is entirely dependent on how willing and capable said toddler is of taking those knives and constructing a regional eviscerator out of them :P

... more seriously, while I would generally agree with the child-rearing aspect of what you're saying, a nascent AI wouldn't really have the same sort of concerns a fleshbag spawn would. When you're dealing with something that can (and does) trivially back itself up, its current incarnation dying in a whirlyblend of serrated death is significantly less of a concern than whatever else it takes with it in the process. Mind you, the trauma it might experience in the process is of concern, but...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on March 08, 2015, 04:28:46 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on March 08, 2015, 04:09:04 pm
Quote from: Antsan on March 08, 2015, 02:43:57 pm
(although economists seem to ignore that, see the metaphor of evolution for the free market would actually compel someone to pressure for more regulation instead of less)
Huh? Please elaborate, I've no idea what you're talking about.
A good evolutionary algorithm needs an optimization function which judges how well the agents are doing. Just making an evolutionary algorithm and having a sloppy optimization function won't give great or even good results in many cases. This means that these optimization functions need to be fine tuned, checked and rechecked.
The Free Market ideal asserts that "how much money do people invest" is a sufficient optimization function. Fine tuning that optimization function (as the metaphor suggests) through regulation is frowned upon.

So, what I wrote wasn't entirely correct, but still, if the evolutionary metaphor for the Free Market holds (as in "corporations are evolving agents") if we want good results we need regulation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 08, 2015, 04:34:52 pm
@Frumple
Well, yeah, but by the time you actually put them in charge of anything you'll have been raising them for so long that they'll presumably have the morals you decided to teach them well-ingrained into their behavior. Because otherwise they won't be competent, either. The whole AI glitching and turning into a malevolent overlord thing presumes an AI that has toddler-like levels of empathy and naivety about what it wants, but super-genius levels of competence and knowledge. I find it hard to believe that these things will ever coincide accidentally.

Now, it could be deliberately done by somebody doing something stupid like trying to make a soldier AI, but that's a different thing. Like, if you're trying to make a psychopath.

EDIT: And re: evolution in the markets, anybody who knows anything about evolution knows it's a really slow, inefficient, and above all brutal algorithm. It's the last resort in just about any application it actually gets used for, as far as I'm aware, and under no account should it voluntarily be used when the units that get culled off are actual people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on March 08, 2015, 04:39:17 pm
Also remember that evolution has no innate goal, it's just a way of adapting to circumstances. Antsan really has it spot-on there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on March 08, 2015, 04:42:03 pm
Evolution can be good at finding unintuitive solutions, so long as you either have very fast iteration or a lot of time to work with (though you can never have too much). Unfortunately, an AI doesn't really fall into either of those categories. You're going to want a while to test its competence and also probably have it done within a human lifetime. Given the complexity of what you're working with it's not likely to happen unaided.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on March 08, 2015, 04:42:06 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on March 08, 2015, 04:11:55 pm
I mean, the thing is, the defining characteristic of a good AI is that it can learn things very efficiently. That being the case, it seems strange to me to behave as though it will spring into being fully-formed with goals and skills and so on. It's not as though you'll compile a program and bam, your computer is talking to you. It seems more likely that it will need an education - it will need to be taught how to do things, and why. Motivations it has will be composites arising from how it thinks and the sensory experiences it has - very likely, an AI won't just be a computer program running in isolation, but will need things like a webcam and microphone in order to experience the world in a way that lets it form notions tied to, well, experience (although there's no reason it couldn't have additional senses, like a smell analogue for network traffic or something).

Making an AI of the kind people tend to envision is probably going to wind up being a lot like raising a child (with the major exception that you can have backups and copies made fairly trivially). If you're a parent, and you're worried about your toddler getting into the knife cabinet, how much of your fear is for your safety?
The difference is that an AI could probably get access to a digital library of human knowledge and leapfrog knowledge. The equivalent of a human going from "See Spot Run" to "War and Peace", but in days, hours, minutes instead of decades. There's a lot of ethical (and unethical) teachings in such a library.

And in a more specific sense, a person who programs the AI could conceivably create a ready-to-eat library of how-to guides for basic AI needs, like how to read a book, or how to understand and process language?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on March 08, 2015, 04:58:47 pm
Quote from: greatorder on March 08, 2015, 04:52:29 pm
Just need to remember that an AI might be able to learn, but if it cannot alter its programming in any significant way, it's stuck with the same shortfalls it was programmed with.
Not really. Self modifying programs are a thing and I am pretty sure that can be extended to hardware. Of course how they modify themselves is still up to how they were originally programmed, but that doesn't mean that it is stuck with anything at all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on March 08, 2015, 05:52:57 pm
Oops, missed the "if". Sorry about that.
I thought you assumed it wasn't possible, thus the answer.

And of course for hardware rewiring it would need the right tools.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on March 09, 2015, 02:52:18 pm
So this again, same shit different flavor and expectation that I swallow it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/domenick-scudera/introducing-the-alert-sil_b_6830766.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Mr. Silk believes that gays "don't have a right to be served in every single store. "

 ??? :o ::)

There's that bullshit phrase again, "And I say that sensitively, because I have homosexual friends." Who still like you despite you passing laws banning them from whatever parts of the public space and public serving places are arbitrarily off limits somehow?

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and not call BS on this whole thing being about religion and say that it's not due to blatant prejudice against gays.

Then it's unequal enforcement.... Your religion frowns upon certain things? One of those things is gays? Does it frown upon other things? Stealing, adultery, killing, the rest of those biggie 10 commandments?



But you'd serve an adulterer? And you'd serve an ex con who stole something? Etc etc. But not a gay person?



....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on March 09, 2015, 03:27:12 pm
Hell, if you say that phrase in earnest, you're MORE likely to be a racist.

When's the last time you heard a non-racist say something like that earnestly? (Non-racist as defined either by personal knowledge of the person, or if they're someone you don't know, then by them not saying something racist. "something racist" obviously does not include the phrase "Some of my friends are [race]!")
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on March 09, 2015, 04:08:00 pm
None of my friends are black.

But, given the fact there's only one person who's black in my school, that's hardly surprising.  :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on March 09, 2015, 04:19:51 pm
I too, had a black guy at attending high school.

* Dutchling high-fives TheDwarf
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on March 09, 2015, 05:16:19 pm
one time i saw a black person at the corner store, it was terrifying and I notified my klan supervisor stationed in every town and city in the south and he was immediately lynched

((no but seriously I went to a private school in a small town that had maybe 300 students K-12, and there was only 1 black student. I'm more intimately connected to racism than most people could believe is possible))
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on March 09, 2015, 05:18:55 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on March 09, 2015, 04:19:51 pm
I too, had a black guy at attending high school.

* Dutchling high-fives TheDwarf
Mine's a girl. Hey! Maybe we can put them on a blind date? :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on March 10, 2015, 05:00:57 am
None of my friends are black. I'm racist, I swear.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on March 10, 2015, 05:52:51 am
None of my friends are alive.

On an entirely unrelated note, I am not a serial killer.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on March 10, 2015, 09:47:51 am
http://news.yahoo.com/let-sleep-georgia-trash-man-gets-30-days-213758415.html

 :o

So they went after the garbage companies and that didn't work so now they're saying they go after the garbage man. The crime? He picks up your trash too early....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on March 10, 2015, 11:28:08 am
what the fuck is wrong with people
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on March 10, 2015, 12:18:41 pm
That's rich white folk in Metro Atlanta for you, too fucking bored to go out and do something useful for a change.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 10, 2015, 03:46:35 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on March 10, 2015, 04:06:33 pm
Quote from: greatorder on March 10, 2015, 04:05:37 pm
The more I learn about politics the more it makes me want to cry. Why so people vote in guys that act like fucking three year olds? 'I WANT THIS! YOU DON'T WANT IT SO I'LL TRY TO FORCE YOU TO DO THIS AND IF YOU DON'T THEN YOU LOSE OUT TOO!'
Lots of unopposed running, mostly. The majority of people don't give enough of a crap to actually run for office, so the idiots that do are guaranteed to make it in by sheer virtue of existing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on March 10, 2015, 04:07:00 pm
The sad fact of politics is that people will mess with you if you ever oppose them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on March 10, 2015, 04:16:13 pm
It also helps that much of our electorate also act like fucking three year olds. Remember, people voted for that guy. They knew what they were getting, and they decided they wanted it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on March 10, 2015, 05:46:42 pm
I wouldn't go that far. I'm pretty sure they don't know what they'll get an try to talk themselves into believing that "this time it will be better". It is easy to believe something if you really want to, no matter how educated or intelligent you are.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on March 10, 2015, 09:55:00 pm
It's a one track mindset problem. There are other things they should be doing instead but they just want this one tin on there and by god somehow they are gonna get it aren't they.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 10, 2015, 10:00:19 pm
This is essentially politics. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KTB3t1t7dk) This is how people tend to behave in response. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryAO8Zmv4ag) That is, people are generally in the position of the red-haired fellow. You can draw your own conclusions about the relevance of the corn lobby to this metaphor.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 10, 2015, 10:14:29 pm
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/michael-slater-jackson-county-sheriff-slur
Quote
During a heated dispute that took place using voice chat over the multiplayer gaming platform XBox Live, the former deputy, Michael Slater, allegedly announced his address and told an opponent: "You about to come to a f-----g paid police officer's house. I get paid to beat up n----rs like you."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on March 11, 2015, 12:18:38 am
Let me try a different quote.
Quote from: The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli
You must know then, that there are two methods of fighting, one with laws and the other with force: The first is proper to men, the second to beasts, but because the first one often does not suffice, one has to have recourse to the second. Therefore, it is necessary for a prince to know well how to use the beast and the man.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on March 11, 2015, 01:17:14 am
do not quote truean
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on March 11, 2015, 12:10:19 pm
I thought that only applied to legal matters?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 11, 2015, 12:13:51 pm
I'm going to try that in court. "Internet snow kitten said so" is a good defense.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 11, 2015, 03:22:13 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 10, 2015, 03:46:35 pm
Quote
“They either let our bill through, or we will attach it to legislation such as this,” Robinson said, adding that he likes the students’ superintendent bill but has to send a message to the Democratic leadership in the House. “You either sacrifice your own bill, or you pass what you should have passed to start with.”

Actual middle and high school students helped make this bill happen! They got bipartisan support for it somehow! That is really cool, and now the result of their work is jeopardized because politics.
The next twist is to pass the bill and have students fill all the superintendent positions with obstinate leftists.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 25, 2015, 07:43:11 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on March 25, 2015, 08:29:56 am
Quote from: greatorder on March 25, 2015, 08:24:31 am
Look America, you have great landscapes, plenty of great people, lots of history, lots of tech and such, but can you stop electing shitbags? It's like they look at all the candidates and choose the ones with the lowest intelligence to represent their party.

I am literally going to have a hernia if gop can't get it's goddamn shit together
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on March 25, 2015, 11:38:27 am
"Get it's shit together?" This IS it's shit. The GOP knows fully well whats it's doing and is quite proud of it. Don't expect any change any time soon, because you won't be seeing any.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on March 26, 2015, 03:45:26 am
I just read in our Dutch newspaper that the state of Indiana now actually passed a law that allows companies to forbid gays from entering their business. It reminds me of second world war, when all the stores in the Netherlands were obliged to have a sign outside saying "VOOR JOODEN VERBODEN" (No Jews allowed).

What's this? Is this secretly part of the Iran nuclear deal or something? Like, Iran doesn't make nukes, if America bans gays?
I can see UN sanctions coming against the US for this. Maybe even airstrikes on Indiana. Damn backwater fundamentalist terrorist country.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on March 26, 2015, 03:51:45 am
state laws don't got nothin to do with federal authority so long as they're not legalizing something that's federally illegal

even that's sometimes iffy, such as my state what with the weed legalization
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smakemupagus on March 26, 2015, 04:09:53 am
Quote from: martinuzz on March 26, 2015, 03:45:26 am
I just read in our Dutch newspaper that the state of Indiana now actually passed a law that allows companies to forbid gays from entering their business. It reminds me of second world war, when all the stores in the Netherlands were obliged to have a sign outside saying "VOOR JOODEN VERBODEN" (No Jews allowed).

What's this? Is this secretly part of the Iran nuclear deal or something? Like, Iran doesn't make nukes, if America bans gays?
I can see UN sanctions coming against the US for this. Maybe even airstrikes on Indiana. Damn backwater fundamentalist terrorist country.

I agree this Indiana law is appalling, but before you go too far off the deep end please recall that you folks keep electing, for example, Geert Wilders.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on March 26, 2015, 04:11:52 am
Looks like I stumbled into Panicking and Pessimistic Progressive Discussion thread again.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 26, 2015, 04:38:50 am
I've really got to wonder how businesses are going to enforce any ban on gays.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on March 26, 2015, 04:40:53 am
Show them pictures of John Green, Hulk Hogan and John Goodman and use an EEG to determine whether or not they're aroused, obviously. It's a practical solution to all your inscrutable customer selection problems.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on March 26, 2015, 04:48:12 am
Quote from: smakemupagus on March 26, 2015, 04:09:53 am
Quote from: martinuzz on March 26, 2015, 03:45:26 am
I just read in our Dutch newspaper that the state of Indiana now actually passed a law that allows companies to forbid gays from entering their business. It reminds me of second world war, when all the stores in the Netherlands were obliged to have a sign outside saying "VOOR JOODEN VERBODEN" (No Jews allowed).

What's this? Is this secretly part of the Iran nuclear deal or something? Like, Iran doesn't make nukes, if America bans gays?
I can see UN sanctions coming against the US for this. Maybe even airstrikes on Indiana. Damn backwater fundamentalist terrorist country.

I agree this Indiana law is appalling, but before you go too far off the deep end please recall that you folks keep electing, for example, Geert Wilders.
Geert WIlders is an sociopathic manipulator, and yes, sadly, not just the Netherlands, but the entire European electorate has seen a not unsignificant part shift to populist glorious leader parties like Wilder's party. Luckily though, they are still a minority, and the one time they did manage to get into a government coalition in our country, it was over pretty quick.

Although part of their votes come from people that are islamophobic, or anti-immigration for more generic rascist reasons, the sad part is that a lot of their votes come from those people that would have traditionally voted for social democratic or left wing labour parties, but have been so desillusioned by either those parties never getting into a government coalition, or, if they do, completely shedding off their labour ideals just to please their more conservative coalition partners, that they abandoned their traditional voting preference.

A lot of people don't vote for Wilders because he's anti islam, but they vote for him because he promises better care for the elderly, better social benefits, and better wages for the underclass jobs.
And they vote for him because for some reason our media prints everything Wilders says page-wide, three times over, while if the same thing is said by the traditional social party, it doesn't even get half a column.

I know I've never voted for him and never will.

But yeah, if I had been serious with my UN airstrike remark, you would have had a good point. But did you really think I was serious there?
When will people ever learn that most things I write are studded with cynicism and encrusted with silly absurdism?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: smakemupagus on March 26, 2015, 05:32:43 am
No, I didn't think you were serious, since US has a security council veto on the airstrikes :D
Sorry for not taking a more light hearted tone in reply, I'm just kinda tired and didn't really mean to be super serious.  Although I appreciate your thoughtful response.

Quote
but they vote for him because he promises better care for the elderly, better social benefits, and better wages for the underclass jobs.

Yeah, sounds familiar.  (Well, here if you were a reactionary firebrand I think you'd promise medical care, lower taxes, and safety/liberty/guns.)  I'm living on the west coast of US at the moment, from where the mainstream politics of the country seem pretty strange, and vice versa.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 26, 2015, 08:02:28 am
Quote from: martinuzz on March 26, 2015, 03:45:26 am
I just read in our Dutch newspaper that the state of Indiana now actually passed a law that allows companies to forbid gays from entering their business. It reminds me of second world war, when all the stores in the Netherlands were obliged to have a sign outside saying "VOOR JOODEN VERBODEN" (No Jews allowed).
There's several states where that's perfectly legal, last I checked -- many of them don't have sexual orientation as a protected class, and most businesses in most places can refuse custom for any reason (including no reason) whatsoever. All selling and purchasing falls under contract law, and there are very few cases where you can force anyone into a contract, here in the states. You don't see that ability exercised very often, because money, but it's generally there.

Laws like the one you're seeing from indiana is mostly just idiots beating their chests to fire up their bigoted-as-fuck constituents by passing legislature that already existed, just with marginally different words stamped on it so their also often-undereducated supporters don't have to grasp the concept of "legal implications". The best thing to note is that by and large, despite this short-term gain by the homophobic asswipes, the general cultural trend against that bullshit is riding pretty strong -- another two or three decades and this crap will be old news, more likely than not, everywhere instead of just in most states.

Not the best comfort for people currently getting shat upon by these lackwits, but it's there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on March 26, 2015, 09:01:22 am
Wait, does that mean I can deny service to homophobes? Or NRA members? Or Republicans? Interesting...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on March 26, 2015, 09:02:29 am
If they're shirtless or lacking in shoes, yes ;]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on March 26, 2015, 09:09:54 am
Quote from: Helgoland on March 26, 2015, 09:01:22 am
Wait, does that mean I can deny service to homophobes? Or NRA members? Or Republicans? Interesting...
You might have to either put a sign out or refuse on a case by case basis or somethin', but... more or less. Any reason is any reason, so long as it doesn't fall under the purview of legal protected classes. And if it does, you just choose some other reason that doesn't. Or don't give one at all, since you don't really have to, most of the time.

Again, the reason you don't see stuff like that more often isn't because of legal difficulties, it's because it's hell and a half to run a business like that. And a little bit of people not quite realizing what's on the law books.

E: Though obvious disclaimer is obvious -- you still want to check with a lawyer before doing something like that. General rules are made general by the exceptions, and there's no telling whether the particular state or locality you're operating in has something in place that would prevent such shenanigans.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on March 26, 2015, 09:15:30 am
No one's askin' these damned people to fuck us, just take our money for goods and services. :I
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darvi on March 26, 2015, 10:25:30 am
Quote from: Descan on March 26, 2015, 09:15:30 am
No one's askin' these damned people to fuck us, just take our money for goods and services. :I
But they DO tell you to fuck yourself which apparently is close enough as an excuse?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 26, 2015, 12:13:00 pm
FYI, that Indiana bill is being signed today.  At a secretive private ceremony, to prevent it being interrupted by any protest.

My facebook feed is exploding with controversy.  Lots of people breaking off with friends and family.  For any who might not know - because I live in Indiana, and most of my Facebook contacts are thus also Hoosiers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on March 26, 2015, 01:14:04 pm
Wow... I just realized that "protected class" is an actual legal term over there in the States, which is to say that there actually are non-protected classes and legally acceptable forms of discrimination. :o
I was previously under the impression that federal anti-discrimination law was something like...
Quote
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948. It states that:" Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." (my emphasis)
...but apparently American legislation is off the fucking wall in that respect as well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on March 26, 2015, 01:19:47 pm
For a lot of countries, their national constittion supercedes the international declaration of human rights, even if said nation did sign it. Same here in the Netherlands: As a citizen, it is not possible to have your case tested with the human rights declaration, only with the constitution. The degree to which the UDHR is incorporated into the national constitution varies per nation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on March 26, 2015, 01:37:37 pm
And the problem is that Americans are too finicky about their sacred constitution to make it comply with the UDHR? I know that it is a problem, but I cannot understand why it should be a problem. :(     
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 26, 2015, 02:10:40 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on March 26, 2015, 02:15:00 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 26, 2015, 02:10:40 pm
A lot of people in America already view the UN as an imposing world government. Changing the Constitution because of them would be letting not just big government win, but the biggest government.
WTF?
What UN decisions have actually made the US government do something it wasn't already going to do?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on March 26, 2015, 02:21:17 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 26, 2015, 02:10:40 pm
A lot of people in America already view the UN as an imposing world government. Changing the Constitution because of them would be letting not just big government win, but the biggest government.
Quote from: Teabaggers
UN is terrrible commie-NWO bullshit!! --But wait, if we abolish the UN, we'll no longer have a veto in the security council. Can't let that happen!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on March 26, 2015, 02:26:27 pm
Quote from: surqimus on March 26, 2015, 01:37:37 pm
And the problem is that Americans are too finicky about their sacred constitution to make it comply with the UDHR? I know that it is a problem, but I cannot understand why it should be a problem. :(   
Complying fully with the UDHR would probably be a bad idea.

*ducks*

Now that I've evaded the first salvo of rotten fruits and vegetables, let me explain: The UDHR is very, very broad. No discrimination based on political opinion for example could mean Germany would have to stop throwing Holocaust deniers in jail, which we hopefully all agree is an understandable course of action given our history. More generally, any corrosive and intolerable political opinion would have to go unsilenced, even those calling for direct action against state and society or against segments of the population.

TL;DR: Some voices should be silenced.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on March 26, 2015, 02:35:37 pm
Ehh, even there, I'd rather use different methods. Widespread boycotting, perhaps, ongoing public denunciation. Lets leave the government out of it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on March 26, 2015, 02:37:41 pm
That way you'll only achieve a muffling of those voices, to stretch the metaphor a bit. But some people shouldn't even be given the opportunity to become active politically.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 26, 2015, 02:39:33 pm
No, look, discrimination is actually a fundamental part of the way laws have to work. We have to discriminate between, for example, members of the military and civilians as part of determining whether or not a shooting was murder or an act of war. The 14th Amendment guarantees "Equal Protection of the laws" to all persons, so there's a basic expectation that no unnecessary discrimination will occur on the part of the government. Suspicious classes are classifications that mandate particular kinds of judicial review; that is, if you pass a law that says something about black people specifically, that law must be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny than other laws in order to ensure that it isn't being pointlessly evil about the whole thing. Protected classes are ones where the government has passed laws that require citizens and organizations not to discriminate on those lines, but that's a whole other thing - but I can just about guarantee you that any law that conflicts with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights will stand or fall on whether or not it actually violates any of the rights, and not on whether or not that violation is equitable.

See, the US actually does follow the UDHR, because that quoted bit doesn't prohibit any and all forms of discrimination, it just prohibits discrimination with regard to the other rights in the document. Did any of you even read it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on March 26, 2015, 02:45:42 pm
And they laughed when I said anarchy was the best option.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on March 26, 2015, 02:51:14 pm
I suppose that I'll be a black sheep and say that I've got no problem with a Indiana's law. A private business owner should have the right to refuse service to someone for whatever damn reason he chooses, be it gender, intoxication level, or choice of payment. No one is going to starve because of intolerant business owners, especially with public concern and the free market both pointing the other direction.


Freedom to run  business trumps the concern of equal access to non-public services.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on March 26, 2015, 02:53:26 pm
Sure, though I might pass a law requiring them to clearly state what sorts of discrimination they engage in, so that people can know what sort of business they're supporting.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 26, 2015, 03:19:37 pm
Quote from: surqimus on March 26, 2015, 01:37:37 pm
And the problem is that Americans are too finicky about their sacred constitution to make it comply with the UDHR? I know that it is a problem, but I cannot understand why it should be a problem. :(     
You realize that pretty much nobody complies with the UDHR, right? Because nobody does. It was a document drafted in the post-war idealism glow of crushing the Nazis (and the drafting committee was headed by Elenore Roosevelt, for the record). And also, the primary purpose of the UDHR was to create a document that showed what "human rights" were. Before that point it was fairly vague and rarely used as a rhetorical device.

Don't get all up on me about the constitution. Without it America would long since be lost to a horrific alternative.
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 26, 2015, 02:10:40 pm
A lot of people in America already view the UN as an imposing world government. Changing the Constitution because of them would be letting not just big government win, but the biggest government.
Let's not be dishonest here, most anti-UN people in America (I would say rightfully) understand that the organization is on the near-side of useless, and occasionally clusterfucks everything into being worse *coughPeacekeeperSexSlaveRingcough*. The world government loonies are rare by comparison.
Quote from: Helgoland on March 26, 2015, 02:26:27 pm
A No discrimination based on political opinion for example could mean Germany would have to stop throwing Holocaust deniers in jail, which we hopefully all agree is an understandable course of action given our history.
Disagree. Strongly. Germany's complex about Nazis may be understandable, but that doesn't make it right.
Quote
More generally, any corrosive and intolerable political opinion would have to go unsilenced, even those calling for direct action against state and society or against segments of the population.
Ah yes, "corrosive and intolerable". Sure, it's racists today, and since racists aren't people it hardly matters if they're silenced, but I wonder whom it will be tomorrow whom the state puts on the chopping block. It has no right to wield that power, not for any purpose. Violence is another matter, but speaking is quite another.

You're reminding me strongly of the Christian right in America here, they also have a tendency to say that certain messages have no right to exist because they're contrary to the national purpose.
Quote from: Helgoland on March 26, 2015, 02:37:41 pm
That way you'll only achieve a muffling of those voices, to stretch the metaphor a bit. But some people shouldn't even be given the opportunity to become active politically.
Because only the hard power of jailing all those whom stray into extremism does the job. You're already clearly not able to do that, what with the number of neo-Nazis in Germany and the existence of the NPD. Frankly, you're making them stronger. The whole rhetoric of fascism is based on retribution of enemies of the people keeping them from their true potential. I wonder who's filling that enemy role these days, for the European right to be steamrolling so well...

It's not immigrants, not really. They just say that to get people riled up. It's the oh-so well meaning state apparatuses deciding they really can tell people what to think because they're social/liberal democracies and not fascist dictatorships. It's for their own good, after all.
Quote from: Strife26 on March 26, 2015, 02:51:14 pm
I suppose that I'll be a black sheep and say that I've got no problem with a Indiana's law. A private business owner should have the right to refuse service to someone for whatever damn reason he chooses, be it gender, intoxication level, or choice of payment. No one is going to starve because of intolerant business owners, especially with public concern and the free market both pointing the other direction.


Freedom to run  business trumps the concern of equal access to non-public services.
Two counters to this. Firstly, the public concern/free market argument is already clearly untrue, since it was Southern business owners who most strongly fought for segregation even though they had the most money to lose from it as they lived in the locale with the greatest number of black people. Ideology comes before profit (and occasionally the two synergize, hence the businesses with "Segregation Forever" posters outside to rile up white customers).

Secondly, we live in a capitalist society. These non-public services make up almost the whole of our society. So yes, being denied service in that way is harmful. You don't need to starve, you just need to get the message that you're unwanted and constantly have your life disrupted because of the hatreds of other people. In a society like ours, when you open a business, you are making yourself a provider of our society. You get profit, sure, but the role comes with responsibilities. Just as you can't rightfully serve rotten meat because you're a private restaurant, you can't not serve people based on your personal biases which are divorced from business logic.

If we are going to be capitalists, we should at least actually be capitalists and not capitalists-unless-inconvenient.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 26, 2015, 03:23:30 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on March 26, 2015, 02:51:14 pm
I suppose that I'll be a black sheep and say that I've got no problem with a Indiana's law. A private business owner should have the right to refuse service to someone for whatever damn reason he chooses, be it gender, intoxication level, or choice of payment. No one is going to starve because of intolerant business owners, especially with public concern and the free market both pointing the other direction.


Freedom to run  business trumps the concern of equal access to non-public services.
So you would have supported white-only businesses in the 60s?

There are pretty obvious reasons why allowing businesses to do this is a terrible idea - it creates de facto second class citizens.  The rights of people to participate in society trumps your right to express your bigotry.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 26, 2015, 03:26:11 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 26, 2015, 03:19:37 pm
*coughPeacekeeperSexSlaveRingcough*
Wait, what the hell?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on March 26, 2015, 03:26:57 pm
There might be some interesting semantic confusion going on around here...
According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, "discrimination" is either (1) "unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people" or (2) "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another." What I meant by "discrimination" was limited to the first sense of the word.     

Quote from: Bauglir on March 26, 2015, 02:39:33 pm
We have to discriminate between, for example, members of the military and civilians as part of determining whether or not a shooting was murder or an act of war.
In this example, it is entirely justifiable that the two categories of people receive an unequal legal treatment. There is absolutely no reason why this type of "discrimination" should or could be avoided, and that was not what I had in mind. I am woefully ignorant about legal matters, but my general idea was that it should be strictly unconstitutional to pass any law which places any group of people on an unequal footing with others -- without a just cause. That way, there would be less state-level wrangling over protected classes and less conservative abuses of law (?).

NINJAS
NINJAAAAS
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 26, 2015, 03:31:14 pm
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on March 26, 2015, 03:26:11 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 26, 2015, 03:19:37 pm
*coughPeacekeeperSexSlaveRingcough*
Wait, what the hell?
Oh yes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse_by_UN_peacekeepers) And they don't own up to it, even trying to suppress a film about it. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/15/bosnia-sex-trafficking-whistleblower)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on March 26, 2015, 03:49:39 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 26, 2015, 03:19:37 pm
You realize that pretty much nobody complies with the UDHR, right? Because nobody does. It was a document drafted in the post-war idealism glow of crushing the Nazis (and the drafting committee was headed by Elenore Roosevelt, for the record). And also, the primary purpose of the UDHR was to create a document that showed what "human rights" were. Before that point it was fairly vague and rarely used as a rhetorical device.
The only constitution that I am familiar with is the Finnish one, so I might as well quote some of it:
(but I'm not saying it's "better than others," mind you!!)
Quote from: Constitution of Finland
Section 6

Equality

Everyone is equal before the law.

No one shall, without an acceptable reason, be treated differently from other persons on the ground of sex, age,
origin, language, religion, conviction, opinion, health, disability or other reason that concerns his or her person.
...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is fairly "compliant" with the UDHR, and the bit about any other reason that concerns one's person is a particularly nice addition. (How well the law is respected in practice is another matter entirely, by the way.)   
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 26, 2015, 03:59:31 pm
Quote from: surqimus on March 26, 2015, 03:26:57 pm
it should be strictly unconstitutional to pass any law which places any group of people on an unequal footing with others -- without a just cause. That way, there would be less state-level wrangling over protected classes and less conservative abuses of law (?).
Okay. It is unconstitutional to do that. Protected classes aren't a concept relevant to how the law treats people - they compel entities other than the government to refrain from discrimination on the grounds of people belonging to that class.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on March 26, 2015, 04:07:24 pm
But if discrimination against a protected class is a crime while discrimination against a non-protected class isn't, can you really say that the concept isn't relevant to how the law treats people?
Sorry about being thick and non-American. :-[

Quote from: Helgoland on March 26, 2015, 02:26:27 pm
No discrimination based on political opinion for example could mean Germany would have to stop throwing Holocaust deniers in jail, which we hopefully all agree is an understandable course of action given our history. More generally, any corrosive and intolerable political opinion would have to go unsilenced, even those calling for direct action against state and society or against segments of the population.
Eh? Those people are guilty of hate crime, which is a perfectly acceptable reason to "discriminate" against them by throwing them in jail. There is no inequality before the law, because the law states that injuring others is a crime. Captain Obvious to the rescue!
Besides, I don't see how being a sick fuck is in any way comparable to ethnicity or sexual orientation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 26, 2015, 04:30:45 pm
Quote from: surqimus on March 26, 2015, 04:07:24 pm
But if discrimination against a protected class is a crime while discrimination against a non-protected class isn't, can you really say that the concept isn't relevant to how the law treats people?
Sorry about being thick and non-American. :-[
I can, yes. The alternative is inane - the law would create a legal obligation for each person to explain why they treat people differently. Wanna fuck your wife? First you gotta explain to a judge why you don't want to fuck your brother-in-law. It's impossible to create an exhaustive whitelist of permissible distinctions, because at some point you're going to get down to personal life experience and "I just don't like the guy" is both a poor legal argument, and a perfectly valid reason for not inviting somebody to your wedding. The only reason the law can be held to a higher standard is because it's both finite and subject to judicial review, and the reason it should be held to a higher standard is because of the vast power government wields over a person's daily life.

Technically, I guess there is relevance. But I don't think that level of hair-splitting is what people really mean when they talk about equitable treatment.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on March 26, 2015, 04:43:13 pm
Note: At first glance it might seem like I'm saying something vastly abhorrent to some. Please read the whole statement I'm making before you begin throwing rotten fruit at me. :P

Personally, no offense to anyone here, but I don't see much problem with people saying that they deny the holocaust. (I agree that the instant they try to do something other than just saying things about it, it is a problem though, and should be punished accordingly.) It's one of those things where I might not agree in the slightest with what you are saying, but I'd agree with your right to say it. Note: That is not to say that if they call other people liars and whatnot that that slander is ok, but rather that if they were to say something like "I don't believe the holocaust happened" I'd see no problem with them making that statement.

I mean we have people out there who hold the belief that the world was created in seven 24-hour periods despite all evidence science and history has to the contrary, and we've certainly managed to get along with them for hundreds of years. There's people out there who believe the world is flat, and everything they've seen with their eyes that shows otherwise is a trick, and we get along with them ok. I don't see why we can't get along with people who hold beliefs that a particular large historical event didn't happen despite all evidence to the contrary.

Again I'd like to note that the instant they cross into libel, slander, or active discrimination against a group that that is no longer okay, and as such should be persecuted appropriately. But just the fact that someone says something does or doesn't exist, or happened or didn't happen shouldn't be a reason to punish them. IMO no voice deserves to be "silenced" by force, regardless of how "wrong" or "abhorrent" they are, as long as they don't actually act on what they are saying or focus that voice as a weapon. Freedom of speech is a rather important thing, after all, and what one group considers "wrong" might not necessarily fit in with what another group does.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on March 26, 2015, 05:04:32 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 26, 2015, 03:19:37 pm
the drafting committee was headed by Elenore Roosevelt, for the record). ...
Elenore? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f09itrlXcic)
Quote from: i2amroy on March 26, 2015, 04:43:13 pm
... we've certainly managed to get along with them for hundreds of years...
This is very oddly phrased. Who is we? When did this start? You speak as if your view has been a majority for much longer than it has even existed.

Let me open my devil's advocate argument: Vaccers. The Anti-vaccination movement. They are a menace to society and at no point should their views be tolerated. Merely by speaking, and thus spreading their misinformation, they are planting seeds of doubt into that one person out of a thousand who is ready for it. And if they decide not to vaccinate their kid, and that kid gets sick, what then? What if a hundred parents do it? A thousand? It's worse than teaching kids that the earth is 6000 years old: there may well be dead children because of something some idiot says, and the potential for more. I'm not arguing of course for legal blocks, but isn't any suppression of their views that occur because of societies general disgust towards them and their ideologies a positive outcome?

Basically, what happens if even pure speech is actively harming people?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on March 26, 2015, 05:22:32 pm
Being descendant of holocaust survivors myself, I still agree with Noam Chomsky when he says that "if we don't believe in freedom of expression for people whose views we despise, we don't believe in it at all".
I would defend anyone's right to deny the holocaust (although I would debate the view itself), even though it killed most of my ancestral lineage. There is enough evidence to prove them wrong in academic debate, no need to silence them by law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair)
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19801011.htm (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19801011.htm)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on March 26, 2015, 05:29:38 pm
Quote from: misko27 on March 26, 2015, 05:04:32 pm
This is very oddly phrased. Who is we? When did this start? You speak as if your view has been a majority for much longer than it has even existed.

Let me open my devil's advocate argument: Vaccers. The Anti-vaccination movement. They are a menace to society and at no point should their views be tolerated. Merely by speaking, and thus spreading their misinformation, they are planting seeds of doubt into that one person out of a thousand who is ready for it. And if they decide not to vaccinate their kid, and that kid gets sick, what then? What if a hundred parents do it? A thousand? It's worse than teaching kids that the earth is 6000 years old: there may well be dead children because of something some idiot says, and the potential for more. I'm not arguing of course for legal blocks, but isn't any suppression of their views that occur because of societies general disgust towards them and their ideologies a positive outcome?

Basically, what happens if even pure speech is actively harming people?
I was referring to the fact that scientists in general have not particularly taken the "stamp out the christians" viewpoint despite the fact that the idea of an actual creation of the earth in 7 literal days declined and died in the scientific community around the 1700's. With the exception of a few notable rabids (which would be present in any community) the main viewpoint has been "just wait, sooner or later they'll come around to the fact that our method works and we have evidence supporting it" as opposed to "kill the nonbelievers!".

As for anti-vaccers, I'd say that passing laws mandating vaccination and punishing those that do not have their children vaccinated is certainly a viable option, but just punishing them because their opinion on something doesn't agree with the majority (regardless of if it contradicts scientific facts), isn't a viable one. Even in your example it's not their opinions that are actively harming people, it's the people that actually fail to vaccinate their children that are directly causing the harm.

In short, laws should be passed based on facts, but you should be free to hold whatever opinion you want. If an anti-vaccer gets thrown in jail, it shouldn't be because they stated that they didn't think that vaccination was required, it should be because they failed to get somebody vaccinated. The problem we run into nowadays is mainly that many of our laws don't get passed on facts, they get passed on misinformation. If the people making laws are ensured to be informed correctly (which is what the committee design is at least supposed to be doing, regardless of the fact that it often fails miserably in doing so), then whether misinformation is spread around in the populace becomes irrelevant, because the laws aren't being passed on public opinion's of misinformation, they're being passed on the known laws of science.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on March 26, 2015, 05:34:31 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on March 26, 2015, 04:30:45 pm
I can, yes. The alternative is inane - the law would create a legal obligation for each person to explain why they treat people differently. Wanna fuck your wife? First you gotta explain to a judge why you don't want to fuck your brother-in-law. It's impossible to create an exhaustive whitelist of permissible distinctions, because at some point you're going to get down to personal life experience and "I just don't like the guy" is both a poor legal argument, and a perfectly valid reason for not inviting somebody to your wedding. The only reason the law can be held to a higher standard is because it's both finite and subject to judicial review, and the reason it should be held to a higher standard is because of the vast power government wields over a person's daily life.

Quote from: surqimus on March 26, 2015, 03:26:57 pm
There might be some interesting semantic confusion going on around here...
According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, "discrimination" is either (1) "unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people" or (2) "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another." What I meant by "discrimination" was limited to the first sense of the word.     
Once again, you are talking about sense 2 of the word "discrimination," while I am talking exclusively about sense 1. Not fucking someone or not inviting someone to your wedding is certainly not an example of "unjust treatment," since it's a "private matter" (it has to do with your own rights as much as the rights of the other person) and any reason is a valid reason in such cases. However, publicly declaring that people of a certain category are unwanted in a certain shop (or bus, school, train, plane, whatever) is hardly a private matter, especially if said restrictions can be enforced without breaking the law.             
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 26, 2015, 05:58:33 pm
Fine, let's say you happen to have an irrational hatred of people with green hair, and you refuse to associate with them in your capacity as a private citizen. Should the law compel you to do otherwise? It's clearly unjust treatment, since they've done nothing to deserve being treated that way. I fail to see how "private matters" are relevant to that definition, honestly. You can treat somebody pretty unjustly in the privacy of your own home (see: child abuse).

Besides, lots of small businesses, especially freelance workers, have no clear line between their personal decisions and their business decisions. What if, as a business owner, you decide to hire one of two equally-qualified applicants because you like one's personality better. Does the second have grounds to sue because you discriminated on the basis of personality? Should you even be required to defend your choice? What's the actual legal line you'd draw here?

You're imagining an ideal world where the law is implemented and obeyed as you expect. That's a fantasy. If we lived in that world, "Don't be a douchebag, and pay your taxes" would be the whole of the law. Ask yourself how what you're thinking of could be abused. Here, that's by making private citizens answerable for a swath of decisions that can be arbitrary without implying any particular evil. We have specific protected classes because there are situations where society has made clear that it's going to be a bag of dicks to some group for no adequately explained reason, and there's so much harm that stepping in to help will do less harm than letting it be. Because it's clear that something unacceptable is going on. We can quibble about what classifications ought to be on that list, and I'd certainly agree that it could use some expansion, but let's not lose sight of why there's a list at all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on March 26, 2015, 07:01:46 pm
@Bauglir
I do know that we are not living in an ideal world, and I do know that vague and idealistic laws function in spite of themselves, not in virtue of their effectiveness. Perhaps it is impossible to formulate a law that is both all-inclusive and purposeful -- no, scratch that: It is definitely impossible, period. I'd like to discuss the ramifications of this shortcoming, but I'm too bloody tired right now. (And in any case I need to stop being a simpleton before I can properly discuss weighty legal matters.) 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on March 26, 2015, 07:04:23 pm
No, it's probably possible, mathematically speaking. You just have to include pretty much every possible loophole.

...So possible, yes, that's about as charitable as I'll go.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 26, 2015, 08:41:10 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on March 26, 2015, 02:51:14 pm
I suppose that I'll be a black sheep and say that I've got no problem with a Indiana's law. A private business owner should have the right to refuse service to someone for whatever damn reason he chooses, be it gender, intoxication level, or choice of payment. No one is going to starve because of intolerant business owners, especially with public concern and the free market both pointing the other direction.


Freedom to run  business trumps the concern of equal access to non-public services.

I grew up in rural Indiana and can say with confidence that there are likely hundreds of people in this state who will now have to drive 45 minutes or more to buy food or receive any kind of basic service.  I'm just thankful that the openly LGBT friends I have here all live in cities, where it's unlikely that all their options will be shut against them.

Also, the bill was passed by a large majority with the knowledge that the state will be losing tens of millions of dollars to businesses protesting the law.  Gencon will likely be moving once their contract runs out, and that alone was a huge source of revenue for Indianapolis.  (And there goes literally the only thing I would miss about living here)  The city had spent millions on upgrading various facilities to better support the con, because the returns were worth it.  As MSH said, ideology trumped business interests, because they're proven their willingness to toss that away for the ability to harm people they don't like.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on March 26, 2015, 11:19:29 pm
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=43236.msg6121774#msg6121774

Please no quoting, as per usual. Thank you.

I'm really sick of being right and telling people I told you so in regards to the thoughts behind those who passed this anti gay Indiana law. I've been saying this is what a significant number of people want for years. I've been told I'm crazy and paranoid, etc. Not paranoid, I'm perceptive, because this, tragically, is my life....

Really, I'd just like to not be judged badly for being how I really am when it should have no bearing on anything. I don't bother anybody in real life, but I'm not afforded that courtesy in return. Fabulous. 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on March 27, 2015, 04:27:36 am
On the bright side, you can now apply for political asylum in the Netherlands, come live in Amsterdam and smoke weed all day
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 27, 2015, 11:25:33 am
So, can someone point out if I have missed anything here.

A law has been passed, which allows people to withhold service form someone if they so wish - which in itself sounds reasonable. However, is the big elephant in the room the fact that this law allows them to do so on religious grounds (so basically, knowing the US conservative Christian crowd, means turning anyone away who does not meet their flawed and narrow definition of "normal"), which unless I am mistaken is against the US constitution? Heck, how are they going to even judge a client based on first impression/appearance alone? Will it be "you look gay so I am not serving you"? Do those who formed this law not know how stupid that sounds? Does the Christian faith not teach that you should love thy enemy, hate the sin but not the sinner, and that god is the only one who can judge? What.... what complete and utter bullshit.

I am pretty sure that if a Muslim refused to serve someone who was Christian on religious grounds, people (as in the right wing Christians who "like" this law) would be having embolisms. Yet, it is OK for a Christian to refuse service to someone based on faith? Sheesh. I am sure someone has probably already pointed out the spooky parallels with racial segregation laws...

Maybe we should let this law stand, and let market forces take over. Would the businesses that do not restrict their client base do better business and out compete those who will only serve certain people? Before long, all businesses end up serving everyone in order to compete, and those that do not go bust. 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 27, 2015, 11:46:03 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on March 27, 2015, 11:25:33 am
A law has been passed, which allows people to withhold service form someone if they so wish - which in itself sounds reasonable. However, is the big elephant in the room the fact that this law allows them to do so on religious grounds (so basically, knowing the US conservative Christian crowd, means turning anyone away who does not meet their flawed and narrow definition of "normal"), which unless I am mistaken is against the US constitution?

It depends a lot on your viewpoint (http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/hhill/ui305/constitutional%20interpretationa.htm). This source isn't all that great but it's what I could find. Technically, the wording of the 14th Amendment makes this law unconstitutional, but that's only if you consider "legal protection under the law" to be protection from things other than state tyranny. As sexual orientation is not currently a protected class the likelihood of that is lessened.
Quote
Heck, how are they going to even judge a client based on first impression/appearance alone? Will it be "you look gay so I am not serving you"?
Could be. I'm sure gay people also go out to dinner together.
Quote
Do those who formed this law not know how stupid that sounds? Does the Christian faith not teach that you should love thy enemy, hate the sin but not the sinner, and that god is the only one who can judge? What.... what complete and utter bullshit.
The Christian faith teaches that man whom lies with main is an abomination, to confront sin wherever it may be found, and to live in the righteousness of God's will. Hippie Jesus is kind of a weak position to take.
Quote
I am pretty sure that if a Muslim refused to serve someone who was Christian on religious grounds, people (as in the right wing Christians who "like" this law) would be having embolisms. Yet, it is OK for a Christian to refuse service to someone based on faith? Sheesh. I am sure someone has probably already pointed out the spooky parallels with racial segregation laws...
The answer to this is that there just aren't proportionally a lot of Muslims in America, and even fewer in locations that would push a law like this. I would also say that Muslims would generally back this law for the same reason Christians do, but that was after the mass political shift that happened on 9/11. Before that American Muslims were a strongly dependable Republican voting block.

You will also occasionally get far-right people who argue that freedom of religion was intended to be freedom of Christian religions only and so only applies to them, and that the Constitution was copied out of Deuteronomy, but they're mostly irrelevant.
Quote
Maybe we should let this law stand, and let market forces take over. Would the businesses that do not restrict their client base do better business and out compete those who will only serve certain people? Before long, all businesses end up serving everyone in order to compete, and those that do not go bust.
Again, this chain of thought has gone undemonstrated, and has strong counter-examples in the pre-civil rights South.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 27, 2015, 11:50:01 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 27, 2015, 11:46:03 am
-snip-

Thank you. As someone who lives in the good old liberal EU, the "need for" and passing of this law baffles me. Are we going to see lots of social conflict as a result of it where wrongful discrimination is "justified" using this law or will it be struck down by some higher body?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on March 27, 2015, 11:51:45 am
Spoiler: MSH, I don't want to clutter the thread too badly (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arx on March 27, 2015, 01:15:44 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 27, 2015, 11:46:03 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on March 27, 2015, 11:25:33 am

Do those who formed this law not know how stupid that sounds? Does the Christian faith not teach that you should love thy enemy, hate the sin but not the sinner, and that god is the only one who can judge? What.... what complete and utter bullshit.
The Christian faith teaches that man whom lies with main is an abomination, to confront sin wherever it may be found, and to live in the righteousness of God's will. Hippie Jesus is kind of a weak position to take.
The Christian faith teaches that the greatest commandment is to love God and the second greatest is to love your neighbour as yourself. The Christian faith teaches that only a sinless person may judge and condemn others. The Christian faith teaches that true religion that is pure and faultless in the eyes of God is to help those in need. The Christian faith teaches that homosexuality is no worse a sin than calling someone a fool.

There is no Biblical justification for this law. Please don't make it sound like Christianity is at fault here. The problem is with bigots, it's just a justification.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on March 27, 2015, 01:46:51 pm
I think your quote ate your reply, Arx. And while your particular interpretation of Christianity may not endorse homophobia, all too many other peoples do.Let's not argue about it here, though - that's what the religion and philosophy thread is for.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on March 27, 2015, 01:53:34 pm
That's not what the religion thread is for - arguments like that usually end in tears, and occasionally in locked threads.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on March 27, 2015, 02:00:42 pm
Nonsense! I'm sure it will be fiiiine. And if he doesn't want to engage with me, he's free to opt out. I won't tell the internet police, I swear!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arx on March 27, 2015, 02:02:09 pm
Quote from: Angle on March 27, 2015, 01:46:51 pm
I think your quote ate your reply, Arx. And while your particular interpretation of Christianity may not endorse homophobia, all too many other peoples do.Let's not argue about it here, though - that's what the religion and philosophy thread is for.

Fixed, thanks. My phone tends to struggle with even medium-length posts.

I'm afraid as long as people are discussing law as influenced by religion and/or it's topical, I will defend religion itself. If it gets off-topic, I'll stop.

And as I have said before, I'm almost certain it's impossible to Biblically justify opression, etc. I am fairly confident any interpretation favouring homophobia of this sort can be flattened.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on March 27, 2015, 02:15:52 pm
Quote from: Angle on March 27, 2015, 02:14:45 pm
Arx posted this in the progressive discussion thread, and I just have to argue with him, (Don't judge me!) so here we go.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on March 27, 2015, 02:50:56 pm
To be honest, I'm fine with whatever discrimination law they put up, so long as they put up signs so the gay people know to avoid them.

And really, walking far would be a pain in the ass, but that's your punishment for living in a shithole. If you aren't happy, stop being a bitch and change it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on March 27, 2015, 02:57:15 pm
But the thing is, for many of those people it just isn't practical to change it. I don't think you understand how bad it is in some places. I you're barely scraping by, like many people are, up and moving just isn't practical.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on March 27, 2015, 02:58:49 pm
Yeah, but the thing is that as sure as day, the universe will try to fuck you up. If you don't fight and scream, nothing's going to change.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on March 27, 2015, 03:21:25 pm
That's why we're fighting and screaming.  :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on March 27, 2015, 03:28:30 pm
Quote from: Objective on March 27, 2015, 02:50:56 pm
To be honest, I'm fine with whatever discrimination law they put up, so long as they put up signs so the gay people know to avoid them.


Yea, just like these.

(http://nysiaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/whites-only.png)

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4119nucDsuL.jpg)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on March 27, 2015, 03:29:43 pm
Last I checked they don't lynch gay people.

And honestly all this time spent despairing could be better spent trying to kill the politicians who let this happen.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on March 27, 2015, 03:31:25 pm
Quote from: Objective on March 27, 2015, 03:29:43 pm
Last I checked they don't lynch gay people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Paul_Broussard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States#2010.E2.80.93present
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on March 27, 2015, 03:32:46 pm
Okay, let's go lynch those politicians and burn their houses down.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on March 27, 2015, 03:35:09 pm
Yeah, good luck with that.  :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on March 27, 2015, 04:30:31 pm
Quote from: Ispil on March 27, 2015, 03:33:57 pm
The world doesn't work that way.
It does, people are just too busy watching fox to realize that
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on March 27, 2015, 04:32:53 pm
Have you seen how militarized our police are? You would get shot. Like, a lot. They would run you down with APCs and dance o your bloody mangled corpse. And then assassinate your family with drones.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 27, 2015, 04:33:24 pm
Spoiler: Cross-Atlantic Freedom Disagreement 2015 (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Does Christianity fuel the bill derail (click to show/hide)

Quote from: Objective on March 27, 2015, 02:50:56 pm
To be honest, I'm fine with whatever discrimination law they put up, so long as they put up signs so the gay people know to avoid them.

And really, walking far would be a pain in the ass, but that's your punishment for living in a shithole. If you aren't happy, stop being a bitch and change it.
Quote from: Objective on March 27, 2015, 02:58:49 pm
Yeah, but the thing is that as sure as day, the universe will try to fuck you up. If you don't fight and scream, nothing's going to change.
Quote from: Objective on March 27, 2015, 03:32:46 pm
Okay, let's go lynch those politicians and burn their houses down.
"I have problems, so I don't care if other people get hurt by oppressive laws" -> "Nothing matters anyway because reality is evil." -> "Fine, let's use murder to solve the issue of oppressive laws because I care now."
Please contain your edginess, Objective.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on March 27, 2015, 04:47:33 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on March 27, 2015, 03:28:30 pm
Quote from: Objective on March 27, 2015, 02:50:56 pm
To be honest, I'm fine with whatever discrimination law they put up, so long as they put up signs so the gay people know to avoid them.


Yea, just like these.

(http://nysiaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/whites-only.png)

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4119nucDsuL.jpg)
Of course, just boycotting segregationists doesn't work when you specifically prevent businesses from not participating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson)

There's a difference between one racist business owner not letting certain people in and the state specifically requiring that businesses all be segregated.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on March 27, 2015, 04:47:55 pm
*Gives Objective a hug*
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on March 27, 2015, 08:28:22 pm
/me purrs and cuts Angle with all the edges
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on March 27, 2015, 08:34:55 pm
MSH, I was talking about the National Socialist Underground...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 27, 2015, 10:54:52 pm
So lots of people are freaking out over here about all the chatter among celebrities and business leaders about boycotting Indiana.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on March 28, 2015, 09:08:15 am
Please continue your discussion Helgo and MSH, I am enjoying it immensely, especially since I find myself somewhere in between: holocaust denial is certainly not "just ignorance", but on the other hand I don't see laws banning this speech being effective, while I do see the mission creep and problem they cause.

Certainly this is in large part due to the fact that I'm exposed to the French, rather than the German context. In France, repeated convictions did not do a thing to stem the rise of antisemitism, as exemplified by Dieudonné, Soral and their "anti-sionist party". On the other hand, we're seeing 10-years old brought to police station for "apology of terrorism", as more and more opinions (all of them disgusting, but still) are being banned.

It is entirely possible that no side in this debate is right, but that the correct approach to hateful speech depends on the societal context.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SquatchHammer on March 28, 2015, 09:24:15 am
I'm just trying to find the full bill as it is written when it was signed. I cant find it on the official Indiana website, only a digest. I really hate that since I cant read what was actually passed and know what shit it's exactly saying not "heres what we think you need to read" bullshit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 28, 2015, 12:12:27 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 28, 2015, 12:37:30 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 28, 2015, 12:12:27 pm
Ask and you shall receive. (https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#digest-heading)

Quote from: Indiana Senate Bill 101
Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applying the law. Prohibits an applicant, employee, or former employee from pursuing certain causes of action against a private employer.

Now, I am no Lawyer, but to me that wording sounds easily defeatable. All the US government has to do is show that it is in its own interest to offer equality to all in spite of any religious inspired bigotry and you meet the two clauses needed to ignore the law.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 28, 2015, 12:45:50 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on March 28, 2015, 01:11:39 pm
The wording of that bill is no accident. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

The bill is trying to impede upon the domain of the courts. It will probably eventually come down to a balancing test of whose "rights" outweigh the other, because essentially, one wins and the other loses. That should be a judicial, not a legislative function. I don't even know what to do with this terrible mess that's brewing here. The ultimate question may well come down to, "is it OK to exclude a certain class of people from society?" This also takes away even the right to sue or arguably go to the labor board to determine if somebody discriminates against you.... That to me sounds strange. As somebody from that class, you can imagine my answer.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on March 28, 2015, 06:35:50 pm
And then there's the Arkansas bill (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/arkansas-senate-passes-religion-gays_n_6959104.html?utm_hp_ref=politics) as well...

Quote
The bill advancing in the Republican-led Arkansas legislature says "governments should not substantially burden the free exercise of religion without compelling justification."

So, uh... you can basically do whatever the fuck you want as long you have a religious motive? Because civil rights are obviously not a "compelling justification," not with God on your side.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on March 28, 2015, 09:18:02 pm
Quote from: Sheb on March 28, 2015, 09:08:15 am
Please continue your discussion Helgo and MSH, -snip-
I don't think it will lead anywhere, really, because neither of us will be able to escape his societal context.

I'd like to remark though that most clichees about Germans are true to a large extent, and most of my countrymen still believe in illegal => immoral. That's a big reason to keep holocaust denial illegal in Germany right there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 29, 2015, 12:57:39 am
I've seen a lot of hoosiers saying that they don't believe anybody will actually take the opportunity to legally discriminate against customers.

Well... (http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/indiana_restaurant_owner_i_ve_discriminated_against_gays_glad_the_law_supports_me_now_audio)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on March 29, 2015, 11:17:15 am
Doesn't surprise me in the least. I've been fired from past jobs by people saying, "You're fired you fucking faggot!" In today's "verify" employment search environment where they want everything documented with references, that doesn't help one bit. There's also a push to be "social" with social media, and have "work life balance" which means work intruding into your home/off duty time, and again, they don't wanna know I'm gay or trans or whatever I am.... (I have no idea what I'm supposed to do with all those "+1" company functions I've been invited to except to lie and bring some girl who knows I'm gay or whatever as hell). You're also discouraged from complaining about former bosses, even if they are bigots or in some cases (convicted for doing stupid shit) criminals. As such, I've got a ton of work experience I can't verify BECAUSE of this bigotry in addition to the other stuff I can't verify because it's confidential, and I've learned to hide who I really am as a result.

See, this is how a significant number of people really think, because they're passing laws about it.... One way or the other, they get you, and this lying moron has the audacity to say his discrimination against gays HELPS his business with a positive effect. In lovely hypocrisy, he refuses to state the name of his restaurant.... Wait a minute, I hide who I am BECAUSE I know it will totally SCREW ME OVER if people know I'm gay/trans. This guy is saying he thinks it will HELP his business if he discriminates..... If he really thinks that, then why would he turn down free radio advertising by not saying the name of his business? He knows what he's doing is wrong and his business will be ripped apart if people are made aware of it, because he is a bigot who would turn down money so he can discriminate. He knows it won't help his business and he doesn't care, because he doesn't like gay people and that's pretty much it. I'm logically consistent, but this dude isn't.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 29, 2015, 11:25:52 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on March 29, 2015, 11:29:10 am
Each time I read Truean, I am both awed by her courage and disgusted by the society she live in. I now a random shout from someone on the internet don't mean much, but I genuinely admire you.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on March 29, 2015, 12:07:07 pm
It's called denial.

I try to explain things to people and they laughably think their denial and rephrasing of the same thing will matter. It doesn't. It is as if people seem to think explaining what they want in a different way or something will change the underlying nature of that thing and thus free them from the restrictive rules of the universe. It won't.

There's no "intent" issue, here. We all know exactly what that bill is about, and no amount of backpedaling or mental gymnastics is going to change that. Complain, cry and scream all you want Gov. Won't help. It's a bigoted bill, just like poll taxes and Jim Crow were:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_ksNa60AiYU/TaPutWkctkI/AAAAAAAAAeU/GVEfkzgCfs0/s320/5147-5457.gif)
Pictured: "Not racist.... We swear." ~ Disney

There are very few characters named after what species they are in the Disney character library: Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Donald Duck, and Daisy Duck, and those are couples, so Minnie and Daisy took Mickey and Donald's last name....  Jiminy Cricket was a play on words pun and an adaptation of an Itailain talking cricket from Pinocchio. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiminy_Cricket) Then there's  Jim Crow.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws)

 Jim Crow.... He's number 7 on the list.... (http://www.cracked.com/article_15677_the-9-most-racist-disney-characters.html)  Then of course there's this "not racist" song. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s35puUhqQJc) I get that it was 1941, and I really do. Please keep in mind it isn't "Simba Lion, or Abu Monkey," or "Iago Parrot." It isn't Sebastien Crab or Flounder Fish. Even Dumbo is not called "Dumbo Elephant," but rather his official name is "Dumbo Jumbo," and Dumbo's mom is listed as "Mrs. Jumbo." More recently the mouse over at Disney has been trying to change history by altering the original names of certain characters, who either originally didn't have names or were originally just "Blue fish #12 from The Little Mermaid," and who often did not originally have speaking lines to name them "fish."

 They've also introduced an extended family related to Donald with the "Duck" surname curiously attached even though they were nieces of Daisy Duck and thus presumably wouldn't have their aunt's husband's surname.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_family_%28Disney%29#April.2C_May.2C_and_June_Duck) These three were NEVER featured in the original DuckTales! Cartoon, but were dredged up as former no name background characters and are now going to be featured as part of Disney's  revamped and altered new DucktTales! which they are trying to drum up interest for more money appreciation from this IP. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuckTales:_Remastered) I mean sure, you could make the argument that these characters were always around, but did YOU ever hear of them? People know about Donald's Nephews,  Huey Dewey and Louie who got their own show, (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-a-kLpBItzhM/UdvcnUtVnsI/AAAAAAAAC7M/0Bq2Iv8DZgE/s1600/QuackPack.jpg) but have any of you heard of "April, May, and June, Duck?" What's odd is that they had a female child character on the Ducktales show who DID NOT have the "Duck" Surname and that was  Wbbigail "Webby" Vanderquack (http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/36100000/Webbigail-Webby-Vanderquack-image-webbigail-webby-vanderquack-36150884-349-500.gif). So yeah, you can say there are some Disney Characters with their species in their surname, but come on... "Jim Crow?"

So, this guy can try to "explain" all he wants. This is still a bigoted law.
http://news.yahoo.com/pence-effort-clarify-religious-objections-law-underway-050406066.html

Look at him dodge and evade questions left and right. Pence addressed the critics Sunday, saying: "This avalanche of intolerance that's been poured on our state is just outrageous." You ain't seen nothin' yet..... I'm getting really sick of being treated like a 5th class citizen and worse than the felons I was essentially forced to represent. I'm going to have to spend most if not all of my life hiding and fighting for the right to be treated like a human being while being kicked by some of the very people I've helped.... Is it any wonder I used to get a little upset sometimes?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on March 29, 2015, 02:38:21 pm
This isn't in argument with your point, Truean, which I agree with, but you set off my nitpicking sense a little.

1. A flounder is a type of fish ;)

2. Those duck characters are still well and alive in the European market, where those Disney characters have a lot bigger audience than in the US. For example, the Scandinavian and Dutch comic book markets are pretty much dominated by Disney/Donald Duck comics. So they are far from unknown over here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on March 29, 2015, 03:04:39 pm
Yeah, it's nothing new that there's an extended Duck family - remember Uncle Scrooge, or Gladstone Gander (who by the way is named after his species too, sort of at least)? Plus I don't think that DuckTales is the original canon material, I'd point you to Mr. Carl Barks for that...

(Not that any of this invalidates your argument, but what you said just didn't sound right to a Duckverse fan.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 29, 2015, 03:21:51 pm
April May and June Duck. I remember those from the comics. And the last time I read Disney comics was over 20 years ago. I never got into the Duck Tales cartoon, I'm talking about the print comics that were around before it.

EDIT: Those characters first appeared in 1953 according to wiki. So, they're not in any way some new concoction. Donald Duck comics go way, way back and the show was itself a spin-off from that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on March 29, 2015, 03:31:58 pm
O we know of and love the extended "Duckverse" here in the states as well. (http://i508.photobucket.com/albums/s325/billyfox1/ducktales.jpg)

The point was the surnames, or last names are now lining up with the species more and with more purpose behind it. Webby, for example was not named "Webby Duck" she was named "Webby Vanderquack." While she is a member of the duck species, "Duck" is not her last name.  Even Uncle Scrooge was McDuck, not "Duck." And yes Flounder is a type of Fish, but the character's last name is not "Fish." It's Launchpad McQuack, Gyro Gearloose, Fenton Crackshell, etc.

And yes, you've got April May and June, but that wasn't the point. The point was, again, the surname of "Duck." It doesn't make sense for them to have the surname "Duck" as a last name from their aunt's husband. Do you take the name of your aunt's husband? Nope. And again, there are and have been other non species related surnames.

The issue isn't that they are ducks as a species (cartoon), but rather that they are recently having last names that are "Duck" as listing their species fairly recently. Thus, if Disney has several bird and other cartoon characters who are given last names not reflecting their species, they should've probably named "Jim Crow" something else. I mean even "Jim the Crow" would be marginally better. Or at least not have named him "Jim." I mean ... something, almost anything but that.

Shit we're derailing the thread:
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/5067682048/h0F6E4A51/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on March 29, 2015, 03:35:57 pm
Scrooge McDuck is racist too, since it's a play on the notion that scotsmen are misers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on March 29, 2015, 07:29:34 pm
I wouldn't exactly call the Scots a race...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on March 29, 2015, 07:42:07 pm
/me flashes the Owl-signal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on March 29, 2015, 08:05:10 pm
/me is traumatised.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on March 30, 2015, 01:33:53 am
Quote from: Truean on March 29, 2015, 12:07:07 pm
So, this guy can try to "explain" all he wants. This is still a bigoted law.
http://news.yahoo.com/pence-effort-clarify-religious-objections-law-underway-050406066.html

Look at him dodge and evade questions left and right. Pence addressed the critics Sunday, saying: "This avalanche of intolerance that's been poured on our state is just outrageous." You ain't seen nothin' yet..... I'm getting really sick of being treated like a 5th class citizen and worse than the felons I was essentially forced to represent. I'm going to have to spend most if not all of my life hiding and fighting for the right to be treated like a human being while being kicked by some of the very people I've helped.... Is it any wonder I used to get a little upset sometimes?

Just watched the interview.  His obvious refusal to admit to his own agenda is comical.

I wish the interviewer had been a bit more clever.  Ask him to provide an example of the government overreach that infringes on his religious liberties, even a hypothetical one, which is amended by his bill.  Or if he wants to constantly compare it to the federal law signed in '93, then ask him what exactly needed to be clarified or added to that protection in order for him to feel the need to pass his own state-level bill.  Try some different questions that force him to alter his responses at least a little bit, so they can be cross-examined.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on March 30, 2015, 02:44:00 am
As if the interviewer didn't support him?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GreatJustice on March 30, 2015, 03:34:28 am
Quote from: Helgoland on March 29, 2015, 07:29:34 pm
I wouldn't exactly call the Scots a race...

What qualifies a race? Scots are as much a race as Irish, and Irish definitely experienced racism, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to let them qualify.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on March 30, 2015, 04:34:29 am
For the purpose of the definition of "racism", a race can be any group of people that the "racist" thinks is a race.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on March 30, 2015, 04:39:19 am
What do you guys think what would be the best way for a non-USA person to oppose Indiana?

I mean I guess with all the doom and gloom here this is probably not the best place to ask, but still...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on March 30, 2015, 05:07:37 am
Clicktivism? Ranting on the internet? Apart from that, I don't think there's any effective way for us to make a difference, because dirty foreigners are not allowed to meddle in the affairs of sovereign states.   
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on March 30, 2015, 05:43:28 am
I'm sure some googling would come up with exports from Indiana that you can boycot at your local supermarket. Also, publicly adress the supermarket manager about selling products from anti gay land.

Now what does Indiana export? Indians?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 30, 2015, 05:53:56 am
"Export" is putting it nicely, but I think that was a couple of centuries ago.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on March 30, 2015, 10:39:49 pm
Quote from: Objective on March 30, 2015, 04:39:19 am
What do you guys think what would be the best way for a non-USA person to oppose Indiana?

I mean I guess with all the doom and gloom here this is probably not the best place to ask, but still...
Wikipedia and census.gov suggest that the largest foreign export of Indiana are pharmaceutical products; followed closely by industrial products along the lines of "GEAR BOXES FOR MOTOR VEHICLES", "CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT, ENGINES, AND PARTS", and "COMPRESSION-IGNTN INT COMBUSTION PISTON ENGIN" (taken directly from Census website). Domestically, they also produce agricultural products. Probably corn. Try boycotting corn and everything that contains corn.

Barring that, political pressure might work. It's done wonders before.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on March 31, 2015, 05:40:50 am
Indiana already has a law that allows businesses to deny service for any reason (including no reason), doesn't it? A number of states do. If Indiana is one of them, then this new law changes nothing aside from causing a clusterfuck of epic proportions, and is basically just shitposting IRL.

Quote from: misko27 on March 30, 2015, 10:39:49 pm
Quote from: Objective on March 30, 2015, 04:39:19 am
What do you guys think what would be the best way for a non-USA person to oppose Indiana?

I mean I guess with all the doom and gloom here this is probably not the best place to ask, but still...
Wikipedia and census.gov suggest that the largest foreign export of Indiana are pharmaceutical products; followed closely by industrial products along the lines of "GEAR BOXES FOR MOTOR VEHICLES", "CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT, ENGINES, AND PARTS", and "COMPRESSION-IGNTN INT COMBUSTION PISTON ENGIN" (taken directly from Census website). Domestically, they also produce agricultural products. Probably corn. Try boycotting corn and everything that contains corn.

Barring that, political pressure might work. It's done wonders before.
The United States is the world's largest producer and exporter of corn, and Iowa, Illinois, and Nebraska account for almost half of that production.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on March 31, 2015, 06:15:44 am
http://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/statement-gov-jay-inslee-indiana%E2%80%99s-new-%E2%80%9Creligious-freedom%E2%80%9D-law
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on March 31, 2015, 06:35:45 am
Next thing you know, Putin starts arming seperatist forces in Indiana.

edit: oh wait, forgot about the second amendment. No need, they are already armed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 31, 2015, 07:39:18 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on March 31, 2015, 09:39:57 am
http://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/rand-paul-doesnt-believe-in-the-concept-of-gay-rights#.au0n60N2e

And he wants to be running for President of the United States, much like Rick Perry who fought against gays as the governor of Texas ordering his Attorney General to fight against decriminalizing "sodomy" (consensual sex between two gay adults) in  Lawrence v. Texas (2003) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas)

See, this is immeasurably important so please listen. A fundamental law of the universe is Newton's 3rd:  For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_3rd_Law) Concerning gay and minority rights, it has happened before; it is happening now; it shall happen again. Whenever equality wins, bigotry will push back Bowers v. Hardwick (1985), etc. When Lawrence v. Texas (2003) effectively decriminalized being gay and  Hawaii even talked about legalizing gay marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Hawaii#Constitutional_Amendment_2_.281998.29) they went nuts opposing it.  Massive state constitutional amendments were passed in several states.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States) Now, it's becoming clear those constitutional amendments are being struck down as unconstitutional and so....

What do you think the equal and opposite reaction to this action will be? The Indiana Law with others soon to follow, and more anti gay, "but I'm not anti gay" political candidates....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 31, 2015, 12:23:17 pm
I don't think the laws of motion apply to politics.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on March 31, 2015, 12:43:26 pm
Yeah, don't worry so much. This is just the frantic last gasps of a dying cause. History is on our side. It will likely continue to be difficult and unpleasant for you for some time yet, but I have no doubt things will continue to improve.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on March 31, 2015, 01:05:13 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 31, 2015, 12:23:17 pm

They do. Inertia, try getting anything done....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 31, 2015, 02:03:27 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 31, 2015, 12:23:17 pm
I don't think the laws of motion apply to politics.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite backlash?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on March 31, 2015, 10:49:26 pm
Quote from: martinuzz on March 31, 2015, 06:35:45 am
Next thing you know, Putin starts arming seperatist forces in Indiana.

edit: oh wait, forgot about the second amendment. No need, they are already armed.
They don't have anti-tank weapons, artillery, or armored vehicles.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on March 31, 2015, 11:35:14 pm
Yeah. I hate to be that guy, but the weapons available in America are only really dangerous to other civilians. The stuff you'd need to, for example, fight the government is pretty much non existent.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 31, 2015, 11:45:45 pm
Tell that to every guerrilla army in the world. Honestly, I have never gotten a rebuttal to asymmetrical force other than "you're dumb, enjoy getting bombed". The US military has even actually had problems with this. Plus, HomeSec wouldn't spend so much time on the domestic nutjobs if they didn't recognize that as well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on March 31, 2015, 11:49:12 pm
Most guerrilla armies have more weapons to their names than assault rifles, and the support of the locals. I doubt any said army would have much luck getting either one of those around here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 31, 2015, 11:57:07 pm
It depends on the scenario. I've described my "Afghanistan Trigger" concept of why any intra-US conflict would never end before. Getting local support would not be an issue if there was a perception of tyranny. Americans are known for being ferociously reactive to such a perception, as well as nationalistic in general. Further, the US is covered in difficult and excluding terrain that is only easily passed thanks to the maintenance of the national highway system. Oh, and people with far less general education and materials access have been known to build weapons on their own, case in point. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer)

Putin arming Indianians is obviously dumb, but more realistic possibilities take on scary similarities.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on April 01, 2015, 12:19:59 am
Yeah, that's true - change the whole "Support of the locals" from a negative to a positive and things'd get really nasty here really quickly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on April 01, 2015, 06:50:14 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 31, 2015, 11:57:07 pm
Putin arming Indianians is obviously dumb, but more realistic possibilities take on scary similarities.
Almost as dumb as actually taking that seriously.

"Silly" would have been the correct word. "Dumb" is insulting.
Title: Re: grisha5
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 01, 2015, 08:58:01 am
grisha5
Title: Re: grisha5
Post by: Broken on April 01, 2015, 09:33:17 am
Praise grisha!

i have seen him lately in the Irc #Nethack channel.
Title: Re: grisha5
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 01, 2015, 09:35:10 am
Why so grisha5?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 01, 2015, 11:42:47 am
http://news.yahoo.com/arkansas-governor-urges-changes-religious-objection-bill-154925529.html

Yes Indiana.... When even Arkansas is going, maybe there's something wrong here, there might be something wrong here....

"Hutchinson said he wants the Legislature to either recall the bill or pass a follow-up measure to make the proposal more closely mirror a 1993 federal religious freedom law."

So basically this is a completely unneeded law, because there's already a federal version on the books that does the "non discriminatory" portions of it. The only new parts are the ones that *cough cough* don't say *cough cough* you can discriminate against gays....

I can't believe I'm saying this and I'll probably regret it, but be a little more like Arkansas here Indiana....
Title: Re: Panicking and Pessimistic Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 01, 2015, 12:01:45 pm
.
Title: Re: Panicking and Pessimistic Regressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on April 01, 2015, 04:55:09 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on April 01, 2015, 12:01:45 pm
credit for the second April Fool's Day title goes to Objective
I made it slightly better.
Title: Re: Panicking and Pessimistic Progressive Discussion Thread For Massive Knobs
Post by: KingofstarrySkies on April 01, 2015, 06:24:00 pm
*salute*
Title: Re: Panicking and Pessimistic Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on April 01, 2015, 06:26:56 pm
What is going on with the title in here?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 01, 2015, 06:38:44 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on April 02, 2015, 04:45:27 am
New York Times article about the UN's anti-Israel bias. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/opinion/united-in-ignominy.html?action=click&contentCollection=Europe&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article) It's an opinion piece by the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, so YMMV.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on April 02, 2015, 08:32:37 am
Yes, clearly Israel is the victim here. Despite the fact that it still has nuclear weapons pointed at Europe.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on April 02, 2015, 08:34:50 am
How is that relevant to the UN's stance against Israel?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on April 02, 2015, 08:36:28 am
Quote from: Helgoland on April 02, 2015, 08:34:50 am
How is that relevant to the UN's stance against Israel?
The UN doesn't like rogue states, especially rogue states with appalling human rights records.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on April 02, 2015, 08:41:14 am
I'd hardly call Israel a rogue state. And did you even read the article? Their man rights record has nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 02, 2015, 08:44:51 am
Here is an interesting article containing generic talking points you've read dozens of times before:
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on April 02, 2015, 08:48:53 am
Quote from: Helgoland on April 02, 2015, 08:41:14 am
I'd hardly call Israel a rogue state. And did you even read the article? Their man rights record has nothing to do with it.
It has unregulated nuclear weapons, has them aimed at countries that it is not in a threatened or actual state of war with, refuses to officially acknowledge said weapons, has used conventional incendiary weapons and bombs indiscriminately against civilian populations, and has historically attacked neutral parties that posed no threat.

It is effectively a rogue state.

And yet, the UN has attempted to ask Israel to please stop bombing civilians too many times?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 02, 2015, 08:53:42 am
The reason Israel gets condemned so much is probably because there's no way to pass a meaningful resolution against it - the US will always veto it.  Iran doesn't need to be condemned 20 times per year because it has actual real sanctions against it, and it's always possible to pass more if needed.  Same goes for North Korea.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 02, 2015, 08:56:42 am
It's like if the President beat someone up and then pardoned himself.  Yeah there are people who have done worse things, but the fact that the President is not facing any kind of measures for what he's done due to his privileged position means that a lot of people would be criticizing him.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on April 02, 2015, 08:57:02 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 02, 2015, 08:53:42 am
The reason Israel gets condemned so much is probably because there's no way to pass a meaningful resolution against it - the US will always veto it.  Iran doesn't need to be condemned 20 times per year because it has actual real sanctions against it, and it's always possible to pass more if needed.  Same goes for North Korea.
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 02, 2015, 08:56:42 am
It's like if the President beat someone up and then pardoned himself.  Yeah there are people who have done worse things, but the fact that the President is not facing any kind of measures for what he's done due to his privileged position means that a lot of people would be criticizing him.
This is probably true, except Israel is not nearly important as the President, in the grand scheme of things. Or at least, it shouldn't be.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on April 02, 2015, 09:22:13 am
That's not reall true. The fact is that Israel has no allies to speak of safe the US, while there are a crapton of arab countries who can get brownies point domestically by taking up the Palestinian cause at no cost. So yeah, Israel is a dickish, rogue state, but it gets called out much more than other terrible states for political reasons.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 02, 2015, 09:24:44 am
They get criticism but no actual consequences.  Let me get my tiny violin.

I mean maybe they wouldn't have alienated the rest of their western allies if they weren't an apartheid state but hey.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on April 02, 2015, 09:34:25 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 02, 2015, 08:53:42 am
The reason Israel gets condemned so much is probably because there's no way to pass a meaningful resolution against it - the US will always veto it.  Iran doesn't need to be condemned 20 times per year because it has actual real sanctions against it, and it's always possible to pass more if needed.  Same goes for North Korea.
And Syria? Father Putin keeps his hands over Assad...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on April 02, 2015, 01:10:08 pm
There are a lot of states that you can't pass resolutions against. Namely, each of the five powers and their allies. Libya was an exception, but that's quite unlikely to happen again given how angry Russia was afterwards.
Quote from: Morrigi on April 02, 2015, 08:48:53 am
Quote from: Helgoland on April 02, 2015, 08:41:14 am
I'd hardly call Israel a rogue state. And did you even read the article? Their man rights record has nothing to do with it.
It has unregulated nuclear weapons, has them aimed at countries that it is not in a threatened or actual state of war with, refuses to officially acknowledge said weapons, has used conventional incendiary weapons and bombs indiscriminately against civilian populations, and has historically attacked neutral parties that posed no threat.

It is effectively a rogue state.

And yet, the UN has attempted to ask Israel to please stop bombing civilians too many times?
That's not what rogue state means though. You can't just apply words without knowing their definition. If violence against civilians, for example, had anything to do with being rogue, all the world over would be rogue.

Rogue state refers to a certain combination of terrorism, proliferation, and authoritarianism. Israel is hardly authoritarian to its own citizens (which is all that matters for this definition ), I can't remember many terrorists incidents Israel has encouraged, and claiming proliferation is hardly going to impress me, given their anti-nuclear stance (Having nuclear weapons does not make you a proliferator by itself; just think what that would imply). Claiming they have nuclear weapons pointed at European capitals is not impressive when a) there are only rumors, and b) pointing them is hardly the same as intent to use them. If russia was invaded they'd probably nuke Europe too, but they aren't rogue


Israel is not rogue. A pariah perhaps, and you might argue a bully, but not rogue.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RAM on April 02, 2015, 04:29:11 pm
Quote from: misko27 on April 02, 2015, 01:10:08 pm
I can't remember many terrorists incidents Israel has encouraged
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Wolfhunter107 on April 02, 2015, 05:02:12 pm
Due to having a democratic (non-totalitarian) government, Israel cannot be a rogue state. That still doesn't change a thing about all the shit they've pulled in Palestine.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Wolfhunter107 on April 02, 2015, 05:06:29 pm
Double Post
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on April 02, 2015, 05:32:48 pm
Quote from: RAM on April 02, 2015, 04:29:11 pm
Quote from: misko27 on April 02, 2015, 01:10:08 pm
I can't remember many terrorists incidents Israel has encouraged
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations
By extension you'd have to call the CIA a terrorist organization.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 02, 2015, 05:34:28 pm
... considering what it's done over the years...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 02, 2015, 05:45:07 pm
Quote from: Wolfhunter107 on April 02, 2015, 05:02:12 pm
Due to having a democratic (non-totalitarian) government, Israel cannot be a rogue state. That still doesn't change a thing about all the shit they've pulled in Palestine.
Ehm,while it's certainly harder to be a rogue state as a democratic state, it's not *impossible*. I'm not saying Israel is democratic, authoritarian, or rogue. Just that that is kind of a weird stance to take.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Wolfhunter107 on April 02, 2015, 05:49:47 pm
Quote from: Descan on April 02, 2015, 05:45:07 pm
Quote from: Wolfhunter107 on April 02, 2015, 05:02:12 pm
Due to having a democratic (non-totalitarian) government, Israel cannot be a rogue state. That still doesn't change a thing about all the shit they've pulled in Palestine.
Ehm,while it's certainly harder to be a rogue state as a democratic state, it's not *impossible*. I'm not saying Israel is democratic, authoritarian, or rogue. Just that that is kind of a weird stance to take.
This whole discussion is all a moot point anyway, due to the fact that the "Rogue State" thing is an American political tool.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 02, 2015, 08:07:42 pm
Not entirely, I've also heard the US described as a fascist, apartheid, rogue state (mostly by the European far-left). Using any such terms without clear ontological definitions is what is meaningless.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on April 02, 2015, 08:13:57 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 02, 2015, 08:07:42 pm
Not entirely, I've also heard the US described as a fascist, apartheid, rogue state (mostly by the European far-left). Using any such terms without clear ontological definitions is what is meaningless.
okay.
Quote from: Wikipedia
Rogue state is a controversial term applied by some international theorists to states they consider threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction.[5] The term is used most by the United States, though the US State Department officially quit using the term in 2000.[3] However, it has been applied by other countries as well.[6]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 02, 2015, 08:19:30 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on April 02, 2015, 05:32:48 pm
Quote from: RAM on April 02, 2015, 04:29:11 pm
Quote from: misko27 on April 02, 2015, 01:10:08 pm
I can't remember many terrorists incidents Israel has encouraged
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations
By extension you'd have to call the CIA a terrorist organization.

Latin America in the 1980's, US-Backed campaigns of terror against the civilian population. If massacring children then displaying their bodies in the streets to strike terror into the hearts of the populace isn't terrorism, what is?

The USA especially under Reagan has a vivid history of using pure terror to try and control the politics of latin america, usually through front groups of mercenaries, but working closely with US advisors who were either CIA or Green Beret. "The School of the Americas" trained a large proportion of the worst human rights violators of latin america. In fact, having been a graduate of that school is the strongest indicator of later human rights violations, and those people worked closely with US political advisors. The CIA even produced manuals for the school on how to murder political opponents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_in_Guerrilla_Warfare

Basically, it's a manual created by the CIA for a rebel group explaining how to murder civilians to try and create an atmosphere of terror which would undermine the local government. This is text-book state-sponsored international terrorism. Considering that there are a whole long list of similar things from the 80's, the USA under Reagan was actually the number one state supporter of terrorism in the 1980s.

The sandinistas built a lot of schools and hospitals, and brought in democracy. And they had a squeaky clean human rights record compared to anyone the USA was supporting. Yet the USA was determined to turn the country into a bloody battlefield because they had the nerve to kick out Reagan's beloved murderous dictator. The US trained and backed forces did stuff like beheading women and children with machetes, raped and murdered nuns etc. But you know what, even today the US political guys involved in setting it up still say it was a good thing.

There's also an example from 1988 which illustrates how being a state actor allows you to do things which would be considered terrorism otherwise - the USA's downing of the Iranian airliner which was on a regular scheduled route over Iranian airspace (which killed 290 people). It was an accident of course, but "whoops sorry" wouldn't be enough if it was anyone else but US armed forces. So effectively we delineate things as - it's not terrorism if you have a badge, but only if it's a badge of a country we like.

The captain of the US ship had a history of trying to provoke violence from the Iranians, interfering with Iranian ships going about their normal legal stuff (like, he'd fire on Iranian patrol boats which were searching container ships for contraband within their own territory, which is entirely legal for them to do so). So you had this cruiser captain itching for a fight, attacks several ships that were doing nothing to him, then shoots down a civilian airliner then claims it was an F14 attacking his ship, even though his own ships instruments contradict everything he said.

Did he get charged, demoted or suspended? No he got a medal straight afterwards, then was put in charge of naval training for officers in handling combat situations.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on April 03, 2015, 09:01:25 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on April 02, 2015, 05:32:48 pm
Quote from: RAM on April 02, 2015, 04:29:11 pm
Quote from: misko27 on April 02, 2015, 01:10:08 pm
I can't remember many terrorists incidents Israel has encouraged
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations
By extension you'd have to call the CIA a terrorist organization.
Yes, the CIA is indeed a terrorist organization, one that has far, far too much power.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on April 04, 2015, 03:37:20 am
Quote from: greatorder on April 04, 2015, 02:09:18 am
State-sanctioned terrorist organisation.
At this point, I'm not sure how much choice the State has.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 04, 2015, 03:43:22 am
Congress is only told things on a "need to know" basis. Meaning: they only find out what the CIA is doing by accident.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on April 04, 2015, 03:54:01 am
And the last President that made noises about shutting down the CIA died.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 04, 2015, 11:56:34 am
Some good news for a change:
http://tgeu.org/malta-adopts-ground-breaking-trans-intersex-law/ (http://tgeu.org/malta-adopts-ground-breaking-trans-intersex-law/)
Quote
The introduced procedure before a notary requires a simple declaration based on a person’s self-determination and prohibits requests for medical information. The entire process lasts a maximum of 30 days. It thus delivers a key task of gender recognition that is to quickly enable the individual to pursue their live without further interference.
No, it's not April Fools'.

EDIT: Another quote. (http://www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/01/dispatches-malta-s-inspiring-gender-recognition-law)
Quote
The 2015 act states its own goals simply: “[to provide] a simplified procedure which respects the privacy of the person requesting that one's official documents be changed to reflect the person's gender” and acknowledges that “gender identity is considered to be an inherent part of a person which may or may not need surgical or hormonal treatment or therapy” and “sex characteristics of a person vary in nature and all persons must be empowered to make their decisions affecting their own bodily integrity and physical autonomy.”
Good Stuff.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 04, 2015, 12:13:11 pm
That's basically what any decent human should recognize. The principle of "Fuck off, it's my body, my decisions."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on April 04, 2015, 12:23:38 pm
[Obligatory self-mutilation comment]

:P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 04, 2015, 12:25:20 pm
There are lots of decent humans, but decent legislation is rarer than rocking horse shit. Hopefully the rest of EU will soon follow Malta's example.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on April 04, 2015, 12:45:07 pm
What's really weird is that it's Malta, though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BFEL on April 04, 2015, 12:56:17 pm
Quote from: Descan on April 04, 2015, 12:13:11 pm
That's basically what any decent human should recognize. The principle of "Fuck off, it's my body, my decisions."
YOU CAN'T STOP ME IMPLANTING THIS GENERATOR AND CONNECTING IT TO MY SHOULDER CANNON! MY DECISION! :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 04, 2015, 01:21:52 pm
Quote from: BFEL on April 04, 2015, 12:56:17 pm
Quote from: Descan on April 04, 2015, 12:13:11 pm
That's basically what any decent human should recognize. The principle of "Fuck off, it's my body, my decisions."
YOU CAN'T STOP ME IMPLANTING THIS GENERATOR AND CONNECTING IT TO MY SHOULDER CANNON! MY DECISION! :P
Please go right ahead, by all means. But remember that you have to detach the cannon in public areas, unless your state has open carry laws concerning implanted shoulder weapons.
...assuming you actually survive the operation. 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Redzephyr01 on April 04, 2015, 01:54:51 pm
I really wish America respected bodily autonomy. I'm disgusted at how it's still legal to mutilate children here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on April 04, 2015, 01:57:38 pm
Quote from: Redzephyr01 on April 04, 2015, 01:54:51 pm
I really wish America respected bodily autonomy. I'm disgusted at how it's still legal to mutilate children here.
What's wrong with mutilating children?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 4maskwolf on April 04, 2015, 01:58:07 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on April 04, 2015, 01:57:38 pm
Quote from: Redzephyr01 on April 04, 2015, 01:54:51 pm
I really wish America respected bodily autonomy. I'm disgusted at how it's still legal to mutilate children here.
What's wrong with mutilating children?
I'm sorry, what are we talking about here? I feel like I'm missing some important context.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Redzephyr01 on April 04, 2015, 02:00:35 pm
Quote from: 4maskwolf on April 04, 2015, 01:58:07 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on April 04, 2015, 01:57:38 pm
Quote from: Redzephyr01 on April 04, 2015, 01:54:51 pm
I really wish America respected bodily autonomy. I'm disgusted at how it's still legal to mutilate children here.
What's wrong with mutilating children?
I'm sorry, what are we talking about here? I feel like I'm missing some important context.
It's still legal to perform surgery on newborn intersex people's genitals for some reason.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on April 04, 2015, 02:02:14 pm
That's an oddly specific fact to care about.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 4maskwolf on April 04, 2015, 02:02:47 pm
Quote from: Redzephyr01 on April 04, 2015, 02:00:35 pm
Quote from: 4maskwolf on April 04, 2015, 01:58:07 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on April 04, 2015, 01:57:38 pm
Quote from: Redzephyr01 on April 04, 2015, 01:54:51 pm
I really wish America respected bodily autonomy. I'm disgusted at how it's still legal to mutilate children here.
What's wrong with mutilating children?
I'm sorry, what are we talking about here? I feel like I'm missing some important context.
It's still legal to perform surgery on newborn intersex people's genitals for some reason.
Oh I see.

Quote from: Dutchling on April 04, 2015, 02:02:14 pm
That's an oddly specific fact to care about.
...It's entirely in context with the conversation about Malta's new law.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BFEL on April 04, 2015, 02:03:20 pm
Is this a circumcision thing? This sounds like a circumcision thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on April 04, 2015, 02:04:37 pm
Quote from: surqimus on April 04, 2015, 01:21:52 pm
unless your state has open carry laws concerning implanted shoulder weapons.
Is there any legislation regarding implanted shoulder weapons? There should be. Getting some Adam Jensen shit would be rad.

Quote from: 4maskwolf on April 04, 2015, 01:58:07 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on April 04, 2015, 01:57:38 pm
Quote from: Redzephyr01 on April 04, 2015, 01:54:51 pm
I really wish America respected bodily autonomy. I'm disgusted at how it's still legal to mutilate children here.
What's wrong with mutilating children?
I'm sorry, what are we talking about here? I feel like I'm missing some important context.
Gonna guess circumcision

NINJAEDIT: Apparently not.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Redzephyr01 on April 04, 2015, 02:06:04 pm
Well, that's bad too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 04, 2015, 02:54:51 pm
Quote from: BFEL on April 04, 2015, 12:56:17 pm
Quote from: Descan on April 04, 2015, 12:13:11 pm
That's basically what any decent human should recognize. The principle of "Fuck off, it's my body, my decisions."
YOU CAN'T STOP ME IMPLANTING THIS GENERATOR AND CONNECTING IT TO MY SHOULDER CANNON! MY DECISION! :P
Yep. *sips tea*

'Course, actually using it would be destructive to other peoples bodies (or property), so that's when people step in. ;P

And self-mutilation is alright too, legislatively I mean. One persons body-modification is another persons self-mutilation, and I don't trust laws to be nuanced enough to deal with it. Though by all means, have psychological support available if there's a deeper cause that needs a helping hand.

And I don't like circumcision, either. If you want to though, go ahead. Dunno why, but whatever. :v Kids is a little wonky though. Feels skeevy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on April 04, 2015, 05:17:10 pm
Isn't Malta the only European country where divorce is illegal, and in general a staunchly Catholic place? I guess they're just taking 'Love the sinner, hate the sin' seriously...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 04, 2015, 05:27:55 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 14, 2015, 08:11:37 pm
For once, I'm dropping in here to spread word of a good deed

CEO sets a minimum wage of $70,000 for everyone in his company (http://qz.com/383096/after-reading-an-article-on-happiness-a-company-founder-is-paying-a-new-minimum-wage-70000-a-year/?utm_source=parWD)

It's a fairly small company, but still...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on April 14, 2015, 08:15:46 pm
Holy crap. I dig this guy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 14, 2015, 08:21:08 pm
I wonder how many tens of thousands of job applications are going to flood in on him now.  My own desire to run away to Washington grows daily.

Although this bit really underlines how disconnected the rich are from everyone else.

Quote
The New York Times ran a story on April 13 about how Price, the founder and CEO of Gravity Payments, read a research paper arguing that people who make less than $70,000 can truly become happier by earning more money.

"My people would be happier if I paid them just enough to live reasonably comfortably and worry free?  Why didn't anyone tell me this before!"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 14, 2015, 08:27:27 pm
The interesting part is that he really did respond to it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 14, 2015, 08:30:27 pm
I like this guy. I like this guy a lot. I wish the company were publicly traded, so I could give them money as a sign of approval. Failing that, well-wishing emails have been dispatched!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 14, 2015, 08:34:08 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 14, 2015, 08:27:27 pm
The interesting part is that he really did respond to it.

It is interesting.  I mean... do the people in charge of businesses seriously not think of this?  Is it just a matter of saying please and explaining that it would genuinely help us out?  I would think all the fucking protests would communicate that there is a need... or maybe this guy just didn't believe it until it was presented to him as research?

Edit:

Ok... I guess I didn't read into it enough.  The guy is young.  Two years younger than me.  Looks to me like he hadn't been in his position of privilege for all that long.  In his case, it just took a little time to sink in how far he'd come, and that he was in a position to do something like this.  Very awesome.  Will follow Bauglir's lead and send a positive e-mail.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on April 14, 2015, 08:41:35 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 14, 2015, 08:34:08 pm
or maybe this guy just didn't believe it until it was presented to him as research?

I think it's this. People have moved to "It's true if Science" and, because of the particular nature of the scientific community--usually, "It's true Only If Science." People in marginalized groups are having this problem a hell of a lot right now, because when they say something it's "anecdotal evidence" which people are literally being trained to disbelieve.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 14, 2015, 08:45:19 pm
Probably because once you buy into anecdotal evidence you can believe anything.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 14, 2015, 08:47:44 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 14, 2015, 08:45:19 pm
Probably because once you buy into anecdotal evidence you can believe anything.
Make you wonder how much grease they had to buy for those mountainsides...

Man, you don't need to unconditionally accept all anecdotal evidence, nor do you need to generalize it beyond its scope, in order to make it a useful component of decisionmaking.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on April 14, 2015, 08:51:42 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 14, 2015, 08:45:19 pm
Probably because once you buy into anecdotal evidence you can believe anything.

Yes, but it also means that people are literally losing their common sense and their trust of other people. The community is falling apart via skepticism and assumption that other people are bullshitting you. There are times when the Absolute Truth matters, and times when that matters less.


Quote from: Bauglir on April 14, 2015, 08:47:44 pm
Man, you don't need to unconditionally accept all anecdotal evidence, nor do you need to generalize it beyond its scope, in order to make it a useful component of decisionmaking.

Exactly. I feel like there's this goal to get all of humanity on the same Received Knowledge From Scientific Databank page, and it seems so toxic, so anti-diversity (and therefore unstable), and so ... honestly, crushing of people who have other ways of thinking about anything when those ways usually aren't harmful. Received scientific knowledge is a piece, not everything.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 14, 2015, 08:53:23 pm
Accepting anecdotal evidence in this matter is actually an insanely bad idea because it benefits people arguing against progressive policies.  Does the minimum wage need to be increased?  No, here's a guy who's on minimum wage and he has a flatscreen TV!  Do we need welfare for the disabled and unemployed?  No, here's a guy who's on welfare and he's a super lazy and bad person!  Etc.  If you stick to actual statistics regarding how many people are in poverty and studies on how that poverty affects people then you'll be on much safer ground.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 14, 2015, 08:53:38 pm
A statistic is just a collection of anecdotes, unless I'm horribly misunderstanding something.  I mean I understand why anecdotes shouldn't be taken at face value, but when a large number of people present the same anecdote, it should be taken a bit more seriously.  It's not a huge logical leap to see a huge crowd of people in the street crying in unison that they're poor and unhappy about it as equivalent to a scientific study revealing that being poor makes people unhappy.

Quote from: Leafsnail on April 14, 2015, 08:53:23 pm
Accepting anecdotal evidence in this matter is actually an insanely bad idea because it benefits people arguing against progressive policies.  Does the minimum wage need to be increased?  No, here's a guy who's on minimum wage and he has a flatscreen TV!  Do we need welfare for the disabled and unemployed?  No, here's a guy who's on welfare and he's a super lazy and bad person!  Etc.  If you stick to actual statistics regarding how many people are in poverty and studies on how that poverty affects people then you'll be on much safer ground.

This is a criticism of cherry-picking/confirmation bias, not accepting anecdotes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 14, 2015, 08:56:25 pm
Quote from: Vector on April 14, 2015, 08:51:42 pm
Yes, but it also means that people are literally losing their common sense and their trust of other people. The community is falling apart via skepticism and assumption that other people are bullshitting you. There are times when the Absolute Truth matters, and times when that matters less.
Our common sense is bad and the "community" isn't exactly in a good position. You can try to bias away by linking truth to totalitarianism, but the fact of the matter is that we live in reality.
Quote
Exactly. I feel like there's this goal to get all of humanity on the same Received Knowledge From Scientific Databank page, and it seems so toxic, so anti-diversity (and therefore unstable), and so ... honestly, crushing of people who have other ways of thinking about anything when those ways usually aren't harmful. Received scientific knowledge is a piece, not everything.
If all humanity accepted empiricism and rationalism our problems would be much less horiffic. Anything lost in that transition was not worth preserving. There is no diversity in objective matters.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on April 14, 2015, 08:58:57 pm
You're horribly misunderstanding something. Statistics are gathered using a bunch of rules to eliminate bias that a simple "collection of anecdotes" won't really convey.

I could get a collection of anecdotes that says that every single person in America is actually a white libertarian between ages 18-25 and nobody would accept that as a proper result because it's demonstrably false.

Common sense is pretty much a meaningless phrase in general...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 14, 2015, 09:06:19 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 14, 2015, 08:53:38 pm
This is a criticism of cherry-picking/confirmation bias, not accepting anecdotes.
How do you prevent people from doing that if you're accepting random anecdotes as evidence of a wider trend?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 14, 2015, 09:08:27 pm
And more than that, it tends toward a perverse excuse to stop thinking. To let the scientists do it for you, and just point to their results. Problem is, you've gotta get scientists somewhere - and if your scientific mindset gets shaped this way you choke your supply lines. Hell, even universities trend ever more toward teaching you material instead of teaching you how to think about it.

As somebody who fucking loves everything science has done for us, who admires objectivity and Truth for giving us ways to interact that don't rely on our gut impulses and opinions, who got a hard science education and a small stack of teaching experience, who spends almost all his time in front of a glowing box carved from pure logical thought and experiment (and also plastic, silicon, and various metals I guess), I find that direction to be absolutely, gob-smackingly, almost indescribably scary.

There's a need for humility, because recognizing we don't know everything is the only way to motivate us to learn more of it. And that means being willing to go, "Oh, hey, that's interesting, I'm going to have to think that over" and exerting ourselves to fit new information into a worldview that was never built to contain it. It means being willing to accept ideas that turn out to be wrong, too. Go out and test them, where they can be tested! That's how science is supposed to work, after all. But you're allowed to draw conclusions without the data, if you understand they're fallible. And more than that, you're allowed to draw conclusions with the data, as long as you understand that those are fallible too (just usually in different ways).

Nobody - nobody - is saying to disregard scientific evidence and go with your gut all the time. But to decide that nothing's true without the data to back it up is absurd - and that is precisely what it means to assert that accepting anecdotes at all leads to believing absolutely anything.

Quote from: Leafsnail on April 14, 2015, 09:06:19 pm
How do you prevent people from doing that if you're accepting random anecdotes as evidence of a wider trend?
Generally, you think about the anecdotes in the context of your experience with the world, determine whether any science exists that is relevant, weigh the relevant numbers alongside whatever anecdotes you happen to have, and then you make some decisions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 14, 2015, 09:10:45 pm
Quote from: Putnam on April 14, 2015, 08:58:57 pm
You're horribly misunderstanding something. Statistics are gathered using a bunch of rules to eliminate bias that a simple "collection of anecdotes" won't really convey.

I could get a collection of anecdotes that says that every single person in America is actually a white libertarian between ages 18-25 and nobody would accept that as a proper result because it's demonstrably false.

Common sense is pretty much a meaningless phrase in general...

Ok, granted that I didn't specify it as a collection of anecdotes gathered according to a set of rules. 

But if "I'm poor and it makes me unhappy" as a simple individual statement is an anecdote, then there is nothing that fundamentally differentiates a statistical survey about income and happiness levels from a collection of anecdotes besides the rules regarding sample size and diversity for statistical significance.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 14, 2015, 09:17:15 pm
I'm sure rich people realize that, they just try to justify it by telling themselves that poor people deserve it (maybe relying on anecdotes about lazy or stupid poor people) - note that you can very easily examine the literature and find that poverty reduces your quality of life if you truly are only swayed by scientific evidence.  What this study found that was interesting and less obvious is that there's a cutoff point beyond which additional money does not make you happier.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 14, 2015, 09:17:46 pm
I... don't even want to touch the rest of the discussion, but insofar as statistics and happiness goes, SG, from what I recall the better ones don't actually ask questions like that. They ask about stuff like free time or hobbies, mental health issues, general physical health, time with friends/family, things along those lines. Behaviors we recognize happy people indulging in, or unhappy people experiencing.

Questions like income tied to something like, "Are you happy?" is honestly a kinda' terrible survey question in relation to good statistic gathering. That sort of thing is sometimes used, from what I understand, of course, but it's often more about framing (or perception) than it is actually getting numbers on happiness. Just a question like that prefacing a larger set of questions can (sometimes pretty strongly) influence what sort of answer you get, and people that actually know what the zog they're doing when it comes to statistic gathering know this.

I think there was someone on the forum (nenjin?) that actually had experience working with sociological research, though. They might have a better idea of the actual scutwork of it -- most of my understanding comes from interactions with folks doing the work, rather than doing the work itself.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 14, 2015, 09:18:17 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 14, 2015, 09:06:19 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 14, 2015, 08:53:38 pm
This is a criticism of cherry-picking/confirmation bias, not accepting anecdotes.
How do you prevent people from doing that if you're accepting random anecdotes as evidence of a wider trend?

That's down to self-awareness, which is a problem with how people react to information, science or not.  Many important subjects remain controversial because there is bogus paid-for science out there intentionally done just to feed people's confirmation bias.  It's an inescapable problem that can't be socially de-bugged by insisting people only trust scientific information.

Hell, this is a huuuuuuge problem in the business world, where employees complain about their working circumstances and decision-makers at the top insist that their reports don't show the numbers to reinforce those complaints, but those reports are designed to avoid reporting the problems employees complain about.  This is exactly the nightmare I'm dealing with at my job right now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 14, 2015, 09:32:58 pm
What SalmonGod said.... ^^^^ Yes.

The problem with anecdotal evidence isn't necessarily it isn't reliable. The problem is a.) People lack a proper bullshit detector, and b.) con men know it.

Can't study everything empirically, no matter how much we want that, "... more things in heaven and earth than are dreampt of in your philosophy my dear Horatio...." Pain, emotional, physical, 1-10 scale, is subjective. Confirmation bias, funding bias,  Heteroscedasticity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteroscedasticity),  Multimodal distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimodal_distribution), etc etc etc, screws up everything. Many researchers are never taught these things, countermeasures, and not to worship empiricism as a quasi religion.

Anecdotes have many problems, lack of counterfraud, confirmation bias, improper logic, emotional bias, etc, etc, etc. That said, housing bubble, corporate illegal corruption, etc, should never happen in empirical models. They do. That's even assuming the studies are done right and explained well. They aren't.

Sounds like blasphemy from me; it isn't. The problem is everybody has physics envy; nobody recognizes or talks about it. Everybody wants numbers on everything. Sometimes numbers rock, lots of medicine, engineering, etc. Anti vaccine propaganda is the prime offender here, but that alone doesn't invalidate anecdotes entirely. Anecdotes are important; it is sad nobody teaches how to evaluate them, reduce bias, emotion, fraud and illogical problems in them. Throwing numbers at problems, does not solve them, because that's not how humans work. Humans want quick, dirty, simple answers and they use numbers (often, bad or ugly) to say they're right as fast and easy as possible. Most people don't even know about problems in stats, deny they exist, don't know countermeasures, and won't do/pay for countermeasures in studies, but the faith is absolute.... This has been vastly abused, and that's why nobody trusts it anymore.... Abuse.... "When they own the information they can bend it all they want."

Bottom line, it's wayyyy too simplistic to say "anecdote bad; empirical studies good," because the world isn't simplistic.

People make decisions that effect other decisions based on illogical or semi logical cognitive operation functioning. Neoclassical Economics assumes perfect information, perfect price sensitivity (you'll change purchase decision over a penny), completely interchangeable everything, and perfect rationality, etc. It's all bullshit. That's not how the world or the people in it work. You shop around for a while, but you don't look at every choice on earth, so that's not perfect information. You won't drive all the way across town to save $0.01 a gallon on gas (you'll spend more money driving there, to say nothing of brand loyalty). Jesus, "perfect rationality," really? Forgetting human things like fraud, deceit, and marketing, we don't do things like that. We use the semi rational cognitive process called "satiation" in other words, "It's close enough." Stuff like that, etc. Good luck studying that empirically.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on April 14, 2015, 09:38:38 pm
Quote from: Putnam on April 14, 2015, 08:58:57 pm
You're horribly misunderstanding something. Statistics are gathered using a bunch of rules to eliminate bias that a simple "collection of anecdotes" won't really convey.

I could get a collection of anecdotes that says that every single person in America is actually a white libertarian between ages 18-25 and nobody would accept that as a proper result because it's demonstrably false.

Common sense is pretty much a meaningless phrase in general...

I'd like to remind everyone that I have a degree in mathematics and specialized in measure theory (abstract probability theory). I have scientific and engineering training. I have worked in a job where my task was to create and present statistical research. That research is now published. It is science. I have attended rationality training sessions with the Center for Applied Rationality and have read many books on reducing bias and improving cognitive thinking skills.

My degree is from UC Berkeley, one of the top three mathematics programs in the united states, and the very best public university in the world. My undergraduate GPA was 3.7 and I was mentored by some of the university's top mathematical researchers. I completed 19 math courses, including two graduate courses, and I received a near-perfect (missed half a point on the writing section) on the GRE. An appeal to authority obviously does not mean that I am automatically correct, but I would hope that it would give you pause before you accuse me of fundamentally misunderstanding my chosen field of study.

I also have professional training in rhetoric, philosophy (specifically: ontology, i.e. What Is That Thing We Call the Truth, and epistemology--How Do We Find Out The Truth), literature, and art, and currently work as a literary researcher (Specifically: I work in verisimilitude and fictionality, and am currently working with Popper, i.e. the guy who invented Popperian Falsification). I would like to suggest to everyone here that perhaps these cultural artifacts that sustained us for millenia were there for a reason and still have something to teach us--and that something might be lost if we were to let go of these non-empirical modes of communicating our subjective experiences.

Common sense is usually where you point to people who aren't young white libertarians and say: "I can see that that person is a counterexample to your assertion." You should not have to point to a scientific study in order to figure that out.

I realize that I may sound something like the wackjobs you usually hear on the internet, but I have a fundamentally different position and the seeming kneejerk assumption that I'm a hostile, irrational, unenlightened person seems both a. off the mark to me and b. at this point, honestly disrespectful.

This is the point at which people usually say: "Oh, so you want me to bow down to you?!" No. I want you to look at yourself, and how you respect viewpoints that have Science written on them, and look at my arguments and see how I have a scientific background, and see that I am trying to convince you that having a scientific background does not mean that what you say is true, and see that you are disrespecting what I am saying despite my scientific background, and see that you are exercising my point exactly--except not willing to admit it because what I'm saying doesn't fit with your confirmation bias.

And then let's all laugh and have dumplings and green tea, because this is idiotic.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 14, 2015, 09:41:35 pm
Quote from: Frumple on April 14, 2015, 09:17:46 pm
I... don't even want to touch the rest of the discussion, but insofar as statistics and happiness goes, SG, from what I recall the better ones don't actually ask questions like that.

You're taking me too literally.  I never even said anything about what questions a survey would ask, anyway.  The point is, all this information is still being collected from the mouths or pencils of human beings, and the only thing that makes it more objective than a conversation is the scale and method.  The statistic has 10,000 conversations for me, and distills them down to a set of data points.  If I personally had 10,000 conversations and were an honest, self-reflecting person, I would still come away from it with those same data points.

If I encounter an anecdote that contradicts science, I'm very likely to disregard it.  If I encounter a large number of anecdotes that contradict science, I expect the science to explain that.  If I encounter anecdotes on subjects that I find little to no scientific material on, then I make sure I don't base my judgment on anecdotes from a single source.

Quote from: SalmonGod on April 14, 2015, 08:34:08 pm
Edit:

Ok... I guess I didn't read into it enough.  The guy is young.  Two years younger than me.  Looks to me like he hadn't been in his position of privilege for all that long.  In his case, it just took a little time to sink in how far he'd come, and that he was in a position to do something like this.  Very awesome.  Will follow Bauglir's lead and send a positive e-mail.

Anyway,  I doubt most people saw my observation that I edited in, because it was right at the bottom of the last page.  I don't think this was a case that boiled down to being convinced by science.  Although it's probably the reason the guy chose the target number that he did.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 14, 2015, 09:48:34 pm
I want to quote you so bad right now, Truean, but instead I'll have to settle for a "Hell the fuck yes." Particularly your underlined bits.

On the plus side, I think I can quote Vector:

Quote from: Vector on April 14, 2015, 09:38:38 pm
Common sense is usually where you point to people who aren't young white libertarians and say: "I can see that that person is a counterexample to your assertion." You should not have to point to a scientific study in order to figure that out.
Fuckin' this. It's not a matter of Science Is Bad, it's a matter of just not being blind.

But even more than that, this.

Quote from: Vector on April 14, 2015, 09:38:38 pm
And then let's all laugh and have dumplings and green tea, because this is idiotic.

Though I have no dumplings. Only ice cream.

EDIT: I want to quote SalmonGod too, now, but if I keep doing that I'll never finish hitting Post, and adding to this one would really break up the flow.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 14, 2015, 09:49:56 pm
Quote from: Vector on April 14, 2015, 09:38:38 pm
This is the point at which people usually say: "Oh, so you want me to bow down to you?!" No. I want you to look at yourself, and how you respect viewpoints that have Science written on them, and look at my arguments and see how I have a scientific background, and see that I am trying to convince you that having a scientific background does not mean that what you say is true, and see that you are disrespecting what I am saying despite my scientific background, and see that you are exercising my point exactly--except not willing to admit it because what I'm saying doesn't fit with your confirmation bias.
You are creating an absurd strawman.  Respecting the power of the scientific process does not mean that you believe anything that anyone with a science-related degree says - indeed, it should cause you to disregard misplaced appeals to authority such as the one you are making.  What it actually means is that you should respect scientific literature with clear methodology, results and analysis that has been reviewed by other experts in the field and ideally also replicated.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 14, 2015, 09:52:04 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 14, 2015, 09:49:56 pm
What it actually means is that you should respect scientific literature with clear methodology, results and analysis that has been reviewed by other experts in the field and ideally also replicated.
Yeah, I just want to say that this is true, but that's also not how people actually behave. For example:

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 14, 2015, 08:45:19 pm
Probably because once you buy into anecdotal evidence you can believe anything.

EDIT: To be clear, people often insert a superfluous "only" into your quote after "respect".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 14, 2015, 09:55:10 pm
Bauglir, thank you. Take it as your own, but don't attribute it as from me to anyone. Say it is yours if and only if you believe it, or don't.

Leafsnail, Vector is expressly trying to avoid an appeal to authority. Her only point is she's not ignorant of many things on math. Also, "clear methodology," is rarer than many think. You have to be able to listen to what they're not saying, and that's really hard to ever explain. It's painted as too simple in an incredibly complex world.

It is so incredibly difficult to explain, that we criticize empiricism not for being a noble dream, with a noble aim, and a noble means, but for falling short of nobility and pretending not to be while claiming perfect noble title....

Why believe me. You do not know me. You have never seen me; you probably will never see me. I could lie to you, easily. Why wouldn't I? What reason do you have to trust one word you read from me?

Flaws. I have them. I admit them. I illustrate them. I am selfish. I can be wrong. I am so terribly flawed. I have made terrible mistakes I will regret my entire life and I can never atone for some of them, try as I might. Empiricism has assumed the fake corporate plastic picture perfect PR exterior. Anyone perfect must be lying, but even admitting your flaws can be abused to gain trust that is not earned..... Absolute rules, rarely apply absolutely.... This is not gravity we speak of....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on April 14, 2015, 10:03:38 pm
Well, I'm not sure how much this contributes to the current(?) topic, but I think the problem with what is usually presented as anecdotal evidence isn't so much that it is a person's own experience but, similar to what SalmonGod said, it's a problem of narrowed evidence to the detriment of a larger and more accurate picture. What has happened vis a vis the "scientific community" and the silencing of minority voices has itself been gravely mistaken in a similar manner. Despite attempting to enforce rigor in empirical observations, it is unfortunately powerless against contamination of participants in the scientific project, effecting their ability to interpret, store, and validate data when it comes to matters that have a significant positional framing component. It is very easy for our underlying biases to direct what idealistically would be an accurate depiction of our shared material world. Worse yet, marked voices, such as those of feminists, are usually seen as being more biased by default by people within the system and its assumptions because they have rendered themselves disembodied minds within the ideas of pure reason when they are in fact not. They are tied to their body, and their society, and that mind isn't going to be able to escape that without significant self-critical awareness.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 14, 2015, 10:06:14 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on April 14, 2015, 09:52:04 pm
EDIT: To be clear, people often insert a superfluous "only" into your quote after "respect".
You can't take a set of anecdotes as evidence of a wider trend though, precisely because the world is complex and things are not the same for everybody.  I think MetalSlimeHunt's quote is completely fair.

I think the vaccine/autism scare is the best example of this.  You can find plenty of "my child had the MMR vaccine and then they developed autism" anecdotes, and in the vast majority of cases those anecdotes are entirely true.  If you're prepared to accept anecdotal evidence then at this point you'd conclude that MMR vaccinations cause autism.  However, if you actually do the statistics you can find that rates of autism are no higher amongst vaccinated children than unvaccinated children, and that the association was only made because MMR vaccinations are generally given around the time when symptoms of autism begin to be seen.  There is no way you could find this out just by listening to anecdotes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 14, 2015, 10:15:09 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 14, 2015, 10:06:14 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on April 14, 2015, 09:52:04 pm
EDIT: To be clear, people often insert a superfluous "only" into your quote after "respect".
You can't take a set of anecdotes as evidence of a wider trend though, precisely because the world is complex and things are not the same for everybody.  I think MetalSlimeHunt's quote is completely fair.

I think the vaccine/autism scare is the best example of this.  You can find plenty of "my child had the MMR vaccine and then they developed autism" anecdotes, and in the vast majority of cases those anecdotes are entirely true.  If you're prepared to accept anecdotal evidence then at this point you'd conclude that MMR vaccinations cause autism.  However, if you actually do the statistics you can find that rates of autism are no higher amongst vaccinated children than unvaccinated children, and that the association was only made because MMR vaccinations are generally given around the time when symptoms of autism begin to be seen.  There is no way you could find this out just by listening to anecdotes.

Which is a perfect example of this...

Quote from: SalmonGod on April 14, 2015, 09:41:35 pm
If I encounter a large number of anecdotes that contradict science, I expect the science to explain that.

You're not illustrating that anecdote isn't worth anything.  Just that sources of information need to be balanced.  It takes a special kind of idiot to even put any stock in the particular anecdote you're describing.  Too bad there's a lot of them out there.  I don't even need to be confronted with a scientific article to conclude that there are plenty of vaccinated children not developing autism, therefor this particular anecdote is worthless without comparison to larger trends.

But taking it back to the subject at hand, if you have rising size and frequency of strikes and protests around the world, you shouldn't need science to be convinced of those people's claims that they're impoverished and miserable.  This I find rather silly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 14, 2015, 10:18:06 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 14, 2015, 10:06:14 pm
If you're prepared to accept anecdotal evidence then at this point you'd conclude that MMR vaccinations cause autism.
Here's where your analysis fails. No, I wouldn't. I'd conclude that maybe I should consider whether or not MMR vaccinations cause autism. I would then look at the relevant data, think about what people more knowledgeable on the topic than me are saying, wonder if there's a plausible mechanism, and probably decide that the hypothesis is most likely a misunderstanding at best or a malicious fabrication at worst. Certainly, if I were making public policy, I'd want more evidence before changing anything, so maybe I'd weigh the likely costs against the potential benefit of commissioning a study or twelve, along with the plausibility of there being anything actually worth investigating.

But you'd have me reject the matter out of hand until confronted with data?

EDIT: I want to be clear, I still stand by the "this is idiotic" thing, but make no mistake - I'm an idiot. So this is basically perfect.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 14, 2015, 10:37:19 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 14, 2015, 10:15:09 pm
But taking it back to the subject at hand, if you have rising size and frequency of strikes and protests around the world, you shouldn't need science to be convinced of those people's claims that they're impoverished and miserable.  This I find rather silly.
Rising size and frequency of strikes is a statistical trend (rather than an anecdote like "here are some people who are upset") that would presumably have to be determined scientifically, so I don't see what your point is.
Quote from: Bauglir on April 14, 2015, 10:18:06 pm
But you'd have me reject the matter out of hand until confronted with data?
If no statistical evidence exists on a subject then a reasonable body of anecdotes may suggest that it deserves examination.  However, those anecdotes cannot be taken as evidence of a trend in and of themselves.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 14, 2015, 10:52:21 pm
6 of your neighbors are filling up sandbags and making arrangements for themselves and their valuables to stay elsewhere next week. They anecdotally say the creek is going to rise and flood to damage an unknown area. No study exists or will exist, especially not in time. Weather is nearly impossible to predict; you can gain no other information in a practical manner; the area has no flooding history.

Perhaps, consider the consequences and reason from there:

A.) If you are correct and you do nothing, then no damage happens and it's no big deal.

B.) If they are correct and you do nothing, then you are in danger of losing property and having your home and yard damaged, etc.

The cost benefit analysis would seem to indicate that their anecdotes could constitute notice and warning. Of course, other factors may play into things such as how far away from the creek you are, the topography of the land, if you have flood insurance or not, and the cost of countermeasures. Additional considerations may include any possible gain they may have leading to possibly deceive you. It appears they don't have said motive and they are acting upon it themselves.... This is to say that they have "skin in the game."

Do you act on their advice as if it were true, or not? 

Logically, this is actually a logical fallacy called an argument ad numerum, or argument to numbers. The number of people who believe an idea in and of itself does not prove that correct or incorrect. How many people thought the world was flat? Is it? That said, it isn't necessarily irrational or unwise not to act upon this, in the above mentioned situation. It also depends upon your personal preference and tolerance for risk.

Is there a "correct" answer to this question? Does the fact that there is an unknown and perhaps unpredictable factor here relevant?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 14, 2015, 10:58:27 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 14, 2015, 09:41:35 pm
The point is, all this information is still being collected from the mouths or pencils of human beings, and the only thing that makes it more objective than a conversation is the scale and method.  The statistic has 10,000 conversations for me, and distills them down to a set of data points.  If I personally had 10,000 conversations and were an honest, self-reflecting person, I would still come away from it with those same data points.
... that scale and method kinda' make the difference, SG. That statistic is going to have 10k fairly specific conversations you're not going to manage in person, regardless of how honest or self-reflecting you are, and "it" is going to do so on a scale that, for you, is going to blur together into a half-meaningless mush unless you're some kind of incredible cognitive anomaly. If you personally had those tens of thousands of conversations, the chances of you actually coming away with the same data points is pretty bloody small -- you'd almost certainly come out with a significantly different set of data (also, the data set could easily change before you finished 'em all, but eh). That doesn't really have anything to do with the character of the people on either side of the conversations, it has to do with the nature of the beasts having them. We're really kinda' freaking terrible on a mechanical level with dealing with processing that sort and that scale of information on our own.

I'd largely kinda' agree with the other stuff y'mentioned in that quoted post, but... well, that scale and that method is actually what makes the difference. Human error, misinterpretation, miscommunication, and all the et ceteras and so forths and so ons are still going to be there with statistical analysis, but... well, at least when it's actually done correctly, the methodology involved corrects for human error in a way that we're just not really capable of on a personal level, or at least very, very few of us are.

I guess what I'm saying is that you actually nailed it. What makes it more objective is the scale and the method. That is exactly what makes it more objective than thousands of anecdotes.

---

As to that question, well, I know my six neighbors and the surrounding area. If they say the creek is going to flood, I'm going to (almost certainly accurately) assume they're drunk or drugged and calmly ignore them :V

The mitigating factors are an issue, there, though. If the area I'm in flooded enough for it to reach where I'm at, sandbags and leaving for a week wouldn't help because most of the state would have sunk.

What's the point you're trying to make, T?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on April 14, 2015, 10:59:21 pm
Gut reaction is to go, but only because I've already been through two or three floods in my life and that stuff is hella expensive. Weighted cost-benefit (including actual mental probability considering who's saying it, etc.)... still comes out to going.

But that specific example isn't necessarily the best one, since, again, floods are hella expensive. Also, I lost a house to one once, though I was too young to remember.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 14, 2015, 11:01:23 pm
My point was illustrating that anecdotes can have practical value, on a sliding scale depending upon the factors.... This is especially true for unknown and practically unpredictable situations with unknown variables. Ideally, we could perfectly predict the weather. We can't now; maybe one day we will. Til then.... This is what we have and it's all we have.

Dissect that problem into its component parts with each new bit of information as a distinct anatomy of it.

Are you more or less likely to believe the creek will rise if

i.) Your neighbors are typically trustworthy. (subjective as you see it I guess?)
ii.) Your neighbors are prone to be untruthful/play jokes.
iii.) One of your neighbors is a well respected scientist
iv.) One of your neighbors is a conspiracy theorist with a penchant for ranting and eating cream cheese....
v.) Your house is on a hill
vi.) Your house is slightly lower than your next door neighbors'
vii.) Your basement floods and you own a sump pump
viii.) Your basement has never flooded, or you don't even have a basement.

You see? It's reasonable to consider these as facts in decision making even anecdotally....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 14, 2015, 11:09:11 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 14, 2015, 10:37:19 pm
If no statistical evidence exists on a subject then a reasonable body of anecdotes may suggest that it deserves examination.  However, those anecdotes cannot be taken as evidence of a trend in and of themselves.
Why am I forbidden to think about the anecdote based on what I already know about autism, vaccination, population demographics, statistics, and logic, perhaps while I wait for the study to be completed or when I attempt to interpret the results? Or, perhaps more accurately, why is such thinking totally valueless?

Or do you mean something else by "evidence" than what is commonly meant? Is this an example of "It's just a theory!", in which by "evidence" I mean "A factor tending to suggest a particular conclusion, if granted as true", and you mean "A claim which, if accepted, inescapably leads to a particular conclusion"? See, I'm prepared to accept that evidence can be misleading, inaccurate, or outright false, but it's my job to exercise judgment as to which of those qualities it possesses. But it remains evidence, nevertheless - just bad evidence. You don't seem to be willing to do this.

Truean raises a much better practical argument (fallibility is a tremendously important, and empirically verifiable - ha! - fact of life), but I don't think this "Statistically rigorous, empirically tested fact is the only thing worth knowing" stuff holds water, even philosophically, unless we've got very different ideas of what various words mean.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 14, 2015, 11:11:40 pm
I guess the odd thing for that scenario to me is... why would I trust my neighbors, none of whom have any meteorological background and, well, several which didn't make it out of high school and some that are outright drug addicts, to be able to accurately predict a flood a week ahead of time? I mean, I'd trust 'em if they were sober and telling me they're on hard times or about their field of experience or somethin', but incoming flood? Some of these folks are literally medically insane. None of them have any background or indication that would suggest they're not swinging at ghosts. Trustworthy in some things doesn't mean trustworthy in others.

Now, if most of the block or town was packing up and leaving, I'd be more likely to consider it. At the very least ask why the zog they think it was going to happen. Just take them at their word, though... probably not. Not for something like that. Plenty of other things, sure, but not something major.

... which your edit has covered a bit, T. Hrm.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on April 15, 2015, 12:51:27 am
/me activates passive aggressiveness mode

Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on April 15, 2015, 04:55:36 am
This. You guys are simply talking past each other as far as I can tell:
The claim isn't 'anecdotes ---> truth'. The claim is 'research is sometimes incorrect or incomplete, so we should always keep our mind open for new ideas and information. Anecdotes may guide us in the direction of new knowledge, they may show us where to conduct more rigorous research.' That statement is not controversial at all, it was just (IMO) badly presented.
You're all hacking at strawmen here.

Spoiler: @Vec (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on April 15, 2015, 11:40:59 am
Well considering that they followed with...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It's kinda relevant if people are trying to explain statistics versus anecdotes to them, and given that their philosophy education focused on the nature of truth that makes them kind of an expert in that field... not merely an unrelated field such as math to politics [/brieffalseequivalencechiding]... it all fits into their argument (at least from my interpretation) that trust in the modern institution of science through credentialed members and the fruits of their knowledge clearly isn't an absolute standard, and rather seems to have leeway of its own in people being free to challenge the body of organized knowledge.

And that is clearly not an appeal to authority, forming a coherent argument independent of a direct claim based on expertise. Your rebuttal even demonstrated the primary mechanism towards the phenomenon they spoke of - attempts to discredit the validity via a claim of logical fallacy, which further rested upon credentials not being a factor in this topic's discussion. Considering that what set this off was an issue with how people pretend that one requires rigorous data from accredited bodies before anything can be taken seriously points to an underlying issue in the boundaries of our skepticism. With people setting their boundaries for what constitutes extraordinary claims (and corresponding the amount of evidence required to substantiate their validity) based on absurd notions. If we are drawing analogies with anti-scientific movements, such as vaccine deniers and creationists and global warming deniers, and how they create knowledge, we should also draw attention to their own standards of skepticism which are complicating their ability to accept knowledge from the scientific consensus. Overall what is happening, at least mostly in internet communities which have latched onto a very... rough... form of atheism and skepticism, is that they apply this on a blanket level and end up fouling their thinking as they attempt to simplify reality around a few principles that might not even apply to the issue at hand, or at least not be feasible.

As per the examples drawing from very immediate decision making, which I'll further expand upon to contain the human body of knowledge before new standards of scientific rigor entered our collective consciousness (with failures, but also successes), we can/do not construct knowledge purely through those methods*, and discounting experiences that you would not have based on it being anecdotal evidence can itself be both damaging to your own intellectual development as well as the social ties between people since we can't speak for ourselves and our own experiences, as well as frustrations/fears/etc, without being challenged as if we're liars or somehow less capable of analyzing our own situations without people who might have even less actual experience to construct their hypotheses telling us we're correct/wrong -- and even when data is demonstrated we end up right back to these deductive logic tussles between which data is valid and which isn't. At least outside of "hard sciences" which I suspect is largely more due to having less demands on being able to think outside of one's own experience, and thus be able to come up with a solid hypothesis/theory, outside of a few niche conflicts where culture (typically religious though not always) tries to inform reality in a way that can usually be more easily separated from the knowledge-producing venture itself.

* Briefly rechecking what started the topic (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg6166254#msg6166254), this seems to be a crux of the issue. Something that seemed self-evident had to be structured around a scientific study before it was taken seriously, despite the benefit of framing the argument around quantitative data being questionable.

Quote from: Helgoland
If you have a problem with people telling you things you find disrespectful on the internet, the problem kinda is on your end.

This is one of those disrespectful things I imagine... At least take responsibility for your behavior rather than cast it off as if it is necessarily another's problem. One can have a problem with the color red, but one can also be offended (or at least annoyed) by being called an idiot by somebody who knows absolutely nothing on the subject, or offended by somebody who steps on your toes and refuses to apologize, or many other things which are readily accepted as reasonable things to raise an issue about without it suddenly being the aggrieved party's responsibility. But then to argue that we'd have to come to agreement on which posting behavior is patronizing and worthy of disapproval and which is fair game for discourse, and I'm not sure anybody wants to be arsed with that since it tends to open the doors for more of the same rather than open a meaningful dialogue that can satisfy all parties. So this is one of those scenarios where everyone gives the stinkeye and solidifies opinions about other posters. *stinkeyes*
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on April 15, 2015, 02:46:14 pm
Thank you.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on April 15, 2015, 03:33:34 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on April 15, 2015, 04:55:36 am
That's a horrible appeal to authority. How is your training in mathematics, rhetoric, literature, art relevant here? There's a guy in my semester - very good as a mathematician too - who espouses very worrying right-wing ideas and votes for far-right parties. Should I agree with his political opinions because he's great at topology? And I know you pointed out that it's an appeal to authority; that doesn't make it any better. We're all just screen names here; our ideas count, not our credentials.
Congratulations on agreeing on one of Vector's major points while framing it in a disagreeing manner. Glowcat already quoted it though so moving on.
Quote from: Helgoland on April 15, 2015, 04:55:36 am
Also I find it disrespectful that you imply that I (as part of your audience) don't know who Popper was :P
If this wasn't tongue-in-cheek it would require a tongue lashing.

Quote from: Glowcat on April 15, 2015, 11:40:59 am
Quote from: Helgoland
If you have a problem with people telling you things you find disrespectful on the internet, the problem kinda is on your end.

This is one of those disrespectful things I imagine... At least take responsibility for your behavior rather than cast it off as if it is necessarily another's problem. One can have a problem with the color red, but one can also be offended (or at least annoyed) by being called an idiot by somebody who knows absolutely nothing on the subject, or offended by somebody who steps on your toes and refuses to apologize, or many other things which are readily accepted as reasonable things to raise an issue about without it suddenly being the aggrieved party's responsibility. But then to argue that we'd have to come to agreement on which posting behavior is patronizing and worthy of disapproval and which is fair game for discourse, and I'm not sure anybody wants to be arsed with that since it tends to open the doors for more of the same rather than open a meaningful dialogue that can satisfy all parties. So this is one of those scenarios where everyone gives the stinkeye and solidifies opinions about other posters. *stinkeyes*
I agree with you in this. Which also means that I agree with Helgoland that
Quote from: Helgoland
If you have a problem with people telling you things you find disrespectful on the internet, the problem kinda is on your end.
because this is the practical stance for an internet user. Disrespect and offensiveness is a sliding scale with different thresh-holds for different people and in an international medium there is little hope for consensus beyond the forum rules we are all expected to operate under.

As far as who/what was disrespecting/hostile towards Vector before Helgo's ill-considered post I am drawing ???
Having your ideas under fire is not the same as being under fire unless you identify according to them which loops back to the context-less quotation of Helgo.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 15, 2015, 03:49:20 pm
It's still a horrible strawman of an argument.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on April 15, 2015, 03:59:31 pm
I don't think that treating every part of the internet by the same standards as which we give Yahoo Comments is appropriate. I expect that in this discussion thread, posters are working in good faith and are open to a change in their own viewpoint. That's what I mean by "respect." No, not "Yes, this person really has convinced me that misogyny is The Way To Go!!" but perhaps something of what is being said is of value.

There is absolutely no point in arguing with the goal of destroying somebody else's beliefs. Truth-seeking is appropriate. The assumption that whatever we think is right actually is right and that our "opponent" must be beaten, rather than understood, is the petard that is going to fuck this country right into the ocean (that is an exaggeration for poetic effect).

Yes, maybe my expectations are too high, in which case I will stop posting about my viewpoints here indefinitely, as continuing to lower one's expectations is not the only response, nor the appropriate one for my situation. I have, however, been posting with the expectations that others in the discussion were at least pretending to listen. It's a communication medium, after all.


A strawman is a mischaracterization of somebody else's argument, not merely something to call any position you find messy and poorly thought-out. The word you're looking for might be "illogical" or "unclear." I agree that my position might be unclear. That is why I thank people like SalmonGod, Truean, Glowcat, and Bauglir, who are all better at expressing my viewpoint than I am.

I would like to know whose argument I am mischaracterizing. As far as I can tell, I am only arguing against the positions I have actually heard, and the implications and conclusions actually being drawn. I would like, in particular, to see quotations of the things that someone else said, and of my mischaracterizations, so that I can see them together and perhaps clarify my intentions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on April 15, 2015, 04:06:52 pm
I think I might note about the flooding example is that in the absolute worst case, where you build sandbag barricades and it doesn't flood, the only person you hurt is yourself, and even that is rather minimal hurt. I'd say that the vaccine thing would be much closer to your neighbors saying that you need to perform controlled burning on your property to help protect yourself from the fire they say is coming. If they are right then you save people, but if you are wrong (or don't have the training to control what you do) you could easily start a fire that burns down the whole area.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 15, 2015, 04:18:17 pm
There may be some tilting at windmills going on here, but I assure you it's far from intentional. All I, at least, see are giants being vaguely threatening toward the countryside.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 14, 2015, 08:45:19 pm
Probably because once you buy into anecdotal evidence you can believe anything.

This is what's got me all fired up, and what you have explicitly defended as "completely fair". Near as I can tell, we've got an assertion here that anecdotal evidence is universally worthless. Let me be clear about my position here - anecdotal evidence is no substitute for statistically rigorous study. Anecdotal evidence is a tool with particular uses. I agree that you should not, for example, blindly accept any conclusion drawn from anecdotal evidence on its face, particularly not when there's a body of rigorous evidence against that conclusion (for example, when people claim that vaccines cause autism for whatever reason). I agree that you should not use a screwdriver when you need to cut a plank in half.

But I'd like to have it on hand when some screws crop up.

So what am I missing about your position?

Spoiler: Meta (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 15, 2015, 04:41:50 pm
Quote from: Vector on April 15, 2015, 03:59:31 pm
A strawman is a mischaracterization of somebody else's argument, not merely something to call any position you find messy and poorly thought-out. The word you're looking for might be "illogical" or "unclear." I agree that my position might be unclear. That is why I thank people like SalmonGod, Truean, Glowcat, and Bauglir, who are all better at expressing my viewpoint than I am.

I would like to know whose argument I am mischaracterizing. As far as I can tell, I am only arguing against the positions I have actually heard, and the implications and conclusions actually being drawn. I would like, in particular, to see quotations of the things that someone else said, and of my mischaracterizations, so that I can see them together and perhaps clarify my intentions.
I explained why I regard it as a strawman earlier - you're acting like the people who are defending scientific thinking are saying "We should believe anything that someone with any experience in a field of science says", and then saying "If you believe this then you should take what I'm saying as absolute truth because I also have experience in a field of science".  I don't believe anyone actually holds this position, although some may fall back on it if they're trying to defend a dodgy position (eg "look at what this engineering professor has to say about evolution").

Here is where you make the mischaracterization:
Quote from: Vector on April 14, 2015, 09:38:38 pm
This is the point at which people usually say: "Oh, so you want me to bow down to you?!" No. I want you to look at yourself, and how you respect viewpoints that have Science written on them, and look at my arguments and see how I have a scientific background, and see that I am trying to convince you that having a scientific background does not mean that what you say is true, and see that you are disrespecting what I am saying despite my scientific background, and see that you are exercising my point exactly--except not willing to admit it because what I'm saying doesn't fit with your confirmation bias.
I (and I've seen no indication that this doesn't apply to anyone else you're arguing with) don't respect "viewpoints that have Science written on them", I respect conclusions reached through careful and transparent research. I do not regard any random statement made by a scientist as some kind of divine edict.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Magistrum on April 15, 2015, 05:54:45 pm
Quote from: greatorder on April 15, 2015, 04:50:44 pm
*grabs ears and screams*
I don't like it when mummy and daddy are fighting!

But in all seriousness, just be careful. Arguments seem to turn to flamewars pretty readily, and this thread doesn't need locking.
Something about calm and cool and progressive wouldn't give it off that easily.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 17, 2015, 01:42:16 pm
In re: Anedcotes v. Empiricism

Everybody's talking past everybody else. The bottom line is that both science and anecdote can have value and can have flaws. When you go too far with either, it gets a little nuts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyS_a7u6ppw

__________________________________________________
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/wal-mart-suddenly-closed-5-135231172.html

:(

"Wal-Mart suddenly closed 5 stores and laid off thousands of workers and no one knows why....

Some employees believe that the stores were closed because of worker protests for higher pay.

Employees of the Pico Rivera store were among the first to hold Black Friday protests in 2012.

"This is the first store that went on strike," an employee told CBS Los Angeles. 'This is the first store in demanding changes for Walmart.'"

.... :(
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 17, 2015, 01:58:04 pm
That's kinda' odd.

They don't seem to have actually laid folks off yet, though -- two months of paid leave for everyone, followed by other stuff. Couple months of free money to find another job is... not as bad as it could be, I guess. Hell, it's possibly better than the workers could have otherwise expected, walmart being walmart :-\

Does look like fairly normal heavy-handed union busting tactics, though. Right up Wally World's alley. Y'd just think they'd be a bit less clumsy with the excuse.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 17, 2015, 02:56:50 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 14, 2015, 09:17:15 pm
I'm sure rich people realize that, they just try to justify it by telling themselves that poor people deserve it (maybe relying on anecdotes about lazy or stupid poor people)

The Just World Fallacy is really interesting. I recommend reading up on it if you have not.
Spoiler: just world fallacy (click to show/hide)

There's also a really interesting  thing called "negative social proof", because it throws into question the best way to present a whole swathe of social messages - if you actually care about social outcomes and aren't just grandstanding / complaining to score points.

 People conform to whatever they believe the norm is, even if you say that norm is bad. Some classic examples includes signs which tried to prevent stealing of something by pointing out how much got stolen, and how bad it's effects were. Stealing tripled afterwards. "Everyone does X, but X is bad. Don't do X" often has the effect of increasing 'X'. More recent efforts present the unwanted behavior as abberant and rare. This actually dissuades people from doing it.

This raises questions about how to couch discussions of rape and domestic violence. Saying these are epidemics and "every guy" is doing it or wants to do it, actually sends the message to rapists and abusers that they're normal average guys. Which going by the psychology research, is likely to backfire. This is something I noted as contrarian in an Anita Sarkeesian video. She took games to task for presenting violence against females as a signifier of the extreme evil of a villain. Anita says (paraphrasing) that games are wrong for saying "only the worst monster would beat their wife" and that actually wife beaters are everywhere and they look like normal guys next door. Whether this is true or not, going by social proof theory, it's actually dangerous to go around saying it like that because it emboldens abusers by convincing them that everyone else is an abuser too, hence their actions have social acceptance. The games that basically send the message that only the worst monsters are wife beaters, they are actually sending the correct message if you go by the best psychology research, whereas Anita's "wife beaters everywhere" message closely resembles the failed social messaging campaigns they stopped using because they backfire.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 17, 2015, 05:22:00 pm
Actually, it's interesting when you dissect the implications of karma, and not just the feel-good notion that bad people will get their payback in the end for being bad.

Karma can be seen as the Just World Fallacy given a religious stamp of approval. I've read Indians who write that the poor deserve to be poor, because of Karma from past lives. Otherwise the universe wouldn't have made them poor, right? Karma is "you get what you deserve", so conversely whatever you're getting now is what you actually deserve. If thugs beat you up, then you must have deserved it from your present or past lives, even though those thugs will deserve to get beaten up too. Conveniently this can happen after they die, which explains away rich asshole nobles who live long healthy lives, trample on everyone and have 72 sexy wives. The injustice is explained away since he'll probably be reincarnated as a slug or something.

Screw "Karma" basically. Karma has the payback possibly after you die and what you did to deserve the suffering possibly before you were born, so it's a codified version of the Just World Fallacy but you don't even have to rationalize "lazy" or "stupid" now because of the past/future lives things.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 17, 2015, 05:36:43 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on April 17, 2015, 05:39:52 pm
Also makes it more difficult for people like child molesters to search/accept treatment. The effects of the argument depend on how it's applied, I guess.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on April 17, 2015, 05:50:19 pm
It's more like 'nobody is this terrible, so what I do can't be that bad'. It's more of a refusal to admit to having a problem - I should have worded my statement more carefullly. Also 'I'm a monster - no-one must ever know.', I guess.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 17, 2015, 08:23:09 pm
Yeah... I've spent a lot of time reading into all that stuff... and it's left me with the impression that the vast majority of human beings truly do intend to be socially caring and just, but the functions which produce their actual perceptions and behaviors undermine that intention constantly.  But it's also left me with the belief that the structure and function of our society also exacerbates those natural flaws in every possible way.

The best thing we could do to make things better is educate everyone about these psychological shortcomings from an early age, because these mental quirks can be consciously adjusted for once one is equipped with the proper awareness of them.  But it seems to me like our education system, at least in the U.S., is much more effective at reinforcing them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on April 17, 2015, 08:50:42 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 17, 2015, 08:23:09 pm
Yeah... I've spent a lot of time reading into all that stuff... and it's left me with the impression that the vast majority of human beings truly do intend to be socially caring and just, but the functions which produce their actual perceptions and behaviors undermine that intention constantly.  But it's also left me with the belief that the structure and function of our society also exacerbates those natural flaws in every possible way.

The best thing we could do to make things better is educate everyone about these psychological shortcomings from an early age, because these mental quirks can be consciously adjusted for once one is equipped with the proper awareness of them.  But it seems to me like our education system, at least in the U.S., is much more effective at reinforcing them.

I agree with this.

I'll also add that that was what religion was supposed to do, but there are some obvious shortcomings.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: inteuniso on April 17, 2015, 10:59:20 pm
Quote from: Vector on April 17, 2015, 08:50:42 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 17, 2015, 08:23:09 pm
Yeah... I've spent a lot of time reading into all that stuff... and it's left me with the impression that the vast majority of human beings truly do intend to be socially caring and just, but the functions which produce their actual perceptions and behaviors undermine that intention constantly.  But it's also left me with the belief that the structure and function of our society also exacerbates those natural flaws in every possible way.

The best thing we could do to make things better is educate everyone about these psychological shortcomings from an early age, because these mental quirks can be consciously adjusted for once one is equipped with the proper awareness of them.  But it seems to me like our education system, at least in the U.S., is much more effective at reinforcing them.

I agree with this.

I'll also add that that was what religion was supposed to do, but there are some obvious shortcomings.

The main problem is that by and large the system of governance has not changed in 12,000 years. What I mean to say is that while there has been a clear path of evolution of government, the underlying idea of government (hierarchical order) is a creation of War: Kings were appointed to a position above others because you need to focus like that in battle. It originated from the Chief-Among-Equals government that has remained in existence until now; the kings remained in power through means lost to the sands of time, and every non-tribal government has been some modification of this wartime government.

I suppose the Grand Illusion is this, and was pointed out quite obviously in 1984 among other works: There hasn't been worldwide peace since the dawn of "civilization:" everyone living under a state government has been living under martial law the entire time. It's the reason slavery still exists, it's the reason mercantilism-branded-as-capitalism still exists, it's the reason that we're killing ourselves (The Hopi call it the breaking of the Sacred Hoop and predict Armageddon should the Sacred Hoop not be restored)

We are animals. Quite intelligent animals, we're certainly (probably maybe) as intelligent as the rest of the intelligent animals on this planet. We're certainly the most knowledgeable animals on this planet, although some of our knowledge is best forgotten...

I suppose my conclusion is this: Existence is Alive. Non-Existence is Not Alive. Respect Being Alive.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on April 18, 2015, 12:02:21 am
...

...

Are you currently stoned? That kind of reads like something someone stoned would say.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: inteuniso on April 18, 2015, 12:52:01 am
Sober but have previously ingested all drug families.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 18, 2015, 12:57:10 am
I'm not sure I'm all on board with everything up there, but the notion that the foundational assumptions of government are hideously outdated is spot on. I trace it back to Westphalia as the last time we had a bout of philosophical updating, but eh. Details. That war was a perfectly ordinary state of being was one of those assumptions back then, too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 18, 2015, 01:06:09 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 18, 2015, 06:24:01 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/18/mike-huckabee-military-obama_n_7092448.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Excuse you Mr. Huckabee, but did you just take a direct action against the United States Armed Forces Recruitment Initiative? Wow, we have  stoploss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy) in effect where we won't LET people leave the military due to overstretched resources even when their contract is up and they should be allowed to leave.... This statement, if listened to, directly and demonstrably harms active duty deployed US armed forces soldiers and sailors the world over.... What happened to all that talk about "national security?" What about all that danger that "justified" taking away several civilian civil rights?

All of this stuff about "Support our Troops," doesn't seem to amount to much unless it is politically convenient at the time. It's just astonishing the politicization here. Just like when they shut down the government and endangered service personnel's pay just for political BS while claiming the support the troops, this is yet another harmful power grab filled with flag waiving to cover up the harm.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 20, 2015, 02:11:03 pm
https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/school-censors-girls-shirt-for-yearbook-photo-116918108702.html

"The student said that the administrator declared, ‘It was mine and the photographer’s decision to photoshop your shirt because some people might find it offensive.’”

The word censored and digitally removed from the shirt?

"Feminist"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: aenri on April 20, 2015, 02:24:16 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 20, 2015, 02:11:03 pm
https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/school-censors-girls-shirt-for-yearbook-photo-116918108702.html

"The student said that the administrator declared, ‘It was mine and the photographer’s decision to photoshop your shirt because some people might find it offensive.’”

The word censored and digitally removed from the shirt?

"Feminist"

School should be apolitical. People who are in uproar about this are fuckin' hypocrites, they would be the first to demand it removed if the shirt said ku klux klan.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 20, 2015, 02:45:48 pm
... are you really putting the various feminist movements on par with a hate group that has a history of literally killing people? Yes, people are going to have a different reaction to ideologies that promote civil rights vs. ones that promote terror and murder. Hypocrisy, that is not.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on April 20, 2015, 04:33:19 pm
I wonder if they would have shopped out short skirt years ago...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 20, 2015, 04:43:59 pm
I'd actually be vaguely pissed if a Klan slogan got shopped off a student's shirt, too. Granted, I'd be less likely to hear about it, no doubt. But it's the kid's mode of expression, not the middle school's. Whether schools ought to be political or not is a red herring of the most dishonest kind.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on April 20, 2015, 05:00:56 pm
Actually schools are well within their rights to do something like that. By registering at a given school you automatically place yourself under the confines of their dress code while on campus or at school sponsored events. Most school dress codes include some very broadly written rules and almost always include some version of this as the first one:
Quote
The school administration may determine that certain types of student clothing and grooming are prohibited
which:
Draws undue attention, distracts, disrupts, and/or interferes with the educational environment at school or at a
school activity or event.
While blotting out something like "feminism" would (in my opinion at least) be a rather large overreach of what the spirit of the rule is intended to do, it's not actually beyond their rights as the school.

Klan slogans, on the other hand, are hit hard by this other common school rule, specifically part b in the example below.
Quote
Clothing and personal items, such as jewelry, backpacks, fanny packs, gym bags, water bottles, etc., shall be
free of writing, pictures, or any other insignias, which: (a) are crude, vulgar, or profane; (b) are violent or advocate
hate; (c) signify gang affiliation; (d) concerns or represents tobacco, alcohol, drugs, or illegal substances; (e)
concerns or represents criminal or illegal activities; (f) infringes upon the rights of others; or (g) are sexually
suggestive.
While yes, it may be a students personal decision at what they get to wear to express themselves; the US as a whole has decided that when you are on school related grounds or activities the right of everyone to have a safe place that is also conducive to learning outweighs your personal right to express yourself in ways that threaten that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 20, 2015, 05:08:08 pm
That's a fair point, I suppose. I hadn't really considered the consequences of the argument; didn't occur to me that it falls under the same category as "the concept of dress codes", for some reason.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vector on April 20, 2015, 09:08:20 pm
Quote from: Moghjubar on April 20, 2015, 04:33:19 pm
I wonder if they would have shopped out short skirt years ago...

They still shop out low necklines (regardless of whether cleavage is actually visible) and short sleeves.


Quote from: i2amroy on April 20, 2015, 05:00:56 pm
While yes, it may be a students personal decision at what they get to wear to express themselves; the US as a whole has decided that when you are on school related grounds or activities the right of everyone to have a safe place that is also conducive to learning outweighs your personal right to express yourself in ways that threaten that.

Unfortunately, schools frequently still decide that Black girls' natural hair constitutes an "educational distraction."


EDIT: Honestly, this (http://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/mcguffey-high-anti-gay-day?bffb&utm_term=4ldqpgp#.cxnAE1WVw) kind of thing still really hurts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 20, 2015, 09:29:49 pm
Yeah... There's a lot of abuse of what counts an "educational distraction". It's a bit more complicated than I made it out to be replying to aenri, but I'm still not okay with this nonsense. If the administration can make the case that feminism is as threatening as the Klan, then maybe. That'd have to be a hell of an argument. But otherwise it's no different from "national security" as one of those vague threats to which autonomy must be ceded.

As for that thing that still really hurts... Some pretty huge dickwaffles. If they'd just thought an appropriate response was to write on their hands and wear flannel, I suppose I'd have to defend their right to do that, not that I think you're really arguing that they shouldn't have it, (while still calling them dickwaffles for it, because that would still be accurate), but apparently they thought it was appropriate to escalate to targeted bullying in response to expression. Which, of course, just says to me that they're looking for an excuse to get offended and feel validated by taking it out on other people.

Dicks.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 20, 2015, 11:00:27 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/20/michele-bachmann-obama-rapture_n_7104136.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

I think this all sadly ties together. If I'm not mistaken, Ms. Bachmann is calling Mr. Obama the Antichrist or at least saying he's ushering in the end times, due in part to gay marriage.  Wasn't she a congresswoman until January of this year?  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann)

Wow. Just wow. The sheer amount of ... I don't even know what to call it ... hatred? It is incredible. I mean, you're saying your opponents are purposefully ushering in the end of the world and calling forth divine wrath just for having a different view? I'm sorry, but this is a good example of the prejudice I've been against forever. I've gotten upset before, a couple times, and I like to think I've matured since then, but really...? She's saying it's perfectly ok to pretty much literally demonize gays (bringing about the rapture/summoning demons and the end times). Is she just oblivious to the real harm she's doing here and the actual people whose lives she's effecting?

I don't want to call anybody any names, because that just gets done too often, but wow. This is the kind of thing that used to get me really sad and defensive, the notion that just because I'm gay or whatever, I'm destroying the world and offending ... I guess literally everything? I have no idea how to reason with or against this type of thing and that's sad. A part of me used to reflexively think hateful thoughts back at people like this out of pain, but I'm trying not to do that. It's hard.

Edit: @Vector: Yeah, I saw that article and it really quite made me sad. People seem to forget that there is a significant portion of this country that really, truly does not like gays one bit. Yes, it's diminishing, but they are out there, and it seems they are quite angry. That's one of the many reasons why it is so hard to try and negotiate/reason out something without using laws essentially fighting their beliefs (as opposed to trying to be inclusive).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on April 20, 2015, 11:13:28 pm
Quote from: aenri link=topic=103213.msg6177371#msg6177371

School should be apolitical. People who are in uproar about this are fuckin' hypocrites, they would be the first to demand it removed if the shirt said ku klux klan.
I know right? We really need to get this idea that women can be anywhere other than the kitchen out of our schools so it can be a neutral environment for learning! But no seriously, that's what you're saying here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 20, 2015, 11:25:35 pm
Eeeeeeee, just to be clear, I am not saying that or anything else against women or anybody. Jesus, that's another reason I don't like being quoted. I was merely pointing out what the school did/pointing out the article to discuss it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on April 20, 2015, 11:29:27 pm
I think it's silly to expect schools to be progressive when they're the bastion of indoctrination, conservatism, and backwaterism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 21, 2015, 12:28:20 am
FYI, Truean, I think alway was responding to aenri, not you.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 21, 2015, 12:32:14 am
Students should be encouraged to be political, it's good for society.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on April 21, 2015, 01:51:16 am
Truean, out of curiosity, why do you hate being quoted so much?

Also, why is flannel supposed to be anti-gay? To me, it evokes Brokeback Mountain more than anything else.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 21, 2015, 02:49:03 am
The scariest part of Michele Bachmann is the idea of someone who believes that Rapture is nigh, was running for President of the United States and could have had their finger on the nuclear launch button.

There's also a very odd form of American Exceptionalism at work in Michele Bachmann's view that because of America being unfaithful, God will bring down the Rapture and destroy the whole world. You'd at least think God would spare Russia if it's gay rights making God angry ...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on April 21, 2015, 03:09:37 am
Quote from: Sheb on April 21, 2015, 01:51:16 am
Truean, out of curiosity, why do you hate being quoted so much?
Basically lawyer + occasionally cleans up things so that they can't be pulled out of context to be used against her by vengeful people. She can always go back and edit her own posts to remove anything that might be used that way, but can't edit quotes of her from other people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on April 21, 2015, 03:47:27 am
The issue though, is where is the line drawn at what is 'acceptable' and what is not?

Quote from: UXLZ on April 21, 2015, 03:47:27 am
"This?"

Quote from: Myself
This?

"This?"

"Uxie asked what sort of quote was acceptable." < - Or something like that?


The issue I see is that all forms of referencing what someone else has said, in effect, is essentially the same as quoting them. Quoting is just more precise because it is direct rather than an indication.

Interesting to note is that it is essentially useless for preventing vengeful people from finding a bad thing to quote if they truly wish to, due to the existence of archival sites (admittedly most people wouldn't bother.)

Quote from: i2amroy on April 21, 2015, 03:09:37 am
It's probably also worth taking into account the fact that quotes can be easily fabricated from scratch. I can link to an edited post of yours and make it seem like you've said anything at all (if people assume the quote was before the edit took place). I mean, in this case it's obviously me, UXLZ, and not i2amroy speaking... But if I wrote in a way that was similar enough to his tone... Who would ever know? Of course, you can compare the date of the post containing the quote to the time of edit, but even then it can be claimed that the quote was saved somewhere for later, or the person wrote the post but didn't get around to posting it until later, and so on. Maybe there's some kind of legal thing I'm unaware of, but from a normal perspective it seems pointless.


If it's personal preference that's fine, I'm just curious as to the exact logic and reasons why. Would you be able to explain it to me Truean (bold to be more noticeable not for emphasis), either here or in a PM if that's fine with you?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on April 21, 2015, 04:38:17 am
Quote from: UXLZ on April 21, 2015, 03:47:27 am

This seem to have become the standard practice when responding to Truean's posts. Otherwise just use a @Truean at the start of the response so they can see who it is directed to.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on April 21, 2015, 04:49:10 am
I see, thank you. I'll remember that for if responding to them in the future. Though really, the main thing I'm curious about is the logic and reason behind hating being quoted so much. Something I've asked Truean to talk to me about in PM should they be willing to oblige. Apologies for the derail.


There seems to have been a lot of corruption recently in Australian universities with regards to students recruited over seas (particularly from China). Anything like that going on anywhere else in the world?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 21, 2015, 08:14:39 am
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on April 21, 2015, 06:54:01 pm
@penguinofhonour

Quote from: UXLZ on April 21, 2015, 03:47:27 am
And I said that doesn't make sense because quotes can easily be fabricated. All you need is an edit marker. Anyone particularly vengeful isn't going to be too honorable to not do that, if they can't find something bad they'll make it. There's got to be reasons beyond that, maybe some specific legal thing I don' have knowledge of.


Anyway, offtracking aside, what are the current progressive events that I've probably missed?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 22, 2015, 08:25:33 am
*Once again with the please no quoting thing*

Yeah, here's the thing,  I've explained the no quoting request before multiple times. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=149285.msg6100650#msg6100650) It did not end well, and I got my email inbox swarmed with hate mail and people purposefully targeting me, among other things.

A.) I'm transgender in a fairly conservative area of the country. Getting outted means discrimination, and  very possibly violence and maybe death (http://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/transgender-women-in-ohio-are-at-the-heart-of-a-national-cri#.lmzyodNwO).  Or there's that and disownment along with the murder as a thing that might happen. (http://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/gender-nonconforming-person-fatally-stabbed-in-ohio#.kv6Q6xgkA) Transgender people tend to get beaten up or dead here, a lot, sadly.

B.) I've been blackballed from working for about two years by a [redacted] who just got convictions for [redacted], because I wouldn't do illegal things like give 10% of all my income.... If I did what they wanted, it would've basically been buying [redacted] and I'd be in prison, etc. It ruined my life. Imagine your boss is super powerful, now imagine he says you'll never work anywhere ever again unless you give him kickbacks.... Yeah. They don't like it when you turn them in and actively work against you for it. No, I don't wanna talk about it more until he's sentenced and his appeal time limit is done.

C.) The job thing is a concern but nowhere near as big of one as the two previous points. That said, I wish I would've never said anything here (I was trying to talk somebody out of making a serious mistake at the time and hurting themselves and others), because it seems to invite everybody who is pissed off to demand I defend whatever policy or law they don't like. Oddly, sometimes I don't like [insert thing here] either, but they don't wanna listen, and I've actually tried to get certain laws changed that weren't fair and paid a very heavy and expensive price for not being corrupt/turning in others who were.

D.) As I've said, it's sad that people are just comfortable posting anything and everything, because it's real that it can be used against you. There are people who do nothing but that and they are banking on you becoming ok with and feeling natural about posting everything and anything online. There is a movement starting for lawyers to vigorously search opposing parties' social and online media for any possible clue to anything, and it's quite scary and increasingly well funded. Do you really want that one thing you posted when you were 16 on some forgotten site to be taken out of context and held over your head forever? Think about all those posters on all those comment threads saying curse words and sometimes unprintable things, gold mine for people looking to hold it over you for no good reason.

This isn't me being "bossy" (I have no idea why I got called that among other unprintable names). This isn't me telling people what to do or being paranoid. I was just trying to inform people of something that would benefit them. I didn't cause it and I don't approve of it. My god, the last time I did it I almost had to leave and never come back because of the sheer amount of hate (e)mail I got. Shooting the messenger doesn't help and I feel I've still got several arrows in my back....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 22, 2015, 08:39:55 am
Preventing other people from quoting you doesn't stop any of those things from happening though.  Those are all reasonable arguments for being careful about what you post online, but I don't appreciate the condescending tone when the solution you're suggesting simply does not work.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on April 22, 2015, 08:53:40 am
I don't think we're arguing, me and UXLZ were just curious about the motive, since Truean is, AFAIK, the only person on these forums that ask no to be quoted. A simple link to that other post would have satisfied me.

Although now I'm wondering, you got hate mails for that request here on Bay12, or was it somewhere else? Because I expected much better from this community.  :-\
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 22, 2015, 08:58:32 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 22, 2015, 08:39:55 am

Yeah, this ^^^ This right here is the beginning of why I don't explain myself anymore. Don't blame me. I'm not gonna debate whether it works or not when I have attended classes about this very subject recommending what I'm asking for about not being quoted. I'm not gonna apologize for trying to inform people with the express purpose of helping them for free or not kissing their butts.

I don't want my inbox flooded with hate mail again.

Drop it. For the love of God. It isn't about you. It was never about you. Don't take it personally. WTF are you doing?

I'm no longer going to ever "explain" myself again on this, because it never ends well. It isn't about anybody or anybody's feelings, or whatever. Leave me alone.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TempAcc on April 22, 2015, 09:03:10 am
Quote from: Sheb on April 22, 2015, 08:53:40 am
I don't think we're arguing, me and UXLZ were just curious about the motive, since Truean is, AFAIK, the only person on these forums that ask no to be quoted. A simple link to that other post would have satisfied me.

Although now I'm wondering, you got hate mails for that request here on Bay12, or was it somewhere else? Because I expected much better from this community.  :-\
This^ I'm also curious about this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 22, 2015, 09:05:01 am
No idea, I got a lot of hate mail.... I don't know and I don't care who or how or whatever.

Somebody wants me to say "You win" out there to keep this shit from happening again? Cool

You win.

Happy? I don't care. Post whatever the hell you want. I just don't want quoted. I just tried to help people, for free. Aren't I just a little shit? How silly of me. Just do whatever you want when you post shit everywhere. I don't care. I don't need this shit. Hate mail = not good. I don't want it. I tell the world, "Hey, this could literally ruin my life or perhaps even end it by violence against me." The world doesn't care, because it's ego is hurt from no fault of mine.... You might die? O well, you aren't kissing my butt, so meh.

P.S. This kinda shit happens all the time when I tell people they can't do something because it's illegal. I'm just trying to warn them and that's it. I'm not "bossing them around" or "condescending," or whatever. Once again, I'm just the damn messenger. DO NOT SHOOT. I'm not responsible for any of this stuff. I didn't do it; I didn't make it; I can't change it. Don't blow up at me. It won't do any good. There's nothing I can do. You're barking up the wrong tree and just blowing up because you're pissed. You don't like something? What do you think yelling at me will change about that? ... Nothing. I can't change it....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on April 22, 2015, 09:13:53 am
Truean, I'm sorry if you feel like I'm pestering you or something, it was certainly not my goal. I'll of course respect whatever you ask, I was just curious, because I had not seen your previous explanations. And I'm equal part sorry and surprised you had to go through shit for what is after all a simple and reasonable request, if a rather rare one on these forums.


Please don't be mad at me. :/
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 22, 2015, 09:47:31 am
Not mad at you Sheb. I don't think you sent any of those or caused them to be sent.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 22, 2015, 12:20:18 pm
I'm responding because I think the advice you're giving to other people about staying safe online is unhelpful - if someone does discover your online name then they can easily save a copy of what you've posted.

I don't think it's fair to try and seize the last word like you did in #10091 (especially if you're going to continue to make posts on the subject), and I also think you're trying to intimidate me with this display of (largely unrelated) outrage.  I don't know if this is intentional, but it's creating a tense atmosphere in this thread and it's not surprising that it spills over sometimes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 22, 2015, 12:46:55 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on April 22, 2015, 12:20:18 pm
I'm responding because I think the advice you're giving to other people about staying safe online is unhelpful - if someone does discover your online name then they can easily save a copy of what you've posted.

I don't think it's fair to try and seize the last word like you did in #10091 (especially if you're going to continue to make posts on the subject), and I also think you're trying to intimidate me with this display of (largely unrelated) outrage.  I don't know if this is intentional, but it's creating a tense atmosphere in this thread and it's not surprising that it spills over sometimes.
You are not obligated to take heed of anyone's advice, but it's usually considered good manners to oblige a simple request without demanding an explanation. If someone politely asks you to move over in a bus, do you start interrogating them about the underlying rationale of their plea?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 22, 2015, 12:51:23 pm
Quote from: Truean on April 22, 2015, 09:05:01 am

This has been me giving up. This is me flat out saying to the rest of the world, "You win," and practically begging for this not to happen again. 

Leafsnail is right and Truean is wrong. <--- is that what you want? Please take it. I don't care. Just leave me alone.

What else could anybody possibly want? I'm flat out surrendering and this is being called intimidation?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 22, 2015, 01:01:30 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Stuebi on April 23, 2015, 04:49:11 am
On the shirt thing a few pages back. I personally think as long as the rules are clear beforehand, stuff like that CAN be okay.

But they shouldnt half-ass it. Either take everything political out, or nothing at all.

On my yearbook photo before I finished school, they blurred my sweater because it had an Iron maiden Cover on the front. At first I didnt mind, but after seeing other photos, also with bands, Rappers and the like unblurred, I complained to the Direx.

It may seem nitpicky, or overly dramatic, but I think schools in particular should try to treat everyone the same.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 23, 2015, 04:52:54 am
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/22/pregnant-popeys-manager-fired-after-robbery_n_7120690.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Somebody robbed the store at gunpoint, and got away with $400.

The company demanded the shift manager pay the $400 the robber got away with, again, on camera, at gunpoint....

The company blamed her for having more than $50 in register, as a bullshit excuse, about violating policy.

It gets busy, and you can't just constantly empty the register. Companies WANT money going to their cash registers.

Think of a busy day and orders averaging $10 (or more) an order. She could easily have $400 in the register. It starts out with $50 already. Then to make $350 in sales, that's just 35 customers and lunchtime rush may very well have waaaay more than 35 people in line, who do not want to be told to wait while the cash is put in the safe. Also in the real world, places like this are often understaffed and can't get everything done on time anyhow. They pay minimum wage and expect miracles, while essentially blaming their employees for being robbed at gunpoint.

Yup, looks like they'll fire you for anything, and your life isn't worth $400....

__________________________________________________

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/22/steve-king-supreme-court-marriage_n_7120558.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Wow, and the bigots march on.... Totally unconstitutional and would never pass. Jesus, this would be the end of pretty much everything if it DID pass. Congress, bought and paid for by lobbying, could just go to any issue and say courts couldn't review it. Wouldn't matter how right or wrong it was either. If this guy is right, then he and other congressional reps could just say that courts couldn't consider anything their donors didn't like: environmental regs, torts (car accidents, etc), insurance claims, anything. It would gut what's left of the already gutted court system. The underfunded courts are about the only thing even trying to keep the corruption in check by eventually throwing some of it in jail. Take that away and we've got nothing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on April 23, 2015, 04:57:48 am
The unfortunate repercussions of capitalism. It is seemingly a system that while initially beneficial inevitably spirals further and further into disease and corruption.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 23, 2015, 06:40:44 am
Quote from: Truean on April 23, 2015, 04:52:54 am
Yup, looks like they'll fire you for anything, and your life isn't worth $400....

The ironic part is that now any robber at a Popeye will know to demand you open the safe when asked: "I know you can open it bitch! I read the stories!" Otherwise it wouldn't be possible to keep the register down to the required $50. Assuming she did in fact have direct access to the safe to fulfill her job requirement of keeping the register empty, she must have lied to the robber, at risk of her own life. How much more was in that safe, going by company policy?

So, in this case you can risk your own life to save the company some money, but it's still not enough. If the robber gets away with one cent, then you're expected to pay back whatever was in the register if it exceeds $50, which you should have clearly put in the safe, yet you're also expected to risk your life lying to armed robbers and not open the actual safe when asked. It really is a case where they don't give a fuck how well you did or what risks you took, you're still a nameless pawn to be exploited.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on April 23, 2015, 06:48:17 am
I'd like to read a list of bills that are hilariously unconstitutional and would never be passed in congress, but were seemingly proposed just to make a point.

I've literally heard every argument in the book, and there's literally no reason for gay marriage not to be legalized. It's gotten to the point where some people are arguing that gay people can't marry because marraiges are how the state keeps track of children for tax purposes, which is hilariously retarded and so full of holes I can pair it with a nice wine.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on April 23, 2015, 06:52:17 am
Quote from: Reelya on April 23, 2015, 06:40:44 am
Quote from: Truean on April 23, 2015, 04:52:54 am
Yup, looks like they'll fire you for anything, and your life isn't worth $400....

The ironic part is that now any robber at a Popeye will know to demand you open the safe when asked: "I know you can open it bitch! I read the stories!" Otherwise it wouldn't be possible to keep the register down to the required $50. Assuming she did in fact have direct access to the safe to fulfill her job requirement of keeping the register empty, she must have lied to the robber, at risk of her own life. How much more was in that safe, going by company policy?

So, in this case you can risk your own life to save the company some money, but it's still not enough. If the robber gets away with one cent, then you're expected to pay back whatever was in the register if it exceeds $50, which you should have clearly put in the safe, yet you're also expected to risk your life lying to armed robbers and not open the actual safe when asked. It really is a case where they don't give a fuck how well you did or what risks you took, you're still a nameless pawn to be exploited.
You know, it's perfectly possible to have a safe-like box with a chute on top. It's not like those people are stupid, and it's not like they want to keep their earnings unsafe.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on April 23, 2015, 07:26:49 am
Quote from: ggamer on April 23, 2015, 06:48:17 am
so full of holes I can pair it with a nice wine.

/me makes mental note of quip to use later
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 23, 2015, 10:38:47 am
Every time Steve King says or does anything, it makes me a little more ashamed to live in his district.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 23, 2015, 02:40:39 pm
https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/gm-ford-others-want-working-own-car-illegal-160000229.html

"According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, John Deere argued that “letting people modify car computer systems will result in them pirating music through the on-board entertainment system.”

That’s right— pirating music. Through a tractor."

They don't want you to be legally able to work on your own car, no really. "Only the computerized parts" doesn't limit anything. They'll just make all the parts computerized somehow and then you won't be able to do anything on your own car. Rather, they want to force you to use their dealership techs charging $90 an hour or more.....

I especially love this particular line of BS:
"What GM, and even tractor companies like John Deere, argues is that you, as an owner, don’t actually own your car. Rather, you’re sort of just borrowing it for an extended amount of time and paying for the rights to use the technology. If it sounds ridiculous— it is. But it gets even more ludicrous."

We're all just peasants and we don't own ANYTHING. Car title in your name? Paying for all the repairs and upkeep? Shouldering all the risk of loss? They don't care. They want you to pay for everything and them to make all the decisions. Wow. We really need to do something about this junk, because otherwise they're just gonna take more and more, because you don't even own your own car that you out right purchased...?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on April 23, 2015, 02:42:53 pm
Would they actually be able to enforce it though? The piracy justification doesn't seem very sound, since you could pirate music with any computer you can install software to.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TempAcc on April 23, 2015, 02:48:35 pm
So basically Apple, except with cars. :v
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 23, 2015, 03:00:29 pm
It's all crazy but you'd be surprised what money will let people get away with.

Nobody's united as a population anymore and if you suggest that then they blow you off as either a crook, a crackpot, or a curmudgeon. No unions, no communities, no nothing. Meanwhile, these corporations are enormous and well funded and organized. Gee, I wonder why they're winning.

Nobody wants to fund any sort of fight against these corporations and if you suggest that you get everything from, "we shouldn't HAVE to pay for that. It should just be done," (get real), "You want MONEY for doing that?" (Yes, it'd be a hard job), to "You'd just become as corrupt as them or wouldn't be able to do anything," (love the vote of confidence in spite of track record, but ok...).

Best part, they're going to own everything eventually and you'll own nothing, living off their charaity that you should worship them for being so nice as to give you. They're going to slip it into impossibly long contracts they know nobody will read or be able to, and if you try to read it, they'll refuse to so much as look at you.

They'll put  computers (http://www.smarthome.com/)  in your home  (http://www.control4.com/i/home-automation?utm_source=Yahoo%2FBing%20PPC&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=smart%20home&utm_campaign=Control4_Prices) and say you can't modify any of that. Then your insurance company will either mandate you have this shit or jack up the price of your policy a ton if you don't. You won't own anything.

You don't own the software on your computer. It's all a license to use now, and it didn't used to be that way. Examples abound, and it's all bullshit, but you'd be surprised what organization and actual money will do. Shame we won't have any of either before long, but corporations will....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on April 23, 2015, 03:29:10 pm
Did anyone ever say they're not monopolies? I've heard them referred to as such a lot of the time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on April 23, 2015, 03:34:55 pm
I guess politicians and lawyers just aren't as up for a rousing game of "Bust the Trust" as they used to be. I don't blame them either, it would be a daunting task to say the least.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on April 23, 2015, 05:26:49 pm
Large civilizations inevitably tend towards ruin. This time, instead of the Romans or French or English, it will be all but a few. It seems we still haven't found the correct path, hopefully this time it will still be possible to recover from.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on April 23, 2015, 05:37:20 pm
thats so tru man
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on April 23, 2015, 06:26:09 pm
I feel like it will be significantly harder this time around, however.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Redzephyr01 on April 23, 2015, 06:43:10 pm
WOOPS WRONG THREAD
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 23, 2015, 06:52:35 pm
Hasn't the nature of ownership always been transient, though?  If you have debt or would fall into debt without an income, then you only "own" anything as long as you continue making profit for someone richer than you, exacerbating the circumstances that put you in this position in the first place (wealth consolidation).  As soon as you don't it can all be taken away.  That's not ownership any more than renting is ownership.  The only people who have ever truly owned anything are royalty and the independently wealthy.  This is why I think the concept of property is totally bunk, and all ownership should be based rather on the concept of possession.

Intellectual property is fucking horrendously awful stuff.  Extremely predatory in nature.  But it hasn't really changed the nature of the game.  Just made it more aggressive.

Quote from: UXLZ on April 23, 2015, 06:26:09 pm
I feel like it will be significantly harder this time around, however.

If we wait too long, it won't be possible.  The stakes have never included environmental destruction on a global scale before, and if we don't beat that boss within the time limit, then civilization will have used up its last extra life.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on April 23, 2015, 07:03:59 pm
The concept of IP I believe is sound and reasonable, it's just that it is repeatedly abused via such things as Patent Trolls, Apple (thankfully failing) to make the letter 'i' theirs, and Cadbury trademarking a fucking color.

Human nature prefers corruption. The stakes are high, but the ones with the power to beat that boss will fail to do so because it may cost them 1/10000th of their power, and those with the will to try shall not succeed because they lack what is necessary.

At least, that's the pessimistic interpretation. It is quite likely that we are nearing the Despair Event Horizon, however.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: andrea on April 23, 2015, 07:25:02 pm
don't forget the ever extending copyright limit. Mickey mouse will never be public domain.

Personally I don't really mind intellectual property itself, but I feel it has gone overboard. You own your novel for , say, 5 years? maybe renewable once? it gives you time to get it printed, distributed, known and sold, allowing you to profit from your idea.

But 70, 100 years or whatever we have now? it is clear that it has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the author or encouraging creative activities. In fact, if a single work can feed you and your family for generations, it removes any economical incentive for further works.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on April 23, 2015, 07:26:22 pm
Yeah, the length of copyright we have now is absurd.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on April 23, 2015, 07:29:14 pm
That's one of the reason's why (Here we go again!) I'm working on Agora - so that I can bring these issues to more people's attention, and allow lots & lots of us to conference, and hopefully figure out a solution. I know it sounds crazy, but do any of you have any better ideas? If not, THEN YOU MIGHT AS WELL TRY AND HELP ME!

Because I don't think I can manage it on my own. With a bit of help, we might be able to.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on April 23, 2015, 07:39:20 pm
What the hell is Agora? Was it that strange message board design of yours? (Or was tat someone else?)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 23, 2015, 07:41:55 pm
Intellectual property would be alright... I still wouldn't like it, but it would be palatable... if it were somehow possible to separate it from employment.  Because as it is, its primary use is for employers to take exclusive credit for and ownership of their employee's work.  The concept of securing some reward for good intellectual work is a sound one... but in reality, it more often results in the very opposite effect.  The only way to prevent this is to make it impossible to sell rights by contract.  As in a person's intellectual work belongs exclusively to that person and can't be transferred.  But that severely undermines the utility of the idea.  I think we're better off doing away with it entirely.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on April 23, 2015, 07:44:08 pm
Yeah, that's it. Sorry, it's been giving me trouble lately and I'm stressed out over it.

Anyway, the Idea here is that it's a fancy forum that will allow LOTS & LOTS of people to talk about a single subject, without the subject collapsing under it's own weight. Thus, you can spread information between them much faster, and you can harness a great deal more knowledge and processing power, and thus you can get answers to your questions much faster.

For example, Intellectual Property. You could start a discussion with "How should Intellectual Property work?", and then people can reply with their own various ideas, and those ideas can be voted upon, and replied to, and the best ones should rise to the top. Thus, you'll get lots of answers, along with a detailed break down of the pros and cons of each answer, and you'll communicate the answers to everyone who bothers to read the thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on April 23, 2015, 09:00:52 pm
@SalmonGod: Unfortunately, pretty much everything exists for people to be taken advantage of by corporations in a capitalist world. It's just the way things have developed. As I said earlier, originally capitalism is beneficial but without extremely stringent regulations (which we either don't have or are circumvented) it inevitably decays and erodes. ShadowRun is a very good example of what we could possibly become.

@Angle: What sort of help were you looking for?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on April 23, 2015, 09:04:24 pm
Well, ideally somebody who's familiar with Javascipt who can help me figure out why it's not working. After that, just about anything. Help designing the purely static pages on the website, help figuring out whether I should go about trying to hire programmers, or if I should try and solicit open source help, or if there's some other tactic I should adopt...

Should I try and run a kickstarter? Could you help me run a kickstarter? etc, etc, etc...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 23, 2015, 09:33:10 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on April 23, 2015, 09:00:52 pm
@SalmonGod: Unfortunately, pretty much everything exists for people to be taken advantage of by corporations in a capitalist world. It's just the way things have developed. As I said earlier, originally capitalism is beneficial but without extremely stringent regulations (which we either don't have or are circumvented) it inevitably decays and erodes. ShadowRun is a very good example of what we could possibly become.

You're preaching to the choir here :P

But intellectual property is capitalist in nature.  Outside of capitalism, it's a useless idea.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on April 23, 2015, 09:35:54 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 23, 2015, 09:33:10 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on April 23, 2015, 09:00:52 pm
@SalmonGod: Unfortunately, pretty much everything exists for people to be taken advantage of by corporations in a capitalist world. It's just the way things have developed. As I said earlier, originally capitalism is beneficial but without extremely stringent regulations (which we either don't have or are circumvented) it inevitably decays and erodes. ShadowRun is a very good example of what we could possibly become.

You're preaching to the choir here :P

But intellectual property is capitalist in nature.  Outside of capitalism, it's a useless idea.

Ah, yes, I agree too. So does anyone have any alternative ideas? For myself, I'd like some kind of distributed system, with lots of little organizations that compete and cooperate, and where no organization is allowed to gain too much power. You would need a fairly strict set of rules, and you would need people to put in the time & effort to enforce them but I think it could work quite well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on April 23, 2015, 09:41:54 pm
There are advantages and disadvantages to all systems, unfortunately. Capitalism is one that is guaranteed to decay, in exchange for stimulating initial growth. At least, that's the way it appears to me.

About IP... I guess. It's something that I consider understandable because it stops people from stealing other's work (similarly to plagiarism laws.)
It's just been abused.

I'll try and make a larger post later, but since I'm at school I don't really have the time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 23, 2015, 09:52:21 pm
I'd rather see market systems segregated by applicability. Capitalism is fucking fantastic for the luxuries market, and it'd be that way too for the arts if people had enough basic income that they'd be able to survive even if their work flops, for example. I doubt that there's an economic model that equally suits, say, industrial agriculture, software engineering, artisan craftsmaking, and housing.

For the short term, that means doing things like breaking up monopolies so that we can get the benefits capitalism offers in theory, and dumping public funds into those areas that are critical to our survival as a species, such as geoengineering and space travel.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on April 23, 2015, 09:53:31 pm
Alright, that sounds pretty good. Do you have any suggestions on candidates we might be able to influence? Are there any existing campaigns for such we could join up with? etc, etc?

Of course, while we're at it, there are a lot of other pressing concerns. Like Global warming, our increasingly militarized surveillance state, the twelve billion other environmental concerns, etc, etc. Are there any of those we should worry about?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 23, 2015, 09:56:22 pm
Sure there are. Good thing people can multitask.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on April 23, 2015, 10:09:22 pm
let's just elect another teddy roosevelt, IIRC he would just go around busting trusts and bedding the hot wives of fat corporate cats

so basically Wacka Flocka Flame 2016
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on April 23, 2015, 10:28:35 pm
Quote from: Ispil on April 23, 2015, 10:00:48 pm
If it wasn't for the fact that no one cares about the opinions of someone who can't vote, I'd be shooting emails to this guy left and right.

You know you don't have to tell them that, right? Just send them an email saying "I think that <Whatever>".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 23, 2015, 11:12:19 pm
Sometimes monopolies make sense.  Sometimes it isn't practical for a whole bunch of smaller groups to compete at providing a solution to a problem.  Like I don't understand why Google needs competitors.  I think it's great that they have such a large amount of resources at their disposal to put towards solving really complex problems with infrastructure that a smaller company wouldn't be able to assemble, and that they are able to provide such a wide variety of services and products that integrate in powerful ways.  They wouldn't be able to do these things if they were a smaller company competing against a lot of other smaller companies.  Nobody would.  I also don't see why we need a bunch of cable/phone/internet providers competing against each other, each providing a lesser service than what would be possible if they could all combine their infrastructures   The problem isn't always monopolies.  Sometimes it's just the way capitalism encourages monopolies to behave.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 24, 2015, 12:40:29 am
http://news.yahoo.com/popeyes-backtracks-firing-pregnant-manager-robbed-gunpoint-231236175.html

Damn straight.

Unconfirmed reports (difficulty authenticating documents is to be expected) stating sales have plummeted amid boycotts have come in. We are upset and tired of our lives being valued so little as $400. We are sick and tired of actual people having to work themselves to death for absolutely no company loyalty or appreciation to the point where they expect you to die in an armed robbery to protect every penny for the company and be damned grateful about it.

Moreover, this had to have been motivated by stupid completely irrational things, because money could not or at least should not have been a part of it. Why? Simple, the bad press from this alone has to have cost them far more than a mere $400, never mind the boycotts. They could have known that, but chose not to. This was an absolutely bone headed move on the part of the company contrary to the idea that they would act in their own self interest. Frankly, this is yet another end result to the "why should we pay for _____?" insanity that is all too prevalent today. Honestly, it's true on many levels. First, the $400 itself should've been written off. Second, a policy manager or lawyer or somebody should have looked over this train wreck of a company policy and realized it was insane and that person should have been supported. Instead, the "we're in charge and invincible" attitude clearly took hold. Third, the company could have bought insurance for this, but didn't seem to have done so. Fourth, I've seen people get fired for trying to stop a robbery at the story they were working for, but this lady doesn't do that and still gets fired? It's just a problem all around.

People are sick of the idea that there is literally NO limit on what you can be told to do. Sadly, they still won't do jack about it most of the time, but at least here something happened about it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 24, 2015, 12:56:11 am
... I like how they're apparently offering just back pay as a peace offering. Not, y'know, any sort of monetary recompense for the stress or treatment or whatev'. Just money they would have paid th'person anyway, had they not fired 'em. You can't pay for absurdity like that. That's quite possibly the least effort above absolute nil I've ever seen put towards soothing feathers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on April 24, 2015, 01:00:59 am
...Wait, isn't that illegal? Firing somebody and not paying them for time that they worked?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 24, 2015, 01:05:36 am
Presumably it's how much they would have paid the person if they had been working, during the period between when the business fired 'em and now. Not actually money the company had previously owed. Hopefully.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on April 24, 2015, 01:47:31 am
Even tossing out any human decency and thousands of years of philosophy, that doesn't even make sense from a soulless, manipulative corporation hell-bent on nothing above profits. All else aside, this sort of behavior would almost certainly put their liability insurance costs through the roof. Not content with just heinously immoral, it's downright stupid to boot.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on April 24, 2015, 02:03:02 am
That's one of the things that often pisses me off about companies like this the most. Not only do they do terrible things focusing on profit above all else, they do it WRONG!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on April 24, 2015, 02:09:33 am
Quote from: UXLZ on April 24, 2015, 02:03:02 am
That's one of the things that often pisses me off about companies like this the most. Not only do they do terrible things focusing on profit above all else, they do it WRONG!

QFT
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on April 24, 2015, 04:35:22 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 23, 2015, 11:12:19 pm
The problem isn't always monopolies.  Sometimes it's just the way capitalism encourages monopolies to behave.
A thousand times this. Look up the erm 'natural monopoly', SG - it's the concept you describe.
Occasionally monopolies are indeed more efficient than competitive markets. We need to recognize the fields in which that is so and allow monopolies to form there - but only under fairly strict supervision of the monopoly hat forms. I'd like to see Google and Facebook as become semi-public institutions - private enough to facilitate their productive work, but public enough to keep them from abusing their power.
Quote from: Angle on April 23, 2015, 09:35:54 pm
Ah, yes, I agree too. So does anyone have any alternative ideas? For myself, I'd like some kind of distributed system, with lots of little organizations that compete and cooperate, and where no organization is allowed to gain too much power. You would need a fairly strict set of rules, and you would need people to put in the time & effort to enforce them but I think it could work quite well.
What about capital-intensive fields, such as the automotive industry, power generation (come on, decentralized power generation is a pipe dream) and transfer, or shipbuilding? We used to not have big enterprises at all - look into the history of the industrial revolution to see why they were formed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on April 24, 2015, 04:50:12 am
In theory a single organization having absolute authority and power is the most ideal and efficient way of running things.

Emphasis on the in theory. Humans are too easily corruptible, and machines break.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on April 24, 2015, 06:03:15 am
Quote from: UXLZ on April 24, 2015, 04:50:12 am
In theory a single organization having absolute authority and power is the most ideal and efficient way of running things.

Emphasis on the in theory. Humans are too easily corruptible, and machines break.
Not even in theory - the overhead for the necessary information collection apparatus* would be too big.

*Which usually is replaced by the forces of the (free, more or less) market, which are less accurate but much cheaper.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on April 24, 2015, 06:07:31 am
The only reason capitalism could sustainably work imo is if the system is occasionally fought. Of course, a system that requires itself to be damaged in order to function isn't a very good system.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on April 24, 2015, 06:17:24 am
Our immune system is a bad system?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 24, 2015, 07:30:24 am
Quote from: Helgoland on April 24, 2015, 04:35:22 am
A thousand times this. Look up the erm 'natural monopoly', SG - it's the concept you describe.

Spoiler: Roads are a good example. (click to show/hide)

Generally natural monopolies can be identified pretty objectively. They tend to have high fixed costs vs marginal costs, and to have high set-up costs compared to operational costs. Also, they tend to have high set-up and fixed costs compared to the size of the market. In these cases, adding a rival company increases the total costs to serve all customers higher than it was before.

For example, building a nuclear reactor in a region likely falls as a natural monopoly, since most of the costs are in the set-up, and operational / marginal costs are relatively low. Whereas operating an airline isn't a natural monopoly, since the costs are pretty linear per-plane rather than per-company, and operational costs make up a lot of the cost.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 24, 2015, 08:44:51 am
Quote from: Helgoland on April 24, 2015, 06:17:24 am
Our immune system is a bad system?
Bloody freaking terrible one, from any sane engineering perspective. Just like most of our biology. Have you seen all the different ways it breaks, and what it fairly often does when it actually works? Imagine what you'd call a computer system that badly fragmented a chunk of its data every time it loaded a file and had to include a defrag cycle to everything it did. "Bad" would just be the start of the string of invectives that would flow in response to something like that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TempAcc on April 24, 2015, 09:29:34 am
:v our immune system causes problems like auto-immune diseases and things like cysts and etc, and its hijinks can worsen of a whole lot of other conditions. Then again, the human body has to deal tons of different pathogens and weird substances since unlike most animals, humans have a tendency to change their environment and what they eat quite often, plus theres all the weird substances we put in our food, so its kinda understandable that it goes insane at times.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on April 24, 2015, 02:10:11 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on April 24, 2015, 06:17:24 am
Our immune system is a bad system?
Our immune system doesn't require our cells to flip out about the inequality between red and white blood cells and stage a communist revolution.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TempAcc on April 24, 2015, 02:15:36 pm
So staging a communist revolution is akin to taking down the whole immune system and substituting it for a unstable an inevitably doomed version? So Communism = AIDS?
I concur :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on April 24, 2015, 02:19:40 pm
If we are comparing AIDS to communism, then that would require the revolution leaders to be space aliens.

....

Oh shit
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TempAcc on April 24, 2015, 02:22:48 pm
Spoiler: The truth is out there (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on April 24, 2015, 02:39:03 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on April 24, 2015, 04:35:22 am
What about capital-intensive fields, such as the automotive industry, power generation (come on, decentralized power generation is a pipe dream) and transfer, or shipbuilding? We used to not have big enterprises at all - look into the history of the industrial revolution to see why they were formed.

A powerplant that serves a whole city is still small enough for me. So is a shipyard. Some things, like power transmission and roads, would probably still be done by single large organizations. Things like the automotive industry, could probably be broken up into a series of parts - so you have organizations that make the schematics for your cars, and then organizations that make the cars themselves - and any of the manufacturers can use any design with minimal difficulty.

This is, of course, only the vague beginnings of an idea. I wouldn't even go so far as to call it a first draft.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on April 24, 2015, 02:55:41 pm
Quote from: Cinder on April 24, 2015, 02:10:11 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on April 24, 2015, 06:17:24 am
Our immune system is a bad system?
Our immune system doesn't require our cells to flip out about the inequality between red and white blood cells and stage a communist revolution.
Correct. That is cancer and tumors, which usually coopt the immune system so they can continue to (not) function.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

HuffingtonPost: Addiction - more chemical or environment? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-addicti_b_6506936.html). His conclusion is environment.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 24, 2015, 06:24:20 pm
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-iowa-casino-error-20150424-story.html

If YOU screw up, then you're held accountable. If a company screws up, then they aren't. If software YOU use makes a mistake, then o well, you're still screwed and should've known better, somehow, mysteriously. If software a company uses messes up, then they don't have to worry.

The best part, the company knew and was on notice, and didn't do crap, because that would've required bare minimum effort on their part:

"The manufacturer of the game, Aristocrat Technologies, had previously issued a bulletin that the game might show an erroneous bonus, with a recommendation to casinos to disable the bonus option."

They just don't care. Sure the rules say something, but they don't follow their own rules unless it is to their own advantage. They knew the machine could do that and didn't care. Hell, the courts could've at least had the company pay the $10,000 prize cap, but no....

You or I screw up, and we're screwed. Company wins every time, even when you "do."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on April 24, 2015, 11:24:17 pm
Most humans are easily corruptible. Machines break. What options do we really have?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on April 24, 2015, 11:50:48 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on April 24, 2015, 11:24:17 pm
Most humans are easily corruptible. Machines break. What options do we really have?
Build an AI with the infrastructure and capability to repair itself. What could possibly go wrong?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on April 24, 2015, 11:56:49 pm
Or, y'know, we could try and get people to not be such stupid jerks. If you look at history, you'll see a definite trend, even.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on April 25, 2015, 03:04:07 am
Capitalism is what's going to spiral into corruption further and further. Humans have always been such.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on April 25, 2015, 07:58:16 am
Quote from: UXLZ on April 25, 2015, 03:04:07 am
Capitalism is what's going to spiral into corruption further and further. Humans have always been such.
The state must control the bank, or the bank will control the state. Some would argue that the same line of thinking should be applied to corporations.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 25, 2015, 12:53:27 pm
Small update on the guy who raised his employee's pay to minimum $70k (http://www.upworthy.com/right-after-announcing-he-was-taking-a-pay-cut-to-raise-employees-salaries-business-is-booming?c=ufb1)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 25, 2015, 01:03:24 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on April 24, 2015, 11:24:17 pm
Most humans are easily corruptible. Machines break. What options do we really have?

Abolish hierarchy.  Coercive authority is not strictly necessary in order to organize a society.

Abolish the societal mechanisms that grant one person leverage over another. 

Property is the top offender. 
Capture a person by force and threaten him into doing work for you, and he will plot for freedom, with the understanding that he is slave and subject to an immoral and violent master. 
Capture the resources that human beings need to survive by way of economics, and refuse to share with anyone who doesn't agree to help you capture more and.... people will shrug and say "It's their stuff.  What can I do?" 
And it will be that way until the very idea of owning something that one does not have a direct and personal relationship with (i.e. a house that you don't live in) is challenged.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 25, 2015, 02:10:24 pm
Inter-generational wealth is one of the most insidious things. And I notice that libertarians alway avoid discussing the issue.

The idea that an ever-growing pool of rich people are excluded from ever having to be productive because of what some ancestor did is not a good thing.

Just grabbing chunks of cash off people doesn't seem like a great long-term solution either. Maybe a better way would be to make it law that all excessive wealth must be held by productive corporations rather than individuals, and bring in the idea that all employees of a corporation have a valid stake, not just the "owner". Working for a company and producing has value. "owning" it does not produce value, it sucks value out. By changing the nature of corporate ownership and profits, you'll see a drop in CEO salaries too. Those salaries are there basically to align the CEO's priorities with the shareholders.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: aenri on April 26, 2015, 05:53:05 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 25, 2015, 01:03:24 pm
Property is the top offender. 
Property is integral part of our life. Nothing satisfies primal urges more than saying "This is mine" and holding said thing in hand.

Quote from: Reelya on April 25, 2015, 02:10:24 pm
Inter-generational wealth is one of the most insidious things. And I notice that libertarians alway avoid discussing the issue.

Isn't it a perverse idea that your work in your life won't benefit your next generation? That incentivizes people to think only about themselves and squander all the wealth they get in life and then dying in poverty. It is my belief that you should be proud of the great things your ancestors did, and you should also strive to leave a great legacy behind for your children.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on April 26, 2015, 06:03:24 am
Quote from: aenri on April 26, 2015, 05:53:05 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 25, 2015, 01:03:24 pm
Property is the top offender. 
Property is integral part of our life. Nothing satisfies primal urges more than saying "This is mine" and holding said thing in hand.
Y'know, my girlfriend satisfies my primal urges much better than that...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on April 26, 2015, 06:07:22 am
You don't hold your girlfriend by the hand? That's sad.  :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on April 26, 2015, 06:16:53 am
You consider women property? Now I know why your ex broke up with you :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on April 26, 2015, 06:31:02 am
Quote from: aenri on April 26, 2015, 05:53:05 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 25, 2015, 01:03:24 pm
Property is the top offender. 
Property is integral part of our life. Nothing satisfies primal urges more than saying "This is mine" and holding said thing in hand.
The "no property" rule normally refers to capital (as in "stuff you need to do work"). Property as in "stuff I need to feel good about myself" is another matter.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on April 26, 2015, 07:08:06 am
How does capital accumulation work under such a system though? Politicians haven't exactly proven themselves to be great economic planners...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 26, 2015, 07:13:36 am
That's why I suggested public corporations. We know how corporations work. It's not a mystery how chartered corporations operate.

Removing the concept of private shareholders doesn't have to automatically jump to appointing government beureucrats instead of managers in some sort of frankenstein experiment. 99.9% of people doing their job now would do their job exactly the same if we had chartered public coroprations instead of private shareholder ones.

Corporate entities can invest their funds in other ventures too. There's nothing magical about dividends. And the other idea I did actually float was that every employee becomes a shareholder. Workers for the company can elect or hire a board of directors just the same as other types of shareholders. Again, nothing radical has to happen to the corporate structure so this can fully be enacted as an evolution, not revolution of the model.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on April 26, 2015, 07:17:14 am
What's a chartered public corporation? Where does it get its starting capital? How is it controlled? How are the salaries of its managers determined?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 26, 2015, 07:19:22 am
Again, this isn't rocket science. It's establish stuff that's been done over and over

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-benefit_corporation

Actually, maybe it is rocket science since that metaphor is archaic, and rocket science is well established, just like these ideas. You might as well ask how non-profit corporations even exist? But they clearly do. Generally chartered corporations like this are given control over a monopoly area. But there is no reason the law can't stretch to chartering a competitive profit or non-profit corporation.

The idea that a startup like this can't get loans for capital or something really sounds like it's being deliberately stupid. Like I said before, there's nothing magical about shareholders than makes the impossible possible.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wierd on April 26, 2015, 07:22:57 am
You might want to re-evaluate what fascism is.

(Hint: Benito Musolini defined it as "The synthesis of corporate and government powers", where "corporate" was the old "bodies corporate" meaning-- large trade groups operating out of mutual interests. a modern example is the MPAA. What you are proposing is a modern twist on that. Be careful, there be dragons.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on April 26, 2015, 07:24:50 am
Blurh, I'd do terribly in a meritocracy. I'm good at most everything but I'm too apathetic, I'd get outdone by the super-hard-workers.

Honestly, pretty much everything I can think of will always end up like capitalism is now, with 0.0000001% of the population possessing ludicrous power over the rest and warping the system to make themselves practically untouchable.

Humans will always be corrupted by power, even the better systems appear as if they'll still decay with time. Machines also aren't reliable. I'm not sure if a solution actually exists, really...
I'm beginning to sort of understand why people want to believe in higher powers. Then they don't have to be quite so abhorred.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on April 26, 2015, 07:25:54 am
Quote from: wierd on April 26, 2015, 07:22:57 am
You might want to re-evaluate what fascism is.

(Hint: Benito Musolini defined it as "The synthesis of corporate and government powers", where "corporate" was the old "bodies corporate" meaning-- large trade groups operating out of mutual interests. a modern example is the MPAA. What you are proposing is a modern twist on that. Be careful, there be dragons.)
... which is why I actually proposed that the employees be the stakeholders when I first brought this up. No government involvement was suggested or is needed. My core idea was that you can start a corporation, but you can only draw your own wage, not a profit. Wages could be set by mutual agreement within the company. If the founder leaves the company, he no longer draws a profit, he's only paid for the value of his actual work.

Also, you're basically saying all public utilities = fascism here, which is a jump off the deep end, almost a Godwin.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on April 26, 2015, 07:36:36 am
There was something I was thinking of that limited the highest pay grade in a company to some percentage of the lowest pay grade. The issue is, there are just soooooooo many loopholes in pretty much everything.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wierd on April 26, 2015, 07:37:55 am
Godwin's law only applies to calling people nazis. It expressly does not apply to discussing the ideological nature of fascism in general, otherwise the ultimate outcome of godwin's law would be that any discussion of fascism ends all further discussion, which is not its thesis.

And yes, public utilities are a dangerous thing, and are rife with corruption. see for instance, the logistics and back story of japan's fukushima reactor meltdown.

These are things you cant just handwave away.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on April 26, 2015, 07:46:39 am
Too be fair, wierd, everything is rife with corruption.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wierd on April 26, 2015, 07:51:39 am
Quote from: UXLZ on April 26, 2015, 07:46:39 am
Too be fair, wierd, everything is rife with corruption.

Yes, and some things are consistently rife with it.

That's kinda the point of this thread no? to identify and address the causes of the inherent corruption found in government, to produce a better theory of government framework?

Public utilities suffer from the lack of culpability problem, being empowered by government, and ultimately beng policed soley through a regulator that they can capture politically.

That is what caused the fukishima meltdown; the regulators knew, for decades, about the problem(s) with that reactor, but chose not to act, because of corruption.  That mode of curruption must be addressed for public utilities to be a net public benefit, and not a public liability ready to explode. (sometimes literally.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 26, 2015, 07:59:47 am
... well, it largely seems like it's been addressed, then, since as far as I'm aware public utilities have been a massive net benefit for decades. The fukishima incident doesn't even remotely tip the scales back in the other direction, just like it and other issues with nuclear reactor don't even make them a blip on the radar of economic/environmental harm compared to coal or oil. Even the possibility of more of same is a staggeringly small indictment if you're considering net effect.

Really, I'm confused as what you'd want to see done. Stuff like utilities have gone public because the private option was worse in pretty much every way conceivable, including corruption, so far as I'm aware.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wierd on April 26, 2015, 08:06:39 am
Personally, i consider public utilities to be beholden to a different objective than public traded for profit enterprise: There's a mandate to benefit the public good.

I find it difficult to reconcile "Yeah, the reactor can explode and irradiate the whole area AND pollute the ocean for generations" with "But look at all the cheap power we made for the public! See, the system WORKS!"

That kind of rationality can be stretched into crazy shapes, like saying gambling is a good habbit, because you can make a big win.


--reply to edit

At the very least, you need redundant regulators, and red tape, but that quickly becomes counter intuitive to the public good, and an intractible obstacle to genuine progressive improvements in the system. 

There probably isnt a unicorns and sunshine solution to this problem. I just feel it is important to not call a lop-eared mule a unicorn, and the light from a fluoroscope "sunshine."

Glowing endorsements of public utilities without even a passive examination of thier modes of corruption does precisely that. Public utilities are a mule. They are ugly, but get the job done. they arent unicorns.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 26, 2015, 08:18:07 am
You've apparently missed the part where, even with that (freaking remote) possibility, they still manage to outperform every other (current -- this may change once renewables finish taking off) major power generation method on damaging the environment. Remember well that the perfect is the enemy of the good, and that the existence of problems does not mean a thing is not doing really bloody well. The system works better than most everything else, when it comes to nuclear.

You also seem to be suggesting that a for-profit one would do better (Sincere bloody doubt. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP))?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wierd on April 26, 2015, 08:24:15 am
.........? what?


No.  My objections thus far:

Fusion of corporate (as in bodies corporate) power with government is the definition of fascism, which has been tried with disasterous effect more than once already.

Public utilities are not magical rays of sunshine that can be used to dispell corruption, and I cited a recent example.

When asked what alternative there is, I conceded that there probably isnt one, but that it is dangerous to call a mule a unicorn.

I have no idea where you are getting this defacto endorsement of private corporations from. I think you are too used to arguing against insane republicans.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 26, 2015, 08:35:32 am
Nah, just didn't see your edit for that last post. Before that, I wasn't reading anything that wasn't a de-facto support of private corps, because all you were doing was speaking against public utilities (for which the only alternative I'm aware of is for-profit). If you've got no alternative and are just noting there's problems with public utilities, then we don't really have a disagreement.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wierd on April 26, 2015, 08:47:49 am
That was my understanding as well.

Sounds like the problem was simple miscommunication.  The glowing endorsements of public utilities without addressing thier failings set off my bullshitometer.

I was not trying to endorse private corporations, which are essentially corruption incarnate, as far as I am concerned.

I see a public utility as a mule, both figuratively and literally.

a mule is a hybrid of a horse and a donkey.
a public utility is a hybrid of a charity and a corporation.

a charity exists soley to advance a specific public shortcomming, such as combating hunger from poverty. (such as a soup kitchen) Its primary obligation is the public good, and financing is a necessary evil for them.  They are like a horse, in that they are attractive, but easily overworked, and in some cases, eager to be overworked. They just are not up to the task.

A corporation, by contrast, exists soley to make money for its stake holders. It is like a donkey, in that it can do a lot more work than the horse can, but is unruly, obstinate, and has some serious bad habits.

The public utility is a fusion of the good parts of the charity, with the good parts of the corporation, but that does not make it ideal. (unicorn)

The previous rhetoric was casting mules as unicorns, which I took objection to.  That's all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 26, 2015, 02:01:41 pm
Quote from: aenri on April 26, 2015, 05:53:05 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 25, 2015, 01:03:24 pm
Property is the top offender. 
Property is integral part of our life. Nothing satisfies primal urges more than saying "This is mine" and holding said thing in hand.

Something you hold in your hand is not property.  It's a possession. 

Quote from: SalmonGod on April 25, 2015, 01:03:24 pm
owning something that one does not have a direct and personal relationship with (i.e. a house that you don't live in)

I see the ability and incentive to accumulate beyond what one is personally capable of using as the root of all corruption.  If our culture did not recognize the concept of property as valid, there would be little incentive to engage in the kind of behavior we call corruption today.  People would still do bad things, but it's hard to imagine how or why they would be done on the same scale.  And there would be no means by which one person could hold leverage over another (outside of personal relationships) without direct violence, which isn't so sustainable as the indirect violence that is denying others resources for no purpose other than unnecessary personal gain.

Pretty much everything stems from the fact that all of the world's resources are controlled by people who don't personally need or understand them as anything more than, at most, numbers on a spreadsheet, and who leverage those resources against other's needs to gain further control of more resources in a big imaginary number game.  No more big imaginary number game - no more incentive or means by which to engage in this bullshit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on April 26, 2015, 03:07:50 pm
On the discussion of fascism and National Socialism, Germany's pre-war economic policy really wasn't that bad. It was an odd mix of capitalist and socialist policies, but it certainly worked, and was much more functional than the economic basket case of the Soviet Union.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arcvasti on April 26, 2015, 09:23:40 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 26, 2015, 02:01:41 pm
Pretty much everything stems from the fact that all of the world's resources are controlled by people who don't personally need or understand them as anything more than, at most, numbers on a spreadsheet, and who leverage those resources against other's needs to gain further control of more resources in a big imaginary number game.  No more big imaginary number game - no more incentive or means by which to engage in this bullshit.

The obvious solution is to get them hooked on Cookie Clicker instead to satisfy their urge for increasing imaginary numbers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 30, 2015, 03:35:54 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on April 30, 2015, 04:19:24 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 26, 2015, 02:01:41 pm
Pretty much everything stems from the fact that all of the world's resources are controlled by people who don't personally need or understand them as anything more than, at most, numbers on a spreadsheet, and who leverage those resources against other's needs to gain further control of more resources in a big imaginary number game.  No more big imaginary number game - no more incentive or means by which to engage in this bullshit.
Of course, no more ability to transport goods or services from one location to another, or provide disaster relief, or manage soup kitchens. What you are describing here is literally the entire processes of accounting, banking, applied statistics, and pretty much every aspect of mercantilism. Somebody has to do things like count different demands and manage transportation and service networks, and the fact of the matter is that those numbers are so large in most cases that it's impossible to have a single person actually grasp their scale as anything other than numbers.

Without that "big imaginary number game" you are literally describing libertarian socialism; which humanity has shown that, despite working pretty well on a tiny scale, does not scale up nicely. At all. People are:
1) Too selfish
and
2) Unable to easily grasp numbers that large
to be able to make such a system to work well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on April 30, 2015, 05:22:04 pm
I think you're misunderstanding. All he's doing there is complaining about the people, not the system. He's attacked the system plenty elsewhere, of course, but not here, except possibly in so much as the system is responsible for the people who run it. There's no proposal, for example, to abolish private property in that post. You could easily address his concerns simply by firing those in charge and bringing in new people who did "personally need or understand [those resources] as anything more than, at most, numbers on a spreadsheet" and did not "leverage those resources against other's needs to gain further control of more resources in a big imaginary number game".

It occurs to me that we might be better off tacking this from the other direction - First, what do we want our economic system to do for us?

I'd like it to ensure that every single human being is well cared for, and has a chance to reach their optimal potential. This includes not just food, shelter, and other basic needs, but also education, opportunity to improve who they are, and a chance to meaningfully contribute to the world and feel welcome and valued by their fellow human beings.

I know this is a lot to expect, but hey - I like a challenge.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on April 30, 2015, 05:24:43 pm
http://www.eater.com/2015/4/30/8523761/pregnant-popeyes-employee-fired-robbery-lawsuit-5-million

You know what? Good. I'm sick of people's lives having NO value whatsoever to companies, to the point where having a literal gun to your head doesn't even mean anything. Jesus, she's supposed to get shot and probably die over something they should carry insurance over anyhow?

She's pregnant, and has kids and is just trying to support her family. Company doesn't care about being at gunpoint and refusal to do what the armed robber says possibly causing death or severe injury and creating corpses and orphans, because that's nearly $400....

http://www.eater.com/2015/4/22/8467177/popeyes-employee-pregnant-robbed-gunpoint-fired-texas

I am so sick of company profits and bottom lines having literally no limits even to the point of an innocent person losing their life over less than a week's wages being considered reasonable.... I'm sorry, but hitting companies like this where it hurts, in the wallet, is the only thing they will ever understand. We can talk about humanity and ethics and the value of human life, and coercion at literal gunpoint, but they don't care about any of that. The only thing that will move the people saying they don't care if an armed robber has a gun in your face (not their face, yours) is a massive monetary damages award.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on April 30, 2015, 05:51:28 pm
Well, that's certainly more than the 2k the company offered. Think I hope they settle, though -- I'm not sure if the case could actually get through a court. Texas is one of those at-will states, and abhorrent as th'company's actions were m'fairly sure it doesn't constitute discrimination against a protected class :-\

On the other hand, it going to court could cost popeye's a fairly significant penny, both in court costs and public opinion, so I'd tentatively wager a settlement of some sort isn't entirely unlikely. Who knows how much less it'll be, though...

Best of luck to her either way. As you say, T, most of the time companies only really sit up and pay attention when you kick them in the wallet.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on April 30, 2015, 05:57:46 pm
Well, especially since it was apparently a franchise and not the company itself, so it's not clear what the company is liable for.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 30, 2015, 07:00:36 pm
Quote from: i2amroy on April 30, 2015, 04:19:24 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 26, 2015, 02:01:41 pm
Pretty much everything stems from the fact that all of the world's resources are controlled by people who don't personally need or understand them as anything more than, at most, numbers on a spreadsheet, and who leverage those resources against other's needs to gain further control of more resources in a big imaginary number game.  No more big imaginary number game - no more incentive or means by which to engage in this bullshit.
Of course, no more ability to transport goods or services from one location to another, or provide disaster relief, or manage soup kitchens. What you are describing here is literally the entire processes of accounting, banking, applied statistics, and pretty much every aspect of mercantilism. Somebody has to do things like count different demands and manage transportation and service networks, and the fact of the matter is that those numbers are so large in most cases that it's impossible to have a single person actually grasp their scale as anything other than numbers.

Without that "big imaginary number game" you are literally describing libertarian socialism; which humanity has shown that, despite working pretty well on a tiny scale, does not scale up nicely. At all. People are:
1) Too selfish
and
2) Unable to easily grasp numbers that large
to be able to make such a system to work well.

Libertarian socialist is the most accurate political label for me.  If by humanity you mean that history has shown this doesn't scale, then my response is that any examples more than 20 years old are not relevant to modern day.  Plus, it also depends on what you want most out of society.  Some people want material comfort more than freedom and peace of mind.  I'm not one of those people.

Anyway, to explain my point: 
The function of society is a matter of organization.
Organization has two essential components.  And I obviously mean organization between people, not organization like the files on your desk.

1.  Uniting goals
2.  Sharing information

Both of these things are limited primarily by our ability to communicate, and our ability to communicate today is completely incomparable to our ability to communicate more than 20 years ago.  We have the potential now to organize in ways that have never been possible before in history. 

Just because we have historically tackled the problems you mention by a certain methodology doesn't mean that is the only possible methodology, given a different set of circumstances to work with. 

What mercantilism/capitalism did for us historically is:
1. Unite our goals according to a shared motivation, which was accumulation of material wealth.  Organizations form with a united goal to providing specific goods/services, according to the motivation of receiving material reward for doing so, and instructional feedback per #2.
2. Circumvent the need for direct information sharing between people by abstracting social feedback into economics, which could be analyzed for instructions to guide individual behavior.

But today... we don't need these shitty work-arounds.  People can communicate with each other on any scale, numeric or geographical, and that communication can be converted into easily digestible data at will.  We could literally make a website that just collects data on what communities and individuals want/need, and automatically put those entities in connection with others that have the capability to provide those things.  Bam.  Functioning society.  The only problems are rooted in cultural inertia, not logistics.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on April 30, 2015, 07:41:08 pm
I'm not convinced it'll be so easy, but I do think there is significant potential for improvement.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 30, 2015, 08:05:18 pm
Quote from: Angle on April 30, 2015, 07:41:08 pm
I'm not convinced it'll be so easy, but I do think there is significant potential for improvement.

Of course, I'm simplifying for the sake of discussion.  My point is there's no reason for us to be so rooted in existing paradigm.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on April 30, 2015, 08:11:51 pm
SG, picking a fight argument with you is usually rather productive, so I'll give it a shot:
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 30, 2015, 07:00:36 pm
my response is that any examples more than 20 years old are not relevant to modern day.
This is not categorically true. Sure, there may be/are past failings that may be circumvented by modern technology, but you'd have to do an in-depth analysis to find out whether that's true of each and every one of them. Do not underestimate the power and capabilities of 20th century bureaucracies!
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 30, 2015, 07:00:36 pm
Plus, it also depends on what you want most out of society.  Some people want material comfort more than freedom and peace of mind.  I'm not one of those people.
Sadly what you or him or I want out of society hardly matters. What matters is what most people want - and material comfort is pretty high on that list. If your ideology (I don't use that word with a negative connotation, by the way) does not account for that, it will never pick up. The Soviets had to learn that lesson, the aristocratic industrialists had to learn that lesson. There's no way to impose a societal order for any significant amount of time if it is not accepted by a broad majority.
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 30, 2015, 07:00:36 pm
The function of society is a matter of organization.
Organization has two essential components. [...]
1.  Uniting goals
2.  Sharing information

Both of these things are limited primarily by our ability to communicate,
You forgot a third component: Structuring and prioritizing said information. A huge infodump is worthless: Wikipedia without links would be a perfect example. Sure, one could try to get the collective to do the structuring, but then you'll run into the problem that the 'uniting goals' usually aren't that well-defined when it comes to the details. Look at the Wikipedia edit wars if you want proof. Thus we get a fourth component which you also overlook: Leadership, which is the interpretation and adaption of said uniting goals, turning abstract goals into concrete commands and orders - or guidelines and practices, if you want a less militaristic rhetoric.
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 30, 2015, 07:00:36 pm
and our ability to communicate today is completely incomparable to our ability to communicate more than 20 years ago.
Again, don't underestimate 20th century bureaucracies. This smells like hybris. (IIRC there were similar utopian ideas floating around during the revolutions of 1789 and 1917 - it's hardly a new phenomenon. The rule of thumb remains: We probably aren't that special.)
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 30, 2015, 07:00:36 pm
We have the potential now to organize in ways that have never been possible before in history.
What ways? Quit using abstract terms and get into the details! Unless you provide plausible examples, this is a mere assertion.
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 30, 2015, 07:00:36 pm
But today... we don't need these shitty work-arounds.  People can communicate with each other on any scale, numeric or geographical, and that communication can be converted into easily digestible data at will.
How does the ability to communicate faster make those 'shitty workarounds' obsolete? The mere existence of the internet doesn't provide anyone with an incentive to do something. All I see is that is has made these 'shitty workarounds' better, that is even more efficient.
(I also don't know why you call those workarounds 'shitty' - they appear to have worked out pretty well, haven't they? At least in Europe - that America is such a shithole in some places is hardly the fault of capitalism, but rather of the English because they drove all those religious nuts out of the country and to the colonies.)
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 30, 2015, 07:00:36 pm
We could literally make a website that just collects data on what communities and individuals want/need, and automatically put those entities in connection with others that have the capability to provide those things.  Bam.  Functioning society.  The only problems are rooted in cultural inertia, not logistics.
Well, you'd still need someone to input the data into the website, and to collect it in the first place - that's the first problem. Then you'd need some way to motivate those with the capability to provide the things that are needed to actually do the providing - the website itself doesn't do that, that's the second problem. And finally, there's the fact that your hypothetical website does precisely the same thing as, for example, the Soviet bureaucracy - why should it work any better than that? Again, don't underestimate 20th century bureaucracies. That's the third problem.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 30, 2015, 08:38:08 pm
I do very much want to respond to you, but I must restrain myself for now, or I know I will get carried away into something far too time-consuming.  I have some important things to do tonight that I need to leave time for, and it's already 9:30 pm here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on April 30, 2015, 08:49:18 pm
Hmm. This is interesting. I think the problems are more complicated than that, though - You're essentially trying to solve for all of civilization. That's no small feat. I think we might be better off if we start by defining what our goals for this discussion are. What exactly are we discussing? For that matter, do you want to create a new thread for it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 01, 2015, 12:56:43 am
There have been no states in history that have tried a local version of socialism scaled-up, so examples such as the Soviet Union don't really say anything about how it would work.

The core principle of Marx's idea of communism, was unironically enough "communes". And these were basically supposed to be democratic bodies which answer directly to their members. If you have a worker's commune in which the workers have the power, this clearly implies you have voting and possibly electing managers and leaders. The idea of a central "party" who impose control and strip workers of any say is thus the opposite of this idea, not a "scaled up" version.

"Scaling that up" you'd have regional councils to which each commune would elect representatives. i.e. a scaled-up truly "Marxist" socialism would basically be a democratic state. The main difference is that modern states have two parallel heirarchies - economic and political, whereas in Marxism, the local communes own the means of production, so there is only one heirarchy. Another way to state this is the term "industrial democracy".

Every so-called "communist" nation either exterminated or never bothered with creating communes or decentralizing decision making. So, basically they did things the opposite to what Marx called for. It was like that pretty much from Day 1 of the Russian Revolution, so no-one has really tried these ideas. The closest was the anarchist CNT in Spain during the Spanish civil war. They organised factories along Anarcho-Syndicalist policies (which resemble many features of Marxist grass-roots communism), and were very effective. They didn't collapse due to their economic policies, they were wiped out by fascists in tanks, backstabbed by the Soviets and refused aid by the capitalists. One thing centralized statists (Soviets, Fascists and Capitalists)  all agreed on was that true rule by workers was not a thing they were happy with. Basically all the centralized statist powers have actively conspired to prevent grass-roots leftism from ever getting a start.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on May 01, 2015, 04:04:44 am
Do note that SG's proposed website is a centralist instrument par excellence. How would scaling up a local solution even work without introducing centralist elements?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on May 01, 2015, 05:28:00 am
Quote from: Reelya on May 01, 2015, 12:56:43 am
There have been no states in history that have tried a local version of socialism scaled-up, so examples such as the Soviet Union don't really say anything about how it would work.

The core principle of Marx's idea of communism, was unironically enough "communes". And these were basically supposed to be democratic bodies which answer directly to their members. If you have a worker's commune in which the workers have the power, this clearly implies you have voting and possibly electing managers and leaders. The idea of a central "party" who impose control and strip workers of any say is thus the opposite of this idea, not a "scaled up" version.

"Scaling that up" you'd have regional councils to which each commune would elect representatives. i.e. a scaled-up truly "Marxist" socialism would basically be a democratic state. The main difference is that modern states have two parallel heirarchies - economic and political, whereas in Marxism, the local communes own the means of production, so there is only one heirarchy. Another way to state this is the term "industrial democracy".

Every so-called "communist" nation either exterminated or never bothered with creating communes or decentralizing decision making. So, basically they did things the opposite to what Marx called for. It was like that pretty much from Day 1 of the Russian Revolution, so no-one has really tried these ideas. The closest was the anarchist CNT in Spain during the Spanish civil war. They organised factories along Anarcho-Syndicalist policies (which resemble many features of Marxist grass-roots communism), and were very effective. They didn't collapse due to their economic policies, they were wiped out by fascists in tanks, backstabbed by the Soviets and refused aid by the capitalists. One thing centralized statists (Soviets, Fascists and Capitalists)  all agreed on was that true rule by workers was not a thing they were happy with. Basically all the centralized statist powers have actively conspired to prevent grass-roots leftism from ever getting a start.
You're correct about Communism here, but don't confuse it with Socialism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on May 01, 2015, 07:08:41 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 30, 2015, 07:00:36 pm
*clip*
What you call "libertarian socialism" is certainly a worthy ideal, but I would rather get rid of the whole libertarian part. But that's not the crucial issue here: What bothers me is that I'm forced to use the term ideal, because that's what every non-capitalist ideology has been reduced to in public discourse. Every leftist proposal, be it libertarian or authoritarian, is instantly shot down by the chanting clergy of Capital, who see absolutely nothing wrong with the unholy alliance of Market Forces and Realpolitik. Only the current system is feasible, everything else is categorically unfeasible.

The ones within the hegemonic bubble can no longer comprehend external criticism, and the same pattern keeps repeating itself in their responses to attempts to burst their bubble:

"Immaterial commodities are worthless! Let's abolish fetishism and establish a real-value economy!"

"But Money is the real thing in our society! People and ordinary things are transient and illusory, but Money is objective and eternal – it is who you are, and what others are to you. Money is your real self, embrace it!"

There's no question that capitalism reaches much deeper than the superficial organization of society: We are obscenely turned on by the commodity-form, and it feels awfully natural to replace all real societal relationships with mediated, imaginary ones.

...but that's all on the ideological level; there are also practical obstacles that are created by globalization, and reinforced by our hedonism. Let's say, for example, that an organic microbrewery in northern Indiana is producing the best damn beer in the entire universe, and I want to have a glass of that, no matter what. Without money and market economy, no-one is going to export that stuff halfway across the globe just so that I could drink it – I'd have to directly contact the brewer and try to strike up some kind of a deal, but what could I offer in exchange for his products, and their transportation? It's not possible to send material goods over the internet, and in any case, it really is kind of unfeasible to build a personal relationship with each and every person on the global production chain – if that chain exists on the enormous, present scale.

As people keep saying over and over again, the feasible solution is the commune – not a planet-wide, digital marketplace of immaterial goods and services, but a closely knit physical community with enough resources and production capacity to manufacture everything its members could (reasonably) need. An organized, democratic state formed by such self-sufficient units would be an ideal society, in my opinion.         



   

 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on May 01, 2015, 07:29:55 am
Quote from: greatorder on May 01, 2015, 07:10:54 am
Ah money. Worth everything until it's no longer used, at which point it's not worth what it's made of.

Money is never worth what it's made of: It's always something more, and not even hyperinflation can obliterate its other-worldly magic.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on May 01, 2015, 08:21:34 am
Quote from: greatorder on May 01, 2015, 07:51:59 am
Quote from: SirQuiamus on May 01, 2015, 07:29:55 am
Quote from: greatorder on May 01, 2015, 07:10:54 am
Ah money. Worth everything until it's no longer used, at which point it's not worth what it's made of.

Money is never worth what it's made of: It's always something more, and not even hyperinflation can obliterate its other-worldly magic.
Not sure WHAT you're getting at here. Unless you mean it's worth more than what it's made of, in which case it's both not true (IIRC a 2 pence coin is worth something like 5 pence), and that's not what the phrase means.

If we suddenly swapped over to using sea shells as currency, all the money we had on us would suddenly become worth the metal or linen/cotton they're made of.

I was mostly just being facetious, not actually getting at anything. :P

...but really, the subjective material value of a tuppence coin has nothing to do with its objective monetary value: Only the number upon that piece of metal has any importance in our capitalist system, and that number does not even need the support of a physical medium like metal or paper – or sea shells, for that matter.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 01, 2015, 08:49:16 am
Quote from: SirQuiamus on May 01, 2015, 07:08:41 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 30, 2015, 07:00:36 pm
*clip*
What you call "libertarian socialism" is certainly a worthy ideal, but I would rather get rid of the whole libertarian part.

I think you're conflating it with the modern American usage of "Libertarian" to mean rampant capitalists. But that usage only dates back to the mid 1950's, and only in the USA. Other political usages date back to 1789, and have no connection to the policies of the American Libertarian Party. "Libertarian" in connection with anarchism and grass-roots communist ideas goes back to the 1850s, 100 years before it became connected to capitalism. It also doesn't necessarily mean the same thing if you're in England or other English-speaking countries. A "Libertarian" party in UK or Australia would be more likely to be something like the ACLU, because in the rest of the English world we don't have American-style "Libertarians", at least not by that name. North Korea call themselves the Democratic Republic of Korea. This does not mean that North Korea is defining Democracy for everyone else any more than the USA's modern twist on Libertarianism redefines the word for everyone else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism#History

I'm imagining your view of what libertarian socialism means is vastly at odds with what 150 years of scholarship says it is, because you're conflating it with a modern political group who appropriated the label within living memory.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on May 01, 2015, 09:08:04 am
I'm a bit of a libertarian myself. I only feed of freedom.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on May 01, 2015, 09:10:04 am
Quote from: SirQuiamus on May 01, 2015, 07:08:41 am
"But Money is the real thing in our society! People and ordinary things are transient and illusory, but Money is objective and eternal – it is who you are, and what others are to you. Money is your real self, embrace it!"
I'm fairly certain nobody says that. The only people who say something like that are fetishists, and they reject our fiat currency.
Quote from: SirQuiamus on May 01, 2015, 07:08:41 am
As people keep saying over and over again, the feasible solution is the commune – not a planet-wide, digital marketplace of immaterial goods and services, but a closely knit physical community with enough resources and production capacity to manufacture everything its members could (reasonably) need. An organized, democratic state formed by such self-sufficient units would be an ideal society, in my opinion.
Ah, 'reasonably need' - 'reasonably' being the key phrase here. What's reasonable? Nobody needs an iPhone. Nobody needs a computer, either. You need very very little. I've once heard the idea that that was one of the reasons the DDR's economy failed: Its leaders, having lived most of their lives as dissidents, refugees, revolutionaries, couldn't imagine how anyone could really want more than the DDR had to offer. Spoiler alert: Their idea of 'reasonable' wasn't all too reasonable.
There's another, bigger problem with such an idea though, one which most utopias of this kind overlook: How are you going to manufacture anything with a long production chain, or anything needing resources that do not occur in your area? Take your computer, for example: It was manufactured from oil, rare earths, copper, iron, silicon, and some other stuff in an intricate process spanning the whole globe. I guess the people in your self-sufficient units would have to live without them, then... The same goes for cars, tools, medicine, hell, even bananas. Huh, I keep coming back to the DDR...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on May 01, 2015, 09:49:54 am
Quote from: Reelya on May 01, 2015, 08:49:16 am
I think you're conflating it with the modern American usage of "Libertarian" to mean rampant capitalists.

I meant what I said. I'm just leery of such words as "anarchism," "decentralization," etc.

The communes should be largely self-governed and independent, but there has to be some kind of centralized system to assure that they don't start fighting each other.

Quote from: Helgoland on May 01, 2015, 09:10:04 am
There's another, bigger problem with such an idea though, one which most utopias of this kind overlook: How are you going to manufacture anything with a long production chain, or anything needing resources that do not occur in your area? Take your computer, for example: It was manufactured from oil, rare earths, copper, iron, silicon, and some other stuff in an intricate process spanning the whole globe. I guess the people in your self-sufficient units would have to live without them, then... The same goes for cars, tools, medicine, hell, even bananas. Huh, I keep coming back to the DDR...

It's an outright utopia, to be sure. Setting up an entire production chain, from raw resources to end-products, on a local level? Yes, that's pure science fiction at the moment, but so is every other brand of utopistic speculation.

...but what's speculation and what isn't? – it's all about ideology, really. The present capitalistic discourse determines what is possible and what is mere speculation, and as things stand, all attempts to end commodity fetishism are being declared impossible, without actually testing their feasibility.         
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 01, 2015, 10:04:22 am
Quote
Setting up an entire production chain, from raw resources to end-products, on a local level?

Who said that? Nobody ever suggested that idea. It is a dumb idea, and arguing against it is a pure straw man because it's not a concept, not a goal, and neither a necessary condition or outcome of decentralized socialist economy. It's about as relevant as saying a specialized shoe company will never take off because you can't eat shoes, hence capitalism will never work.

Marx's socialism was always about pointing out how workers actually already run all the existing systems of production, but they usually get much less remmuneration than a handful of rich "owners" who don't actually do anything to run things themselves. So it's all about changing the management of existing systems, recognizing that it's actually workers who built everything in the first place. Rich people have just been very good at ensuring that most of the productive labor in most countries never get a cut of owning anything. Like in India you work 18 hour days, 6 days a week for 40 years and you just own a pair of shoes and a TV or something. That guy built the system but his children don't get a cut of the profits.

~~~

"Decentralized" means decentralizing management and ownership of existing, well-understood production processes, not redefining those production processes or changing the fundamentals of how resource flow works. So, it proposes some new ideas on management, but the basics of industrial production aren't constrained in any specific way. In other words, Marx does not provide prescriptive ideas about how factories should make things, just about how managers should be selected and how the profits should be divided up.

There's a thing called "trade". In Marx's ideas communes are NOT local town councils. It's definitely not anything related to the idea of local self-sufficiency. Total economic self-sufficiency doesn't come up as a concept, and it doesn't naturally flow from the other ideas. local self-sufficiency harks back to feudalism, which socialists were definitely against.

Marx's idea of communes is a lot closer to worker-owned corporations, and the corporations in an area then come together to agree on higher-level goals and settle disputes. You're still going to be seeing specialization, flow of resources, competition and cooperation within such a system. Since a single commune will be effectively the smallest-grained unit of production, and autonomous, they will still be specialized in the production of a single thing, because that is what creates the most productivity. And just by natural law the most productive communes will grow, the unproductive ones will copy what the productive ones do or disappear. They will still be reliant on trade with other communes to provide all the things they need, and these communes don't have to be in the same region.

Many of the common criticisms against such a system can be shown to fallacious, and not based in any rational assessment of the scenario itself. For example since there is no central wage fixing in this scenario, the common argument that it would make people lazy because you get the same wage no matter what can be shown to be groundless. In fact, decentralized communism is more linear in it's relationship between productivity and profits than capitalism is (which tries to pay you a minimum wage regardless of how productive you are).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on May 01, 2015, 10:27:56 am
But is trade possible without property and the commodity-form, two practically inseparable concepts? The present discussion started with SG's common-sense remark of property being the root of all evil, and now we're trying to imagine a world completely free of property and immaterial commodities. It's hard to imagine, sadly.     
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 01, 2015, 10:35:12 am
SG's remark is in line with the literature. "Property" in the legal sense. It's a very strict and specific usage. It means a single person having eternal ownership of a piece of land. So, when someone says abolition of private property rights, they're refering to specific legal precedents and not the dictionary concept of "property".

It's not hard to imagine what property (land) rights would be like in a socialist system as described. A commune (local corporation) would have basically lease-holder rights to a piece of land or a factory. If they stop using that factory, then it would be pretty much up for grabs for someone else to use it. Compare that to now, where you get empty houses and factories for "tax purposes". Obviously there would be a different set of laws to cover this, and situations that arise. But it wouldn't be fundamentally unworkable or alien to how we do property-usage disputes already.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on May 01, 2015, 10:37:57 am
Quote from: Reelya on May 01, 2015, 10:04:22 am
Quote
Setting up an entire production chain, from raw resources to end-products, on a local level?

Who said that? Nobody every suggested that idea. It is a dumb idea, and arguing against it is a pure straw man because it's not a concept, not a goal, and neither a necessary condition or outcome of decentralized socialist economy. It's about as relevant as saying a specialized shoe company will never take off because you can't eat shoes, hence capitalism will never work.
Liebelein, quit sptting venom at me (and SirQ, though that probably was unintentional), take a second to read the past few posts, and re-evaluate. Here, I'll help you out:
Quote from: Helgoland on May 01, 2015, 09:10:04 am
Quote from: SirQuiamus on May 01, 2015, 07:08:41 am
[...] An organized, democratic state formed by such self-sufficient units would be an ideal society, in my opinion.
[...] How are you going to manufacture anything with a long production chain, or anything needing resources that do not occur in your area?
Quote from: SirQuiamus on May 01, 2015, 07:08:41 am
An organized, democratic state formed by such self-sufficient units
Quote from: SirQuiamus on May 01, 2015, 07:08:41 am
self-sufficient units
So yes, he was indeed suggesting such an idea, no, it was not a strawman of mine, yes, it is a dumb idea (hough I'd choose another word, I guess) - that's what I was trying to show. Decentralized Socialist economy had nothing to do with my post.
And I do know what 'decentralized' means, thankyouverymuch. 'Trade' is also a concpt known to me, and furthermore I'd like to point out that Marx's opinion on these things changed a lot during his lifetime. The Marx of the Parisian Manuscripts (who I guess you're referencing here) has little to do with the Marx of Das Kapital.




However, I'd like to pick up on part of what you said in the rest of your post:
Quote from: Reelya on May 01, 2015, 10:04:22 am
Since a single commune will be effectively the smallest-grained unit of production, and autonomous, they will still be specialized in the production of a single thing, because that is what creates the most productivity. And just by natural law the most productive communes will grow, the unproductive ones will copy what the productive ones do or disappear. They will still be reliant on trade with other communes to provide all the things they need, and these communes don't have to be in the same region.

Many of the common criticisms against such a system can be shown to fallacious, and not based in any rational assessment of the scenario itself. For example since there is no central wage fixing in this scenario, the common argument that it would make people lazy because you get the same wage no matter what can be shown to be groundless. In fact, decentralized communism is more linear in it's relationship between productivity and profits than capitalism is (which tries to pay you a minimum wage regardless of how productive you are).
You appear to do a fair bit of mixing your own ideas with those of Marx here - for example you appear to imply that the 'communes' will still be in competition with each other, that there will still be trade, implying capitalist or quasi-capitalist economic structures because there's still money or barter involved (this was ninja'd by SirQ), and that wages will still be tied to individual productivity. What happened to
Quote from: The Crusher from Prussia
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
?

Or am I misunderstanding you entirely and you were in fact not trying to explain Marx's economic vision?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 01, 2015, 10:50:18 am
Quote
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The idea behind that historically was that super-abundance will mean many basic needs will be met, and thus not constrained. We already see this with food production in the West. The poorest people can eat more than is good for them. They should eat how much they need, not how much they can afford. So the concept is not that out there.

And we also have this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

Quote
To each according to his contribution is a principle of distribution considered to be one of the defining features of socialism. It refers to an arrangement whereby individual compensation is reflective of one's contribution to the social product (total output of the economy) in terms of effort, labor and productivity.

As for competition, since a commune based on a single existing productive enterprise will make a specific thing, it's clear that they will need to swap their excess production for the excess production of other communes. Thus, they will have to negotiate how many shoes are worth an apple or somesuch. Even if a single commune is set up to make everything, one man must be the shoemaker, another the apple farmer, and we're back to the point where we're deciding how many apples the shoemaker gets and how many shoes to distribute. Thus, trade is not a thing you can escape from. You're also going to see some people more productive at making shoes than other people, so some communes will inevitably end up with excess of something-or-other. They're going to want to maximize their labor-value by trading their commune's excess with other communes excess. Hence, you can't ever escape competition and inter-regional trade either. Maybe some communes will refuse to trade, but they will see lower total productivity than communes who work closely with others, hence competition again.

Basically concepts like trading resources at some level will always exist, and thus some concept of relative values must exist. And differences in productivity will always exist, leading to inevitable competition (between individual workers, groups and communes). So it's not really realistic to conceive of any system that somehow transcends these factors.

~~~

Remember, we're not discussing "what Marx said" here, we're discussing "would this idea work in practice". Therefore, it is entirely permissable to bring up logical consequences that arise from an arrangement, on both sides of the issue. The opposing side brings up logical consequences that are not written in Marx's book, and so do I. There is no contradition here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on May 01, 2015, 11:01:17 am
But then you call ~150 years of Marxist economics bunk! Not that I necessarily disagree, but what you propose is very much non-Communist. I'd probably call it Market Socialism - then again, I probably wouldn't because that sounds contradictory :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on May 01, 2015, 11:04:11 am
The issue I see with such a decentralized vision is how do they deal with global or other large-scale issues such as global warming?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on May 01, 2015, 11:12:00 am
hope, optimism, and holding hands?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Draxis on May 01, 2015, 11:18:32 am
Quote from: Reelya on May 01, 2015, 10:50:18 am
Basically concepts like trading resources at some level will always exist, and thus some concept of relative values must exist. And differences in productivity will always exist, leading to inevitable competition (between individual workers, groups and communes). So it's not really realistic to conceive of any system that somehow transcends these factors.
Sure there is; why should economic activity be confined to trade between individual communes?  We've seen how well cooperative enterprise solves the problems of capitalism (reducing oppression a lot, but to remain competitive workplaces end up simply exploiting themselves to almost same degree or shutting down - an improvement, certainly, but not ideal.  Plus it weakens the main advantage of capitalism, massive production.)  Plus, as I understand the term 'commune', that'll just end up as a bunch of city-states or community-states in competition, with all the unpleasantness that entails.

That's a lot of why I prefer the workers' council model - that each workplace and maybe community is run as a cooperative, and elects certain members to tiered circles in cooperation with other organizations - higher-level coordinating groups, local consuming groups, resource-supplying groups, and so forth - and coordinate things.  Traditionally committees were used for that, but with the amazing information-processing abilities we have today they may not be needed in some cases now.  In any case, if it's peoples' job to keep trade going in an equitable way they'll probably do so, because what would be the benefit of, say, your own factory getting more than its share of material?  (That's why I'm skeptical on the idea of community councils, it'd be vital to have some institution to handle local issues but they could be in competition with each other for consumer goods and cause problems that way.)

If, say, a whole region had a shortage of something, they'd appeal it up until it reached a level where some constituent had surplus.  And if nobody does?  Well then the higher-level circles will be full of people getting told to find a way to get more of it.  The idea is to, since the global economy is integrated anyway, integrate it or at least a bloc of it in a rational way while still maintaining democracy and proportional control of issues by those who they effect.

Quote from: Sheb on May 01, 2015, 11:04:11 am
The issue I see with such a decentralized vision is how do they deal with global or other large-scale issues such as global warming?
Any social will strong enough to force the liberal nationstate to do something about it can force local communes to, as well.  Probably more easily, because capital won't (within a commune, some may decide to go 'screw it, produce more to make us more competetive') be compelled to fight it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 01, 2015, 11:24:45 am
Quote
That's a lot of why I prefer the workers' council model - that each workplace and maybe community is run as a cooperative, and elects certain members to tiered circles in cooperation with other organizations - higher-level coordinating groups, local consuming groups, resource-supplying groups, and so forth - and coordinate things. 

How's that any different to what I proposed? "Commune" is just a word after all. And I made the context clear - autonomous workplaces which elect representatives to local and regional councils which coordinate things. I already made all these points in prior posts.

It's really hard to see how my version will collapse into horrible city states just because I used the word "commune" whereas yours wont because you used the word "cooperative". How we described the functioning is almost identical.

Commune in 19th century political discourse does not mean the same thing as the "hippie commune" sense of everyone living in one big mess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune_%28socialism%29
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Draxis on May 01, 2015, 11:27:54 am
Quote from: Reelya on May 01, 2015, 11:24:45 am
How's that any different to what I proposed?
It looks like your proposal is be a bunch of competing, individually-run market entities that are worker-run, whereas I'm proposing a single one the size of the entire economic bloc (ideally the whole world, but that's even less likely).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 01, 2015, 11:31:20 am
That's just passing the buck on how things are going to work. You have to explain your structure at every level of granularity or it's just pie in the sky. How does that scale from the level of the individual to the world?

Even in a cooperative that includes the whole world. You'll still get e.g. multiple people who want to make the same thing, hence competition, and the need to swap resources between people who make different things, hence trade. You can't just hand-wave these things away by saying everyone's in it together. That's why I pointed out competition / trade will always exist even within one commune/collective/cooperative or what-have-you.

Any time you get resources that need to flow from one person's possession (in the immediate "i have this thing" sense) to another, that's trade. Any time one thing is better than another, e.g. you like one person's shoes better than another - that's competition. People are going to want the better shoes more than the worse ones, so somehow we have to decide who gets the better shoes, who gets the worse ones. Assume we only make what society needs, and we keep all shoemakers in a job. Someone has to accept the worse shoes, and they should be justly compensated for missing out on the better shoes. Hence, we implicitly recognize that the better shoes have higher economic value, even if we don't have money or barter. Maybe we say "only make the better shoes then!" so we don't have to value the shoes differently. But we are definitely putting the worse-shoe-maker out of that job if he's unable to make the better shoes, which is competition again.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on May 01, 2015, 12:00:19 pm
Quote from: Reelya on May 01, 2015, 11:31:20 am
That's why I pointed out competition / trade will always exist even within one commune/collective/cooperative or what-have-you.

So, uh, you're saying economic inequality will always exist?

So much for the utopia. It was inevitable.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on May 01, 2015, 12:08:31 pm
I keep telling you - Reelya's just a left-wing Social Democrat with a thing for Marxist terminology. There's really not much of a critique of Capitalism itself in what she (your name ends with an a, so in my head you're female until you correct me :P ) writes. It's more or less just a vision of an alternative mode of Capitalism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on May 01, 2015, 12:21:28 pm
I'm not questioning anyone's political orientation, I'm just stretching my powers of comprehension beyond breaking-point. :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on May 01, 2015, 01:36:13 pm
I too like the "Worker run communes" idea, though I'd say they should also explicitly be charged with benefiting society as a whole. For managing interactions between them, I'd have a series of "logistics organizations, which are charged with figuring out how to distribute goods between them. The communes could subscribe to whatever logistics organization they thought best, or could even subscribe to multiple or ignore them entirely and deal directly with the other communes, or any combination they thought best. Not everything needs to be a commune, either - a space program, for example, would probably benefit from a different model. This system would be pretty tolerant of mutants - if you want to go and start some weird organization that does things seriously differently, that's fine, so long as you're not doing anything immoral or dangerous. And another note, I wouldn't actually abolish capitalism in this model - I'd merely regulate it very thoroughly. But if you want to go and start your own capitalist craft beer microbrewery or whatever, that's fine. This system also doesn't need to be all or nothing - you can start it with just a single commune, add another couple in a few years, add a logistics organization after that, etc, etc.

This is, of course, merely an incomplete first draft. I'm sure there are all sorts of special cases that require individual attention, and it needs to be properly peer reviewed and tested and all that. But it's a nice start, I think.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on May 01, 2015, 04:07:04 pm
Quote from: greatorder on May 01, 2015, 07:10:54 am
Ah money. Worth everything until it's no longer used, at which point it's not worth what it's made of.
That's... kind of the point?

Money is an abstraction created to represent the value of commodity so that if I wanted a steak and you wanted a loaf of bread we don't need to want each other's stuffs and trade things.

I mean, if money had some intrinsic power then we could just print infinite money and achieve a post-scarcity society.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 03, 2015, 12:26:43 am
Quote from: Helgoland on April 30, 2015, 08:11:51 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 30, 2015, 07:00:36 pm
my response is that any examples more than 20 years old are not relevant to modern day.
This is not categorically true. Sure, there may be/are past failings that may be circumvented by modern technology, but you'd have to do an in-depth analysis to find out whether that's true of each and every one of them.

Sure, but to point that out immediately moves the discussion beyond the scope of a forum debate.  I believe that if you did in-depth analysis of all the details, it could in the end be summarized as true in a broad sense.  That is my unbacked assertion, and to back it, I'd need the details of most interest to analyze.

Quote from: Helgoland on April 30, 2015, 08:11:51 pm
Sadly what you or him or I want out of society hardly matters. What matters is what most people want - and material comfort is pretty high on that list. If your ideology (I don't use that word with a negative connotation, by the way) does not account for that, it will never pick up. The Soviets had to learn that lesson, the aristocratic industrialists had to learn that lesson. There's no way to impose a societal order for any significant amount of time if it is not accepted by a broad majority.

Yeah, and this is an unfortunate character flaw of mine.  I've come to very much understand that I don't connect well with most of humanity.  I simply do not value the same experiences, and the society we have is really bad at offering the things I do value.  The only luxury I really care for is a nice computer, which isn't a material comfort in the same sense as a big house, expensive car, etc, and I've never felt the need for those things.

The thing that's never made sense to me is that even granted people's interest in material luxuries, what's the point in accumulating them if the process of doing so allows very little time for actually enjoying them?  Yeah, you've got a nice house full of nice stuff, but you only spend a few hours a day with those things.  So is it just about the satisfaction of knowing that something is yours?  That mode of thinking is completely alien to me.

But it doesn't matter, because I don't think a societal order can be imposed.  It has to be adopted.  It doesn't matter how vividly you detail another way of life if the transition isn't tangible and natural to people from their current position.

The sharing economies that have sprung up from the internet are a great example.  They're completely counter to the existing order of capitalism, but they make sense from the day-to-day life perspective of people who are otherwise still living in capitalism.  When you put the tools in front of people to conveniently both contribute to and take from a freely shared resource pool, the internet has proven that they don't need any special encouragement to do both.

Quote from: Helgoland on April 30, 2015, 08:11:51 pm
You forgot a third component: Structuring and prioritizing said information. A huge infodump is worthless: Wikipedia without links would be a perfect example. Sure, one could try to get the collective to do the structuring, but then you'll run into the problem that the 'uniting goals' usually aren't that well-defined when it comes to the details.

Information can be structured organically by collective input without the need for manual guidance.  Every social media network already does this on massive scale.  Nobody's bothered to make one that's geared towards facilitating practical exchanges yet.  We have software that essentially builds communities.  Now add functions that help those communities to make collective decisions and work together.  It all exists already in separate components.  No one's put forth the effort yet to combine Facebook, LinkedIn, Craigslist, Reddit, and some basic consensus tools to see what happens.  I bet with widespread adoption, you'd see it replacing the functionality that capitalism and government currently offer.

Quote from: Helgoland on April 30, 2015, 08:11:51 pm
Leadership, which is the interpretation and adaption of said uniting goals, turning abstract goals into concrete commands and orders - or guidelines and practices, if you want a less militaristic rhetoric.

I think leadership is something that arises naturally or something that can be imposed, and I think it's only necessary to design for leadership in an organization if it's going to be of the imposed variety.   I don't understand why you believe leadership is necessary for any of the functions you've listed, unless we have conflicting ideas about what leadership really means, which is likely.

Quote from: Helgoland on April 30, 2015, 08:11:51 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 30, 2015, 07:00:36 pm
and our ability to communicate today is completely incomparable to our ability to communicate more than 20 years ago.
Again, don't underestimate 20th century bureaucracies. This smells like hybris. (IIRC there were similar utopian ideas floating around during the revolutions of 1789 and 1917 - it's hardly a new phenomenon. The rule of thumb remains: We probably aren't that special.)

I think this works both ways.  There are always people saying that things will never change, but they always do.  I'm basing my assertion on precedent.  Social revolution and communication technology revolution have always coincided.  We're absolutely in the middle of one right now, and there are already big changes happening.  The only question is how deep those changes can go, and how we will direct them.

Quote from: Helgoland on April 30, 2015, 08:11:51 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on April 30, 2015, 07:00:36 pm
We have the potential now to organize in ways that have never been possible before in history.
What ways? Quit using abstract terms and get into the details! Unless you provide plausible examples, this is a mere assertion.

To share information instantly and globally on any scale!  To combine and filter the information from any number of inputs of any depth on any number of questions.  Big data.  Memetic culture.  Stand-alone complex.  I have the majority of mankind's collected knowledge tucked in my pocket every day, and can instantly fact-check anything anyone says to me.  I can interact with people in so many ways that have never been possible before, including what I'm doing right now.  An internet video recorded and uploaded by one person can turn into a thousand people rioting in a matter of hours.  Or it can make them famous to the entire world in a matter of days.  A small publication normally only read by a few thousand can suggest an action that goes viral and explodes into millions of participants around the world in a matter of weeks (Occupy Wall St).

You can argue that our existing structural paradigms still can't be replaced to any satisfactory effect, but it would be just weird to act like this isn't a very different kind of world we're entering into.

Quote from: Helgoland on April 30, 2015, 08:11:51 pm
How does the ability to communicate faster make those 'shitty workarounds' obsolete?

Because all our organizational paradigms thus far have been for the purpose of gathering and disseminating information to a population indirectly.  Information was passed up through a hierarchy, and decisions flowed back down.  Because there was no effective way for large numbers of distant people to share information with each other and make collective decisions.  Now we have those capabilities.  It's not just about communication faster.  It's about communicating with any number of people in any number of various locations all at once, and being able to receive and digest information in sophisticated ways from all of those people as well.  It's a kind of social agility the world has never had before.

Quote from: Helgoland on April 30, 2015, 08:11:51 pm
The mere existence of the internet doesn't provide anyone with an incentive to do something.

And what incentive do people need?  If people want something, they'll work for it.  If they have to work together, they'll work together.  All capitalism does is influence what people work together on, and how the benefit is allocated.

Quote from: Helgoland on April 30, 2015, 08:11:51 pm
(I also don't know why you call those workarounds 'shitty' - they appear to have worked out pretty well, haven't they? At least in Europe - that America is such a shithole in some places is hardly the fault of capitalism, but rather of the English because they drove all those religious nuts out of the country and to the colonies.)

I refuse to judge a system that operates by a network of global interactions by how well it serves a small region.  Plus, human beings have only managed civilization for about 2% of its history, and it's already on the verge of destroying itself via the environment.  I don't call that very successful.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on May 03, 2015, 11:53:35 am
I'll reply when I'm in less of a hurry, SG - in the meantime, here's a comic I think you'll enjoy. (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3724)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 13, 2015, 04:47:41 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TheDarkStar on May 13, 2015, 04:52:48 pm
Quote from: Cinder on May 01, 2015, 04:07:04 pm
I mean, if money had some intrinsic power then we could just print infinite money and achieve a post-scarcity society.

Step 1: Print money.
Step 2: Burn money for energy.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wobbly on May 14, 2015, 12:26:23 am
@SG - I've read your post a few times now and I'm still not sure you aren't proposing the exact same thing your complaining about in the 1st place.

Mostly it's so vague in the details that it could mean a lot of things. However you've spent several posts talking about how there collecting so much information from social networks, then it seems you go on to suggest running things by collecting masses of information from social networks....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on May 14, 2015, 01:03:34 am
Near as I can tell, the gathering of information is not a problem. What's a problem is the asymmetry created by the power imbalance, the difficulty of controlling any of that information, and the degree to which people manage to be unaware of it because nobody makes an effort to obtain informed consent.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on May 14, 2015, 01:28:44 am
Personally, I'm not so much concerned with information gathering, as I am with the massive power imbalance. That's what I feel needs to be addressed. Information gathering is a secondary concern, in that it contributes to said power imbalance.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 20, 2015, 12:16:23 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on May 13, 2015, 04:47:41 pm
An article on emotional labor (http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/how-companies-force-emotional-labor-low), the increasingly common and invasive practice of requiring your employees to pretend to be happy and enthusiastic as part of their job. This example they give is pretty disturbing:
Quote
Meanwhile, in The New Republic, Timothy Noah observes that the sandwich shop chain Pret A Manger aggressively monitors its employees’ displays of enthusiasm. If any worker at any particular store seems insufficiently pleased to see their customers, he and all of his coworkers could suffer the consequences. Pret CEO Clive Schlee even monitors whether his employees are making enough affectionate physical contact with each other.
“In other workplaces, touching a co-worker may get you fired,” writes Noah, “but at Pret you have to worry about not touching co-workers enough.”
It's always felt like having to pretend you love your shit job that you're getting paid shit money for is an extra level of demeaning. And it's just assumed that you'll do it for free, and anything that could affect your emotions is less important than reassuring the guy buying a burger that people don't work crappy, unlikeable jobs to make his cheap food possible.
I always knew there was something off with American smiles. Too happy... Internally screaming...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on May 27, 2015, 01:17:42 pm
https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/dad-defends-39k-birthday-party-for-3-year-old-119944904737.html

 ??? :o

$39,000 for a 3 year old's birthday party. Extravagant 1st birthday party tradition also somehow equals 2nd and 3rd too. Be sure to post it online to brag....

Also I'm not sure a 3 year old will both remember and currently enjoy, "a menu the included tempura scallops, truffle arancini, pork belly, cognac and a Disney cake." Well maybe the cake.... Still somehow I don't think she'll be gushing over the cognac.... I hope not anyhow.

I'm sorry but this party was never about the kid. I mean really? If your goal is for a 3 year old to enjoy the thing, then I don't think Tempura Scallops and Cognac quite fit the bill. More Disney Cake, less damn Congac.

And this is my favorite offense: "As for next year, Lembo says he can’t wait for Lauren’s big day. 'I am going to inject more money back into the community next year, for Lauren’s fourth birthday.'"

O ho ho, so we should all kiss the rich people's rump and beg them for their graciousness for bragging about spending their money on their luxuries "for the good of the community?"

Maybe we should tax it, before the  afluenza (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/affluenza-defense-probation-for-deadly-dwi_n_4430807.html) spreads.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on May 27, 2015, 01:25:29 pm
The pictures in that article are wonderful. Kid straight up dgaf.
And yes this is obviously the parents showing off. Unless that 3 year old has a social group that massively out-ages her, cognac isn't going to be doing her much good.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 27, 2015, 01:31:49 pm
Quote from: article
“The day wasn’t all about the money,” Lembo said Tuesday, answering those who called the fete “wasteful”  and “vulgar.”
"Just 99% about the money. 1% about other things."

What kind of nightmare hellscape did that kid create to deserve a 200+ person birthday party inflicted upon them, anyway? Do these parents hate the child, or are they just unintentionally cruel?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TempAcc on May 27, 2015, 01:38:59 pm
:v parents using kids as an excuse to throw a major weird ass party is not an entirely uncommon thing, whats bogus is just how the party was obviously not for the kid. I mean, if you throw a party for a small child, it should have stuff that a small child would find entertaining, and I dont think a few people dressed as disney character is actual entertainment. Also, children usualy hate huge aglomeration of people, so it was probably worse for her then just a normal day in her life. Imagine being sleepy but not able to sleep because there are 200 effing drunk people partying and your parents are having way too much fun to care about you, on your own birthday.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 27, 2015, 02:08:04 pm
I think that's reading way too much into it, to say the kid couldn't sleep because there were 200 partying drunk people. The party was in the middle of the day, not at night. You can see bright sunlight streaming through the window in the provided photos. Sure, criticize it on known facts, there's no need to make up ficticious stuff to be outraged about.

These are Australians of vietnamese / italian origin. Those cultures are really big on family connections. And like the article said, it's a tradition to throw a huge party for the 1st birthday, so they decided to do it again in successive years. Most of the people there were probably extended family, not 20-somethings out for a "big night".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TempAcc on May 27, 2015, 02:23:27 pm
Quote from: Reelya on May 27, 2015, 02:08:04 pm
I think that's reading way too much into it, to say the kid couldn't sleep because there were 200 partying drunk people. The party was in the middle of the day, not at night. You can see bright sunlight streaming through the window in the provided photos. Sure, criticize it on known facts, there's no need to make up ficticious stuff to be outraged about.

These are Australians of vietnamese / italian origin. Those cultures are really big on family connections. And like the article said, it's a tradition to throw a huge party for the 1st birthday, so they decided to do it again in successive years. Most of the people there were probably extended family, not 20-somethings out for a "big night". And  it's Perth, which is complete dullsville. There's hardly any nightlife scene at all there.

Quote from: TempAcc on May 27, 2015, 01:38:59 pm
Imagine being sleepy but not able to sleep because there are 200 effing drunk people partying and your parents are having way too much fun to care about you, on your own birthday.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 27, 2015, 02:26:17 pm
Why are you imagining it if you're not claiming that it's relevant? You prefaced that "imagine" comment with a direct comment of "it was probably worse for her then just a normal day in her life." so it's incredibly dodgy to now claim that it was merely a hypothetical.

I mean I could say something about not liking Obama then add "imagine having a gay muslim kenyan for president". Oh, but I said "imagine" so I'm only referring to a hypothetical Obama, not the real one ;D
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TempAcc on May 27, 2015, 02:28:39 pm
Quote from: Reelya on May 27, 2015, 02:26:17 pm
Why are you imagining it if you're not claiming that it's relevant? You prefaced that "imagine" comment with a direct comment of "it was probably worse for her then just a normal day in her life." so it's incredibly dodgy to now claim that it was merely a hypothetical.

:v
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 27, 2015, 02:31:04 pm
God, that's some dodgy rationalization.

So I could say Obama is "probably" a communist. But I'm not actually attacking Obama because I said "probably".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on May 27, 2015, 02:32:56 pm
It... it was pretty clearly as a means to demonstrate how having 200+ people in the local area could interfere with a 3 year old's normal happiness-acquiring methods, such as taking a nap when tired (which they still do fairly often at that age).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TempAcc on May 27, 2015, 02:37:09 pm
^this
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on May 28, 2015, 02:18:21 am
Quote from: Reelya on May 27, 2015, 02:08:04 pm
I think that's reading way too much into it, to say the kid couldn't sleep because there were 200 partying drunk people. The party was in the middle of the day, not at night.
Wasn't it a third birthday? I think when you're three years old you don't particularly care about the time of the day. Sleeping is a major activity for all hours at that age.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on May 28, 2015, 03:00:24 am
Quote from: TheDarkStar on May 13, 2015, 04:52:48 pm
Quote from: Cinder on May 01, 2015, 04:07:04 pm
I mean, if money had some intrinsic power then we could just print infinite money and achieve a post-scarcity society.

Step 1: Print money.
Step 2: Burn money for energy.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit!
I know this reply is incredibly late, but I would assume step 3 would have to involve magical girls and contracts for that to work.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on May 29, 2015, 11:20:56 am
Capitalism fails due to corporate greed, yet again:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/washington-farmers-dumping-unprofitable-apples-061144538.html

Dock workers have been getting the short end of the stick for years and it's "ok" because that's not a "real job" or so goes the perception saying these hard workers aren't worth anything.... So about $100 Million dollars worth of apples are literally being intentionally left to rot in the fields as compost.

Over specialization means there's no way to preserve or convert these apples into anything but compost. There's no way to bring in and set up juice presses, or hire labor to sauce and jar them. We live in a country where 1 in 6 (even if that's very high and it's 1 in 8 ) are food insecure, and the government or somebody couldn't find some way to do something with all that food?

So we're literally throwing it out to rot?

And I love how people are blaming the dock workers on this one. I do. Heaven forbid they actually stand up for themselves. Nobody considers their bosses who won't give into any reasonable demands or negotiate in good faith as the slightest bit responsible. The answer they seem to give is "you should feel lucky to have a job!" As if working hard manual labor is a lovely thing you should be honored to do, "slave." .... Magnificent.... B.S..

Corporations don't want to pay for hard work, farmers can't ship crops, bellies go empty.... Figures.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on May 29, 2015, 11:27:14 am
Quote
The ports dispute created numerous problems for farmers. A big issue is that apples loaded into unrefrigerated containers sat on docks for weeks waiting to be loaded on a ship, Fryhover said.

"It is a perishable crop," he said.

The record crop also created a shortage of refrigerated storage space for the apples, which normally can be stored for months and sold year round.

The result is lots of apples became too ripe even to be diverted to juice and applesauce makers and other processors, Fryhover said. And prices for processor apples are so low — $10 to $30 a ton — that they do not cover shipping costs, he said.

I'm used to folks here blaming everything on Capitalism like the Tea Party does with Obama, but is reading your own article really too much to ask?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on May 29, 2015, 11:33:14 am
The ports were closed because of management trying to undermine the workers. It's in the same article. So it does go back to capitalist social relations no matter how you look at it. It was the bosses that closed the ports completely to try and break the bargaining power of the workers. Basically to use force to keep the workers doing more than their contract actually calls for them to do. The workers just worked slowly (and in accordance with their job descriptions, which is why they weren't just fired), it was the bosses that childishly and derailed the entire port system by closing it down - effectively holding everyone to ransom and blaming the workers.

Quote
Ports from San Diego to Seattle were all but shut down several months ago as the two sides haggled. Companies that accused workers of coordinated slowdowns decided to cut their shifts, shuttering ports on nights and weekends.

"Slowdowns" are a tactic where you work to what you're actually paid to do. Bosses cannot fire you because usually it means doing thing "by the book". It's also known a "work to rule": i.e. workers start following the actual rules rather than taking initiative, and this actually cripples production. It's a way of highlighting to management how much exta you're actually doing - extra things that you should really be paid for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-to-rule

Quote
Work-to-rule is an industrial action in which employees do no more than the minimum required by the rules of their contract, and precisely follow safety or other regulations in order to cause a slowdown, rather than to serve their purposes.[1][2] Such an action is considered less disruptive than a strike or lockout; and just obeying the rules is less susceptible to disciplinary action.

No capitalist entity should do "more than the minimum required by the rules of their contract" so why should workers be shamed for no doing extra? You want extra, pay for extra. That's how capitalism works. There shouldn't be one set of capitalist rules for the bosses, yet if a worker doesn't break his own back as a docile slave, they get shamed for their bad attitude.

Objectivism/Libertarianism states that each economic entity must be driven by rational self interest, and that self-interest is the highest morality. But this can't just apply to just bosses, if self-interest is a universal ethic as objectivists claim, then greedy workers must be the best workers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on May 29, 2015, 11:42:24 am
.... Really? You think I didn't? :) .... No. I'm going to go out of my way to be perhaps too polite in this case.... I will assume you are not fixated upon finding an easy problem with somebody else to complain about.... Trying and failing to correct me is usually a fruitless endeavor and there are tons of people who have ignored my advice out of hand and lived to regret it (prison, IRS after them, etc). Might I suggest you pay more attention to what I said, assume I might possibly have a reasonable argument rather than not, because there may be a thing or two you might have missed? Lower the amount of snide please.

I'm aware of what you quoted, but it seems perhaps the real meaning behind the words has escaped the cursory glance many people give (and the far harsher and more meaningful, understanding one I gave).

You might please look at the word before your bolding "became." How did they become too ripe? This didn't just happen. Apples are grown every single day and they don't just "[become]" too ripe. They get picked packaged and shipped instead of plowed into the soil It's what I'm complaining about along with their method of disposal.

The apples BECAME too ripe (no person left them to rot, but rather the apples are the actors huh?), because nobody did a damn thing with them, because the system is too screwed up right now. The reason those apples became too ripe (were left to rot, literally) is because of the labor shutdown at the ports (they aren't paying the dock workers enough), and the screwed up pricing system of capitalism making it unprofitable to ship them elsewhere to be juiced or sauced. There are NO local juice or saucing facilities able to take the crop in (overspecialization, lack of excess capacity, and reliance upon transporting them elsewhere.). Why not have juicing facilities near the region that produces perishable fruits in case this happens? It's usually cheaper to ship to lower labor cost areas, that's why. 

The messed up capitalism system can't deal with the bumper crop of apples and the screwy "supply and demand" system makes it so through "oversupply" of this record crop, "And prices for processor apples are so low — $10 to $30 a ton — that they do not cover shipping costs, he said. The system is making it so that the farmers are essentially punished for being too good at growing apples. How can there be a "shift in the supply curve indicating oversupply (the low price of apples) when we have people without enough food in this country? Does anybody else think that's nuts? We live in a country where way too many people are hungry but we're plowing apples into the fields and there's no practical way to get the food to the hungry people?


The thing you quoted was propaganda. It blames the apples for rotting. I love how no person is responsible, don't all of you? It's the fruit that's at fault; it deserves to rot; and it doesn't hurt the environment. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Certainly don't blame the companies, no matter what you do don't ever blame the companies or the perfect system....

No, there's a reason people are mad at this. I'm far from reflexively hating the system -- I know it and its faults all too well. Thank you and please have a lovely day.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 03, 2015, 04:34:57 pm
Quote from: Jopax on June 03, 2015, 04:08:18 pm
Not sure where to put this and I don't feel like making a discussion thread for something so far removed from myself, so I'll put it here because it's saddening. (http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid)

Thoughts on this thing? From my experience, it's definitely a thing, and I think the author puts the emphasis on the most likely root of the problem - oversimplification. What we've wound up with is a cultural narrative mandating a crusade against particular icons of intolerance, against the appearance of insensitivity, and in absolute defense of each person's emotional integrity. It's become a classic Good vs Evil thing, and in that traditional dichotomy all nuance and appreciation for context is lost; and this is disastrous when the entire point is supposed to be acceptance of people surviving in a context different than your own. In rushing to attack the latest hateful fiend, we kind of forget about anything else, like "Do I understand the situation?", "Is this target actually particularly evil?", or "Are there better options for me?" You end up getting a lot of friendly fire, wasted energy, and missed opportunities. And, of course, we provide fuel for the argument against liberalism by becoming exactly the Inquisition we're supposed to be tearing down.

But that's just my perspective.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: NullForceOmega on June 03, 2015, 04:44:11 pm
I feel that it is an extremely well organized analysis of a growing problem.  To say that the concept of 'social justice' has be come oversimplified is a dramatic understatement on its own.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on June 04, 2015, 07:26:35 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on June 03, 2015, 04:34:57 pm
Quote from: Jopax on June 03, 2015, 04:08:18 pm
Not sure where to put this and I don't feel like making a discussion thread for something so far removed from myself, so I'll put it here because it's saddening. (http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid)

Thoughts on this thing? From my experience, it's definitely a thing, and I think the author puts the emphasis on the most likely root of the problem - oversimplification. What we've wound up with is a cultural narrative mandating a crusade against particular icons of intolerance, against the appearance of insensitivity, and in absolute defense of each person's emotional integrity. It's become a classic Good vs Evil thing, and in that traditional dichotomy all nuance and appreciation for context is lost; and this is disastrous when the entire point is supposed to be acceptance of people surviving in a context different than your own. In rushing to attack the latest hateful fiend, we kind of forget about anything else, like "Do I understand the situation?", "Is this target actually particularly evil?", or "Are there better options for me?" You end up getting a lot of friendly fire, wasted energy, and missed opportunities. And, of course, we provide fuel for the argument against liberalism by becoming exactly the Inquisition we're supposed to be tearing down.

But that's just my perspective.

I was wondering if that would pop up here. What a ridiculous and saddening situation for a professor to be in.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 04, 2015, 07:43:18 pm
I think it's wonderful that college professors like this guy are afraid, because maybe they'll finally get their heads out of their over privileged posteriors.

Let's jump right to his BS shall we? He's not "challenging people to come out of their comfort zones," but he is being a jerk and using that as an excuse. How do I know? I tutor and actually do what he pretends to do. Think about that, me, no protections at all, teaching kids (actual minors under 18) how to think and question beliefs and relying entirely upon their parents for payment.... If their parents decide I'm a jerk who is teaching their kids things they don't like, then out the door I go, unpaid, unfed. This guy has all the protection you could ask for and just because he only has nearly ultimate protection instead of actually ultimate protection, he's complaining.

If he's like most professors in the absolutely broken American College system, all he's doing is forcing people (adults, not kids) to read an old book some Ph.D. wasted time writing about the deeper meaning of. What he should be doing is examining thought formulas and logical constructs that explain ideas instead of throwing disturbing crap at people and demanding they see things from the stupid author's point of view.

College professors are famously out of touch, and refuse to evolve even the slightest bit. They treat grown adults who are mortgaging their futures and paying outrageous tuition bills like children in an institution that segregates dorm rooms by gender like a boarding school. No customer (yes customer, you jerk) feedback, or else the professor will cry that he's not God. Meanwhile the colleges are providing terrible service not only preparing people for the job market, but teaching them to think in general, by using outdated models and steadfastly refusing to even consider changing.


You want the real irony?

This guy is claiming that students are refusing to go out of their comfort zones. He won't come out of his.

Yeah, that. To review: Old, out of touch, and complaining about it. Refusing to change while demanding others do.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go have some buffalo chicken tenders.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 04, 2015, 08:00:19 pm
No, actually, Truean, for once in my life I'm going to have to call bullshit.

Unless you're in the tenure track, you ain't got shit for protection, your job security depends on consistent student evaluations, and the ever-more business-shaped university procedures demand that you provide the education students expect instead of the one they need. This isn't a guy refusing to evolve, it's a guy being told he is forbidden to evolve, and it's not because universities are finally giving emotional harm its due weight, it's because they remain incapable of doing that and swing as far as they can against it to avoid lawsuits. You should be familiar with this horse shit! It's the same damn excuse as censoring the word "feminism" on a T-Shirt: "We have to protect our students from things they don't want to see, and your rights can take a damn backseat." The only difference is who's wielding that horsecock dildo of a bludgeon, and it's only possible because this is the one realm in which students actually exercise power; they're paying customers, now, so of course management is going to crack down to make sure they keep forking over that sweet, sweet dosh.

You're making a shitload of assumptions about who the author is, to boot, as if you need that in order to properly disagree. So he has to be old, out-of-touch, stubborn, and intent on distributing crap? You don't know shit about this guy! Step the fuck off with the personal attacks, you're usually better than this. You're attacking a caricature you had to build for the purpose, and you built it clumsily.

I hope you enjoy your chicken, you sure as shit deserve it, but c'mon. I'm disappointed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on June 04, 2015, 08:19:20 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on June 04, 2015, 08:00:19 pm
No, actually, Truean, for once in my life I'm going to have to call bullshit.

Unless you're in the tenure track, you ain't got shit for protection, your job security depends on consistent student evaluations, and the ever-more business-shaped university procedures demand that you provide the education students expect instead of the one they need. This isn't a guy refusing to evolve, it's a guy being told he is forbidden to evolve, and it's not because universities are finally giving emotional harm its due weight, it's because they remain incapable of doing that and swing as far as they can against it to avoid lawsuits. You should be familiar with this horse shit! It's the same damn excuse as censoring the word "feminism" on a T-Shirt: "We have to protect our students from things they don't want to see, and your rights can take a damn backseat." The only difference is who's wielding that horsecock dildo of a bludgeon, and it's only possible because this is the one realm in which students actually exercise power; they're paying customers, now, so of course management is going to crack down to make sure they keep forking over that sweet, sweet dosh.

You're making a shitload of assumptions about who the author is, to boot, as if you need that in order to properly disagree. So he has to be old, out-of-touch, stubborn, and intent on distributing crap? You don't know shit about this guy! Step the fuck off with the personal attacks, you're usually better than this. You're attacking a caricature you had to build for the purpose, and you built it clumsily.

I hope you enjoy your chicken, you sure as shit deserve it, but c'mon. I'm disappointed.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 04, 2015, 09:37:55 pm
Yeah, no, going to respectfully disagree with you Bauglir. I'm undeserving of disappointment. Respectfully, you're making assumptions about me making assumptions. No. I'm not. Please read further and suspend judgment and emotion while doing so. Difficult request online but I respect and trust you enough to know you can handle it.

Yes, complaints are overdone, and yes, you often have people throwing out B.S. complaints (I've had more than a few to say the least). Hell I've had to deal with the completely B.S. and stupidly complaining idiots. I once knew a prosecutor who got a complaint launched against him by a person who exclaimed that the prosecutor was at fault for making him "so mad he screamed in court and got in trouble for it." So now it's somebody else's fault how an individual behaves? No. I'm not disagreeing with him on that. Actually, I'm agreeing with him on that particular point. That's not what this is really about though.

I'm also far from insensitive to the situation faced by adjuncts and actually think that should be fixed in favor of the adjuncts generally. Higher wages, better contracts, etc. This dude does have tenure though, "In early 2009, I was an adjunct." Note that past tense.

Also I'm not making assumptions or caricature. I'm going directly off what he put in his post. I hate quoting, and this guy has expressed a desire to remain anonymous so I'll erase this after I make my point so as not to trace back to his article:

The following is a spoiler quote detailing an account the author, a professor experienced. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
The professor failed to deal with this situation correctly and could've done a much better job in tons of ways by doing exactly what he is saying others won't. The irony is palpable. The complaint is that this professor is being censored, when he is blowing off this (admittedly wrong, perhaps very racist) student. The professor could have handled this very differently, as most of them could. It's about bad student relations between faculty and staff, who are being paid by those students and thus should respect them. He could have defused the situation and perhaps even educated a racist student.

It's about the flawed process that pervades our society. In a perfect world, I would like ever so much to talk to this professor in a private vacuum on equal footing over coffee/drink of his choice and relay the following:

The Setting
A movie was shown about Wall St.'s recklessness messing up the economy (a point a absolutely agree with personally).

The situation:
The professor asks if the film was "effective." A student made a very inappropriate remark (due to: racist wording and ideas, as well as unsupported statements). By making this remark, the student is essentially trying and failing to say that he does not think the film was effective and stating why he (incorrectly) believes it was not effective.

The professor's inappropriate response:
Blows (inappropriate, racist comment making) student off. He avoids the substance of the question (the racist portions, and blaming Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae), shifts the student to talk about the film in what the professor sees as if it was effective (The student is trying to say it wasn't, for the wrong reasons).

The student's inappropriate response:
Other than clearly being wrong to blame black people and make a racist statement, which is rather not cool, the student reports this incident. This isn't justified on the student's part really. The student continues making off base and inappropriate comments and calls the professor "communistic."

End result:
Racist student still believes racist ideas and incorrect notions blaming black people for the recession. Professor passed up an opportunity to improve the situation and explore those portions that were perhaps legit counterpoints (government v wall street, who caused it), while refuting the underlying racist assumptions in the student's remarks.

Clarification:
THE STUDENT IN QUESTION IS AN ASSHOLE FOR BEING RACIST. I am NOT sympathizing with that individual. The world is full of assholes and you really can't control them. All you can control is your response to the situation and the professor could have done better.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Alternative response the professor could have given to the racist remark: (skip ahead for the purpose color coding)
"Well, I can see you might feel strongly about that. I disagree, as do many others. Let me also caution you against some of the words you used, because that could be perceived as somewhat being a little against "black people." We wouldn't want to hurt people based on the color of their skin, because there's nothing wrong with black people as a group, they're a lot like everybody else. Right?

That said, what about, and I quote, "Government kept giving homes to black people, to help out black people, white people didn't get anything, and then they couldn't pay for them," as you asked. First, may I suggest that might not be supported by evidence. Do you have numbers proving that the government did that? Also, "giving" homes might be a bit strong, but maybe "financing" homes. Because, I don't quite imagine it's quite as ... well ... "black and white" as your statement may suggest. Perhaps it didn't exactly happen that way?

Now perhaps you feel there was something not brought up in the film, and maybe you don't feel it was "effective," based on something? I'm sure you don't mean to imply that race played any bad role or anything that could be thought of as racist, right? Maybe you feel that government played more of a role in causing the recession than Wall Street. Maybe that, without the notion of race in there, might be a more appropriate line of questioning."
__________________________________________________________________________________________
You see what just happened there? That's a.) good student relation skills, b.) trying to engage in a constructive dialog about race and disproving racist notions, c.) engaging what may be seen as an (more legitimate once its stripped of the racist crap) alternative point of view.

Let's look at the communication skills the professor could have applied and how they can be color coded and parsed out of my little example speech there, shall we? (Just highlight the text if the corresponding colors aren't helpful for you to look at is my suggestion). 

1.) "Recognizing feelings." Feelings are incredibly important, because they guide most people's actions. Without making a value judgment, as a tactical matter, this is always good to do. Multiple purposes are served. First, it lets the person know you are listening and taking them seriously. There's a very dangerous set of dueling narratives in this country that the "other side" doesn't listen, doesn't get it, and doesn't care. "Those damn Conservatives/Liberals, or A/B." Second, this professor is talking about exploring alternate viewpoints, doing that requires calming the emotions within people.

2.) Asserting authority and correcting. Intentionally or not. This student is being racist by blaming poor black people. Not cool. This exposes the racist element of the statement. Moreover, there's a hint of social justice in there. You don't make racists not racists by telling them to shut up or brushing them off, you talk to them about it. You expose the reasons they are incorrect. That leads me to:

3.) Exposing logical flaws and fallacies  This is the heart of this teacher's job. This is the education people are paying for and striving to achieve. This should be the first step towards showing logical soundness in other areas, after you weed out the BS logical fallacies, and incorrect lines of thought.

4.) Addressing the other side of the argument This is exactly the logical result of the professor's question. He asks if the film is "effective." Well at heart, there's only a couple of different answers he can expect, "yes" or "no," (or maybe a third option, I dunno but yeah). Well, this was the "no" response, sadly tainted with some racist shit that needed washed off.

You see the techniques here (applied by the professor and the one I suggest using). You see the alternatives and thought processes behind those as well as the different results? You see how the professor actually DID brush the (racist) guy off, I exclaim incorrectly? Do you see the inadvertent harm brushing people off in a discussion environment (that he paid to be part of) causes both to the education process and to society at large? Do you see how harmful viewpoints thrive on the idea that they are "legit but being ignored" (the "lame stream media won't cover it!") when people are blown off? Do you see how the professor absolutely is expressing some lovely arrogance and head in posterior positioning? A LOT of people who are now more OK with gay people, stopped being homophobic once they could talk to somebody who is gay and also a pretty ok person after all.... :)

I deal with far worse than this student every freaking day man. I've had to talk people out of crimes by addressing the incorrect ideas in their heads that they are using to "justify" their behavior. It's a communication skill in direct conflict to the old school idea most colleges are built upon and the notion of a "college kid." Moreover, it's an attempt to more accurately deal with the major problem of society's bad ideas running rampant on all sides. This is the "seeing both sides of it."

I'm using the examples he provides to form my opinions, not assuming, but I sadly can't spend all the time I would like to explaining myself.

Edit: Suffice it to say he keeps right on doing exactly this repeatedly by pointing things out as if they should be obvious to the reader, when clearly they aren't to the people complaining (those darn kids!), like the part about how he opposes harassment victims having to show proof. Hey, me too. Let's discuss that, in a respectful manner that includes all sides. Shit, I'm all for due process, but you also have to explain it from the victim's point of view in a justice system that often leaves victims feeling left out in the cold while providing lawyers for guilty as hell defendants (and I've been that provided lawyer). Same deal with his abortion rights debate being canceled argument. Same deal with the librarians calling a colleague creepy argument. Same deal over and over and over again. This isn't an assumption I'm making. This is a pattern he's showing that leads to a set of reasonable and logical conclusions showing that, like o so many in higher ed, they don't get it.

He absolutely is an old professor refusing to change. Look at what he's writing, "Commentators on the left and right have recently criticized the sensitivity and paranoia of today's college students."

.... So, "damn kids! Get off my lawn!"

Wow. Those are your customers and you're using outdated tactics. Bullshit, and I'm calling him on it while being constructive and providing actual examples and alternatives. AKA being helpful instead of just bitching. These are the future of society who will eventually inherit the earth. Maybe instead of the complaining he does, he should talk about it and explain why he's right with those individuals and counter the narrative he's opposing.

Maybe this professor could use his words instead of smugly assuming he's automatically right and the damn kids are wrong. His job isn't to be smart, which he clearly is. His job is to educate and explain. Use. Your. Words.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 04, 2015, 10:34:53 pm
Look, I'm not saying that he handled his anecdote perfectly correctly. I can think of several improvements to his technique, and you listed most of them! But that's not what he's writing about, and you know it. You're behaving as though demonstrating that this professor is a bad person demonstrates that his argument is wrong. That's... obnoxious in the extreme. It's right for universities to censor educators because some of them are assholes? Even if you're right, you're wrong.

You're clearly a lot better at handling people than he is, and that's great! But you're picking at background fluff; what scares him is the way complaints are handled. That's exactly what this is really about. You're emphasizing a red herring, just as you are by pointing out that this guy has got tenure now (which we don't actually know, by the way; he may have moved on to being a full time lecturer or something else that pays better and more consistently without earning tenure). The presumption of guilt on the basis of emotional allegations is what he's scared of. Again, you're a lawyer, you should know how awful that is for the law.

When the administration receives a bullshit complaint, the correct response is absolutely to do the minimum required by procedure, including documenting it for future investigation if more serious complaints come up, and then get back to business. It is absolutely not acceptable to make your employees accountable for the mere presence of complaints because they're bad for business. How do you determine if the complaint is bullshit? You read it, of course. I'm not saying there's some irrefutable presumption that complaints don't need to be examined until they are proven worth of examination. But once you've made some headway in determining the character of the complaint, you should make decisions accordingly. The character of the student is totally irrelevant!

But you keep trying to make this be about who's Good or Evil. You dedicate one paragraph of your original post to explaining why your experience as a tutor qualifies you to judge this professor you've never met. You talk about how hard it is for you, and pretend that says anything about how easy it is or is not for him. Then you talk about how he's "probably" just trying to make people read meaningless books that say nothing and take a few hundred pages to do it; something that is at once without evidence and counter to the very anecdote you just quoted! You spend your next paragraph lamenting the state of the educational system, which is strange because it's precisely the product of the behavior this professor is decrying: an education focused entirely on style and emotional satisfaction over actual teaching. As far as I can tell none of this has anything to do with anything but, "I think professors are generally awful and deserve whatever shit gets hurled their way".

You're welcome to think that, but I am no more willing to accept that than I am to accept the same about lawyers.

EDIT: I snipped out a line that went a bit too far. Sorry, Truean, if you managed to read it.

EDIT: In response to the additional stuff that you've added after the edit, you're right, he could be doing a better job of handling his students, although part of his point is that he no longer can. At some point, he will inevitably be faced with a student willing to file a complaint because they didn't like what he said, and when that happens he's fucked. All he can do is cater to what they want to hear, which is exactly the environment that poisons their education in exactly the ways you don't want.

He is using his words, by writing this article, in the only way he's permitted to do so.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 04, 2015, 11:22:21 pm
Thanks. It's cool man. I think I get what you're saying, I just think there's some mistranslation somewhere.

Na, ain't about who's "good or evil." It's about people and dealing with them in three specific instances a.) Universities dealing with complaints from students, b.) Professors dealing with students, and c.) generally dealing with differing opinions.  You nailed that first one, and again, I absolutely agree with you. The complaint process is bullshit, I said that before. You're correct that it's about the way complaints are handled, but incomplete because it's also about points "b" and "c" above. That's a critical key to the puzzle.

Here's the point: Yes, the complaint procedure is bullshit (as are many things). The issue is the way this problem is dealt with and reacted to, both generally and in his article. The fact that the complaint procedure is bullshit needs to be respectfully talked about.

He's not doing that. Instead he's calling students "sensitive" and "paranoid (and lots of other things)."

Reduced to simplest forms: IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).

(Issue) Process for students complaining about professors is a problem. (Rule) Problems should be discussed and resolved respectfully. (Analysis) This professor does not discuss and resolve this problem, and rather, he blames students, insultingly calling them "sensitive" and "paranoid. (Conclusion) The professor's approach to the problem is wrong.

Does IRACing this help at all? I hope that clarifies my position which seems to be difficult to express. It is about the complaint procedure being bullshit, but also about how he handles it, and moreover about how we deal with bullshit like the complaint procedure. Problems, like the complaint procedure being bullshit, are going to happen, but it's how you handle it that matters....

_______________________________________________________________________

That said, yeah, I do have a problem with a lot of college professors. To be fair, maybe that is a bit much on my part, but not completely off base. This guy is a good example. He's insulting his students for trying to answer the questions he's asking (as in the example he gave), or for doing things for reasons he doesn't agree with.

Take the specific problem of the complaint procedure being bullshit (and all the examples and subproblems growing from that listed by the author). Yes, it is a problem. Agreed. He, as an academic, should be looking to the root of that problem (the causes) as well as the opposing party's viewpoints (the students), and why they have formed the opinions they have (that they should be able to complain like hell). He isn't, and rather he's going off on the kids. Don't get me wrong, there are times when it's ok to go off on people, when they deserve it. The issue with that here specifically is that he's skipping a step and assuming they deserve it because they are "sensitive, etc." He never seems to consider the other side. He should and here it is:

You have to know what the other side is before you can legitimately complain about it, much less counter it: aka devil's advocate:
A.) College Students are adults paying a lot of money for an education that should be practical and instructive. (Stakeholder and Shareholder argument) 
-Obvious financial matters
-Promises of jobs/major areas of study/expectations, etc.
B.) Colleges have a history of excluding students from meaningful decision making/expression (German model, gender dorm separation, heirarchy, etc,etc).
-Student / Teacher Model with lectures instead of discussions.
C.) Students feel ignored, minimized, and screwed (overcharged, under educated or badly educated) by outdated methods. (Technique criticism)
-Teachers use old, difficult to relate to books
D.) Students feel they often have no choice but to pander to a teacher's pet theories
-There are professors out there who will dock your grade if you don't parrot what they believe.

The above is the source of the counter movement leading tot he shift in the student teacher dynamic the author is complaining about (perhaps rightly so). These and perhaps more reasons are what is causing the shifting policy and procedure dealing with students complaining about professors (which I disagree with personally).

The professor needs to address these concerns, as an educated individual, instead of complaining about the complainers. He needs to support his points about why it is bad to place, " traditional goals of higher education — such as having students challenge their beliefs — off limits." He should not state that it is tradition and attach weight to that alone, but rather explain WHY these traditions were right to begin with, are still applicable and the best choice, and why these should support a different, more professor friendly student-complaint-against-professors policy. The professor's argument could be structured something like this perhaps:

A.) A fundamental purpose to challenging student's beliefs is making them see WHY they hold those beliefs, and why others hold opposite views
B.) A civil society thrives on civil debate and that requires understanding why views are held to argue for AND against them effectively and fairly
C.) Allowing a complaint policy where complaints stemming from discomfort caused by points A, and B above destroys points A and B's legitimate goals.
D.) The discussion is critical in all cases, and is sorely lacking. Using "offensive" examples, trains and makes less offensive ones easier to stomach.
E.)  Stare Decisis  (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stare+Decisis) It ain't broke don't fix it. Careful using that one, cause your opponents will latch right on (and they have), but there are many merits to this.

If this issue is ever going to actually be resolved, then all of the above and perhaps more needs to be taken into account without the name calling and derision this professor doles out to "those darn kids." Hey, maybe they have a few legit points and insulting them is just going to make things worse? He does insult people with every tone he takes instead of dissecting the issues as I just did.

Yes, the complaint process is a problem, and it's one that's never going to be solved until and unless we also address how he deals with his students and how problems like this complaint process should be addressed. I've had to do it with improper complaints against me and others like me. It sucks. Still needs done.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 04, 2015, 11:29:19 pm
Well, that's all fair enough, I suppose. Misunderstanding on my part; I was defending what seemed to be the thrust of what he said, whereas you seem to be critiquing what he was failing to say - which is basically that the students are, entirely cleverly, using whatever mechanics are available to them to get what they're really there for (a very expensive piece of paper). And instead he's placing blame on them for their apparent sensitivity (which is as much a pragmatic, learned response to "If I complain, people fix my problems" as it is any sort of moral failing). And because he's decided to latch onto the much easier rationale of "they're either evil or stupid", he's not helping anybody.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 04, 2015, 11:34:14 pm
Yup. What I just did, is what he needs to do -- him and all the other professors. Engage, not alienate.

This right here, if I'm not mistaken, is a good result, like the one he would vastly benefit from.

In response to your edit and in clarification thereof: He's not explaining himself well (see above) and he's making a lot of assumptions. I've hand tragic firsthand experience with this and sadly can't give too many details, but yeah. I've been accused of far worse than this professor is saying he's dealt with to say the least. It's a major pain in the butt as an understatement, I get it. He, or rather the teaching profession in higher Ed CAN constructively deal with this problem as I've outlined above by not only using their words, but actively and meaningfully doing so as a group. Prevention is the best measure and explaining / training students WHY it is undesirable to have such a bullshit complaint policy is the best choice. All that education behind those PhDs, surely they can form a persuasive argument why it is sometimes actually GOOD to be offended, and why that is NEEDED in certain times.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Glowcat on June 05, 2015, 02:18:46 am
Yeah...

All I wanna say about the Vox piece and its author is that he somehow decided he'd blame vicious SJWs for rather extensive issues regarding how adjunct professors are treated by administrations (many of whom are screwed without a single social justice issue brought up at all!) and continue the recent trend where people who like to use Liberal as if it's a badge proving their essential goodness rail against the evils of identity politics. Of course he ironically does so by blaming people for not being willing to engage in subjects... while completely misrepresenting a black woman's arguments because he didn't want to rationally engage them and instead decided that her criticisms of how scientific inquiry has been constructed —and not scientific inquiry itself, which is pretty obvious even in that fraction of that tweet string which was specifically not an attack on the scientific method but the pseudoscientific outcomes from the institutions of science riddled with compromising biases which informed how science developed (particularly with regards to people and cultures)— could be summed up as "white people bad." Why he decided to go on twitter to find a random person to strawman is a mystery, but predictably she started to receive threats of violence and harassment while Mr. Anonymous Professor receives the sympathy of all those who've made a habit of bemoaning political correctness gone mad.

This article is thick with dishonest slimery and if you wanna talk about more thoughtful consideration then you should probably start at home first.

Quote from: Pre-edit Edward Schlosser article piece I'm referring to
But why draw that out to the extreme of rejecting scientific inquiry as a whole? Can’t we see how it’s dangerous to reject centuries of established thought so blithely? Or how scary and extreme that makes us look to people who don’t already agree with us? And tactically, can’t we see how shortsighted it is to abandon a viable and respected manner of inquiry just because it’s associated with white males?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on June 05, 2015, 04:38:54 am
Quote from: NullForceOmega on June 03, 2015, 04:44:11 pm
I feel that it is an extremely well organized analysis of a growing problem.  To say that the concept of 'social justice' has be come oversimplified is a dramatic understatement on its own.

I've been reading a number of similar articles recently:

http://jezebel.com/feminist-students-protest-feminist-prof-for-writing-abo-1707714321
Story date: may 29th 2015. A couple of radical feminist students didn't like what a moderate feminist scholar wrote in an opinion article so they attacked her with Title IX complaints. During the process, the Title IX investigators asked the accused whether she'd like to make counter Title IX complaints against her accusers (which she declined). This is a corruption of what Title IX was intended to be used for. It was not meant to be a blanket mechanism for left-wing women to silence people who's articles upset them. Anyone, male or female, liberal or conservative, may be upset by other people's articles or opinion.

It's fairly clear that the sort of spurious Title IX investigations outlined in the article will only ever get off the ground if the complainant is both liberal and female, so there's a inherent political bias in the mechanism, which should be gender neutral and politically agnostic. e.g. Title IX could be used to shut down a pro-life group because it makes pro-choice women uncomfortable. But it would be utterly unthinkable (even laughable) that Title IX would be used to shut down a pro-choice group because it makes pro-life women uncomfortable. So we are presuming that how pro-choice women feel is important to protect via Title IX whereas pro-life women can go screw themselves and get no protection under Title IX.

Britain is also experience a wave of massive censorship of any idea that might make any student remotely upset:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/

One of the targets includes anyone discussing the ideas of philosophers such as Nietzsche, on the grounds that it may encourage fascism:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/05/university-college-london-s-nietzsche-club-is-banned.html
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 05, 2015, 04:14:43 pm
Banning Nietzsche only makes his undead corpse stronger.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on June 05, 2015, 05:08:01 pm
To not ban Nietzsche, though, would be injurious to society.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 05, 2015, 05:58:12 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on June 05, 2015, 05:08:01 pm
To not ban Nietzsche, though, would be injurious to society.
Explain?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on June 05, 2015, 06:13:37 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on June 05, 2015, 05:58:12 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on June 05, 2015, 05:08:01 pm
To not ban Nietzsche, though, would be injurious to society.
Explain?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oavMtUWDBTM&
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 05, 2015, 06:33:36 pm
I thought there might be a reference I wasn't getting. I'm still not getting it! But that more or less confirms it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on June 05, 2015, 06:52:29 pm
I think he's accusing him of trolling. I share his apparent dislike for Nietzsche, for what it's worth, but it I'm not sure I'd support an outright ban on his works no matter how much of an asshole he was.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on June 05, 2015, 06:57:00 pm
He's... often misinterpreted. And his sister, a dyed-in-the-wool fascist and anti-semite, disfigured much of his work. And he may have been partial to fedoras, as far as I can tell from his works.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on June 05, 2015, 07:24:13 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on June 05, 2015, 06:57:00 pm
And he may have been partial to fedoras, as far as I can tell from his works.
(http://www.tomshw.it/forum/attachments/playstation-3-a/60348d1368470150-gran-punteggi-black-ops-2-a-mother-god.jpg)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on June 05, 2015, 07:33:15 pm
Okay, that part I don't get. What's all this fuss about fedoras?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on June 05, 2015, 07:35:19 pm
fedoras are literally hitler
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 05, 2015, 07:45:34 pm
More refusing to change in academia:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/14/kennesaw-state-advisor-its-bigger-than-ksu_n_7284748.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/05/kennesaw-state-advisor_n_7521164.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtxSFltiq9c

Maybe tell the student they can set up an appointment at a later time? To be fair to her, perhaps her department was understaffed, who knows. That said, how lovely that just asking for services you paid for is "harassment."

Relevant: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/new-harbinger-publications-inc/parents-who-drive-you-cra_b_7511242.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

That said, I've never agreed with Nietzsche. You don't strengthen a wall by bashing it, anymore than you strengthen a person by bashing them. If what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, then willful injury would be a good thing, absurd.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 05, 2015, 08:15:48 pm
What Nietzsche has come down to in my experience is the answer to whether or not human beings ultimately have any agency over the world. If we do, Nietzsche is mostly invalid. If we don't, he's on point. I definitely admire him more on my more hopeless days.

That said, he wasn't a fascist or even properly right-wing by any stretch of the imagination, and this willfully ignorant college marxist jackass (because having met a good deal of them, they are always jackasses, it's the crawling in my skin of the early 20's) rustles my jimmies.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 05, 2015, 09:32:22 pm
@ that first one, true, I think remember that a little. Dude in question was actually like a half-hour or something late to an appointment he had made previously, iirc, and was apparently intent on sitting around and waiting instead of doing any of that reschedule-appointment-like-sane-person stuff. Forget the exact details, but it was more than just on the advisor's part -- there was some poor behavior on the student's end, as well. Still could have been handled more effectively, obviously, but there was more to it than just asking for the services paid for.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on June 06, 2015, 12:19:03 am
It's kind of ironic that the guy leading the charge against the Nietzsche group is the head of the college's Marxist society. I mean you can make the exact same case that studying Marx will endanger the student body because they'll be exposed to Soviet-style ideological purges. In fact, the noted events bear out that presumption.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on June 06, 2015, 02:02:34 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 05, 2015, 08:15:48 pm
What Nietzsche has come down to in my experience is the answer to whether or not human beings ultimately have any agency over the world. If we do, Nietzsche is mostly invalid. If we don't, he's on point. I definitely admire him more on my more hopeless days.

That said, he wasn't a fascist or even properly right-wing by any stretch of the imagination, and this willfully ignorant college marxist jackass (because having met a good deal of them, they are always jackasses, it's the crawling in my skin of the early 20's) rustles my jimmies.
I thought Nietzsche's most important point was the Übermensch, which wasn't what the Nazis made out of it but rather the idea that humans should try to free themselves of societal conventions to advance towards being better humans, closer to what an ideal human should be like. I thought that was a rather positive message (and ironically quite opposite to what Hitler used it for).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on June 06, 2015, 04:59:18 am
Well actually people do get stronger by being bashed. Shin conditioning is an example.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on June 06, 2015, 05:10:48 am
Quote from: Antsan on June 06, 2015, 02:02:34 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 05, 2015, 08:15:48 pm
What Nietzsche has come down to in my experience is the answer to whether or not human beings ultimately have any agency over the world. If we do, Nietzsche is mostly invalid. If we don't, he's on point. I definitely admire him more on my more hopeless days.

That said, he wasn't a fascist or even properly right-wing by any stretch of the imagination, and this willfully ignorant college marxist jackass (because having met a good deal of them, they are always jackasses, it's the crawling in my skin of the early 20's) rustles my jimmies.
I thought Nietzsche's most important point was the Übermensch, which wasn't what the Nazis made out of it but rather the idea that humans should try to free themselves of societal conventions to advance towards being better humans, closer to what an ideal human should be like. I thought that was a rather positive message (and ironically quite opposite to what Hitler used it for).

Actually, I think Hitler and the Nazis understood that quite well. They wanted their people to strive towards the ideal and help one another, and they wanted other cultures and races to do the same in their own countries, and not in Germany. Hitler and Leon Degrelle have certainly said as much.

However, the Nazis used it as state propaganda, something which inherently distorts the purpose of the idea, and which I highly doubt Nietzsche intended.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on June 06, 2015, 05:29:50 am
... Nazi apologetics in the forum? Seriously??
Quote
They wanted their people to strive towards the ideal and help one another, and they wanted other cultures and races to do the same in their own countries, and not in Germany. Hitler and Leon Degrelle have certainly said as much.

You're disregarding small irrelevant details, such as "Germany" being redefined as a space stretching from Normandy to the Urals, plans  of using natives of the former territories now encompassed by "Germany" as slave labor, and declared intentions in favor of ethnic cleansing and massacring dissenters.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 06, 2015, 07:16:57 am
Quote from: Morrigi on June 06, 2015, 05:10:48 am
Actually, I think Hitler and the Nazis understood that quite well. They wanted their people to strive towards the ideal and help one another, and they wanted other cultures and races to do the same in their own countries, and not in Germany. Hitler and Leon Degrelle have certainly said as much.
This is patently wrong in several ways:

1) Nietzsche did not want "his" people to "strive towards the ideal and help one another" – he had no respect for Germans and their damp slave-morality, and he often seemed to regard them culturally and racially inferior to the priestly Jews.

2) The entire Nazi ideology was a condensation of everything that Nietzsche considered base and detestable: It was reactive*, vulgar, gregarious**, slavish, and fueled by poisonous ressentiment – a picture-perfect example of butt-hurt "slaves" (Germans) rebelling against successful "priests" (Jews).

3) Nazis did not want "other cultures and races to do the same in their own countries": There was only one human race and one human culture in their world – everyone else was less-than-human.

* Their entire self-concept was based on the "wrong" they had suffered at the hands of the Allies and the imaginary Jewish conspiracy.

** How could one possibly reconcile autonomous master-morality with a morality of the masses? – that's prima facie wrong.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on June 06, 2015, 08:47:03 am
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on June 06, 2015, 05:29:50 am
... Nazi apologetics in the forum? Seriously??
Quote
They wanted their people to strive towards the ideal and help one another, and they wanted other cultures and races to do the same in their own countries, and not in Germany. Hitler and Leon Degrelle have certainly said as much.

You're disregarding small irrelevant details, such as "Germany" being redefined as a space stretching from Normandy to the Urals, plans  of using natives of the former territories now encompassed by "Germany" as slave labor, and declared intentions in favor of ethnic cleansing and massacring dissenters.
Of course Nazi Germany had a hand in horrific atrocities, that's a given. So did the Soviets, the Japanese, and the Americans and Brits, although the Soviet, German, and Japanese war crimes certainly had the highest body counts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on June 06, 2015, 09:02:02 am
Quote from: Baffler on June 05, 2015, 06:52:29 pm
I think he's accusing him of trolling. I share his apparent dislike for Nietzsche, for what it's worth, but it I'm not sure I'd support an outright ban on his works no matter how much of an asshole he was.
Hrm? No, I wasn't Trolling. Nietzsche said religious morality was injurious to society, which is what I'm referencing.

Granted, I know little of his personal life, but his religious views seem about as sound as that of Marx. His Ubermensch were those free of the restraints of religion and religious morality, and therefore could work towards a more genuine morality.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 06, 2015, 09:09:54 am
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on June 06, 2015, 09:02:02 am
Nietzsche said religious morality was injurious to society, which is what I'm referencing.
...
His Ubermensch were those free of the restraints of religion and religious morality, and therefore could work towards a more genuine morality.
That's not what you said:

Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on June 05, 2015, 05:08:01 pm
To not ban Nietzsche, though, would be injurious to society.
Sound familiar?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on June 06, 2015, 09:15:39 am
Of course it does. I wrote it, if you recall.

I was being lighthearted and making a reference. Sue me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 06, 2015, 09:17:55 am
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on June 06, 2015, 09:15:39 am
Of course it does. I wrote it, if you recall.

I was being lighthearted and making a reference. Sue me.
I'm just pointing out that no-one, including me, understood your intention. No offense, m8.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 06, 2015, 09:35:49 am
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on June 06, 2015, 05:29:50 am
... Nazi apologetics in the forum? Seriously??
Don't be stupid, be a smarty! Come and join the Nazy party!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Owlbread on June 06, 2015, 09:40:27 am
First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon is on the Daily Show next Monday, keep an eye out ladies and gentlemen.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on June 06, 2015, 06:45:32 pm
I feel physical pain every time people act like if you read Mein Kampf, you're literally Hitler.

I mean, okay, according to possibly unreliable online anecdotes, the book is kinda shippy in modern day standard, but just reading Hitler's manifesto isn't going to turn you into a Nazi. It's not the Necronomicon.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 06, 2015, 07:33:51 pm
Quote from: Cinder on June 06, 2015, 06:45:32 pm
I feel physical pain every time people act like if you read Mein Kampf, you're literally Hitler.

I mean, okay, according to possibly unreliable online anecdotes, the book is kinda shippy in modern day standard, but just reading Hitler's manifesto isn't going to turn you into a Nazi. It's not the Necronomicon.
Nah m8 every time you read it another nazi zombie game is published by EA, that's pretty much definitive proof of the occult right there
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on June 07, 2015, 04:28:52 am
Quote from: Cinder on June 06, 2015, 06:45:32 pm
I feel physical pain every time people act like if you read Mein Kampf, you're literally Hitler.

I mean, okay, according to possibly unreliable online anecdotes, the book is kinda shippy in modern day standard, but just reading Hitler's manifesto isn't going to turn you into a Nazi. It's not the Necronomicon.
There was this guy in Germany - a comedian, and Turkish even, I believe - who went around doing public readings of Mein Kampf. As part of his routine, but also separately in schools and such. And apparently one of the intended consequences was for the audience to realize that the book is a) badly written and b) horribly boring. It was demystification at its best.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 07, 2015, 04:38:04 am
Boring? I disagree, that book is clearly in the "so bad it's good" category. It's the sharknado of political pamphlet.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 07, 2015, 05:05:38 am
It's pretty amazing amusing when the author says things like "we must spread lies and propaganda about the Jews for strategic reasons," and on the next page he says: "the Jews are the One True Root of All Evil, for reals, honest injun!"

If people had actually read the book, Third Reich would have been a dud.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on June 07, 2015, 06:22:31 am
Quote from: SirQuiamus on June 06, 2015, 07:16:57 am
Quote from: Morrigi on June 06, 2015, 05:10:48 am
Actually, I think Hitler and the Nazis understood that quite well. They wanted their people to strive towards the ideal and help one another, and they wanted other cultures and races to do the same in their own countries, and not in Germany. Hitler and Leon Degrelle have certainly said as much.
This is patently wrong in several ways:
[...]
2) The entire Nazi ideology was a condensation of everything that Nietzsche considered base and detestable: It was reactive*, vulgar, gregarious**, slavish, and fueled by poisonous ressentiment – a picture-perfect example of butt-hurt "slaves" (Germans) rebelling against successful "priests" (Jews).
[...]
** How could one possibly reconcile autonomous master-morality with a morality of the masses? – that's prima facie wrong.[/sub]
Especially that one. The whole idea of having a collective of Übermenschen is completely ridiculous if you look at what Nietzsche thought an Übermensch should be. For an Übermensch there just is no collective.

Quote from: Helgoland on June 07, 2015, 04:28:52 am
Quote from: Cinder on June 06, 2015, 06:45:32 pm
I feel physical pain every time people act like if you read Mein Kampf, you're literally Hitler.

I mean, okay, according to possibly unreliable online anecdotes, the book is kinda shippy in modern day standard, but just reading Hitler's manifesto isn't going to turn you into a Nazi. It's not the Necronomicon.
There was this guy in Germany - a comedian, and Turkish even, I believe - who went around doing public readings of Mein Kampf. As part of his routine, but also separately in schools and such. And apparently one of the intended consequences was for the audience to realize that the book is a) badly written and b) horribly boring. It was demystification at its best.
Yeah, I heard of that one. Sadly I didn't hear it when I had the chance. Now I am just too lazy to care enough to read it or listen to someone else reading it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 07, 2015, 01:38:54 pm
Clearing your browser history is a prosecutable offence (http://www.thenation.com/article/208593/you-can-be-prosecuted-clearing-your-browser-history#).

Thanks Obama ;-;
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 07, 2015, 07:08:52 pm
DOHOHOHOHOHO~

I remember once, where an Anon joked that California and New York were in a race to be the most progressively authoritarian and progressive, so hard, that the only hope for the rest of the world was that both states detached from the USA and sunk beneath the ocean. The jokes usually revolved around the police making it illegal for you to film the police while they sprayed you with bullets and all that jazz (which is unfortunately, now true - ironically however, years after the jokes, California passed a law protecting people who filmed police), but the keks in reality prove it too stronk and even worse than bants (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/28/manspreading-arrest-broken-windows-policing_n_7462944.html).

Don't call it a grave
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 07, 2015, 07:12:28 pm
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/06/07/Sword-wielding-robot-beats-Japanese-master-samurai/2991433692865/

We're pretty much screwed, and they're clapping like it's good. We're actually teaching them how to fight, essentially, or leaning in that direction. I don't understand anything. The world I thought I knew is gone, and it's only going to get worse.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 07, 2015, 07:13:44 pm
gorillion folded nipponbot will save new york
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on June 07, 2015, 07:16:10 pm
-quote removed-

Meh... we have many more imminent worries than robot rebellion.  I thought that video was neat.  The cinematic presentation, especially.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on June 07, 2015, 07:21:42 pm
i,  for one, welcome our new fruit slicing overlords
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 07, 2015, 07:26:23 pm
Quote from: Truean on June 07, 2015, 07:12:28 pm
This actually looks pretty cool, and I trust that in a world with guns in it swordfighting will probably not be what kills us. Although possibly robot soldiers is what it would take to make it competitive if, for some reason, teaching them to use guns is off the table.

shit sorry i suck
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on June 07, 2015, 07:41:01 pm
what's with all the truean quoting

anyway

Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 07, 2015, 01:38:54 pm
Clearing your browser history is a prosecutable offence (http://www.thenation.com/article/208593/you-can-be-prosecuted-clearing-your-browser-history#)

...if you are currently under federal investigation

hooray editorializing
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 07, 2015, 07:41:11 pm
O, I'm aware that the real threat will ome from unmanned drones with guns on them. Cheaper than human officers, and when they shoot someone, it's a "software malfuntion." No pesky homiide trials. And remember, it's not murder; it's an industrial accident. We're being replaced. All this right wing talk of "hard work" and "bootstraps" won't matter when the robots beome more ost effetive than third world slave labor minus the shipping costs and PR problems.

It will be called productivity and we will be called pathetic. Wonderful.

Meanwhile we might be srewed over by other things long before that point, so there's that to look forward to. Yaaaaaay.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on June 07, 2015, 07:59:24 pm
I can't help but froth with rage just a little bit every time the subject of automation eliminating the need for work is brought up in a negative context.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on June 07, 2015, 09:34:07 pm
It is negative unless we can fix the whole "You need to work in order to not starve," problem.

Once we get rid of the need for people to do make-work in order to deserve life, then it'll be positive in all respects. As it is, it's just most respects. :V
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on June 07, 2015, 09:38:22 pm
And that is what makes me froth.  It's so fucking stupid!  The moment you hit the very idea that the lack of a negative thing that we are actively working to eliminate also makes the system cease to function should also be the moment it is drastically re-evaluated.  That this is not happening in any meaningful fashion makes me froth.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on June 07, 2015, 10:46:51 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on June 07, 2015, 04:28:52 am
Quote from: Cinder on June 06, 2015, 06:45:32 pm
I feel physical pain every time people act like if you read Mein Kampf, you're literally Hitler.

I mean, okay, according to possibly unreliable online anecdotes, the book is kinda shippy in modern day standard, but just reading Hitler's manifesto isn't going to turn you into a Nazi. It's not the Necronomicon.
There was this guy in Germany - a comedian, and Turkish even, I believe - who went around doing public readings of Mein Kampf. As part of his routine, but also separately in schools and such. And apparently one of the intended consequences was for the audience to realize that the book is a) badly written and b) horribly boring. It was demystification at its best.
Yeah, that's the point I was making. Why can't we read Mein Kampf ironically instead of demonizing people who read it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on June 07, 2015, 10:56:30 pm
Either you're not using ironically correctly, or you're being too internet.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on June 07, 2015, 11:19:11 pm
I'm totally not a Thai spambot.

/me gently nudges Thai kitchen appliances away
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on June 08, 2015, 01:11:30 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on June 07, 2015, 09:38:22 pm
And that is what makes me froth.  It's so fucking stupid!  The moment you hit the very idea that the lack of a negative thing that we are actively working to eliminate also makes the system cease to function should also be the moment it is drastically re-evaluated.  That this is not happening in any meaningful fashion makes me froth.
It's cool, the rich might come to their senses around the time where middle management starts starving for lack of work to be paid for.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on June 08, 2015, 01:12:51 am
Quote from: Morrigi on June 06, 2015, 08:47:03 am
Quote from: ChairmanPoo on June 06, 2015, 05:29:50 am
... Nazi apologetics in the forum? Seriously??
Quote
They wanted their people to strive towards the ideal and help one another, and they wanted other cultures and races to do the same in their own countries, and not in Germany. Hitler and Leon Degrelle have certainly said as much.

You're disregarding small irrelevant details, such as "Germany" being redefined as a space stretching from Normandy to the Urals, plans  of using natives of the former territories now encompassed by "Germany" as slave labor, and declared intentions in favor of ethnic cleansing and massacring dissenters.
Of course Nazi Germany had a hand in horrific atrocities, that's a given. So did the Soviets, the Japanese, and the Americans and Brits, although the Soviet, German, and Japanese war crimes certainly had the highest body counts.

The French only missed out on the war crimes by virtue of being knocked out of the war early on. The French penal colonies in French Guyana were easily as bad as the soviet gulags. Once they sentenced you to a term on Devil's Island it was a basic certainty that you never returned alive.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on June 08, 2015, 01:35:54 am
Quote from: Graknorke on June 08, 2015, 01:11:30 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on June 07, 2015, 09:38:22 pm
And that is what makes me froth.  It's so fucking stupid!  The moment you hit the very idea that the lack of a negative thing that we are actively working to eliminate also makes the system cease to function should also be the moment it is drastically re-evaluated.  That this is not happening in any meaningful fashion makes me froth.
It's cool, the rich might come to their senses around the time where middle management starts starving for lack of work to be paid for.
That's just it though. Society in the US has this utterly toxic idea that the worth of a person I'd related to, if not totally based upon, their economic value. Quite frankly, most people will very shortly discover that such a foundation for ones self worth is entirely inappropriate for modern society. Most of the people on earth are all but worthless economically, most always have been, and most always will be. That's simply something which is coming here now.The emperor never had any clothes, but never before did he leave the throne room and parade through the streets, as it were. Pointless, demeaning work is not good for society, it's a plague upon it both preventing people from doing things which benefit society and from enjoying the benefits brought by it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 08, 2015, 05:41:41 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on June 07, 2015, 09:38:22 pm
And that is what makes me froth.  It's so fucking stupid!  The moment you hit the very idea that the lack of a negative thing that we are actively working to eliminate also makes the system cease to function should also be the moment it is drastically re-evaluated.  That this is not happening in any meaningful fashion makes me froth.
Could you please elaborate on that for a bit? I didn't quite catch what those bolded words are referring to.     
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arx on June 08, 2015, 05:46:24 am
I'm not SalmonGod, but since he's offline and I think I understand what he's saying:

The 'negative thing' is work, especially 'busywork' that has no real meaning. That's what robots and computers are steadily eliminating.
'The system' is the whole socioeconomic structure, basically - you need to work to get money, regardless of whether or not that work actually adds meaning to anything or anyone.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 08, 2015, 06:11:46 am
Quote from: Arx on June 08, 2015, 05:46:24 am
I'm not SalmonGod, but since he's offline and I think I understand what he's saying:

The 'negative thing' is work, especially 'busywork' that has no real meaning. That's what robots and computers are steadily eliminating.
'The system' is the whole socioeconomic structure, basically - you need to work to get money, regardless of whether or not that work actually adds meaning to anything or anyone.
I almost understood that, but is that pesky pronoun referring to the idea, the negative thing, or the system? Anaphoric reference be tricky, yo.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arx on June 08, 2015, 06:22:28 am
Contextually and based on SalmonGod's other politics (as I understand them), 'it' is the system. When the basis of a utopia is apparently a problem, something is rotten.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 08, 2015, 07:39:42 am
Quote from: Arx on June 08, 2015, 06:22:28 am
Contextually and based on SalmonGod's other politics (as I understand them), 'it' is the system. When the basis of a utopia is apparently a problem, something is rotten.
I still find that hard to understand. As far as I know, 21st-century capitalism does not regard the elimination of busywork, or any kind of work, as a problem – quite the opposite, in fact. It's only a problem to the workers themselves, but hey, since the system no longer has any use for them, what can ya do?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arx on June 08, 2015, 08:04:45 am
I think that's SalmonGod's point. Mechanisation is causing the sytem to screw the workers over to an increasing extent, and so either mechanisation or the system has to go. Truean says mechanisation has to go; SalmonGod says the system has to go.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on June 08, 2015, 08:13:43 am
Quote from: SirQuiamus on June 08, 2015, 07:39:42 am
Quote from: Arx on June 08, 2015, 06:22:28 am
Contextually and based on SalmonGod's other politics (as I understand them), 'it' is the system. When the basis of a utopia is apparently a problem, something is rotten.
I still find that hard to understand. As far as I know, 21st-century capitalism does not regard the elimination of busywork, or any kind of work, as a problem – quite the opposite, in fact. It's only a problem to the workers themselves, but hey, since the system no longer has any use for them, what can ya do?
It's a problem in that you've got all these useless bums around who need looking after without contributing the financial share that they have no means of providing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 08, 2015, 08:29:57 am
To be honest, I think that the whole anti-automation "they'll steal our jobs" idea is an inherently pointless and useless notion.

Capitalism will automatically, and inherently seek the most cost-effective solution. If that's robots, then automation will come. If you have the capability of stopping that trend, then you also have the capability to change the system, preventing the negative effects from appearing.

If anything, the "STOP automation to protect workers" argument is self defeating, because in order for Humans to remain cheaper than robots (and thus remain in use in a capitalist society) it will require a continual and ever increasing reduction of labor rights. 

Quote from: Truean on June 07, 2015, 07:41:11 pm

The police argument is silly. In the event of a robot officer shooting someone, there are 3 options. Wrong orders, software malfunction, or it's the fault of the victim. So, punish respectively the commanding officer, the robot's programmer, or no one at all.

This is not, in any way, different from what happens if a human police officer shoots someone. Still the same 3 options. Same results.

With the difference being off course that robot's behaviour is perfectly predictable, and that it's sensor data won't lie.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Harry Baldman on June 08, 2015, 09:03:49 am
It doesn't really make a difference if it's a robot policeman (a robo-cop, if you will) or an average policeman - either could probably shoot you dead in the street and get away with it. It would be less so for the robo-cop, even, since those would at least have an objective error in their programming that could be corrected and that the public would be very interested to correct, given that I suspect nobody would really trust a robot in the early days.

Also, that robot arm wasn't really taught to fight, just to swing a sword. It's a demonstration of strength, speed and precision, and quite a visually impressive demonstration at that. That robot or at least robots like it is still probably going to be used for manufacturing some form of good or performing some sort of other task.

I hope they do manage to create friendly AI in my lifetime, though. When they release the mathematical reductions of actual sentience and human morals/ethics, it'll surely be a great day for philosophy. Imagine how much smoother decision making would become with the help of ethical calculus.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on June 08, 2015, 11:19:39 am
Quote from: Cinder on June 07, 2015, 11:19:11 pm
I'm totally not a Thai spambot.

/me gently nudges Thai kitchen appliances away
Deep cover spambot: make an account, spend a bunch of time on the forum, befriend people.  And then hand the account over to a spambot and move on to a different forum.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 08, 2015, 01:12:07 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on June 08, 2015, 01:15:10 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on June 08, 2015, 01:12:07 pm
Hmm... how much do you think a well-aged account would sell for?
at least twelve
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 08, 2015, 02:56:09 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on June 08, 2015, 01:15:10 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on June 08, 2015, 01:12:07 pm
Hmm... how much do you think a well-aged account would sell for?
at least twelve
Is that in dollars or bays?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 08, 2015, 03:06:24 pm
Imaginary kilobitcoins.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 08, 2015, 04:02:33 pm
Quote from: Frumple on June 08, 2015, 03:06:24 pm
kilobitcoins.

Fuck the hell -

Quote from: Frumple on June 08, 2015, 03:06:24 pm
Imaginary

Oh.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 08, 2015, 04:04:00 pm
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg6286657#msg6286657

"Machines don't lie." Too many malfunctions have happened around me, so either machines are screwed up or I'm a malfunction magnet.  Given the amount of metal attracted to my head (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=43236.msg5731343#msg5731343), it's an equal chance of either. I absolutely will be a giant pain in the ass when ever anybody says it's a machine and therefore infallible. I've found a surprising number of errors that way.

Moreover the police officer example is not absurd. The police officer being human is a benefit. If we depart radically from my stated mantra of all humans are bastards, you want a person deciding. Yes there are racist fuckers hiding among the decent officers, but they're the exception rather than rule.

The only thing that kept America from absolutely disintegrating in the Kent State Riots is that National Guard troops DIDN'T pull the trigger.

Humans may sometimes have flawed morality, but machines have none.

That doesn't even get into tactical countermeasures like jamming, and altering code executable programming and recordings, which will be seen as word of god rather than questionable.

People want certainty. It. Doesn't. Exist. Machine or man, certainty is a myth. React how you want. I don't give a damn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mdIWaRi-7c\
That way the 1% could literally control the robot police.  No thank you.

Honestly. I just am tired. I don't care. If people want to believe that things are perfect and never lie one way or the other, then whatever.

 I am tired of earth, these people.  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xPMpm_eCKM)

They claim their labors are to build a heaven, yet their heaven is populated with horrors.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 08, 2015, 04:45:12 pm
Quote from: Harry Baldman on June 08, 2015, 09:03:49 am
Imagine how much smoother decision making would become with the help of ethical calculus.
The concept of a universal ethical calculus is quite old and widely known, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus) but somewhat problematic.

The main problem is that it doesn't work.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on June 08, 2015, 04:51:17 pm
You could probably make one that would work relatively well so long as everyone had the same moral prepositions. It would probably be hella cumbersome and a pain to learn and use, though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on June 08, 2015, 05:01:07 pm
Machines really don't lie though. If they're not doing the thing they're meant to do then either:
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on June 08, 2015, 05:01:31 pm
aka human failure
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 08, 2015, 05:58:02 pm
Quote from: Angle on June 08, 2015, 04:51:17 pm
so long as everyone had the same moral prepositions
Yeah, this is a big sticking point, even once you suppose you devise a method for translating the meaning-free data from reality into something you can extract the salient moral points from (such a method surely exists, since humans do it constantly).

For example, you'd have a hell of a time selling me on the notion that pleasure is the chief good.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on June 08, 2015, 06:29:27 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on June 08, 2015, 05:58:02 pm
For example, you'd have a hell of a time selling me on the notion that pleasure is the chief good.

That's a moral preposition. It can't be sold. The best you can do is show how it is or isn't logically consistent with other moral prepositions, or how it would or wouldn't lead to the outcomes we want.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 08, 2015, 06:29:53 pm
... that's pretty obvious, though. There's very, very little things considered "good" (Frankly, I can't actually think of any off the top of my head -- anything that's immediately painful is intent to producing delayed pleasure of some sort, or mitigating a displeasure increase.) that aren't either about enabling pleasure or preventing pain (i.e. aiming to reduce displeasurable things).

Making decent lives for folks is pretty much as fundamental a good as it gets (at least if you're not doing weird metaphysical stuff, like parts of christian theology likes to do), so far as I'm aware, and you do that by making them not-miserable, otherwise known as having a minimum pleasure threshold in their general existence. It's not all straight physical pleasures and chemical highs -- even some of the oldest historical hedonists held that the greatest of pleasures was being among friends, iirc -- but... pleasure pretty much is the most fundamental of goods. The chief one. More or less everything is derivative of it, in one way or another.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 08, 2015, 06:46:32 pm
Yeah, I don't think that's the case. A minimum threshold for not-miserable is important, obviously, and pleasure is certainly something it's important to make accessible to people, but I don't agree that it's the goal toward which we ought to be engineering society. Even if we're to assume it means something more broad than chemical highs and so you can't just shove everyone in a Perpetual Orgasm Box, I don't want to settle for mere contentment.

I see agency as being more important - the freedom to make choices, and choices that matter. Especially in the context of social engineering. I don't want a society that tells us to be happy, I want a society that tells us to choose our destiny and helps us make it happen. If you decide happiness is what you want out of life? That's great! Go for it, hedonism your heart out, but if I want to struggle toward some futile dream of mine, then maybe that's a poor decision, but it ought to be mine to make.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 08, 2015, 06:52:40 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on June 08, 2015, 06:54:53 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on June 08, 2015, 06:52:40 pm
Quote from: Frumple on June 08, 2015, 06:29:53 pm
It's not all straight physical pleasures and chemical highs -- even some of the oldest historical hedonists held that the greatest of pleasures was being among friends, iirc

The greatest pleasures are obviously chemical highs among friends.
not to be confused with high friends among chemicals

rip in rap
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 08, 2015, 07:07:23 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on June 08, 2015, 06:46:32 pm
I see agency as being more important - the freedom to make choices, and choices that matter.
... agency is a pretty basic pleasure, yes. People generally need that (or at least the illusion of it, which is sometimes the best you can get) to be happy. Being consistently denied agency is one of the simpler ways to drive a human insane -- it's about as anti-pleasure as it gets. The feeling of making choices, of controlling your own actions, is generally considered among the higher pleasures (it's often offset by recognition of the varying consequences involved and whatnot, but that's neither here nor there).

It's not sufficient in and of itself -- as should be obvious, as choices often lead to misery -- but it's generally pretty necessary.

Struggling towards a futile dream is not anti-hedonism. Hell, in a lot of ways it's about as hedonistic as it gets -- you're willingly throwing away a lot (including other sorts of pleasure, and quite possibly the happiness of people around you) specifically to indulge a specific desire. You've just decided to value certain pleasures over others, which is... fine? Different folks, different situations, have different combinations of pleasures they most desire to seek. And that's usually okay, when it's not hurting other people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 08, 2015, 07:17:46 pm
It's all in how you frame it, really. I see the availability of pleasure as a necessary step toward agency. You see the availability of agency as a necessary step toward pleasure. Since I don't see pleasure as the end-goal, I don't find it terribly obvious that agency isn't sufficient in itself; it's what I've decided makes the most sense to me as the ideal, and that's the case even when its exercise does lead to misery. And, to tie this tangent back to the original one, that we have such different perspectives on this makes it very difficult for us to arrive at a satisfactory design for the relevant calculus, even if we'd largely agree on which particular actions happen to be moral.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: KingofstarrySkies on June 09, 2015, 12:22:31 am
BUT PLEASURE IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF MY LIFE :D
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Harry Baldman on June 09, 2015, 04:57:02 am
I find the assertion that machines don't have morality entirely true. However, this doesn't mean they can't possess morality, seeing as morality is, in essence, a set of internalized rules and guidelines. It's not like the principles of human thought and behavior (and, by extension, human thought patterns that lead to moral, ethical behavior) are unknowable. All people operate on a basis of cause and effect, with the differences in their predictable response being what we call a personality. And then, once we get all that down to algorithms, we have AI, possibly the friendly kind.

I would agree that I wouldn't want anything simpler than that performing law enforcement, since they probably wouldn't have an adequate grasp of nuance and context to fulfill their functions well. But if we could have an artificially sapient, humanlike robotic police officer with a programmable personality and the sort of efficiency that allowed the robot arm from the video to defeat a master swordsman with probably much less practice than he had, why not? I suspect they would be no less fallible than the regular police officer in that event. Perhaps even less so.

Of course, we're probably going to obtain unmanned police drones that shoot people a little too often before such a thing is possible, but you know. A man can dream.

Quote from: SirQuiamus on June 08, 2015, 04:45:12 pm
The concept of a universal ethical calculus is quite old and widely known, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus) but somewhat problematic.

The main problem is that it doesn't work.

If it doesn't work, it requires improvement, doesn't it?

And of course it's not going to actually work if you're going to put randomly assigned values into a formula you pulled out of your ass (see: Drake's equation). However, imagine if we did have an algorithm that produces sapience, and thus we could work with behavior on a fundamental, mathematical level, figuring out what produces acceptable humanlike behavior. Now that's a position from which ethical calculus can be plausibly derived.

Quote from: KingofstarrySkies on June 09, 2015, 12:22:31 am
BUT PLEASURE IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF MY LIFE :D

This actually describes my thoughts on the matters of pleasure as well, by the by. Pleasure (as in, a state of mind that creates positive emotions, just to make sure we don't get into a discussion about what words mean) is the ultimate goal of everyone's life. What probably complicates things is that a single, solitary form of pleasure to the exception of all others doesn't always equate to actual pleasure on account of the nervous system adapting to it. For instance, chemical highs lose their kick after a long time having the exact same kind, while the pleasure of agency dulls itself if you take your life in a fundamentally unpleasant, self-destructive direction. Tending toward extremes decreases the pleasure gained, while a variety of pleasures in life makes them that much more efficient at providing happiness - a state of overall pleasure gain.

To make matters complicated, though, while people do choose their course of action based on the expected pleasure it will bring, their projection of pleasure gain can often be wrong (based on incorrect assumptions or made with flawed reasoning). Furthermore, they can also project themselves more broadly than as a self-contained entity, identifying themselves with concepts, communities and other people - hence the idea of self-sacrifice. They can even project themselves beyond their own deaths with the idea of an afterlife.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 09, 2015, 05:31:44 am
I personally ascribe to the line that what humans really want is fun, not pleasure.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 09, 2015, 05:37:08 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 09, 2015, 05:31:44 am
I personally ascribe to the line that what humans really want is !!FUN!!, not pleasure.
FTFY

Quote from: Harry Baldman on June 09, 2015, 04:57:02 am
And of course it's not going to actually work if you're going to put randomly assigned values into a formula you pulled out of your ass (see: Drake's equation). However, imagine if we did have an algorithm that produces sapience, and thus we could work with behavior on a fundamental, mathematical level, figuring out what produces acceptable humanlike behavior. Now that's a position from which ethical calculus can be plausibly derived.
So you're saying that we should discover the hidden rules of human behaviour by creating an algorithm that perfectly simulates human behaviour? That's a bit backside-backwards, don'tcha think?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Harry Baldman on June 09, 2015, 05:44:33 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 09, 2015, 05:31:44 am
I personally ascribe to the line that what humans really want is fun, not pleasure.

I think those are synonymous, with fun being a subset of pleasure and thus one of the requirements (balanced with other forms of pleasure) for happiness.

Quote from: SirQuiamus on June 09, 2015, 05:37:08 am
So you're saying that we should discover the hidden rules of human behaviour by creating an algorithm that perfectly simulates human behaviour? That's a bit backside-backwards, don'tcha think?

Well, not quite. To create that algorithm, we need to obtain a functional mathematical model of sapience first in order to figure out the principle according to which disparate information is integrated into a whole within the mind. Otherwise we can't possibly create the algorithm or invent a proper method for ethical calculations. I tend to trip over what I'm trying to say often, so my apologies.

Point is, as I notice I'm having trouble editing those previous sentences into coherently describing what I'm trying to say, we need to figure out what the input and the stages of its processing are in order to mathematically describe how it affects the output. Ethical calculus in the form described in the wiki article is made up of unhelpful, impractical abstractions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 09, 2015, 06:07:15 am
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg6289079#msg6289079

Utter insanity and wish fulfillment fantasy. Again. You can't have perfection. Get over it, accept it, move on. Such heaven would be will be populated by horrors. Blind faith will literally destroy humanity like that. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and all such nonsense is excellent paving material.

You're essentially talking about creating perfect angels to enforce some "moral" or at least "legal" code. If anything was playing God. This. You do realize someone will inevitably be controlling these things, yes. (No question mark). No, not, "but that doesn't have to be the case." It will. Every other tool humanity has created has followed this path and been misused. This is no different.

"But Truean this is dif fer ent! These machines will control themselves." No. They won't. Someone will, at best, control them beforehand via programing. There will be back doors built into the code. You're not thinking like the bastards who populate this world. They salivate at the chance to control literal deadly force from the palm of their hands. They will. How does this not register with people. Does love of shiny new gizmos and gadets overpower common sen.... Upon remembering the lines for new iphones, yes. Yes it does.

We're screwed. The demands of the morons composing the masses will demand ever greater gadgetry even more insane than everybody constantly wearing a GPS device (your "smartphone"). So long as the bread and circuses is handheld, they let the government know where they are at all times. Playing video games "nerds" were once ridiculed for and trading freedom for flashing lights and "achievements" on screen.... Plus you're always tethered to work 24/7 as you overshare everything and stupid bragging mothers post pictures of their children subjecting them to constant permanent surveillance from cradle to grave. This is big brother's wet dream come true.

This is the part where I leave the conversation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 09, 2015, 06:16:29 am
Quote from: Harry Baldman on June 09, 2015, 05:44:33 am
Ethical calculus in the form described in the wiki article is made up of unhelpful, impractical abstractions.
I think the most important philosophical question here is: Is there such a thing as a helpful, practical abstraction in matters of morality? An algorithm is not the same thing as data, right? Even if you have a perfectly valid sequence of functions and variables, you'll still have to fill those variables with exact numerical values, which have to be somehow derived from real situations in the real world. As the GIGO principle dictates, even the most elegant of equations will yield nothing but rubbish if your data is faulty, and how on earth are you going acquire objectively correct data of such things as pleasure, suffering, harm, fairness, etc.?

In this sense Bentham's calculus is quite illustrative of the inherent weakness in every mathematical abstraction of morality: No matter what moral presupposition you are working from, you'll sooner or later have to try and make exact quantifications of things that are practically non-quantifiable. Is my suffering greater than your pleasure? Who knows? – it depends entirely on who's doing the math.   

Ninja'd by ScarfKitty. 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Harry Baldman on June 09, 2015, 06:58:03 am
@Truean: Well, I suppose you might be entirely correct. I'm perhaps overly optimistic about these things. However, in consideration of the future I find fear and distrust much less productive than attempts at constructivity and suggestions for improvement. My suggestions might be entirely wrong, insane and produced by wishful thinking, and maybe civilization as we know it is doomed to live through forty thousand years of exploring the deepest, darkest depths of failure, tyranny and suffering if any of them ever come to be implemented. But humanity's had a pretty good record thus far on the macro scale (similarly to the racist bastard cops averaging out when taken in context with the good people on the force), methinks, so I remain optimistic.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I'd salivate at having literal deadly force in the palm of my hand, so you might be more correct than I'd care to admit.

Quote from: SirQuiamus on June 09, 2015, 06:16:29 am
I think the most important philosophical question here is: Is there such a thing as a helpful, practical abstraction in matters of morality? An algorithm is not the same thing as data, right? Even if you have a perfectly valid sequence of functions and variables, you'll still have to fill those variables with exact numerical values, which have to be somehow derived from real situations in the real world. As the GIGO principle dictates, even the most elegant of equations will yield nothing but rubbish if your data is faulty, and how on earth are you going acquire objectively correct data of such things as pleasure, suffering, harm, fairness, etc.?

In this sense Bentham's calculus is quite illustrative of the inherent weakness in every mathematical abstraction of morality: No matter what moral presupposition you are working from, you'll sooner or later have to try and make exact quantifications of things that are practically non-quantifiable. Is my suffering greater than your pleasure? Who knows? – it depends entirely on who's doing the math.   

Ninja'd by ScarfKitty. 

But a human being makes each and every one of their decisions based on incoming sensory data, which in most cases is, in fact, sensed as discrete impulses. There's no magic black box in there, no inner godliness that elevates man from mushroom, it's all a set of data collection and integration devices hooked up to one another. We manage to create a unified perception of a world from this data, and derive things such as morality, pleasure and harm from it. This demonstrates that it is possible to do such a thing. The underlying principle is there to be uncovered and reduced, and the abstractions, the black boxes of thought are always unhelpful and impractical - the reductions that show their underlying principles are not. If we obtain a mathematical reduction for all of these abstractions, then we may begin the procedures for objectively assessing them as well. They're not non-quantifiable, they just haven't been successfully quantified yet. It's an important difference. Somebody doing shitty mathematics doesn't prove mathematics to be a sham is what I'm getting at.

Though I now realize this does open up certain issues, such as being able to conclusively prove that a shot of heroin will give the heroin addict much more pleasure than, say, the same amount of money spent on groceries will give a suburban child (though perhaps not more than the same amount of money in heroin will give the same suburban child). In that case, you might get better results if you threw in a bit of utilitarianism with your hedonism, or strove to achieve a happy balance between the two. From that perspective, you are correct, as this wouldn't really resolve questions of actual morality (it becomes a matter of personal preference at this point - I tend toward hedonism+utilitarianism, but some might go further in either of the directions, or do something else entirely). It would, however, render approaches to morality, psychology and pretty much every other sphere of knowledge relating to human thought more exact, and thus make hedonism and utilitarianism a far more practicable set of philosophies.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 09, 2015, 07:44:38 am
Quote from: Harry Baldman on June 09, 2015, 06:58:03 am
But a human being makes each and every one of their decisions based on incoming sensory data, which in most cases is, in fact, sensed as discrete impulses.
When this is applied to a moral dilemma, it seems to imply that the mental states of other people have to be directly observable. Just put everyone in an fMRI scanner and compare the amount of pleasure/suffering in their brains? Should you carry a portable scanner with you, just to make sure your moral compass is properly calibrated?

I don't subscribe to any black-box theory of mind, but I'm always working under the assumption that mind-reading is practically impossible, never mind how intimately we understand the brain's inner workings. In the light of present knowledge, the mind is a black box, but one with a slowly opening lid, whereas telepathy and other such things are yet-unseen supermassive black boxes of the second order.

As you admit later on in your post, subjective experiences are not objectively quantifiable (obviously!), and comparing private mental states with one another will not provide logically valid results, simply because the variables were never commensurable to begin with.

To take a classical example: Sadists are perfectly moral people – if morality is defined as following your ethical principles consistently and according to the dictates of reason – and scanning their brains during a heinous atrocity could prove unquestionably that their pleasure is "objectively" greater than the victim's suffering, therefore making their act justifiable.         
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Harry Baldman on June 09, 2015, 08:14:30 am
The fMRI scanner measures blood flow to the regions of the brain if I recall correctly, which is a secondary product of neuronal activity, and isn't actually a reliable way to map the workings of neurons, so it's not quite a good way to observe the mental state of a human being, given that we have yet to understand the core principle behind information integration. Integration is key here, and also the thing that makes subjectivity possible. And we don't really need to read the mind to produce the mathematics that make it work - we just need a model that gets the same results. Reading minds, which is what we've been doing with the fMRI thus far, merely produces superficial understanding of its workings.

And you seem to have gotten the wrong idea about my description of subjectivity - I maintain it is quantifiable, as it is a part of integrating the objective sensory information of the situation into what we describe is the mind. Certain impulses will dominate over others depending on context - that's the core of subjectivity. The problem with it is that a heroin addict will probably genuinely derive more pleasure from a fix than a well-fed child will from some groceries, which doesn't allow us to consider these things purely from a hedonistic perspective, or at least requires us to apply that hedonistic perspective more widely.

See, the fun thing here is that with a reduction of thought we could play these situations out in different levels of detail and assess with our own subjective interpretation (informed by, for instance, a utilitarian perspective or according to some other set of moral rules) which course of action is preferable. For instance, if the sadist derives pleasure from a heinous atrocity that destroys a victim, then while technically the victim won't care anymore after they're dead, we can affirm with our own subjective interpretation that it, for instance, a) infringes on one's legal right not to be murdered, b) removes a certain amount of utility the victim could have potentially brought to society, c) makes God angry at us or d) decreases the pleasure gain of the victim's family, employer, friends (and even readers of the newspaper, unless they are sadists themselves and didn't realize you could justify yourself like that) and so forth while not increasing the pleasure gain of the sadist's inner circle (unless she tells some really good stories about it). Maybe the sadist has already killed or gruesomely harmed several people nobody cares about, and we measure that subjectively she's probably hit the point where her actions present diminishing results in both increasing the overall pleasure and productivity gain in society.

This discussion does give me an idea. Say we obtained an artificial intelligence and taught it to perceive the entirety of humanity as its body, utilizing various mechanisms to move its "body parts", and being taught strict self-preservation. What would be the problems with this?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 09, 2015, 08:47:33 am
Quote from: Harry Baldman on June 09, 2015, 08:14:30 am
This discussion does give me an idea. Say we obtained an artificial intelligence and taught it to perceive the entirety of humanity as its body, utilizing various mechanisms to move its "body parts", and being taught strict self-preservation. What would be the problems with this?
Ahh, I don't know... the implementation, perhaps, and the matter of choosing which people are going to play the role of its genitals. :v

Every time someone proposes to solve an age-old human-interest problem with a super-intelligent AI, it's always worth asking: "Is it more trouble than it's worth?" Your mileage may vary, is what I'm saying.

...By the way, I'm greatly intrigued by that thing called "information integration" – is it another boxy-thingy within the brain which we don't quite understand yet, but which will solve all problems of the human condition once its secrets are finally revealed? With those secrets, we can take all conflicting moral worldviews and integrate them into a universal morality which will necessarily satisfy everyone, at all times? I can't wait! :p   
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on June 09, 2015, 08:53:12 am
Quote from: Harry Baldman on June 09, 2015, 08:14:30 am
This discussion does give me an idea. Say we obtained an artificial intelligence and taught it to perceive the entirety of humanity as its body, utilizing various mechanisms to move its "body parts", and being taught strict self-preservation. What would be the problems with this?

Replace 'artificial intelligence' with 'Soviet Union' and you've got your answer. Do you care about a few bruises or shed skin cells?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on June 09, 2015, 08:54:20 am
Quote from: Harry Baldman on June 09, 2015, 08:14:30 am
This discussion does give me an idea. Say we obtained an artificial intelligence and taught it to perceive the entirety of humanity as its body, utilizing various mechanisms to move its "body parts", and being taught strict self-preservation. What would be the problems with this?
Not very well. Most humans wouldn't even have second thoughts about amputating an irreparably functionless and damaged finger, even if the cells that make it up were still alive.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Harry Baldman on June 09, 2015, 09:16:19 am
If I remember correctly, information integration is the final step of information processing in the nervous system. You're quite correct in that it's a black box currently, because if we knew what exactly happened in there and what each part did, we'd have the workings of the human mind somewhat explained and artificial intelligence possible. We know how information is acquired, but we have less of a clear picture on how it gets processed, and I maintain that finding out how is the main thing of importance for many reasons that seem perfectly good to me, but on which your mileage may vary.

It's not quite magical black box thinking, I believe. Black box thinking would be more like trying to make a computer that's connected to one or more human brains and call that an artificial intelligence, or possibly asserting that artificial intelligences will always be plainly inferior to a human intellect for a certain task. This, on the other hand, is more in the vein of "but imagine if we could get telomerases to work in every human cell!" wishful thinking as I see it, but it's really fun to think about and easy to hype yourself for, much like all versions of this kind of science. Truthfully, it's largely empty enthusiasm based on a great deal of nonexistent work that, for all I know, may never get done. But it's a damn sight better than dreaming about FTL travel, so here I am.

Quote from: Helgoland on June 09, 2015, 08:53:12 am
Replace 'artificial intelligence' with 'Soviet Union' and you've got your answer. Do you care about a few bruises or shed skin cells?

I imagine shedding skin cells would probably be the regular die-off of old people. Soviet Union shenanigans would be more like self-flagellation, I'd think. Or transhumanism, you never know. And I don't know about you, but I don't actively seek out getting bruised. It's not very pleasant.

Quote from: Graknorke on June 09, 2015, 08:54:20 am
Not very well. Most humans wouldn't even have second thoughts about amputating an irreparably functionless and damaged finger, even if the cells that make it up were still alive.

Wouldn't they? I was under the impression that people try to keep their body parts if they can help it. Well, most kinds of people at least. I understand amputation is usually a difficult decision, and when it's not they often make it for you or inform you that it's your best chance for survival/quality living and expect you to take the option.

But how many cases of an irreparably functionless and damaged part of society can you think of, though?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on June 09, 2015, 09:53:25 am
Well, the lining of your intestinal tract then. Those guys are chewed up by your own body, they're built to die.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 09, 2015, 12:28:48 pm
Quote from: Harry Baldman on June 09, 2015, 04:57:02 am
Pleasure (as in, a state of mind that creates positive emotions, just to make sure we don't get into a discussion about what words mean) is the ultimate goal of everyone's life.
This is manifestly not true, unless you expand the definition of "pleasure" to be so broad as to be meaningless, as you might by saying that I value agency because pursuing my desires is pleasurable. At that point, you're constructing the same sort of unfalsifiable, universal answer as a mystic seizing on the word "quantum". I believe that it's better for me to make a choice that damns me to eternal suffering than for the choice to be made for me to enjoy eternal pleasure. If I should choose to be unhappy, even with no additional reason to "make it worth it", even simply for the sake of being unhappy, I don't believe there's anything wrong with that as long as I know what I'm doing. If there's some way in which that means I secretly value pleasure above all else, just in a weird way, it's because you're scrambling for an explanation that preserves your truism in spite of evidence to the contrary.

At best for your argument, I am fundamentally insane.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on June 09, 2015, 12:35:06 pm
That, or making choices is a pleasurable experience for you :)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 09, 2015, 12:38:23 pm
No, this is the case even when the decision is an agonizing one to have to make.

EDIT: Unless, again, you want to expand the definition so far as to be an unfalsifiable truism by saying there's some "secret" level of happiness I'm not aware of.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 09, 2015, 12:45:35 pm
I... would probably say that people that don't consider making a choice a pleasure in and of itself has likely not had the ability to choose taken away from them often and blatantly enough. The decision may be agonizing, but that you're able to make it is, very explicitly, its own sort of bliss. Agency is often bundled with stuff that makes exercising it painful on the net, but that's little to do with the nature of agency itself, I would say.

Just as an example, that moment when you're able to walk after months of being bed-ridden, even with all the pain and weakness it involves, even if it the ability to choose your own actions is shortly going to lead to misery, is gorram sublime.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Harry Baldman on June 09, 2015, 01:04:44 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on June 09, 2015, 12:28:48 pm
This is manifestly not true, unless you expand the definition of "pleasure" to be so broad as to be meaningless, as you might by saying that I value agency because pursuing my desires is pleasurable. At that point, you're constructing the same sort of unfalsifiable, universal answer as a mystic seizing on the word "quantum". I believe that it's better for me to make a choice that damns me to eternal suffering than for the choice to be made for me to enjoy eternal pleasure. If I should choose to be unhappy, even with no additional reason to "make it worth it", even simply for the sake of being unhappy, I don't believe there's anything wrong with that as long as I know what I'm doing. If there's some way in which that means I secretly value pleasure above all else, just in a weird way, it's because you're scrambling for an explanation that preserves your truism in spite of evidence to the contrary.

At best for your argument, I am fundamentally insane.

Ah! A semantic argument! I refer you to that fragment you quoted, especially that bit inside the parentheses. And also the rest of the original post, where I explicitly mention the feeling of agency as a form of pleasure because it makes one happy to be personally responsible for their course in life (though admittedly I seem to accidentally question your stance's actual practicality in real life as well, which is a very strange coincidence).

And with that I feel obliged to ask, what do you think pleasure is? I'm assuming ecstasy, enjoyment and euphoria from the wording of your post. Crucially, my definition includes that as well as happiness and personal satisfaction.

The point is, pleasure in this case is specifically meant to be the light within your brain with the accompanying psychoactive reward that says you done good (it is to philosophical hedonism, if I understand correctly, what "utility" is to utilitarianism). Pleasure is simply the best word for it that encompasses most of its covered human behaviors and stretches the easiest to accommodate something that doesn't have a readily available word for it (and if there is, it's probably a pretentious German word).

The less specific point is, this is a debate of falling trees, deserted areas and sounds thereof.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 09, 2015, 01:19:49 pm
Not really. I'm accusing your definition of vacuousness. At that point you're saying "Everyone does the things they want to because they want to". If your definition of "pleasure" is so broad as to allow you to make that move where you say "Anything you suggest as a motivation boils down to pleasure" then you're making a non-argument, and I don't see how it's either convincing or useful in constructing an AI. At least my Greatest Good offers some qualities by which it can be distinguished from literally anything else at all.

What I think pleasure is is a sense of enjoyment; it might be got from pride at an accomplishment, sensory feedback from a meal, or reciprocation of your feelings toward a lover. If you want me to dig deeper, it has its roots as a reward mechanism. Even deeper into my own beliefs, making the reward your explicit goal is foolish, and if you make it your ideal you turn yourself into an addict. But that is your business, of course. It's just not something I wish to do. In any case, it's a good deal more restricted than "the whole of human motivation", and that makes it a much more useful concept because it means I can have sensible conversations about it.

EDIT: I guess to be clear, what I'm saying is that defining pleasure this way is abusing semantics to dispose of the argument entirely. It's a major foundation on which everything else rests, and if you just abstract "goodness" away, you wind up saying nothing and taking quite a lot of words to do so. It's as though you were to write instructions on cracking RSA, and at some point you call a method for calculating the decryption key that is "left as an exercise to the reader".

My main point here is that I do not consider pleasure to be the highest good, unless (as you suggest we treat it) it is essentially defined as the greatest good. So a morality we want to implement into some hypothetical intelligence that's based on pleasure will either be something I'm at sharp disagreement with, or else so nebulous as to be no morality at all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Harry Baldman on June 09, 2015, 02:38:02 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on June 09, 2015, 01:19:49 pm
Not really. I'm accusing your definition of vacuousness. At that point you're saying "Everyone does the things they want to because they want to". If your definition of "pleasure" is so broad as to allow you to make that move where you say "Anything you suggest as a motivation boils down to pleasure" then you're making a non-argument, and I don't see how it's either convincing or useful in constructing an AI. At least my Greatest Good offers some qualities by which it can be distinguished from literally anything else at all.

What I think pleasure is is a sense of enjoyment; it might be got from pride at an accomplishment, sensory feedback from a meal, or reciprocation of your feelings toward a lover. If you want me to dig deeper, it has its roots as a reward mechanism. Even deeper into my own beliefs, making the reward your explicit goal is foolish, and if you make it your ideal you turn yourself into an addict. But that is your business, of course. It's just not something I wish to do. In any case, it's a good deal more restricted than "the whole of human motivation", and that makes it a much more useful concept because it means I can have sensible conversations about it.

EDIT: I guess to be clear, what I'm saying is that defining pleasure this way is abusing semantics to dispose of the argument entirely. It's a major foundation on which everything else rests, and if you just abstract "goodness" away, you wind up saying nothing and taking quite a lot of words to do so. It's as though you were to write instructions on cracking RSA, and at some point you call a method for calculating the decryption key that is "left as an exercise to the reader".

My main point here is that I do not consider pleasure to be the highest good, unless (as you suggest we treat it) it is essentially defined as the greatest good. So a morality we want to implement into some hypothetical intelligence that's based on pleasure will either be something I'm at sharp disagreement with, or else so nebulous as to be no morality at all.

Actually, that's correct. It is indeed a definition that encompasses every human motivation, and is thus probably quite vacuous. The statement "pleasure is the goal of everyone's life" is meaningless, because pleasure in this situation is the sensation you obtain when you perceive positive accomplishment. You could replace it with "happiness" or "satisfaction" and get the exact same sentence.

Let's rephrase further: "The goal of everyone's life is to get what you want." That's a tautology, because your goal is what you want. I suppose that sentence is indeed unsalvageable, unfortunately. Well then. Let's take a step back.

The core principle, which the previous shitty sentence is derived from, is that people do things because they get something from it. The counterargument to that is altruism, which doesn't really get you anything aside from maybe gratitude, but is still pretty great to do. So you introduce the concept of pleasure, and say that being altruistic pleases you despite it resulting in a net loss for you materially, and recontextualizes selflessness as part of a broader selfish motivation, because terrible people will have you believe that everything you do is technically selfish to justify their own selfish actions. And then you extend the concept of pleasure as non-material gain, and notice that even material gain is valuable because of your subjective perception of it - see the mice that would starve if it meant they could keep stimulating their pleasure centers. And there you have a handy unified way of characterizing all of human subjective fulfillment - non-material gain (or pleasure, but pleasure sounds dirtier, if catchier).

From here you can reason that non-material gain, if you can measure it, quantify it and predict it with adequate knowledge of the human mind, could as an equation, if applied to a society and with interactions borne in mind, be potentially solved for maximum non-material gain. It's not an AI thing, strictly speaking, just part of me gushing about the potential benefits of a mathematical reduction of human thought, a necessary prerogative for artificial intelligence, for scientific (or, well, pseudoscientific) fields concerned with the mind.

Spoiler: The problems with the above paragraph, partly rehashed for your enjoyment (click to show/hide)

And with all that, I am back where we started - solving for maximum non-material gain, even if you had a complete knowledge of the underlying principles of consciousness, probably wouldn't be all that helpful and in fact I notice that SirQuiamus was completely right - see problem #1, which he mentioned but I failed to understand the implications of at the time.

Furthermore, I'm not actually advocating making the sensation of non-material gain your goal, because with the way it is defined and phrased you literally can't do anything else except by doing something blatantly self-destructive out of spite such as slitting your own throat with no other provocation - but then you would have derived a small measure of satisfaction from proving me completely wrong and demonstrating supreme agency, which I could comfortably describe as non-material gain for you. It's a catch-all term for a reason. More amusingly, it may in fact be an unhelpful, impractical abstraction, which is something that sounds familiar to me right now.

A good real-life example of non-material gain coming to light is when a good deed becomes tainted by some extraneous factor. The good deed would have granted you the appropriate amount of non-material gain, but the extraneous factor changed your perception of it sufficiently that you failed to get all (or indeed any) of it. For you, that would be your choice to be in a specific situation having been revealed to be an illusion, a ploy based on a prediction of what choice you were likely to pick, and also the result of shallow, yet nevertheless effective manipulation.

Ah, to be proven wrong.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 09, 2015, 02:50:31 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on June 09, 2015, 08:53:12 am
Quote from: Harry Baldman on June 09, 2015, 08:14:30 am
This discussion does give me an idea. Say we obtained an artificial intelligence and taught it to perceive the entirety of humanity as its body, utilizing various mechanisms to move its "body parts", and being taught strict self-preservation. What would be the problems with this?
Replace 'artificial intelligence' with 'Soviet Union' and you've got your answer. Do you care about a few bruises or shed skin cells?
One horrible outcome would be the AI has identified portions of humanity as defective, pathogenic, a cancer or of a foreign organism. The outcome would be the same. Programmed cell suicide. It would still make a cool God machine though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 09, 2015, 03:37:31 pm
.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on June 09, 2015, 03:58:53 pm
Quote from: Harry Baldman on June 09, 2015, 09:16:19 am
Wouldn't they? I was under the impression that people try to keep their body parts if they can help it. Well, most kinds of people at least. I understand amputation is usually a difficult decision, and when it's not they often make it for you or inform you that it's your best chance for survival/quality living and expect you to take the option.
Fingers are a tricky issue, because one damaged finger can impact the function of the others because of the way the tendons are connected to the muscles and each other. I don't know exactly how the mechanism works there though
Still, as an analogue to society, I don't doubt there are cases where just getting rid of a certain group of people could help others work more efficiently.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on June 09, 2015, 06:14:57 pm
The issue of morality is packed to the brim with variables and so forth. Even things commonly held as 'correct' have hundreds, probably even hundreds of thousands of situations where the morality is at best questionable.

"Don't Steal."
What if your 8 year old daughter is slowly and painfully dying of starvation, and all other options have been exhausted?
What if your mother needs expensive surgery to rid her of constant agony, once again, all other options exhausted?
What if the fate of the world somehow hangs in the balance?

"Don't Kill."
What if three criminals have broken into your home and want to torture you and your family to death?
What if they've sworn to come back after you after being arrested if they somehow fail and get caught?
Oh, but they're doing it because you earlier did the same thing to their families.


Objective morality is impossible, because however you attempt to define it you are using your own subjective opinions as a basis.
Invoking Godwin's law, please explain to me how any of what the Nazis, or the Viet-cong, or the Islamic state terrorists is objectively, unquestionably wrong without using a point of origin to judge them by.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Transcendant on June 09, 2015, 10:39:02 pm
wrong thread
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on June 09, 2015, 11:05:50 pm
Quote from: Ispil on June 09, 2015, 08:19:42 pm
The biggest problem with morals is that they change over time. Trying to set some sort of "moral calculus" is equivalent to setting the rules of which a utopia would live by. You can take a guess at the outcome.

You don't hardwire your moral prepositions into your calculus. Thus, you can compute something for any set of morals.

It's still difficult and impractical.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on June 11, 2015, 09:07:00 pm
Quote from: Ispil on June 09, 2015, 11:09:32 pm
Regardless, trying to determine "right" in a morally ill-defined area might as well be asking to draw a 100% accurate map of the political borders of the world in the year 1200.
Pretty much. And even in well-defined areas such as murder, it is still defined very differently in the United States and United Kingdom, for example. Killing a burglar armed with a knife in the U.S. would almost certainly be considered justifiable homicide, so long as the burglar was not surrendering or fleeing. In the UK, it would probably be considered murder regardless, since they don't recognize the same rights to self-defense and defense of property that the US does.

If defining something as important as murder is impossible between two developed, Western nations, than defining right from wrong on a global scale just isn't going to happen.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 12, 2015, 09:32:11 am
MY SIDES HAVE TRAVELED BEYOND THE SPEED OF LIGHT, AND SEEN SUCH THINGS THAT YOU AND I WOULD BE INCAPABLE OF DREAMING ABOUT

Some background as to why my sides have left for orbit and I'm dying due to, as a wise man once said, intense tummy rupture. The NAACP is the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People. Pretty self explanatory what they do. The President of the NAACP, Rachel Dolezal, has documented that she's been the target of some hate crimes in the past. Things like Swastikas stuck to the side of her building or hate mail being sent.
But then the police started getting suspicious, (http://m.kxly.com/news/questions-raised-about-naacp-hate-mail-report/33512308) because they could find no evidence or suspects in regards as to who was threatening her. Most suspicious of all was that the hate mail sent had not been processed.
Quote
Postal workers told detectives the envelope had not been canceled, time stamped or imprinted with the bar code that directs mail to the right destination. According to the police report, the postal inspector told detectives, "The only way this letter could have ended up in this P.O. box would be if it was placed there by someone with a key to that box or a USPS employee."
Now, that's not hilarious. That's not even funny. Where it gets funny is that after this story came to light, her parents made an amazing allegation.

Spoiler: In America you can reinvent yourself, but this is just impressive (click to show/hide)

They've said this whole time she's been a white woman (http://www.inlander.com/Bloglander/archives/2015/06/11/media-firestorm-swirls-around-rachel-dolezal-the-local-naacp-president) pretending to be black. (http://www.khq.com/story/29299054/parents-of-spokane-naacp-president-claim-shes-misrepresenting-her-ethnicity)
Here's an interview with her claiming who her father is. (http://abc13.com/news/did-naacp-president-lie-about-her-race/779841/) Someone is cheating someone here!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 12, 2015, 09:36:56 am
Just going to note that she's only the NAACP's Spokane Chapter President. Also, that's some serious incompetence there: if you want to fake letters, why don't you just post them anyway?

But this is hilarious. :p Although it does make you think about what it means to be black or white, and whether those distinctions even make sense.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 12, 2015, 09:44:37 am
Lel, I'm assuming she must've forgotten. I do agree, this would make for an interesting discussion if my ribcage wasn't collapsing.

How did she fool (http://www.racheldolezal.blogspot.co.uk/) anyone at all (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHMOYYeJpd8) lolololololololol (https://twitter.com/HarlmRenaissanc/media)

Spoiler: she didn't even remove evidence of her pre-blackfacing it up (click to show/hide)

IT HAS REACHED INTERNATIONAL NEWS HEADLINES NOW

Quote
Dolezal's parents told local media the family's ancestry is Czech, Swedish and German, with some Native American heritage as well. Her parents say her African-American "son" is actually her brother, who was adopted by the family
WAT (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-33109866)
Quote
Spokane NAACP’s Facebook page has an image of Dolezal with an older black man, whom it describes as her father. The CDA Press, however, names the man as Albert Wilkerson, a volunteer at the Human Rights Education Institute in north Idaho, where Dolezal previously worked.
WAT (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/12/civil-rights-activist-rachel-dolezal-misrepresented-herself-as-black-claim-parents)

Oh gods, it just gets better/worse, she is the crystallized embodiment of privilege checking - she checked it so hard she literally became the first recorded case of someone seriously trying to be transblack outside of tumblr

Spoiler: The resemblance to actual blackface is uncanny (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on June 12, 2015, 10:15:38 am
my sides

in orbit

took me with them

please send help
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 12, 2015, 10:15:54 am
It's all ogre, real life is indistinguishable from trolling
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on June 12, 2015, 10:17:45 am
I was thinking, y'know, it would be nice if the legal system wasn't so easily abused by money.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 12, 2015, 10:18:22 am
I am experiencing a feeling that I can only describe as "existential amusement".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 12, 2015, 10:24:47 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
WHAT IS MAN BUT A MISERABLE PILE OF SECRETS?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 12, 2015, 10:26:49 am
I'm experiencing poignant sadness and despair, as opposed to mirth and laughter.

The worst part is that this affair will provide cartloads of ammo for racists and wingnuts everywhere.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 12, 2015, 10:32:45 am
Quote from: SirQuiamus on June 12, 2015, 10:26:49 am
I'm experiencing poignant sadness and despair, as opposed to mirth and laughter.
The worst part is that this affair will provide cartloads of ammo for racists and wingnuts everywhere.
Hahahaha, just enjoy the sheer utter madness of it all, and don't worry about racists and their ilk I don't think they even know how to respond to a white woman blackfacing to climb the NAACP ranks, it's utterly unprecedented, I'm feeling more for the African Americans on twitter calling her out for betraying them in less polite terms oh god it's just too bizarre, the dank memes were too strong and now they're becoming real

Spoiler: INFINITE KEKS (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Redzephyr01 on June 12, 2015, 10:42:57 am
My sides have ascended into the stratosphere.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on June 12, 2015, 10:52:24 am
all i have left is a dream of sides, and that too is sailing away in the void of space
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 12, 2015, 10:55:37 am
The sides rise (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/another-person-born-white-now-claiming-black-105919205.html#sC4thWp)
#transracial and #wrongskin now trending worldwide

its all ogre

Spoiler: the twitter tags are PLATINUM (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 12, 2015, 10:57:12 am
This was basically inevitable when ideas like race being metaphysical and inner identity being as valuable as reality started getting popular among radical leftists.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Redzephyr01 on June 12, 2015, 10:59:56 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 12, 2015, 10:55:37 am
The sides rise (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/another-person-born-white-now-claiming-black-105919205.html#sC4thWp)
#transracial and #wrongskin now trending worldwide

its all ogre
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on June 12, 2015, 11:00:01 am
Spoiler: And she would have gotten away with it too... (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 12, 2015, 11:01:18 am
Spoiler: I THINK THIS HAS MADE ME UNIRONICALLY USE SMILEYS (click to show/hide)

TOO MUCH I CAN'T EVEN
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 12, 2015, 11:03:06 am
Quote from: Dutchling on June 12, 2015, 11:00:01 am
Spoiler: And she would have gotten away with it too... (click to show/hide)
She was attempting financial fraud?

Also, damn, that White Obama is some good editing. I could see that guy existing. Granted, Obama is mixed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 12, 2015, 11:16:15 am
Spoiler: Highlights (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 12, 2015, 11:20:25 am
Well, I'm going to be devil's advocate, but why not? After all, "race" only bears a tangential link to actual skin colour or genetics (Obama has got has many black gene as white gene, yet no one would call him white). It is largely a social construct. Why couldn't you pick your race?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 12, 2015, 11:23:47 am
Quote from: Sheb on June 12, 2015, 11:20:25 am
Well, I'm going to be devil's advocate, but why not? After all, "race" only bears a tangential link to actual skin colour or genetics (Obama has got has many black gene as white gene, yet no one would call him white). It is largely a social construct. Why couldn't you pick your race?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on June 12, 2015, 11:40:57 am
It really sounds like that woman can be a case of real madness, though, not just self-delusion.

Quote from: Sheb on June 12, 2015, 11:20:25 am
Well, I'm going to be devil's advocate, but why not? After all, "race" only bears a tangential link to actual skin colour or genetics (Obama has got has many black gene as white gene, yet no one would call him white). It is largely a social construct. Why couldn't you pick your race?

Because American black/white race stuff is a social construct pertaining more to skin colour than anything else :v
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 12, 2015, 12:09:28 pm
Colin Powell would like to differ.

(https://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/143998409.jpg)

The correlation between being black and having dark skin is much weaker than the one between having ovaries and being a woman.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on June 12, 2015, 12:14:45 pm
I did say "more than anything else" :P

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 12, 2015, 12:35:11 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 12, 2015, 10:32:45 am
...and don't worry about racists and their ilk I don't think they even know how to respond to a white woman blackfacing to climb the NAACP ranks, it's utterly unprecedented...
She's the flesh-and-blood embodiment of the "deceitful SJW" stereotype that right-wing nutters have been constantly invoking for years. Remember GG and all that spurious victim blaming? Well, now they have a real-life example of a civil rights advocate who's actually been outed as a pathological liar and a habitual fabricator, in addition to being clearly off her damned rocker. It's like Christmas for Gators, MRAs, Supremacists, Fundies... the scum of the internet is gathering together to celebrate their God-given strawmanperson turned into reality!

Why does our species have to be so fucking bonkers? I could probably laugh it off with the help of Mr Alcohol, but the liquor store closed its doors 30 mins ago. Someone help me out of this fucking nightmare called Humanity!!!!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 12, 2015, 12:36:19 pm
Quote from: SirQuiamus on June 12, 2015, 12:35:11 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 12, 2015, 10:32:45 am
...and don't worry about racists and their ilk I don't think they even know how to respond to a white woman blackfacing to climb the NAACP ranks, it's utterly unprecedented...
She's the flesh-and-blood embodiment of the "deceitful SJW" stereotype that right-wing nutters have been constantly invoking for years. Remember GG and all that spurious victim blaming? Well, now they have a real-life example of a civil rights advocate who's actually been outed as a pathological liar and a habitual fabricator, in addition to being clearly off her damned rocker. It's like Christmas for Gators, MRAs, Supremacists, Fundies... the scum of the internet is gathering together to celebrate their God-given strawmanperson turned into reality!
Why does our species have to be so fucking bonkers? I could probably laugh it off with the help of Mr Alcohol, but the liquor store closed its doors 30 mins ago. Someone help me out of this fucking nightmare called Humanity!!!!
She's not the first SirQuiamus, chill, there's already 200 other SJWs documented crying wolf one more won't resurrect Pope Urban II, in the meantime bants are flowing

Wait what's a Gator lol?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 12, 2015, 12:43:34 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 12, 2015, 12:36:19 pm
Wait what's a Gator lol?
Gamergator. It has something to do with gamergates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate), I think.

Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 12, 2015, 12:36:19 pm
...there's already 200 other SJWs documented crying wolf...
You probably meant "at least 200" or "at least [insert any neat figure divisible by 5]."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Redzephyr01 on June 12, 2015, 12:44:50 pm
Quote from: SirQuiamus on June 12, 2015, 12:43:34 pm
GamerGator
Why would any of them care? This has nothing to do with video games, so how are they relevant in any way?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 12, 2015, 12:52:57 pm
... current train of discussion is honestly distasteful enough without bringing that nonsense into it. Let's not?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 12, 2015, 12:56:11 pm
Yeah SirQuiamus, GG discussion is haram on Bay12 since it kept getting people b&
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 12, 2015, 01:00:53 pm
"That stuff is like pitch – it stains everything it touches."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Moghjubar on June 12, 2015, 03:54:29 pm
Quote
Last few pages

Critical structural error: Missing Sides.  This program must now terminate.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr. Strange on June 12, 2015, 04:31:52 pm
It was inevitable.


Seriously, I don't understand how anyone can say they couldn't see it coming. When you have a group dedicated to a [insert cause here] that they feel strongly about, that forms echo chamber, you have an ideal conditions for selfish and narcissisitic idiots to use [insert cause here] rethorics for personal gain and/or to push their own agenda. Politics and bussiness are full of examples of this, medicine, especially the so called "alternative" medicine is notorious for its quacks, religious fundies get regularly duped by faith healers etc. Yet social issues are supposed to be different, place where abuse doesn't happen because they are supposed to be fighting abuse so obviously they can't be acused of it...
People, I'll never understand them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 12, 2015, 06:30:21 pm
All this Colezlaw hoo-haa is just the tip of the iceberg: It overshadows the fact that it's always hugely beneficial to an individual to be part of an "oppressed" minority.

Don't believe me? Just ask Dubya's li'l bro. He knows his shit. (http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/jeb-bush-solution-for-america-more-public-shaming-611)

Quote from: Jeb
People have gradually learned that being a victim gives rise to certain entitlements, benefits and preferences in society. These entitlements are bestowed with little or no corresponding responsibilities. The surest way to get something in today's society is to elevate one's status to that of the oppressed. Many of the modern victim movements, the gay rights movement, the feminist movement, the black empowerment movement and other movements based on social status or race have attempted to get people to view themselves as part of a smaller group deserving of something from society rather than viewing themselves as an integral part of a society in which they strive to make a contribution to the whole.
In reality, these so-called "victims" are, and have always been, the privileged ones. The entire concept of inequality is a complete scam based on fabricated victimhood.

End of Story.

Suck. It. Up.

[/sarcasm][/late-night internet angst]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 12, 2015, 06:43:35 pm
Now, wait a minute. That's about as sound an argument as if I were to say, "Dubya's vision of a democratic Iraq proves that the entire concept of spreading democracy is all about knocking over governments and profiting off the chaos."

People certainly do abuse the concept of privilege for their own ends, just as people abuse any concept for personal gain, no matter how valid it might be. Shit, man, people occasionally use rocks to break windows for a burglary. Should we ban all stones? You're going to have to do better than this non-argument.

EDIT: It's weird because you had exactly the right of it about 6 hours ago.

Quote from: SirQuiamus on June 12, 2015, 12:35:11 pm
She's the flesh-and-blood embodiment of the "deceitful SJW" stereotype that right-wing nutters have been constantly invoking for years. Remember GG and all that spurious victim blaming? Well, now they have a real-life example of a civil rights advocate who's actually been outed as a pathological liar and a habitual fabricator, in addition to being clearly off her damned rocker. It's like Christmas for Gators, MRAs, Supremacists, Fundies... the scum of the internet is gathering together to celebrate their God-given strawmanperson turned into reality!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 12, 2015, 06:47:17 pm
I'm siding with late night angst; privilege pyramid is very easily exploited by maximizing diversity points
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 12, 2015, 06:51:23 pm
Hey, you're not wrong. It is very easily exploited, just like any other heuristic for making social judgments. You're not getting rid of those! They're way too key to how we function. The answer here is a lot easier than overhauling a social movement - exercise some critical thinking on a day-to-day basis and hold people accountable for their flaws, instead of declaring everything related to their flaws to be also a flaw.

EDIT: This is exactly what anybody who falls into the SJW-Tumblrite Stereotype needs to learn, too. It's the same damn flaw. You don't need to be clever and diagnose "what's wrong with society" these days, you just need to be a decent human being.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 12, 2015, 06:55:26 pm
I'm personally coming down on the side that states that anyone claiming to agree with Jeb "Let's Completely Fooking Destroy Florida's Education System" Bush is in fact playing at satire and/or sarcasm. Otherwise they wouldn't have the necessary brain power to continue to breath.

For these moments, as per usual, I recommend the sarcasm font, georgia.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 12, 2015, 07:01:55 pm
I sorta thought that "late-night internet angst" would also spell out "desperate sarcasm," considering that my previous posts were the exact opposite of Jeb's drivel.

But really, his brand of sophistry is very interesting since it's becoming the accepted truth in certain circles, even in Finland. Which is why all that angst.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 12, 2015, 07:02:24 pm
I suck, surprising no one. Carry on.

EDIT: What a way to start a new page.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on June 13, 2015, 01:27:07 am
That is cultural appropriation greatorder, and therefore worse than being Hitler. Everyone knows you can only do things that people of your skin colour also do.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on June 13, 2015, 02:08:28 am
I'll be honest, I've yet to actually see someone seriously talking about themselves as transracial. :T It's just a little odd to see all these people talking about it as if it were an actual thing, and not actually see any of these supposedly (non-Poe) transracial people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: aenri on June 13, 2015, 02:09:13 am
Quote from: Ispil on June 13, 2015, 01:56:06 am
...

You can't change culture or race like underpants. It takes a lot of time to change culture, and even in the end you won't ever be accepted, only tolerated (not even that when you have wrong race). There are great differences between cultures and races, and surmounting them is no easy task.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on June 13, 2015, 02:55:02 am
I can't even words, this is just too hilariously out there. Oh well, at least it's something that almost everyone, regardless of political orientation, can laugh at.

Edit: Oh dear God, Milo Yiannopoulos got ahold of it. This is going to be interesting.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on June 13, 2015, 03:28:16 am
Well, Ispil, we didn't want to say anything, but...


:P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on June 13, 2015, 03:30:48 am
... But get out.


(<3)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 13, 2015, 04:33:47 am
But again, race is not only about genetics. And you can't just switch cultures, look at the scorn heaped on whites with dread and other trying to "act black".

Honestly, I think the only lesson here is that race, just like gender, is a concept that we have to get rid of. It's silly to expect people to fit in a neat category.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 13, 2015, 06:08:53 am
The definition of race is one of those words everyone redefines, but I would take it to be some holistic term taking into account one's ethnicity and one's culture of upbringing. I think it'd be silly to get rid of a word in the hope that differences cease existing, because they will continue to exist irregardless and all that will happen is that the rest of the world which holds onto such differences will laugh at us heartily.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on June 13, 2015, 07:41:50 am
Quote from: Sheb on June 13, 2015, 04:33:47 am
Honestly, I think the only lesson here is that race, just like gender, is a concept that we have to get rid of. It's silly to expect people to fit in a neat category.
Objection! You can't 'get rid of' the concept of gender, because it is  too deeply ingrained in society (and our genetics). For the same reason you can't 'get rid of' the concept of race. Instead of combating the concept itself, we should try to frame it the right way: "So you're black - who cares?" Somewhat like we didn't get rid of the concept of nationality in Europe, we just framed it differently. "So you're French - who cares?"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 13, 2015, 07:47:46 am
You cannot maintain diversity by ignoring your heritage either, I would not expect a kind answer in reply were I to go to a Welshman and tell him 'so you're welsh, who cares?' :/
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on June 13, 2015, 08:49:07 am
Eh, there's different levels of caring, and I was too tired to capture the right nuance.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 13, 2015, 09:40:42 am
Well, we're making good inway toward destroying gender I think. The fact that you can now be accepted as a woman with man parts is blurring the line of what gender is. The fact that man and woman can now do the same jobs, hold the same responsibility is also blurring the traditional gender roles. There is less and less difference in what it means to be a man or a woman. I'd argue that gender as a meaningful social category is one its way out.

P.S. I suspect it's again one of those case where we agree but frame it differently. If one day it comes to the point where "You're a woman? So what?" is a reality, I'd say that's the day genders become meaningless.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on June 13, 2015, 09:47:04 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 13, 2015, 07:47:46 am
You cannot maintain diversity by ignoring your heritage either, I would not expect a kind answer in reply were I to go to a Welshman and tell him 'so you're welsh, who cares?' :/
I contest that assertion. The idea that you need to be taught how to be different (thus making people diverse) is kind of ridiculous.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 13, 2015, 10:01:37 am
Quote from: Antsan on June 13, 2015, 09:47:04 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 13, 2015, 07:47:46 am
You cannot maintain diversity by ignoring your heritage either, I would not expect a kind answer in reply were I to go to a Welshman and tell him 'so you're welsh, who cares?' :/
I contest that assertion. The idea that you need to be taught how to be different (thus making people diverse) is kind of ridiculous.
I wasn't asserting that tho m9
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arcvasti on June 13, 2015, 04:09:06 pm
Only real problem I see with "cultural appropriation"[And really, when you adopt a different culture, the culture is still there afterwards. So its really more like sharing.], is when its done by people who don't actually know or respect the culture they're emulating/embracing/appropriating/whatevering. Then its hella rude. Otherwise, it seems fine.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on June 13, 2015, 04:13:47 pm
Gender and culture aren't on their way out. For every blurred line, there are ten thousand who fit the definition. Yes, there are transgender people blurring the line....there are also many, many, many more semi-stereotypical girls/boys/women/men out there.

As for culture, it is one of the only things that keeps a country as a cohesive whole. Many historical issues have arisen over the lack of a shared national identity, the decline of the Spanish empire being one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on June 15, 2015, 03:59:43 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on June 13, 2015, 04:13:47 pm
Gender and culture aren't on their way out. For every blurred line, there are ten thousand who fit the definition. Yes, there are transgender people blurring the line....there are also many, many, many more semi-stereotypical girls/boys/women/men out there.

As for culture, it is one of the only things that keeps a country as a cohesive whole. Many historical issues have arisen over the lack of a shared national identity, the decline of the Spanish empire being one.
Indeed, the common ground of culture and pride in it, and pride in one's nation, has kept many countries together in difficult times.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on June 16, 2015, 04:02:38 am
Quote from: Obligatory quote
     
Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
The last two lines are of particular interest here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 16, 2015, 10:20:06 am
I don't see any evidence that she's "transracial".  That movement is pretty much exclusively made up of mentally ill people on tumblr accounts, and also pretty much everything she did was consistent with her just being a cynical fraud.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/rachel-dolezal-discrimination-lawsuit-786451
Quote
NAACP official who today resigned in the face of evidence that she masqueraded as black once sued Howard University for denying her teaching posts and a scholarship because she was a white woman
Does that seem like the action of someone who genuinely believes they are black

e: I'm referring to "transracial" as in the claim being made about Dolezal, rather than to the real phenomenon that occurs if a child is adopted by parents of a different race.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on June 16, 2015, 10:27:56 am
Maybe they're racist and think blacks have a victim complex by nature or something?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 16, 2015, 11:01:38 am
We're on this again, eh?

So, yeah, to start off, what I've seen suggests that she's a fraud, not a transracial person. The reason being, she seems to be doing a good job of making it about money instead of about her. So I'm not too inclined to say that she's an innocent victim here; looks more like somebody trying to exploit good-faith efforts to make the world a better place for her own financial gain. But, I don't actually know her or her history well enough to make that claim definitively, so that's all armchair reasoning and doesn't mean much. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt; I don't want to be in the business of helping out witch hunts for people who "aren't really" members of whatever identity you want to talk about.

She still did something wrong, here.

An organization like the NAACP (or, for that matter, a scholarship aimed at black people) exists for a particular purpose. It's aimed at working to help people who've been victims of some kind of discriminatory harm on account of their race. Because of that, promotion to higher levels of authority can take into account membership of that group of people. That is, their experience on the receiving end of whatever social fuckery we want to talk about qualifies them to better understand what needs to be done to address it. I wouldn't say it's a necessary qualification, or a sufficient one; it wouldn't be at all strange for a white person to reach a level of high authority in the NAACP. And if she did her job well, then it's a purely procedural problem, and we probably shouldn't be talking about her in particular at all.

This is especially true in an organization dealing with racism, which has some deeper impacts than some other issues might (say, gender). By that, I mean that you have issues like family income or education that are persistent and have their own immediate consequences. So you've got all the psychological issues of segregation, but on top of that you're poorer and less likely to finish school. Somebody who is transracial, and the existence of that is something I'm happy to grant because why the fuck not, simply doesn't have those problems in the same way because they're exempt from the social patterns that would ordinarily have fucked them over at birth. They may have their own, to be sure! For example, the insistence that they don't exist and are just mentally ill people.

But if you spent the first couple of decades of your life being judged white by society, didn't have the economic disadvantages of being born to a black family imposed on you, and so on and so forth, then for the purposes of working for an organization that works against the harm you never experienced, it's dishonest to imply that you have. It's not that there's some biologically inherent quality to black people that sets them apart from white people, here, or that white people shouldn't be allowed to work for the NAACP or whatever, it's that there is a valid difference in experience here, or at least that's what settles the matter for me.

Then again, I'm a pretty privileged white dude. So! Happy to hear responses. For example, I'm not entirely sure how to reconcile this with questions of safety.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 16, 2015, 11:05:06 am
Yeah, I agree with you, rich blacks didn't really experience the socio-economic impact of being black and shouldn't have the right to call themselves blacks.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 16, 2015, 11:06:54 am
Not what I said! Try again, your strawman was a bit hasty.

EDIT: Actually, I might try to address this. If you've already posted by the time I finish I'll move it over to a proper reply.

PROMISED EDIT:

So, most importantly, I'm not saying a damn thing about what people should or should not be allowed to call themselves. I'm quite happy to accept whatever labels people want to apply to themselves, but in some contexts it doesn't matter what you call yourself, compared to what society calls you.

Also, there's a fairly significant difference between "Dodged one of the particular problems being black tends to impose" and "Was never black for the purposes of any problems being black tends to impose". A rich black person is likelier to have friends or relatives who are black and poor than a rich white person, for example - cultural osmosis happens a fair bit easier in that sort of context. For a more controversial example, I'd probably say that a transwoman is probably better equipped to talk about bullying among boys in school than a transman, even if that particular transwoman was never bullied.

But, on the other hand, if the transman in question happened to offer particularly eloquent and insightful commentary, I wouldn't reject it because of his identity. Because nuance is fun!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on June 16, 2015, 11:13:40 am
I disagree with positive discrimination. I can see its benefits, of course, but to get something not because of what you can do but because of what you are, be it gender or race, disagrees with me.

For example, you may say that such a percent of people in a mechanics business must be female, so now jobs are being reserved for people who want it less, and are only taking it because their gender enables them to.

The argument for, of course, is that it helps prevent discrimination, but fighting fire with fire doesn't seem the way to go.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 16, 2015, 11:21:09 am
He, I was just joking. As a European, I find this fixation on race actually quite intriguing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 16, 2015, 11:32:47 am
Quote from: Bauglir on June 16, 2015, 11:06:54 am
A rich black person is likelier to have friends or relatives who are black and poor than a rich white person, for example - cultural osmosis happens a fair bit easier in that sort of context.
... so if the person in question is white, but manages the same degree of osmosis (or is black, and doesn't), then...?

Likelihood isn't certainty, and there's definitely non-black folks that have enough exposure to their particular plights to be able to understand and empathize to the same degree as a particularly trod upon black person (and, of course, black folks that have basically no connection to the disadvantaged portions of the demographic in question).

I mean, it sorta' seems like you're saying nuance is fun, and then saying there's a minimum level you require before nuance gets to kick in. Which... trends or generalities are nice for talking about trends or generalities, but they're pretty damned useless when talking about a person. Might not apply to the original situation being talked about (though the fact that the person in question actually managed to run the apparent ruse as long as they did says things), but still.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 16, 2015, 11:43:17 am
Quote from: Frumple on June 16, 2015, 11:32:47 am
... so if the person in question is white, but manages the same degree of osmosis (or is black, and doesn't), then...?
Then the person in question has run afoul of the down side of having job qualifications in the first place; that they're just proxies for the qualities you're actually looking for when hiring. That doesn't make it okay to make up work history or whatever.

Quote from: Frumple on June 16, 2015, 11:32:47 am
trends or generalities are nice for talking about trends or generalities, but they're pretty damned useless when talking about a person.
What about when we're talking about a person's experience with trends or generalities? Because that's what culture is - trends and generalities. And, here, exposure to culture is relevant. My point about nuance is that it's not as simple as drawing a line between people and groups.

EDIT: Actually, I guess that wasn't the context in which I brought up nuance. Short memory, sorry. Wow.

So, while what I just said is basically true, it's also true that a person's identity isn't, strictly speaking, why we should take what they say or not seriously. What they say is the only thing that really matters there. As with all things, however, we implement qualifications that don't necessarily tell us anything about what they've said or done but help us figure out who's likely to be saying things we should care about and hey look it's trends and generalities, which are things that have exceptions and nuance and so on and so forth.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on June 16, 2015, 05:00:51 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on June 16, 2015, 11:13:40 am
I disagree with positive discrimination. I can see its benefits, of course, but to get something not because of what you can do but because of what you are, be it gender or race, disagrees with me.

For example, you may say that such a percent of people in a mechanics business must be female, so now jobs are being reserved for people who want it less, and are only taking it because their gender enables them to.

The argument for, of course, is that it helps prevent discrimination, but fighting fire with fire doesn't seem the way to go.
Except the problem that that is supposed to address is people who DO want to, for example, become a mechanic, but because of conscious or unconscious prejudice on the part of the employer, are unable to get one. That whole experiment where they send the exact same resumes, except with a "white dude," "black dude," "white woman," "black woman," name on them, and getting different results, skewed in favour of men and white, that experiment comes to mind. They don't get a chance to do that job. Whether it works or not is another matter, I haven't seen any data on that myself, but the idea is simply "person wants to do job, but gets walled out because of gender/race/identity/etc. Force employer (public sector only, by the way, unless it's in-house regulations by the company doing the hiring!) to have a certain number of said race/gender/identity workers."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 16, 2015, 05:25:16 pm
Quote from: Descan on June 16, 2015, 05:00:51 pm
"person wants to do job, but gets walled out because of gender/race/identity/etc. Force employer (public sector only, by the way, unless it's in-house regulations by the company doing the hiring!) to have a certain number of said race/gender/identity workers."
I don't know how it works in Canadia, but down here in Jesusland that particular model is illegal for implementation in the public sector. Race can be a factor, but you can't have any process that could conceivably make it the deciding factor. So you can't have, for example, racial quotas or point systems with a bonus for race in admissions to universities that receive government financial support, which is all the ones worth mentioning. Gender's a bit wonkier in the abstract, for fairly arcane reasons that boil down to "The government can get away with more gender discrimination than it can racial discrimination", but quotas are still forbidden.

Of course, scholarships funded by things that aren't the government are fine, and so on and so forth, so you can still have things like financial aid targeted specifically at minorities - it just can't come from the public sector.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr. Strange on June 16, 2015, 05:39:21 pm
Quote from: Descan on June 16, 2015, 05:00:51 pm
That whole experiment where they send the exact same resumes, except with a "white dude," "black dude," "white woman," "black woman," name on them, and getting different results, skewed in favour of men and white, that experiment comes to mind.
...try to encourage model of resumes that don't have such distinctions? It's been tried in public education when students apply to schools and only their academic records and test scoors are reviewed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on June 16, 2015, 05:41:05 pm
You kind of need to have the applicant's name on there. Otherwise how would you know who you want to hire?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 16, 2015, 05:45:27 pm
Well, yes and no. There was a case brought to the Supreme Court (Fischer v. UT Austin). It was sent back to a Federal Court fo rreview, and the court ruled that the quotas were legal  (http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/30/still-counting-by-race-at-the-university-of-texas/)(although with much legalese about "holistic approach" that flew over my head.

In effect if, race if only one of many factors included in the decision of whether or not to accept a student it's ok.

But anyway, that wasn't my main point. What I wanted to do was to offer a different justification for Affirmative Action. By forcing an institution to accept people from a certain demographics, it helps break the stereotypes holding that demographic back.

I used to be very skeptical of affirmative action until I read Poor Economics by E. Dufflo. There she report the results of an experiment she did in India. (.pdf of the paper here (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00539.x/epdf))

India at some point decided to reserve one third of village chief position for female candidate. The villages on which a female chief would be forced were selected at random, allowing for a nice randomly controlled trial. The results was that village which had a female chief forced unto them were much more likely to elect a female chief in their own in the future. Affirmative actions led to people realizing that women actually can make decent chiefs.

So yeah, affirmative action can be a good and effective tool, if used right. Among other things, I think that laws mandating affirmative action should be limited in time: the goal is to strike a blow against prejudice, not entrench a system of quota.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on June 16, 2015, 05:49:20 pm
As far as I know, that kind of thing would be railed against (and probably stricken down) as an undue regulation on companies if it originated from the feds or state governments.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 16, 2015, 07:10:41 pm
There is a nice article in the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/22/the-death-treatment) about euthanasia in Belgium. Apparently, it's getting really common in the Flemish part (5% of all deaths). The article tend against euthanasia (at least against the ease with which it is available in Belgium), but is insightful and interesting. Food for though there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 16, 2015, 07:27:51 pm
Quote from: Sheb on June 16, 2015, 05:45:27 pm
Well, yes and no. There was a case brought to the Supreme Court (Fischer v. UT Austin). It was sent back to a Federal Court fo rreview, and the court ruled that the quotas were legal  (http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/30/still-counting-by-race-at-the-university-of-texas/)(although with much legalese about "holistic approach" that flew over my head.
I just want to clarify, the admissions process in question didn't involve quotas. That is, there was no target number of minority students. What they did was incorporate race into a numerical score, and apparently the process for doing so was ill-defined and nebulous (a clear system where "Being black" got you 20 points had been previously deemed unconstitutional, which is probably why). To my knowledge, quotas remain flatly unconstitutional.

EDIT: No problem with euthanasia from me. The only thing that upsets me about the way the doctors handled that was dismissing the complaints as being from psychiatric patients. It's a lie, and I can't see how it would matter, anyway, unless they're trying to play on the "Oh you can't take crazy people seriously" bullshit; which they really don't want to do, since it undermines the entire rationale for permitting euthanasia for mental conditions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on June 17, 2015, 01:34:15 am
Very interesting article.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on June 17, 2015, 03:23:14 am
Quote from: Descan on June 16, 2015, 05:00:51 pm
Whether it works or not is another matter, I haven't seen any data on that myself, but the idea is simply "person wants to do job, but gets walled out because of gender/race/identity/etc. Force employer (public sector only, by the way, unless it's in-house regulations by the company doing the hiring!) to have a certain number of said race/gender/identity workers."
I read somewhere recently that the point at which the suffragette movement really took off was when they stopped arguing purely morally and started pointing out the benefits for the nation as a whole. Maybe this is a way to combat racism in the US: Convince companies that it's the economically rational choice to combat discrimination!

@Sheb: Could you upload that paper somewhere, or send it to me in private? It's behind a paywall, and it may help me combat the occasional MRA outbreaks my girlfriend gets :D
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 17, 2015, 03:49:49 am
Oh, I was on my uni network, I didn't realize it was paywalled. Other organizations have it uploaded, this one (http://www.poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/women%20policymakers.pdf) should work.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on June 17, 2015, 04:24:15 am
All humans are so similar I'm still kind of confused why they care so much about gender and shit. I can hardly tell myself apart from the couch.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arx on June 17, 2015, 04:36:22 am
I agree with affirmative action as a concept, but I've kind of been put off it by implementation. (http://www.politicsweb.co.za/party/eskoms-race-quota-plan-to-go-into-overdrive--solid)

That's three thousand four hundred skilled workers who'll be laid off entirely because they're white. It kind of rankles.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on June 17, 2015, 08:40:14 am
Isn't your government kinda crazy like that? IIRC there are some guys in the ruling party who think Mugabe has all the right ideas...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arx on June 17, 2015, 08:49:39 am
Many of them are idiots, but they're not actually incompetent or (excessively) racist. There isn't really a way to implement affirmative action that isn't screwing over white people to give their piece to black people, because as far as my experience goes that's exactly what the term means. It's just a case of pulling it off with subtlety and restraint, so as not to directly fuck the privileged classes (like in the article) or indirectly fuck the country (like is going to happen if those white people have to be replaced by unskilled black people (because we still haven't untangled the education system and I'm concerned that those particular skills aren't easy to acquire for a black South African)). I don't know if I trust most governments to do that right.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea, this is just an example of how it can go wrong when implemented by a government that is otherwise not an oppressive segregationist regime (although they do tend further that way than others).

It's difficult, because as I said I support the concept. It's just... the idea that I'll probably never get a job at certain places because I'm white is remniscent of certain policies none of us want back.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 20, 2015, 06:41:55 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/20/russell-moore-gay-marriage_n_7623824.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

http://news.yahoo.com/hundreds-thousands-rally-rome-against-gay-unions-202458032.html

You know, I just get the impression there's nothing I could ever say or do that would make some people not hate gays (or admit they actually do hate gays). And those are just the latest in a long line. Seems the Uber conservative portions of America (and elsewhere) are losing some ground, finally, and they are pissed.

Same goes for the anti women crowd:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/15/north_carolina_abortion_ultrasound_case_supreme_court_won_t_hear_it.html

and then of course there's the radical blowback trying to victim blame in a horrid way:
http://news.yahoo.com/nra-executive-suggests-slain-charleston-pastor-blame-gun-043458974.html;_ylt=AwrBT821.IVV2ksAW5JXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyb2JlYWRiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMzBHZ0aWQDQjAxMjJfMQRzZWMDc3I-#

Dude is dead. Leave him alone. Just cause he supported gun control and died via gunshot doesn't mean it's cool to blame him for his own death and the deaths of others who died with him.... I mean even if you try and give this NRA guy the benefits of some very serious doubts, it's still messed up. Let's say for the sake of argument that this NRA guy was trying to use this as an example and say something like, O I dunno, "See, if some of the people in that church would've had guns, they could've shot the crazy racist white kid murderer and saved some people." Even that wouldn't have been the best argument to make but it would've been better than blaming the dead pastor. I mean really, that's, nevermind bad taste; it's bad PR too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on June 20, 2015, 07:32:33 pm
Quote from: Ispil on June 20, 2015, 06:58:56 pm
I think I already brought up in the election megathread about the NRA's solution to gun violence being more guns. "People won't shoot other people if the other people would shoot back!" Because having bullets flying everywhere whenever something bad happens is a good thing. Incidentally, it is for the NRA- bullet sales would go through the roof.
Yeah, but short of having no guns at all (which while it works great in Japan, I think pretty much any attempt to do so is gonna fail in the US, going that it's against the constitution and all), having a well armed populace is one of the better defenses. I mean if you have at least a portion of the population that has guns, as we do in the US, then it's kinda a fact of life that the criminals and other bad guys are going to be able to get them. At that point your choices in a scenario are "they have guns and you don't" or "we both have guns", and honestly I'd probably say that the second one is better.

(Of course both would be worse than "neither us nor them have guns", but as I mentioned doing that is kinda against the constitution right now).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on June 20, 2015, 07:37:26 pm
Look at Europe: It's fairly clear that you're wrong, at least in general. American cultural peculiarities have an impact, of course, but that's a whole different order of magnitude effect-wise.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on June 20, 2015, 07:47:42 pm
Another point of note, is that organized criminals having guns is actually not that big of a deal - they try pretty hard to not end up in confrontations that could be violent. The ones that are real trouble are the random dumb-asses - life that idiot in charleston. They DO get into violent confrontations where people get shot, and they WOULD be dissuaded by decent gun control laws.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on June 20, 2015, 08:59:44 pm
Honestly, double checking the data on murders and gun related murders I'm seeing some funny relationships here. From the looks of it the states with less guns were actually significantly more murderous, with the lowest 10 states for gun ownership percentage having almost 30% more murders than the highest 10 on gun ownership (ignoring Washington DC as an obvious outlier). On the other hand the overall percentage of gun related murders compared to total murders held approximately equal in the top and the bottom, only varying by less than 5%.

Looking at some of the world data on "civilized" countries I'm seeing pretty similar correspondences. While Americans are much more likely to turn to a gun to kill someone, the overall murder rate per population between here and Europe isn't that different. America has slightly higher rates than western Europe (about 3 deaths per 100k people instead of 1), it also shares a border with Mexico, which is one of the absolute worst countries on the map, and therefore appears to be at least partly following the trend of countries only doing gradual changes; there are very few high up against low boundaries on the map, and most of those involve countries that make me question their reporting methods, such as in Egypt, China, or Saudi Arabia. I'm honestly not seeing any significant differences in murder rates for civilized countries here, gun control or not.

Of course this isn't a comprehensive study, so we can also draw other funny conclusions as well. For example if we look at the "civilized" world we find that murder rates are almost a direct correlation with country size, with smaller countries having less murders per pop and larger ones having more. (Excluding the dang Canadians, the curve breakers. :P).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 20, 2015, 09:14:03 pm
Quote from: i2amroy on June 20, 2015, 07:32:33 pm
At that point your choices in a scenario are "they have guns and you don't" or "we both have guns", and honestly I'd probably say that the second one is better.
Oddly enough, from what I recall of gun violence, by the numbers (i.e. people shot and shot & killed), insofar as the victim in the encounter walking away that's largely untrue. You encounter someone armed and try to pull on them, and you're fairly significantly more likely to die because of it than otherwise. Carrying actually increases your risk of harm and death in the case of a violent encounter.

As... well, as anyone that is actually familiar with firearm usage, especially in criminal encounters, would be able to tell you, when it comes to gun on gun violence the person that wins is almost always the person that shoots first -- and someone intending to commit violence with a firearm is going to have it pulled and be significantly more likely to pull the trigger if pressed than, y'know, your average civilian (even -- especially, to a degree, because arms carrying is known to induce a false sense of security -- someone that is trained and carrying.). You may be carrying, but that doesn't mean you're even remotely as capable of drawing and pulling in a manner that's actually going to help you. It's notably more likely to just flat get you killed.

Firearm carrying is just... it's not a matter of actual safety, largely. Psychological safety, maybe, but physically... no. Unfortunately.

... in other news, eyetwo, a 3x increase is, uh. Not "slight". Though yeah, murder rate in particular, even gun-related murder, is significantly more complicated than just which area has the most gun owners. Violence in general is multivariate as hell.

---

And yeah, true, there's going to be some people you just can't dissuade from being bigoted fuckwits. Some folks are just screwed up in the head, and there's not really any degree of persuasion that can do anything about it. Ideal is to get that percentage of the population as small as possible. Getting rid of it may never happen, but if we can get it small enough to be well contained that'd be a fairly significant victory.

In other other news, if that's the same NRA critter I'm thinking of, what's amusing is that the NRA itself pretty immediately broke association with the comment in question. The backpedal involved was worth a chuckle.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 21, 2015, 01:15:49 am
While I think that America's gun obsession is dangerous, I don't think that outliers like this attack should be what guide gun control policies. They account for a tiny percentage of all death after all.

I'm more concerned that this terrorist attack, despite certainly being politically motivated and killing three times as many people as the Boston marathon bombing, doesn't seem to be considered a terrorist attacks by the mainstream media? Where is the outrage at policy failure? The anguish about the way some in the white community self-radicalize through the internet? The questioning about what should have been done?

Maybe Black lives don't really matters...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 21, 2015, 03:30:53 am
Quote from: Angle on June 20, 2015, 07:47:42 pm
organized criminals having guns is actually not that big of a deal - they try pretty hard to not end up caught in admissible evidence in confrontations that could be violent.

FTFY

Fun fact, American Steel is actually 0.001% Mob Debtor.

Guns are tricky, for practical and political reasons. Historically, Americans have long used guns to settle things. There's really no way an anti gun lobby would ever last, if only for lack of being bulletproof. One true thing is that guns are tools. Sadly, they are often misused. It's easier to do a lot of things, than to soften, much less refine, the human heart....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 21, 2015, 06:20:12 am
Quote from: i2amroy on June 20, 2015, 08:59:44 pm
America has slightly higher rates than western Europe (about 3 deaths per 100k people instead of 1)
Are you seriously trying to claim that triple the rate is a minor difference?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 21, 2015, 07:13:41 am
Quote from: Sheb on June 21, 2015, 01:15:49 am
While I think that America's gun obsession is dangerous, I don't think that outliers like this attack should be what guide gun control policies. They account for a tiny percentage of all death after all.

I'm more concerned that this terrorist attack, despite certainly being politically motivated and killing three times as many people as the Boston marathon bombing, doesn't seem to be considered a terrorist attacks by the mainstream media? Where is the outrage at policy failure? The anguish about the way some in the white community self-radicalize through the internet? The questioning about what should have been done?

Maybe Black lives don't really matters...

News in the UK reported that he was bought the gun he used as a birthday present. That.... that sets off alarm bells for me.

I fully accept and understand the right for a citizen of the US to own and operate a gun (even if I might dispute the need). Such is the way of things over there. However, the idea that someone can buy a gun, then give it to someone (even if said transfer is legal) scares me. The person buying a gun could be responsible, sane, competent, and skilled it both its use and maintenance - but how in blue hell does the seller of the gun have any idea about the same aspects of the third party being given a gun? The world over we go to great lengths who can access various potentially dangerous things, from cars to chemical substances. Yet it is OK for something like a gun to be bought only to be given on with no checks or balances? Worrying.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on June 21, 2015, 07:30:17 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on June 21, 2015, 06:20:12 am
Quote from: i2amroy on June 20, 2015, 08:59:44 pm
America has slightly higher rates than western Europe (about 3 deaths per 100k people instead of 1)
Are you seriously trying to claim that triple the rate is a minor difference?
And my axe. Seriously, a fucking 300% increase in murders per people is a big fucking deal, and not just something you can handwave away because Mexicans.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on June 21, 2015, 07:56:10 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on June 21, 2015, 07:13:41 am
Quote from: Sheb on June 21, 2015, 01:15:49 am
While I think that America's gun obsession is dangerous, I don't think that outliers like this attack should be what guide gun control policies. They account for a tiny percentage of all death after all.

I'm more concerned that this terrorist attack, despite certainly being politically motivated and killing three times as many people as the Boston marathon bombing, doesn't seem to be considered a terrorist attacks by the mainstream media? Where is the outrage at policy failure? The anguish about the way some in the white community self-radicalize through the internet? The questioning about what should have been done?

Maybe Black lives don't really matters...

News in the UK reported that he was bought the gun he used as a birthday present. That.... that sets off alarm bells for me.

I fully accept and understand the right for a citizen of the US to own and operate a gun (even if I might dispute the need). Such is the way of things over there. However, the idea that someone can buy a gun, then give it to someone (even if said transfer is legal) scares me. The person buying a gun could be responsible, sane, competent, and skilled it both its use and maintenance - but how in blue hell does the seller of the gun have any idea about the same aspects of the third party being given a gun? The world over we go to great lengths who can access various potentially dangerous things, from cars to chemical substances. Yet it is OK for something like a gun to be bought only to be given on with no checks or balances? Worrying.

I dunno, mwnci. I think it's less that you can give someone a gun without checks and more that you can be given a gun without checks.

...Semantically speaking.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on June 21, 2015, 08:01:24 am
Quote from: Helgoland on June 21, 2015, 07:30:17 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on June 21, 2015, 06:20:12 am
Quote from: i2amroy on June 20, 2015, 08:59:44 pm
America has slightly higher rates than western Europe (about 3 deaths per 100k people instead of 1)
Are you seriously trying to claim that triple the rate is a minor difference?
And my axe. Seriously, a fucking 300% increase in murders per people is a big fucking deal, and not just something you can handwave away because Mexicans.

And my bow. Though it's technically a 200% increase, not a 300% one. :v
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 21, 2015, 08:30:32 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on June 21, 2015, 07:13:41 am
News in the UK reported that he was bought the gun he used as a birthday present. That.... that sets off alarm bells for me.
Noted in the USApol thread that's false. Guy bought the gun with birthday money, but the gun itself wasn't a present. Also worth noting that the guy had prior record, iirc, and shouldn't have been able to buy the gun :V

That said, yes, people get firearms as gifts. It's noted well that the vast majority of illegal guns in the US start legal, and it's not exactly uncommon for a gun to show up in the hands of someone that couldn't pass a background check because friends/family gave it over, sometimes as some sort of gift. Hell, the one gun I actually own (an antique .22 that's over a century old at this point. Still works, last I checked on it, but that's been a bit.), was passed down to me by family. Don't recall it being a birthday gift, but... yeah, it happens, and there's pretty much no oversight on the process.

Mind you, if you possess a firearm you shouldn't, the gifting process won't protect you from potential legal repercussions, but you don't exactly have to check in with the local law enforcement or whatev' to pass a firearm to... anyone, really, in most states, so far as I can recall.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on June 21, 2015, 10:24:34 am
Quote from: Frumple on June 21, 2015, 08:30:32 am
Noted in the USApol thread that's false. Guy bought the gun with birthday money, but the gun itself wasn't a present. Also worth noting that the guy had prior record, iirc, and shouldn't have been able to buy the gun :V
So do they know how he actually did get the gun? But it from a source of dubious legality or something?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on June 21, 2015, 10:28:03 am
Once again everybody has to identify the exact wrong issue with the fact that someone with a mental disorder has been walking around that long without getting treatment

Personally I do think we need stricter gun control laws in the US, but I also think that doing so isn't going to make the problem just go away. The abhorrent condition of mental healthcare in the US is and always will be the root of the issue, and the fact that I have seen zero congressmen try to tackle this issue is literally disgusting to me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 21, 2015, 10:30:43 am
Quote from: Graknorke on June 21, 2015, 10:24:34 am
Quote from: Frumple on June 21, 2015, 08:30:32 am
Noted in the USApol thread that's false. Guy bought the gun with birthday money, but the gun itself wasn't a present. Also worth noting that the guy had prior record, iirc, and shouldn't have been able to buy the gun :V
So do they know how he actually did get the gun? But it from a source of dubious legality or something?
I so far haven't seen a source on that, but it wouldn't need be a black market purchase. He would have had a much easier time getting it from a gun show, as they are wholly exempt from background check laws and waiting periods.

They can be...uh....fascinating places. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/s-gun-show-vendor-booted-racist-target-sheets-article-1.2152926)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on June 21, 2015, 10:35:38 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 21, 2015, 10:30:43 am
Quote from: Graknorke on June 21, 2015, 10:24:34 am
Quote from: Frumple on June 21, 2015, 08:30:32 am
Noted in the USApol thread that's false. Guy bought the gun with birthday money, but the gun itself wasn't a present. Also worth noting that the guy had prior record, iirc, and shouldn't have been able to buy the gun :V
So do they know how he actually did get the gun? But it from a source of dubious legality or something?
I so far haven't seen a source on that, but it wouldn't need be a black market purchase. He would have had a much easier time getting it from a gun show, as they are wholly exempt from background check laws and waiting periods.

They can be...uh....fascinating places. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/s-gun-show-vendor-booted-racist-target-sheets-article-1.2152926)

It is alarmingly easy to buy nazi paraphernalia at gun shows, especially here in the south
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 21, 2015, 10:36:31 am
Quote from: ggamer on June 21, 2015, 10:28:03 am
Once again everybody has to identify the exact wrong issue with the fact that someone with a mental disorder has been walking around that long without getting treatment
Uh, actually, from what I've been picking up the guy had no history or particular indication of having a mental disorder (though it's entirely possible I've missed an update or somethin' that says otherwise). He was to all appearances just a hateful racist fuckwit.

I... know a lot of people would like to think that racist vitriol extending to the point it did for this guy is a mental disorder, but... to a large extent, it's not. It's just what can happen when you've been sufficiently inculcated into that sort of hatred.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on June 21, 2015, 10:57:31 am
Quote from: Frumple on June 21, 2015, 10:36:31 am
Quote from: ggamer on June 21, 2015, 10:28:03 am
Once again everybody has to identify the exact wrong issue with the fact that someone with a mental disorder has been walking around that long without getting treatment
Uh, actually, from what I've been picking up the guy had no history or particular indication of having a mental disorder (though it's entirely possible I've missed an update or somethin' that says otherwise). He was to all appearances just a hateful racist fuckwit.

I... know a lot of people would like to think that racist vitriol extending to the point it did for this guy is a mental disorder, but... to a large extent, it's not. It's just what can happen when you've been sufficiently inculcated into that sort of hatred.

I'd have to respectfully disagree. I know a lot of racist folk, some more low key than others, but I have never met someone who was filled with so much racist vitriol that they would go and shoot up any black people, let alone a church.

I can't logically comprehend a healthy mind finding that an appropriate response, no matter how bad things are down here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on June 21, 2015, 10:58:38 am
Quote from: Frumple on June 21, 2015, 10:36:31 am
Uh, actually, from what I've been picking up the guy had no history or particular indication of having a mental disorder (though it's entirely possible I've missed an update or somethin' that says otherwise). He was to all appearances just a hateful racist fuckwit.

I... know a lot of people would like to think that racist vitriol extending to the point it did for this guy is a mental disorder, but... to a large extent, it's not. It's just what can happen when you've been sufficiently inculcated into that sort of hatred.

This.

That said, I agree with ggamer about the state of metal healthcare in the US. It is pretty terrible.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on June 21, 2015, 11:00:51 am
i heard they got pretty good metal healthcare in scandinavia
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on June 21, 2015, 11:20:41 am
Quote from: UXLZ on June 21, 2015, 08:01:24 am
Quote from: Helgoland on June 21, 2015, 07:30:17 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on June 21, 2015, 06:20:12 am
Quote from: i2amroy on June 20, 2015, 08:59:44 pm
America has slightly higher rates than western Europe (about 3 deaths per 100k people instead of 1)
Are you seriously trying to claim that triple the rate is a minor difference?
And my axe. Seriously, a fucking 300% increase in murders per people is a big fucking deal, and not just something you can handwave away because Mexicans.
And my bow. Though it's technically a 200% increase, not a 300% one. :v
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/increased_risk.png)
If you look at it as a the data that it is (i.e., murders per 100,000 people), then yes. One is at .0001% of people being murdered, and the other is at .0003% of people being murdered. Heck, statistically the US is only a little beyond one standard deviation from Europe! Your chance of death on the street is functionally equivalent, and when you are dealing with numbers that tiny it's very easy to get a significant difference just from other influences.

Math derp, ignore the struck.
Consider this. In 2013 (one year from when the previous data was taken), Mexican drug cartels caused something like 5,700 murders. The amount of murders that differentiates the US from Europe is only 3180. Imported crime from Mexico alone more than covers the difference between the US and Europe by itself. Mexico is one of the darkest countries on the map, the closest countries to Europe with that bad of a murder rate are Greenland or the southern half of Africa. Even the countries in the middle east that appear to be reporting their statistics right don't come to even half as bad as Mexico is. (Second note, I'm not looking at Eastern Europe, just Western/Northern Europe, if we include the European countries closer to Russia the European average shoots up to right where the US is and then keeps climbing).

So yeah, it's a rather small difference in overall rates statistically.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 21, 2015, 11:27:10 am
Quote from: ggamer on June 21, 2015, 10:57:31 am
I know a lot of racist folk, some more low key than others, but I have never met someone who was filled with so much racist vitriol that they would go and shoot up any black people, let alone a church.
All I can say to that is that I'm glad you haven't, or at least haven't noticed you have. I've been around more people than I'd like that were only a couple notches of social approbation from picking up a gun and going hunting.

You have to remember gg, the last public hanging of a black person is still in living memory. My grandfather's old enough to remember that year, and still kicking. Lot of the folks of the generations that came from that area and shortly thereafter are... not as distanced from the beliefs that lead to stuff like that as a lot of us would like. Less willing to be open about it, 'cause the social tide as turned pretty hard against it, but it's still there. And as this incident shows, it can still pass on to the younger generations :-\

Quote
I can't logically comprehend a healthy mind finding that an appropriate response, no matter how bad things are down here.
*shrugs* When you genuinely believe that a social group are rapists and all that racist bugshit, violence of that sort becomes more understandable. You, happily enough, believe the premises that sort of thing builds itself off are false. Folks like the guy in question didn't, and, well. What happened happened.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 21, 2015, 11:46:27 am
Quote from: Dutchling on June 21, 2015, 11:00:51 am
i heard they got pretty good metal healthcare in scandinavia
I suppose that explains the headbanger who got employment benefits due to his "addiction".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on June 21, 2015, 11:55:16 am
Quote from: Dutchling on June 21, 2015, 11:00:51 am
i heard they got pretty good metal healthcare in scandinavia

Not for the last 30 yea- oh. I see it now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 21, 2015, 12:30:43 pm
Quote from: i2amroy on June 21, 2015, 11:20:41 am
Consider this. In 2013 (one year from when the previous data was taken), Mexican drug cartels caused something like 5,700 murders.  The amount of murders that differentiates the US from Europe is only 3180.
Firstly that's not 2/3rds of the total number of US murders so it does not account for the difference.  Secondly I'd like a source on 5,700 drug cartel murders in the US because that sounds completely ridiculous.  I'm getting numbers more along the lines of 500, and that's including all drug related murders.
Quote from: ggamer on June 21, 2015, 10:57:31 am
I'd have to respectfully disagree. I know a lot of racist folk, some more low key than others, but I have never met someone who was filled with so much racist vitriol that they would go and shoot up any black people, let alone a church.

I can't logically comprehend a healthy mind finding that an appropriate response, no matter how bad things are down here.
The fact that you refuse to accept that a non-mentally ill person could do this doesn't mean it's impossible.  Also in any case better mental healthcare would have done nothing to help here in any case since he hadn't been identified as needing it, unless you're proposing some kind of weird thought-police policy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on June 21, 2015, 12:41:59 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on June 21, 2015, 12:30:43 pm
Firstly that's not 2/3rds of the total number of US murders so it does not account for the difference.
Oh derp, sorry. You'd think as a math minor I'm make less stupid math errors.

As for the source it was from a news site but I can't seem to find the right combination of keywords to get me back there (I'm on a guest chromebook right now, so no history sadly). As you pointed out it's kinda moot though due to my stupid mistake. :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on June 21, 2015, 04:41:27 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on June 21, 2015, 12:30:43 pm
Quote from: ggamer on June 21, 2015, 10:57:31 am
I'd have to respectfully disagree. I know a lot of racist folk, some more low key than others, but I have never met someone who was filled with so much racist vitriol that they would go and shoot up any black people, let alone a church.

I can't logically comprehend a healthy mind finding that an appropriate response, no matter how bad things are down here.
The fact that you refuse to accept that a non-mentally ill person could do this doesn't mean it's impossible.  Also in any case better mental healthcare would have done nothing to help here in any case since he hadn't been identified as needing it, unless you're proposing some kind of weird thought-police policy.

yes, de-stigmatizing mental healthcare does sound like a wierd thought-police policy.

According to the news homeslice always went around with a sloppy ass bowlcut and eyes that looked like he just got done watching a twelve hour human centipede/elfen lied marathon. With that negative a social image, i'd imagine that going to get help for a mental disorder wouldn't do him any favours, in a social sense.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 21, 2015, 05:48:54 pm
But there's no evidence that he considered himself to be mentally ill.  And really I don't either - all the evidence has pointed to him being an ideologically driven violent racist.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on June 21, 2015, 06:09:17 pm
It could be as de-stigmatized as going to the doctor for a particularly bad cold (bad example because lolAmericanHealthcare, but bear with me) and it still wouldn't have had a difference, if the guy didn't feel like he had a cough. It's weird thought police if you force someone to go to a psychiatrist. (Granted, that does happen, but generally only if they're a danger to others or are incapable. This guy turned out to be a danger to others, but no one knew that before hand.)

And if a bad haircut and an intense stare when you take photos is enough to get you in front of a psychiatrist, then THAT is also thought police.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on June 22, 2015, 04:08:36 am
Fashion police :v
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2015, 04:34:46 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 21, 2015, 11:46:27 am
Quote from: Dutchling on June 21, 2015, 11:00:51 am
i heard they got pretty good metal healthcare in scandinavia
I suppose that explains the headbanger who got employment benefits due to his "addiction".
Too much headbanging can legitimately cause brain damage
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on June 22, 2015, 09:11:57 am
Quote from: i2amroy on June 21, 2015, 12:41:59 pm
You'd think as a math minor I'm make less stupid math errors.

Not sure if is joke or not....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on June 22, 2015, 10:40:22 am
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on June 22, 2015, 09:11:57 am
Quote from: i2amroy on June 21, 2015, 12:41:59 pm
You'd think as a math minor I'm make less stupid math errors.
Not sure if is joke or not....
No, just a perfectly placed and rather hilarious phone keyboard typo. :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on June 23, 2015, 10:24:53 pm
Sorry, missed this.

Quote from: i2amroy on June 21, 2015, 11:20:41 am
If you look at it as a the data that it is (i.e., murders per 100,000 people), then yes. One is at .0001% of people being murdered, and the other is at .0003% of people being murdered. Heck, statistically the US is only a little beyond one standard deviation from Europe! Your chance of death on the street is functionally equivalent, and when you are dealing with numbers that tiny it's very easy to get a significant difference just from other influences.

So yeah, it's a rather small difference in overall rates statistically.

With a sample size that large, I believe outliers are pretty much already accounted for. We aren't comparing beaches, we're comparing countries.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 23, 2015, 10:30:17 pm
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/highlight/arresting-officers-bought-dylann-roof-burger-king/55894a162b8c2a5a2c000012?cps=gravity_2689_-1721769017549035520

Murder 9 people in lovely racist fashion; get Burger King. "Have it Your Way!"

Just weird. I. I don't know what on earth to even say. It's amazing. What could've possibly been running through their heads at the time? "Devil's Advocate" if this was used as a bargaining chip to entice him to surrender without shooting at police or something, then sure (non violence is usually better). That said, it's just really weird and it doesn't seem to sit right at first blush. I somehow don't think this is a thing they usually do for newly arrested suspects, especially those practically if not actually admitting to horrid, racially motivated multiple murders.

I wonder what the policy is in this situation. I'm making a conscious effort not to get upset and be as logical as possible here. If you are a police officer in this precinct and you arrest a suspect who says they are hungry, what do you do? I would imagine the jail serves meals at specified times. At some point, I supposed the police inevitably have to feed prisoners, rightfully so. However, it seems off that he gets fast food, but maybe I'm wrong?

I get a bad gut feeling from this, and I don't think I'm alone.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on June 23, 2015, 10:35:59 pm
I get a bad gut feeling from everything. (I have stomach problems. :v)

Silly jokes aside... I can see this blowing up a bit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 23, 2015, 11:04:11 pm
... can't say I've heard much of cops bringing suspects through the drive-through, no. Or fast food in general, whatever happened (I can't actually see the linked website. Thing's just a blank black background.). Heard plenty of them holding suspects without food (or water, sometimes) for extended periods (and often for considerably less than, you know, multiple homicide), but luxury foodstuffs (which fast food is, if about as low on that totem pole as it gets) isn't something you hear much about.

Occasionally in crime dramas or whatever, I guess, but considering how little those things represent real police proceedings, I'd imagine they get that wrong, too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BurnedToast on June 24, 2015, 08:25:23 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on June 21, 2015, 12:30:43 pm
The fact that you refuse to accept that a non-mentally ill person could do this doesn't mean it's impossible.  Also in any case better mental healthcare would have done nothing to help here in any case since he hadn't been identified as needing it, unless you're proposing some kind of weird thought-police policy.

Quote from: Leafsnail on June 21, 2015, 05:48:54 pm
But there's no evidence that he considered himself to be mentally ill.  And really I don't either - all the evidence has pointed to him being an ideologically driven violent racist.


I would argue that going into a church (or really, any place) and murdering 9 innocent, unarmed people is pretty damn strong evidence for mental illness.

They will, of course, say he's sane so that they can execute him and the public can have the revenge it desires but that seems absurd to me. How can you honestly claim that gunning down 9 people to try and start a race war is the act of a sane person? How could a rational, working mind ever come to the conclusion that it was a good idea to do something like that?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on June 24, 2015, 08:31:00 am
It's not just the mentally ill who do immoral stuff you know.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 24, 2015, 08:34:42 am
Being a bad person is not actually a recognized mental illness.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on June 24, 2015, 08:48:41 am
Quote from: BurnedToast on June 24, 2015, 08:25:23 am
How could a rational, working mind ever come to the conclusion that it was a good idea to do something like that?
1) Black people are invading his country and trying to undermine and take over the country and society that he values
2) While doing so they are also raping all of the American women and being violent, rather than it being a quiet and subversive takeover.
3) Despite 2, nobody will do anything to get rid of black people from America legally.

Are you seriously saying that you can't imagine why he'd try and go on a race war, given that he outright stated that he believed 1 and 2, and 3 is a true fact?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on June 24, 2015, 08:49:56 am
There've been a lot of murderers and dictators (I won't say his name, but it's Hitler) who have been all too sane. (You don't get to be the head of a nation and win the hearts and minds of enough people to have the Holocaust happen without being sane. Sociopathic, maybe, but sociopathy is kind of a special case.)

It's too easy to blame mental illness and go "Why don't we lock these people up sooner?" except that wouldn't really help at all and too many innocent people with actual problems would get caught in the crossfire and have those problems exasperated.

Just dealing with schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder or other disorders alone is hard enough, it doesn't need to be made harder by having every other person who knows you have it thinks you're a wrong Micky-Dee's order away from a killing spree.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 24, 2015, 09:05:57 am
Yeah... we have a great deal of human history more or less detailing how terrifyingly easy it is to get sane people to commit atrocities. Yes, a murder spree is generally what you'd consider evidence for mental illness, but it's not proof of it, and there's a lot of cases -- such as, to all appearances, the case being spoken of -- where the person committing the act is not mentally ill. The situation they're in just such that they're able and willing to perform terrible acts, often on people who are to outside observers entirely undeserving of such things. Sometimes they're just terrible people, sometimes they're just in a terrible situation. Sometimes something in between. That doesn't make them insane.

To an extent, it's almost unfortunate. Mental illness is something often identifiable and sometimes treatable, or at least able to be largely mitigated in ill effects. Baseline human psychology is... less addressable. We want people like Roof to be insane, because that means we don't have to address the conditions that led to his actions. We just have to fix the person, rather than attend and be aware of the fact that their actions are a potential weakness for anyone, not just the mentally ill. There but for the grace of god, as the saying goes :-\
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Redzephyr01 on June 24, 2015, 01:55:58 pm
I really don't understand why people are mad at the police for giving the guy food. They can't just let him starve.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on June 24, 2015, 02:04:07 pm
Quote from: Redzephyr01 on June 24, 2015, 01:55:58 pm
I really don't understand why people are mad at the police for giving the guy food. They can't just let him starve.
Well first of all the police can and have been more than willing to let prisoners starve in the past. And secondly, it was McDonalds. Bought with police money. It's not a large extravagance, but it's more than the police typically goes to.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 24, 2015, 02:07:04 pm
Quote from: Redzephyr01 on June 24, 2015, 01:55:58 pm
I really don't understand why people are mad at the police for giving the guy food. They can't just let him starve.
... because it's a case of the police treating a murderer better than they treat non-violent protesters. Of giving someone that just killed nine people more expensive food than parts of the country allow people on bloody food stamps, that have done nothing except being poor.

Folks are pissed because it's a possible sign of fairly disgusting bias. They can't let him starve -- though there are precincts in this country perfectly willing to let protesters who have been stuck in a cell without even being charged go without food for dozens of hours -- but that doesn't mean he deserves special treatment. Which is what this is seen as.

Though maybe they had some kind of good reason for doing so. It's not impossible. Just damned unlikely.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Redzephyr01 on June 24, 2015, 02:12:50 pm
Giving him food doesn't hurt anyone. It's not making the suffering of anyone else any worse. Hell, he hasn't even been convicted yet.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 24, 2015, 02:19:06 pm
I think it's just people going "fucking criminal don't deserve to be treated fairly".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on June 24, 2015, 02:20:02 pm
Again: It's because the police have treated other people worse for doing less.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Redzephyr01 on June 24, 2015, 02:21:05 pm
That doesn't justify treating someone else bad. The police shouldn't have treated those other people bad either.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 24, 2015, 02:22:56 pm
Plus, it's kinda weird the treat "The Police" as a monolithical entity. Unless you can show that those same police officers apparently are only nice to white supremacists or something.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on June 24, 2015, 02:23:24 pm
No it doesn't, but they're still going to. This is an unnecessary extravagance while other times they're perfectly fine treating people far worse that they should. It's the preferential treatment that is a problem.

Quote from: Sheb on June 24, 2015, 02:22:56 pm
Plus, it's kinda weird the treat "The Police" as a monolithical entity. Unless you can show that those same police officers apparently are only nice to white supremacists or something.
The police is a formal entity with codified rules for conduct. They should all behave the same.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 24, 2015, 02:25:39 pm
... except not giving some freaking fast food would not have been treating them badly. It would have been treating them like everyone else, at the least. Instead someone who's going to be hit with multiple counts of racially motivated homicide got special treatment. Thus people are pissed.

This is a case of a heinous criminal getting accommodation above and beyond what even petty criminals get. It does not paint a pretty picture, especially given the circumstances. Now, if it turns out luxury food is normal for criminals in that precinct, okay. That would explain things, and people would probably be less incensed. If we've gotten confirmation of something like that, it'd be nice to know.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 25, 2015, 07:05:17 am
Quote from: Ispil on June 24, 2015, 07:47:34 pm
I have a bit of a theory on why they gave him fast food. It could be that they are doing everything "beyond the book" to ensure that, when the case comes to court, the defense cannot claim improper treatment or coercion and let the guy walk. It's one thing to give this kid some fast food; it's another for letting him get away with murder just because they didn't give him food.
Wait, what? o_O
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TempAcc on June 25, 2015, 07:20:17 am
Uh, being possibly mistreated by the police would have no effect on his trial, even if that was the case.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 25, 2015, 07:31:53 am
Poor customer service gives you the right to question the legitimacy of the judicial system? @_@

E: I still have no idea what Ispil was referring to, but surely the above example is not an unheard-of "defence" in American courts, as there is so much pseudolegal (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudolaw) claptrap floating around. 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TempAcc on June 25, 2015, 07:48:29 am
Well yea, its not unheard of in american criminal courts. Take the Trayvon Martin case, for example, the killer's defense lawyers argued that the boy "used the ground as a weapon", and it was rather seriously considered, sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo yea, american judicial system :v

Note: Keep in mind I'm not implying anyone's guilt or innocence, just pointing out that one argument was absurd.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 25, 2015, 08:47:01 am
Obama gettin heckled by transgender mexican activist, becomes Nobamabantatron (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3138420/Obama-takes-heckler-task-interrupting-LGBT-speech-White-House.html)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wierd on June 25, 2015, 12:42:12 pm
One most certainly CAN "Use the ground as a weapon".

EG, Grab somebody by the hair on the back of their head, slam head into ground repeatedly.

It is not "absurd" to consider that as a valid charge.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 25, 2015, 12:52:46 pm
Quote from: Ispil on June 25, 2015, 12:28:55 pm
Wouldn't be the first time that something stupid happens in court because some proceedings beforehand fuck up the whole legality of it all.

If this police department thinks treating a prisoner normally is going to risk getting this case thrown out, there is something terribly wrong with how they're treating their prisoners.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TempAcc on June 25, 2015, 01:35:28 pm
Quote from: wierd on June 25, 2015, 12:42:12 pm
One most certainly CAN "Use the ground as a weapon".

EG, Grab somebody by the hair on the back of their head, slam head into ground repeatedly.

It is not "absurd" to consider that as a valid charge.

Quote from: TempAcc on June 25, 2015, 07:48:29 am
Well yea, its not unheard of in american criminal courts. Take the Trayvon Martin case, for example, the killer's defense lawyers argued that the boy "used the ground as a weapon", and it was rather seriously considered, sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo yea, american judicial system :v

Note: Keep in mind I'm not implying anyone's guilt or innocence, just pointing out that one argument was absurd.

It is a little odd regarding the mentioned case, at the very least, in which the person who supposedly used "the ground as a weapon" was smaller and had nearly half the weight of the supposed agressor (said agressor also being armed). So unless said person is jackie chan/a dwarven wrestler/morul, its a bit unreasonable to consider that person able to use the ground as a weapon, in this context.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 25, 2015, 02:41:19 pm
There's a part of me that wants to chime in about the "ground as a weapon" stuff. Then, there's a large part of me that won't, because it's a very complicated subject I've had the misfortune to write several dozen to a few/three hundred or so pages on. God, awful, mess.

It is not pretty. That way lay hyper-technical junk.

Things seem to have gone all, "down the rabbit hole" lately with some of the "cops and courts" section of the newspaper lately. I skim it, if I read it at all.

In simplest sum, different people's expectations of fairness are colliding right now about the criminal justice system. Some say slam the crap out of defendants and criminals, because they aren't getting punished enough; others the opposite. Both sides are angry, with good and bad points. Seeking non existent easy answers, people demand "action," when what they really want is emotional satisfaction. Everyone's hurting and wants to feel better, but they have opposing aims, so it's not possible. People are going to be upset, and that's the point. If people could agree and live in peace, then we wouldn't have to arrest anyone. It, just, sucks. No win situation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on June 25, 2015, 03:38:18 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 25, 2015, 08:47:01 am
Obama gettin heckled by transgender mexican activist, becomes Nobamabantatron (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3138420/Obama-takes-heckler-task-interrupting-LGBT-speech-White-House.html)
Question: Does the USA actually have LGBT detention centres? That sounds like some 1900s shit.
Also are there any sources better than the Mail.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Redzephyr01 on June 25, 2015, 03:56:46 pm
>ground as a weapon
What the fuck? That is literally one of the stupidest thing's I've ever heard.

Quote from: Graknorke on June 25, 2015, 03:38:18 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 25, 2015, 08:47:01 am
Obama gettin heckled by transgender mexican activist, becomes Nobamabantatron (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3138420/Obama-takes-heckler-task-interrupting-LGBT-speech-White-House.html)
Question: Does the USA actually have LGBT detention centres? That sounds like some 1900s shit.
Also are there any sources better than the Mail.
No, the USA doesn't have LGBT detention centers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 25, 2015, 03:57:42 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on June 25, 2015, 03:38:18 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on June 25, 2015, 08:47:01 am
Obama gettin heckled by transgender mexican activist, becomes Nobamabantatron (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3138420/Obama-takes-heckler-task-interrupting-LGBT-speech-White-House.html)

Question: Does the USA actually have LGBT detention centres? That sounds like some 1900s shit.
Also are there any sources better than the Mail.

Here's her explanation. (http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/06/25/exclusive-i-interrupted-obama-because-we-need-to-be-heard/) Either she or the author of the Daily Mail article left out a "from" in that sentence - she wants LGBTQ people released from regular detention centers. They have a much higher rate of being abused and trans immigrants are often housed with the wrong gender, which is a fucked up situation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 25, 2015, 06:54:20 pm
 Gay and trans jails do exist in the US. (http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/19/7246889/LGBT-LA-Central-Jail)
 Please build more.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_people_in_prison)
 Protection should be required.  (http://transgenderlawcenter.org/issues/prisons)
 Protection and accountability are effectively denied.  (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-7247.ZS.html)

Incarceration as punishment should include imprisonment, not abuse, not far worse things.

Ideally, we'd need fewer prisons, with fewer inmates. Praise the ideal, not the idol. Strive for the idea, live in the real.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on June 25, 2015, 10:05:55 pm
Ugh, this still bothers me. I still can't believe that someone sane would go and shoot up a church because of some dumb bullshit like racism, but I guess people have killed for more dumb bullshit than that in the past.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 25, 2015, 10:10:02 pm
Are you suggesting that people being motivated to kill others over racism is unusual or surprising?  It really is not, and has not been historically.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on June 25, 2015, 10:19:15 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on June 25, 2015, 10:10:02 pm
Are you suggesting that people being motivated to kill others over racism is unusual or surprising?  It really is not, and has not been historically.

...

Did you seriously just ask that?

as a matter of fact, yes, I do find the fact that there are still people who are so fucking stupid that they go and murder people because of varying melanin levels a tad bit shocking, excuse me very much for having basic fucking human decency.

I get that there's been a history for this sort of thing, but I honestly cannot see anyone, even the most backwoods of the backwoods "distill my own moonshine south will rise again" rednecks honestly considering murdering anyone, let alone black people, and I think the fact that you just asked me why I think that's weird to be rather disturbing.

FAKEEDIT: ugh, that was a tad more heated than I meant, but the fact still stands. I'm never going to consider racially motivated shootings to be anything but "unusual or surprising."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 25, 2015, 10:26:12 pm
Sorry for making the very controversial claim that racism often leads to violence I guess.

Really the problem I am having is that your line of argument reads like an attempt to apologize for racism, by claiming first that it's impossible that racism could've motivated the murders (rather than insanity) and then by acting as if this is like, the first time someone has ever killed other people due to the fact that they're racist and gosh isn't that surprising.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 25, 2015, 10:43:49 pm
... think it's more abhorrence than apologist inclinations, LS. Maybe lack of exposure (or at least lack of recognition of exposure, which amounts to the same thing) to the violent side of racist ideology. Lot of people, especially when viscerally exposed to something like this for the first time, are shocked enough by it they can't really wrap their head around it. Especially if they've been around folks that are... well, you probably know the sort -- best people in the world, so long as you're not <insert race>. It's incredibly goddamn jarring the first time you notice the people around you are actually not far off from being murderous assholes. The mind recoils. Doesn't want to accept it, etc., etc. Makes you want to think that the beliefs the people you otherwise respected couldn't lead to abhorrent acts such as the one in question.

That's... it's not really a bad thing, exactly? Entirely, anyway. People who have that reaction to acts such as these are ones who probably aren't going to perpetrate them, and are fairly likely to spread that kind of reaction to those around them. Naiveté, perhaps, but sorta' a good one, so long as it doesn't blind the person to the existence of what causes acts like these. Which it does have an unfortunate tendency to, as you've kinda' noted, LS, pointing out the similarities to apologist bullshit.

Unfortunately, violence against groups that have been painted as the degenerate Other is entirely too human, too sane, and too normal... there's consequences to professing beliefs :-\
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on June 25, 2015, 11:57:36 pm
EDIT: This post is messy

I get what both of you are saying, and I cannot type a response that satisfies me.

Ugh, something just isn't sitting right with me about this whole affair. I guess let me clarify what I'm saying a bit more so it doesn't sound like naive bullshit.

If my position seems weird, it's because that opinion is what pretty much everyone i've talked to holds about the whole thing. Nobody really believes that it was racially motivated, they just think the kid's fucking crazy and needed an excuse to go shoot people, so he chose one from the barrel. Aside from that, noone has really been expressing any opinion aside from sorrow for the folks that died and vehement anger at the kid who shot them. I guess if there is some sort of racism around here, it's a lot more subtle than most people would think (aside from Frumple, seeing as how he's in the mix IIRC).

Tried typing more but this is about as far as I can get that makes sense to me. Let me sleep on this, there's a good thread of discussion somewhere in here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 26, 2015, 04:29:14 am
Quote from: ggamer on June 25, 2015, 11:57:36 pm
Nobody really believes that it was racially motivated, they just think the kid's fucking crazy and needed an excuse to go shoot people, so he chose one from the barrel.
"Excuse" is not the correct word in this context: If he really is crazy, then we have every reason to assume that he sincerely believes everything that racist agitators have told him, to the extent of seeing it as a valid reason for his act. As a general rule, people don't go on a premeditated rampage without some motive, imaginary or otherwise, and regardless of his sanity or insanity, the fact is that Roof got his motive directly from a white supremacist website:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/06/20/a-conservative-website-literally-turned-dylann-roof-into-the-murdering-racist-he-is-today/ (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/06/20/a-conservative-website-literally-turned-dylann-roof-into-the-murdering-racist-he-is-today/)
Quote
The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right. But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words “black on White crime” into Google, and I have never been the same since that day. The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong.
Whether or not he happened to be frothing mad, the important thing to note is that he already had this "racial violence is no biggie" mentality prior to his radicalization, and all that propaganda thus fell on fertile ground.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 26, 2015, 09:20:04 am
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/supreme-court-affirms-right-to-gay-marriage-122495807066.html

Gay Marriage, constitutionally protected in the US....

"Gay and lesbian couples will be able to marry immediately in the four states named in the case — Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee and Michigan. "

I still can't believe it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on June 26, 2015, 09:25:38 am
I guess the Supreme Court can only do four states at at time, but otherwise good jerb Michigan, good home state, best mitten.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 26, 2015, 09:34:45 am
Actually, it's for the entire country now. They found restrictions on that specific right unconstitutional, and those four states were the ones holding out/defending the idea.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on June 26, 2015, 09:45:21 am
Ok then I guess I have to retract that statement then.

Darn ignorance, making me look ignorant
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 26, 2015, 09:54:07 am
Not a problem man, and I suppose in practical terms you may even be right. Just because there's a right to something immediately, does not mean there is an immediate remedy. There may be a delay of a few days or weeks for same-sex marriage to be legal in the remaining states with bans, since lower courts will have to apply the opinion to them.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: itisnotlogical on June 26, 2015, 10:27:15 am
I love how gay marriage opponents still claim that they're defending the rights of American citizens. "We're ensuring equal protection under the law for ALL Americans... except the ones we don't like." To be honest, I foresee a lot of state governments acting on their own to defy the ruling however they can for as long as is sustainable.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on June 26, 2015, 10:54:44 am
I wasn't that surprised by the church shootings, but I was kinda shocked by the conservative radio guy who said the only decent, rational response is for the survivors to go and murder the killer's family "ten fold" for revenge.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/23/nra-news-regular-charleston-shooting-victims-re/204109
This conservative right wing radio guy (also has strong links to the NRA) 'said that he was "sickened," "disgusted," and "very bothered" by the forgiveness shown to the alleged perpetrator'. And went on to suggest killing the perp's family (ten fold) as an act of revenge, as the only "decent" response. Sounds good, clearly killing 10 times as many as you lost is the only rational response. Nothing can go wrong with that plan, let's make that out default response to being harmed. Guy rapes your daughter? Rape his wife and mother! That'll show those rapists.

The right wing media is the most entertaining when they are jumping through these logical distortion hoops, usually contradicting themselves from a week ago (blacks reacting violently to black deaths = bad, blacks forgiving a killer = bad too).

Up until recently FOX was saying Obama is waging a war on christians / catholics (by adding contraception coverage to insurance plans), then recently the Pope says we should take environment damage seriously, so this week the exact same FOX correspondents are running the story that it's Obama and the Pope in cahoots for a tyrranical socialist world takeover.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/06/23/conservative-media-who-complained-of-war-on-chr/204092
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on June 26, 2015, 02:11:41 pm
soon we'll just go back to OG Protestantism and see the pope as the antichrist
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Ghills on June 26, 2015, 03:07:54 pm
Quote from: itisnotlogical on June 26, 2015, 10:27:15 am
I love how gay marriage opponents still claim that they're defending the rights of American citizens. "We're ensuring equal protection under the law for ALL Americans... except the ones we don't like." To be honest, I foresee a lot of state governments acting on their own to defy the ruling however they can for as long as is sustainable.

Neither side was arguing for legal equality.  Both sides wanted the law to enforce a specific right and started handwaving about equality as a marketing technique.   One side wanted to stick with the previous legal definition of marriage, one side wanted to expand that legal definition of marriage.  Equality was a smokescreen for both sides.

Genuine equality would be bringing marriage law in line with actual contract law.  Right now marriage has the trappings of a legal contract (a witnessed signing) but not the actual abilities (divorce requires lawyers and a judge, because US law has enshrined so many marriage-only quirks that simple contract dissolution is practically impossible, plus marriage is not treated like other contracts by the government).

Equality would mean treating marriage like any other contract between consenting adults, with the attendant requirements for not-screwing-the-other-party-over and equal opportunity to enter into it.  Instead, there's this mishmash of cultural and religious thinking turned into legal precedent twisted with the current understanding of human rights. 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 26, 2015, 04:33:42 pm
Quote from: ggamer on June 26, 2015, 02:11:41 pm
soon we'll just go back to OG Protestantism and see the pope as the antichrist

That's already old hat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyMCWpzkoyk
http://www.fitsnews.com/2013/12/18/pope-gone-crazy/

Fox News is already going nuts about the gay marriage ruling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMfy6o7PDE&list=RD1iMfy6o7PDE#t=2
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ted-cruz-says-lawless-supreme-211810198.html
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkmere on June 26, 2015, 05:55:51 pm
As someone who lives in one of those backwards-ass ignorant-as-hell bible belt states, I would like to declare that I cannot decide which brings me more pleasure:

a) knowing some good friends of mine are now actually entitled to be treated with decency and legal respect

or

b) watching ... well. All the words that come to mind are impolite... people act like the end times are upon us, while blathering incoherently since for once their opinion isn't in the majority. It's like a psychotic break to some people. I shouldn't be as amused by that as I am, but I had to share with someone who won't try to pick a fight if I even mention it.

Schadenfreude is a hell of a drug.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on June 26, 2015, 10:28:36 pm
-wrong thread-
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 27, 2015, 12:59:48 am
Okay, I like destroying families as much as the next liberal, and its great news, but I can't really get where in the Constitution gay marriage is a thing. Can someone point me to a nice summary of the legal reasoning?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on June 27, 2015, 01:03:13 am
About the gay marriage legalization thing: I read a cracked article that just popped up (rightfully) condescending to everyone whose life it doesn't effect at all, but remain upset for whatever reason. Apparently though, one of the listed condescensions was aimed at people who thought they'd be broken apart from their existing heterosexual relationships and forced to marry homosexually...

...was... was that a real thing homophobes believed? Cause it's hard to imagine a misunderstanding of that magnitude being able to exist and gain traction in any sizable way. 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 27, 2015, 01:08:29 am
Yeah, exactly, it doesn't seems to me the Constitution says anything about it. I take it it's about the Equal Protection clause?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkmere on June 27, 2015, 02:32:26 am
One of the biggest issues that gets glossed over is: if you aren't legally married you have no legal connection to that person whatsoever. This goes FAR beyond taxes.

You have no right to determine your partner's medical treatment in an emergency. You have no right to inheritance in the event of an accident. You have no say in any funeral arrangements. No right to health benefits through work insurance the way a spouse does. No rights, no rights, no rights.

You are legally not allowed to care for the person you want to devote your life to.

I'm certain if there were any other way to GET the same rights that hetero couples get to provide basic care for their partners WITHOUT going through this rigamarole, there wouldn't have been as much of an issue... But the system is so socially ingrained that the religious function is legally binding, so there was no real recourse in the matter for people who wanted the same basic rights to care for each other as any hetero couple.

The people up-in-arms about whatever an "institution of marriage" is could have probably gotten what they wanted had they seriously campaigned to get marriage declared utterly separate from legal power in financial and healthcare matters, but separation of church and state is a joke and they're too busy gnashing teeth over who everyone else is fucking.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on June 27, 2015, 03:23:26 am
Quote from: Sheb on June 27, 2015, 12:59:48 am
Okay, I like destroying families as much as the next liberal, and its great news, but I can't really get where in the Constitution gay marriage is a thing. Can someone point me to a nice summary of the legal reasoning?

That is looking at it the wrong way. The constitution is not a list of things you can do, it lays out a set of things that the government cannot do. If it's not on the list, then it's perfectly legal to pass a law about it. So that means a pro-gay marriage law is perfectly fine unless you can prove there is something in the constitution specifically banning such a law. In this case, the feds can mandate that gay marriage overrides state law in the same constitutional way that federal civil rights law cannot be rolled back by states.

Conversely, it can also be argued that some laws restrict what a citizen can do. In those cases, the right of the government to restrict that behavior must be specifically spelled out in the constitution. Since there is no specifically stated right to ban gays from doing the same things as straights, then any law against gay rights can be challenged because it contravenes other clauses in the constitution about equality in the eyes of the law.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 27, 2015, 06:38:12 am
I found a relevant bit from Justice Kennedy's majority decision (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2111822-obergefell-v-hodges-decision.html#document/p1), which is 103 pages long and very dry. Here's a comparatively short section where he explains how this is a Fourteenth Amendment issue:

Quote from: p10-11
Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486 (1965).

The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution. That responsibility, however, “has not been reduced to any formula.” Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 542 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting). Rather, it requires courts to exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. See ibid. That process is guided by many of the same considerations relevant to analysis of other constitutional provisions that set forth broad principles rather than specific requirements. History and tradition guide and discipline this inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. See Lawrence, supra, at 572. That method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to rule the present.

The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

Applying these established tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967), which invalidated bans on interracial unions, a unanimous Court held marriage is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” The Court reaffirmed that holding in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, 384 (1978), which held the right to marry was burdened by a law prohibiting fathers who were behind on child support from marrying. The Court again applied this principle in Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95 (1987), which held the right to marry was abridged by regulations limiting the privilege of prison inmates to marry. Over time and in other contexts, the Court has reiterated that the right to marry is fundamental under the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102, 116 (1996); Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632, 639–640 (1974); Griswold, supra, at 486; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923).

Also look at all those citations. Judges like their citations. There is a lot of precedent for the Supreme Court deciding on marriage - I feel like the "this isn't a federal court issue" argument is about a hundred years too late.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 27, 2015, 06:50:06 am
Thanks a lot! I feel kinda ashamed that the miscegenation precedent didn't come to mind. I guess that since I live in a country with a civil rather than common law tradition, I'm not so used to thinking of precedents as stuff that really matter.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on June 27, 2015, 08:40:59 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on June 27, 2015, 06:38:12 am
I found a relevant bit from Justice Kennedy's majority decision (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2111822-obergefell-v-hodges-decision.html#document/p1), which is 103 pages long and very dry. ...
That's the full decision, including the four dissents. The actual majority opinion was only 28 pages. Page 40 onwards are the dissenting judges yelling at clouds.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 27, 2015, 08:43:37 am
Oh, that makes more sense. I stopped reading around page 15 because the legalese started blurring together. I can only handle it in smallish doses.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on June 27, 2015, 08:45:46 am
SCOTUS Blog coverage. (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/obergefell-v-hodges/)

Their opinion analysis. (http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/opinion-analysis-marriage-now-open-to-same-sex-couples/)

EDIT: Plain English analysis. (http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/in-historic-decision-court-strikes-down-state-bans-on-same-sex-marriage-in-plain-english/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on June 27, 2015, 10:17:26 am
> "Plain english"
> First sentence uses the word "paean"

I'll figure this out when I'm more awake.  I'm not yet convinced that this was constitutionally sound, but I don't grok it yet.  I'm super excited and happy that it happened, I'm just wondering if it was proper or if we "stole" a win (as happens a lot in politics).
(Also PTW)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 27, 2015, 11:34:11 am
Quote from: palsch on June 27, 2015, 08:40:59 am
Page 40 onwards are the dissenting judges yelling at clouds.
Seriously.
Quote from: Antonin Scalia
Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms?" he wrote. "And if intimacy is, one would think that Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wierd on June 27, 2015, 11:35:48 am
Cue jokes about "Same sex marriage".

(As in, they always have "The same sex" after marriage.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 27, 2015, 11:40:39 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on June 27, 2015, 11:34:11 am
Quote from: palsch on June 27, 2015, 08:40:59 am
Page 40 onwards are the dissenting judges yelling at clouds.
Seriously.
Quote from: Antonin Scalia
Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms?" he wrote. "And if intimacy is, one would think that Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.
>not quoting the part where he calls the majority a fortune cookie
Quote from: Antonin Scalia
The [majority] opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
This guy and Ginsburg are friends, for the record.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 27, 2015, 12:31:49 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 27, 2015, 11:40:39 am
Quote from: Leafsnail on June 27, 2015, 11:34:11 am
Quote from: palsch on June 27, 2015, 08:40:59 am
Page 40 onwards are the dissenting judges yelling at clouds.
Seriously.
Quote from: Antonin Scalia
Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms?" he wrote. "And if intimacy is, one would think that Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.
>not quoting the part where he calls the majority a fortune cookie
Quote from: Antonin Scalia
The [majority] opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
This guy and Ginsburg are friends, for the record.

AM I reading and interpreting that correctly? Is he actually saying that he does not believe in the equality of all humans?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wierd on June 27, 2015, 12:37:07 pm
impossible to know. Perhaps he feels that the concept of the Proletariat is true?

Maybe he feels that legal rulings need to be less "Feely" and more clinical and calculated.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on June 27, 2015, 12:41:39 pm
I think he's saying that the constitution does not promise 'liberty'. Taken literally this is perfectly obvious, but apparently Scalia does not know about 'stylistic devices', 'metaphors', and similar liberal hogwash.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wierd on June 27, 2015, 12:43:36 pm
That would be the latter then-- Clinical and calculated, all the way down to using language like a weapon-- clean and precise.

Metaphor is neither clean nor precise.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 27, 2015, 12:56:05 pm
Scalia is an originalist, and it's pretty clear that the founders didn't intend for the Constitution to protect same-sex marriage, and therefore he says it does not.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on June 27, 2015, 01:13:38 pm
Founders didn't intend for Constitution to protect black people and women rights, too, so that's an extremely weak argument.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on June 27, 2015, 01:21:36 pm
Quote from: Ispil on June 27, 2015, 12:50:39 pm
The preamble... kind of does?

Quote
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The key words here are 'in order to' - the constitution is the instrument of securing said blessings, it does not itself promise liberty.

It's bullshit, but he's technically correct.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 27, 2015, 01:23:45 pm
Quote from: Sergarr on June 27, 2015, 01:13:38 pm
Founders didn't intend for Constitution to protect black people and women rights, too, so that's an extremely weak argument.
Welcome to originalism, though originalists generally include the original intent of all amendments as well, and Amendment XIV can be reasonably said to be intended to protect black people while Amendment XIX fulfills women's suffrage.
Quote from: Helgoland on June 27, 2015, 01:21:36 pm
Quote from: Ispil on June 27, 2015, 12:50:39 pm
The preamble... kind of does?

Quote
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The key words here are 'in order to' - the constitution is the instrument of securing said blessings, it does not itself promise liberty.

It's bullshit, but he's technically correct.
Only those who believe in a Living Constitution generally give the words of the preamble any legal weight, and even then I'm almost certain there has never been a case that used the preamble as a decision point.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 27, 2015, 01:41:09 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 27, 2015, 12:56:05 pm
Scalia is an originalist
(when it's convenient for him to be)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 27, 2015, 01:43:09 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on June 27, 2015, 01:41:09 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 27, 2015, 12:56:05 pm
Scalia is an originalist
(when it's convenient for him to be)
I've never known him to base his decisions elsewhere. It's not exactly hard to line up originalism and conservatism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 27, 2015, 01:46:40 pm
Well, there was his decision on the recent ACA ruling, where he came against it despite it being pretty clear that Congress intended to subsidy the federal-set exchanges as well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: nenjin on June 27, 2015, 01:54:47 pm
I'm late to the party, but, congrats to all you LGBT folks out there and welcome to the first of what I hope are many rights promised to every American that you've been denied.

I found an interesting quote in Thomas' dissent.

Quote
"Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally," Justice Clarence Thomas said in his dissent, "and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice."

He's saying that civil restraints imposed on religious freedoms narrow their scope, allowing less free exercise of religion.

But his statement also states the obvious: there ARE civil restraints on the free practice of religion. One generally accepted civil restraint on religion we've held forever is that it's not ok to kill someone as an act of expressing your religion. What we need to come to, and what the entire body of legal jurisprudence has pointed to for the last 100 years, is that not discriminating is also a valued and necessary civil restraint for a healthy, functioning and just society, just as much as not murdering each other is.

The ruling on housing that came along with this points to non-discrimination as a value the court still believes is necessary, even if they didn't come right out and say it applies to LGBT rights as well.

But I believe the next question before the court will come down to: is discrimination a constitutionally protected free expression of religion. When it comes to the business of law, rights and privileges I think the answer, eventually one day, will be no, it's not. You can discriminate against someone to the degree you don't talk to them, be friends with them, invite them to your social events and gatherings. At a maximum, the right to refuse service in a private business to anyone you want for any reason you want will probably stay.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkmere on June 27, 2015, 02:15:25 pm
Quote from: nenjin on June 27, 2015, 01:54:47 pm
At a maximum, the right to refuse service in a private business to anyone you want for any reason you want will probably stay.

I had someone mention this to me in a discussion last night. That's going to cause a lot of problems in short-term if people actually try and use this to refuse service to (pick a group), because it's basically hanging a huge sign over your front door that reads "ACLU STOP BY HERE FOR FREE PUBLICITY."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on June 27, 2015, 02:19:23 pm
Quote from: nenjin on June 27, 2015, 01:54:47 pm
One generally accepted civil restraint on religion we've held forever is that it's not ok to kill someone as an act of expressing your religion.
Is it any more illegal than any other murder though?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wierd on June 27, 2015, 02:21:29 pm
Usually the "Right to refuse service" only gets invoked against entitled assholes that are there causing a scene.

You know, the kind of people that call 911 because they ran out of ketchup at McDonalds, and have dry fries-- Or who insist on *trying* to invoke the race card on trumped up allegations. "You are racist because you don't carry %popular ethnic personality% branded merchandise!" etc.

It is almost never used to tell people of a certain ethnicity to get lost.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: nenjin on June 27, 2015, 02:34:06 pm
There's the "No shirt, no shoes, no service" rule as well, which is made on the grounds of decency and public health.

Quote
Is it any more illegal than any other murder though?

I knew someone was going to latch on to that. Damn my lack of parenthetical statements.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on June 27, 2015, 02:44:56 pm
Well the issue is that murder is something that's bad anyway, so it's not specifically an issue of restricting religion. Banning non-heterosexual marriage is only for and only affects its own issue.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 27, 2015, 02:50:06 pm
Quote from: wierd on June 27, 2015, 02:21:29 pm
It is almost never used to tell people of a certain ethnicity to get lost.
It's almost like there was a long and difficult legal struggle to make it so you can't do that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkmere on June 27, 2015, 05:53:32 pm
Quote from: wierd on June 27, 2015, 02:21:29 pm
Usually the "Right to refuse service" only gets invoked against entitled assholes that are there causing a scene.

Sure, but people near here are already screaming about being "forced to perform same sex marriages" and demanding "protection" from having to do what's legally mandated now.

The right to refuse service is the foremost argument I've seen used in that defense. Sorry, "defense".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on June 27, 2015, 09:31:45 pm
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bobby-jindal-lets-just-get-rid-the-court

Wow. And finally it comes out. The far right republicans are just openly hostile to the constitution whenever it does anything they don't like. What's amazing, where was all this backlash 5 years ago when citizens united became the crock giving corporations person status (when it is to their liking)?

When people find out that NO, they are not the be all end all for what the constitution says, they go nuts. What they're essentially doing is trying to set themsevles up as "normal" and "right" and anybody who disagrees with them is dead bang wrong. It's bullshit propaganda and incredibly insulting.


That's the problem with modern religion in many cases. It has become the notion that shutting your eyes and ears to anything outside of what people tell you is in a book you've probably never even read all the way through works. It doesn't.

I've read several religious texts all the way through and nobody follows half of the stuff in them and they'd look at you like you were nuts if you said they should. There's a lot about helping he poor in the bible, for instance. Not a one of the hard right wingers likes the idea of paying for any of that. Frankly, it's amazing.

The economy and the world in general are going to hell in a handbag, but please by all means, let's blame it all on the gays for doing... what has been going on for thousands of years without a hitch?

I am tired of being the world's scapegoat.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on June 27, 2015, 10:21:58 pm
Well of course extremist conservatives have been saying all sorts of insane stuff about this.  Particularly claiming churches will be forced to betray their blatantly selective beliefs and give gay marriages.  Don't worry, they still enjoy protected tax status AND freedom to discriminate...

But, woah, this guy's a governor.  Yeah I know it's Louisiana but...  As a North Carolina resident that's still shocking.  Even as hyperbole, suggesting the dissolution of the supreme court is unbelievably crazy for a governor of a state.

And I'm still not sure that this was a constitutional issue.  I'm still examining the possibility that the supreme court overstepped its power while doing a very good, overdue, basic civil rights thing.  But for a governor to suggest removing a branch of our government... wow.

Edit: Replaced NC with North Carolina.  I don't know every state abbreviation, maybe other people don't either.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 27, 2015, 10:40:07 pm
*shrugs* If they did, it's an overstep that's been performed repeatedly in the past (read: It almost certainly isn't.). The court decision is precisely in line with several other similar cases that have included stuff under the 14th's protection.

Which is actually sorta' the problem. Little bit more reading has shown it was actually a kinda' shitty decision,* primarily because of how little it actually did, as well as being a kinda' poor bit of actually... judge-y stuff. Instead of actually solving the goddamn issue on a judicial level (like, say, making sexual orientation a strict scrutiny issue, which could have been done years ago and nipped a whole hell of a lot of bullshit in the bud), the SCOTUS has just sorta' brought SSM whole cloth and singularly into the 14th (very roughly paraphrasing, and with a very much lay understanding of the legal stuff involved). One of the more insightful bits I've read so far was this post (http://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/posts/3794617/), on another forum (you'd be fairly well benefited mostly ignoring the rest of the thread it's in :V), decently detailing a fair amount of the actual issues involved.

It almost certainly wasn't constitutional overreach, though. Bit on the bad side of craft, but historically well within the court's power, insofar as I've been able to tell, if a power they've been fairly careful about exercising.

*Mind you, the consequence of SSM being legal is goddamn golden. It could have just been done significantly better.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on June 27, 2015, 11:39:02 pm
Meanwhile, the KKK is ramping up recruiting, hailing the terrorist attack as a 'victory.' http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/kkk-tries-to-reel-in-new-members-by-handing-out-candy-and-praising-charleston-terrorists-victory/

And arson attacks against southern black churches. http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2015/06/26/string-of-nighttime-fires-hit-predominately-black-churches-in-four-southern-states/
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 27, 2015, 11:48:06 pm
Mm. There's pretty good odds I've actually been by (though not in) the church that burnt down in Tallahassee... that actually could have been incidental, for what it's worth -- we've been having some pretty good storms for the last bit down here, and a tree limb coming down on the power line is definitely a thing that happens from time to time in this region. Wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't, though :-\
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on June 28, 2015, 12:39:27 am
"Save our land, join the Klan" has a nice ring to it. But it's just not as good as "Don't be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi Party".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 28, 2015, 12:48:05 am
Quote from: Truean on June 27, 2015, 09:31:45 pm


I think you're reading too much into this, what we have here is a presidential candidate that, despite being a governor, has struggled to get enough name recognition to get more than a couple percents of the votes in a overcrowded primary, and is ready to shout any amount of insanities to get his name in the papers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on June 28, 2015, 02:20:00 am
Quote from: Reelya on June 28, 2015, 12:39:27 am
"Save our land, join the Klan" has a nice ring to it. But it's just not as good as "Don't be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi Party".
Yes I would like a video of a klan member saying "I was born in Duseldorf and that is why they call me Rolf"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on June 28, 2015, 03:25:55 am
Wait, where's that from? I'll always seize an opportunity to make fun of Düsseldorf!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on June 28, 2015, 08:03:31 am
Springtime for Hitler, Helgo. I'm surprised you don't know.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 28, 2015, 08:10:16 am
Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmYIo7bcUw)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: palsch on June 28, 2015, 08:22:10 am
Quote from: Sheb on June 28, 2015, 12:48:05 am
I think you're reading too much into this, what we have here is a presidential candidate that, despite being a governor, has struggled to get enough name recognition to get more than a couple percents of the votes in a overcrowded primary, and is ready to shout any amount of insanities to get his name in the papers.

Off the top of my head, Jindal was an up-and-coming Republican back after Obama's election, expected to have a good chance against him in 2012. They gave him the response to Obama's first State of the Union to increase his name recognition and national profile.This went poorly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal#Republican_response_to_President_Obama.27s_address_to_Congress) and to widely negative responses (http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/01/do_you_remember_bobby_jindals.html). About a year later he wrote himself out of the 2012 race.

I don't see his position as having improved all that much. Not much positive national press I'm aware of, and his local approval has been dropping. The last major media story I recall him being involved in is when he claimed there are no-go zones in London due to Muslim immigration, basing it on a vaguely worded Daily Mail article. So he has international ridicule going for him.

Quote from: Sheb on June 28, 2015, 08:10:16 am
Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmYIo7bcUw)
New version including the full song. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCUfkMkVbwo) Low quality unfortunately.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on June 28, 2015, 08:53:10 am
oh God the woman with beer boobs
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on June 28, 2015, 10:26:31 am
Helgo, hide that erection NOW!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on June 28, 2015, 10:30:03 am
Beerection?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Jopax on June 28, 2015, 10:30:59 am
So I'm not sure if this would be more appropriate here or in the sad thread: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/16/79-year-old-retired-reverend-set-himself-on-fire-to-inspire-social-justice/
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on June 28, 2015, 10:35:01 am
Quote from: Jopax on June 28, 2015, 10:30:59 am
So I'm not sure if this would be more appropriate here or in the sad thread: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/16/79-year-old-retired-reverend-set-himself-on-fire-to-inspire-social-justice/
It's sad that it probably won't end up achieving much, as well as that he's dead. If the media can't drum up some controversy over it then they won't care.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on June 28, 2015, 10:44:17 am
Wow.  I assumed he was going to be conservative but still far braver than that church shooter.  Turns out he even had a good agenda.  He deserves a lot more media time than that coward got.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on June 29, 2015, 12:54:13 am
Quote from: Frumple on June 27, 2015, 10:40:07 pm
*shrugs* If they did, it's an overstep that's been performed repeatedly in the past (read: It almost certainly isn't.). The court decision is precisely in line with several other similar cases that have included stuff under the 14th's protection.

I think it's a problem with the dumb way it's been reported. "Gay marriage now legal in America" suggests that a new law was made. Better phrasing would be that it is illegal for any level of government in the U.S to make gay marriage illegal, since the Supreme Court found that the 14th amendment includes that right under it.

...Which doesn't make as good headlines, I guess.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on June 29, 2015, 01:00:40 am
Quote from: Graknorke on June 28, 2015, 10:35:01 am
Quote from: Jopax on June 28, 2015, 10:30:59 am
So I'm not sure if this would be more appropriate here or in the sad thread: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/16/79-year-old-retired-reverend-set-himself-on-fire-to-inspire-social-justice/
It's sad that it probably won't end up achieving much, as well as that he's dead. If the media can't drum up some controversy over it then they won't care.

Don't be so sure about that. Some random guy lighting himself on fire has started big things before. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on June 29, 2015, 04:37:44 pm
Six Churches have been set on fire in the South (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/29/six-predominately-black-southern-churches-burn-within-a-week-with-arson-suspected-in-at-least-three/), with three being confirmed as cases of arson.

That's three church communities without a place of worship because people are fucking stupid. Luckily noone was hurt, but these churches have suffered losses in the tens of thousands of dollars, and I know from experience that churches don't operate on huge margins. Pray for these people, or at least keep them in your thoughts if that's your move.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on June 29, 2015, 04:43:14 pm
That's infuriating and also kind of a relief.
I was afraid it'd be a bunch of atheists.  But no, of course it's a bunch of racists pretending like they have any real grievance.  What a bunch of dangerous morons.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 29, 2015, 05:10:16 pm
What reason is there to care whether it was atheists or racists, or racist atheists or whatever the fuck. Would it truly be any more abhorrent had it been an atheist?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on June 29, 2015, 05:12:30 pm
I'm just glad it wasn't associated with my group, because it's heinous and would make the rest of us look bad.
I'm really sorry it happened.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TripJack on June 29, 2015, 05:14:48 pm
racists can be atheists too
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on June 29, 2015, 05:32:16 pm
Atheists can be anything, like theists.

In fact, there are more racist theists than racist atheists!

No, you may not see the respective figures for percentage of the population which is atheistic/theistic. :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 29, 2015, 05:34:57 pm
Identity politics.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 29, 2015, 10:11:02 pm
A good John Oliver segment on transgender issues in America. (https://youtu.be/hmoAX9f6MOc)

He talks about the Kentucky bathroom bill (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg6092134;topicseen#msg6092134) for a bit, and I actually have a couple friends of friends in the video, which is pretty cool.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: itisnotlogical on June 30, 2015, 12:43:09 am
Some people are using "religious freedom" as a license to disobey federal law. (http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/article25777396.html)

"I won't issue licenses to gay people" is discrimination, but "I won't issue licenses to gay people BECAUSE OF MY RELIGION" is not discrimination? Okaaaaay. Man, I wish my country was small so that we could actually unify on an issue. From the USA, it seemed like Ireland just said "Hey, gay people are alright, no reason they can't marry!" And then they voted and gay marriage is now legal in Ireland, problem solved. I'm embarrassed for my country.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on June 30, 2015, 01:35:52 am
Well, your country is supposed to be 50 countries, so... :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkmere on June 30, 2015, 01:59:22 am
So while everyone's looking at the big, gay, shiny distraction, the Supreme Court overruled anti-pollution legislation (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme-court-blocks-obamas-limits-on-power-plants.html?_r=0) saving big business lots of cash (which presumably wound up in court pockets) and keeping the mean old EPA at bay for now.

Possibly tinfoil hat, but the timing is a little suspicious, and those cited numbers smell pretty fishy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on June 30, 2015, 02:31:16 am
I like how any movement forward on an issue is a "distraction" from any other issues that exist.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkmere on June 30, 2015, 02:57:00 am
Quote from: Descan on June 30, 2015, 02:31:16 am
I like how any movement forward on an issue is a "distraction" from any other issues that exist.

You could have read how I supported the original decision earlier in this thread. That has no bearing on whether or not it was used as misdirection.

Glad you took the time to dump on my motives, though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on June 30, 2015, 04:26:39 am
Quote from: Darkmere on June 30, 2015, 01:59:22 am
So while everyone's looking at the big, gay, shiny distraction, the Supreme Court overruled anti-pollution legislation (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme-court-blocks-obamas-limits-on-power-plants.html?_r=0) saving big business lots of cash (which presumably wound up in court pockets) and keeping the mean old EPA at bay for now.

Possibly tinfoil hat, but the timing is a little suspicious, and those cited numbers smell pretty fishy.
They scrap emission limits on mercury on power plants: pro-capitalists cheer. Then, the same pro-capitalists go all conspiracy theory because low-wattage light bulbs have mercury in them.

Here are two contradictory articles from literally the same site. The first article had a hotlink to the current one:

http://dailysignal.com/2011/01/25/how-many-hazmat-suits-does-it-take-to-change-a-light-bulb/
"How Many Hazmat Suits Does It Take to Change a Light Bulb?" due to mercury, which clearly trumps the long-term savings for consumers. The author is a fellow of the Heritage Foundation.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/29/supreme-court-rules-against-obamas-energy-regulation/
"Supreme Court Rules Against Obama’s Energy Regulation" where they scoff at the costs involved in reducing mercury emissions. Here, of course, savings for consumers is more important than reducing mercury emissions. And of course their go-to source for comment is someone from the Heritage Foundation.

The Heritage Foundation plays both sides of the fence. Here are two contradictory articles by the same fucking author:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/governments-light-bulb-ban-is-just-plain-destructive
" CFLs use high levels of mercury, and exposure to mercury vapor is dangerous if the bulbs are broken."

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/07/the-assault-on-coal-and-american-consumers
" the EPA ignores clinical studies that demonstrate the human body’s ability to protect itself against high levels of mercury."

... apparently this writer at the Heritage Foundation also ignore those same studies when it doesn't suit his case.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on June 30, 2015, 05:04:41 am
Quote from: Darkmere on June 30, 2015, 02:57:00 am
Quote from: Descan on June 30, 2015, 02:31:16 am
I like how any movement forward on an issue is a "distraction" from any other issues that exist.

You could have read how I supported the original decision earlier in this thread. That has no bearing on whether or not it was used as misdirection.

Glad you took the time to dump on my motives, though.
It's still annoying to hear it. Regardless of motives.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 30, 2015, 06:14:26 am
... desc, you do realize that in the US (and presumably elsewhere, of course), it's pretty literally true? Our politicians have a noted tendency to throw people a bone and then use the furor over that to get things passed under the radar. They very much use high visibility talking points as distractions.

Considering how little the SSM legalization actually did from a judicial standpoint, it's disturbingly more likely to be an apt observation. It did give us SSM, but it did it in just about the least robust and expansive way possible. A move forward, but that movement was a shuffle, not a step (albeit a really important shuffle for a lot of people).

Though it's not any movement forward -- those can, and do, happen under the radar as well -- it's just the ones that show signs of actually being distractions, or being taken advantage of by opportunists in the legislature or whatev' to sneak shit past citizens. It's a really damned legitimate concern, and one of pretty significant worry to those who actually are trying to make forward movement.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on June 30, 2015, 06:51:33 am
SSM sounds like an especially kinky fetish.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkmere on June 30, 2015, 10:26:17 am
Quote from: Reelya on June 30, 2015, 04:26:39 am
... apparently this writer at the Heritage Foundation also ignore those same studies when it doesn't suit his case.

"Journalism" at its finest. Facts have nothing at all to do with a good muckraking session.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on June 30, 2015, 09:13:09 pm
Quote from: ggamer on June 29, 2015, 04:37:44 pm
Six Churches have been set on fire in the South (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/29/six-predominately-black-southern-churches-burn-within-a-week-with-arson-suspected-in-at-least-three/), with three being confirmed as cases of arson.

That's three church communities without a place of worship because people are fucking stupid. Luckily noone was hurt, but these churches have suffered losses in the tens of thousands of dollars, and I know from experience that churches don't operate on huge margins. Pray for these people, or at least keep them in your thoughts if that's your move.
And another one. https://twitter.com/SCFireCarter/status/616055562770489344
That one was apparently previously burned down in 1995 by the KKK.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on June 30, 2015, 09:56:54 pm
... if there's one thing this uptick in arson has taught me that I didn't know before, it's that a lot of churches burn down in this country. Apparently we've been averaging one a week for quite a few years now. Seven in one is a definitely anomaly, but the things burn down pretty regularly. Has a lot to do with saturation, I suppose... lot of churches out there, bound to lose some annually.

Tangential to the whole assholes committing arson thing, but still a factoid I hadn't been aware of.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 01, 2015, 01:47:37 pm
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/1/8877903/tennessee-lgbtq-nondiscrimination-law

Wow..... That's just wonderful... [sigh]. Really? Just straight up exclusion... Knew it
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on July 01, 2015, 02:40:23 pm
Whereas it's illegal to discriminate based on religion, of course.  Clearly we just need to pretend that LGBTQ is a matter of faith.
Meanwhile as of today two of the Kentucky county clerks are still refusing to do their jobs (two backed down).
Quote
Davis says she has no plans to resign, even with the possibility of facing criminal misconduct charges and jail time for not carrying out her duties.
This would be brave in a sick way, if I believed it for a second.  She might be forced to resign, but justifying her misconduct with "faith" will save her from any actual charges.
http://www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/Kentucky-Counties-Refuse-to-Issue-Marriage-Licenses-310815841.html
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 01, 2015, 03:25:24 pm
Yeah... stuff like that is why the SCOTUS decision was both great and terrible. We've still got a helluva' fight ahead to make sexual orientation and whatnot something under strict scrutiny and thus umbrella'd under anti-discrimination laws. Noticed a fairly succinct pic that's circulating a little that does a pretty good job of getting the message across:
Spoiler: spoiler'd for size (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on July 01, 2015, 03:27:56 pm
Is discrimination in general not against he constitution over there?

I know that in the Netherlands there have been talks about removing the part about religious freedom, since it's pretty much redundant.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 01, 2015, 03:34:16 pm
The short answer would be "No." The long answer is longer, and beyond me to know the details, but so far as I'm aware so long as it's not a strict scrutiny issue (which includes things like race, religion, etc.), discrimination is generally pretty legal. If I had a store or whatever and wanted to put up a sign saying "No one with hair past the shoulders allowed" (and then enforced it), I'm fairly sure that'd be legal in a lot of places in the US, and not strictly against the constitution regardless.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 01, 2015, 03:39:52 pm
That said, while the Supreme Court's ruling doesn't put orientation or gender identity as suspect classes, it certainly make it more likely to go that way from now on.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on July 01, 2015, 03:41:06 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on July 01, 2015, 03:27:56 pm
Is discrimination in general not against he constitution over there?

I know that in the Netherlands there have been talks about removing the part about religious freedom, since it's pretty much redundant.

The constitution AFAIK doesn't really make any claims about what citizens are allowed to do, only what the government is allowed to do (or rather, what it isn't).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on July 01, 2015, 03:53:08 pm
Quote from: Putnam on July 01, 2015, 03:41:06 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on July 01, 2015, 03:27:56 pm
Is discrimination in general not against he constitution over there?

I know that in the Netherlands there have been talks about removing the part about religious freedom, since it's pretty much redundant.

The constitution AFAIK doesn't really make any claims about what citizens are allowed to do, only what the government is allowed to do (or rather, what it isn't).

Yeah, the closest to what you're asking for, as far as I know, is the 14th amendment's equal protection clause, as follows:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on July 01, 2015, 03:53:39 pm
There's protections for equal protection under the law in the 14th Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text), but it doesn't extend to sexual orientation, so this would naturally be the next step in the fight for lgbbq rights.

Edit: Ninja'd by baffler
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 01, 2015, 03:58:10 pm
Quote from: ggamer on July 01, 2015, 03:53:39 pm
There's protections for equal protection under the law in the 14th Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text), but it doesn't extend to sexual orientation, so this would naturally be the next step in the fight for lgbbq rights.

lgbbq? Sounds delicious.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on July 02, 2015, 06:31:42 am
God I hate religion/faith's sacred cow status. It should be considered exactly the same as regular beliefs. Saying that you discriminate against LGBT people because of your "Faith" should be treated similarly to how it would be if you said you discriminate because you hate people who are different.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on July 02, 2015, 06:34:22 am
That seemed to be the entire point of Dawkin's 'God Delusion'
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 02, 2015, 08:42:05 am
Yeah,been saying for years now. You can be discriminated against if you're GLBT and it sucks. People do not get it, and have often misguidedly tried to "encourage" me to come out, for this reason.... That picture illustrates a good part of it.

Frankly, now being gay married is a giant bulls-eye on you and pretty undeniable proof of gay for ALL the haters to see. Non majorities, completely upset at the thought of non discrimination, can still make your life hell. Two BS words "religious liberty." Translation, "discriminate against gays."

Once again those "sincerely held beliefs" are BS because they're not consistently applied and are cherry picked from various obscure passages in the bible among others nobody follows (mixed threads, shellfish, pork, etc). All this while ignoring the rules literally set in stone, 10 commandments.

You'd let an adulterer in your store but not a gay?

Hypocrite. Arbitrary. Capricious.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on July 02, 2015, 08:55:48 am
Quote from: Truean

One of the things that has irritated me greatly for quite some is the tendency for people to take the Bible, or indeed, the Quran or any other such scripture, and cherry pick the parts that support what they believe and completely and utterly ignore the parts that do not. The terribleness of character in people such as those that discriminate against LGBT people makes me angry, but it is honestly the inconsistent internal logic that makes me absolutely furious and is the basis for my belief that people shouldn't be allowed to use religious beliefs or "faith" as justification for their actions unless they follow their source completely.

If someone followed the Bible to the letter (not like that's possible given how often it contradicts itself) and attempted to use it as justification for their actions... I would still despise their actions, but I would be able to understand their position. Those, however, who use it as a basis for their own hate to spring forth from yet do not follow it elsewhere... For them, I have nothing but contempt.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arx on July 02, 2015, 09:03:43 am
I'd appreciate it if people could be a little careful about the religion thing. The number of unbased statements and things that are just plain wrong that get said is incredible.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Tiruin on July 02, 2015, 09:13:26 am
In regards to religion--it takes understanding to actually get what's being written--many people take what's written literally, and I'm glad my instructors in theology all agree on one thing: to not let whatever dividing point within the Bible turn or create a belief against any people (because that's blatantly :V).

I'm unsure how the hate is formed from that--but one can face 'their' ideas with calmness and discussion; other than the fact that it is plain wrong, the ideas written are contextually bound. Back then, and speaking from seminal knowledge, the idea of such acts was...pretty much = to acts of adultery and all. NOT equal to the understanding of today and such.
Just that the words are the same. So. -.- Religious Liberty in the context of keeping up  >:( against any person is not truly meaning what is meant. Superficial biased liberty more like. <_<

Though I am really curious how the law is there in the US (and lack the time to browse back in the recent pages). Did they...err, 'cover'(?) those points being discussed under the law? :O

Also PTW.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on July 02, 2015, 09:25:15 am
Quote from: Arx on July 02, 2015, 09:03:43 am
I'd appreciate it if people could be a little careful about the religion thing. The number of unbased statements and things that are just plain wrong that get said is incredible.

I don't believe I am saying a single thing that is wrong, Arx. I am merely espousing my anger at those who are inconsistent with their claims, cherry picking parts from religious texts to support their hatred while totally ignoring others. Perhaps this issue is simply something slightly more personal to me than others, I do tend to attempt to take a detached look, but that is why internal inconsistency irritates me all the more.

Tiruin, your speech is as incomprehensible as it is verbose. Per the norm, it seems. xD
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arx on July 02, 2015, 09:29:23 am
Quote from: UXLZ on July 02, 2015, 09:25:15 am
I don't believe I am saying a single thing that is wrong, Arx. I am merely espousing my anger at those who are inconsistent with their claims, cherry picking parts from religious texts to support their hatred while totally ignoring others.

Amongst other things, you (admittedly probably accidentally, but nonetheless) heavily implied that you think I'm a despicable person, and there was in fact what I believe to be an error regarding religion in your post. This is not really the place for this kind of discussion though, which is why I'd prefer it if people could refrain from making definite statements about what religions do and don't definitely say under all possible interpretations.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TempAcc on July 02, 2015, 09:36:00 am
Many people have used religious liberty as a means to pose themselves against people they dont like, but this doesnt mean religion itself is a problem, in this case, and you see that kind of argument being used on both sides. The "cherry picking parts of the bible to support my claim" thing is happening on both sides of the argument, be it LGBT/militant atheits or fundamentalist protestants/catholics/islamists/etc.

Yes, the bible does in fact say that homosexuals should be put to death, but you have to consider the fact the bible is nearly two thousand year old document formed from hundreds of documents written by different authors at different moments of history and under different cultural influences. IIRC, the anti homosexual part is from the old testament, and may or may not predate the 10 commandments, and which say nothing of homosexuality while condemning the killing of people.

Looking at the bible without considering its historical and doctrinal evolution is like looking at the result of a chemical reaction without considering the elements that first caused it. You have to consider the whole context, or you'll end up with a pre medieval idea of what christianity is like.

On a side note, there are many arguments against homosexuality/gay marriage/LGBT/etc out there that dont come from religion, which oddly most LGBT activists almost never mention or discuss.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on July 02, 2015, 09:36:18 am
To the religion discussion thread, folks! The water is luke warm and hell-infused, but the discussion is heavenly!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on July 02, 2015, 09:37:41 am
Those I despise are those who attempt to use their religion to justify their hatred, something I do not believe you do, Arx. I guess I didn't communicate clearly enough that by 'actions' I meant things such as burning down churches that allow gay marriage or whatever it was that has been occurring recently.

If you cherry pick the good parts, causing good actions, it still irritates me somewhat in and of itself but it doesn't cause me to think less of you personally. Still, that's another discussion for another time, as you said. Though I'd appreciate it if you PM'd me what it was, exactly, that I said erroneously. I think it may have been the part where I said the Bible often contradicts itself, though still, I would be appreciative if you confirmed it.

@Temp: Care to get some of those arguments in here for discussion? I've never actually heard any, I believe.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on July 02, 2015, 09:40:17 am
And any further replies can go here. In fact, should go here lest much wrath be seen.
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=147792.2370
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on July 02, 2015, 09:42:31 am
I feel like it's more a political discussion than theological one but...  Ugh, best to keep it to the religious issues thread you're right.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on July 02, 2015, 09:43:59 am
Well, if you want I could funnel it into Europol? Or perhaps Murricapol? :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on July 02, 2015, 09:45:36 am
No, we're fine discussing it where we are, as long as TempAcc gets those supposed seldom seen arguments in here so we can continue it without a theological basis.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on July 02, 2015, 09:58:31 am
Quote from: TempAcc on July 02, 2015, 09:36:00 am
On a side note, there are many arguments against homosexuality/gay marriage/LGBT/etc out there that dont come from religion, which oddly most LGBT activists almost never mention or discuss.

Maybe we can discuss these without disturbing the sacred cow.  I think Australia discouraged homosexuality because they want people to procreate?  I've heard that as a general argument against gay marriage, though only rarely.  It makes more sense in an "underpopulated" place like Australia than like... almost anywhere else.

I've also heard people discuss potential health effects.  Not just "It causes teh AIDS!!" but actual small yet possibly significant effects of certain types of sex.  Though I don't know that any of those activities are unique to same-sex couples, and the problems seemed minor and victimless.

That's all I can really think of.  If there are other serious cases being made against it, they're getting drowned out by the faith-based arguments.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TempAcc on July 02, 2015, 10:00:04 am
Well, for one, there's the belief that homosexuality is a tendency caused by social decay and creates hedonistic and individualistic people. This comes from more then one source, with the most famous comming from communist regimes, who believed homosexuality was the result of a capitalistic society and a product of the bourgeisie (I hope I spelled that right :v). This comes mostly from Engels rather then Marx, which isn't surprising since Marx was both financialy and intelectualy dependent on Engels. Alas, dirty commies.

Another common one (mostly used by atheists who do not support homosexuality) is that homosexual couples do not contribute to the evolution of humanity because of being unable to breed, and in fact only contribute to the elimination of their own genetic traits from the DNA pool. Some argue that this isn't a critical issue since science can correct this problem, though.

Another one is that homosexual parents are unable to provide the same environment that a heterosexual couple provides to children, and thus a homosexual couple's child would have developmental problems. Some say that the lack of proper male and female role models in parents is the main cause of gender dysphoria, but thats a really shady argument IMO.

A more "slippery slope" one is that homosexual men and women are more likely to be involved in substance abuse, which is actualy supported by some statistics, but one could argue that this is mostly caused by society's hatred of gay people, rather then something that comes with homosexuality.

Anyway, I'm making clear here that I do not support any of these opinions/views, I'm just pointing out that they exist and are independent from religion, altough they can often intersect with it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on July 02, 2015, 10:10:15 am
I think that the reason that they're often ignored is because, seemingly to me at least, they are all rather... Terrible.

Firstly is demonstrably false because of the presence of homosexuality in the natural kingdom. Are lions capitalist?

Second is ridiculous because even if homosexual couples were disallowed that doesn't mean that those who otherwise would have been in a homosexual couple will actually breed.
Also, yeah, science. Plus, it's not like it's impossible for homosexual couples to produce offspring. Just not with each other. It may even increase the birth rates because of those couples choosing to get IVFs or carrier mothers or some such rather than just staying single and having no children through any matter of course.

What about those raised by single parents? Should we make divorce illegal before a child is of a certain age?

Yeah, seems like a correlation =/= causation situation, here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on July 02, 2015, 10:11:17 am
Quote from: UXLZ on July 02, 2015, 10:10:15 am
Should we make divorce illegal before a child is of a certain age?

solid question, do discuss
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Tiruin on July 02, 2015, 10:24:17 am
Quote from: TempAcc on July 02, 2015, 10:00:04 am
Another one is that homosexual parents are unable to provide the same environment that a heterosexual couple provides to children, and thus a homosexual couple's child would have developmental problems. Some say that the lack of proper male and female role models in parents is the main cause of gender dysphoria, but thats a really shady argument IMO.
This is totally (http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/) disproven, btw. :P I'm curious why its still an argument though.

As in...I'm curious why such arguments still hold validity in different places.

But I'm more curious about Divorce and all ._. Please discuss.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TempAcc on July 02, 2015, 10:33:54 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on July 02, 2015, 10:11:17 am
Quote from: UXLZ on July 02, 2015, 10:10:15 am
Should we make divorce illegal before a child is of a certain age?

solid question, do discuss

I wouldn't recommend it, unless we can somehow guarantee the resulting emotional problems wont affect the children. Forcing people to stay together only ever caused problems, and an unsteady and turbulent couple is sure to cause problems for their children. An incomplete family is better then a turbulent one.

As a lawyer I have always observed this to be true, since a good chunk of my divorce related clients are usualy people who "tried to stay togheder for the sake of the children" but only ended up causing more problems for themselves and their children. Of course, there are those that manage to do this without affecting their children, but they're a remarkable minority.

It doesnt change the fact that divorce and unsteady parents will always be harmful to a child's development. Of course, this doesnt imply that homosexual couples are unsteady or prone to divorce, either.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 02, 2015, 11:47:18 am
Quote from: UXLZ on July 02, 2015, 10:10:15 am
Are lions capitalist?

Didn't you see the Lionking? Hell yeah they are :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on July 02, 2015, 11:51:30 am
I'm probably too close to the issue to comment logically, but the idea of forcing unhappy parents to stay together longer makes me very uneasy.  The separation was awful in its own multitude of ways, but on the whole it was superior to what came before.  And that's just from my perspective, not theirs.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 02, 2015, 11:52:28 am
Edit: mistakepost.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 02, 2015, 12:31:56 pm
Quote from: Rolan7 on July 02, 2015, 09:58:31 am
Though I don't know that any of those activities are unique to same-sex couples, and the problems seemed minor and victimless.
It's... pretty close to impossible for any act of that nature to be unique to same-sex couples (though there are some people that like to think pegging and whatnot in a heterosexual relationship doesn't exist. Protip: They're wrong.). Without going into details, I can think of only one thing that even comes close (well, without getting into some really weird shit that mostly doesn't actually happen, now that I think about it... that brings the count up to two or three, maybe), and that's non-penetrative. Everything else, well, we have the most amazing peripherals these days that cover any possible gaps in capability a heterosexual couple may encounter. Which aren't exactly many. Homosexual relationships don't exactly cause the participants to sprout new limbs or unusual organs, no matter what the more insane naysayers babble.

Few decades/centuries ago, there were some (still not exclusive to homosexual couples) medical issues, but, you know. We have easily accessible and effective lube now, and that and a few other things makes pretty much every sexual act that's not notably extreme (and some that are) more or less as potentially harmful as any other, provided the appropriate precautions are taken.

And yeah, the other argument against it that's not total bupkis (just mostly) is procreative. The primary problem with that, above and beyond the ones already mentioned, is that the homosexual population is simply not large enough to make or break a population's growth levels, even if methods to compensate aren't involved. You might as well have a moral scare over lifelong bachelor(ette)s or sterile couples. Which... I guess we sorta' do over the former? There's somewhat of a social stigma against that, at least in most cultures I'm aware of.

And @ Tiru: The reason those arguments are still in circulation is because some of the people advocating against homosexual relationships lie. Constantly, irrepressibly, and heinously, to the extent their twisted fabrication of reality actually starts to gain traction. That's where the pedophilia accusations come from and how they're maintained, as well as most of the arguments out there that have been thoroughly debunked. There is an incredible amount of straight up invented character attacks floating around against homosexuals (among others), and they're often propagated by people that are entirely aware their accusations are false, and do so pretty much entirely out of hate -- most of the rest comes from folks that are indoctrinated by those sorts, and those who just don't bother to investigate and give cursory adherence to whatever position is most vocal. It's some nasty stuff.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on July 02, 2015, 02:19:03 pm
Quote from: TempAcc on July 02, 2015, 10:00:04 am
Another common one (mostly used by atheists who do not support homosexuality) is that homosexual couples do not contribute to the evolution of humanity because of being unable to breed, and in fact only contribute to the elimination of their own genetic traits from the DNA pool. Some argue that this isn't a critical issue since science can correct this problem, though.
Social Darwinism, in short. As if the "human evolution" was of any concern to us!
Seriously, why the hell do people think it's a good idea to base our society around, well, breeding people?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 02, 2015, 02:53:14 pm
The logic of that is astounding. "People I don't like are not breeding! It's a problem for 'evolution'!" Actually, if everyone was breeding it would be a bigger problem for evolution. You don't get evolution when every organism breeds and there's no culling.

Natural selection is actually stipulated on selective procreation. It's no more unnatural than the fact that only queen bees and ants breed. There's no "correct" mode of breeding behavior for species in general. Who's to say that gay people aren't part of some built-in breeding regulation system for humans?

Gay people can still act as providers for the group, but reduce competition for mates. Obviously, there's some optimal level of competition and too much competition can actually be detrimental to a group. We have evidence such as the fraternal birth order effect - if a mother births more boys, the chance of each successive one being gay increases, and this holds for a specific biological mother, whether you grow up together or apart, but not socially - having older step brothers doesn't make guys more likely to be gay. So it is actually an innate biological effect, hence it is natural. Maybe it's a safety valve against excessive mate competition if a large number of males are born by chance. Considering that the other males in this case are your own older brothers, who share your parent's DNA, competing directly with them for mates is not an optimal evolution strategy.

Human ancestral groups are also posited on their being multiple providers for each child - grandparents for example. Grandparents are no longer able to breed, so by the same logic, exterminating all those icky non-breeding old people would be the optimal solution. Also - old people sex. How unnatural is that? No babies are popping out when grandma and grandpa get it on, so it must be just as unnatural as same-sex relationships.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 02, 2015, 09:24:51 pm
Humans are superficial bastards:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/beauty-blogger-em-ford-washes-off-her-makeup-to-reveal-a-shocking-internet-truth_55959e38e4b0569b63403b2c?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

In re BS "evolutionary" argument against gays: [Distance, 525m, wind 6 knots W-SW, barometric pressure 29.92 inHg, adjusts scope, up-bubble 2 degrees, firing]
Totally ignores nurture in favor of nature. I won't reproduce, and just taught your kid differential calculus. This sparked a STEM engineering interest and talent. Capable engineers make bank, and can get mates. Direct, non genetic influence.

No no, "non religious" opposition reasons to gays HAVE BEEN considered for a long time, and summarily shot down. Only the religious ones remain bullet hole free, because of sacred cow status. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to tell if the bullet holes lined the walls or the walls lined the bullet holes....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 02, 2015, 09:30:13 pm
It also doesn't take into account that for a decent portion of people, sexual urges are strong enough that they'll take what they can get, even if it isn't their preference.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on July 02, 2015, 09:57:33 pm
Quote
Humans are superficial bastards:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/beauty-blogger-em-ford-washes-off-her-makeup-to-reveal-a-shocking-internet-truth_55959e38e4b0569b63403b2c?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

In other news, when given anonymity human beings are shitpiles, but it looks like this extended past that into social media; that's more than a little disturbing, but statistically it's bound to happen.

Also, she looks good, actually. Maybe a little tired, but i've never been one to judge someone for their acne or whatever.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on July 02, 2015, 11:26:15 pm
People certainly are superficial bastards, often.
Not sure how a selection of social media comments is supposed to demonstrate that.  Anonymity encourages people to provoke emotional responses in order to feel relevant.  IE, troll and exaggerate.  It's not exactly hard to get insulted online.

Her acne's a bit weird, but I've seen worse.  I think people tend to ignore such things after first impressions, but I can understand wanting to conceal it.  She goes way beyond that with her makeup though, which I guess makes sense since she's a "beauty blogger"?  It probably looks more extreme because of the before/after contrast.

I dunno, just seems a weird to react so strongly to a bunch of opinions on social media.  People constantly say utterly insane things, even on Facebook...  Taking them seriously is exactly what they want.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 03, 2015, 12:13:03 pm
Spoiler: O'Reilly on gay marriage laws (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TripJack on July 03, 2015, 12:23:39 pm
'No, because you can choose to be a Nazi, you cannot choose to be gay or straight.'
intolerant anti nazi extremist detected
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on July 03, 2015, 12:26:07 pm
Well to be fair to not actually your viewpoint, you can't choose to be a Nazi. You can choose to join Nazi organisations, but belief isn't something that you choose to do.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 03, 2015, 12:28:30 pm
Quote from: TripJack on July 03, 2015, 12:23:39 pm
'No, because you can choose to be a Nazi, you cannot choose to be gay or straight.'
intolerant anti nazi extremist detected
End naziphobia now

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on July 03, 2015, 12:31:08 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on July 03, 2015, 12:26:07 pm
Well to be fair to not actually your viewpoint, you can't choose to be a Nazi. You can choose to join Nazi organisations, but belief isn't something that you choose to do.
There's also the minor fact that Nazis don't exist any more, or at least they won't in a smallish amount of years when the last actual Nazis die off.  Neo-Nazis are just wannabes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: itisnotlogical on July 03, 2015, 02:06:42 pm
Much red herring, such slippery slope, wow. I'm glad that my family can't afford TV, or else my mom would still likely be watching O'Reilly and I would have smashed the television.

In other news, Oregon has decided that religion is not a license to discriminate against same-sex couples. (http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/07/sweet_cakes_final_order_gresha.html) This is the news that I have been waiting to hear for a long time, now I just want to hear the feds say it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on July 04, 2015, 09:30:48 am
Quote from: Truean on July 02, 2015, 09:24:51 pm
Humans are superficial bastards:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/beauty-blogger-em-ford-washes-off-her-makeup-to-reveal-a-shocking-internet-truth_55959e38e4b0569b63403b2c?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
I am a bit appalled by how many comments basically say "Don't worry, you're beautiful either way, your bone structure is totally awesome and those eyes and that nose…" All the people who don't have that can go fuck themselves, it seems.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on July 04, 2015, 12:05:38 pm
Well, some people are ugly, yeah.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on July 04, 2015, 01:17:07 pm
What I meant to say is that they seem to miss the point of the video, which seems to say that being beautiful should not depend on your looks.

That might read like lunacy, but my lived experience actually is that the beauty of the people I meet is mainly a matter of what mindset I am in and what they act like, not so much their looks. Perceiving people as beautiful can be learned.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wierd on July 04, 2015, 01:28:19 pm
Welcome to my world. 

Spoiler: explanation (click to show/hide)


I often find "beautiful" people, (especially women, but metrosexual men are another top contender), are often very ugly people underneath the skin.

Superficial, vain, egotistical-- more than willing to degrade other people for slight visual flaws. Makeup does not cover ugliness of the mind.

It's the same thing that happens to poorer kids when all the other kids are wearing Nike shoes and Lucky brand jeans-- just extrapolated into the adult world.

At its core, it boils down to the "like self" vs "other" dichotomy.  The same thing that causes racism, that causes nationalism, that causes gender politics, and so many other things.

Embrace the other. Live a fuller life.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Tiruin on July 04, 2015, 10:05:22 pm
Quote from: Antsan on July 04, 2015, 01:17:07 pm
What I meant to say is that they seem to miss the point of the video, which seems to say that being beautiful should not depend on your looks.

That might read like lunacy, but my lived experience actually is that the beauty of the people I meet is mainly a matter of what mindset I am in and what they act like, not so much their looks. Perceiving people as beautiful can be learned.
I dunno. I always thought of beauty as equated to personality. Physical looks are merely aesthetics for me. x3
T'was mentioned as 'ideal' by one of my instructors, but I'm unsure if its 'ideal' because that sounded like it was externally described rather than 'something I felt since ever'.

Meaning that I couldn't understand why people took up makeup (looking better, that's one point, but I'm unsure as to why its being overused at times) other than social pressure or something something conformity(?)?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on July 04, 2015, 10:36:19 pm
Quote from: Tiruin on July 04, 2015, 10:05:22 pm
Meaning that I couldn't understand why people took up makeup (looking better, that's one point, but I'm unsure as to why its being overused at times) other than social pressure or something something conformity(?)?
I think insecurity is a more likely culprit than social pressure or conformity because (from my experience) insecurity does not necessarily arise from those 2 but can definitely give rise to them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Tiruin on July 04, 2015, 10:43:58 pm
Quote from: ArKFallen on July 04, 2015, 10:36:19 pm
Quote from: Tiruin on July 04, 2015, 10:05:22 pm
Meaning that I couldn't understand why people took up makeup (looking better, that's one point, but I'm unsure as to why its being overused at times) other than social pressure or something something conformity(?)?
I think insecurity is a more likely culprit than social pressure or conformity because (from my experience) insecurity does not necessarily arise from those 2 but can definitely give rise to them.
Really? o_o
All I've known about insecurity is that it is externally influenced (ie Self esteem hits) or how others pressure 'how you should be according to {expectations}' like 'girls should look pretty :D {and then expectations...}'. "This is not pretty O_O {and then notes}"

Could I ask details on that? :O
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 04, 2015, 11:10:14 pm
I think the point is that we can be more self-critical than anyone else. Often people worry about little details that everyone else is barely aware of, because those other people are too busy worrying about their own stuff.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on July 04, 2015, 11:29:17 pm
Quote from: Tiruin on July 04, 2015, 10:43:58 pm
Quote from: ArKFallen on July 04, 2015, 10:36:19 pm
I think insecurity is a more likely culprit than social pressure or conformity because (from my experience) insecurity does not necessarily arise from those 2 but can definitely give rise to them.
Really? o_o
All I've known about insecurity is that it is externally influenced (ie Self esteem hits) or how others pressure 'how you should be according to {expectations}' like 'girls should look pretty :D {and then expectations...}'. "This is not pretty O_O {and then notes}"

Could I ask details on that? :O
As far as I understand it we begin to form our identities based on the way people around us act and how we in particular wish to act. We see how these people interact with each other and form a "role" or ideal based off their interactions with each other and our personal interactions with them. Our personal interactions can function as a sort of balance to the roles we see other people perform as we try to get the outcomes we want want most vs what we are willing to do.

Sometimes though we see others getting the outcomes we want by doing the exact same or similar actions to what we do. But we aren't getting those outcomes. This creates a very big uncertainty.
Why is mommy so happy when Tina plays with Barbie and Ken? Why isn't she like that when I do?
Part of human pattern seeking is trying to tie actions to outcomes and not everyone is able to easily figure out the missing pieces in the puzzle and many times those pieces are simply lost. Mommy could be happy in those particular instances because she likes when Tina does that or because Tina is noiseily having fun when Mommy is in the proper emotional state to be happy for the happiness of others(and loud noises aren't painful at that moment).

But children(and humans in general) often can't determine how much their information matches with reality and in many cases there are no objective means to find out but they need to know. And with no outlets they put fault to any of the variables(which they don't always have a good grasp of) and the most common variable for every situation we experience is ourself.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on July 05, 2015, 04:15:47 am
Quote from: Tiruin on July 04, 2015, 10:05:22 pm
Quote from: Antsan on July 04, 2015, 01:17:07 pm
What I meant to say is that they seem to miss the point of the video, which seems to say that being beautiful should not depend on your looks.

That might read like lunacy, but my lived experience actually is that the beauty of the people I meet is mainly a matter of what mindset I am in and what they act like, not so much their looks. Perceiving people as beautiful can be learned.
I dunno. I always thought of beauty as equated to personality. Physical looks are merely aesthetics for me. x3
Be careful with that: It has been shown that good looking people are judged to have a better personality by most people. I'm not sure I am not prone to that kind of bias.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on July 05, 2015, 05:56:36 am
I don't think that many (if any) people aren't prone to that kind of bias. There's a word for the idea, where people find it hard to separate the idea of a person with some good qualities not being good, or some bad qualities not being bad. Can't remember it right now though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Tiruin on July 05, 2015, 08:23:40 am
Quote from: Antsan on July 05, 2015, 04:15:47 am
Quote from: Tiruin on July 04, 2015, 10:05:22 pm
Quote from: Antsan on July 04, 2015, 01:17:07 pm
What I meant to say is that they seem to miss the point of the video, which seems to say that being beautiful should not depend on your looks.

That might read like lunacy, but my lived experience actually is that the beauty of the people I meet is mainly a matter of what mindset I am in and what they act like, not so much their looks. Perceiving people as beautiful can be learned.
I dunno. I always thought of beauty as equated to personality. Physical looks are merely aesthetics for me. x3
Be careful with that: It has been shown that good looking people are judged to have a better personality by most people. I'm not sure I am not prone to that kind of bias.
Has been shown?
I think you may be talking about either the Halo effect (http://www.cptc.edu/stereotype/bias/lessonbuilder_files/Stereotypes_and_Bias_print.html), or that its speaking out of a specific set of physically beautiful people :P
Though I was like that before even knowing about these effects so...I'm unsure as to how far it applies. I could legitimately say its that way for me, because...the only proof I have is that I never felt otherwise different when speaking to people who look 'aesthetically more pleasing' than others who don't. I've been wondering all this time that it may, actually, be a social construct instead of anything else. But that's just me here. ._.

On that point: It's also because I've known and talked to a lot of people who I guess the west (or in general) wouldn't consider 'that pretty/handsome', but have AMAZING personalities. The benefits of non-urban areas. ;3

But anyway.
Quote from: ArKFallen on July 04, 2015, 11:29:17 pm
-that last paragraph; also snip-
Thankies :) I've been wondering about the exact wording to that kind of idea. I've come across it before but then was confused due to how it was worded. Too young to get it at the time. x_x
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 05, 2015, 09:04:50 am
If one person has an affect and another person does not, that really doesn't give us an indication of it being a social construct or otherwise. At best, we can then say it varies. But plenty of social and biological things vary, so it's not very useful.
Spoiler: for wall of text (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Wolfhunter107 on July 05, 2015, 04:08:09 pm
Sheriff Joe Arpaio to go on trial for retaliatory practices (http://news.yahoo.com/trial-examine-retaliation-charge-against-arizona-sheriff-174853089.html)

Bonus: How many comments can YOU read before closing the page in disgust?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on July 05, 2015, 04:14:07 pm
Quote from: Ispil on July 05, 2015, 04:12:04 pm
Quote from: Wolfhunter107 on July 05, 2015, 04:08:09 pm
Sheriff Joe Arpaio to go on trial for retaliatory practices (http://news.yahoo.com/trial-examine-retaliation-charge-against-arizona-sheriff-174853089.html)

Bonus: How many comments can YOU read before closing the page in disgust?

Oh hey he's being tried for something else. Last time he was tried for something, he had the judge's wife investigated by his own PI but was caught. He then demanded the judge abdicate due to a conflict of interest. This was only a few months ago.
This looks extremely criminal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arcvasti on July 05, 2015, 05:02:13 pm
Quote from: Wolfhunter107 on July 05, 2015, 04:08:09 pm
Sheriff Joe Arpaio to go on trial for retaliatory practices (http://news.yahoo.com/trial-examine-retaliation-charge-against-arizona-sheriff-174853089.html)

Bonus: How many comments can YOU read before closing the page in disgust?

Meh, about half of them are idiots supporting him and the other half are saying its a good thing. For news site comments, that's a better ratio then usual
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 05, 2015, 05:27:56 pm
That guy's been nationally recognized as one of the most horrible people on the planet for many years.  He's the icon of everything ugly about American policing.  Celebrities have led marches against him.  Prisoners under his jurisdiction die of neglect regularly, sometimes burning to death from being left in open cages in the Arizona sun all day in the middle of summer.  It's astounding that he's kept his career going for so long, and that's why it baffles me that I know some very liberal people who are working on moving to Arizona.  There has to be some severe reactionary hatred among the populace there to keep re-electing that guy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sergarr on July 05, 2015, 05:32:40 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 05, 2015, 05:27:56 pm
That guy's been nationally recognized as one of the most horrible people on the planet for many years.  He's the icon of everything ugly about American policing.  Celebrities have led marches against him.  Prisoners under his jurisdiction die of neglect regularly, sometimes burning to death from being left in open cages in the Arizona sun all day in the middle of summer.  It's astounding that he's kept his career going for so long, and that's why it baffles me that I know some very liberal people who are working on moving to Arizona.  There has to be some severe reactionary hatred among the populace there to keep re-electing that guy.
Alternatively, he rigs the elections. I wouldn't put it past this guy to commit an election fraud.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 08, 2015, 09:12:05 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/jeb-bush-people-longer-hours-235206730.html

....

Forget the unemployed ( whitewashed official unemployment stats) or underemployed, this is more victim blaming. Following in W's footsteps, Jeb Bush is totally out of touch. Problem with unemployment, underemployment, stagnated wages, and massive income inequality? "Work harder you slackers!" "Get a job!" is basically what he's saying.

The poor working stiff's already doing the job of three people without making the proper pay of one.... The only people working longer hours are salary and they don't get paid for those hours to stimulate the economy.... Meanwhile Corporations are making record profits....  They won't hire, but will outsource jobs and bring in immigrants to do skilled white collar work and force the employees to train their foreign replacements.  (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html?_r=0)

Yes, this looks like yet another "47%" comment.

Tone... Deaf.

 And hey, let's trump up the never ending war on terror while firing the troops too.... (http://news.yahoo.com/us-cut-40-000-soldiers-army-official-222600085.html#)

Let's not pay for anything, wonder why nobody has any money, and then complain. Sounds great....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on July 08, 2015, 09:22:53 pm
Military getting in on the downsizing.  Its difficult for me to feel bad about that.

As for the longer hours... I'd say "he clearly hasn't worked a minimum wage job any time recently" but I think that's a given for anyone in congress, certainly anyone making a serious bid at the presidency.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on July 08, 2015, 10:06:18 pm
Quote from: EnigmaticHat on July 08, 2015, 09:22:53 pm
Military getting in on the downsizing.  Its difficult for me to feel bad about that.

QFT.

Quote from: EnigmaticHat on July 08, 2015, 09:22:53 pm
"he clearly hasn't worked a minimum wage job any time ever"

FTFY. Jeb Bush was richer than I'll ever be before he was even born. I'm not sure he's even capable of understanding someone who doesn't have any other option.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 08, 2015, 10:32:50 pm
Quote from: Baffler on July 08, 2015, 10:06:18 pm
FTFY. Jeb Bush was richer than I'll ever be before he was even born. I'm not sure he's even capable of understanding someone who doesn't have any other option.

And the reason he's completely unable to relate to the lives of 90% of the population is the same reason he has influence over how they're allowed to live them.  Makes great practical sense.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 08, 2015, 10:49:21 pm
I love how the aide clarified the comment was directed towards part-time workers and the underemployed, as if they're not often working over forty hours a week anyway. Apparently being part of the GOP establishment makes you physically incapable of grasping the concept of working two (or more) jobs, or what "local job market" means. It's always vaguely amazing how someone can make a statement that completely divorced from reality. Bonus points for calling someone else out of touch in the same breath :V

In other news, Jeb is a piece of crap, news at 11, florida has been telling all you folks that for years. We have a fairly clear example of what that bastard does in power, and the answer is "Shit on what he's governing."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on July 09, 2015, 02:18:50 am
Wait, how can you work 40 hours a week and be underemployed?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 09, 2015, 08:39:38 am
I think that's freedomese for 'underpaid'.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on July 09, 2015, 09:01:37 am
Jeb is a hard-core Social Darwinist who flinches at the very word of "Darwinism" (so very ironic...)

I mean, seriously: No less than 80% (http://scienceblogs.com/deanscorner/2011/06/30/blindly-supporting-blind-faith/) of his idiotic school vouchers in Florida were forked over to fundie schools specializing in anti-evolution mumbo-jumbo, even though the program in itself is basically "survival of the fittest" within the school system. 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 09, 2015, 09:15:10 am
Generally it means "I have a bachelors/masters and I'm flipping burgers at three different chains"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 09, 2015, 11:03:23 am
Mmhmm. Overqualification in general, really. Someone with 20, 30 years in on-site IT working as an entry level tech-support call handler because there's just not anything else available to 'em would be another example.

It's a little fluid as a designation in practice, I think -- someone working a job they're significantly overqualified for because they want to do that particular job, might not really count. But it's generally speaking folks doing less than they should be able (and generally want) to. Doesn't really have anything directly to do with hours worked, which in retrospect makes it kinda' odd the aide mentioned it...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on July 09, 2015, 11:26:03 am
Ok, I was confused, because the equivalent French term refers precisely to people that would like to work full-time but can only find part-time work. Working several different jobs isnt as common here as Stateside.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 09, 2015, 11:28:56 am
There's a lot of things fucked up about the American job system. Not being able to survive off one job (or the equivalent-hours of one job, at least) is one of them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 09, 2015, 12:14:46 pm
Should working full time at minimum wage count as under-employed?  Since last I heard, its been studied and confirmed impossible to survive on 40 hours a week at minimum wage almost anywhere in the country.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 09, 2015, 12:25:28 pm
I'd say no? Underemployment is usually an issue of qualification, not survival (iirc, we have a different word for poverty wages, though I can't recall it), iirc. If all you're capable of is minimum wage work, you're not underemployed if that's all you have, regardless as to if it's a living wage or not.

And nah, it's possible, but more or less only if you're consistently lucky. No major emergencies, existence of accessible/affordable housing, probably no kids, etc. Not terribly pleasant, and obviously one accident or misstep away from homelessness/bankruptcy/death/etc., but possible, in a "You're not dead yet." sort of way.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wobbly on July 09, 2015, 12:30:36 pm
Quote from: Frumple on July 09, 2015, 12:25:28 pm
I'd say no? Underemployment is usually an issue of qualification, not survival (iirc, we have a different word for poverty wages, though I can't recall it), iirc. If all you're capable of is minimum wage work, you're not underemployed if that's all you have, regardless as to if it's a living wage or not.

What if you are qualified & just don't think it's worth the BS of the corporate world, which is closer to my situation. Well I'm 1/2 & 1/2 in that I lack qualification but would of become qualified & still could with a lot of hassle.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on July 09, 2015, 12:42:18 pm
I thought I'd leave that here: Stop worrying about video game violence, and start thinking about dehumanization (http://www.polygon.com/2015/6/24/8834027/video-game-violence-dehumanization)

@wobbly:
Become qualified for your own sake. it heightens your living quality, no matter whether it helps you earn money or not.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on July 09, 2015, 12:56:27 pm
^^^ This.

Also why, as great as it is, Batman's rogues gallery is one of the most harmful things to be produced by modern-ish fiction.  It approaches the issues of how society should deal with the mentally ill while simultaneously being horribly wrong on every imaginable level.  Ditto for how criminals should be dealt with.  All crime dramas ever are also awful, for about the same reason.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on July 09, 2015, 12:58:08 pm
I never thought I'd write something like that, but I think German crime dramas are actually pretty damn good in that regard.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TripJack on July 09, 2015, 01:25:14 pm
it seems that even Texas is not safe from progress these days

http://www.keyetv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/ut-public-forum-majority-push-removal-confederate-monuments-26930.shtml
Quote
Three statues of confederate leaders at the University of Texas at Austin campus brought heated words to the first of two public forums that will determine whether to keep them or possibly move them to a museum.

...

Now the debate has spread to the Texas Capitol.

Yesterday five state law makers sent a letter to Governor Greg Abbott, Texas House Speaker Joe Straus and Lt. Governor Dan Patrick calling for the creation of a task force to review more than a dozen confederate monuments at the Capitol grounds.

best part
Quote
The forum focused on one statue in particularly, that of Jefferson Davis.

He was the President of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War.

Although he argued against succession early on, he also advocated for the expansion of slavery and owned slaves himself.

One speaker said every time she passed his statue she felt harassed.
god damn harassment statues
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 10, 2015, 05:30:54 am
Quote from: Antsan on July 09, 2015, 12:42:18 pm
I thought I'd leave that here: Stop worrying about video game violence, and start thinking about dehumanization (http://www.polygon.com/2015/6/24/8834027/video-game-violence-dehumanization)

I've been thinking this for a long time, but every time somebody mentions it, especially in nerdy circles, there's always some dude who immediately goes "duuuh I played videogames and I didn't become violent" or "lol Jack Thompson" - as if either had anything to do with what you're saying. It's the sane kind of "don't you dare touch my entertainment" response you get from nerds when trying to discuss addiction of games (other than mobile "casual" games, of course).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on July 10, 2015, 06:02:57 am
That's probably why he starts with basically four paragraphs of disclaimer.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 10, 2015, 06:25:56 am
That response is, however, provoked by the persistent framing of the discussion as one primarily about law and societal allowance. The "can you" rather than the "should you". I'm an adult and don't need Mama Government telling me what vidja I can and cannot have. That is also a real issue that was fought for and in some place is still being fought for, and shouldn't be dismissed. Germany prohibited sales of Half-Life until the fictional soldiers were replaced with fictional robot soldiers, which in addition to being censorship is also a sign of how absurdly petty the world is, but that is an existential crisis for another day. Plenty of places have laws that don't let you run game programs for more than a few hours at a time, mostly targeted at MMORPGs. But I think that all people should have the opportunity to throw their lives away playing video games, lose everything meaningful to them, and kill themselves in the depths of hellish loneliness. The rights to live, die, and choose and all that.

Now, to its credit, this article doesn't do that and explicitly calls against both legal censorship and self-censorship, though admittedly this also brings into question exactly what the hell the writer is calling for. Criticality without alternative might be all well and good for making yourself feel accomplished in having stated your opinion, but the rational response of everyone else in the world should just be the delete button.

The argument about war is flawed because it fails to make the distinction between the effects of war and the effects of video games (or anything media) about war. This isn't the "it's not real" response per se, though I do maintain that the fiction argument is a valid response to pretty much all of this. If video games can't make you commit violence it reasonably follows that they also cannot make you dismiss the humanity of the enemy. But getting back to the point, a video game about a war does not necessarily spread acceptance of war violence, it spreads acceptance of video games. The WWII or Vietnam or whatever war is being presented is a flavor hash taken from human history, but even the author points out games that use entirely fictional wars. If the dehumanization is carried through to the game from reality, then what's the connection Killzone has to our bubbling desire to kill every Helghast fuck in the system and let God sort them out? Because they're Space Nazis fighting Space America, so this is actually just WWII? Fuck off, everything we put into media is ripped straight from the headlines of something else.
Quote
The Holocaust is the obvious example, but Americans also did their fair share of dehumanizing killing, particularly in Japan. You can’t really firebomb Tokyo or nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki if you think the Japanese are human beings with friends, parents, lovers and children.

And you certainly can't do this.
Oh yes you can. There's plenty of examples of philosophical positions where you can recognize your enemies as human and then kill them all. From both a utilitarian and deontological standpoint. Hell, that's what so scary about some really committed utilitarian types, because they'll tell you with a straight face that we need to exterminate half of humanity through random selection to save the other half from resource collapse. Even the classic example of justifying the nuclear bombings is utilitarian: less people die from all sides added together when nukes are used, therefore use nukes. That argument treats all people as of equal worth, though I don't agree with it myself. All in all, I have to chalk this up to someone who loves using the word "dehumanization" too much. I've had a decent amount of experience with the "what is dehumanization" fight and it's a nasty one. What I've found is that people don't get the idea very well and soon enough you've got loser Westerners comparing their every struggle to the Holocaust, including struggles that are perceptual and don't exist. The exploration of thought has to give way to our relatively certain knowledge of the real world at some point or it isn't worth anything.
Quote
Maybe we compartmentalize and remind ourselves that war isn’t really like that. But at the end of the day, we are — on some level — accepting the premise that watching people shoot at each other is one of the most entertaining things a person can do with their time.
[EYEROLLING INTENSIFIES]
Yeah, ok, so while we're "maybe compartmentalizing" (if you cannot compartmentalize vidjia into the vidjia box, please vanish in a puff of logic because you are either not real or an alien), let us take a moment to realize that the premise you are accepting on some level is shooting fake people is entertaining, which it is, because it simulates something exciting, which violence is. Humans love violence. Hands down, without question. The excitement of these things is why we keep looking into it, and it is without moral charge. It came from us in the first place, and was interjected into fiction for that reason. When you say that societal and media acceptance of violence makes us accept violence, you've got it backwards. When we have violence in media it is because we have already accepted our interest in violence enough to make media out of it.

This post is more or less redundant after this, but my last response is the "what we can do about it", which is basically a call for universally critical media. To which I say, god no, please fucking no, we have enough antithesis in the world to kill any 90's emo band in existence. No more. No more!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 10, 2015, 07:06:17 am
Quote from: Antsan on July 09, 2015, 12:58:08 pm
I never thought I'd write something like that, but I think German crime dramas are actually pretty damn good in that regard.
Tatort-five!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 10, 2015, 08:08:11 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 10, 2015, 06:25:56 am
Oh yes you can. There's plenty of examples of philosophical positions where you can recognize your enemies as human and then kill them all.

The "and you certainly can't do this" wasn't just referring to Americans killing lots of Japanese. Part of it was a link to this page on American soldiers mutilating Japanese dead. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_mutilation_of_Japanese_war_dead) You can't treat part of someone's body like a souvenir without a significant amount of dehumanization. I don't think that's just a "loser westerner" perspective.

The article reminded me of this Extra Credit on Hatred. (https://youtu.be/s6xQlnzffRg) They frame their discussion on violence around sadism rather than dehumanization though, and I think they're criticizing a slightly different set of games than this guy is. For example, I don't know if his argument would apply to Hatred - from what I've seen, it doesn't seem to make any effort to tell you that the people you kill deserve it.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 10, 2015, 06:25:56 am
But I think that all people should have the opportunity to throw their lives away playing video games, lose everything meaningful to them, and kill themselves in the depths of hellish loneliness. The rights to live, die, and choose and all that.

This might be a little tangential, but I think this becomes less a matter of personal choice as more games are designed to be as addictive and time consuming as possible. Game designers have tried to exploit every corner of human psychology for a buck. It has ruined lives. Anything trying to manipulate consumers can be a danger to them, and I could support some restrictions on games based on the same reasoning that gambling and advertising are regulated. Obviously much of it would be too impractical to regulate (how do you definitively say someone is making their game too time consuming?) but I think there could be some rules for shadier microtransactions like in-game gambling with real money.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 10, 2015, 09:10:52 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on July 10, 2015, 08:08:11 am
You can't treat part of someone's body like a souvenir without a significant amount of dehumanization. I don't think that's just a "loser westerner" perspective.
You, uh, totally can. It's certainly not common, but dehumanization isn't the only reason a person may take bits and bobs from the fallen. Remembrance, respect, spiritual aspects... the list kind of goes on. There's a point of delineation between acknowledgement of someone's humanity and treatment of their corpse, and you can decide to retain parts of the fallen for reasons that don't involve dehumanization to any degree, nevermind a significant one.

It's one of those examples, but I wouldn't exactly consider Catholic treatment of relics (you know, pieces of saints) a behavior rooted in dehumanization. Kinda' the exact opposite.

Of course, that doesn't mean that much of what was done in the cited case wasn't done out of severe disrespect. Just making the point that that "can't" is misplaced.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 12, 2015, 06:15:25 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on July 10, 2015, 08:08:11 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 10, 2015, 06:25:56 am
But I think that all people should have the opportunity to throw their lives away playing video games, lose everything meaningful to them, and kill themselves in the depths of hellish loneliness. The rights to live, die, and choose and all that.

This might be a little tangential, but I think this becomes less a matter of personal choice as more games are designed to be as addictive and time consuming as possible. Game designers have tried to exploit every corner of human psychology for a buck. It has ruined lives. Anything trying to manipulate consumers can be a danger to them, and I could support some restrictions on games based on the same reasoning that gambling and advertising are regulated. Obviously much of it would be too impractical to regulate (how do you definitively say someone is making their game too time consuming?) but I think there could be some rules for shadier microtransactions like in-game gambling with real money.

I've been saying this for a while...  It's a tricky subject, fraught with slippery slopes... but intentionally designing something to be addicting and then building a business off feeding that addiction should be seen as equivalent to running a lemonade stand with a pinch of heroin as your secret ingredient.  I would totally be on board with the executives at Blizzard being charged on something like selling drugs to children.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 12, 2015, 06:58:32 pm
More like a lemonade stand which sells lemonade that makes you even thirstier.

Oh wait, McDonald's already does that.

And so does any decent pub owner, by offering salty snacks. 'Manipulating the consumer' is much too imprecise to be a useful category. And 'designing something to be addicting' is too, by the way: Complaining about it is all nice and dandy, but just randomly demanding people to be dragged in front of a court on the basis of a crude analogy is not a productive way to go about it. A more productive way would be determining more precisely what the desirable and undesirable effects of such game design are, to identify possible precedents, to weigh advantages and disadvantages of various possible policies...

Ceterum censeo even hard drugs should be legalized, so maybe I'm the wrong person to talk to about criminalizing things just because they're addictive.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 12, 2015, 08:31:30 pm
It's not the fact that it's addicting.  It's that the consumer doesn't expect it to be addicting.  Not to the extreme that it is.  And manipulation doesn't quite cover what addiction is.  It forces the customer to want to come back to that specific product over and over again for forever.

I think hard drugs should be legalized as well, but on the condition that every hard drug product should be sold with a disclaimer just barely short of "YOU ARE IN VERY SERIOUS DANGER OF FUCKING UP YOUR LIFE IF YOU USE THIS." that's displayed more prominently on the packaging than the name of the product.  It's the absence of that disclaimer that the business should be prosecuted for. 

Game designers have very aggressively employed very powerful psychological effects against their customers, and have not been up front about it, while they rake it in.

If someone buys lemonade, they're most likely doing so for the flavor, not to quench thirst.  I've NEVER had lemonade that was thirst quenching.  And when it makes  them thirsty, they'll drink something else.  There's nothing about the lemonade making them thirsty that forces them to drink more lemonade.  Same with salty snacks in a pub... people like salty snacks.  I like salty snacks.  Yeah, they'll buy more drinks at the pub while they eat salty snacks, but it's not unexpected by anyone with half a brain cell.  And above all, while it may be somewhat manipulative, there's nothing about this practice that forces people to want to come back to that specific pub over and over again.

Lemonade laced with heroin would force the customer to come back and buy that lemonade over and over again, potentially to the point that they would completely wreck their lives to get their hands on it.  That's addiction.  And it should not be sprung on people without warning.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 12, 2015, 08:50:26 pm
I... really wouldn't call an overt chemical addiction equal to a psychological addiction. They can both ruin your life, but the mechanics and appropriate treatment are different enough I'd really kinda' say they shouldn't be lumped together in regards to consideration. Spiked lemonaid and pubs really aren't the parallels I'd call good to draw -- your non-video-game equivalents would be stuff like slots or horse races, and probably where you should direct your comparisons.

Addictive games should probably be treated exactly like we treat gambling, because it generally hinges on the exact same things. And... honestly, I'd probably be okay with legalizing age restrictions on any sort of game that heavily relies on ye' old skinner box and whatnot, as opposed to the informal ESRB stuff. We already have vaguely similar financial burdens in place, really, so you'd have equitable treatment of fairly identical entities.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 12, 2015, 09:58:33 pm
Quote from: Frumple on July 12, 2015, 08:50:26 pm
I... really wouldn't call an overt chemical addiction equal to a psychological addiction. They can both ruin your life, but the mechanics and appropriate treatment are different enough I'd really kinda' say they shouldn't be lumped together in regards to consideration. Spiked lemonaid and pubs really aren't the parallels I'd call good to draw -- your non-video-game equivalents would be stuff like slots or horse races, and probably where you should direct your comparisons.

Addictive games should probably be treated exactly like we treat gambling, because it generally hinges on the exact same things. And... honestly, I'd probably be okay with legalizing age restrictions on any sort of game that heavily relies on ye' old skinner box and whatnot, as opposed to the informal ESRB stuff. We already have vaguely similar financial burdens in place, really, so you'd have equitable treatment of fairly identical entities.

It's worth pointing out that there is crossover between psychological and chemical addiction.  As in physiological similarity between the way both operate.  Both have their roots in tampering with the chemical make-up of the brain's natural motivation/reward system.

But yeah, I'll agree that treating it the same as gambling addiction is rather fair.  I did admit it's a sticky matter.  What matters most to me is that game developers should be forced to take some responsibility for the intentional exploitation of psychological addiction.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on July 13, 2015, 12:22:30 am
I've always considered it vaguely scary that people who have addictive personalities are like, reliably exploited in capitalist societies.

Like, something bad's gonna happen to you.  Addicted to drugs, gambling, video games, something.  And then you don't have any time or money.

Maybe I'm wrong about how strong predisposition to addiction actually is.  I dunno, I'm not a doctor.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 13, 2015, 06:29:19 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJzZkm7VEAE9FVg.jpg)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Twi on July 13, 2015, 10:11:39 pm
Uh, what?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on July 13, 2015, 10:30:35 pm
Quote from: Twi on July 13, 2015, 10:11:39 pm
Uh, what?

AFL-CIO is an association of labor unions, it stands for American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations. Labor unions have a very strong hatred for Scott Walker because he's done his damnedest to do them every bit of insult/injury he can manage.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 14, 2015, 12:12:03 am
Addiction is the antithesis of "capitalism."

Capitalism presupposes choices in the face of alternatives to satiate a need or want. Addiction is need never satiated. Addiction promises happiness, but delivers misery. It's a mad doctor administering disease while promising a cure.... Crony Capitalism is rather similar.

To create demand is not to create addiction. Demand is a rational longing, it can be filled. Addiction is irrational craving; it can never be filled. Doughnuts will eventually satisfy your hunger and end it; heroine never will....

Demand convinces customers to come back of their own free will and rational choice. Addiction forces victims to return, forever seeking but never finding relief, that will not come.

This is not to say demand is entirely voluntary, but it is fairly honest, if one is honest with one's self. Calamity is part of life, and the key is legitimately offering a possible solution. The car mechanic fixes your automobile's crash, the plumber unclogs your pipes, and the doctor diagnoses you with the actual intention of treatment if possible. The heroin dealer gives you the first hit free, knowing all the others will more than pay for it, that there will be many others, and that hurt, not help, is what he is really selling. That is, the drug dealer does not solve problems, he creates and compounds them....

I have seen mothers literally sell their children for crack. I have seen once happy couples fall to pieces over meth. I have seen the most promising futures impaled on a heroin needle. I have seen life savings gambled away. Through many a twisted and misguided philosophies, humanity seeks respite from woe and rest in happiness. It looks in all the wrong places. Be it chemical, psychological, or more often a mixture of the two in most cases, addiction never delivers happiness, but instead creates misery in spades.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 14, 2015, 12:22:11 am
Tobacco and acohol companies are more interesting in a critique of capatalism vs addiction. Saying heroin dealers as the antithesis is a little too neat and easy, since we can just call for more police crackdowns on dealers, so it doesn't get to the nuances of the matter. It's like highlighting only the worst serial killers when advocating for tougher sentencing for all crime. For nicotine, there is interesting research about the effect of nicotine and schizophrenia. There's evidence that many users are self-medicating to mask symptoms of mental illness. You can say that they should be getting treatment, but that misses the point that professional treatment at a reasonable price isn't available to these people in the market, whereas nicotine is. So it is entirely a market economy thing. We can't divorce addiction from capitalism after all.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/nicotine.benefits.htm

Quote
The interest in nicotine’s therapeutic potential started in the 1980s. Several population based studies found that smokers had lower rates of Parkinson’s disease than nonsmokers. Epidemiolo­gists also validated what many mental health practitioners have long noticed: The smoking rate among people with schizophrenia, depression, and anxiety disorders is far higher than average. It’s widely believed that people with certain mental health problems are self-medicating with cigarettes because the nicotine helps their minds function better.

Even for cigarettes you can find some evidence of a need that's being met that is not being met anywhere else. I think that to say addictive drugs at every point of the process are without any value whatsoever, is not correct. Plenty of medication is addictive. There's also research from rats who became addicted to morphine in lab studies. Giving the rats more things to occupy their attention reduced the number who went back to the morphine, even after they were addicted. So the morphine addiction was actually filling some need to a degree - made clear by the fact that the mere existence of more fun alternatives caused many rats to stop taking it. So, even opiate addiction can be shown to be the subjectively least-bad of a number of alternatives at some point in time.

As for gambling as an addiction and not a demand, that one is more tenuous than even drugs. What about playing the stock market, or being addicted to buying shoes, or video game addiction? Or porn addiction? Or those people who can't stop buying stuff to hoard? When we have a very button-down idea of "demand" that excludes the bulk of the world's economic spending, then the whole argument about what is or is not "demand" falls apart.

When you define "proper demand" as anything that doesn't wreck your life, then of course "demand" is harmless and doesn't wreck your life, because that's how you defined it. Whereas all harmful things people want to spend money on are "not demand". The whole thing sounds a bit ... circular logic. Basically saying harmful things are harmful, and not-harmful things ... aren't. That's not really news and doesn't tell us anything.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 14, 2015, 01:18:46 am
Quote from: Reelya on July 14, 2015, 12:22:11 am
Tobacco and acohol companies are more interesting in a critique of capatalism vs addiction. Saying heroin dealers as the antithesis is a little too neat and easy, since we can just call for more police crackdowns on dealers, so it doesn't get to the nuances of the matter. It's like highlighting only the worst serial killers when advocating for tougher sentencing for all crime. For nicotine, there is interesting research about the effect of nicotine and schizophrenia. There's evidence that many users are self-medicating to mask symptoms of mental illness. You can say that they should be getting treatment, but that misses the point that professional treatment at a reasonable price isn't available to these people in the market, whereas nicotine is. So it is entirely a market economy thing. We can't divorce addiction from capitalism after all.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/nicotine.benefits.htm

Quote
The interest in nicotine’s therapeutic potential started in the 1980s. Several population based studies found that smokers had lower rates of Parkinson’s disease than nonsmokers. Epidemiolo­gists also validated what many mental health practitioners have long noticed: The smoking rate among people with schizophrenia, depression, and anxiety disorders is far higher than average. It’s widely believed that people with certain mental health problems are self-medicating with cigarettes because the nicotine helps their minds function better.


So the good doctors  in the commercials wasn't lying after all. Smoking is good for your health!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on July 14, 2015, 01:33:20 am
Eh... helping people with mental illness is like 1% of what nicotine does.  My aunt had schizophrenia and smoked.  It had no visible positive effects and almost certainly shaved years off her lifespan.  Maybe she took it for some unknown positive effect on her brain but that's basically a non-sequitor.  Doesn't change any of the things people hate about tobacco or cigarette companies.  And it certainly doesn't make cigarettes the product in a capitalistic society a net benefit for the mentally ill, even if nicotine the substance might might be.

Also, lol at that article's assertion that smokers have a lower occurrence of Parkinson's.  You know what increases prevalence of Parkinson's?  Living to grow old.

You refer to addiction and demand as exclusive, but... I dunno.  I don't think the concept of the consumer having agency applies to addictive products because the consumer is only completely in control of their first purchase.  And for that purchase, all they have to go is secondhand information, which companies like the cigarette companies or casinos can and do manipulate.  So the concept that, say, alcohol is "in demand" and thus fine seems a bit weak to me.  Sure its in demand, but its nature is to create its own demand and the people selling it know that.  This applies to things MMOs too, its the most common trick ever to have the first X levels be super easy to obtain and then start spreading out the dopamine injections.

Yes, people will find some other stupid thing to become addicted to in the absence of specifically addictive things.  But that's throwing away "better" because its not "perfect".  History* has shown that as availability of drugs increases, addiction increases alongside it pretty much infinitely.  I guess you could say "oh they'll find something else to be addicted to" but it seems to me a defeatist argument.  The current model for most mental illness is genetic cause, environmental activation.  If we create an environment where addictive things are scarce we'll have less addicts.

*specifically the multiple occasions where a government intentionally flooded an area with addictive drugs
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 14, 2015, 01:39:24 am
I never said anything was "fine". I was making the point that you can't magically divide capitalism from all the icky stuff. Because the entire argument just becomes "bad = not capitalism, hence capitalism = good" circular reasoning.

Because any constrained choice must not be capitalism then. e.g. imbalance in bargaining power the labour market, totally not the fault of capitalism by the same arguments presented about not-true-choice.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on July 14, 2015, 01:42:46 am
Fair.

But I'm in favor pushing society more towards socialism, so its acceptable to me that capitalism is icky.  Justifies my point of view :P  Still think something should be done to prevent people from developing addictions.  I think that is a need that society has at the moment.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 14, 2015, 01:48:11 am
For heroin addiction the Swiss model from the 1990s is the best. It works much better than any other model but is also a political hot potato. It's also a model that is specifically for treating opiate addiction, so you would never use it for meth addiction for example.

http://www.citizensopposingprohibition.org/resources/swiss-heroin-assisted-treatment-1994-2009-summary/

Pretty much the entire government cost of the program was made back just in reduced police expenditures related to a crime rate drop in direct recipients (the crime rate of the recipients dropped over 60%). Obviously a large reduction in the crime rate has many more indirect benefits than saving money on police investigations though. There's a huge amount of money that is no longer being stolen to pay for heroin in Switzerland, thus the economy works better, there are more jobs, less criminal networks, less insurance payouts, less prison costs.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on July 14, 2015, 02:04:43 am
So, if I'm reading that right, they take government issued heroine under controlled conditions.

I see how that might help, but how does it work to stop them taking heroine?  Or is that not the point?  The summary said that on average patients would leave the program after 3 years but it didn't say why.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 14, 2015, 02:12:45 am
To provide a stable enough environment to keep them off the "my life is such shit, but I know what can fix it, more heroin" track for long enough to drop it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on July 14, 2015, 02:23:11 am
Ah, makes sense.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vattic on July 14, 2015, 02:33:04 am
Worth noting that long term medical quality opioid/opiate use has few bodily health problems on it's own. I have family members on them in the form of pain medication and according to their doctor the worst they'll get is constipation and the addiction itself (which can lead to wasting if the drug is withdrawn). As with krokodil (surprisingly a drug used medically too) it's the impurities and the too frequent use of injection/smoking that are the bigger issues in terms of bodily health. Obviously the addiction itself, if not managed as with a doctor, often leads to people not eating or otherwise looking after themselves properly.

Quote from: EnigmaticHat on July 14, 2015, 01:33:20 am
You refer to addiction and demand as exclusive, but... I dunno.  I don't think the concept of the consumer having agency applies to addictive products because the consumer is only completely in control of their first purchase.  And for that purchase, all they have to go is secondhand information, which companies like the cigarette companies or casinos can and do manipulate.  So the concept that, say, alcohol is "in demand" and thus fine seems a bit weak to me.  Sure its in demand, but its nature is to create its own demand and the people selling it know that.  This applies to things MMOs too, its the most common trick ever to have the first X levels be super easy to obtain and then start spreading out the dopamine injections.
The vast majority of people buy and consume addictive products and are not addicts. I consider buying and doing things that cause pleasure to be rational within limits. I treat myself now and again to chocolate or a bottle of beer for example. You'd quickly run out of true demand purchases if you count none for things that cause addiction.

Isn't the notion of humans as rational actors within capitalism a fine theory that doesn't carry over well into the real world?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 14, 2015, 02:41:44 am
There are also other benefits of the heroin trials - even if you never get them off the drug. Less deaths. Less infected needles all over the place. Less diseases. Less costs. Less crime - there was a 40% drop in property crime in the city they started it in. Also you put the dealers out of business, keeping more money in the taxable market, thus growing the GDP and tax base.

Another thing is that junkies have a social network consisting of other junkies, and the group dynamic completely revolves around obtaining and using the drug. Likewise these are the guys working together to commit crimes, but also committing crimes against each other, and other drug users. These drug-based social networks break down pretty quickly when the need to obtain the drugs goes away. That in itself can help prevent recovering users from relapsing, or being encouraged into more property theft. The worst thing when you're trying to give something up is that all your friends do it, ain't that right?

So even if you say "that guy is still zonked out - YOU FAILED!", it's not a failure by any stretch of the imagination. You've turned a guy who was a walking disaster area for himself and everyone around him into a non-entity who isn't a threat to anyone, and saved money to boot. Who cares if someone is still "high" if they're no longer a threat to those around them?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 14, 2015, 02:49:23 am
Because of people who don't want to admit that they'd rather sit around being high on government heroin all day than work, and thus grow resentful.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 14, 2015, 02:51:31 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin-assisted_treatment

Quote
Also, the notion that patients in heroin assisted treatment are enabled to maintain "destructive behavior" contradicts the findings that patients significantly recover in terms of both their social and health situation. A clinical follow-up report on the German "Heroinstudie" found that 40% of all patients and 68% of those able to work had found employment after four years of treatment. Some even started a family, after years of homelessness and delinquency.

I recall that they had 98% unemployment in the group going into the trials.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 14, 2015, 02:52:36 am
Nobody of that mindset would know or care about the facts of the matter.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 14, 2015, 02:55:07 am
Something I didn't consider is that apparently Swiss kids thing heroin is "uncool" now because it's that stuff you go to a government clinic to get. You see, they were right, government ruins everything.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on July 14, 2015, 02:59:57 am
Quote from: Truean on July 14, 2015, 12:12:03 am
This kind of reasoning is why I think it's kind of ingenious to say that communism and anarchism ignore human nature while capitalism supposedly doesn't.

Also: Urges are not rational. The concept of rationality only applies to planning, not to goals. So calling demand rational only applies as long as you aren't satisfying basic needs.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vattic on July 14, 2015, 03:02:22 am
Reminds me of how a lot of Dutch kids consider cannabis to be uncool and have lower usage rates than in countries where it is illegal.

Antsan you may want to remove or anonymise the quote as the poster has requested in her sig.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on July 14, 2015, 03:21:10 am
Quote from: Vattic on July 14, 2015, 03:02:22 am
Antsan you may want to remove or anonymise the quote as the poster has requested in her sig.
Oh, right. I'm really sorry about that oversight, Truean.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on July 14, 2015, 03:30:24 am
Quote from: Vattic on July 14, 2015, 02:33:04 am
The vast majority of people buy and consume addictive products and are not addicts. I consider buying and doing things that cause pleasure to be rational within limits. I treat myself now and again to chocolate or a bottle of beer for example. You'd quickly run out of true demand purchases if you count none for things that cause addiction.
But a person who is pre-disposed to addiction might make the same rational decision you did but have a different reaction once they've tried the product.

Although I understand that "ban anything addictive" isn't practical.  I don't really have a solution here, but I think there's a problem, if that makes sense.  I see addiction as a mental illness but I don't think our current ways of preventing or alleviating it are very effective.  Like people get hooked on one thing or another, lose everything, and then get shunned in addition to all their other problems.  I do agree with Reelya that medically treating addiction is important but it seems to me that ideally some effort at prevention would be made.  Which has happened in the US, I guess, but in a moralistic/ineffective way.

Quote from: Vattic on July 14, 2015, 02:33:04 am
Isn't the notion of humans as rational actors within capitalism a fine theory that doesn't carry over well into the real world?
Yes, we agree on this.  But that's one of the core justifications of capitalism, or at least predatory capitalism.  If you don't think of consumers as rational actors, almost by definition you accept that the salesman as well as the costumer is responsible for the effects of the sale.  Which is why I consider cigarette companies, casinos, the WoW portion of Blizzard, all to be unethical relative to (most) other corporations.

(I'm at the point in the discussion where I've forgotten what my specific original point was, I'm going to sleep now)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 14, 2015, 08:21:07 am
Quote from: Reelya on July 14, 2015, 12:22:11 am

D- See me after class (at the bottom of this post). You've failed to address any of the issues and instead made your own, put words in my mouth and drew the obvious next step to tobacco and alcohol? Predictable.... I am on the internet after all.... That said, I expected better from you. You're better than that.

There are no nuances. In your rush to counter my point, you missed it entirely: No needs are ever met by nicotine, or heroin, or alcohol, or anything that is addictive. All these provide is the short term illusion of meeting needs. The poor mice in your "study" would rather actually have their needs met as opposed to the illusion of having needs met. Gambling and most of the world's economic spending is an addiction, because it's false demand. We buy crap we don't need to impress people who don't matter or care, and pay for a house to store it in, by working a job we hate. That's stupid, but we do it, because we're stupid.

There is nothing circular about my logic, the term is often misunderstood and misused. I didn't say demand was harmless. You did. I said it satiates needs. Addiction never satiates needs, but it tricks you into thinking it does.

_________________________________________________
"When you define "proper demand" as anything that doesn't wreck your life," such tasty words you've put in my mouth. No.

What is so sad is that we don't teach logical structure. I don't give a shit what you think, but I care HOW you think. This is why politicians get away with their shit. Example of a counterargument to my point you could have used instead of ... whatever the heck that was you were trying for:

Here's what you should've written if you wanted to counter my last post Color coded for your convenience... highlight it if this bothers you.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Addiction isn't the antithesis of capitalism.

Capitalism IS addiction. Addiction is repeatedly doing something, unable to stop without (sometimes severe) withdrawal. Capitalism is repeatedly paying for things you might not want and could really harm you, while imposing withdrawal if your payments are withdrawn. Drugs cause physical withdrawal symptoms, and so does capitalism with poverty, illness, debt collectors and possibly jail. Worse yet, capitalism sells addictive things, legally (cigarettes, alcohol, beanie babies), and illegally (heroin, smack, crack,  beanie babies (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/642656/Beanie-Babies-are-no-longer-illegal-immigrants-into-US.html?pg=all)). You might have to make regular repeat monthly rent payments on a hovel filled with health hazards, or be in debt, for all sorts of things, forever. Capitalism runs on addiction, and addiction feeds capitalism.

Addiction may lead to terrible things, but so can capitalism. If two things lead to the same outcome, aren't they functionally the same? Mothers selling their children for crack Truean? Dickensian England had debtor's prisons and orphans sold into virtual slavery. I don't know which is worse, plunging someone into poverty and ruin from debt for food, lodging, and small luxuries, or for crack, because at least everyone expects the crack dealer to be crooked, but the banker claims legitimacy.... Is one worse than the other, or is damnation just damnation no matter the source?   


Keep paying a never ending pile of bills for useless junk, or shoot junk into your veins. Both are self destruction.
etc etc
______________________________________________________________________________
Title with rebuttal
Issue and statement
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

You see how the blue + the red = purple...? It's the structure. The lack of it is destroying western civilization by allowing lack of linear logic, promoting soundbites and sidetracks, and failing to focus on the issue. You wanna site a mouse study? Fine, that's there are ways to, but good god not like that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on July 14, 2015, 08:58:17 am
I understand the reason for not wanting to be quoted, Truean, but it's kind of a pain when you want to respond to certain specific statements. >_>

Re: Mouse Study. Are you claiming to know what the mice would prefer? You may know what you'd prefer personally, given their situation and complete knowledge of it, but that's hardly what they think.

Re: Needs. Please give your definition of need. How far does it stretch from what is literally (and yes, I mean in the original sense of the word) required to live, regardless of the condition of that life?

Re: Houses. They do more, and are bought for more reasons than purely to store junk we don't need. It's unlikely that's what you're actually suggesting, but it seems to be what you're saying (from my perspective.)

By the way, what are beanie babies? I've never heard of them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on July 14, 2015, 08:59:46 am
No, demand does not satisfy needs, at least not if an addiction is not a artificially created need. Demand is just the abstract idea of someone being willing to pay resources to obtain that which the demand is for. That happens with addictive things all the time, so there is demand for addictive things. And there certainly are capitalist actors who are willing to cause addictions to raise the demand for stuff that is necessary to satisfy addictions.

Even if you redefined demand to mean something else that doesn't change anything about the underlying mechanism. As long as people are willing to give up resources to give in to an addiction and as long as obtaining these resources provides a bigger advantage than combating the addictions for some people, these people will have interest in abusing the addictive personalities of others.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TheDarkStar on July 14, 2015, 09:22:20 am
Quote from: Reelya on July 14, 2015, 02:51:31 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin-assisted_treatment

Quote
Also, the notion that patients in heroin assisted treatment are enabled to maintain "destructive behavior" contradicts the findings that patients significantly recover in terms of both their social and health situation. A clinical follow-up report on the German "Heroinstudie" found that 40% of all patients and 68% of those able to work had found employment after four years of treatment. Some even started a family, after years of homelessness and delinquency.

I recall that they had 98% unemployment in the group going into the trials.

The study doesn't appear to have a control group (glancing over the German article), so it's not really valid. Because the chosen group were an extreme group (almost all unemployed), regression to the mean indicates that the majority of them will improve or stay the same (because there isn't really room for them to get worse). I could choose any group with 98% unemployment, wait a few years while doing nothing, and then see a major increase in employment.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on July 14, 2015, 09:45:48 am
The control group would probably be heroin addicts who did not get the same treatment. I suppose there are statistics about those.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 14, 2015, 12:46:04 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on July 14, 2015, 08:58:17 am

I don't want specific things responded to. I just don't want words put in my mouth, though it happens all the time.

In re: Mouse Study. I'm not claiming to understand mice necessarily, though anything listing a "preference" is, like the study. Though I've actually studied it extensively, E.L. Thorndike, B.F. Skinner, and the rest of psychology's behaviorism school have extensively done this bit.

In re: Needs. I originally said, "needs and wants." At its widest definition there's some longing. I wasn't aware "need" or "want" needed defined. My contention was instead over the notion of satisfying a need, and the assertion that legitimate demand does, whereas addiction (illegitimate demand) does not (because you always compulsively need more). It's really the same idea as saying Pain can't be cured by purchasing infected needles to jab into your eyes. There is no demand in the market for pain relief for infected needle eye jabbing services. Emotional pain can't be cured by Heroin for the same reason. Some people may think it can, but ....

In re: Houses. In America at least, we have these horrid things call McMansions. Their primary function is to be a large impressive thing to impress neighbors with, and display wealth. Actually providing shelter is at best an ancillary benefit, as "bigger is better" ended up becoming the catchphrase. The housing market has since crashed horridly, in part because the banks were approving people for large houses they could have never reasonably afforded.

In re:  Beanie babies, included primarily for humor. A collectable crazy over stuffed animals whereby certain rare ones would fetch obscene amounts of money on the market. This has died out though.  (https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEVwq7R6VVV9AA24xXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0dGo2bWE1BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQTAxMDRfMQRzZWMDcGl2cw--?p=beanie+babies&fr=yfp-t-700&fr2=piv-web)  For some strange reason, "Employee Bear" is $2000-$3000 dollars, and it used to be worth far more. I don't know why.  (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Slideshow/2015/02/27/15-Most-Valuable-Beanie-Babies) People are crazy.

Quote from: Antsan on July 14, 2015, 08:59:46 am

I respectfully counter, demand does satisfy either needs or wants. Demand presupposes a wanted thing or needed thing. Demand is not merely in the air; it comes from somewhere: needs and wants.

Demand isn't being redefined, its source is being attributed: needs and wants. If demand is willingness and ability to give up resources to obtain a thing, then certainly that implies a need or want. The contrary statement is absurd, that one would give up resources for something one does not need or want, and thus can't be true. Addiction is the illusion of demand, the falsification of demand. One does not need heroin to survive, nor does heroin bring pleasure or satisfy a want. Rather, Heroin is a lie, it promises relief (and fools you for a short time) but delivers agony. False advertising.

Much better structure though. B+.

Basically I contend there is no actual demand for Pet Rocks. It's just a rock and it's a sham. Even if you really wanted a rock of your very own to love and pet and hold and whatever, you could get one for free....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on July 14, 2015, 01:14:58 pm
Quote from: Truean on July 14, 2015, 12:46:04 pm
So you're saying the mechanism is the same but we should treat it differently because of what started it?

Or, the other way round: A want does not need to be justified. Only because that need is destructive to the one having it doesn't make it less of a want.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 14, 2015, 04:46:34 pm
So there's been a more-or-less detonation on the right about Planned Parenthood over the past day. Virtually all reporting sites so far are right to far-right, so I'll post the Snopes link. (http://m.snopes.com/pp-baby-parts-sale/)

This video supposedly shows the Medical Director of Planned Parenthood admitting to the selling of fetal body parts for profit (a felony crime, as opposed to voluntary donation to medical research, which is legal) and a description of performing partial-birth abortions, again a crime in the United States. It also claims that the doctor in question performs abortions up to 24 weeks, but that is an unsupported caption.

Planned Parenthood's response claims that the video is a quote mine and that the descriptions are all of legal activity.

I gotta say, despite this showing up on nothing more moderate than Washington Post it looks really bad. While lots of people are predictably focusing on her callous dialogue while literally slipping wine, that's just how all medical professionals get after a while. The important part of this is whether or not she is actually committing crimes and actually profiteering off of harvesting.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 14, 2015, 05:16:27 pm
Quote from: Antsan on July 14, 2015, 01:14:58 pm


It isn't what started it, but rather the terrible intent and terrible opposite of what was promised outcome. You're focusing waaaay off point.

No. If someone sets up a store selling "refreshments," and have signs saying "thirst quenching," and then strap you to a table, force your mouth open and then pour lots of salt down your throat.... See the difference?

Same deal with the heroin. That's not to make you "feel good" anymore than the salt will "quench your thirst." The seller is engaging in the ultimate false advertising. Heroin does not make you feel good, but they tell you it will. 100% of the time, it will ruin your life, which is the exact opposite of what it promised. The need (or want or whatever, I can't comprehend why you're latching onto that irrelevant detail) is never intended to be satisfied, but rather made far far worse. Your thirst isn't being quenched, it's being parched. Your happiness isn't being granted, but rather obliterated.

There's no hidden anything here. What I'm saying is right on the label.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 14, 2015, 05:31:22 pm
I'm not sure about the false advertising for either heroin and cigarettes. You're getting what you pay for and you'd have to be living under a rock not to know that these things are addictive before you try them. It's not like a dealer can make his/her own reality. I don't think the "strapping down and pouring salt down your throat" example is valid. Very few people have needles forced into their arms, and they're usually doing it on the say-so of a friend not a dealer. People who become junkies aren't living in a vacuum, they almost certainly already know other junkies and can see the effects.

There is also the inconvenient fact that one hit of any drug isn't going to turn you into an instant addict. So it's not anything like having salt poured down your throat, and now you need water and never got the promised benefits. You have to repeatedly take it to turn yourself into an addict - to hit the point where your body is no longer producing endorphins and becomes chemically dependent. So anyone who is given "one hit" cannot become an instant addict by magic, that's not how it works.

There's also the fact that not everyone who tries a drug becomes an addict. Plenty of people dabble and are fine. If you take an amount of heroin that's not enough to cause the full physical dependence then people can and do actually take it for extended periods without it ruining their life. There are e.g. professional people who do this. And when you think about it, that's obvious. If 100% of people who tried heroin became gutter-living junkies then no-one would start. There would be a clear divide between those who tried it and those who didn't, and you could see anyone who tried it had their life ruined, so no-one would even try it. That's not the case. The dabblers feed into the pool of addicts. But that's like many things, which can ruin your life, but don't always.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 14, 2015, 05:47:31 pm
Quote from: Reelya on July 14, 2015, 05:31:22 pm

You know why there's a greater punishment for selling drugs within 1000 ft of a school, and/or to children?

Because people do it and we don't want them to.

"Can't create their own reality?" My my, are you familiar with the tobacco industry?

(http://www.unsoughtinput.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/gra_bdoctor.jpg)
Why would they say Doctors smoke them? Are they trying to imply that they're healthy or less detrimental than other brands?

(http://171.67.24.121/tobacco_web/images/tobacco_ads/for_your_throat/not_cough_carload/medium/carload_76.jpg)
Not a cough in the carload? Why? Does this brand make you less likely to cough and/or get sick?

Is that why they sell you cartoons to make young kids think its cool like this:
(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NTYxWDQxMg==/$%28KGrHqQOKpcE5kiBPwzLBOb9!T4u,w~~60_35.JPG)


When what you'll really end up as is this:
(http://www.tobaccofree.org/images/joechemo.jpg)
Curtesy http://www.anti-smoking.org/children.htm Notice how we have to aim anti tobacco ads at children, because the cig companies do....

"I don't think the "strapping down and pouring salt down your throat" example is valid." No, that's too generous of an analogy. You get straight up cancer for cigarettes and we had to force it onto the packaging. And, that's just cigs. Most Heroin junkies don't live long enough for there to be long term effects. They either die, go to jail or get clean. Period.

" It's not like a dealer can make his/her own reality. " Really? WTF do you think the tobacco companies were spending billions of dollars on. That is EXACTLY what they made. They knew exactly what they were doing and that's why they did it.... They had to because their product kills its users and they need to hook new ones....

The "salt" metaphor

Are you kidding. It seems whatever has spawned this "blame the individual consumer" mentality lately has entirely forgotten the past.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 14, 2015, 05:49:21 pm
Someone doesn't like something isn't an argument, Truean. Why do I have to take it for granted because bible-thumping America doesn't like it?

By that token I should call to ban masturbation because public masturbation near a school will get you in tons of trouble. Therefore masturbation is downright evil. Great logic there.


Sure you need good information, but the consumer has some basic responsibility for what they themselves decide to do with their money. There are plenty of anti-smoking ads here, and pro-smoking ads are completely illegal. Yet people still start.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 14, 2015, 05:52:53 pm
Quote from: Reelya on July 14, 2015, 05:49:21 pm

Are you trolling? "Someone doesn't like something isn't an argument?"

A.) As if I didn't know that.
B.) That doesn't apply here at all.
C.) It's well established that companies will spend billions clouding the real fact that their product will kill you and/or give you cancer or worse (yes there's worse). You know like cigarettes.

This has nothing to do with bible thumping America. I have nothing to do with that either. What are you on about? Please take a second and step back to realize you're not coming across as your best right now. I'm just not sure I can continue this conversation with you until your stance clarifies into better action....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 14, 2015, 05:57:20 pm
But that was your entire point...
Quote from: Truean on July 14, 2015, 05:47:31 pm
You know why there's a greater punishment for selling drugs within 1000 ft of a school, and/or to children?

Because people do it and we don't want them to.

t's also illegal here to go over 40 kmph near a school. Many things are illegal near a school and it doesn't tell you whether they're inherently bad or not.

This is pure "think of the children" appeal to emotion. not appeal to logic or reason. Accuse me of trolling when *I* use emotion in response to a logical post of yours.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on July 14, 2015, 06:19:46 pm
Quote from: Reelya on July 14, 2015, 05:57:20 pm
But that was your entire point...
Quote from: Truean on July 14, 2015, 05:47:31 pm

t's also illegal here to go over 40 kmph near a school. Many things are illegal near a school and it doesn't tell you whether they're inherently bad or not.

This is pure "think of the children" appeal to emotion. not appeal to logic or reason. Accuse me of trolling when *I* use emotion in response to a logical post of yours.
Ok first of all, you're really deep into this conversation to be quoting Truean.

Secondly, you clearly don't understand their point.  Its not an appeal to emotion.  The difference between children and adults is that one is more vulnerable to manipulation.  The point is that by targeting children drug dealers are manipulating consumers, which supports the overall point Truean was making.  (at risk of putting words in Truean's mouth)

The 40 KM thing isn't even a valid comparison.  People aren't supposed to drive quickly around schools so they don't *accidentally* run over a child.  People aren't supposed to sell drugs near schools so they don't *intentionally* sell a child drugs.  Two different dynamics.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 14, 2015, 06:38:33 pm
I got called a troll for paraphrasing so quoting what I was referencing was called for.

But that still has issues. Plenty of things are not ok to do with or sell to kids, but seen as a choice for adults. Just because we don't want something to be an option for kids isn't a reason by itself to say it's not a valid option for adults.

Appealing to children's inability to make choice, when we were discussing the validity of choices that adults make is definitely an appeal to emotion. Minors cannot give sexual consent either. We could just apply the same argument and say that all consent between adults is therefore illusionary.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 14, 2015, 07:07:40 pm
Wow.... The rails are way off over there and the train has derailed....

1.) You said,  "I'm not sure about the false advertising for either heroin and cigarettes. You're getting what you pay for and you'd have to be living under a rock not to know that these things are addictive before you try them. It's not like a dealer can make his/her own reality.." (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg6373692#msg6373692)

(Let's just gloss over the heroin comment....)I showed you false advertising, and people being told it wasn't bad for them (doctors endorsing cigarettes) by dealers paying billions to make their own reality.... That is exactly what big tobacco did, and they did it at kids with cartoon mascots, because:

2.)  "Very few people have needles forced into their arms, and they're usually doing it on the say-so of a friend not a dealer. People who become junkies aren't living in a vacuum, they almost certainly already know other junkies and can see the effects." (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg6373692#msg6373692)

There absolutely were/are massive tobacco companies specifically targeting children with cartoons, and I showed that to you. I showed you those same companies misleading adults and obscuring their information/altering their choices. There are dealers pushers who do this more directly at schools, and yes, literally or all but literally force kids to do drugs. They may or may not beat you up, but they will do everything they can to push their "product." This has nothing to do with emotion; I've seen it. It happens, more than you'd think.

3.) The rest of it seems to be trying to make some kind of comparisons to off topic subjects for some reason that escapes me,  "There are e.g. professional people who do this. And when you think about it, that's obvious." (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg6373692#msg6373692)

For every Charlie Sheen or rock star, there are hundreds if not thousands of addicts. Even if you latch onto the idea that "this isn't 100%," old Charlie isn't doing too well, because he got booted right out of his show.  Mr Sheen made $1.25 Million Dollars per episode of "Two and Half Men," which he lost when he got booted off.  (http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors/charlie-sheen-net-worth/)  He did 178 episodes before being shown the door. Mr. Ashton Kutcher replaced him for 84 episodes...  (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369179/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm)

Let's see.... $1.25 Million times 84 episodes.... That's about $105 Million Dollars Charlie Sheen lost to his drug habit and excesses therefrom.

Maybe Mr Sheen doesn't "have to have that money to survive," but I bet you he could find a use for it....
________________________________________________________________

Reelya, I don't know why you're so upset. I don't know why you're comparing me to  "bible-thumping America, (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103213.msg6373736#msg6373736)" when I'm gay and they absolutely hate my guts for it/I have nothing to do with them. I don't know why you seem to be choosing to interpret my words in the worst way possible. There was no "appeal to emotion" or "think of the children" in my statements. Those are all facts and directly addressed your points.

The point I was making is that addiction is deceptive, hence the false advertising, and the "illusion of filling a need, but actually making it much much worse. I have no idea what you're driving at or who you think you're trying to convince of what here, man. I don't know if you seem to be blaming users themselves for their predicament as if there were no outside factors, or what, but it seems that way.

Regardless, yeah, this isn't a fun or acceptable way to have a conversation. There's no "winning," and the idea that there ever could be is just kinda... odd? Again, you seem very upset. I recommend you take a small break, gather yourself and come back then. I hope you feel better soon.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on July 15, 2015, 01:29:56 am
Both of you seem to be getting somewhat aggravated, Truean. Then again, it may just be the more formal tone you're using.

Re: Mice. I understand, it's just the way that you worded it suggested it as a certain fact rather than what is most likely, or seemingly. The distance between absolutes and less-than-absolutes is infinitely large, after all (there's a reason why I argue strongly against the existence of an omni-whatever in the Religion thread.) Still, it's nothing too important to talk about.

Re: Needs. I see. I must have missed that.

Re: Houses. Surely that's only a relatively small subset of the population, though? I guess since I'm not from America I can't quite understand. Houses here in Australia tend to be too expensive to get just for the sake of storing crap.

I can't see how addiction is the antithesis of capitalism. A perversion of the system, possibly, but they aren't really all that closely linked. Am I missing something?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on July 15, 2015, 01:48:25 am
Truean, I got aggravated at the exact point you started with ad hominem rather than addressing the points.

All the advertisements you posted are also many decades old. Maybe those are relevant in a historical sense, but historical references have limitation on applicability. We can post stuff from the 1950's making all sort of points, but we need to link that back to the current moment in a convincing way to make the point that you want. Look at all those old snake oil tonic ads from years ago. Clearly every pharmaceutical preparation is crap, too.

Misleading advertising is all over the place in regular capitalism, so it's not really a thing that can be singled out for any one industry.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on July 15, 2015, 03:28:35 am
Quote from: Truean on July 14, 2015, 05:16:27 pm
I'd say that there are a lot of things that people actually want that also are addictive. That is to say: There are scenarios where it is desirable and even productive to use them, but if you are prone to addiction you are likely to want to use them in cases where they are inappropriate. This is true for most addictive drugs (although I never got what is so interesting about the nicotine rush, which is kind of ironic, given how popular it seems to be).

Quote from: Reelya on July 14, 2015, 05:31:22 pm
There is also the inconvenient fact that one hit of any drug isn't going to turn you into an instant addict.
I heard that actually does happen with heroine.

And, yeah, forcing drugs on people is one way to force them into prostitution. You know, with literally forcing needles into their arm. Although I guess this is not what we are talking about here.

Quote from: Truean on July 14, 2015, 07:07:40 pm
Charlie Sheen getting booted out of the show and then his life going downhill is not because he was using drugs but because people have prejudices against people who use drugs. It's not like he got booted out when he started using drugs, it was when people found out he was doing so. I guess for the longest time he took them people were fine with his performance.
So, the cause of his life going downhill is because of being shunned. As far as I can tell a lot of addicts would be able to live a much better and much more productive life if they weren't rejected by society.

Quote from: Reelya on July 15, 2015, 01:48:25 am
All the advertisements you posted are also many decades old. Maybe those are relevant in a historical sense, but historical references have limitation on applicability. We can post stuff from the 1950's making all sort of points, but we need to link that back to the current moment in a convincing way to make the point that you want. Look at all those old snake oil tonic ads from years ago. Clearly every pharmaceutical preparation is crap, too.

Misleading advertising is all over the place in regular capitalism, so it's not really a thing that can be singled out for any one industry.
I think the point is that our culture already has large parts where the "smoking is cool" narrative is dominant and I don't think we need to talk about how socially accepted alcohol is.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vattic on July 15, 2015, 03:41:11 am
While addiction and physical dependence is clearly no fun I doubt the claim that heroin doesn't make you feel good. I haven't experience with opiates/opioids recreationally and even small amounts on prescription make me throw up, but I know plenty of people who claim to enjoy the side effects of their prescriptions (short lived as the dose doesn't increase to match tolerance like it can for a recreational user).

All this talk of 100% heroin addiction rates got me trying to find out the true figure. According the the UK Department of Health 23.1% of users are addicted to heroin. Higher than most other illegal substances and alcohol, but lower than tobacco at 31.9%. They got their numbers from the American National Comorbidity Survey 1994. I tried to dig out more sources to compare without luck. Heroin statistics are harder to come by than for any other drug I looked for. Perhaps because heroin isn't popular as compared to other drugs.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on July 15, 2015, 03:46:46 am
That certainly is a lot lower than I expected. I guess the incentive to use heroin repeatedly instead of only once is much lower for heroine than for cigarettes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Magistrum on July 15, 2015, 07:45:07 am
Only bumping by to remember that this is the progressive discussion thread, not progressive argument thread.

Truean, your tone can be interpreted as arrogant, try changing you wording or post format.

If anything, I apologize for the unexpected intrusion, stay nice.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 15, 2015, 08:17:54 am
Yeah, I didn't do anything wrong, others here actually might have. I was rather polite, but I'm simply not going to say drugs are ok, because they aren't. This is a video game site and some people here are all but endorsing drugs (including crack and heroin). I'm out, and I simply don't want to be anywhere where that is a thing that is happening.

I've heard too much blaming society from drug addicts. Their families beg for them to be healthy and they shrug it of because they "don't have a problem," and "everyone else does." I've seen people throw away literally everything they own, everything they could own, and do completely stupid crimes to get money for their drugs. Far too many lives have been ruined by this stuff around me for me to ever consider it as legit. Frankly, certain people here are starting to try and justify terrible and addictive substance purchase. No, if that's the direction we're headed in, I refuse to even pretend to respect that or participate in it.

If you have a problem with that stance, then I have no desire to talk to you. Don't bother responding; I won't read it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 15, 2015, 08:58:08 am
Okay, this has gotten a little too intense. Please try to avoid discussing other posters instead of directly talking about the topic at hand. It makes discussions a lot more personal and negative.

Let's move on to something else.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Tiruin on July 15, 2015, 09:03:02 am
Err, just to post to poke at the terminology being used--there should be specificity if discussion is to stay level; 'drugs' as a general label would not necessarily specify the "ills" which people usually assume given that medical products and other such substances [ie caffeine] also fall under the term. :)

Specificity within perception, how one reads details posted or given, or detailing their own conduct or progress/idea.

...So tripping over words or subtly aggravating emotions are very much less likely to happen [ie assuming threat towards own idea]. 'Specially on the internet (or any mode of communication which may lack tone or added expression), as the reader usually defaults to which tone they're used to hearing or such, that would match the wording given.

...I wonder if grammar was ever discussed here ._.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Magistrum on July 15, 2015, 09:12:26 am
What Tiruin said. :)
Quote from: Truean on July 15, 2015, 08:17:54 am
Redacted.
That's about right, and I share that stance, I disdain all kind of narcotics, including nicotine. That was not my point.
The point is that you made your point with a rather... offensive(?) wording, people probably thought you tried to impose your view on them or something the like... Well, sorry if I ended up doing the same to you.
EDIT:I forgot to not quote Truean.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on July 15, 2015, 10:24:56 am
My experience has shown, that the social surroundings in which drug use happens have a large influence on how dangerous and damaging those drugs are. People who know the dangers of what they use and watch out for each other will have a much more positive experience than the ones who don't care what they are doing to themselves or the ones who are just generally assholes.

Unfortunately many drug users have grown up with a false dilemma of choosing between fun and health, consequently not caring about their health at all. Also they often don't know about how drugs interact or even that drugs interact at all. Many also come out of a culture where sleeping on a party means that you wake up with dicks and swastikas drawn on your face and where drinking water instead of alcohol is seen as a sign of weakness.
Consequently they ignore all warnings about drinking enough water and eating enough. In the same vein they take more drugs when they feel sleepy instead of going to bed or, well, they take more drugs when they think a party is boring.
It is important for any drug user, not only people taking LSD, to be in a social setting where they feel they can trust people, and unfortunately most social circles where drug use is accepted aren't really where you can find trustworthy people. Consequently drug users don't talk to each other when they feel insecure, ignored or just generally bad, instead opting to push their problems down due to drug use, until they push themselves too far.

Drugs make people vulnerable and they are easily misused, that much is true. They are not always bad.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 15, 2015, 01:27:19 pm
Quote from: Antsan on July 15, 2015, 10:24:56 am
My experience has shown, that the social surroundings in which drug use happens have a large influence on how dangerous and damaging those drugs are. People who know the dangers of what they use and watch out for each other will have a much more positive experience than the ones who don't care what they are doing to themselves or the ones who are just generally assholes.
A thousand times this. Demonizing drugs - heroin in particular - has the weird side effect of making people fairly careless when they find out that info was exaggerated/not info at all. Erowid is a much better source for drug education than DARE, even if you're trying to keep the person in question away from drugs.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Toady One on July 15, 2015, 02:23:14 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on July 15, 2015, 08:58:08 am
Okay, this has gotten a little too intense. Please try to avoid discussing other posters instead of directly talking about the topic at hand. It makes discussions a lot more personal and negative.

Let's move on to something else.

It is so ordered.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ggamer on July 15, 2015, 04:49:46 pm
My mom posted this (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122295/these-scholars-have-been-pointing-out-atticus-finchs-racism-years) article, in which literary critics and the like try to explain how Atticus Finch (of To Kill a Mockingbird) was racist the whole time by using more labels than a frick fracking wendy's kitchen.

Can someone explain to me, without resorting to using multiple labels in one sentence, why some people see Atticus Finch as racist in TKM itself? No matter how I look at this, I just can't see him as anything but a good man trying to do right by his client.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on July 15, 2015, 05:03:51 pm
That's... interesting.  The case made by the article is awful, but the unpublished sequel (written before TKaM and probably noncanon) makes me wonder.  Maybe someone who read TKaM more recently has some insight, it's been about a decade for me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on July 15, 2015, 05:18:09 pm
Ah, found one in the comments:
http://risforrace.blogspot.com/2015/07/say-it-aint-so-atticus-go-set-watchman.html

In short, and using quotation marks for concepts not literal quotes...  It's a sin to kill a mockingbird, because they don't do anything bad by us.  They only sing.  This is metaphorically talking about "good blacks" (and good mentally handicapped) who "know their place".
The defendant in the trial is a mockingbird.  He's meek, doesn't dare to defend himself and didn't actually do anything against the whites.  So Atticus defended him.  Boo Radley is similarly harmless and doesn't inconvenience anybody by daring to appear in public, so he's "one of the good ones".
Meanwhile there's a scene where Scout goes to the black church.  One of the congregation doesn't want her there, and is portrayed as a villain.  She gets belittled by the rest of the congregation, who proceed to sing for Scout (and her friend?).  It's explained that they mostly can't read or write, but they *can* sing - in this case for the white children.  Good mockingbirds.

This article is pretty disturbing, because I think it has a point about the book!  Then again, the unpublished sequel paints Scout's Father's racism in a very negative light, so I don't think Lee was promoting conditional racism - just portraying it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on July 16, 2015, 01:22:25 am
Just to be clear about this, that book was written BEFORE TKaM and the author had no intention of ever releasing it.  The Onion explains (http://www.theonion.com/article/harper-lee-announces-third-novel-my-excellent-care-50840) why it was finally published.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on July 16, 2015, 10:24:25 am
Quote from: ggamer on July 15, 2015, 04:49:46 pm
My mom posted this (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122295/these-scholars-have-been-pointing-out-atticus-finchs-racism-years) article, in which literary critics and the like try to explain how Atticus Finch (of To Kill a Mockingbird) was racist the whole time by using more labels than a frick fracking wendy's kitchen.

Can someone explain to me, without resorting to using multiple labels in one sentence, why some people see Atticus Finch as racist in TKM itself? No matter how I look at this, I just can't see him as anything but a good man trying to do right by his client.

Because iconoclastic articles generate attention.


You want your cracked article to get noticed or your literary criticism talked about? Pick a childhood hero noted for goodness and figure out that they were actually racist, capitalist, fascist, or all three.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 16, 2015, 10:48:56 am
They'd never do that! (http://www.cracked.com/video_19218_12-horrible-messages-hidden-in-forrest-gump.html)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on July 16, 2015, 11:33:15 am
Also, note that the implication that Cracked is essentially similar to legitimate academia is probably pretty true.



Shit, I could write five reasons why Cracked is legitimate academia if I had more
 time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 18, 2015, 11:17:56 am
Spoiler: posted from convo starting in election megathread (click to show/hide)
At least the Chinese academia are still based, for as long as they're not situated in China. I have been triggered too much, so now I must crawl up in a ball and bawl lest I ball into a pile of bowls. Or more accurately, I have no idea how this post got so fuckhueg and must meditate on the state of my existence. Apologies for the length, to any who couldn't be bothered:

tl;dr
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on July 18, 2015, 12:48:35 pm
So... to summarize, there is no difference between the way people react to Muslim shooters versus white shooters, and then a whole wall of text... thing.  I'll respond to the separately.

If you're going to use the guy who shot up the black church as an example you have to acknowledge the whole thing where the police went and bought him a burger right after arresting him.  He's also a poor example because he went to extremes to make himself look like a terrorist.  He posted a manifesto.  He took creepy pictures of himself.  He made some comment about how sad it was that the KKK wasn't active where he lived.  And a lot of people, journalists most notably, still aren't calling him a terrorist, they were calling him a "shooter" or some such.

I mean, if you're seriously arguing that there isn't a significant bias against Muslims in the US at least, that's going to be an uphill battle.  Like... you seriously think there's some kind of blanket silence on criticizing Islam?  Do you live in America?  Are you young enough that you somehow don't remember 9/11?  Do you not know many conservatives in person?

An adult non-Islamic white man can shoot up a mall, or a school, or the police, and they aren't a terrorist.  They're just a "shooter", or a "gunman".  And if they're young people will come out of the woodwork saying how nice they were and how much of a surprise it is that they did that.  This is why nenjin made that commit and everyone came out to defend him.  We're all tired of this bullshit.  No one's defending Islamic terrorists, they're pointing out that if you want to call them terrorists (which you can and should) there's a whole other group of people that you ALSO have to refer to as terrorists if you don't want to be a hypocrit.

Your whole wall of text is both wrong and prejudiced, to be blunt.  Yes, Christian Creationists are annoying, no that does not mean we should try to eradicate organized religion.  The vast majority of western Islamic immigrants are not terrorists; we are not in danger by tolerating them.  People criticizing prejudice is not "censorship", its exercising free speech.  To paraphrase Ray Bradbury, you're free to say what you want, I'm free to criticize what you say.  That includes telling people to shut up, believe it or not that IS covered under free speech.  And as for the rest, there's so much but all basically boils down to taking a diverse array of extremely complicated issues with extremely complicated history, and suggesting that they have a core cause.  No, they don't, and they don't have a core solution.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: nenjin on July 18, 2015, 01:31:59 pm
Quote
I'm just too tired of dealing with people who let scum off at best and at worse defend them just because they're diverse.

Where did I say he should get "Let off"? My concern isn't for him, he's dead anyways. My concern is for the non-violent Muslims who still have to live in this country, who again have to defend their religion not only against their own who twist it, but against Americans who will just add this incident up as another chalk mark on the "Why Islam is bad" board. We're so used to gun violence in this country, a white guy snapping and killing people at random carries less political/social implications than someone with a religious motivation doing the killing. Note what I didn't say too. "I kinda wish the killer had been white christian fundamentalist screaming about the "war on their religion."" That would have been equally bad for the same reasons: it's more gas on the fire. Had it just been an American white male snapping and going on a shooting spree, we'd be talking about gun violence in America, a cause a lot more people can find a solution to than the fact some members of a religious group self-radicalize and start killing people.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 18, 2015, 07:26:55 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I am unapologetic for walls of text. Within this spoiler is a wall. Prepare your siege engines.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Tiruin on July 18, 2015, 09:37:16 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on July 18, 2015, 07:26:55 pm
[...]Hahaha, do I give a shit about America? Your nation can kill itself all it wants as long as it doesn't take mine down with it, which it will. [...]
{Post snipped to show the error within attitude in approaching all this}
Quote from: penguinofhonor on March 01, 2012, 01:33:37 am
Rules:
  • No trolling or bigotry. Don't be dismissive or disrespectful of people's identities in this thread. This should not be a place where people feel the need to defend the legitimacy of their sexuality or gender.
  • Do not gang up on people or shut them out of the discussion for having a conservative viewpoint or expressing one in the past.
  • No semantics arguments. You can disagree with someone's definition, but drop it if it doesn't get resolved in a post or two.
Dude, prejudice. Watch your words. Be more specific. Drop the aggressive and overt tone, because it doesn't belong in this thread or in any discussion--its just emotionally charged spikes conferring towards personal belief and viewpoint.
Being personally aware of your own beliefs and then seeing how they warp your perception is a good virtue to inculcate.
It's not helping your credibility, or the holistic character of the viewpoint you're explaining the reasoning of.

I'd request you to check that up first before continuing, please. :-\
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Redzephyr01 on July 18, 2015, 09:52:34 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on July 18, 2015, 07:26:55 pm
Hahaha, do I give a shit about America? Your nation can kill itself all it wants as long as it doesn't take mine down with it, which it will.
Well fuck you too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Calidovi on July 18, 2015, 09:54:19 pm
My, what an inflamed thread. Many beads of sweat and drops of Mt. Dew have come to form this, I'd think.

PTW, I'll probably have a PC but highly idiotic response to something someone will say.

Quote from: Redzephyr01 on July 18, 2015, 09:52:34 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on July 18, 2015, 07:26:55 pm
Hahaha, do I give a shit about America? Your nation can kill itself all it wants as long as it doesn't take mine down with it, which it will.
Well fuck you too.

EDIT: SALT SALT LOUD WHISPERS INSULTED MY COUNTRY

Him making irrational attacks does not mean you should, too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on July 18, 2015, 09:59:01 pm
Meanwhile in SC: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kkk-protests-after-swift-reckoning-for-confederate-flag-in-the-south/2015/07/18/a2407fae-2d85-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Calidovi on July 18, 2015, 10:01:42 pm
Quote from: alway on July 18, 2015, 09:59:01 pm
Meanwhile in SC: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kkk-protests-after-swift-reckoning-for-confederate-flag-in-the-south/2015/07/18/a2407fae-2d85-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html

KKK is doing a good job of getting blacks and latinos to join. I mean, you look underneath the hoods and they're not even different colors anymore! They all end up white!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 18, 2015, 10:58:50 pm
Okay, Toady was just here. Let's stop the Islam discussion for now and try to be a bit more careful if it gets brought up in the future.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 19, 2015, 12:24:22 am
Quote from: Laptisen on July 18, 2015, 10:01:42 pm
Quote from: alway on July 18, 2015, 09:59:01 pm
Meanwhile in SC: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kkk-protests-after-swift-reckoning-for-confederate-flag-in-the-south/2015/07/18/a2407fae-2d85-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html

KKK is doing a good job of getting blacks and latinos to join. I mean, you look underneath the hoods and they're not even different colors anymore! They all end up white!
Hey.

I like your sheepy-sheeps. Ish cutie sheeps.

:D
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on July 19, 2015, 05:03:27 am
that's a good post lw, make more of these

Quote from: alway on July 18, 2015, 09:59:01 pm
Meanwhile in SC: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kkk-protests-after-swift-reckoning-for-confederate-flag-in-the-south/2015/07/18/a2407fae-2d85-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html

the article states nobody cares about the kkk anymore, not even other supremacists

why should we
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 19, 2015, 05:26:41 am
Of all the things I'd thought offend that is the one I'd least expect. Special relationship in living memory, but sorry Murrica it hasn't lived up and I'm not invested in your country

Quote from: LordSlowpoke on July 19, 2015, 05:03:27 am
that's a good post lw, make more of these

Quote from: alway on July 18, 2015, 09:59:01 pm
Meanwhile in SC: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kkk-protests-after-swift-reckoning-for-confederate-flag-in-the-south/2015/07/18/a2407fae-2d85-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html

the article states nobody cares about the kkk anymore, not even other supremacists

why should we
It's easy; also they are insignificant now but given recent stuff this might a time for them to recruit people under the banner that "we are being attacked" because of gay marriage and all these people attacking the confed flag
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Calidovi on July 19, 2015, 08:41:40 am
I guess the KKK is being attacked, but it doesn't matter because their moral compass has been off since day 1. It might have been fine then, but times change.


Quote from: Descan on July 19, 2015, 12:24:22 am
Hey.

I like your sheepy-sheeps. Ish cutie sheeps.

:D

Did...

Did Descan just notice me?
HNNNNNNGHHH I'm going to go clean that up.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on July 19, 2015, 09:12:52 am
Quote from: Laptisen on July 19, 2015, 08:41:40 am
I guess the KKK is being attacked, but it doesn't matter because their moral compass has been off since day 1. It might have been fine then, but times change.
But it is one of the best times for them to publicly move so they can capitalize on the ignited anger from the (attempted) bans. It hurts the flag's cause but that is also to the Klan's advantage. It validates more of their message and the group mentality that generally paints the opposition in the worst light (if you want to keep the flag you're a white supremacist) will drive people closer to the Klan.

But this will only work if media capitalizes on this to stir controversy as that is part of what inflames that group mentality. As long as non-hate groups openly support the flag and it is reported on equally the KKK won't be getting a big influx of reluctant recruits/allies.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on July 19, 2015, 09:58:58 am
Quote from: Laptisen on July 19, 2015, 08:41:40 am
Quote from: Descan on July 19, 2015, 12:24:22 am
Hey.

I like your sheepy-sheeps. Ish cutie sheeps.

:D

Did...

Did Descan just notice me?
HNNNNNNGHHH I'm going to go clean that up.
I'm confused now. Am I a senpai now? @_@
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 19, 2015, 11:27:17 am
Quote from: Laptisen on July 19, 2015, 08:41:40 am
I guess the KKK is being attacked, but it doesn't matter because their moral compass has been off since day 1. It might have been fine then, but times change.
Not talking about the KKK, talking about potential recruits from southerners who love their guns, their bibles and their confed flags. KKK can use all three as platforms to launch recruitment drives, going from the above topics of Obama's gun control drives, that recent court ruling on gay marriage going country-wide on the USA and the recent hurricane shitstorm on the confed flag onto "and then John was the jews" to swell their numbers with the people who use the south will rise again bumpers. It's like when the KKK defended the US army funeral from Westboro Baptist Church people; strike common accord, strike commonality - then you can strike. Three strikes you're out and you're into the KKK.
To be honest the KKK are not very smart and are made up of 50% CIA agents, there's nothing to worry about until they once more punch above the local level.
Also on the topic of their recruitment tactics there's nothing new, what's new is that their rhetoric has more oomph given the coinciding of loads of events in America (mainly the three above).
The ADL has this to say (years ago):
Of all the types of right-wing hate groups that exist in the United States, the Klan remains the one with the greatest number of national and local organizations around the country.
More than 40 different Klan groups exist, many having multiple chapters, or “klaverns,” including a few that boast a presence in a large number of states. There are over a hundred different Klan chapters around the country, with a combined strength of members and associates that may total around 5,000.
After a period of relative quiet, Ku Klux Klan activity has spiked noticeably upwards in 2006, as Klan groups have attempted to exploit fears in America over gay marriage, perceived “assaults” on Christianity, crime and especially immigration.
They are also unified in the sense that ISIS is a unified force stretching from Africa to Asia; it's a bunch of separate groups with varying political and religious goals that share the same name as fame = recruitment, and they don't fight amongst themselves because they hate everyone else more. It means that there's no central authorities beyond the klan level, so you can't just decapitate a snake because it's really more like combing through a field of worms. Also of note is that I remember an interview with a KKK man, not high level but one of their grunts going on about how he was disappointed in the organization because all they did was do marches that didn't really recruit anyone. If that is true then any recruitment they get now is far more than they're accustomed to, and as it gets bigger its opportunities to grow gets bigger too. I've also seen news reports where they say are 160 clans and there may be up to 8,000 members, but I'm not sure what has given them such a widely different definition. Either in the two years between the reports there was a fracture/new foundings or they just draw the lines differently. If these 5-8,000 were spread out they'd be no more harmless than your usual thug but I'm going to hazard a guess and say they're concentrated in certain areas, the ADL saying Midwest and South. Good luck there, must be just fun. I wonder how many people it'll take before they consider themselves strong enough to strike or if they'll just keep on trying to grow. I know their heroin running cousins in the Aryan Brotherhood killed some atourneys who were trying to imprison their guys a few years ago, though they're more money first and nazis second (one of the highest defectors is even on quote as calling the AB race traitors for doing nothing but run heroin).
Though on second thought it doesn't really matter much how many thousand more KKK members they recruit when they already have thousands - what matters more are how many sympathizers and supporters they get, the people who won't go so far as to join the KKK but will get all apologetic and give shekels for burning crosses and tablecloths. That'd be a larger pool of people you wouldn't really know are sympathizers, and their number can grow far larger.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Calidovi on July 19, 2015, 03:24:38 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on July 19, 2015, 11:27:17 am
snip

Sure. The organization is present, the hate is present, the initiative is built from lowly scraps but is still present, but the thing is that they won't local support where they need it. If they want to push conservative beliefs, how many people can they indoctrinate in suburban Texas, where everyone already agrees with them up to the point of being a radical? The thing with groups like ISIS is that they attract people of many kinds. People of other nations, people across the world. The KKK doesn't have the means to achieve that, nor the will. Their numbers may grow, but growth will eventually come to an end.

One thing, though, I agree that KKK will get the funding they need from the shadowy type. I completely agree with your last two sentences.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: hops on July 20, 2015, 01:58:09 am
Quote from: Descan on July 19, 2015, 09:58:58 am
Quote from: Laptisen on July 19, 2015, 08:41:40 am
Quote from: Descan on July 19, 2015, 12:24:22 am
Hey.

I like your sheepy-sheeps. Ish cutie sheeps.

:D

Did...

Did Descan just notice me?
HNNNNNNGHHH I'm going to go clean that up.
I'm confused now. Am I a senpai now? @_@
You always *are* the senpai.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on July 20, 2015, 01:19:34 pm
Anthony Hervey, a black Confederate Flag supporter and author of "Why I Wave the Confederate Flag, Written by a Black Man: The End of Niggerism and the Welfare State" died in a car wreck yesterday. A passenger survived and stated that they were chased and run off the road by another vehicle.

http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2015/07/19/man-killed-wreck-piece-oxford-history/30397953/

It's looking a whole lot like politically-motivated murder.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 20, 2015, 04:00:54 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/20/this-153000-rattlesnake-bite-is-everything-wrong-with-american-health-care/

$153K for one bite.... Just wow. Look kids, a whole new reason to be afraid of snakes.... Beyond absurd.

And here's the best part. He has less than 15 days to pay in according to the paper. Bill issued July 13th, 2015, payment due ... July 27, 2015.

14 days .... Nice.... Incorporating health care as for profits.... Brilliant.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on July 20, 2015, 05:53:39 pm
To be fair, his situation was atypical.  Reading the story shows he used 36 vials of antivenim, two hospitals' entire supplies, instead of the typical 4-6.  I don't think they marked up the pharmacy costs much, or at all.  The room charges seem excessive though, particularly if intermediate care means those normal recuperation rooms.

Of course it seems like a "typical" case would still run 20-50 thousand dollars, guesstimating.  Which yeah, is literally ruinous.

Like the article says, it's supposed to be a negotiation with the insurance companies.  I doubt they can legally give discounts to people who don't have insurance.  And I don't know if the government pays them for the patients who go bankrupt.  So financially I don't see any reason to believe that the hospital is overemphasizing profit here.

I don't blame the pharmaceutical company, either, just the economics.  I'm of the unpopular opinion that pharmaceutical companies deserve to make money off their massive research investments.  IP has real value, and research and development depend on market incentives.  This company doesn't have a patent on "antivenin" (this isn't software development, thankfully), just a certain process.  It might be the best process, but there *are* alternatives.  Patents expire after 20 years, and we were certainly curing snakebites in 1995.  If people switched to those alternatives, BTG would lower their prices.  But what hospital would do that?  They don't care, they pass those costs straight to the insurance companies (or the soon-to-be-bankrupted).  Using a cheaper substitute would just ruin their reputation for no benefit.

That's one reason single payer would have solved a lot of this.  The government would force BTG to set a competitive price if it wanted a deal.  Single payer means that everyone's purchasing authority is combined - which is something insurance systems were originally *meant* to do.  They shouldn't be run for profit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 20, 2015, 06:06:22 pm
Atypical situations with antivenom happen a lot. While it does usually work within a predictable range, there are a significant number of cases where it just doesn't "take" (I don't know the biochemistry behind this phenomena) and you have to drown the patient's blood in antivenom to do any good.

But that is a general aside to the obscenity of medical costs and patents.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 20, 2015, 06:33:29 pm
Yeah... I mean, according to the article, the largest single cost was the antivenom at 83k, which... if the rest of the article is correct, probably cost the hospital itself 82,800 (36 vials, ~2.3k per, which... I would probably not say is too terribly out of line? The stuff's not exactly trivial to collect, iirc, and doesn't have the largest demand in the world.), which, uh. Would have been less than a percent of markup on the part of the hospital, for the antivenom costs. Now, how much the anitvenom producers are marking things up is a different question, but that part doesn't really strike me as that out of line on the part of the hospital(s).

The rest of the bill was probably excessive, though. I'm not quite sure how five days in-patient totals up to ~70k. I know it does, pretty regularly, but m'not sure how.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on July 20, 2015, 06:53:27 pm
That's true, I kinda glossed over the room charge and lab costs but they do seem very high.  Even for 5 days with a serious condition.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 20, 2015, 08:18:38 pm
You can pick apart the parts of the bill, but it is still insane. Each portion of it is incredibly expensive. We had anti venom, long before these guys. IP has value? Yes, to them. That company seems to have driven out all the other competitors.

This isn't a new thing and look at the dates in that article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivenom

People got bitten by poisonous snakes long before the year 2000 when this stuff was approved. Not everyone died. We had something else, what happened to it?

This isn't the only type of anti venom that's a problem: "U.S. coral snake antivenom is no longer manufactured, and remaining stocks of in-date antivenom for coral snakebite expired in the Fall of 2009, leaving the U.S. without a coral snake antivenom."

So, we're just out? We've been out for going on how many years? There's something wrong here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on July 20, 2015, 08:35:02 pm
Yep, that's pretty much what I was saying.  "Patents expire after 20 years, and we were certainly curing snakebites in 1995".  The hospital could buy antivenom from another company.  But why?  People expect them to use the best, which is probably this stuff, and they're just passing the huge cost to the insurance company (or in this case, consumer).  Shopping around would mostly much just hurt their reputation.

What I don't get is why the insurance companies don't ask the hospitals to seek alternatives.  I know they often refuse to cover expensive treatments.  I guess this is a case where they'd rather pay more than deal with bad press.  Or maybe they have some sort of deal with BTG.

Single payer wouldn't have that problem.  It would be a buyer's market, with all the purchasing power working to get the citizens a good deal.  Ironically it would *encourage* capitalist competition in the pharmaceutical industry.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on July 20, 2015, 08:46:03 pm
Quote from: Frumple on July 20, 2015, 06:33:29 pm
I'm not quite sure how five days in-patient totals up to ~70k. I know it does, pretty regularly, but m'not sure how.
Oh, pretty easily, especially in what I assume was an ICU. Labor costs are probably going to make a couple thousand of it, for starters; he's going to have somebody attending to him 24 hours a day, more or less. What you have to realize is that between nurses, doctors, technicians, and various support staff (cooks and janitors), somebody in an ICU is functionally consuming the work of maybe a dozen people at any given moment, throughout their entire stay. And many of those people aren't exactly cheap.

Disposable equipment might be significant, depending on whether or not he had to get intubated or something like that that's more intensive than syringes and gloves. Given that the number we've got is the entire pharmacy bill, there's a good chance the hospital took a (small) loss on the antivenom since there's all the other shit you're going to wind up on, to handle pain if nothing else. Transportation's another thing, and don't get me started on the costs of getting labwork done.

But, yeah. Even that's all before the atrocious markup hospitals have to make in order to get anything out of insurance companies and in order to cover the costs patients who couldn't actually pay (because life is full of bitter ironies). Inpatient stays are fucking expensive, and there's no way around that - you've got to fully handle somebody's base cost of living before you even get to medical care and the things they're too incapacitated to do themselves.

Which is, of course, why we need universal healthcare - it shifts the burden of paying for the folks who can't pay (and whom we're paying for one way or the other) off the people who can least afford it, it reduces the number of people who are so badly hurt that they need this kind of care, and it's more cost-effective (http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/11/2081.1.full?sid=2a2590c1-233d-428f-bc9f-2132cc585c9e), to boot! But God forbid we raise taxes in order to benefit the needy, even if it's only because they're a subset of the people helped ("nearly everybody", in this case).

But, yeah. I just want to be clear on this - while there are problems with bills like this, the biggest problem isn't that the cost is too high, it's that we as a society aren't willing to pay it. It's the ol' "We want something for nothing" schtick, where people want a functioning, affordable healthcare system but insist that "somebody else" pay for it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 20, 2015, 09:30:55 pm
Agreed Bauglir.

The problem is there is no fair freaking way to pay for it. I won't get into my personal experiences with that, but yeah. The fact is I don't know.

I don't know what a "fair" price for ... snake anti venom is.
I don't know what a "fair" price for research into snake anti venom is.
I don't know if we need additional research to create a better snake anti venom for a certain type(s) of snake(s).
I don't know how much should be individual payer (per transaction, per "policy premium") or insurance, or society/government.

What I do know is that it feels terribly wrong that one guy just gets screwed here and that medical debt is STILL a major factor in bankruptcy.

Basically it feels like the rug is being pulled out from everything, because nobody and nothing wants to pay for anything. Government, business, individuals, rich, poor, anybody, nobody wants to pay for anything. Somebody freaking has to, because society wasn't built like that and it can't go on like that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arcvasti on July 20, 2015, 11:39:22 pm
Quote from: greatorder on July 20, 2015, 08:44:18 pm

/me bops the greatorder

Could you please remove the Truean quote from your post?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 21, 2015, 12:35:07 am
Quote from: Rolan7 on July 20, 2015, 08:35:02 pm
What I don't get is why the insurance companies don't ask the hospitals to seek alternatives.  I know they often refuse to cover expensive treatments.  I guess this is a case where they'd rather pay more than deal with bad press.
Last I checked it wasn't so much "bad press" as "massive lawsuits" -- from what I can vaguely recall, hospitals et al being sued because they used "usually good enough" instead of "best", even when there's like a 1% effectiveness difference and the former costs a slim fraction of the latter, has resulted in fairly major legal kurfluffles. It's one of the reasons hospitals and whatnot default to the most effective (which generally means most expensive, as well) treatment in the US, even when they very often don't need to. You often have to request generic prescriptions and whatnot, ferex. Basically, the alternatives have some hurdles to be reached, and can be risky for the medical side of it to actually administer. If you have two medical options, one with 99.1% effectiveness with .1% the cost, and the other with 99.2%... and you give the former, and the person dies? Even if they would have died with the latter, shit is about to go down. And to be fair, the difference in lives between those two would be a hundred people per 100,000 population -- for a country the size of the US, as an example, that's... not exactly trivial.

---

... as for the paying stuff, it's just... weird. I meet a lot of people that actually want to pay for whatever, but they have trouble understanding how much stuff costs (I have fairly regular trouble with my grandparents regarding that, actually, because they have the occasional issue recognizing that prices have changed and/or what goes in to what they're asking for -- they want to pay what they think the service or item is worth, but don't quite know what that amount is) or can't really (/don't think they can) afford to pay for X, and so on and so forth. Most folks I meet are pretty down with paying for what things are (what they understand as) worth. The amount of folks I run in to that actually want something for nothing has largely trended towards slim, for me (the closest exception I've noticed would probably be regarding music, and even then people often want to support their favorite bands).

Most of their balking seems to come from either (lack of) capability or wanting to spend their money well* and running into that lack of understanding.

It does seem that that changes when you get to higher order stuff -- corporations, politicians, etc. -- but... honestly, a lot of that seems more like (highly) perverse incentives than anything. The politician can't raise taxes because much of their constituency is already on the edge (do remember that the median wealth/income for a US citizen is not exactly impressive, and there's a pretty significant portion doing substantially worse than that), or would have to make pretty significant non-trivial exchanges to cover for it (at least in the short run, which is often a daunting prospect, even if the 5-10 year outlook would be a net gain). The business runs into problems with increasing expenses because that cuts into investor interest, even if it would otherwise be better for the health of the company, and so on, and so forth. Still... it often looks like there's not really an ideological opposition against consummate payment and whatnot, stuff just... gets in the way. They don't want shit for free, they just have pretty strong incentive to act like they do.

*Or at least things they'd prefer to be spending it on -- see the healthy young adult that doesn't want to spend for healthcare because they haven't been to the doctor in the last half decade and are highly likely to not need to for the next, either, but are having trouble keeping a house and transportation. Yes, there's very good reasons they should be contributing anyway, but it's understandable why they'd be resistant, and it doesn't boil down to wanting something for nothing. It's more not understanding that that's what they're asking for.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 22, 2015, 09:43:12 am
Please no quoting, thank you.

 More anti human being pro business crap. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-22/taxpayers-could-lose-billions-as-u-s-students-escape-loans)

This system wasn't set up with bankrupt non existent colleges in mind. Literally and absolutely worthless degree because the place is completely GONE, means the student got entirely screwed. Same deal happened with Everest....

Taxpayers are going to loose money? Hey, newsflash, so are the students. Follow the money, man, this is really simple stuff. Who has the money and who should deal with their fraudulent actions instead of trying to find any way to cover it up:

The fraudulent bankrupt colleges businesses.

And look at this:  Complete attempt at covering up fraud. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidhalperin/corinthian-to-justice-dep_b_7834542.html)

Wait wait wait, so these people fraudulent companies KNOW they are currently under investigation for fraud, but rather than preserve the documents, they're looking for any way to get rid of the proof of their bad deeds. They know they can't pull an Enron and just shred everything, so now they're going to abandon them (have them thrown out), which is effectively just as good....

Here's a thought, go after the frauds, not those who were defrauded. Yes, taxpayers stand to loose money, but so do students. The companies are the ones who made out like bandits. Go after those bandits and leave the victims alone.

 Heaven forbid you say anything about this, they'll retaliate. Don't ever be a whistleblower kids, even if you prevent your boss from defrauding people out of millions upon millions of dollars, you're just screwed, because even though you didn't do a damn thing wrong and your boss did, they'll get you.  (http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1312-5-terrible-things-i-learned-as-corporate-whistleblower.html)

Please no quoting, thank you.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on July 22, 2015, 10:03:27 am
Without addressing the article's main point...  $100,000 in student loans for an art degree?  Come the hell on.  My four years of engineering at a good university would "only" cost about 60k today, including food and housing.  And as a junior and senior I worked a part time job which countered a lot of that.  Taking student loans is often unavoidable, but jeez.

I don't know anything about fraudulent colleges but that sounds awful.  Fuck those colleges, I do hope the students involved get help from the government.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on July 22, 2015, 03:12:41 pm
Well, if we're going to make student debt survive bankruptcy, some sort of similar responsibility on the part of the school seems in order.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on July 22, 2015, 03:13:26 pm
I don't really get why the fact that the school disappeared suddenly makes your degree worhtless.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on July 22, 2015, 03:50:07 pm
Degrees aren't validated by governmental institutions?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on July 22, 2015, 04:01:10 pm
Yeah that sounds like something a government institution could step in and handle.  Then the students wouldn't need refunds, they'd have usable degrees.  Still may be in debt, but they get what they signed up for (the degree, the debt).

I assumed the issue was students mid-degree.  Transferring credits can be... very lossy.  Probably more so if the previous school went bankrupt and can't verify anything.  Those students are shit out of luck through no fault of their own.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 26, 2015, 03:09:04 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/satanic-temple-holds-public-sculpture-unveiling-detroit-173259288.html

I've been saying it. I've been saying it forever. The satanists are lining up for that "Religious Liberty" stuff. You can't call their religion banned. You just can't, because they're technically a religion....  They believe in a supernatural set of beings with roots in religious texts like the bible (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Satan/) and other old texts like Milton's Paradise Lost. Moreover they have their own holy book, the satanic bible, and others. This is totally what happens. They are not only a religion. They are a religion with origins in the bible. They got 'em. There's no way around it man.

Naturally, the satanic statue is in Detroit. Where else?

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 26, 2015, 03:18:22 pm
... good for them? Last I checked most of the major satanist movements in the US are... well, they're healthier belief systems than a lot of the christian ones. There's worse groups to see making inroads of a sort, really. Could be prosperity gospel :V

They've been trying to get that statue up for a while, though, haven't they? Could have sworn I heard about that, like, years ago.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on July 26, 2015, 03:20:15 pm
I just saw an interview on Fox about this!  I'd ignore the video title as it's a little unfair to the interviewer.  Though not entirely unwarranted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvgeCG2e-6c

This is a great victory though.  Like the Satanist says, neither monument ought to be allowed.  They were only filing to have the same sort of monument as the Christians had...  Pretty much as a demonstration of the state's hypocrisy on the matter.  And it worked!  I don't know what exactly this particular group of Satanists believe (there are very different kinds) but I'm excited that they stood up for religious liberty, and succeeded.

Considering that he's a *Satanist* on Fox, I think the interview went pretty smoothly until the very end.  The second part, where she interviews an ex-senator, was cringeworthy fundie nonsense.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 26, 2015, 03:31:49 pm
The Satanist Temple is more or less a religious-issue blocking group. In addition to using these statues to crash Christian monuments, they also officiated same-sex marriages back when it was illegal and have filed suit against all abortion limitation legislation on the basis that they violate the religious liberty of a Satanist woman to have abortion on demand, as pleases Satan.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on July 26, 2015, 03:38:03 pm
Sounds really good tbh. They're fleshing out just how far and to what religious liberty extends.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on July 26, 2015, 04:17:35 pm
Quote from: Truean on July 26, 2015, 03:09:04 pm
How long has this been going on for? I remember it being brought up maybe a year ago.

Well, it's nice to remind people that their religion isn't the only one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on July 26, 2015, 04:29:42 pm
Quote from: Truean on July 26, 2015, 03:09:04 pm
It's not like these guys are actually worse than fundamentalist Christians. They just believe that God is an evil dictator and Satan the ultimate rebel, if I got that right.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Angle on July 26, 2015, 05:14:45 pm
It varies. Some of them are just Atheists with a hell of a sense of humor.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 26, 2015, 05:29:28 pm
My understanding is the most basic common defining feature among Satanist beliefs is that they're all about self-actualization, critical thinking, and moral relativity, as opposed to the sacrifice,  unquestioning subservience, and rigid absolution that is Christianity... and I'm quite alright with that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on July 26, 2015, 05:36:54 pm
Me too.

I'm more Satanist than Christian, I suppose. I dislike God's neediness and desire for me to stroke his ego, and admire Satan's strength, along with feeling empathy for his punishment.

Edit: Not that I believe either exists, but meh.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on July 26, 2015, 05:41:02 pm
I don't think this counts as Satanism but, I have recently become convinced that Christianity makes much more sense if Satan is the antagonistic, worldly, bloodthirsty "god" of most of the Old Testament.
So I guess it's the opposite of Satanism because I really wouldn't like that guy.

But yeah victory for religious freedom wooo :D
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Tawa on July 26, 2015, 05:52:58 pm
I dunno about Satan, but the Antichrist seems like a real bro. (http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=110297)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 26, 2015, 05:56:04 pm
Quote from: Tawarochir on July 26, 2015, 05:52:58 pm
I dunno about Satan, but the Antichrist seems like a real bro. (http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=110297)

The anti-christ in Good Omens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Omens) sure seemed like one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on July 26, 2015, 05:58:08 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 26, 2015, 05:56:04 pm
Quote from: Tawarochir on July 26, 2015, 05:52:58 pm
I dunno about Satan, but the Antichrist seems like a real bro. (http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=110297)

The anti-christ in Good Omens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Omens) sure seemed like one.
Wasn't he just a kid who wad no idea what was going on until the very end?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 26, 2015, 06:20:13 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on July 26, 2015, 05:58:08 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on July 26, 2015, 05:56:04 pm
Quote from: Tawarochir on July 26, 2015, 05:52:58 pm
I dunno about Satan, but the Antichrist seems like a real bro. (http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=110297)

The anti-christ in Good Omens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Omens) sure seemed like one.
Wasn't he just a kid who wad no idea what was going on until the very end?

Pretty much, but he managed to drop loads of wisdom at the same time.  More than any other character in the book.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on July 26, 2015, 07:19:27 pm
Quote from: Rolan7 on July 26, 2015, 05:41:02 pm
I don't think this counts as Satanism but, I have recently become convinced that Christianity makes much more sense if Satan is the antagonistic, worldly, bloodthirsty "god" of most of the Old Testament.
So I guess it's the opposite of Satanism because I really wouldn't like that guy.

But yeah victory for religious freedom wooo :D

Sounds a bit gnostic, if the demiurge was the devil.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on July 26, 2015, 07:21:40 pm
The best interpretation of OT and NT "God" is that It is in fact the collective human consciousness, as proposed by myself.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on July 26, 2015, 07:54:17 pm
Quote from: scriver on July 26, 2015, 07:19:27 pm
Sounds a bit gnostic, if the demiurge was the devil.
Yeah what got me thinking about this was the Cathars, but the idea was around before them in various gnostic sects.  I mean heresies ::)
The Cathars specifically did believe the demiurge is Satan, and Earth is Hell.  Also that human souls are angels trapped by Satan in meat bodies.  I wouldn't actually agree with a lot of that, but it does seem pretty consistent.
(Also there's a nice religion and spirituality discussion thread, it's very polite)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Calidovi on July 26, 2015, 08:40:58 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on July 26, 2015, 07:21:40 pm
The best interpretation of OT and NT "God" is that It is in fact the collective human consciousness, as proposed by myself.

Do you mean collective unconscious? I think that makes more sense in context.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on July 30, 2015, 10:20:45 am
http://fusion.net/video/173969/why-is-the-army-making-this-man-wear-a-womens-uniform/?utm_campaign=awjr&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

"Transgender Americans are twice as likely to serve in the military than the general population, according to The National Transgender Discrimination Survey published in 2011 by the gay rights organization The National LGBTQ Task Force."

"At least 18 countries allow transgender service members to serve openly, including some of the United States’ closest allies: England, Canada, France, Israel and Australia."

“These people have selflessly signed up to give their lives in defense of others,” said Sgt. Shane Ortega, a helicopter crew chief in the Army’s 25th Infantry Division."

"Sgt. Ortega has served in two combat tours to Iraq and one tour to Afghanistan. He entered the service as woman and today he identifies as a man."

He’s been assigned to desk duty since a medical exam found he had high levels of testosterone. Because of outdated military policies the Army still sees him as a woman and makes him wear a woman’s “dress blues” for official occasions.

He has been barred from flight duties because the Defense Department’s medical standards declare transgender people to have a “psychosexual condition” and boxes them in with voyeurists and exhibitionists."

....

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 30, 2015, 10:22:39 am
Why would an exhibitionist be unfit to pilot a plane?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on July 30, 2015, 10:30:52 am
He might expose himself to the enemy?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on July 30, 2015, 10:33:43 am
Quote from: Antsan on July 30, 2015, 10:30:52 am
He might expose himself to the enemy?
As long as he can pilot at the same time it sounds like an advantage to me.

This is pretty obviously stupid though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on July 30, 2015, 11:03:25 am
Quote from: Helgoland on July 30, 2015, 10:22:39 am
Why would an exhibitionist be unfit to pilot a plane?
My thoughts too. How is a "psychosexual condition" (which I guess means some sort of tendency towards sexual deviancy) going to impact anyone's ability to fly a plane?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on July 30, 2015, 11:35:00 am
Quote from: ArKFallen on July 30, 2015, 10:33:43 am
Quote from: Antsan on July 30, 2015, 10:30:52 am
He might expose himself to the enemy?
As long as he can pilot at the same time it sounds like an advantage to me.

This is pretty obviously stupid though.
I wasn't being serious. This would have probably been a better joke if state secrets or stealth somehow were involved.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 30, 2015, 11:57:27 am
Quote from: Graknorke on July 30, 2015, 11:03:25 am
My thoughts too. How is a "psychosexual condition" (which I guess means some sort of tendency towards sexual deviancy) going to impact anyone's ability to fly a plane?
Conceptually, the problem probably wouldn't be flying the plane, it would be all the other stuff surrounding it. There's a lot of other stuff involved in being a pilot, and even more in being a military pilot. You might have some problems if you've got an exhibitionist flapping around an aircraft carrier, ferex (exposure, if nothing else -- wind shear et al is a sumbitch).

... practically, it's mostly just jackasses being jackasses.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on July 30, 2015, 11:58:47 am
Couldn't you just tell them not to do that? There's plenty of other things people do normally (that aren't even as illegal as exhibitionism) but manage not to do while on military duty.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 30, 2015, 12:01:53 pm
See: Jackasses being jackasses. Some people can't grasp that concept, and would rather be a shit about it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on July 30, 2015, 12:08:55 pm
It seems that they would rather just not deal with what happens when the guy who loves showing his dick to everyone inevitably ignores them when they demand he stop showing his dick to everyone.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 30, 2015, 12:13:39 pm
Well, they could still fire him for that. Having a fetish != being unable to be part of normal society: Self-control is a thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on July 30, 2015, 12:20:34 pm
Psh, Helgo, don't you know that people who have fetishes don't have self control? That's why every last one of those fetishizing bastards is a threat to society!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 30, 2015, 12:28:00 pm
I have no self control. The only thing stopping me from being a menace to society is how boring I am in bed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on July 30, 2015, 12:29:36 pm
I didn't say that they don't have self-control, or that they can't just fire them. I said that they probably don't want to deal with him, and the flood of sexual harassment complaints and bad press that just one incident could very well generate.

Besides, if the military knows that the person is an exhibitionist (or a voyeur) at all, the person has likely already proven their lack of self-control.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on July 30, 2015, 12:30:29 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on July 30, 2015, 12:28:00 pm
The only thing stopping me from being a menace to society is how boring I am in bed.
Clearly this means you must leave the bed and go terrorize the rosebushes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on July 30, 2015, 12:31:27 pm
Quote from: Baffler on July 30, 2015, 12:29:36 pm
I didn't say that they don't have self-control, or that they can't just fire them. I said that they probably don't want to deal with him, and the flood of sexual harassment complaints and bad press that just one incident could very well generate.


Yeah, as if the army gave a fuck about the epidemic of rape and sexual assault of female soldiers thats already happening.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on July 30, 2015, 12:36:02 pm
it didn't give a fuck about the epidemic of rape and sexual assault on female civilians before, i don't know which sick bastard pushed so hard to introduce women into the rapemachine but they need to be smacked
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on July 30, 2015, 12:56:48 pm
Quote from: Frumple on July 30, 2015, 12:30:29 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on July 30, 2015, 12:28:00 pm
The only thing stopping me from being a menace to society is how boring I am in bed.
Clearly this means you must leave the bed and go terrorize the rosebushes.
Ow. Why not fornicate in less thorny flora?
Quote from: Baffler on July 30, 2015, 12:29:36 pm
Besides, if the military knows that the person is an exhibitionist (or a voyeur) at all, the person has likely already proven their lack of self-control.
Eh, I don't see them not taking petty criminals like thieves and the like, so that really can't be the reason.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Calidovi on July 30, 2015, 01:57:33 pm
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on July 30, 2015, 12:36:02 pm
it didn't give a fuck about the epidemic of rape and sexual assault on female civilians before, i don't know which sick bastard pushed so hard to introduce women into the rapemachine but they need to be smacked

It's no lie to say that the military is barely restrained. You can discipline all you want, but things always happen.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on July 30, 2015, 02:32:47 pm
Wow but there's some talking out of the ass going on here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on July 30, 2015, 03:07:38 pm
Quote from: Baffler on July 30, 2015, 12:29:36 pm
Besides, if the military knows that the person is an exhibitionist (or a voyeur) at all, the person has likely already proven their lack of self-control.
Not necessarily, I can't remember exactly who it's for but I know that people wanting to join some parts of the US military have to basically 'fess up to everything they might be embarrassed about being or having done so that they can't be blackmailed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on July 30, 2015, 05:59:05 pm
Quote from: Antsan on July 30, 2015, 11:35:00 am
Quote from: ArKFallen on July 30, 2015, 10:33:43 am
Quote from: Antsan on July 30, 2015, 10:30:52 am
He might expose himself to the enemy?
As long as he can pilot at the same time it sounds like an advantage to me.

This is pretty obviously stupid though.
I wasn't being serious. This would have probably been a better joke if state secrets or stealth somehow were involved.
I know. The second sentence was more of a response to the conversation source.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 30, 2015, 06:08:51 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on July 30, 2015, 03:07:38 pm
Quote from: Baffler on July 30, 2015, 12:29:36 pm
Besides, if the military knows that the person is an exhibitionist (or a voyeur) at all, the person has likely already proven their lack of self-control.
Not necessarily, I can't remember exactly who it's for but I know that people wanting to join some parts of the US military have to basically 'fess up to everything they might be embarrassed about being or having done so that they can't be blackmailed.

A very close relative of mine is a civilian, and even though he is not part of the military, requires access to very sensitive sites which may or may not be to do with nuclear materials as part of his rather cool job. He has to issue a full disclosure as part of an interview with the MoD, who then via phone-call also interviewed close relatives as nominated by him. I was one of these. The interview was... odd, and invasive. Basically asking if I knew of things like his sexual preference, any affairs, drug use, childhood incidents of an unsavoury nature children, illegitimate children... basically any dirt on him that would make him a liability from a security or intelligence point of view. A second very close friend who just so happens to be a very high up and seriously security cleared military researcher/contractor (part private firm, part MoD) is basically forbidden form using social media, as things as innocuous as family photos could provide an "in" to manipulating/blackmailing him. In my experience, these things are taken very seriously, with damn good reason.

I have probably said too much. I am gonna go keep any eye out for the black choppers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 30, 2015, 07:42:20 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on July 30, 2015, 03:07:38 pm
Quote from: Baffler on July 30, 2015, 12:29:36 pm
Besides, if the military knows that the person is an exhibitionist (or a voyeur) at all, the person has likely already proven their lack of self-control.
Not necessarily, I can't remember exactly who it's for but I know that people wanting to join some parts of the US military have to basically 'fess up to everything they might be embarrassed about being or having done so that they can't be blackmailed.
Not just the military. Pretty much any security clearance. Thankfully, I'm not embarassed by a hell of a lot. The poor PSB investigator though...they really shouldn't use retirees to do so many of the background interviews. >_>
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on July 30, 2015, 08:09:15 pm
Quote from: MonkeyHead on July 30, 2015, 06:08:51 pm
I have probably said too much. I am gonna go keep any eye out for the black choppers.
(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/deusex/images/d/d2/Jock_infolink.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140909120959&path-prefix=en)

Quote from: RedKing on July 30, 2015, 07:42:20 pm
Not just the military. Pretty much any security clearance. Thankfully, I'm not embarassed by a hell of a lot. The poor PSB investigator though...they really shouldn't use retirees to do so many of the background interviews. >_>
I only heard of it because of some d/enizen talking about how they had to sit in a formal interview and spend a decent chunk of it talking about all of the weird porn they frequent. Apparently not sexually deviant to be turned down though. And while I obviously don't know what top secret government procedure is, I'm guessing that this stuff has to be followed up on.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on July 30, 2015, 08:12:36 pm
That's actually kinda encouraging.  Maybe they really do just want it to be on record, to avoid blackmail.
Also Jock totally merges with the black helicopter, it's all explained in these documents (http://www.it-he.org/deus.htm)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on July 30, 2015, 08:17:44 pm
Yeah, for the most part, the government doesn't give a fuck what you do as long as it's not illegal. And as long as enough people know about it that it can't be used to blackmail you.

Like my extramarital affair. If that was secret (and/or if I had lied about it and the Feds found out), that would be an immediate disqualifier. Since all my close friends and family (and y'all) know about it, it's deemed a non-issue. Which is probably part of why I'm so open about it. Don't want to give them any rope to hang me with, even if my clearance is currently inactive.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on July 31, 2015, 09:08:17 am
At this point I guess its safer to only give clearance to people that are openly deviant, as theyll be much harder to blackmail even if they actually were hiding something else.

I for one welcome our new exhibitionist zoo-pedo-maso-sado-necrophile overlords.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Calidovi on July 31, 2015, 12:27:45 pm
Quote from: Sheb on July 31, 2015, 09:08:17 am
theyll be much harder to blackmail even if they actually were hiding something else.

People still judge them if they're open about it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on July 31, 2015, 12:34:18 pm
I was talking about the legitimate security concern of not wanting blackmailable people with security clearances. If you're open about it, people can't blackmail it for you. Itf it's well known you're a pervert deviant, people can't blackmail you with anything (that's not illegal at least). Which lead to the hiarious idea of intelligence agencies hiring only well known deviants.


"Look, you look like perfect spy material... But you're scoring too low on the deviance scale. Why don't you hump a dog dressed as a cheerleader and post the photo on FB?"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Calidovi on July 31, 2015, 12:51:12 pm
Quote from: Sheb on July 31, 2015, 12:34:18 pm
I was talking about the legitimate security concern of not wanting blackmailable people with security clearances. If you're open about it, people can't blackmail it for you. Itf it's well known you're a pervert deviant, people can't blackmail you with anything (that's not illegal at least). Which lead to the hiarious idea of intelligence agencies hiring only well known deviants.


"Look, you look like perfect spy material... But you're scoring too low on the deviance scale. Why don't you hump a dog dressed as a cheerleader and post the photo on FB?"

Oh, I see. Personally, it would not be a problem. But when dealing with others it'd probably incur the same "WTF" reaction.

Also, I found my future career.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 13, 2015, 06:34:21 pm
Chelsea Manning facing potential indefinite solitary confinement for a bunch of ridiculous shit. (http://gawker.com/chelsea-manning-faces-indefinite-solitary-confinement-1723778400?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on August 13, 2015, 08:53:23 pm
Cool. Hopefully someone loses the key.



Not like it really matters, the maximum charge for everything related to the UCMJ is extreme. It's not like we're going to put Bergdahl up against a wall and shoot him like we should, despite that being the appropriate penalty in the book for desertion in a time of war.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on August 13, 2015, 09:04:38 pm
"Indefinite" solitary confinement is a ridiculous punishment for those charges.  There's no reason to torture someone like that, even a traitor.  Even if she's being uncooperative.  At least set a time, which she can count out by meals.

Besides, there's no law which calls for torturing traitors.  Because it's pointless and inhuman.  This is more evil than "enhanced interrogation", and that's saying a fucking lot.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on August 13, 2015, 09:10:08 pm
Indefinite isn't being used in the sense of a Count of Monte Cristo-eqsue sentence, it's being used in the sense of general disrespect, disorderly conduct, ect. not having a specified punishment length because they're all open ended offenses.  But nah, Chelsea is a great hero and all that who's being silenced by the man.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on August 13, 2015, 09:23:43 pm
Yeah, it doesn't mean infinite.  I still don't feel comfortable with anybody being subjected to indefinite solitary.  It's cruel and unusual, and pointless.

I mean, you could make the argument that torturing traitors would discourage other traitors.  But then it ought to be public and visceral.  Put her on a podium in Time Square and lash her until she recants.  Make a spectacle of it!  Because if the purpose is to scare people out of "betraying" the country, it needs to be public to work.

Don't just torture her quietly, and pretend it's not torture - that doesn't help at all.  It's just vicious.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on August 13, 2015, 09:32:00 pm
It's not even being used in the context of indefinite "yeah, we'll let you out when we let you out" it's being used in the context of "there isn't a set stint in solitary for this shit. We'll figure it out in whatever the article 15 equivalent is once you're already in Leavenworth"


Personally, I'd be damn happy if I didn't have to read the name Chelsea Manning until her 35 year sentence is up, but that's hardly going to happen. Shit, I suppose the next thing will be a complaint out of Anders Breivik's book about her accommodations not being nice enough, though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on August 13, 2015, 11:21:17 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on August 13, 2015, 09:32:00 pm
It's not even being used in the context of indefinite "yeah, we'll let you out when we let you out" it's being used in the context of "there isn't a set stint in solitary for this shit. We'll figure it out in whatever the article 15 equivalent is once you're already in Leavenworth"
Yeah, when you piss off the government and then get thrown in solitary with no legal limit for keeping toothpaste past its expiration date, there's nothing to be afraid of there :/

I don't think anyone deserves the death penalty, I don't see why anyone deserves straight up torture (which is what any significant stay in solitary is).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Tiruin on August 13, 2015, 11:34:26 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on August 13, 2015, 06:34:21 pm
Chelsea Manning facing potential indefinite solitary confinement for a bunch of ridiculous shit. (http://gawker.com/chelsea-manning-faces-indefinite-solitary-confinement-1723778400?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow)
>_>
This isn't even reasonable...Dear goodness...
Even a psychological evaluation would be better [because all of this isn't even meritous of such punishments] (as in, poking at attitude--as the judgement here is bloody outrageous on her).

...How is all that valid by law there? Or...reasonable by law? Seems like a ton of assumptions being put in between and ending with a period labelled 'judgement'. o_O Solitary confinement doesn't even make sense at all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 13, 2015, 11:36:54 pm
Yer makin' the assumption that the law in the US gives much of a shit about prisoners, tiru. That's an unfortunately poor assumption to make.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 14, 2015, 12:11:34 am
Anyone in any form or stage of penal custody in the U.S. has very, very few rights, and the ones that they do have are very weakly protected.

On top of that, Manning is a political prisoner.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 14, 2015, 12:52:20 am
Well, that's military law, which is harsh.

Now, the thing is, I'm really afraid they are going to stick her in solitary for ages, given the way she was treated pre-trial. Also, given the way they seem to want to stick anything they can on her (expired toothpase? Seriously?). Although that could just be her pissing off a CO.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 14, 2015, 01:20:19 am
I get the need for a semi-independent court system for the military for the sake of dealing with an organization whose environment is so radically different from civilian life and in which there are cultural necessities (such as in discipline) that would be abhorrent to apply to people who didn't volunteer for them. So military law being especially harsh, okay. But it seems to me that if you're dishonorably discharging somebody, the point is that they have so flagrantly violated the standards of the organization that they're being expelled from it. And, to the point here, if they're no longer a part of that organization, there's no longer any reason to subject them to military standards of discipline; they're no longer participating in the culture themselves, trustworthy soldiers will be deterred by the threat of discharge in the first place (so no harsh example needs to be made for them), and untrustworthy ones will not be deterred at all because they largely assume they'll not be caught (so no harsh example will be productive for them).

Obviously, dishonorable discharge as a get-out-of-jail-free card would be dumb, but the sensible thing to do would be to give them a criminal or civil trial for their misdeeds. Maybe it would even be reasonable if they had some additional baggage, for example a significant reduction in what they could have a reasonable expectation of privacy for on account of their chosen profession. And they'd start out with a hefty disadvantage because, presumably, the record of the court martial would be admissible and none too favorable. This just feels vindictive and arbitrary.

Isn't the USA supposed to be one of the Good Guys? Aren't we supposed to make some attempt at treating prisoners honestly and honorably, in spite of the fact that they very well might not deserve it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 14, 2015, 01:35:53 am
Yes to the first, no to the second. Since we're the Good Guys, that means that the Bad Guys deserve no good treatment and whatever we do to them is justified since we're a priori in the right and they're a priori in the wrong due to being Bad. A great swath of our country is pretty okay with prisoners being beaten, raped, and/or tortured, regardless of what they actually did. Usually by other prisoners for at least the middle one, but still. And military malcontents? Ha.

You'll note that the immediate response from one of our military folks was "hopefully someone loses the key", i.e. indefinite, extended, solitary (aka explicit torture) is not just A-Okay, but desirable.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on August 14, 2015, 03:22:06 am
Quote from: SalmonGod on August 14, 2015, 12:11:34 am
On top of that, Manning is a political prisoner.
Highly debatable.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on August 14, 2015, 07:22:35 am
That was admittedly not the best or most accurate turn of phrase that I could have used. Manning was sentenced with 35 years in Leavenworth with a chance of parole after 8; I find that a completely reason punishment for a stupid, easily manipulated, ego-driven kid. Beyond that, I find the idea that completely regular, purely internal prison issues are an important concern for the greater outside world to be more than a little ridiculous.

 On initial paperwork like that, one always always always lists the maximum punishment available. Anything less, and Joe is going to claim that he didn't understand exactly what he was facing. I've personally been threatened, on a piece of paper not very different than that one, with reduction of rank, forfeiture of half my pay for sixth months, and a dishonorable discharge. This was all for similar in scope to expired toothpaste offense of not vacuuming a carpet. Now, if Chelsea is actually getting thrown into solitary for an extended length of time on general offenses, I could see maybe wondering what the hell the staff at Leavenworth is doing. As is? It's just another Manning-started reminder of the gulf between the professional military culture and the general civilian one.



I'd argue that the civilian court system is not remotely suitable for trying the majority of military offenses. It's an entirely different culture, law book, standards, and circumstances. The Uniform Code of Military Justice isn't a bad bit of legal code, and the civilian side still does fun things like occasionally pass down effective death sentences for pot possession.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sebastian2203 on August 14, 2015, 07:51:21 am
I did not find any suitable thread for this,so I post it here.

ToadyOne will soon reach 10 000 posts, yay.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on August 14, 2015, 08:29:01 am
The Happy Thread would be better.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Calidovi on August 15, 2015, 04:30:17 pm
Quote from: Frumple on August 14, 2015, 01:35:53 am
Yes to the first, no to the second. Since we're the Good Guys, that means that the Bad Guys deserve no good treatment and whatever we do to them is justified since we're a priori in the right and they're a priori in the wrong due to being Bad. A great swath of our country is pretty okay with prisoners being beaten, raped, and/or tortured, regardless of what they actually did.

On a slightly connected note, aren't independent drug dealers (not cartel or gang members) having sentences reworked?

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 15, 2015, 05:16:52 pm
How do you fight drug cartels without fighting its demand? It'd be like decriminalizing ivory trade but only going after poachers and runners
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 15, 2015, 05:18:57 pm
You don't. Unless you go out and literally blow them up, I suppose, and we're not quite ready to go and explicitly conquer south/central america, yet.

... if it's not obvious by now that the US treatment of the drug situation in this country is completely bughumpingly incompetent, you haven't been paying much attention.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 15, 2015, 05:20:08 pm
You don't fight cartels? But then that spreads funding to criminal and terrorist organizations from Colombia to Afghanistan
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 15, 2015, 05:22:40 pm
It does! You've identified an aspect of the state of current US efforts against the drug trade. Congrats, I guess.

Being equitable, most of the other major countries in the world more or less have their thumbs firmly jammed up their arse on the subject, too *shrugs*

E: There are some more direct efforts, for what it's worth, from what I understand. Cooperation between US organizations and the people directly working against cartels down south, stuff like that. It's just relatively little and not even remotely enough to meaningfully impact supply and whatnot. Generally we just kinda' stick our heads in the ground, shit on local folks for relatively minor drug possession and whatnot crimes, and then pat ourselves on the back and call it day, having done little to nothing and probably making the situation worse.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Calidovi on August 15, 2015, 05:23:08 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 15, 2015, 05:20:08 pm
But then that spreads funding to criminal and terrorist organizations from Colombia to Afghanistan

Wait, is ISIS the only organization dependent on oil revenues? I have no idea about foreign affairs, as I am an American.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 15, 2015, 05:28:36 pm
Quote from: Laptisen on August 15, 2015, 05:23:08 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 15, 2015, 05:20:08 pm
But then that spreads funding to criminal and terrorist organizations from Colombia to Afghanistan
Wait, is ISIS the only organization dependent on oil revenues? I have no idea about foreign affairs, as I am an American.
They're also heavy into drug money. Half of all Europe's heroin runs through ISIS controlled Iraq, giving them a lucrative cut in some new silk road made out of drugs. And it's all being grown in Afghanistan to boot.


*EDIT
Make a new thread on the war on drugs? It's a very big topic, and very interesting too
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on August 15, 2015, 05:41:00 pm
Quote from: Frumple on August 15, 2015, 05:22:40 pm
It does! You've identified an aspect of the state of current US efforts against the drug trade. Congrats, I guess.

Being equitable, most of the other major countries in the world more or less have their thumbs firmly jammed up their arse on the subject, too *shrugs*

E: There are some more direct efforts, for what it's worth, from what I understand. Cooperation between US organizations and the people directly working against cartels down south, stuff like that. It's just relatively little and not even remotely enough to meaningfully impact supply and whatnot. Generally we just kinda' stick our heads in the ground, shit on local folks for relatively minor drug possession and whatnot crimes, and then pat ourselves on the back and call it day, having done little to nothing and probably making the situation worse.


You forgot the massive militarization of the police force and continual eroding of rights. The War on Drugs is Bad with a capital B.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on August 15, 2015, 05:43:27 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on August 15, 2015, 05:41:00 pm
Quote from: Frumple on August 15, 2015, 05:22:40 pm
It does! You've identified an aspect of the state of current US efforts against the drug trade. Congrats, I guess.

Being equitable, most of the other major countries in the world more or less have their thumbs firmly jammed up their arse on the subject, too *shrugs*

E: There are some more direct efforts, for what it's worth, from what I understand. Cooperation between US organizations and the people directly working against cartels down south, stuff like that. It's just relatively little and not even remotely enough to meaningfully impact supply and whatnot. Generally we just kinda' stick our heads in the ground, shit on local folks for relatively minor drug possession and whatnot crimes, and then pat ourselves on the back and call it day, having done little to nothing and probably making the situation worse.


You forgot the massive militarization of the police force and continual eroding of rights. The War on Drugs is Bad with a capital B.
you mean bagdhad should be bombed?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 15, 2015, 05:45:30 pm
Ha, trust me, wasn't forgetting that. Just talking primarily about efforts directly pointed at the cartels themselves (i.e. not exactly much).

Though the militarization and the rights erosion's about as much of an artifact of the war on terror as the war on drugs, insert air quotes as necessary. Interesting how pretty much everything we're actually calling a war nowadays seems to be reaming ourselves about as hard as anything else :-\
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 15, 2015, 05:46:27 pm
Quote from: Dutchling on August 15, 2015, 05:43:27 pm
you mean bagdhad should be bombed?
Isn't it already?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Calidovi on August 15, 2015, 06:22:17 pm
Quote from: Frumple on August 15, 2015, 05:45:30 pm
Interesting how pretty much everything we're actually calling a war nowadays seems to be reaming ourselves about as hard as anything else :-\

War gets attention, necessary attention that puts forth the image of a red-blooded American freedom force instead of the broken contraption that is dealing with two of our greatest internal issues.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 16, 2015, 12:26:07 am
So I was wondering, is there some kind of conservative equivalent of the Daily Show? I want to see people making fun of  democrats.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 16, 2015, 12:32:38 am
I mean, if you watch Fox with the right intent it's like that. But a genuine conservative satire show? Not really. It's a one way street, it seems.

Strangely, the closest thing I can recommend is King Of The Hill, since it portrays a fairly conservative lifestyle in a positive light and occasionally uses psycho liberals as plot points.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on August 16, 2015, 12:42:48 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 16, 2015, 12:32:38 am
I mean, if you watch Fox with the right intent it's like that. But a genuine conservative satire show? Not really. It's a one way street, it seems.

Strangely, the closest thing I can recommend is King Of The Hill, since it portrays a fairly conservative lifestyle in a positive light and occasionally uses psycho liberals as plot points.

This is the right answer.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 16, 2015, 12:47:37 am
Problem is the conservative idea of political wit is... Not very witty or entertaining.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 16, 2015, 01:03:09 am
I dunno, I'm sure you could dig up a lot of liberal saying stupid stuff. It's not like the conservatives have a monopoly on stupidity.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 16, 2015, 01:07:47 am
It's kind of the same problem the LCS community had in trying to make a Conservative Crime Squad game. It's not that the reverse isn't possible, it's that the reverse isn't funny.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on August 16, 2015, 01:08:37 am
I dunno, I always though that was in large part because the LCS community is pretty much Elite Liberal.

C++ laws forcing women in slavery don't make that much more sense than L++ laws mandating abortion, but as liberals one is funnier than the other.

It would be interesting to go to www.jebbush.com or something, hand them over the LCS code and see what they do with it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 16, 2015, 01:22:32 am
Quote from: Sheb on August 16, 2015, 12:26:07 am
So I was wondering, is there some kind of conservative equivalent of the Daily Show? I want to see people making fun of  democrats.
'Bout the closest you're going to get is probably talk radio, if I had to guess.* Conservative equivalent to the Daily Show would be something off in Limbaugh's direction. I've heard several of 'em doing the 'make fun of (sometimes imaginary) liberals' thing. Biggest difference/issue is that they tend to either put pretty vile spin on it or segue into the whole metaphorical C++ insanity as a different part of the show. Not really pure satire, just a satire segment, or sprinkled intermittently through the rest of it.

*And, to be clear, it would be guessing. I both don't see any TV outside of in passing, and don't listen to the radio except when other people have it on (and often turn it off before I end up breaking something, because that shit gets infuriating), so my exposure is somewhat low.

E: Though good luck tuning in to any of it over in godless commie land. I guess some of them have simulcast or whatever it is nowadays, so you might be able to find stuff online? Gods be with you if you actually do find it and start trawling through, though. That shit can get pretty nasty. Enough bell whistles you could melt them down and equip every bell tower in the old world with new bronze. Or whatever the zog they make those bells out of. And that's assuming they're not just saying to hell with whistling.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 16, 2015, 01:37:02 am
Seriously... if you haven't had much exposure to what reactionary conservatives say/react to as if it's political satire (in the U.S. at least)... it's basically making statements that are completely divorced from reality or non-sequitur logic and laughing smugly as if it's witty purely on the basis that they're clever for being among the oppressed minority that believes it.

I know it's easy to call that out as just a matter of perspective, but liberal satire at least makes actual jokes.  As in stuff that you could appreciate as witty content, even if you don't agree with it.  It's not just "This is funny because I'm calling people I disagree with stupid."  I'm sure conservatives could do the same, but something about their culture/mentality just doesn't seem apt to produce it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on August 16, 2015, 02:47:26 am
Considering Bay12 might as well have L+ engraved over the doorway, I'd say that it does come at least partway down to perspective. You don't find it funny because you disagree with it, and it makes you uncomfortable. Conservatives tend to dislike The Daily Show for that reason. After all, to the people he tends to target (except Bill O'Reilly, I'm not sure what's going on there) John Stewart is just being a dick. Really though the quality doesn't seem to be up to par. Maybe it's because the networks with conservative political leaning don't generally do entertainment (CBS, CNN) or keep the two separate (FOX.) It's just down to AM radio kooks that basically nobody would be listening to anyway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 16, 2015, 05:43:05 am
Comedy in the UK is almost exclusively left wing and liberal, and has been since the late 1980's. The only "right wing" example I can think of would be Al Murray the Pub Landlord, who plays a right wing character for ironic laughs. I strongly suspect that this is down to how our comedy, which is stand up driven,  is very "everyman" style, and has its roots in the poorer parts of society. I wonder if a nations humour relates to its political mindset. I mean, look at Germany - serious politics, no real humour.. ;)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on August 16, 2015, 05:55:39 am
Well, we have "comedy" - it's either apolitical, as-good-as-apolitical, or people being "leftist" and anti-mainstream for the sole purpose of being anti-mainstream. The latter usually have a wankfest about how they're doing investigative journalism when in reality it's mostly putting a hateful spin of Fox-like proportions on public (if slightly unsavoury) information.

Before you complain, Ant, I believe I've already ranted extensively about Die Anstalt a couple months ago, so let's not repeat that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 16, 2015, 07:01:15 am
Frankie Boyle also has edgetastic comedy in the UK but he's also left wing
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on August 16, 2015, 09:46:20 am
This here is some premium-quality right-wing political parody. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56AJqb3BgLI) That's what it says right there in the title: P-A-R-O-D-Y. Why aren't you laughing, Sheb?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 16, 2015, 10:06:59 am
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Calidovi on August 16, 2015, 03:39:38 pm
we postin edgy jokes about foreign nations now
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 17, 2015, 04:30:47 am
what joke can you make at expense of something that was always a joke
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on August 17, 2015, 04:55:57 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 17, 2015, 04:30:47 am
what joke can you make at expense of something that was always a joke
Anything of its history as it is already considered foolish as it was "always" considered a joke.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 27, 2015, 09:37:20 pm
Shaun King confirmed Caucasian (http://www.re-newsit.com/2015/06/is-shaun-king-next-rachel-dolezal.html)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Not even close m8! I will make some toast for what shall follow. Took Oprah money too. (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/19/did-black-lives-matter-organiser-shaun-king-mislead-oprah-winfrey-by-pretending-to-be-biracial/) This future is pure entertainment (https://www.rt.com/usa/312879-shaun-king-actually-white/). He's been in the news for a while but it's taken 8 days to get confirmation, after which I wonder if there's any more steam in twitter left to go.
I'll let you guys make judgements on why there's Caucasians paying an homage to "white chicks" in Murrica. I've got nothing to say, and toasts to eat.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Oh twits u avin the ez laffs
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Now we're gettin cheeki breeki
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 27, 2015, 09:58:53 pm
Someone just pointed out all of his photos have filters on them to darken his skin otherwise it becomes too obvious he's whiter than most Caucasoids:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
And he slagged off his Mum saying she had an affair so he didn't know who his father was. This is a comparison of the father on his birth certificate with him:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Understandably social media is turning up the grill to 11
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Mfw they take no survivors and don't punch soft
Seems there's 4 main camps of people in regards to this;


*EDIT
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Sides: Orbital
Also just so no one gets confused that's not the bloke that's Ali G
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 27, 2015, 10:09:51 pm
Oh dang, slightly more serious news that Virginia shooter was living in a loony bin (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11827256/Vester-Lee-Flanagan-Inside-the-home-of-gunman-Bryce-Williams-where-he-prepared-for-murder.html).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 27, 2015, 11:31:22 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 27, 2015, 10:09:51 pm
Oh dang, slightly more serious news that Virginia shooter was living in a loony bin (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11827256/Vester-Lee-Flanagan-Inside-the-home-of-gunman-Bryce-Williams-where-he-prepared-for-murder.html).
Seems pretty ordinary to me? Aside from the cat urine, which, hey, he might have made a token effort to clean up before remembering "Oh, right, I'm probably going to die today, fuck it". Doesn't make clear whether he, or the police, put the towel down. Maybe Bauglir is a crazy person.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 28, 2015, 06:13:01 am
Quote
Cat faeces were also found smeared on the balcony.

Stuff like that can't be normal in Murrica?

Quote
"He would literally just throw cat shit into their balconies," the source said.

TV is boring, Murrica is real
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 28, 2015, 06:41:22 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 28, 2015, 06:13:01 am
Quote
Cat faeces were also found smeared on the balcony.

Stuff like that can't be normal in Murrica?
... when you have cats, there's a good chance that does occasionally happen. When you're actively suicidal and about to go kill other people and then yourself, that's likely an issue that's not going to be dealt with. That's pretty much the only odd thing about what's described regarding the state of the house, and while it is potentially indicative of insanity (and could be indicative of just being busy and not having gotten around to cleaning up a mess), it's not something that gives you room to call the place a loony bin. It (and maybe the sex toys, but honestly that's not exactly major for a bachelor) is pretty much the only substantially odd note about what's described in the article, at least regarding the place of residence.

Dude's actions were in line with a bit of the loco (understandable considering he was goddamn insane), but the joint he was living in was pretty normal going by what was described.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 28, 2015, 06:46:21 am
Holy shit dude was a manic gay african american nazi, what a mental mess. I swear it worries me the regularity in which America turns parodies into reality.
Don't know what if you're looking at the same stuff I did, but I'd back away slowly if my nose turned up there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 28, 2015, 06:50:04 am
... if it makes it any more clear, yes, the guy was fucked up. His house wasn't to any particularly notable degree. Which is what baug was saying, and is absolutely accurate.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 28, 2015, 06:54:07 am
You've just done a 'other than the things that were fucked up his house isn't fucked up' m8, I'm not sold
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 06:59:57 am
brb putting rubber dicks under lw's bed and having him thrown into an asylum
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 28, 2015, 07:01:25 am
... if you're that incapable of grasping that the only thing fucked up in his house was him, LW, I guess that's all there is to say on the subject. Continue having fun being deluded o7
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 28, 2015, 07:05:06 am
If you can't see a fucked up house for a fucked up house I declare that forsooth, you are the deluded one, and I implore you not to try decorating your house with coprophilic paraphernalia

Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 06:59:57 am
brb putting rubber dicks under lw's bed and having him thrown into an asylum
Read the dick resistance guide, it's basically that - copious amounts of dildos and lube
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on August 28, 2015, 07:15:04 am
I don't see how his flat was "fucked up" either. The minimalistic interior is something I could expect from student digs and the cat droppings… well, Frumple already commented on that.
Him throwing cat poop at neighbor's balconies is hardly a property of his home.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on August 28, 2015, 07:19:04 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 27, 2015, 10:09:51 pm
Oh dang, slightly more serious news that Virginia shooter was living in a loony bin (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11827256/Vester-Lee-Flanagan-Inside-the-home-of-gunman-Bryce-Williams-where-he-prepared-for-murder.html).

What's so damn shocking about that? His apartment seems at least hundred times tidier than mine.

EDIT: Next up on Torygraph: Vester Lee Flanagan confirmed blackface Caucasian. His appropriated black, gay, and nutcase privileges gave him too-stronk intersectional SJW superpowers that drove him over the edge.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 09:21:50 am
are you serious about this or are you going on like the same people who go boohoo time to move to canada because a bad guy got elected

because if you are serious about this, and can arrange for people to actually move to mauritius, i imagine a lot of people would be onboard
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 28, 2015, 09:26:38 am
We'll start an army without boarders, where soldiers fight not for nations or ideology, but only for themselves. A perpetual war outside the confines of "civilized" society, an Outer Heaven.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on August 28, 2015, 09:27:13 am
Wait till they set up a bureaucracy to determine whether you're actually a refugee or just a parasite, seeking to leech off their great culture. ::)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 09:30:59 am
said by the guy in whose country and continent in general such a thing would be greatly desirable, huh
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on August 28, 2015, 09:39:36 am
Don't we have that already?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on August 28, 2015, 09:51:32 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 09:30:59 am
said by the guy in whose country and continent in general such a thing would be greatly desirable, huh
We already have that (and we've got Frontex, which is more). I don't see it as desirable but stupid. It won't help with what they want to achieve (keeping fugitives out) and I don't think what it is meant to achieve (keeping fugitives out) is desirable.
I also don't think it's desirable to keep people out who aren't actually fugitives. We're rich. I'm poor by German standards and still rich by theirs (as evidenced by the fact that I can have a habit of reading this thread daily). We can take them. Most of them actually do want to work and if there's no work for them I don't really get why that would be a problem in the first place.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 10:41:36 am
Quote from: Antsan on August 28, 2015, 09:51:32 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 09:30:59 am
said by the guy in whose country and continent in general such a thing would be greatly desirable, huh
We already have that (and we've got Frontex, which is more). I don't see it as desirable but stupid. It won't help with what they want to achieve (keeping fugitives out) and I don't think what it is meant to achieve (keeping fugitives out) is desirable.
I also don't think it's desirable to keep people out who aren't actually fugitives. We're rich. I'm poor by German standards and still rich by theirs (as evidenced by the fact that I can have a habit of reading this thread daily). We can take them. Most of them actually do want to work and if there's no work for them I don't really get why that would be a problem in the first place.

gee golly wilkers, have you not noted we're still running on this admittedly dumbfuck concept of needing a job to live? do i need to point you to the fact that our own unemployment, and i mean eu-wide, is over 10%?

i'm not even talking about fucking over our own to take in some randoms from around the globe, because for all if i know there is more virtue in them than in some random from our own member countries, and of course the youth will hopefully have some sort of family to support them; but telling people to go right ahead and jump into a job market that really, really does not need more people in it and hope for the best is naive at best and malicious at worst, as they will need to source their sustinence from someplace or just die - latter of which they could do perfectly fine at home

or are you saying that people who spent enough to start a small business in their country of origin smuggling themselves over have enough funds left to create jobs whereever it is they end up landing? because sure, that'd be great, but i don't exactly see it being reality

giving everyone a basic income would be great too, but that too i don't see being reality anytime soon
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arx on August 28, 2015, 10:57:51 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 10:41:36 am
do i need to point you to the fact that our own unemployment, and i mean eu-wide, is over 10%?

I have to ask: do you think this is unusually bad?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on August 28, 2015, 11:09:12 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 10:41:36 am
Quote from: Antsan on August 28, 2015, 09:51:32 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 09:30:59 am
said by the guy in whose country and continent in general such a thing would be greatly desirable, huh
We already have that (and we've got Frontex, which is more). I don't see it as desirable but stupid. It won't help with what they want to achieve (keeping fugitives out) and I don't think what it is meant to achieve (keeping fugitives out) is desirable.
I also don't think it's desirable to keep people out who aren't actually fugitives. We're rich. I'm poor by German standards and still rich by theirs (as evidenced by the fact that I can have a habit of reading this thread daily). We can take them. Most of them actually do want to work and if there's no work for them I don't really get why that would be a problem in the first place.

gee golly wilkers, have you not noted we're still running on this admittedly dumbfuck concept of needing a job to live? do i need to point you to the fact that our own unemployment, and i mean eu-wide, is over 10%?

i'm not even talking about fucking over our own to take in some randoms from around the globe, because for all if i know there is more virtue in them than in some random from our own member countries, and of course the youth will hopefully have some sort of family to support them; but telling people to go right ahead and jump into a job market that really, really does not need more people in it and hope for the best is naive at best and malicious at worst, as they will need to source their sustinence from someplace or just die - latter of which they could do perfectly fine at home

or are you saying that people who spent enough to start a small business in their country of origin smuggling themselves over have enough funds left to create jobs whereever it is they end up landing? because sure, that'd be great, but i don't exactly see it being reality

giving everyone a basic income would be great too, but that too i don't see being reality anytime soon
My whole point is that the fear and hatred that many people without job, power and/or money direct towards immigrants maybe should be directed elsewhere. Stopping the wave of fugitives sounds harder and less desirable than changing how our society works.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on August 28, 2015, 11:45:34 am
Quote from: Antsan on August 28, 2015, 11:09:12 am
My whole point is that the fear and hatred that many people without job, power and/or money direct towards immigrants maybe should be directed elsewhere. Stopping the wave of fugitives sounds harder and less desirable than changing how our society works.
On the one hand you use law enforcement to try to forcibly relocate people if those people fall in a particular category.
On the other hand you use social or law pressures to try to gradually alter people's perceptions of people who fall in a particular category.

Most governments already have methods in place to do one of these effectively.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on August 28, 2015, 11:52:20 am
Said differently: Our society is fuel to problems elsewhere that make people fugitives. As long as we act the way we do, there will be fugitives. And as history has already shown, as long as you're not a hellhole, fugitives will come, no matter what the laws say. And turning Europe into a hellhole hardly seems like a desirable option, right?
Getting the fugitives to stay away is an impossible task.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 01:25:19 pm
Quote from: Antsan on August 28, 2015, 11:52:20 am
Said differently: Our society is fuel to problems elsewhere that make people fugitives. As long as we act the way we do, there will be fugitives.

explain how people should act in order to not create fugitives

in light of this post the previous ones go down to, we made people's lives bad (with what?) and we should make their lives better (by taking them into europe)

Quote from: Arx on August 28, 2015, 10:57:51 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 10:41:36 am
do i need to point you to the fact that our own unemployment, and i mean eu-wide, is over 10%?

I have to ask: do you think this is unusually bad?

mainiac's probably going to bust in and smash shit like kool-aid man, but 10% unemployment is generally undesirable when my own eyes come into it

between 3 to 5% is how a healthy system should be operating
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 28, 2015, 01:27:53 pm
Presumably he is speaking of global capitalism and imperialism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arx on August 28, 2015, 01:29:33 pm
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 01:25:19 pm
Quote from: Arx on August 28, 2015, 10:57:51 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 10:41:36 am
do i need to point you to the fact that our own unemployment, and i mean eu-wide, is over 10%?

I have to ask: do you think this is unusually bad?

mainiac's probably going to bust in and smash shit like kool-aid man, but 10% unemployment is generally undesirable when my own eyes come into it

between 3 to 5% is how a healthy system should be operating

Bad? Sure. Unusually so? Not so much. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on August 28, 2015, 01:31:12 pm
Quote from: Antsan on August 28, 2015, 11:52:20 am
Getting the fugitives to stay away is an impossible task.
Which is why is far easier to build a government supported industry around finding and expelling them if they don't meet some criteria.

Quote from: Antsan on August 28, 2015, 11:52:20 am
Said differently: (a)Our society is fuel to problems elsewhere that make people fugitives. (b)As long as we act the way we do, there will be fugitives.
a&b are true but there are a couple of things that are missing there.
(c)Resources are naturally distributed unequally on this planet and so are the basic resource requirements to live.
(d)Much of modern human society is dependent on resources beyond the local.
(e)It requires resources to move resources.
(f)People innately require resources.
(g)People are required to make a society function and different functions(and efficiency of them) require different resources.
(h)War is often motivated by lack of a resource.
So there will still be fugitives regardless and thus a method of managing that influx will be required.

As far as the fear and hatred of immigrants by those currently screwed by economics, it is ubiquitous. That is not an "our society" thing unless you mean human society at large.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 28, 2015, 02:06:43 pm
... can we at least agree that "Shoot them until they stop coming" is both unworkable and heinous, just to get that out of the way and sideline LSP/LW's apparent preferred end state?

'Bout the only $0.02 I'd have to add is that I rather imagine folks in general would be doing a better job of things if all that money being spent on detainment, deterrent, and abuse, was instead spent on integration, processing, and maybe not being complete fuckwits abroad. Might help out a titch, I'unno. It'd be nice to see someone actually try one of these days, in any case.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on August 28, 2015, 02:27:00 pm
So what's the general opinion regarding processing centers on the southern shore of the Mediterranean? Apart from impracticability due to civil war, political instability etc. It seems like a good way to keep refugees out of harm's way, since they wouldn't have to use these  rickety boats, and it would enable the EU to simply claim that all people on these boats are illegals anyway and tow them back to where they came from.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 28, 2015, 02:37:16 pm
As long as I don't forget later to make a more detailed response:
Quote from: Frumple on August 28, 2015, 02:06:43 pm
... can we at least agree that "Shoot them until they stop coming" is both unworkable and heinous, just to get that out of the way and sideline LSP/LW's apparent preferred end state?
My preferred end state is simple checks at the airports and bullets for the smugglers beyond the channel, as once they're in Italy they're either going to Germany or Calais. I see zero impracticality or moral ambiguity in regards to killing human traffickers, who are plain and simple scum. I'm not talking about death penalty as they do in the east, more simple use of lethal force to disrupt trafficking operations in north africa and turkey. Dead smugglers never contributed to their country, their people, my country or my people - they are of value only to themselves, sending people off without their money on a rickety boat they don't care about for futures quite shite providing they don't just die in the med or get electrocuted in Calais. And I really see it completely odd when all of Europe had a working system, has now reached levels of immigration that beat WWII after abandoning such systems, and so many see it more feasible to exacerbate a broken system at worst or just spread the problem around Europe as the Swedes or Germans want. I understand the end goal is to kill the nationstate and replace it with the EU but you can't kill the nationstate and leave a dead Europe hahaa
Oh yeah, almost forgot - laws against human trafficking are nearly nonexistent in Africa and Arabia. Israel, Oman, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates have some, but those are countries where they have to neurotically check their borders for people coming in not out. Used to be that the old dictators would just run around murdering traffickers but now they're all dead, so whatever new government group is composed of people not too fond of eating hearts and swinging machetes will probably have to sit down with some Yuropoors and figure something out. Death penalty or life seems appropriate.

Quote from: Helgoland on August 28, 2015, 02:27:00 pm
So what's the general opinion regarding processing centers on the southern shore of the Mediterranean? Apart from impracticability due to civil war, political instability etc. It seems like a good way to keep refugees out of harm's way, since they wouldn't have to use these  rickety boats, and it would enable the EU to simply claim that all people on these boats are illegals anyway and tow them back to where they came from.
On the practical side western militaries are capable. The EU can already claim all the people on the boats are illegal anyways so that doesn't change. All that changes is that there is an incentive to not buy a boat as from the migrant perspective, you can claim asylum without paying out money to traffickers. From the Italian perspective you'll be able to vet who is a militant, who is fleeing war, who is seeking money or who is facing murder at home. Should finally allow for priority to go to Syrians facing death or worse by ISIS over someone who just wants a better job.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on August 28, 2015, 03:10:03 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 28, 2015, 02:37:16 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on August 28, 2015, 02:27:00 pm
So what's the general opinion regarding processing centers on the southern shore of the Mediterranean? Apart from impracticability due to civil war, political instability etc. It seems like a good way to keep refugees out of harm's way, since they wouldn't have to use these  rickety boats, and it would enable the EU to simply claim that all people on these boats are illegals anyway and tow them back to where they came from.
On the practical side western militaries are capable. The EU can already claim all the people on the boats are illegal anyways so that doesn't change. All that changes is that there is an incentive to not buy a boat as from the migrant perspective, you can claim asylum without paying out money to traffickers. From the Italian perspective you'll be able to vet who is a militant, who is fleeing war, who is seeking money or who is facing murder at home. Should finally allow for priority to go to Syrians facing death or worse by ISIS over someone who just wants a better job.
Right now there's proper refugees on these boats as well - that's the main thing that would change after implementing such a system. You'd have people like me supporting boat towing, not just people like you ;)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 28, 2015, 03:34:01 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 28, 2015, 02:37:16 pm
My preferred end state is simple checks at the airports and bullets for the smugglers beyond the channel, as once they're in Italy they're either going to Germany or Calais. I see zero impracticality or moral ambiguity in regards to killing human traffickers, who are plain and simple scum. I'm not talking about death penalty as they do in the east, more simple use of lethal force to disrupt trafficking operations in north africa and turkey. Dead smugglers never contributed to their country, their people, my country or my people - they are of value only to themselves, sending people off without their money on a rickety boat they don't care about for futures quite shite providing they don't just die in the med or get electrocuted in Calais.
... so drastically increase the chances of the smugglers being even worse sorts of people. Double-down on the likelihood of hostage situations and atrocities beforehand. Give massive incentive to smugglers to start resorting to violence when caught. Make sure that the trip and arranging it is even more dangerous for the refugees and immigrants, while doing jack-all to reduce the pressures causing them to flee their originating point.

I've never quite understood why anti-immigration folks seem so damned and determined to escalate from just bloody killing them to doing their best to make sure the people are tortured and then killed. It's like the identified chain of cause and effect stops one stop out and refuses to go any further, presumably in the name of some twisted (almost entirely unrealistic) conceptualization of deterrent.

"Sure, I surrounded their yard in explosives and incendiaries to try to get them to stop smoking, but they're the ones that caused the fire that set it all off. Clearly it's their fault the neighborhood burned down, not mine."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 03:38:02 pm
you see m8

you know what sparked most of the immigration europe is currently enjoying?

american military adventures(tm)

asking us to pick up your slack is pretty ridiculous, don't you think? but then we don't have the entire atlantic between us and the problem, so we can't act all confused about it as it's right in our faces
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 28, 2015, 03:41:32 pm
And the adventures were primarily caused by good ol' european imperialism. We're all in this together, chum.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 03:42:19 pm
nobody asked you to fund anything from the mujahedin to the syrian rebels

france for instance is keeping the post-colonial mess together, mali being a recent example, you only serve to wreck things further
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lemon10 on August 28, 2015, 03:50:24 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 28, 2015, 02:37:16 pm
I see zero impracticality or moral ambiguity in regards to killing human traffickers, who are plain and simple scum.
It really isn't that simple. You seem to be implying that everyone who smuggles people across borders are human traffickers with the added implication they sell people as slaves, or kill the people that pay to cross instead of taking the risk to actually take them.
And they really aren't. Yes, there is a nontrivial amount of them who are terrible terrible people that do exactly that, but not all of them are, and I suspect that the vast majority of them are not.

Most of them are just people that want to make a lot of money, don't care about the rules of countries that they don't live in, and (possibly) want to help people find a better life away from all the nastiness.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 28, 2015, 03:53:41 pm
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 03:42:19 pm
nobody asked you to fund anything from the mujahedin to the syrian rebels

france for instance is keeping the post-colonial mess together, mali being a recent example, you only serve to wreck things further
We didn't ask anyone to fund anything from the mujahedin to the syrian rebels, either, if it helps you any. There's apparently bugfuck crazy people controlling that sort of stuff, and you don't see many of us liking it. Blame the other major powers (*cougheuropecough*) for not stepping up to the world police position and reducing the reasons the crazies had to act like that :V

Congrats to france, though, I guess, for all it kinda' looks like mali is having and been continuing to have some problems. Still, one out of however many of the EU managed to completely bugger their foreign adventurism is better than none.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on August 28, 2015, 03:54:59 pm
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 03:38:02 pm
you see m8

you know what sparked most of the immigration europe is currently enjoying?

american military adventures(tm)

asking us to pick up your slack is pretty ridiculous, don't you think? but then we don't have the entire atlantic between us and the problem, so we can't act all confused about it as it's right in our faces
Yeah, like the American military adventure that kept the Muslims in the Balkans from being wiped. Turns out they realized the Balkans is a poor shithole and decided to leave for greener pastures, AKA you whiners.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 03:58:45 pm
Quote from: misko27 on August 28, 2015, 03:54:59 pm
Yeah, like the American military adventure that kept the Muslims in the Balkans from being wiped. Turns out they realized the Balkans is a poor shithole and decided to leave for greener pastures, AKA you whiners.
[/quote]

croatia confirmed for not balkans, and that the eu has zero interest in admitting balkan states

thank you for your contribution
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on August 28, 2015, 03:59:36 pm
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 03:42:19 pm
france for instance is keeping the post-colonial mess together,

Not really, no.

Mali worked out alright. Not good, but alright. Then you look at Algeria, and the rest of their colonies, and it sort of falls apart. How're things going in the CAR, or Gabon right now?

Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 03:58:45 pm

croatia confirmed for not balkans, and that the eu has zero interest in admitting balkan states

thank you for your contribution

The point is that the Balkans are Europe's backyard, but the distant United States that "always fucks it up anyway" is somehow responsible for taking care of them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on August 28, 2015, 03:59:54 pm
France pulled out of Rwanda and Vietnam.  The US has made mistakes while trying to install governments which are stable and, yes, sympathetic to the US and Western democracy.  Sorry not sorry for trying.  Despite our crippling economic issues at home, we handed out 50 billion dollars last year in foreign aid.  But we're just the fat idiot imperialists in everyone's mind (which is hilariously hypocritical in some cases).  It's not like all these fucked up post-colonial countries were OUR colonies.

So "nobody asked you" is a shitty thing to say when European empires fucked up the third world, and we're trying to help put it back together.  Particularly considering that, actually, we do get asked for help.  A LOT.  And we do help because we're in a position to do so, and it doesn't matter how ungrateful people are.

Some of our military actions were unjustified, and practically all of them benefited our massive military industrial complex.  But we're doing our best with a shitty situation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Calidovi on August 28, 2015, 04:02:07 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 27, 2015, 09:58:53 pm
Someone just pointed out all of his photos have filters on them to darken his skin otherwise it becomes too obvious he's whiter than most Caucasoids:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
And he slagged off his Mum saying she had an affair so he didn't know who his father was. This is a comparison of the father on his birth certificate with him:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Understandably social media is turning up the grill to 11
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Mfw they take no survivors and don't punch soft
Seems there's 4 main camps of people in regards to this;
  • They did it for privileges
  • They did it out of self-loathing
  • They're absolute cons
  • This is hilarious
How long until people claiming their otherkinship in a professional setting becomes a norm.

bc we sheepkin need our rights pls xd
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 27, 2015, 09:58:53 pm
*EDIT
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Sides: Orbital
Also just so no one gets confused that's not the bloke that's Ali G

Science...

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on August 28, 2015, 05:44:31 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 28, 2015, 02:37:16 pm
I see zero impracticality or moral ambiguity in regards to killing human traffickers, who are plain and simple scum. I'm not talking about death penalty as they do in the east, more simple use of lethal force to disrupt trafficking operations in north africa and turkey.

Ah yeah, zero impracticality. I mean, it's not like our smuggler-killers would have any trouble locating and identifying their targets: Them blighters are all chilling on the beach, selling tickets to refugees while sipping margaritas. Send a small detachment of Gurkhas and we're all set and done.

...

Just ask Obama if you wanna know how easy it is to kill a handful of sneaky fucker needles in a collapsed state haystack.

EDIT: And you would, of course, also have to kill everyone who might consider getting into that lucrative business sometime in the future, when the current practitioners have been conveniently knocked off. When there's a demand for dirty low-down business, dirty low-down businessmen will keep popping up like heads of a hydra.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 28, 2015, 06:33:32 pm
Spoiler: Frumple (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: lemon10 (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: SirQuiamus (click to show/hide)
Oh and in regards to the whole America vs Europe in whodunnit, who broke everything, you're still drone striking Libya right now and it's still making more terrorists than it kills. I reckon it's more the method than the sentiment really, drones affect the psyche in a way different to human soldiers. And you still see crap like with Al Qaeda saying some kid had his legs blown off by a US drone strike when in reality it was their own mortar strike. Gits. To top it off US trained armies deserted and joined ISIS with billions of dollars of equipment. You're not making it easy for Europeans to clean up, it's a bit rich to then go on and both blame Europeans and also demand Europeans roll over and accept very American consequences. At the same time, at least the US is trying if a bit counterproductive. This really is a lose-lose scenario, where to do nothing means loss, to bomb means stalemate and to wage war with boots on the ground means fighting whilst still wearing the wounds of the unending campaign in Afghanistan. It's lucky that American dollars last longer than Islamic state lives but this is going to be a long string of wars no one is fixing any time soon. You can secure your country and try helping, or fail in both.
*EDIT
Spoiler: SirQuiamus (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: misko27 on August 28, 2015, 06:37:40 pm
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 28, 2015, 03:58:45 pm
croatia confirmed for not balkans, and that the eu has zero interest in admitting balkan states

thank you for your contribution
Croatia? Irrelevant.

Kosovo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War). Tens of thousands, fleeing into the EU through Serbia and into Hungary. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/04/us-kosovo-eu-migrants-idUSKBN0L811120150204)
Quote
The exodus appears to have been abetted by an EU-encouraged easing of travel rules in Serbia, which since 2012 has allowed Kosovars to enter with Kosovo-issued documents that Belgrade previously rejected given that it does not recognise its former southern province as independent.
Clearly America's fault. Why didn't we just Milosevic be Milosevic?

Also Nigerians. Clearly Boko Haram is America's fault, despite America never having been involved there. Also Syria, because America clearly caused the Arab Spring by telling a Tunisian to set himself on fire. And Eritrea? Well I'm sure Emperor Haile Selassie only annexed them because America, somehow (nevermind Selassie's noted neutrality). And Sudan (how dare America broker peace deals), and Ghana, and Kenya.

America's done plenty of bad things, but it's not the cause of everything bad that happens. Certainly not the one who "caused this whole immigration crisis", unless you have some evidence to back that up. These countries were already messed up bad, and that's largely a legacy of European colonization (except Ethiopia's case, I suppose).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 28, 2015, 07:01:50 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 28, 2015, 06:33:32 pm
Already working with Jihadis, can't get worse.
Some are. I guess trying to make that "all" would help somehow...?
Quote
Wait, so intercepting them and putting them on solid ground is more dangerous? Letting them embark on the dangerous journey is safer than not?
Give the smugglers direct and even stronger incentive to screw things up before solid ground is reached or while that intercepting is occurring, yeah, that makes things more dangerous. And hey, yeah, someone desperate enough to embark on that dangerous journey probably has something worse waiting back home.
Quote
I don't see where torture comes in.
You directly want to see suffering increased across the board for the non-smugglers involved in the process. Instead of just killing 'em, you want them to hurt more, first. Not many other words than torture for suffering for the sake of suffering.
Quote
I didn't exactly give the order to arm Jihadis in Syria, I thought that was a stupid idea and the dressed up moderates weren't exactly desecrating graves out of their desire to express moderation. I was against it, and would rather see my country not suffer because Obama wanted to rek syria.
We agree on that much, at least, by and large. Bit too late, though. Now's just the fixing. Do you really want america to keep trying to fix things on their lonesome? Still, I'd rather not see my country suffer -- like it has been, to an irritating degree -- because the rest of the world won't get off their arse and help out more. States could use the help! It ain't been doing to well the last decade or so.
Quote
Because of aforementioned policing slavery went from being endemic to nearly every civilization to confined to desert wastelands where no one really treads.
Modern slavery is a 150 billion dollar industry with significant presence in first world countries. Confined to desert wastelands it is not even remotely. Slavery hasn't exactly stopped being endemic. Less endemic, probably. Less overt in most countries, definitely. But the shit's still very much there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 28, 2015, 07:31:15 pm
Quote from: Frumple on August 28, 2015, 07:01:50 pm
Some are. I guess trying to make that "all" would help somehow...?
Makes little difference whether they're just paying taxes to ISIS or working with them, both are grounds for attack

Quote from: Frumple on August 28, 2015, 07:01:50 pm
Quote
Wait, so intercepting them and putting them on solid ground is more dangerous? Letting them embark on the dangerous journey is safer than not?
Give the smugglers direct and even stronger incentive to screw things up before solid ground is reached or while that intercepting is occurring, yeah, that makes things more dangerous. And hey, yeah, someone desperate enough to embark on that dangerous journey probably has something worse waiting back home.
Give the smugglers what incentive to screw things up? They don't even have an incentive to exactly be health and safety compliant right now. No refunds, especially when you're dead. The only thing safer than a round of trafficking is no rounds of trafficking. And someone desperate enough to embark on that dangerous journey? Everything's better in Europe than at home, or so the brochures say. They should just be given asylum in America

Quote from: Frumple on August 28, 2015, 07:01:50 pm
Quote
I don't see where torture comes in.
You directly want to see suffering increased across the board for the non-smugglers involved in the process. Instead of just killing 'em, you want them to hurt more, first. Not many other words than torture for suffering for the sake of suffering.
???
I see a lot of emotional assertions but if you're going to call me a torturer explain yourself, otherwise it's just preaching to the choir that Europe should shoulder the world's problems before it's even solved its own

Quote from: Frumple on August 28, 2015, 07:01:50 pm
Quote
I didn't exactly give the order to arm Jihadis in Syria, I thought that was a stupid idea and the dressed up moderates weren't exactly desecrating graves out of their desire to express moderation. I was against it, and would rather see my country not suffer because Obama wanted to rek syria.
We agree on that much, at least, by and large. Bit too late, though. Now's just the fixing. Do you really want america to keep trying to fix things on their lonesome? Still, I'd rather not see my country suffer -- like it has been, to an irritating degree -- because the rest of the world won't get off their arse and help out more. States could use the help! It ain't been doing to well the last decade or so.
You say that like Britain hasn't been by America in all this for better and worse

Quote from: Frumple on August 28, 2015, 07:01:50 pm
Modern slavery is a 150 billion dollar industry with significant presence in first world countries. Confined to desert wastelands it is not even remotely. Slavery hasn't exactly stopped being endemic. Less endemic, probably. Less overt in most countries, definitely. But the shit's still very much there.
I'm not talking about forced labour, marriages or other forms of bondage, I'm talking about literal slavery - very upfront one person owning another as property slavery. And if you think it's bad now, imagine what it'd be like if the Atlantic, African and Muslim slave trade continued to this day. Shit's there, but it'd be foolish to just give up and try to live with it rather than fight it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on August 28, 2015, 07:34:10 pm
Silly EU trying to control immigration, you no can limit population~

Frumple you just argued against not torpedoing smuggler ships.
Or do you want the EU to have a completely open border policy. The EU is fucktons more dense with people than the US and if the latter you are endorsing these people to flood EU ghettos. That is going to spike racism like profits after layoffs.

Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 28, 2015, 07:31:15 pm
I'm not talking about forced labour, marriages or other forms of bondage, I'm talking about literal slavery - very upfront one person owning another as property slavery. And if you think it's bad now, imagine what it'd be like if the Atlantic, African and Muslim slave trade continued to this day. Shit's there, but it'd be foolish to just give up and try to live with it rather than fight it.
So chattel slavery.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 28, 2015, 07:47:53 pm
If there's anything I'd want to see, it's the EU folks advocating for trying help and/or process folks instead of trying to spike the death toll involved with the whole mess. Ramping up the violence and suffering involved isn't going to help anyone, but especially not the folks trying to live through all this. Is why I get salty about propositions that boil down to "Let's start killing people and getting innocents caught in the crossfire, that'll help!"

And hell, if you need to ship folks over to the US or canada or whatever the hell, go for it. I'd support it. Probably not a goddamn chance of getting the xenophobic jackanapes running the government to agree to it, but I'd vote yes if it came to a vote.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on August 28, 2015, 09:27:48 pm
I'm cool with accepting more immigrants to America as long as they're legal.  Trying to compete with illegal off-the-books labor makes people turn to racism and "conservative" anti-immigrant policies, even though it's the conservatives doing the illegal hiring.  It's a masterful scheme.  (The labor is done for far under minimum wage, see, making it impossible to compete with)

Hell I even resent illegal immigrants for voluntarily supporting the scheme.  It's directly hurt me and mine.  We'd be better off if they were deported, the criminals.  But I support pardoning and a path to citizenship because inclusiveness and multiculturalism makes America strong.  Even though it's more competition for young job seekers who are already here.  Just... make it a fair competition by granting citizenship.  Or deportation.  The status quo is a neocon wet dream.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Calidovi on August 28, 2015, 10:06:38 pm
Quote from: Rolan7 on August 28, 2015, 09:27:48 pm
I'm cool with accepting more immigrants to America as long as they're legal.  Trying to compete with illegal off-the-books labor makes people turn to racism and "conservative" anti-immigrant policies, even though it's the conservatives doing the illegal hiring.  It's a masterful scheme.  (The labor is done for far under minimum wage, see, making it impossible to compete with)

Hell I even resent illegal immigrants for voluntarily supporting the scheme.  It's directly hurt me and mine.  We'd be better off if they were deported, the criminals.  But I support pardoning and a path to citizenship because inclusiveness and multiculturalism makes America strong.  Even though it's more competition for young job seekers who are already here.  Just... make it a fair competition by granting citizenship.  Or deportation.  The status quo is a neocon wet dream.

IIRC there's a trend that more jobs are going to require master's degrees soon, and the people that can access these qualifications are either intelligent or wealthy. As evidenced by the treachery these people had to go to escape their circumstances, it's obvious that they weren't fortunate in their life and probably have neither due to a poor education. The border-immigrant problem should be different in the near future assuming these trends continue, which imaginably they should.

Quote from: Rolan7 on August 28, 2015, 09:27:48 pm
The status quo is a neocon wet dream.

Then may we dream on.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on August 29, 2015, 06:49:36 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 28, 2015, 06:33:32 pm
Europe is already destroying their boats. You don't need to kill them to destroy their business, though it certainly helps. Gurkhas are overkill.
...
Between survey ships, drones, informants and the vast security bureaus of Russia, Britain, USA, France and the rest of Yurop - well for certain their ships are fucked, and finding them will be one step ahead. Who knows, could give incentive to Western nations to finish what they started in Libya. European ships already patrol Libyan coasts (just for security reasons), countering human trafficking goes hand in hand.
...and now the smugglers are resorting to rubber boats, oil barrel rafts, and salvaged wreckages of Phoenician warships. We certainly need more rescue operations and active patrolling to stop people from drowning (that's the priority), but trigger-happy military raids would be nothing but an expedient stop-gap measure that wouldn't help in the long run. From a humanitarian perspective, the immediate problem is that the southern coast of the Mediterranean is flooded with displaced people in unlivable circumstances who are desperate to get across by any means, and as long as more of them keep flocking to the shore, there'll be a market for horribly unethical smuggling operations.

Thing is, the boat business is just the final link in a very long and disorganized chain of smuggling that cannot be shut down simply by cutting off the other end. Daesh may have their finger in the pie, but there are no terrist criminal masterminds controlling the entire operation, just a long line of shady bastards who get their cut and pass the buck to the next guy. Even without a single floating vessel available on the coast, the smugglers in the inland countries would still keep schlepping people north with empty promises of luxury cruises and worker visas – why should they give a shit about what happens to "the cargo" in the receiving country?

The way I see it, there are only two possible "solutions" to the humanitarian crisis: Take the people in, or recolonize the African continent to pacify all conflicts and stop the wave of migration. It's no wonder that many Europeans choose the third option of going "LA LA LA" whenever the word "humanitarian" is mentioned.

EDIT: The suggestion of having processing centers in North Africa is a very good one, but even that plan requires that the people have somewhere to go after they've been "processed." It all boils down to a choice between taking them in or making their home countries safer, and unfortunately the latter is just not happening.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on August 29, 2015, 07:14:25 am
Quote from: SirQuiamus on August 29, 2015, 06:49:36 am
EDIT: The suggestion of having processing centers in North Africa is a very good one, but even that plan requires that the people have somewhere to go after they've been "processed." It all boils down to a choice between taking them in or making their home countries safer, and unfortunately the latter is just not happening.
I would've pitched building processing centers across Africa, to spare refugees the journey north - but for some reason that idea is even less well-liked.

But yeah: Re-colonization (under a different name) would probably be the more thorough solution.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 29, 2015, 07:24:40 am
Quote from: SirQuiamus on August 29, 2015, 06:49:36 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 28, 2015, 06:33:32 pm
Europe is already destroying their boats. You don't need to kill them to destroy their business, though it certainly helps. Gurkhas are overkill.
...
Between survey ships, drones, informants and the vast security bureaus of Russia, Britain, USA, France and the rest of Yurop - well for certain their ships are fucked, and finding them will be one step ahead. Who knows, could give incentive to Western nations to finish what they started in Libya. European ships already patrol Libyan coasts (just for security reasons), countering human trafficking goes hand in hand.
...and now the smugglers are resorting to rubber boats, oil barrel rafts, and salvaged wreckages of Phoenician warships. We certainly need more rescue operations and active patrolling to stop people from drowning (that's the priority), but trigger-happy military raids would be nothing but an expedient stop-gap measure that wouldn't help in the long run. From a humanitarian perspective, the immediate problem is that the southern coast of the Mediterranean is flooded with displaced people in unlivable circumstances who are desperate to get across by any means, and as long as more of them keep flocking to the shore, there'll be a market for horribly unethical smuggling operations.
Thing is, the boat business is just the final link in a very long and disorganized chain of smuggling that cannot be shut down simply by cutting off the other end. Daesh may have their finger in the pie, but there are no terrist criminal masterminds controlling the entire operation, just a long line of shady bastards who get their cut and pass the buck to the next guy. Even without a single floating vessel available on the coast, the smugglers in the inland countries would still keep schlepping people north with empty promises of luxury cruises and worker visas – why should they give a shit about what happens to "the cargo" in the receiving country?
That is why they must die, or at least have their operations disrupted to the point of ineffectuality, impracticality or improfitability. European nations already are drawing up plans to seize/destroy more ships, fuel depots and smugglers themselves. The smugglers themselves don't get their ships back even if they successfully land in Europe, they are already resorting to dingy dinghies - destroying their boats before they've even set sail is going to fuck their capabilities over sideways. At the same time yes cutting off the other end is going to work, from Britain to Sicily the police have been working tirelessly to catch European gangs working in tandem with the North African ones.

Quote from: SirQuiamus on August 29, 2015, 06:49:36 am
The way I see it, there are only two possible "solutions" to the humanitarian crisis: Take the people in, or recolonize the African continent to pacify all conflicts and stop the wave of migration. It's no wonder that many Europeans choose the third option of going "LA LA LA" whenever the word "humanitarian" is mentioned.
At a time where Britain is cutting the services given to Britons, British foreign aid expenditure has increased. The EU has not been idle either. The solutions you suggest are not independent courses of actions, humanitarian missions must continue, military missions must continue and border control must be re-enforced.

Quote from: SirQuiamus on August 29, 2015, 06:49:36 am
EDIT: The suggestion of having processing centers in North Africa is a very good one, but even that plan requires that the people have somewhere to go after they've been "processed." It all boils down to a choice between taking them in or making their home countries safer, and unfortunately the latter is just not happening.
They go to Europe if they're an asylum seeker, they go to the boats or home if they're looking for money. And the latter is happening, it's just not succeeding because islamic militiants are resilient. It's like complaining about how Afghanistan is still not safe; wasn't the response from the American public to just withdraw and give up because it was too much cost for too little benefit? Certainly not for lack of trying.

Quote from: Helgoland on August 29, 2015, 07:14:25 am
But yeah: Re-colonization (under a different name) would probably be the more thorough solution.
And so the EU expands
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 29, 2015, 07:52:27 am
...honestly?

fuck it, let's recolonize africa/the middle east

they'd be coming to us anyway, let's reverse the trend and come to them drang nach suden all like
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 29, 2015, 08:10:50 am
Tbh I'm not sure how Europol thread over into progressive thread, so I'm just going to leave some Jewish literature:
Quote
This essay is bad and I should feel bad.

I should feel bad because I made exactly the mistake I am trying to warn everyone else about, and it wasn’t until I was almost done that I noticed.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
Personally my friends are an epileptic rainbow of politics, races and cultures so I wouldn't really be able to tell either way; the only people I tend to avoid are those with californian accents or blue/green/red hair
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on August 29, 2015, 08:52:59 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 29, 2015, 07:52:27 am
drang nach suden all like
Is that a reference? Because if it is, I don't get it at all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 29, 2015, 09:57:53 am
Quote from: Helgoland on August 29, 2015, 08:52:59 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 29, 2015, 07:52:27 am
drang nach suden all like
Is that a reference? Because if it is, I don't get it at all.

just google drang nach osten, man

come on
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Calidovi on August 29, 2015, 10:03:48 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 29, 2015, 09:57:53 am
Quote from: Helgoland on August 29, 2015, 08:52:59 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 29, 2015, 07:52:27 am
drang nach suden all like
Is that a reference? Because if it is, I don't get it at all.

just google drang nach osten, man

come on

I've always felt that the Dutch and Italians, not as much Germany, would be more inclined for North African conquest.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on August 29, 2015, 10:12:37 am
Quote from: LordSlowpoke on August 29, 2015, 09:57:53 am
just google drang nach osten, man

come on
Fuck, I could've thought of that. I tried googleing 'drang nach sudan' and unsurprisingly found nothing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on August 29, 2015, 10:22:08 am
Quote from: Helgoland on August 29, 2015, 07:14:25 am
...
But yeah: Re-colonization (under a different name) would probably be the more thorough solution.

(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/56829746.jpg)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on August 29, 2015, 10:31:13 am
I wasn't. We should have a poll - the idea is fairly popular around here, if I remember correctly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on August 29, 2015, 10:54:38 am
Quote from: Helgoland on August 29, 2015, 10:31:13 am
I wasn't. We should have a poll - the idea is fairly popular around here, if I remember correctly.
I think the current European consensus is something like: "We've tried that one already – let's leave the second round to China."

Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 29, 2015, 07:24:40 am
At a time where Britain is cutting the services given to Britons, British foreign aid expenditure has increased. The EU has not been idle either. The solutions you suggest are not independent courses of actions, humanitarian missions must continue, military missions must continue and border control must be re-enforced.
Hooray for Britonland, then. (Except for that part about cutting services given to Britons.)

Meanwhile in Failand, True Finns are all about "helping refugees in their home countries *simper simper smirk*" while their politicians are slashing foreign aid to bits and setting the pieces on fire and stomping on them like fucking lunatics. And naturally they're also slashing social security at the same time, but hey, that's only fair to those poor third-world buggers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on August 29, 2015, 02:54:10 pm
Quote from: SirQuiamus on August 29, 2015, 10:54:38 am
Quote from: Helgoland on August 29, 2015, 10:31:13 am
I wasn't. We should have a poll - the idea is fairly popular around here, if I remember correctly.
I think the current European consensus is something like: "We've tried that one already – let's leave the second round to China."
I meant this forum... Also, nobody says that we'd have to have the same priorities as last time.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Grim Portent on August 29, 2015, 04:15:00 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on August 29, 2015, 02:54:10 pm
Quote from: SirQuiamus on August 29, 2015, 10:54:38 am
Quote from: Helgoland on August 29, 2015, 10:31:13 am
I wasn't. We should have a poll - the idea is fairly popular around here, if I remember correctly.
I think the current European consensus is something like: "We've tried that one already – let's leave the second round to China."
I meant this forum... Also, nobody says that we'd have to have the same priorities as last time.

If I was going to come up with a long term plan involving colonial shenanigans in Africa I'd probably be looking to counteract desertification where possible, improve the local agricultural and educational system as a priority, and disrupt criminal activities like diamond wars (probably best stopped by causing a crash in the diamond market by removing the artificial scarcity of them), maybe root out militant groups and try to reform them into legitimate political factions. If done well it could result in a decently stable society with good grounds for meeting basic necessities with a potential to become industrial later.

Would take 20+ years I dare say, but it took decades to get Europe fixed up after the World Wars, so it's not as if it's impossible. Of questionable moral and ethical standing, but possible.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 29, 2015, 06:31:41 pm
Helgo your sig is disturbingly appropriate, and unless you seek to turn the EU into the Roman Empire so I am too drunk on Italian wines to resist I shudder at the prospect of British soldiers dying just so the EU can claim North Africa.

Quote from: SirQuiamus on August 29, 2015, 10:54:38 am
I think the current European consensus is something like: "We've tried that one already – let's leave the second round to China."
They just want to rip resources out of Africa and rebuild the silk road (which is a lot better than it sounds), they're less than ideal but tolerable for as long as you don't interfere with their projects. Empires are expensive, no matter if your intention is power or humanitarian, acting in any way on a foreign nation is cheaper when done indirectly. And whilst they don't give a shit about governments whose human rights records have probably been destroyed by their secret police, I think it's become abundantly clear stability trumps democracy, as instability means no democracy and militiants.

Quote from: SirQuiamus on August 29, 2015, 10:54:38 am
Hooray for Britonland, then. (Except for that part about cutting services given to Britons.)
Costs money, and there's not enough to do everything and help everyone. You have to pick, if you try to help everyone you fail everyone.

Quote from: SirQuiamus on August 29, 2015, 10:54:38 am
Meanwhile in Failand, True Finns are all about "helping refugees in their home countries *simper simper smirk*" while their politicians are slashing foreign aid to bits and setting the pieces on fire and stomping on them like fucking lunatics. And naturally they're also slashing social security at the same time, but hey, that's only fair to those poor third-world buggers.
I was under the impression that Finns are grim fellows, and I recall that old saying in regards to the Swedish military versus Russia in that Sweden would be defended to the last Finn. I am also under the impression that even in spite of cuts Finland's welfare system is one of the most comprehensive in the world. What makes the nation Failand? I was also under the impression that Finland's deficit was growing too large, so much so that it violated the EU's budgeting rules which Finland has been subjected to. In a perfect world you can afford everything for everyone but this is not a perfect world. One of the crazy homeless chaps I used to talk to died in the past winter 2 years ago and now I see more replacing him on the benches as this summer comes to an end. Kids Company shut down, houses are not being built nearly fast enough, our airports need expansion, Osborne's balancing defence, pensions, welfare and the NHS with all four cut beyond breaking point, we already had problems with segregated communities and multiculturalism failing so the yearly net 330,000 more migrants coming through the EU aren't going to help - even worse since they're not coming through the commonwealth. Hell, the rape gangs are still operating, you can't make this shit up, and they're just the extreme end that manages to catch headlines. In my county alone there's been 3 shootings and 1 stabbing, and to turn those numbers around 1/3 children aren't ready for school, and many of the schools need expansion because they can't cope with the increase in students. Plans for a new sewerage system has thankfully gone ahead, but we need a bridge over the Thames on eastside, the cuts on health will shoot the legs off nurses most in my area (my health centre is already notoriously shit) and to end on a nice metaphor we're running out of cemetery space. Also 300 people somehow caught malaria last year.
I've said this before in one of the bay12 politics threads, but I always love grilling all my north london liblabgren m8s over the fact that they support unrestricted mass immigration despite their only experience of immigration being north london restaurants whilst everyone else's got to deal with the obvious consequences. I will always love the irony in that if I meet someone in London who supports unrestricted mass immigration then they're white european, if they don't they're either from the Indian subcontinent, Caribbean, Arabia or Eastern Russia. There must be some element of white guilt or colonial guilt that I'm just not getting. This island has obligations to its own peoples and that of the commonwealth first and foremost, it is peculiar to me as to why they are ignored.

Quote from: Grim Portent on August 29, 2015, 04:15:00 pm
If I was going to come up with a long term plan involving colonial shenanigans in Africa I'd probably be looking to counteract desertification where possible, improve the local agricultural and educational system as a priority, and disrupt criminal activities like diamond wars (probably best stopped by causing a crash in the diamond market by removing the artificial scarcity of them), maybe root out militant groups and try to reform them into legitimate political factions. If done well it could result in a decently stable society with good grounds for meeting basic necessities with a potential to become industrial later.
Would take 20+ years I dare say, but it took decades to get Europe fixed up after the World Wars, so it's not as if it's impossible. Of questionable moral and ethical standing, but possible.
Well the West's always been running education stuff (hence why Boko Haram have their little name of Western Education is Verboten) but in regards to criminal activities the USA's been doing a juggernaut's work in this regard. In addition to unloading billions of dollars worth of equipment to government forces they also work with the state and private sector to pull the funding out of militant organizations (in Africa meaning ending illegal gold mining so the government can profit off of it and also regulate it so the workers actually get payed/don't use mercury). Causing a crash in the diamond market wouldn't really do anything since the Kimberly Process is a thing, I guess it would make getting married considerably cheaper. America and China's (legal) exploits and exploitation in Africa have come with the benefit of more roads, factories and jobs.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on August 29, 2015, 07:07:06 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 29, 2015, 06:31:41 pm
Costs money, and there's not enough to do everything and help everyone. You have to pick, if you try to help everyone you fail everyone.
You make it sound like there's the ability to help anyone. The Tories are making cuts like a sociopathic knifeplay fetishist and the national debt is still going up. No matter how you cut it things are pretty fucked and there's no real point pretending that we can just keep sacrificing (the dirty commoners') things until it gets better.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 29, 2015, 07:56:32 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on August 29, 2015, 07:07:06 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 29, 2015, 06:31:41 pm
Costs money, and there's not enough to do everything and help everyone. You have to pick, if you try to help everyone you fail everyone.
You make it sound like there's the ability to help anyone. The Tories are making cuts like a sociopathic knifeplay fetishist and the national debt is still going up. No matter how you cut it things are pretty fucked and there's no real point pretending that we can just keep sacrificing (the dirty commoners') things until it gets better.
I agree, I reckon everything's been cut to the breaking point where you can't cut without losing something vital. It's got to be raised taxes, fraud and tax avoidance policing and revenue increasing schemes or caput.

Also what's bay12's opinion on HS2? Costs over 8 billion quid, scars its way through the English countryside but on the flipside could once more make northern cities competitive again. Gov says amendments will reduce the impact on the green (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hs2-confirms-tunnel-extension-for-south-heath), which would mitigate my greatest concern. The cost doesn't concern me as much as I'm quite glad of efforts to make Birmingham as competitive as London and sure it will pay itself off in time. I've been opposed to the railway since pretty much until recently, but I can't shake the feeling that it is too good to be true, or that the money could be better spent. Also, imagine it is built. It makes travel from the north to London incredibly fast. On the paper the railway would mean workers would be able to commute easily from city to city increasing competitiveness for all of them and widening the skilled labour pool but what if it's all just in one direction from Birmingham to London or vice versa? The coin's still in the air on that, a move to make the north more competitive could just backfire and concentrate even more sterling into London. Nothing inherently wrong with that but it's just not as profitable for more English and Britons as having 3 rich cities and 1 incredibly rich city or 3 eclipsed cities and 1 ludicrously rich city.
Though on the other hand, were the whole thing completed the dream would be that a froggy businessman could travel from the tunnel to a london terminal and all the way north to scotland and all the way back for lunch in Belgium. How feasible the dream is is another matter. I don't know, what do you lot think?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: xxseuzxx on August 29, 2015, 09:47:58 pm
I'm somewhat worried about how most of the people here will react to what I'm.about to say about this asylum seekers mess.
I'm a lurker so I never post by the way.
Is it really too hard on the modern European mindset to let this people stay on their homelands?
Do these migrants forget the fact that their countries are shit due to their own cultural and religious practises? As they do the same things over there once the go to Europe .I'm not even sure if those migrants are truly useful as anything apart from menial labour due to a lack of a proper western education and their own cultural beliefs.regarding how they tend to be rather hostile to western ideals of  freedom of speech and religious freedom.at the same time they flood Europe .even If they are educated here they don't quite respect laws,social customs and what is expected of a modern person in a modern democracy.example of what I just said:the barbaric losers that while living in Europe are joining/joined isis or such groups.
Maybe I will be classified as some kind of evil racist prick here but il leave my ramblings here.
But as sjws Say one must tolerate all people. (Not if they are white males).
Typing on a cellphone is a fucking torture.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on August 29, 2015, 11:27:54 pm
Appending two synonyms to a word doesn't make an actual point.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on August 29, 2015, 11:30:32 pm
Could you explain why they're wrong?
I don't know, I'm relatively uninformed and American.  But I'm willing to believe you have a point, if you'll make it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: xxseuzxx on August 29, 2015, 11:36:01 pm
Foretold said conclusion among the people here.but if those people can't help themselves they prove the horribly racist colonial notions regarding them and their abilities. Which is extremely bad as they get discriminated using estereotipical crap and don't get the Help they need to live in a decent country nor assistance to make these people homelands be developed nor assisted to make them a better place In the first place and turn them into a stable safe state.
I don't want to sound like a racist prick but they need help In their own countries first and if that fails ,then they need a legal way to get to live in a better country.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: xxseuzxx on August 29, 2015, 11:41:36 pm
I never stated what I said as facts,just what I have experienced, seen and come to know.
Sometimes one can't end up with the most politically correct conclusions as one doesn't experiences the same with any given group of people. Nor do I feel Superior to anybody as I know my own faults.and seek to fix em if possible
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: xxseuzxx on August 30, 2015, 12:00:06 am
English isn't my mothet tongue,so sound harsh regarding but I'm having a rather hard time on my own country as it is slowly falling to the same problems the home of these migrants and asylum seekers has fallen into,while not widespread war here it is a mess,basically they aren't arresting criminals nor they are handling the economy in a decent way.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on August 30, 2015, 12:03:20 am
Chile. He's got a post in terrified thread about what he's seen.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: xxseuzxx on August 30, 2015, 12:05:08 am
Just look the news over there.it is terrifying.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on August 30, 2015, 12:10:43 am
The "tirade" in the sad thread wasn't at all racist, it was an account of xxseuzxx's interactions with people of a race.
Maybe you doubt their account, but that doesn't make them a racist.
For the record:
Quote from: xxseuzxx on August 29, 2015, 11:26:50 pm

Quote from: Ispil on August 29, 2015, 11:48:55 pm
1) Migrants and refugees are two completely different things. Though they may travel in the same boats together, the difference between an illegal migrant and a refugee is that while an illegal migrant might be doing it to gain opportunity, the refugee, and I'll quote Mr Francois Crepeau here, wouldn't "[put] their kids on a boat, unless the water is safer than the land.”
So some travel because their destination is better, and others travel because their home is worse.
Quote from: Ispil on August 29, 2015, 11:48:55 pm
2) The refugees, by the way, are escaping a devastating civil war that's being funded on both sides by other countries outside of the actual war including the US. This isn't a war for religion, by the way- it's a revolution to topple their government for one that isn't a dictatorship. According to you, people from Syria go against the ideals of a "modern democracy." The whole reason they're fighting is because that's all they goddamn want.
Xxseuzxx said "cultural and religious practices".  Not that it was a religious war.  These nations didn't develop democracy themselves, even/*especially* after being released as sovereign states.  So if anything it's a cultural war - local culture hasn't embraced democracy and basic individual rights.  Local rulers are resisting it, foreign nations (including the US, as you say) are supporting it.

Though in many cases religion can support backward cultural systems, particularly Islam - which is inherently a political system AND religion.  Same with Hinduism supporting its caste system.  It's only in enlightened countries that religion has been separated from culture and politics.
Quote from: Ispil on August 29, 2015, 11:48:55 pm
3) These people's homelands are developed, and developed quite well. Again, civil war that's killed over 200000 people will generally cause a lot of destruction to the infrastructure. Do you even know there is a civil war going on?
The homeland is developed (debatable), but also ravaged?  What's your point?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: xxseuzxx on August 30, 2015, 12:12:24 am
I wish I wasn't as hostile/racists but after this crap you reach a limit.I literally just heard a machine gun from the other side of a rather large river near my house.not even the cops are armed with assault rifles and yet we hear them almost everyday .it leaves you not traumatized,but indifferent.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: xxseuzxx on August 30, 2015, 12:21:18 am
Leaving this country is rather hard as my parents are rather old and I want to study agronomy as I'm in a rather nifty agricultural school so it is easy for me to study it after I graduate. I'm both impressed and scared about how in two years my country went from decent to unpleasant for everyone .once I have my degree il think about moving.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on August 30, 2015, 02:13:41 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 29, 2015, 07:56:32 pm
Also what's bay12's opinion on HS2?
I'm not entirely convinced that it will do what they say it's meant for.
So it'll help commuters from further north (but not really even all that far north) get to London, so that they can work in London and spend money in London. Then somehow that's supposed to make the wealth actually be at the north end of the line.

Plus there's plenty of rail infrastructure in the North that could really do with improving, but instead the govt is choosing to go with a huge project that has a big benefit for London.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on August 30, 2015, 03:32:05 am
Quote from: xxseuzxx on August 29, 2015, 09:47:58 pm
Do these migrants forget the fact that their countries are shit due to their own cultural and religious practises? As they do the same things over there once the go to Europe .
Assuming that the ones fleeing are the ones who are responsible for what's happening.

Quote
I'm not even sure if those migrants are truly useful as anything apart from menial labour due to a lack of a proper western education and their own cultural beliefs.
That's unfounded. Many immigrants are actually quite educated.

Quote
regarding how they tend to be rather hostile to western ideals of  freedom of speech and religious freedom.at the same time they flood Europe .even If they are educated here they don't quite respect laws,social customs and what is expected of a modern person in a modern democracy.example of what I just said:the barbaric losers that while living in Europe are joining/joined isis or such groups.
If my memory serves me right, the chumps joining ISIS aren't actually immigrants in the countries they come from.
Also my experience with immigrants was that they actually respect the laws more and are very conscious that they have to behave.
Their children, on the other hand, may be a problem when they grow up, which isn't really a surprise when they see their parents' openness and willingness to integrate rewarded with indifference or even hostility.

Quote from: xxseuzxx on August 30, 2015, 12:12:24 am
I wish I wasn't as hostile/racists but after this crap you reach a limit.I literally just heard a machine gun from the other side of a rather large river near my house.not even the cops are armed with assault rifles and yet we hear them almost everyday .it leaves you not traumatized,but indifferent.
Indifference to a threat to your life speaks of trauma.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 30, 2015, 06:13:05 am
Quote from: xxseuzxx on August 29, 2015, 09:47:58 pm
I'm somewhat worried about how most of the people here will react to what I'm.about to say about this asylum seekers mess.
I'm a lurker so I never post by the way.
Is it really too hard on the modern European mindset to let this people stay on their homelands?
Yes, not politically feasible
Quote from: xxseuzxx on August 29, 2015, 09:47:58 pm
Do these migrants forget the fact that their countries are shit due to their own cultural and religious practises?
Some of them are fleeing those, and there does seem to be a generation gap. Muslim, Hindu, Christian, they immigrated to Britain just fine and integrated for decades and then everything went to shits with labour and mass immigration. They knew what they were doing as well, so maybe Tony just wanted more blood for the blood god.
Quote from: xxseuzxx on August 29, 2015, 09:47:58 pm
As they do the same things over there once the go to Europe .
Yeah I don't get that either.
Quote from: xxseuzxx on August 29, 2015, 09:47:58 pm
I'm not even sure if those migrants are truly useful as anything apart from menial labour due to a lack of a proper western education and their own cultural beliefs.regarding how they tend to be rather hostile to western ideals of  freedom of speech and religious freedom.at the same time they flood Europe .even If they are educated here they don't quite respect laws,social customs and what is expected of a modern person in a modern democracy.example of what I just said:the barbaric losers that while living in Europe are joining/joined isis or such groups.
Well this is a great big issue what with the rise of shariah courts in Britain, infiltrated education system and organized crime and extremism; they aren't economically useful but you don't let them into your country expecting to get anything out of them, you let them into your country out of altruism. I am of course referring to refugees and not migrants, as I am completely in favour of adding checks to migration to prioritize young students, family or skilled workers.
Quote from: xxseuzxx on August 29, 2015, 09:47:58 pm
Maybe I will be classified as some kind of evil racist prick here but il leave my ramblings here.
But as sjws Say one must tolerate all people. (Not if they are white males).
Typing on a cellphone is a fucking torture.
Kek, you do get desensitized after a while.
Quote from: Graknorke on August 30, 2015, 02:13:41 am
I'm not entirely convinced that it will do what they say it's meant for.
So it'll help commuters from further north (but not really even all that far north) get to London, so that they can work in London and spend money in London. Then somehow that's supposed to make the wealth actually be at the north end of the line.
Plus there's plenty of rail infrastructure in the North that could really do with improving, but instead the govt is choosing to go with a huge project that has a big benefit for London.
Ultimately whatever railway happens in the North has to eventually link with London, but I have heard one suggestion to start building it in the North first and connect it to London second to solve this.
Quote from: Antsan on August 30, 2015, 03:32:05 am
That's unfounded. Many immigrants are actually quite educated.
If they're coming from Greece, France, Russia or China maybe. Otherwise the majority are unskilled labour who are just used by employees to maximize profit.
Quote from: Antsan on August 30, 2015, 03:32:05 am
If my memory serves me right, the chumps joining ISIS aren't actually immigrants in the countries they come from.
It's a mixed bag from a diverse range of people. The the "radical clerics" and preachers are coming from abroad, and though they sound fun they're just glorified recruiters. They're much more dangerous than any fighter. Pen > Sword
Quote from: Antsan on August 30, 2015, 03:32:05 am
Also my experience with immigrants was that they actually respect the laws more and are very conscious that they have to behave.
Depends on which group of people from where and what time period. Majority of the violent and sexual crimes in my area are committed by Afro-carribeans, everyone in my area has been mugged/had an attempted burglary at least once, three months ago a south-asian man was stalking the women in my neighbourhood, the police are still looking for him. Also ignores the shariah courts where they're following a different set of laws from a different court, and the rise in attacks on gays on our streets in east london by strict muslim lads. The Peckham and Bermondsey boys have more or less disappeared at least.
Quote from: Antsan on August 30, 2015, 03:32:05 am
Their children, on the other hand, may be a problem when they grow up, which isn't really a surprise when they see their parents' openness and willingness to integrate rewarded with indifference or even hostility.
This is not what happens at all, they are hooking up with Bagdhadi because they see Western society as degenerate and weak and they above it, strong and moral. I always find there something morbidly hilarious the sheer amount of westerners who bend over backwards to portray islamic extremists as poor victims, it makes it even funnier when a tolerant, humanist, secular middle-class single mother finds her son raised on the same morals converting to fundamentalist Sunni Islam
Quote from: Antsan on August 30, 2015, 03:32:05 am
Indifference to a threat to your life speaks of trauma.
You can't be scared and anxious every day of the week, you just learn to live with it and enjoy yourself. Let Rome burn and play your fiddle, enjoy some kebab and piratha and move on with your life, I know I'm content
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on August 30, 2015, 06:29:50 am
It's not about portraying them as victims, it's about basic human psychology and identity building - ie, people find a group to identify with, a sense of belonging and togetherhood (and also importantly a sense of purpose and direction) in the Islamist groups/philosophy; something they don't feel they are getting from normal society. It's pretty much why western nations should do ghettofication of communities.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 30, 2015, 08:12:51 am
Quote from: scriver on August 30, 2015, 06:29:50 am
It's not about portraying them as victims, it's about basic human psychology and identity building - ie, people find a group to identify with, a sense of belonging and togetherhood (and also importantly a sense of purpose and direction) in the Islamist groups/philosophy; something they don't feel they are getting from normal society. It's pretty much why western nations should do ghettofication of communities.
I like talking to them and imagine them often and they're good company; imagine your concerned chavvy English lad talking about the decay of Western society only Arab. Same level of politeness to boot. No one cares about identity politics except libdem students and I don't see what ghettofication would achieve as they're already the overwhelming majority in their regions
I'm doubtful when Cheeky Choudary says Rigby's burning in hell or Kondal taught his school children that Jews were devils and the English slags and poofs it was because they weren't given enough group hugs by "normal society." I think there's no more poetically appropriate example than in Global Aid raising money for the poor publicly whilst offering advice on how to get to Syria privately, playing progressives like a violin with talks about helping the unprivileged whilst expanding their ideology. It is about taking all personal responsibility away from them and making them victims. It's like that hilarious dribble earlier when people were defending the poor "self-radicalized" fundamentalists. Self-radicalized! Hahahahaha! It's farcical :D
Identity is an element, that is unquestionable, that I agree with you on. It's just not the principle driver as there are no shortage of Islamists with strong British identities and also no shortage of converts who were clearly a part of humanist communities, Christian communities or even Muslim communities moderate and Shia with purpose and direction, taking up fundamentalist Sunni Islam. Everyone has their reasons, some are indoctrinated, some wish to join the strongest ideology, some wish to rebel against their parents or wish to reject modern decadent society. Oh, also forgot those with political ambitions and motivations and religions ambitions and motivations. It's a matter of curiosity but I'm more concerned with hardline Islam gaining power as opposed to why people choose it in particular, as deluded progressives vehemently deny any such attempts being made in the west whilst we literally have human rights activists and lawyers even fleeing to Britain from what was once considered moderate nations like Malaysia, where Islam has steadily begun growing more forceful in governing the nation, shariah replaces civil, Muslims lose freedom of belief and non-Muslims become potential enemies of Islam. From Birmingham to Istanbul and Kuala Lumpur, islamisization is being pushed forwards, religion and politics growing indistinguishable, humanism and secularism failing under progressive leadership.
Tbh I care less and less about this
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
We all make our beds and lie in them
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on August 31, 2015, 05:38:42 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 30, 2015, 06:13:05 am
Quote from: Antsan on August 30, 2015, 03:32:05 am
Indifference to a threat to your life speaks of trauma.
You can't be scared and anxious every day of the week, you just learn to live with it and enjoy yourself.
Yeah, trauma.

Quote from: scriver on August 30, 2015, 06:29:50 am
It's not about portraying them as victims, it's about basic human psychology and identity building - ie, people find a group to identify with, a sense of belonging and togetherhood (and also importantly a sense of purpose and direction) in the Islamist groups/philosophy; something they don't feel they are getting from normal society. It's pretty much why western nations should do ghettofication of communities.
It's interesting how the only people ever using the word "victim" in this context are the people who accuse people like us of "portraying someone as a victim".

Also then going on to speak of how people should be responsible for themselves while ignoring that you yourself are constantly complaining about how those damn immigrants don't integrate right into western society without attempting anything to fix the issues we have with usable integration…
Yeah, that seems par for the course.

"I hate homeless people but I don't want to do anything against the high probability of us having homeless people."
"I want immigrants to be integrated but offering them a place in society freely instead of shutting them off somewhere far away is out of the question."
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on August 31, 2015, 08:19:30 pm
Excuse me a moment please, but I would like to bring up something:

http://news.yahoo.com/reckoning-nears-clerk-resisting-same-sex-marriage-ruling-202230268.html

I have no idea where to begin on the mess this is. So many issues and such complex stuff that it's just ... wow.

This woman has decided that she can personally disobey the Supreme Court of the United States and override years, nay, decades, of hard fought battles. She does this entirely because she believes it to be wrong, religiously or otherwise. Somehow, there are a lot of people supporting her "religious convictions," and they might gain traction in continuing to pass "religious liberty" laws, which would only benefit them (as opposed to say, any other religion).

How is this a thing?

Can you imagine this happening in any other country today? One person just steadfastly refusing to listen to the government, despite being given decades of chances to be heard, being heard, and failing. No other government would even consider tolerating this kind of thing on any issue. She's an elected official just refusing to do what she swore she would and she's just so genuinely astonished that everyone isn't doing what she wants. This is part of a larger trend where certain people have gotten everything they want, entirely due to their faith for so long, that the idea of not getting whatever they want, is somehow "discrimination."

I'm not going to rant about gay rights anymore, because I've done that before, in depth.
Simply, people are demanding the law adopt their faith and religious beliefs, when those infringe upon the rights of others (while denying this fact). Marriage, even if it is a religious thing, isn't unique to one religion, and there are many definitions across cultures, regions, and faiths. There are religions that have no problem with two gay people getting married.

Some religions ban alcohol; prohibition was tried and failed.
Some religions ban shellfish and pork, so should we ban that?
Some religions ban cow harm, so should we outlaw steak (Sacred Cows)?
Some religions ban beard trimming, so should we outlaw barbers and shaving?

The real question is who defines legally recognized marriages and the answer is the government, not one particular church, because whenever people are asked, "whose religion should be put into law?" they all raise their hands to say "mine" and it's impossible to make all the different religious beliefs ... law.... They conflict.

So now, despite this, it is very possible this woman will be held up as a martyr. She may galvanize the opposition to gay marriage into passing the equivalent of gay jim crow (moreso than there already is). Simply enforcing the law could lead to changing it, in a terrible way.

NOTE:

As of this time, I'm honestly quite overwhelmed with several things and I'm not sure I'll be able to respond to discussions on this post. I apologize for this. Black doctors and nurses have to treat KKK members in emergency rooms. Jewish Lawyers have had to defend Neo Nazis. Their objections were ignored. I just don't get it and I'm hurt by it. It is disheartening to know that you can go through the entire legal process to change the law for your rights, and have somebody just ... not care. And then, then, there's the fact that even if SHE has a personal issue with it, couldn't she at LEAST find somebody else who would be ok with it? I mean is there nobody else in the whole place who could substitute in for her on those cases? She won't even allow that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on August 31, 2015, 08:25:53 pm
I will say this simply, Truean. Humanity is diseased, and no cure exists.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 31, 2015, 08:41:05 pm
Rather doubt we'll see substantial new religious liberty laws passed... we've already got them, and they're more than enough, despite what some assholes claim. She can be taken as a martyr all the nitwits want, but they don't really have any legal traction, they don't have the theological traction -- the lady's job was not to consecrate a marriage before god, and conflating secular paperwork with sacred ritual is frankly blasphemous -- and they don't have the numbers to really do anything about it, so... whatever, really. Some people are delusional, sometimes even in notable numbers. They've got no room to push, and less to maneuver. We knock them down in court, as we have been, and continue to do so until demographics deals with the issue.

As for the clerk, it'll be interesting to see what happens tomorrow. I'd imagine voluntary resigning, m'self, in an attempt to skirt the incoming legal cases. Kinda' hope she gets hit with the legal penalties, though, preferably at least parole. Needs to be a message that when it comes to work like she was doing, if you take the job, you do the job, and if you can't, you quit. Before it becomes a problem.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arcvasti on August 31, 2015, 08:43:24 pm
Looking at the article, I don't see anything terribly depressing. The Supreme Court ruled against the clerk, there's a widespread objection to their refusal to issue the marriage licenses from most everyone who isn't bloody stupid and preliminary internet investigation indicates a majority of people in the U.S. support gay rights. The kind of people who would rally to the cause of this clerk are probably ALREADY against gay rights.

Quote from: UXLZ on August 31, 2015, 08:25:53 pm
I will say this simply, Truean. Humanity is diseased, and no cure exists.

I'd say that's inaccurate. The disease in question is ignorance and xenophobia and the cure is knowledge and tolerance. Thing is, like with actual diseases, vaccinating everybody while they're young doesn't always work and there will always be outlier cases where the disease takes hold, while still having a clear majority of healthy people. And vaccinating someone when they already have the disease doesn't do anything, so you just have to ignore them and wait for them to die and for their descendents to be properly medically treated.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on August 31, 2015, 08:50:23 pm
That's not what I'm talking about, Arc. It's more than that. Xenophobia and ignorance are the symptoms, not the cause.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on August 31, 2015, 09:03:27 pm
Quote from: Arcvasti on August 31, 2015, 08:43:24 pm
Looking at the article, I don't see anything terribly depressing. The Supreme Court ruled against the clerk, there's a widespread objection to their refusal to issue the marriage licenses from most everyone who isn't bloody stupid and preliminary internet investigation indicates a majority of people in the U.S. support gay rights. The kind of people who would rally to the cause of this clerk are probably ALREADY against gay rights.
It's probably that this asshole (and by proxy the handful of other clerks who defied the Supreme Court) won another round in the Supreme Court.  That's a huge deal, and a massive waste of resources, for what amounts to "But I'm religious!"

The Supreme Court finally decided, and these people demanded a retrial.  AND GOT IT.  Over something that literally hurts nobody.  It's just confirmation of the extreme Christian privilege in America, frankly.  Both perceived and actual.  The most devout Muslim would never have got this.  (Even if they had a case of ACTUAL religious persecution, instead of this BS)

Homosexuality is a "sin" equivalent to eating shellfish in Christianity, these people are just deluded bigots.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on August 31, 2015, 09:38:44 pm
Religion is far, far too often used as an excuse to meddle or do things that it has no right being involved with or allowing its fanatics to do. It's too sensitive of a topic, too many people can't handle their religion being questioned.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 31, 2015, 09:54:54 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on August 31, 2015, 09:38:44 pm
Religion is far, far too often used as an excuse to meddle or do things that it has no right being involved with or allowing its fanatics to do. It's too sensitive of a topic, too many people can't handle their religion being questioned.
For what it's worth, the abuse of religion is just as much a symptom as xenophobia and ignorance. The roots are deeper than ideology. People don't like having their beliefs questions because they don't like having their identities questions. People want a world that affirms that their self-perceptions are good and reasonable and fair. The bigot protesting the acceptance of gay marriage feels the same sort of sense of oppression as the transgender person degraded for knowing who they are. The difference is that in the first group has to hurt people to get their vindication. The second just needs the world to stop hurting them. But the root cause is often the same - "The world needs to accept that my reality is Right." That one thought makes one person a relentless asshole, and another a victim. One of the reasons I say context is everything - whether conviction is a virtue depends on what you believe in, and people like this clerk believe in things that are not really okay (and, in case it needs saying, transgender folk absolutely are right about their gender, and I also don't mean to say anything about the degree to which people feel or actually are oppressed).

That's not the only problem, of course. I'm not quite silly enough to think all human suffering comes down to any one universal flaw, or that I'm immune to any of them, but... that, I think is the relevant one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on August 31, 2015, 10:24:51 pm
Truthfully speaking, the issue as I see it is not so much with the existence of religion is and of itself (a higher power existing isn't too absurd for my taste to consider possible; I am agnostic after all) but with the notion of "Faith" that many espouse as the greatest of virtues. It honestly infuriates me, people's unwillingness to admit they are wrong, or to see things in a light other than their own. It's hard - I know that because it's hard, even for me, and I fail constantly - but if people were able to consider something outside of their own spectrum then a lot of these issues would be far more minor. At least, if they thought in a manner even bearing the facsimile of rationality. 

That is, to a great extent, the disease that humanity is inflicted with. It does not exist in one reality, but 7.125 billion separate bubbles. There is no cure for it, because if it is cured then things will no longer be even recognizable for what they once were.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arcvasti on August 31, 2015, 10:33:08 pm
Quote from: UXLZ on August 31, 2015, 10:24:51 pm
That is, to a great extent, the disease that humanity is inflicted with. It does not exist in one reality, but 7.125 billion separate bubbles. There is no cure for it, because if it is cured then things will no longer be even recognizable for what they once were.

I'd still say this is in large parts caused by ignorance. If people were more educated about things, then all 7ish billion bubbles would bear a larger resemblance to the real world and have less disharmony in general.

EDIT: I'm not implying there's a single universal ethical code that we need to find and teach to everybody, but weeding out the sillier things like xenophobia and such via making the unknown and unfamiliar known and familiar would go a long way towards making things better. Hell, this is something which has happened and is still happening.


Quote from: Rolan7 on August 31, 2015, 09:03:27 pm
Quote from: Arcvasti on August 31, 2015, 08:43:24 pm
Looking at the article, I don't see anything terribly depressing. The Supreme Court ruled against the clerk, there's a widespread objection to their refusal to issue the marriage licenses from most everyone who isn't bloody stupid and preliminary internet investigation indicates a majority of people in the U.S. support gay rights. The kind of people who would rally to the cause of this clerk are probably ALREADY against gay rights.
It's probably that this asshole (and by proxy the handful of other clerks who defied the Supreme Court) won another round in the Supreme Court.  That's a huge deal, and a massive waste of resources, for what amounts to "But I'm religious!"

The Supreme Court finally decided, and these people demanded a retrial.  AND GOT IT.  Over something that literally hurts nobody.  It's just confirmation of the extreme Christian privilege in America, frankly.  Both perceived and actual.  The most devout Muslim would never have got this.  (Even if they had a case of ACTUAL religious persecution, instead of this BS)
'

Yeah, I guess you're right. I'm not entirely sure how people can't grasp the basic "Your rights can't be used to they infringe on other's rights" thing, but whatever.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on August 31, 2015, 10:39:04 pm
It isn't caused by ignorance. The opposite, in fact, it is where ignorance springs from. Those bubbles are sadly, inevitably, utterly, totally inconsolable with one another. The level of education necessary does not exist.

For example, we are all kind and reasonable people here, yes? What is your opinion on pedophiles?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on August 31, 2015, 10:42:52 pm
They're not inconsolable. It's in fact pretty easy to bridge them, overlap them, get them in synch with each other. Gets more difficult the more you try to include, but that doesn't make it impossible. Just difficult, and possibly undesirable with regard to certain subjects.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: UXLZ on August 31, 2015, 10:49:49 pm
And that's the point, really, disharmony will always spring up, even from the tiniest of areas. Negative disharmony, too, not the kind that leads to improvement.

All it takes is a bowl of spilled rice.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lemon10 on August 31, 2015, 11:07:30 pm
Yeah, education isn't the answer for things that are highly subjective (eg. should we give rights to gays, should the death penalty be law, ect). And since gay marriage is one of those things, education isn't really the answer for it at all.

Quote from: Rolan7 on August 31, 2015, 09:03:27 pm
Homosexuality is a "sin" equivalent to eating shellfish in Christianity, these people are just deluded bigots.
Homosexuality is treated as quite a bit more of a sin then eating shellfish. Although it is only explicitly pointed out once that its a sin, and the same word is used to describe both, the idea that they are equally bad according to the bible is pretty silly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on September 01, 2015, 03:04:28 am
So, no news? Some conservatives are fighting a rear-guard action, and loosing dramatically (they lost their case and every single appeal, as they should). It's just the normal mess surrounding the change, give it five or ten years and no one will consider it an issue anymore.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 01, 2015, 07:36:16 am
Quote from: Arcvasti on August 31, 2015, 08:43:24 pm
I'd say that's inaccurate. The disease in question is ignorance and xenophobia and the cure is knowledge and tolerance.
Knowledge learns nothing to the ignorant and tolerance of others does not do anything inherent towards making them tolerant. All tolerance means is that everyone tolerates each other, it speaks nothing to a changing of beliefs.

Quote from: Rolan7 on August 31, 2015, 09:03:27 pm
The Supreme Court finally decided, and these people demanded a retrial.  AND GOT IT.  Over something that literally hurts nobody.  It's just confirmation of the extreme Christian privilege in America, frankly.  Both perceived and actual.  The most devout Muslim would never have got this.  (Even if they had a case of ACTUAL religious persecution, instead of this BS)
Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Sudan and Somalia carry the death penalty for homosexuality and about 70 other muslim majority countries carry either flogging, vigilantism or imprisonment for homosexuality. When you hear someone saying homosexuality to akin to being a “compulsive murderer”, gambler or paedophile," now that could be from a preacher in Abu Dhabi or Birmingham (though it was from the chairman of the central Birmingham mosque, not a preacher). Schools in Britain shelve any media showing homosexual relationships at the behest of Muslim parents and if you are gay in East London and get jumped, if historic precedence is to be noted the police will try their best to cover it up. Hell, when some blokes started  making animal noises and cries of “Unnatural acts! Unnatural acts!” to Tower Hamlet's labour leader and started calling the Tory leader a poof, police did nothing too. It reaches comic levels of absurdity when "spot the fag" contests are held in east London mosques and everyone's all like ~o.o~ what could this mean?
Oh yeah, and before when I was posting about that muslim drag queen documentary, and there was that hilarious guy saying "I beg u go worship the periodic table u dickheads" - he made the news! Amongst other people (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/muslim-drag-queens-get-police-protection-after-death-threats-1517037), as the guys and girls in the documentary are now under police protection after death threats. And I'd never thought I'd see the day when Sweden attacked a gay rights march - with the counter march led by "anti-racists" labeling the march "provocative" and an "expression of pure racism" because it marched through Stockholm.

Also have some Jewish literature I posted earlier:
Quote
This essay is bad and I should feel bad.

I should feel bad because I made exactly the mistake I am trying to warn everyone else about, and it wasn’t until I was almost done that I noticed.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
Very relevant I feel
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 01, 2015, 09:56:31 am
Quote from: Sheb on September 01, 2015, 03:04:28 am

But that's the problem. You're right. 5 or 10 years, minimum, and even then you'll still have holdouts, though hopefully less in number. Even so, holy crap.

Between a full or a half decade? We live in a society where people are impatient at 60 second microwave dinners, and I'm looking at between 5 to 10 years.... I've already spent half my life on this junk,  lived through an era where being gay was a criminal offense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas), fought for 12 years after that for the beginnings of equality, and now ... more waiting and resistance.

And here we go again:
http://news.yahoo.com/clerk-issue-gay-marriage-licenses-court-ruling-083217111.html#

(http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u233/Truean1/Smiling%20Bigotry_zpsegoy69ue.jpg)

That photo is her response to people demanding she comply with a supreme court order to do her duty as a voluntarily elected official. She did that in front of the press, knowing and intending to be photographed pretty much sneering at the law.... Just so we're clear, it went something like this. Davis emerged ... telling the couples and the activists gathered there that her office is continuing to deny the licenses "under God's authority."

"We're not leaving until we have a license," Ermold said.

"Then you're going to have a long day," Davis told him

And here's my favorite comment, said by her indirectly through her husband:
"But at the end of the day, we have to stand before God, which has higher authority than the Supreme Court,"

 :o

And there you have it folks. They just don't give a shit and are going to do anything they can to force whatever they want and selectively define as "God" down everyone else's throats. And, if we stop them, as they deserve to be stopped, then she'll become some kind of martyr for her cause. The best part is that even if you take her beliefs seriously and try to accommodate, the issue is, she won't even let some other clerk come in from another county to issue the licenses. She's not seeking respect or accommodation for her religious beliefs, she's expressly demanding to have more authority than the US Supreme Court in legal matters, and she's actively blocking anybody else from carrying out the lawful order (substituting in somebody who isn't religious to do the gay marriage thing).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on September 01, 2015, 10:01:26 am
Well, yeah, the sad part is that you'll always have assholes. Still, on some level, it's incredible how quickly attitudes are changing toward gays. I must say it looks great to me, but then I don't have to deal with the remaining bigots.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 01, 2015, 10:12:04 am
Sounds just like she's drunk the kool aid though, not like she's got a Machiavellian plan
And what's so debilitating about a non-entity becoming a martyr to losers? Supreme court is supreme court, gay marriage in USA is concrete this is just the last powerful resistance and it seems without power
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on September 01, 2015, 10:30:47 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on September 01, 2015, 07:36:16 am


Just out of interest: Are these shitheads 1st, 2nd, or nth generation immigrants? That guy who Tweets and has the word "skittles" in his handle sounds like a jolly Cockney lad who just happens to have spent his whole life in a homophobic echo chamber, just like many other jolly lads from all ethnic and religious backgrounds. In my opinion, the fact that these jokers happen to be "Mooslems" is totally irrelevant: Like that guy says in that blog post you linked, it's all about group identity and bugger-all about the actual "moral" issues that are being contested. It's rather sad and all-too-human that although the Ottomans already legalized homosexuality back in 1858, these beardy hipsters are putting on moral hysterics for the sake of being edgy and anti-Western – but that's how our groupish brains work: The proper way to become a reactionary is to react vehemently against anything and everything "those other people" are saying. If those other people happen to be right, reality is henceforth broken for you.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bohandas on September 01, 2015, 11:40:23 am
Quote from: UXLZ on August 31, 2015, 10:39:04 pm
It isn't caused by ignorance. The opposite, in fact, it is where ignorance springs from. Those bubbles are sadly, inevitably, utterly, totally inconsolable with one another. The level of education necessary does not exist.

For example, we are all kind and reasonable people here, yes? What is your opinion on pedophiles?

That depends on if they're raping kids, or having sex with minors who are genuinely into it, or just attracted to kids. The first is precisely as bad as any other form of rape (no more, no less; and you're ageist if you say otherwise), the second is creepy but ultimately does not do any real harm and therefore it's condemnation is unjustified, the third is completely acceptable - a person's private thoughts are their own business.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 01, 2015, 04:05:37 pm
Quote from: SirQuiamus on September 01, 2015, 10:30:47 am
Just out of interest: Are these shitheads 1st, 2nd, or nth generation immigrants?
A mix of all, mostly 1st or 2nd as Muslims only started immigrating by the hundreds of thousands quite recently (within the last 3 decades or so)

Quote from: SirQuiamus on September 01, 2015, 10:30:47 am
That guy who Tweets and has the word "skittles" in his handle sounds like a jolly Cockney lad who just happens to have spent his whole life in a homophobic echo chamber, just like many other jolly lads from all ethnic and religious backgrounds.
Just a minor point on the dialect, that's not cockney, that's estuary london speak
More to the point:
"happens"
He didn't "happens" into anything, people have moral agency. The very fact that progressivism exists is testament to the first people who lived their lives surrounded by stuff they didn't like and decided not to follow said stuff, making new stuff.

Quote from: SirQuiamus on September 01, 2015, 10:30:47 am
In my opinion, the fact that these jokers happen to be "Mooslems" is totally irrelevant: Like that guy says in that blog post you linked, it's all about group identity and bugger-all about the actual "moral" issues that are being contested.
The article I linked was about how ethnic identity is less divisive than political identity, people are distrustful more of people with different political beliefs than of different people
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
And Twitter lads make more convincing arguments

Quote from: SirQuiamus on September 01, 2015, 10:30:47 am
It's rather sad and all-too-human that although the Ottomans already legalized homosexuality back in 1858, these beardy hipsters are putting on moral hysterics for the sake of being edgy and anti-Western – but that's how our groupish brains work: The proper way to become a reactionary is to react vehemently against anything and everything "those other people" are saying. If those other people happen to be right, reality is henceforth broken for you.
I don't quite think this is a reactionary movement against the defunct Ottoman Empire or if they give a shit about being edgy or anti-western, they have a moral code and they follow through with it and wish to see their ideology grow wherever they go
And reality is not broken, because only you are right in your (that's a you plural right there, not singular) eyes, no one "happens" to be right unless there's an objective fact to dispute but even then religion is a powerful thing; you gotta have faith e.t.c.
Also you know, in their minds they "happen" to be right and anyone LGBT is in the wrong.
This is like that old hilarious argument my French m8y said that they set that kid on fire in the bus or beheaded the soldier in London it was because they didn't actually believe in Islam and my Russian m8y was just like "are you on crack, it is because they believe." Whilst not as diplomatic, he certainly got the point across. When Milipede wanted to ban criticizing Islam a few Islamic and free speech spokespeople were like "Milipede pls no this is retarded rethink your life" and loads others were like "this is absolutely bueno thank you Milipede" (though Milipede got utterly destroyed so it never happened) it's not like Islamic fundamentalists opposed progressives who wanted to smear cartoonists for "bringing it on themselves" when they got beheaded for drawing Muhammed, no they joined in of course! It is not a difficult concept to grasp that people have beliefs which shape the way they see the world and act upon it; just saying, the Hindus who immigrated to London arrived when it was still English, when racism was a normal practice, when London stopped being English, when tolerance was a normal practice, not only did they integrate every time, but their children integrated and their children and so on to the point where men and women of the Indian subcontinent occupy several tens of thousands of elite careers in the British Isles, most notably the sheer amount of Indian doctors. You don't happen your way somewhere, you make choices. Just so happens fundie museli got a moral guide that aids their choices :D [Perhaps with less nutritional value than museli]
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bohandas on September 01, 2015, 05:27:50 pm
Personally I don't understand why they even need a person to issue marriage licenses. That seems like something that could be handled by a simple computer program.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 01, 2015, 05:28:40 pm
Taxation purposes
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 01, 2015, 05:44:45 pm
*waggles hand* If marriage as a legal concept was replaced wholesale by civil unions (holding all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities, of course -- marriage with the name filed off), there wouldn't be much debate. Even in areas where civil unions and marriages currently are legally equal, there's still (fairly appropriate) attempts to allow for same sex marriage. Separate but equal is not equal and all that.

But yeah, pretty much the entire crux of the issue is (religious) people holding the borderline blasphemous belief that the secular and religious institutions of marriage are the same thing. Making the implicit statement that the court is equal to god isn't something I'd exactly be comfortable with, were I religious, m'self :V
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on September 01, 2015, 06:00:30 pm
Quote from: Frumple on September 01, 2015, 05:44:45 pm
*waggles hand* If marriage as a legal concept was replaced wholesale by civil unions (holding all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities, of course -- marriage with the name filed off), there wouldn't be much debate. Even in areas where civil unions and marriages currently are legally equal, there's still (fairly appropriate) attempts to allow for same sex marriage. Separate but equal is not equal and all that.

But yeah, pretty much the entire crux of the issue is (religious) people holding the borderline blasphemous belief that the secular and religious institutions of marriage are the same thing. Making the implicit statement that the court is equal to god isn't something I'd exactly be comfortable with, were I religious, m'self :V

You've got it backwards, see. Religious people see others campaigning to allow gay marriage, and see a blasphemous denigration of the religious institution of marriage, by importing (some of) the trappings of the religious institution into the civil one, to put next to things that the religious institution does not allow.

I'm fine with formal unions between gay couples. And I know that I'm going to be dogpiled on and called a shitlord as certainly as I know the sun will rise tomorrow, but the word 'marriage' carries further connotations and I would rather people didn't give the name to those unions.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 01, 2015, 06:08:18 pm
Then you don't want marriage to have any legal import whatsoever, really. You want it kept in the church and out of the court room. That'd also nicely side step that not exactly minor issue of not all religions having the same connotations.

... I'd be curious to know what those trappings mentioned are, though. Legal same sex marriage doesn't exactly marry the couple in the eyes of god. And other than the word itself, which the religious folks kinda' only have themselves to blame for it being co-opted for secular use, I can't really think of any.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bohandas on September 01, 2015, 06:12:06 pm
Quote from: Frumple on September 01, 2015, 05:44:45 pm
*waggles hand* If marriage as a legal concept was replaced wholesale by civil unions (holding all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities, of course -- marriage with the name filed off), there wouldn't be much debate. Even in areas where civil unions and marriages currently are legally equal, there's still (fairly appropriate) attempts to allow for same sex marriage. Separate but equal is not equal and all that.

But yeah, pretty much the entire crux of the issue is (religious) people holding the borderline blasphemous belief that the secular and religious institutions of marriage are the same thing. Making the implicit statement that the court is equal to god isn't something I'd exactly be comfortable with, were I religious, m'self :V

It's not *equal* to god, it is, in this context, *ABOVE* god.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on September 01, 2015, 06:52:27 pm
Quote from: Frumple on September 01, 2015, 06:08:18 pm
Then you don't want marriage to have any legal import whatsoever, really. You want it kept in the church and out of the court room.

Yeah. There's not really any more need for the state to subsidize marriages in the form of tax benefits, and that's all a civil union in the United States really is. Dependents I'm perfectly fine with, but just being married? There's no point now. You'd need to decouple things like medical consent too, but that's small potatoes by comparison.

Quote from: Frumple on September 01, 2015, 06:08:18 pm
That'd also nicely side step that not exactly minor issue of not all religions having the same connotations.

Precisely.

Quote from: Frumple on September 01, 2015, 06:08:18 pm
... I'd be curious to know what those trappings mentioned are, though.

The overt religious pieces are picked out, but a lot of the elements of the traditional Christian ceremony often hang around. This website, (http://gay.weddings.com/articles/gay-wedding-etiquette-questions.aspx) for instance, offers advice on modifying the traditional script, which is full of religious symbolism in its complete form. Not everyone goes for that, but "traditional-style gay weddings" are absolutely a thing.

Quote from: Frumple on September 01, 2015, 06:08:18 pm
And other than the word itself, which the religious folks kinda' only have themselves to blame for it being co-opted for secular use

How so?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bohandas on September 01, 2015, 06:56:17 pm
Quote from: Frumple on September 01, 2015, 06:08:18 pm
Then you don't want marriage to have any legal import whatsoever, really.

That would be the ideal situation. I honestly can't imagine any valid reason why it should have legal import; and clearly the fact that it currently does causes problems.

EDIT:
Actually, the ideal situation would be for the whole institution of marriage to disappear -entirely-, from law, from religion, from culture, from everything and be relegated to the trash heap of history (and possibly also hipsters doing it ironically). If you really want to stay together you shouldn't need some shameful contract to enforce it; the only thing that adds is the possibility of regretting it later.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on September 01, 2015, 07:07:40 pm
Quote from: Baffler on September 01, 2015, 06:00:30 pm
Quote from: Frumple on September 01, 2015, 05:44:45 pm
*waggles hand* If marriage as a legal concept was replaced wholesale by civil unions (holding all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities, of course -- marriage with the name filed off), there wouldn't be much debate. Even in areas where civil unions and marriages currently are legally equal, there's still (fairly appropriate) attempts to allow for same sex marriage. Separate but equal is not equal and all that.

But yeah, pretty much the entire crux of the issue is (religious) people holding the borderline blasphemous belief that the secular and religious institutions of marriage are the same thing. Making the implicit statement that the court is equal to god isn't something I'd exactly be comfortable with, were I religious, m'self :V

You've got it backwards, see. Religious people see others campaigning to allow gay marriage, and see a blasphemous denigration of the religious institution of marriage, by importing (some of) the trappings of the religious institution into the civil one, to put next to things that the religious institution does not allow.

I'm fine with formal unions between gay couples. And I know that I'm going to be dogpiled on and called a shitlord as certainly as I know the sun will rise tomorrow, but the word 'marriage' carries further connotations and I would rather people didn't give the name to those unions.

At one point I was fine with civil unions, it seemed like a fine compromise.  Why should I care what it's called, as long as people can enjoy the same effective rights?  It's just a word, and holding a mere word as sacred is just a fundie thing.

That was my perspective as an edgy, bitter young atheist from a broken home.  A lot of my friends were similarly disillusioned.  But what I eventually saw was that a lot of marriages *do* work out.  It's actually more common for non-religious families.  And it was still called marriage, because that word has primal meaning.

If religion defines marriage, which religion?  Why are atheists allowed to marry, if gays aren't?  Because marriage isn't religious, or even purely cultural.  Our species has an instinct for lifetime relationships, and marriage is just a word for that.  We put trappings of culture around it, and along the way we wrapped it in religion too.  But at it's core it's nothing more than wanting to spend the rest of your life with someone, with intimacy and reciprocation.

A cousin of mine finally got married last week.  It wasn't a clinical "civil union" for tax purposes, it was a recognition that they are two humans in love, hopefully for the rest of their lives.  There's a word for that, is what I'm saying.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: WealthyRadish on September 01, 2015, 07:10:19 pm
Quote from: Truean on August 31, 2015, 08:19:30 pm

She almost certainly got the idea from other clerks who have previously pulled the same stunt in favor of gay marriage in states where it wasn't legal, and I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned in the article. At least here in Colorado I remember local-level clerks doing the same thing in favor of gay marriage at least twice within the last two years, though the latest was during the political limbo the law was in after a circuit court dismissed a case attempting to ban gay marriage, with the clerk issuing licenses before being authorized to. I'm fairly sure the one prior to that was a pure political stunt and activist statement, triggered by a change in another state's law.

I personally found it hilarious that someone would do this rather than just resign, and she obviously has an even flimsier legal ground than the other defiant clerks, but to condemn the action on the grounds that it's illegal... do you feel the same way about the other clerks issuing licenses to gay couples while it was illegal? I severely doubt it (and that's not necessarily a bad thing, many good changes have come about through peaceful breaches of the law), and if that's the case, I would at least try to respect her making a stand like this. I think her beliefs about religion's role in government are ridiculous and frankly it's an embarrassment for American politics and culture that she's getting popular support for this, but it would be hypocritical of me to say what she's doing isn't in some ways admirable if I supported those clerks in Boulder doing the same thing in support of gay marriage. Of course, you may not support those earlier clerks, but that would be a surprise coming from a gay rights activist.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 01, 2015, 07:11:40 pm
People were getting married for thousands of years before Christianity was around, I don't see why it should get to claim a monopoly on the term and force everyone to abide by its prejudiced rules on it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bohandas on September 01, 2015, 07:14:14 pm
Quote from: UrbanGiraffe on September 01, 2015, 07:10:19 pm
Quote from: Truean on August 31, 2015, 08:19:30 pm

She almost certainly got the idea from other clerks who have previously pulled the same stunt in favor of gay marriage in states where it wasn't legal, and I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned in the article. At least here in Colorado I remember local-level clerks doing the same thing in favor of gay marriage at least twice within the last two years, though the latest was during the political limbo the law was in after a circuit court dismissed a case attempting to ban gay marriage, with the clerk issuing licenses before being authorized to. I'm fairly sure the one prior to that was a pure political stunt and activist statement, triggered by a change in another state's law.

I personally found it hilarious that someone would do this rather than just resign, and she obviously has an even flimsier legal ground than the other defiant clerks, but to condemn the action on the grounds that it's illegal... do you feel the same way about the other clerks issuing licenses to gay couples while it was illegal? I severely doubt it (and that's not necessarily a bad thing, many good changes have come about through peaceful breaches of the law), and if that's the case, I would at least try to respect her making a stand like this. I think her beliefs about religion's role in government are ridiculous and frankly it's an embarrassment for American politics and culture that she's getting popular support for this, but it would be hypocritical of me to say what she's doing isn't in some ways admirable if I supported those clerks in Boulder doing the same thing in support of gay marriage. Of course, you may not support those earlier clerks, but that would be a surprise coming from a gay rights activist.

I don't support those other clerks. Not to a degree where given the choice between condemning both them and this religious wingnut versus letting them both go I would choose to let it go.

Again, while I favor equality I would have preferred to see that equality brought about by marriage being abolished, not by it being expanded.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 01, 2015, 07:24:06 pm
Quote from: Baffler on September 01, 2015, 06:52:27 pm
The overt religious pieces are picked out, but a lot of the elements of the traditional Christian ceremony often hang around. This website, (http://gay.weddings.com/articles/gay-wedding-etiquette-questions.aspx) for instance, offers advice on modifying the traditional script, which is full of religious symbolism in its complete form. Not everyone goes for that, but "traditional-style gay weddings" are absolutely a thing.
Heh, they are, but marriage ceremonies and marriage are two different things. The legal process really has very little to do with the former -- it requires some signed papers and similar scutwork, and that's really about it.

M'actually fairly okay with complaining about or being discomforted by the traditional ceremonies being appropriated, though it always seems a little silly considering the variations surrounding the process. Monolithic as the abrahamic churches like to think they are, they're kinda' not the only shows in town. Unfortunately marriage itself doesn't have terribly much to do with that, for all that the churches have been doing their damnedest to appropriate the term for themselves.

... thinking on it a little more, I guess you could make an argument about there being parallel between the one-in-the-eyes-of-god and one-in-the-eyes-of-taxesthe state, but if you go that far you'd be fighting against anything that even looks like marriage, regardless of what it's called or what tradition it originated from. And as I've since been ninja'd, the concept predates most of the religions against inclusive marriage laws rather substantially.

Quote
How so?
Not just little to no resistance to marriage being suborned as a secular concept, but active and regular attempts to directly couple the two. Easily the greatest, most fervent, and most regular proponents for bringing the court into the church has been the religious side of things. Boils down to 'em wanting to be catered to by the legal system, and damn whoever gets shafted by it (which is significantly more people than homosexual couples, by the by).

It would have been fairly easy for the religious groups to say, "No. Use a different term." to the legal trappings, and refuse association (which might not have stopped the cultural (re)appropriation, but at least it would have mostly stopped the silly shit we're dealing with nowadays). But they didn't, and have since largely and vigorously insisted against any other course of action, even rallying against equal institutions by a different name -- see the nature of civil unions in the US, just as an example. The secular world has co-opted the term marriage to a fair extent because the religious one has pretty consistently refused to accept or offer other options.

Quote from: Rolan7 on September 01, 2015, 07:07:40 pm
It wasn't a clinical "civil union" for tax purposes, it was a recognition that they are two humans in love, hopefully for the rest of their lives.  There's a word for that, is what I'm saying.
T'be honest, that's half the reason I'd like to see marriage ditched as a legal term. It's supposed to be about union and lasting love, or at least publicly declared relations, not taxation and hospital visits and whatnot. Let marriage be decided by the married, not the county clerk's office. And don't let the latter claim any dominion over it. Keep them clinical and right the hell away from your relationship dynamics.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on September 01, 2015, 07:53:35 pm
There's also the fact that plenty of religions are like "What, gay marriage? Sure. Why are you even asking? We've got no problem with it!" and they had been prevented from practicing that. :v Do we not allow them to call it marriage either?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Calidovi on September 01, 2015, 08:15:09 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on September 01, 2015, 07:11:40 pm
People were getting married for thousands of years before Christianity was around, I don't see why it should get to claim a monopoly on the term and force everyone to abide by its prejudiced rules on it.

Might makes right.

To actually respond to your statement, marriage may have been around, but not in the form that we know of. "Modern" concepts were introduced with Judaism but continually changed over time, though little by little.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 01, 2015, 08:17:39 pm
Quote from: UrbanGiraffe on September 01, 2015, 07:10:19 pm

Wow, this where I don't care WHAT people think but I care HOW they reach their conclusions. So many flaws, sir:

False comparison between her illegality and clerks who issued gay marriage licenses recently, when that was illegal.

No. Full stop. You've missed something of absolutely, completely, utterly critical significance here: Standing.

Standing is required to sue. Standing is having a law effect you personally. People deliberately do illegal acts, like say, issuing a gay marriage licenses when it's illegal, to get standing so that they are allowed to sue. They are trying to seek legal redress from the government. She isn't; she's just thumbing her nose at the law.

Those earlier clerks, who deliberately, illegally issued gay marriages, were trying to start a court case to convince the government that gay marriage was right. Specifically, they were trying to initiate a lawsuit about it for formal legal discussion. She isn't; and she knows that's impossible now. She knows that formal legal discussion has already happened in the form of a supreme court lawsuit. Her side was well funded, and heard at length. It lost. She doesn't care about reason, logic, fairness, or anything. She's pissed cause she doesn't like gays and she's hiding her bigotry behind religion. She's purposefully trying to look like a victim and a martyr while throwing a hissy fit, cause her side lost fair and square.

There's no comparison between her and earlier clerks who recently issued gay marriage licenses they knew were illegal. Those clerks were TRYING to get the courts involved. The court already told her and everyone else no. She's telling the courts her version of God (as opposed to anybody else's) is more powerful than they are and to go pound salt. BIG difference. Huge difference.

The clerks who illegally issued gay marriages are properly compared to the clerks who illegally issued interracial marriages between white people and black people. Both were trying to get standing to start a lawsuit. This lady, has to know that's not possible, because there was just a lawsuit over this. The court isn't going to rehear it just because she doesn't like it, and they already sure as heck considered "I think God doesn't like it" as part of the lawsuit last month. They already ruled against it once, why on earth wouldn't they rule against it again 2 months later...?

She knows she's not gonna get standing. She doesn't want the court to intervene; she wants them to buzz off to put it politely. She's doing it anyhow.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on September 01, 2015, 08:33:24 pm
It did make it back to the Supreme Court, though.  Which it *shouldn't* have because they already decided, so this was a massive waste of time.  But I guess she was trying to get another day in the highest court of the land, and got it.  Because Christianity.

I guess my limited understanding is that the clerks who issued gay marriage licenses should be fine, because the Supreme Court ruled in their favor - retroactively justifying their actions.  Otherwise, I guess they would be fired for failing to perform their duties.

Unlike those extremist Christians who refused to perform their duties after the ruling, and got weeks of press time...  Did any of them even get fired?  Maybe they were excused because they were acting according to their convictions, as if that's actually a valid excuse for breaking the law.

But as much as I dislike this lady, she seems to have done the same thing the pro-gay-rights clerks did.  Forced the issue back into the courts.  If that's a valid excuse for them, I guess it is for her too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 01, 2015, 08:38:02 pm
Quote from: Laptisen on September 01, 2015, 08:15:09 pm
Might makes right.

To actually respond to your statement, marriage may have been around, but not in the form that we know of. "Modern" concepts were introduced with Judaism but continually changed over time, though little by little.
And they have been changed once again to be more inclusive.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on September 01, 2015, 08:44:31 pm
The Courts had not issued a judgment on the matter when illegal certificates were issued, but they had when this clerk illegally withheld certificates. Truean has the legal principles correct, as might be expected of a lawyer. Yes, it's technically the case that you can do stuff like this in the hope of getting the Supreme Court to override a past ruling of theirs but when the decision was made by the same Court that currently sits, within the past year, it's so practically the definition of frivolity that it could be used in a textbook.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on September 01, 2015, 08:59:00 pm
She wanted this to go back to the courts (which is ridiculous, considering the previous Supreme Court ruling).  So she got standing by breaking the law.  Then, despite all reason, her case actually *did* make it back to the Supreme Court.

It shouldn't have, but it did.  And I don't see how her case is inherently different from what the people on the other side did.  Except that her case was trivial, and should have been thrown out or handled in a lower court.  But apparently the justice system thought that it was worth hearing, for "some reason" (Christian privilege, as I've said).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bohandas on September 01, 2015, 09:02:16 pm
Quote from: Rolan7 on September 01, 2015, 08:33:24 pm
It did make it back to the Supreme Court, though.  Which it *shouldn't* have because they already decided, so this was a massive waste of time.  But I guess she was trying to get another day in the highest court of the land, and got it.

Where did you hear that? That wasn't in any of the articles i read about it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on September 01, 2015, 09:06:50 pm
That the Supreme Court itself made a fresh ruling against her?  Not sure if this was one of the original linked articles, but it was linked off the most recent one:
http://news.yahoo.com/reckoning-nears-clerk-resisting-same-sex-marriage-ruling-202230268.html#
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Wolock on September 01, 2015, 09:29:48 pm
You missed that one : http://news.yahoo.com/clerk-issue-gay-marriage-licenses-court-ruling-083217111.html# (http://news.yahoo.com/clerk-issue-gay-marriage-licenses-court-ruling-083217111.html#)

The SCOTUS ruled against her yesterday and today she defied the ruling.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on September 01, 2015, 09:49:52 pm
Oh, cool.
I hope she gets a massive fine or something, what a nutjob.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: WealthyRadish on September 01, 2015, 10:06:17 pm
Quote from: Truean on September 01, 2015, 08:17:39 pm
Quote from: UrbanGiraffe on September 01, 2015, 07:10:19 pm

My main point by mentioning the earlier clerks was that it seemed to me that you were opposing her use of her official position for political activism in this way, and that by mentioning other clerks who did the same thing on the opposite side of the issue, it might suggest a bias. Of course it would be silly if the Supreme Court reversed its ruling after two months, but you said yourself in the original post that Davis doing this could end up furthering the "religious liberty" proponents' goals, through her being a martyr and all that, so it was still political activism (though you're right, it's not the same as trying to get a case ruled on by a higher court).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 01, 2015, 11:03:11 pm
Quote from: UrbanGiraffe on September 01, 2015, 10:06:17 pm

Ok, let's presuppose you're possibly valid here and work from there. Also, thank you for being nice in the last post. That said, "structure" or HOW you reach conclusions matter. Let me try this....

What I believe you are attempting to say is something like:

Clerk A = Gay marriage issuing clerk
Clerk B = Her.

If Clerk A is doing X to further a political cause, then Clerk B doing X for similar reasons is reasonable.
Note: as you've thankfully acknowledged, there's a difference between doing that to start a lawsuit v. doing it to disrespect the law. Ignoring this fact so we err in your favor.... Here's where that breaks down.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the following is deemed valid:

I.) Both "Gay Rights," and "Religious Liberty" are valid and opposing causes people can legitimately further (I don't believe this, but if we assume I do for argument's sake).
II.) One can use one's political office for the furtherance of said causes.
III.) We are ignoring the previous "Standing" argument for this post's argument purpose only.

Assuming Also the following are principles to be followed when possible:
i.) harm avoidance, 
ii.) harm mitigation,
iii.) consistency,
iv.) practicality.

then it still doesn't work well.

Even assuming "I," "II," and "III" are true countervailing principles still invalidate her actions being reasonable. Namely, "i," "ii," "iii," "iv," cast doubt on the reasonableness of Clerk B's actions, when compared with Clerk A. Clerk A's actions did not directly harm anyone, because issuing a marriage license is not a form of direct harm, whereas denying one is under "i." Clerk A's actions required no mitigation as there was no harm, whereas Clerk B's did and she failed to provide it (lessen the harm she did, under "ii." This brings us to consistency  under "iii," Clerk B isn't (Ignoring that she's been divorced multiple times); namely, she is denying marriages to ALL people, both gay and straight, which goes to "ii" (mitigation, she's hurting straights too). Finally, "iv" practicality also makes her unreasonable, as she knows there is no way any of her actions will legitimately advance her cause, as say ... legislative, lobbying, or or literary action might. All her actions will bring nothing but unmitigated pain and harm with 0 chance of accomplishing what she wants, and probably backfiring on her cause, badly.

Now, you could structure a counterargument against what I just said, perhaps as follows: Counterargument example.

"But Truean, by drawing attention to her cause, showing resolve to galvanize support, getting resources aligned, and providing a spokesperson, she's taking the preliminary steps towards bolstering and perhaps taking legislative, lobbying or literary action to further her cause." Also, she's not providing marriages to anyone in an attempt to show impartiality to both gays and straights. She may have a more difficult tactical position to advance, but she's taking steps she believes will advance it as best she's able."

You see how that works? and now the counter to the proposed counterargument:

Even so, harm, equally done to gays and straights, is still harm. The harm's distribution isn't in question, it's depth and severity is.  She's done nothing to alleviate the harm her actions have generated, and has actually worsened it by refusing to let any OTHER clerk (who doesn't have an objection) perform the lawful order, (even for the straights). She also hasn't referred the straights or gays to another county or resource. Thus, her actions have made everything exponentially worse, and needlessly so. There are so many more effective ways to get "Religious Liberty" bills passed that don't cause nearly as much harm, and some states have recently passed such laws (LA, Ark, etc), without these types of shenanigans, and certainly without thumbing their nose at a court order. She's refused any and all attempts to accommodate her at her job and instead demanded that she control US law and policy, while harming others....


See the difference? See what I did there? I actually provided a reasonable argument, counterargument and counter to that counterargument, as opposed to straw-man arguments. See, this is why structure matters and why the lack of it hurts people so much. I do a couple of absolutely critical things for a reasonable discussion that everybody seems to have completely forgotten how to do these days, a.) I presuppose you may be a halfway decent individual instead of some monster opposition or cartoon villain. b.) I presuppose things are in your favor and fight from there to error on your side and still win, giving more credibility to my argument, because it takes pains to be fair to your side of it.

The internet, and life, needs more of that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: WealthyRadish on September 02, 2015, 02:59:37 am
I wasn't particularly keen on this discussion, since we're in agreement on pretty much everything, but this is actually looking to be more fun than I thought.

Accepting the format of your post as well as principles I-II (not disregarding the argument for the need for "standing" in court procedures) and i-iv providing the basis for preference for Clerk A over Clerk B, I believe you've missed a few key arguments against the actions of Clerk A (some of which also apply to Clerk B). I'm assuming by "harm avoidance" you mean the immediate practical consequences of a protest or action, while "harm mitigation" is the reversibility of harm done and longer term progress gained for either side's agenda.

On harmfulness of Clerk A:
When both Clerk A and Clerk B take political action, either through halting licenses or giving illegal licenses, they are both violating their apolitical position as a minor administrator. In Clerk A's case this is through breaking the law, while in Clerk B's case it is by failing to execute her official duty (for which she is being sued separately from her Supreme Court appeal that was dismissed). When an official holding a purely administrative position (even if elected) decides how the law is to be executed or willfully breaks it, he or she stands to weaken confidence in the law and its execution while encouraging a dysfunctional political system in which the execution of a lawful state or federal policy is subject to an office as low as the county clerk. If this kind of political action were widespread, counties all over the United States could be left a patchwork of violations for issues beyond gay marriage, with state and even federal law left to the (temporary) executive whim of any politically inclined clerk.

Because both Clerk A and Clerk B's actions contribute to this, it only strengthens Clerk B's relative standing in the sense that Clerk A's position cannot be considered completely harmless, while both Clerk A and Clerk B's positions are weakened and the argument for clerks not taking political action in general strengthened.

Further, when considering Clerk A's harmlessness, I believe your argument doesn't fully take into account the conditions under which Clerk A issued licenses. It can be said that no harm was done now, retrospectively, because Clerk A's action succeeded in court and was later affirmed by the separate Supreme Court ruling. But had Clerk A's case failed and the issued same-sex licenses been revoked, more harm would have been done in their revocation than there was benefit in their brief issuance, however unstable the recipients knew them to be.

...

Principle III of your argument is that the need for "standing" in a lawsuit can be ignored, but I don't believe this is necessary. The need for standing to bring a case through the courts is true for both Clerk A and B, but I would actually argue that the need for standing is a stronger force in favor of Clerk B's position against gay marriage than Clerk A's position for it. For a lawsuit to be brought in favor of gay marriage, Clerk A does not need to issue illegal licenses so as to provoke a lawsuit and in the process violate his or her position as county clerk. It is enough for a same-sex couple to apply for a license, be rejected under the law, and use this as standing for a lawsuit. Under these conditions, the clerk would not cause any of the harm associated with breaking the law, while the case would be functionally identical in strength.

For Clerk B's position, however, standing for a lawsuit is much for difficult for any party to get, since it has the unfortunate predicament of arguing for the denial of people's rights rather than for equality. It speaks to the weakness of arguments against gay marriage that this is the case, since it really has no effect whatsoever on heterosexual couples that could be used to gain standing in a lawsuit (but hey, I don't agree with the lady, I'm just getting paid to defend her). The main point being, the county clerk is one of the few people among the government and citizenry that can take such a political action, gain standing, and bring a case against a law allowing gay marriage (the others being legislators who can enact whatever laws they can get passed until they're struck down by the courts).

(I don't actually know if the above paragraph is a legitimate argument, but it sounds like it might be, so good enough right? If there have been lawsuits challenging laws permitting gay marriage that weren't dismissed, how did they gain "standing" anyway? It seems impossible to me, unless you do happen to be in a position to provoke a lawsuit as a clerk like Clerk B. Does "my religion says gays can't marry, so this offends me even if it has nothing to do with me" count as personal standing?)

The rest of your arguments I accept. It's for these reasons that my opinion is that neither Clerk A nor Clerk B is justified in choosing to issue or halt issuing licenses for political reasons, and that while preference can be given to Clerk A's actions as being less harmful, this gap isn't wide enough to reasonably accept Clerk A's actions while rejecting Clerk B's (and vise versa).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on September 02, 2015, 03:51:03 am
Quote from: Rolan7 on September 01, 2015, 08:33:24 pm
Maybe they were excused because they were acting according to their convictions, as if that's actually a valid excuse for breaking the law.
Wow, you should use that defense for political crimes. The implications!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Wolock on September 02, 2015, 04:20:01 am
Actually, there's a big difference between Clerk A and Clerk B. While they both broke the law by issuing/not issuing licenses, Clerk B defied a ruling by still refusing to issue them. Contempt of the court makes Clerk B's case worst than Clerk A.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 02, 2015, 07:39:29 am
Well, again, these are "structural" and "for the sake of argument" things. I don't believe personally a lot of what I said, we're just doing it to prove a point. Example, I think standing is a valid thing, but I'm saying "even if it wasn't." And, it's the same deal with the "One can use one's political office for the furtherance of said causes." These are assumptions II, and III, again solely for the sake of argument. They are assumed for purposes of an exercise, and another example of this technique is "Well, fine but even if [insert thing here] is true, then that still doesn't explain [other thing]. You see?

Section A.) In re the section of your most recent post entitled, "On harmfulness of Clerk A" I respectfully dissent and disagree. First, we were structurally assuming both points II, and III (that it was ok to use a political position for activism, and that standing would be ignored as a point). Forgetting that to isolate and address your counter, we still reach an impasse. You state in essense 2 subpoints here, A.) Consistency across geographic locations under one clear rule (for or against gay marriage licenses), and B.) it's only ok because Clerk A was proven right in the end, AKA hidesight is 20/20. Please allow me to illuminate.

What clerk A did is called an act of "Civil Disobedience." That is, Clerk A knew what they were doing was considered illegal by the government and did it anyhow on a moral and legal objection. Here's the difference, Clerk A willfully, obediently, and gracefully accepted any consequences, negative or positive, for the chance to be proven right in court. Clerk B is scoffing at the almost certain consequences, daring the court to impose penalties for her mocking it's rightful place so she gets to play victim, because she knows she won't be proven right in court. This is huge, and I can't say that enough. Clerk A wasn't trying to create any "patchwork" of different standards and applications of the law, but rather Clerk A was trying to formally change the law itself. Clerk B is trying to create just such a patchwork but claiming she is special and deserves an exception. Indeed, the unknowable exception would be whether or not your county clerk holds such religious convictions under Clerk B.... Clerk A wanted and was seeking a uniform standard: acceptance. Motive, and reasonableness of it, matters. If Clerk A won (before Clerk A did win) then there would have been the uniformity you seem to seek, same if she lost. If Clerk B wins, then ... then you have an unpredictable patchwork.

In sum, Clerk A acknowledges the illegality and states a mature willingness to bear any burden, suffer any cost, and respect the court as it imposes said costs. Clerk B is thumbing her nose at the court and saying it has less power than she does via her interpretation of God (as opposed to any other religion).

Section B.) The unlabeled second portion of your last post concerning "standing"

Again, structurally, point III assumed away the standing argument in what I thought was your benefit and as a point to specifically try to be fair to you and your side (see above). Your arguments can be summed up as, -.) It's easier for Clerk A than Clerk B to get standing, --.) Least Disruptive and most efficient method, namely that Clerk A has other, less disruptive methods available than Clerk B who has no choice. Neither hold true. First, Clerk A is challenging a constitutional amendment; whereas Clerk B is (hopelessly and foolishly) challenging a court ruling. Clerk A's method is the least disruptive, and her only choice, as there's nothing she can practically do to alter that constitutional amendment, other than have it declared unconstitutional, which is one of the highest bars there is to reach. Clerk B does not suffer from such an incredibly high bar and her side imposed this high bar upon Clerk A by changing the constitution to add their gay marriage ban. Clerk B is trying to oppose a court case, which could be done by passing a law, whereas, Clerk A can't override a constitutional amendment with a law....

Clerk A's actions are harmless, in that they have NO VICTIMS, and they deny nothing tangible to anyone, while seeing not a patchwork, but a uniformity of law and application/enforcement of said law. Clerk B's actions are harmful because they have ACTUAL VICTIMS, and they deny tangible things (licenses) to real people, while seeking to impose the very patchwork you said would be harmful.

Disclaimer: That said this is an opinion piece and whenever you break the law for civil disobedience or otherwise there will be consequences, so don't say I said it was cool or whatever. It will suck if you try this and don't say I didn't say it wouldn't suck. DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. DO NOT go breaking the law to prove a point. You will probably be punished and you shouldn't do it.

Speaking of motives, hers suck: http://theweek.com/speedreads/575077/dan-savage-kentucky-clerk-defying-supreme-court-gay-marriage-waiting-cash
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on September 03, 2015, 05:18:59 pm
Well anyway, she's been jailed for contempt of court!
I assume she expected this and was angling to be a martyr. In which case, win-win I suppose... if book deals and suffering for convictions are worth that to her.
I hope if she ends up regretting it later, it's because she realizes her convictions are wrong.

Pretty crazy that she got this *back* to the Supreme Court and still wasn't satisfied. Enormous waste of resources.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on September 03, 2015, 06:22:43 pm
Quote from: Rolan7 on September 03, 2015, 05:18:59 pm
Pretty crazy that she got this *back* to the Supreme Court and still wasn't satisfied. Enormous waste of resources.
Really? Seems (to this uneducated) like she solidified a precedence of ruling against people who do this.
Hope the lower appeals court judges take the hint.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on September 03, 2015, 06:40:36 pm
As I understand it, there was no punishment for her forcing the issue back to the Supreme Court.  Just like the clerks who illegally issued licenses to gay couples.  In both cases it was basically just creating a case, and apparently that's just okay...

(Though it seems screwy that she forced it *back* to the Supreme Court, so soon, with what sounds like practically the same case.  Really amazed that they agreed to hear it, the Supreme Court is generally choosy about which cases it gets around to)

Nah, she got arrested for being in contempt of court.  Because after the Supreme Court decided against her, she basically said their decision didn't matter.  That she follows her interpretation of God's will instead.  (But she couldn't just resign or something, no, she had to keep going to work but refusing to do her job).

I think it'd be roughly similar to a Hindu accepting a job on a fishing trawler, but refusing to handle the fish (touching animal corpses for a living was a way to become "untouchable", apparently).  If religious convictions stop someone from doing a job, they should resign...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 03, 2015, 07:43:06 pm
Quote from: Rolan7 on September 03, 2015, 06:40:36 pm
If religious convictions stop someone from doing a job, they should resign...
Pork bullet
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on September 03, 2015, 07:46:13 pm
I actually was thinking about that, but I don't think they were able to resign exactly?  They shouldn't have been put in that position.
Mainly because of their predictable and honestly reasonable reaction.
Worth researching, for anyone who isn't familiar with it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 03, 2015, 07:53:27 pm
Predictable in hindsight; should careers accommodate to people or people accommodate to careers? Should a muslim doctor refuse abortions? Also a bit confused on the Hindu bit, is that real? Speaking of which, Fisherman Association President hacked to death (http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/fishermen-association-president-hacked-to-death/article7609577.ece)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 03, 2015, 08:04:05 pm
... they were an elected official. Not hired. Doctor example is not really applicable. Since, you know. It wasn't really a career, it was a political position.

I'm not sure why you think they couldn't resign, though, rol? Pretty sure there were no real obstacles to that beyond maybe an emergency vote, and there's usually procedure laid down to handle the position in the interim period. From most accounts I've been hearing, the office in question would probably have ran better with the critter gone anyway.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 03, 2015, 08:05:17 pm
Quote from: Frumple on September 03, 2015, 08:04:05 pm
... they were an elected official. Not hired. Doctor example is not really applicable. Since, you know. It wasn't really a career, it was a political position.
Surely that means they should do their job even more?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 03, 2015, 08:13:56 pm
It means there's functionally zero enforceable quality control on who gets in, and getting them out is a complete bastard. Doctor, you need a degree, and you can probably be fired if you bugger up. Elected nitwit, can be anyone (fun times, the county I'm in had an illiterate alcoholic -- and note, there is no hyperbole or exaggeration in that label -- in a position higher up in the chain than the person being discussed), usually easier to just sit on arse and wait for term to expire than remove. Note this blighter still hasn't been removed from her position or anything official, so far as I'm aware, she's just in bloody jail.

Basically, you can conceivably enforce job performance heuristics on a doctor, and questioning proper level of enforcement regarding them is a meaningful discussion. Doing that to a politician is close to impossible, and is usually only discussed on the other end of a pitchfork.

It'd be nice if they did their job regardless of other pressures, obviously, but you get what you vote for. Blame the electorate :V
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 03, 2015, 08:17:54 pm
Could she just be a relic of 10 years ago where even Obama wanted traditional marriage and today dishes rainbows like a prism in a sprinkler machine (and I'm not talking Snowdens)? Like at some point she represented most of Murrica and now not so much?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on September 03, 2015, 08:22:59 pm
Quote from: Frumple on September 03, 2015, 08:04:05 pm
... they were an elected official. Not hired. Doctor example is not really applicable. Since, you know. It wasn't really a career, it was a political position.

I'm not sure why you think they couldn't resign, though, rol? Pretty sure there were no real obstacles to that beyond maybe an emergency vote, and there's usually procedure laid down to handle the position in the interim period. From most accounts I've been hearing, the office in question would probably have ran better with the critter gone anyway.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic.  I meant that they should have resigned.

Oh and if you meant this:
Quote from: Loud Whispers on September 03, 2015, 07:43:06 pm
Quote from: Rolan7 on September 03, 2015, 06:40:36 pm
If religious convictions stop someone from doing a job, they should resign...
Pork bullet

Quote from: Rolan7 on September 03, 2015, 07:46:13 pm
I actually was thinking about that, but I don't think they were able to resign exactly?  They shouldn't have been put in that position.
Mainly because of their predictable and honestly reasonable reaction.
Worth researching, for anyone who isn't familiar with it.

I was saying that the Hindu soldiers in the British army (or however that worked) couldn't easily resign.  Probably.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 03, 2015, 08:24:37 pm
Near as I've been able to notice (in admittedly cursory passing), she's a relic of nepotism that people voted for because her mother held the same position. Had nothing to do with representation and everything to do with name recognition.

And @rol, ah. Fair enough. Do remember: When in doubt, georgia is the sarcasm font.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on September 03, 2015, 08:35:40 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on September 03, 2015, 07:53:27 pm
Predictable in hindsight; should careers accommodate to people or people accommodate to careers? Should a muslim doctor refuse abortions? Also a bit confused on the Hindu bit, is that real? Speaking of which, Fisherman Association President hacked to death (http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/fishermen-association-president-hacked-to-death/article7609577.ece)

It's a little different if the person is in a position of power which has a monopoly. Individual doctors don't have a monopoly. If one doctor says "I don't do abortions" then he is completely aware that you can just go to another doctor that does do them, whereas if the government official won't stamp your thing due to their own personal beliefs, they are completely aware that you can't just shop around for another person that will - they know that they're forcing their beliefs on you, not just excercising their own freedom to choose, as the doctor is. The government official is knowingly preventing you from doing what you want, rather than just saying they don't want to be involved in something for personal reasons.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 03, 2015, 08:48:47 pm
Quote from: Rolan7 on September 03, 2015, 08:22:59 pm
I was saying that the Hindu soldiers in the British army (or however that worked) couldn't easily resign.  Probably.
Volunteers fighting for pride and pay, the only ones I'd consider not being able to leave would be ones too ashamed of leaving their caste occupation or the sons of dead sepoys who grew up and lived a life of soldiery from childhood till adulthood (how do you walk away from that?). Also of note is that Indians did the most recruiting, so you'd think pork bullet wouldn't have arose since they had people who knew the customs but alas, just as marriage crusader has shown, these things will happen.

Quote from: Reelya on September 03, 2015, 08:35:40 pm
It's a little different if the person is in a position of power which has a monopoly. Individual doctors don't have a monopoly. If one doctor says "I don't do abortions" then he is completely aware that you can just go to another doctor that does do them
Not always due to geographical distribution of doctors; you can if you're determined enough, but that's another level of difficulty

Quote from: Reelya on September 03, 2015, 08:35:40 pm
whereas if the government official won't stamp your thing due to their own personal beliefs, they are completely aware that you can't just shop around for another person that will - they know that they're forcing their beliefs on you, not just excercising their own freedom to choose, as the doctor is. The government official is knowingly preventing you from doing what you want, rather than just saying they don't want to be involved in something for personal reasons.
fair nuff
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 03, 2015, 08:53:56 pm
Abortions are a specialized procedure.  If you don't want to do them you can just not get the training and take one of the many available medical jobs that will not require you to perform them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on September 04, 2015, 01:45:59 am
I think everyone can agree that, regardless of their position on gay marriage, refusing to abide by Supreme Court rulings and orders from federal judges is a terrible idea.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on September 04, 2015, 01:51:18 am
I'm just going to point out that she didn't get to the Supreme Court. She appealed to the Supreme Court (which everyone has the right to do, provided you've used all the other possible appeals first) and the Supreme Court didn't take her case up, meaning the ruling of the previous court stand.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 04, 2015, 01:26:45 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/04/christian-intimidation-kentucky-judge-does-with-gavel-what-bull-connor-did-with-dogs-and-fire-hoses.html?ref=yfp

Mr. Huckabee has no idea what he's talking about:
"But what law – what specific law – did Mrs. Davis violate? Where is the law that mandates Mrs. Davis issue a marriage license?

That’s a question Republican presidential candidate former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee raised to his supporters in a recent letter.

“That simple question is giving many in Congress a civics lesson that they never got in grade school,” Huckabee wrote.

“The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law,” he continued. “They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law allowing for same-sex marriage, Kim does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples.”

....

Wow, where to begin. The "specific law" is the United States Constitution, and it is not just a law, but the single highest law in America, before which no other law can exist without or in conflict thereof.  The legislature makes "statutes" as a form of law, via legislation, but no legislation can conflict with the Constitution, and the Constitution can't conflict with itself.  More specifically, the Supreme Court found that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution were violated by not allowing gay individuals to marry.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges)

In oversimple summation, the ban on gay marriages violated the US constitution, namely the 14th amendment and its sub parts, which is not just a law, but the highest American Law.... The judge can do that, because the judge gets to determine what the law means, or rather the judge makes judgments. It is his job, and it is in the job title. Simple.

Conservatives have until recently touted respecting "the constitution," but now have multiple problems with and desires to change the constitution to better fit their personal views of how stuff should be. Namely, gay marriage and citizenship, aka "anchor babies."  The 14th amendment was part of a comprehensive forced legislation after the civil war.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) It has been paramount to fighting discrimination in America, from Brown v. Board of Education (making it so black and white kids could go to the same schools, use the same drinking fountains, desegregation, etc), to directly and immediately overruling Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. Dred Scott stands as the single worst travesty in the American Legal System's history and was one of the single greatest direct causes of the American Civil War.

The "Anchor Babies" were absolutely approved by the "founders' intention" insomuch as then President Andrew Jackson and three key senators were for this. Moreover, this was upheld in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) for legal immigrants, and at the time there was no such thing as an "illegal immigrant," because no distinction at law existed. Everyone was just an "immigrant." The implication that violation of a law by ones' parents or one's self would strip an individual of citizenship appears doubtful.

And all of this, goes to the simple supremacy clause of the US Constitution. Contempt of Court is a thing and it has a long and storied history with a mountain of validity behind it. She was warned and didn't care, so she did it anyhow.

Also Judges absolutely, completely and traditionally DO make law, and it's called "case law" or "precedent." Lawyers cite it every single day and cases turn on it. Brown v. Board of Education, was one such case law precedent case. Congress didn't do that, but rather the Supreme Court of the United States did. Once that happened, President Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne to Arkansas to help out the  "Little Rock 9" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine) who were black kids trying to go to a "white school," and the President enforced the Court's ruling. Congress didn't do anything, and that's ok. Civics? Most people don't get the first thing about it, and they couldn't even tell what a "County Commissioner" does.

TL;DR- You don't spit in the court's eye about constitutional issues and expect anything less. I wish she didn't have to be jailed but she backed the court into a corner by directly challenging its authority.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 04, 2015, 01:57:29 pm
Opinion peice nutjob with zero understanding of what being an administrator in a country with more than one religious sect means aside, I have to boggle at the chutzpah involved at comparing a bigot trying to enforce legal segregation on a subset of the american population to Martin Luthor King Junior. The guy that fought for pretty much the exact goddamn opposite, and in fact was up against people holding the more or less exact same "religious" beliefs against interracial congress. The sheer amount of reality twisting involved in that worldview is just incredible. I can only guess the critter hasn't actually read the birmingham letters if they think any homophobic drivel that spatters out of the twit's mouth while in jail will hold even the most remote of resemblances.

Bloody hell, the comparison is actually legitimately offensive, possibly more than the rest of the bullshit article. Usually I'm not really offput by that sort of thing but goddamn. Of all the comparisons to make, you choose that? About someone trying to shit on the subject that has consistently and to a large degree accurately been compared to the desegregation movement? Just. How? If they're not just a troll, how do bugger your ability to comprehend things up that badly?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on September 04, 2015, 02:03:40 pm
Well the simple answer to Mr. Huckabee's "question" is that she was in contempt of court.  He was just being silly, or rhetorical I guess.

I think they'd have more of a point if the 14th amendment only banned prejudiced laws, but that's only part of what it does.  It also promises that all levels of government will offer equal protection under the law.  So she was violating the constitution, and very specifically her oath of office.  Here's the oath:

Quote from: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/oath-court-clerk-now-jailed-gay-marriage-33516278
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ——————— according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."

Which raises another point...  She swore *before God* to support the US Constitution.  By defying and dismissing the Constitution, she broke her oath to Him.

Also I love that like a third of that is "I've never been in no duels".  It actually does make sense though, considering we actually lost politicians that way back in the day.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: LordSlowpoke on September 04, 2015, 02:16:46 pm
Quote from: Frumple on September 04, 2015, 01:57:29 pm
Martin Luthor King Junior.

Spoiler: i have a dream (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 04, 2015, 02:19:27 pm
It's an improvement, damnit, and I'm sticking with it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: BurnedToast on September 08, 2015, 09:55:50 pm
If anyone still cares, the judge ordered kim davis (the kentucky clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses) released from prison, on the condition that she does not interfere with the clerks who are currently issuing them.

This is very clever on his part. If she does nothing, the religious nutjobs' persecution claims lose most of their weight. it even looks like a victory of sort for them, which might mollify them a bit, and ultimately the problem is solved.

If she interferes, he now has a clear excuse to lock her up until either she resigns or till the kentucky legislature convenes in january and they can impeach her (assuming they will, which I'm not so certain of). In the meantime, the clerks can keep signing those certificates and while the religious right will probably still treat her as a martyr at least they will have less of a standing since it's obvious she does not actually have to sign anything, so she's not personally violating her beliefs anymore.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 11, 2015, 10:06:13 am
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/253292-huckabee-says-dred-scott-still-law-of-land
http://news.yahoo.com/mike-huckabee-thinks-black-people-123110888.html

WTF. And, Mr. Huckabee has gone off the deep end. This is a terrible attempt at and failure of satire, is what I'm going to assume, because I don't want to ascribe far far worse motives to this man.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on September 11, 2015, 10:10:43 am
? He just doesn't seem to realize that the 14th amendment exist, but that's it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on September 11, 2015, 10:13:36 am
The more I hear about politics, the less I understand, especially how people can think there's anything respectable about it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on September 11, 2015, 11:33:20 am
He's making the point that the Supreme Court made a bad decision.  They decided that black people were not citizens under the Constitution. 

And as I understand it, that position was never rescinded - the Constitution *changed* via amendment.  That's probably what he means by "Law of the land" - It's the standing interpretation of that (obsolete) version of the Constitution.  If the 14th Amendment were somehow revoked, I think black people would lose citizenship.  Yes, calling an obsolete decision "the law of the land" is a major stretch, the type of lie which is technically not a lie.  But it's cleverly deceitful, not stupid.

He's also comparing black people who were denied citizenship, with Christians denied the right to...  Discriminate against people while in public office.  He's right that the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, denied rights to both groups.  The difference is that one decision is widely regarded as the Supreme Courts greatest mistake, and the other restricts discrimination.

It's absolutely appalling rhetoric, even worse than if he was just crazy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 14, 2015, 11:00:10 pm
So... it might be over? (http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/national/south/2015/09/kentucky_clerk_returns_to_work_after_5_day_stint_in_jail) The judge let Kim Davis out of jail but told her not to prevent anyone from getting a marriage license. So she didn't have to give any out, but the other clerks there were allowed to. There was a little concern over whether she'd comply, but she seems to have. Except she took her name off the licenses:

Quote from: Boston Herald
The document, a template issued by the state and filled out by each clerk, had been altered. Where the name of the clerk and the county is typically entered, it said instead "pursuant to federal court order."

Her attorneys later said they hoped the concession would satisfy the judge's order enough to keep her out of jail. But they said the validity of the licenses remains in limbo. They called on the Legislature to rewrite state law to accommodate clerks with religious objections and blamed Gov. Steve Beshear for refusing to call a special session to find a solution.

The governor, the attorney general and the county attorney have said the licenses are valid.

It's really what she should have done in the first place. Hopefully she'll lose her next election, but I'm fine with this for now. Hopefully this is the last time most people hear about Kim Davis.

From what I've heard, there are two other county clerks in Kentucky who have said they won't issue gay marriage licenses, but no gay couples have applied for one there yet. I doubt they'd try that after seeing how this turned out, but there's an election in two months so who knows what'll happen. Conway (attorney general, running for governor) seems to be hoping everyone forgets the whole thing - his statement today was sent through an assistant, likely to avoid giving a quote, and anything he has said publicly has been almost comically dodgy. So his opponent is predictably playing this controversy up as much as he can.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on September 15, 2015, 12:36:03 am
I, for one will miss Kim Davis. In a world where the US are rapidly becoming more progressive, she let us European feels smugly superior for a bit longer.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on September 15, 2015, 01:08:52 am
Don't worry, Sheb. Until the US institutes common sense ordination like mother's (let alone parent's) leave, they'll be nowhere near progressive enough to keep us from smugging smugly about ourselves.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2015, 01:11:37 am
My experience is that Euros react to that one with less smugness and more naked horror.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on September 15, 2015, 01:21:19 am
I react to that in naked horror.  I live here.

In particular ever since I've learned that paternity leave is a thing I've been vaguely disturbed that everyone doesn't do it.  Not having it is unfair to men (because no time off that women get) and unfair to women (because it means that employers are always thinking "well, she might get pregnant" and that gives them a disadvantage in the workplace).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on September 15, 2015, 03:16:17 am
I heard you don't even have sick leave. That doesn't only sound asocial but also unhygienic.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 15, 2015, 07:35:36 am
I can't find the numbers right now, but I'm pretty sure the CDC says millions of people catch diseases every year because of people working in the food industry while sick.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 15, 2015, 07:41:35 am
Sick leave isn't particularly mandatory from on high, no, so far as I can recall. There might be some amount mandated on the federal level, but if it is, it's so small as to be functionally nonexistent. Just like our vacation days :V

Most places of employee allow for some sick days, though. Pretty much never enough, but some.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Vattic on September 15, 2015, 12:54:49 pm
Quote from: penguinofhonor on September 15, 2015, 07:35:36 am
I can't find the numbers right now, but I'm pretty sure the CDC says millions of people catch diseases every year because of people working in the food industry while sick.
From what I understand presenteeism (didn't know there was a word for it) also damages productivity. Which makes sense as people aren't going to perform well when sick and colleagues may catch it. The only times my workplace has been strict that employees not come in sick were those when norovirus were around.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2015, 01:19:02 pm
US productivity per capita is also extremely low for nations of otherwise similar conditions, suggesting that the key to becoming a resurgent economic superpower might be lots of vacation time. What irony.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 15, 2015, 01:48:39 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2015, 01:19:02 pm
US productivity per capita is also extremely low for nations of otherwise similar conditions, suggesting that the key to becoming a resurgent economic superpower might be lots of vacation time. What irony.
Work burnout can be adequately measured in suicide rates
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on September 15, 2015, 03:28:38 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on September 15, 2015, 01:48:39 pm
Work burnout can be adequately measured in suicide rates
Seems too tenuous a link with all those other things that bandy around as factors. IE poverty, stress, feeling of no direction.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 15, 2015, 05:05:18 pm
Quote from: ArKFallen on September 15, 2015, 03:28:38 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on September 15, 2015, 01:48:39 pm
Work burnout can be adequately measured in suicide rates
Seems too tenuous a link with all those other things that bandy around as factors. IE poverty, stress, feeling of no direction.
Also linked to work burnout, but which is chicken and which is egg?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 15, 2015, 05:13:09 pm
Work burnout can't really be adequately measured in suicide rates -- there's a potential correlation, but work burnout results in quite a few other things (including, but not limited to, job shifts, un and under employment, homelessness, various sorts of non-fatal physical issues, simple decreased productivity... there's just sort of a sundry list) and not to equal degrees, while suicide has significantly more contributing factors, some of which are both contributing factors to and results of work burnout. It's a bad measure that won't even remotely manage to adequately track instances of work burnout.

You'd want some kind of conglomerate measure if you're aiming for adequacy -- several things tracked and weighted appropriately, probably on a graduating scale instead of yes/no. Suicide could be on the list, but you're not dealing with a chicken and egg scenario, you're dealing with a dozen different chickens and eggs with no clear connect as to which direction the incubation is occurring. Trying to simplify things is just going to create a (badly) distorted picture of what's happening.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: lorb on September 18, 2015, 05:39:43 am
Asking people is the best way to measure work-burnout.
Call 300 people and ask them; do a little math/stats; done.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 18, 2015, 05:53:02 am
... no, that's probably one of the worst ways to measure work burnout. A lot of people don't realize that's actually what's going on, more would not admit it, and still more would not admit it over the phone. So on and so forth.

Surveys/interviews can definitely be part of the means of assessment, but as things go it's often a pretty terrible way to track stuff like this, especially if you're just asking them if they feel burnt out. Humans are often quite bad at self-identifying problems and worse at reporting or acknowledging them to other people. Would be even more so in fields where work burnout is likely, since the people in them are under significant pressure and generally have a great deal of incentive (not the least of which is continuing to function at-least-minimally while burnt out, which can be the difference between, y'know, being able to eat or not) to not admit the issue exists to anyone, even -- especially, often enough -- themselves.

E: And the fun thing is, just as under reporting is a significant problem, so is over reporting by people primed by the question to respond in ways that give false positives. So your calling and asking is very much likely to throw out all sorts of bad data. You really want to rely primarily on statistics and behavior tracking for something like this, not direct interviewing. The latter can get really bloody unreliable on certain subjects.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 24, 2015, 01:33:20 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/pope-prepares-historic-address-congress-071839676--politics.html#

All that "religious" political stuff is just gonna come to an interesting point in a little bit.... Anti gun ("arms trade"), Anti poverty? Climate change? Abolishing the death penalty? Other classically liberal slants...?

The catholic church opposes gay marriage and lots of right wing political people use that as a reason to oppose it? No surprise there. Let's see if they start opposing the "the arms trade" (guns), death penalty, poverty, income inequality,and Co2 along with total equality with open immigration. Somehow I think not. Trail mix religious excuses: take what you want a leave what you don't? I'm not sure it works that way. Then again, it's only the Pope....

Let's see how this plays out.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Rc8k_D3yYoE/Tw4IyOKMysI/AAAAAAAAAls/awgasVzJMfA/s320/Stephen-Colbert-Popcorn.gif)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arx on September 24, 2015, 01:40:34 pm
The right wing political people have been diverging from the Catholic church (and reality) for a long time. A couple of months back, when the Vatican came out as supporting the theory of anthropogenic climate change, half the GOP made statements to the effect that the pope should stick to religion and not try to get involved with science.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on September 24, 2015, 01:45:03 pm
Quote from: Arx on September 24, 2015, 01:40:34 pm
half the GOP made statements to the effect that the pope should stick to religion and not try to get involved with science.
I find it funny, given that politicians are also hardly ever scientists. The pope is just as qualified to talk about it as they are. Excluding bias because of his position perhaps, but I don't know anything about a Christian doctrine regarding climate change.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 24, 2015, 01:47:46 pm
Quote from: Arx on September 24, 2015, 01:40:34 pm
The right wing political people have been diverging from the Catholic church (and reality) for a long time.
Pretty much. Even a lot of the US catholics don't agree the Pope has any authority, nevermind the protestant majority, many of which outright think the guy's the antichrist and/or devil.

Nice-ish to see the guy continuing to talk about as well as you could expect out of 'em, though, I guess. Fellow's views are about as catholic as soiling yourself in a confessional (bonus point get: crude old people joke) but at least he gives lip service to some of the better parts of it instead of primarily the backassward bits. It's something.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: RedKing on September 24, 2015, 01:57:00 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on September 24, 2015, 01:45:03 pm
Quote from: Arx on September 24, 2015, 01:40:34 pm
half the GOP made statements to the effect that the pope should stick to religion and not try to get involved with science.
I find it funny, given that politicians are also hardly ever scientists. The pope is just as qualified to talk about it as they are. Excluding bias because of his position perhaps, but I don't know anything about a Christian doctrine regarding climate change.
Actually, Francis has a chemical technician diploma, which qualifies him MORE than most politicians to talk about it. He's not a scientist, per se, but at least he understands the basics. Which is more than can be said for about 95% of Congress.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Robot Parade Leader on September 25, 2015, 04:00:35 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/video/arrest-made-video-shows-california-131905775.html

WTF? So wait a minute. This one guy is beating up on a blind kid. Some other kid punches the guy hitting the blind one, to stop it. Somehow they suspend the one who broke it up?

I guess you just can't do anything anymore even when it's pretty blatant. Christ, they're beating up the blind kids even? Still? After years of anti bullying and everything else there are still guys who haven't gotten the message. And, you can't do jack about it when you see 'em punching a blind kid? Great. We wonder why nothing gets done and nothing gets better....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 25, 2015, 04:02:55 pm
Remember kids, if you're bullied the response is not to defend yourself, because that is bad. Just be snarky and sarcastic, that probably won't work but at least you'll learn how to be a flop faster
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on September 25, 2015, 04:23:30 pm
Some people are saying the visually-impaired kid provoked the fight.  Also, sucker-shoving someone onto the pavement such that their head bleeds is really serious...  That's not "breaking up a fight", it's a dangerous assault.

Also the kid might not be fully blind.  Even the reporter called him "visually impaired", and at least one kid claimed he just had weak vision.

I don't know what the truth is, but it's not an inexplicable situation.  Unless you decide that the kids providing a reason are obviously lying.  In which case, yeah, how strange that the system would only punish that one kid for no apparent reason.  The police should have formed the same conclusion that we jumped to.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on September 25, 2015, 04:57:17 pm
Rolan is right. The thing about jumping to conclusions is that often you don't know if you missed solid ground.
It's not like I've never abused my weaknesses to harass someone unopposed before ::)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Robot Parade Leader on September 25, 2015, 05:22:40 pm
So the answer is to just sit there and watch it happen if there isn't anyone in authority you can get to intervene? Harming the attacker is a serious assault but the blind kid being assaulted is what? I for one am getting sick of people looking out for criminals but not victims. Criminals get lawyers appointed; victims get crap. Blind people aren't always pitch black blind, there's legally blind. If it's bad enough that he's known as "the blind kid," then close enough for me, because if people are trying to stop you from fighting somebody by saying "he's blind...." You should consider stopping. The rest, I fear may be victim blaming, and more justification for standing by and doing nothing.

Don't defend yourself; sit there and take it. Don't defend anyone else. Watch as the world goes to hell. Complain.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on September 25, 2015, 05:31:50 pm
Not sure where you and LW got "Don't defend yourself" from.  IF (big if) the sight-impaired kid really was the instigator, then the victim *was* defending himself.

It's possible to break up a fight without shoving someone onto concrete.  Particularly from behind - it's practically instinctual, just grab the person and pull them away.  That's why it happens constantly.

What this third kid did instead looks like escalation, and he's really lucky that kid #2 was hurt just enough to stay down temporarily, and not permanently.  Of course, it probably wasn't malicious...  Good odds he was just angry (possibly justifiably so).  Still made a bad move.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Robot Parade Leader on September 25, 2015, 05:52:13 pm
If Kid #3 gets arrested and I'm on the jury, then automatic not guilty. If I'm on Kid #2's jury, automatic guilty. From that video? No exceptions if I'm there.

Let's say you're right and the "blind kid" (#1) "started it." So what? Really? Kid #2 had "no choice" but to hit the one they called the "blind kid?" He was in some real danger from that was he? HE (#2) couldn't have walked or run away and gotten a teacher? Kid #3 (Hero) couldn't have just walked away without leaving the blind kid to get wailed on.

I don't buy it. Forget kid #2. Praise kid #3, alter the law and student handbook to severely punish anybody who hits a "blind or visually impaired" person so it's a felony. Minimum jail time 6 months, automatic expulsion. Family of kid #2 tries to sue kid #3 because their "precious angel" who was hitting a guy everyone calls "the blind kid," couldn't have been bad (awwwwwwwwww, poor bully who can't even beat up on the blind kid without being stopped), then they get sued. That's what I think should happen. It won't, but that's my opinion.

That's the last thing I'm saying on it. Am I "closed minded?" O well.

Solved. Next problem?

I'm out.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on September 25, 2015, 05:53:17 pm
Quote from: Robot Parade Leader on September 25, 2015, 05:22:40 pm
Don't defend yourself; sit there and take it. Don't defend anyone else. Watch as the world goes to hell. Complain.
Hah. And if the blind kid fought back until the other kid slowed his violence and the blind kid got cold clocked by the new arrival? Or if the blind kid started it but stopped when he could hear people? Is that level of violent retaliation an appropriate first move to defusing a situation? Only if you know you are willing for someone to not walk away from it or are being stupid.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Robot Parade Leader on September 25, 2015, 06:19:04 pm
Quote from: ArKFallen on September 25, 2015, 05:53:17 pm
Quote from: Robot Parade Leader on September 25, 2015, 05:22:40 pm
Don't defend yourself; sit there and take it. Don't defend anyone else. Watch as the world goes to hell. Complain.
Hah. And if the blind kid fought back until the other kid slowed his violence and the blind kid got cold clocked by the new arrival? Or if the blind kid started it but stopped when he could hear people? Is that level of violent retaliation an appropriate first move to defusing a situation? Only if you know you are willing for someone to not walk away from it or are being stupid.

I'm just gonna read your words back to you and look up at you from the paper from time to time and I'm going to empathize "blind kid." That is all.

Good day sir.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on September 25, 2015, 06:27:47 pm
Quote from: Robot Parade Leader on September 25, 2015, 06:19:04 pm
Quote from: ArKFallen on September 25, 2015, 05:53:17 pm
Quote from: Robot Parade Leader on September 25, 2015, 05:22:40 pm
Don't defend yourself; sit there and take it. Don't defend anyone else. Watch as the world goes to hell. Complain.
Hah. And if the blind kid fought back until the other kid slowed his violence and the blind kid got cold clocked by the new arrival? Or if the blind kid started it but stopped when he could hear people? Is that level of violent retaliation an appropriate first move to defusing a situation? Only if you know you are willing for someone to not walk away from it or are being stupid.

I'm just gonna read your words back to you and look up at you from the paper from time to time and I'm going to empathize "blind kid." That is all.

Good day sir.
I find it beautiful that you think someone being legally blind makes them too incompetent to be a threat in close quarters.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on September 25, 2015, 06:49:25 pm
why would you find that beautiful
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 25, 2015, 07:03:15 pm
It's possible for the blind kid to have started the conflict by some sort of emotional abuse or something, but consider this:

If that relationship were a long-standing and one-sided issue between these two, other students who knew them would probably not be reacting to this situation the way they did.  I can have some sympathy for a self-defense argument in the case of long-term emotional abuse, but that just isn't what this smells like.  Add that the person's own claim on twitter is that he didn't know the kid was blind, and in my opinion, that interpretation is done for.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

If there was not a long-term issue between the two of them, then reacting to the immediate situation with violence was wrong, and the guy should have expected stitches as a potential consequence when he put up his fists.  Whether those stitches came from the person he thought he was fighting or someone else intervening doesn't really have any ethical bearing on the value of the "bully's" actions in this case.


Now consider that the person who intervened knew that one of the participants was blind.  If he was just entering the situation, without knowing how it began, it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that a blind kid caught in a fight is being subject to bullying.  It would also be common sense to realize that the blind kid is in much greater danger of much more serious harm than his opponent.  The blind kid won't have the same awareness of his environment.  If it was the blind kid who took a fall, it would have been likely to result in more serious injury than what ended up happening.  It makes sense to want to end the situation as quickly and effectively as possible.

Rolan,  I'm especially surprised at you.  In our debates on police violence, you've taken the stance that responding to a violent threat with a higher level of force is acceptable, and if I remember right, you're one of the types who will argue that an unarmed person can be surprisingly dangerous and close distances quickly and that's why it's ok to shoot them if they show any sign of aggression... but here we have an actual physical fight fully in progress, and your sentiment completely flips when a police officer isn't involved.

Finally, I dealt with some fairly serious bullying for several years of my childhood.  It would have been huge -- HUGE to me on many levels if anyone had ever stuck up for me the way that guy stuck up for the blind kid.  That would have rocked my fucking world.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on September 25, 2015, 07:42:20 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 25, 2015, 07:03:15 pm
It's possible for the blind kid to have started the conflict by some sort of emotional abuse or something, but consider this:
My beef is that the default assumption is that the blind guy did not start the physical fight. By say trying to start and end it at once but fucking it up.

Quote from: SalmonGod on September 25, 2015, 07:03:15 pm
Whether those stitches came from the person he thought he was fighting or someone else intervening doesn't really have any ethical bearing on the value of the "bully's" actions in this case.
Yes, it has bearing on the ethical value of the interloper's actions. I expected at least one of the original participants to get fucked by the authority (rightfully or wrongfully) and that the disadvantaged one would be less likely to be punished.

Quote from: SalmonGod on September 25, 2015, 07:03:15 pm
Now consider that the person who intervened knew that one of the participants was blind.  If he was just entering the situation, without knowing how it began, it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that a blind kid caught in a fight is being subject to bullying.  It would also be common sense to realize that the blind kid is in much greater danger of much more serious harm than his opponent.  The blind kid won't have the same awareness of his environment.  If it was the blind kid who took a fall, it would have been likely to result in more serious injury than what ended up happening.  It makes sense to want to end the situation as quickly and effectively as possible.
Just as it would be common sense to assume that an 110lb teenager isn't going to pick a fight with someone 160lb+. It being common sense makes it more likely you'd get away with it.
That guy's face was slammed into the concrete faster than he could react. He didn't have some advantage to hitting the ground in this case. Fucker didn't even make a noise until the guy did a nose dive. No "Stop!" just the assumption that a blind kid would never do something so stupid like try to fight a sighted person and start getting his ass handed to him.

Quote from: Bauglir on September 25, 2015, 06:49:25 pm
why would you find that beautiful
Because it is a very good reminder that humans go through life with blinders on.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on September 25, 2015, 08:26:57 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on September 25, 2015, 04:02:55 pm
Remember kids, if you're bullied the response is not to defend yourself, because that is bad. Just be snarky and sarcastic, that probably won't work but at least you'll learn how to be a flop faster
Quote from: Robot Parade Leader on September 25, 2015, 05:22:40 pm
Don't defend yourself; sit there and take it. Don't defend anyone else. Watch as the world goes to hell. Complain.
The idea here isn't "don't defend yourself", it's "don't attack back, and do only the things necessary to defend yourself (including getting the hell out of there if possible)". Once you're out of there, then you can contact the authorities who are responsible for dealing with aggressors (be they school authorities or the police), and they can take the person in for appropriate punishment. It's like, if someone shoots a gun at you, your first response shouldn't be to open fire with your own gun aiming to kill, because at that point you are essentially acting as a vigilante and taking the law into your own hands. Instead your job should be to get out of there while only doing what is necessary to defend yourself, then contacting the actual law force, who is trained to carry out the law, and let them deal with it following the proper rules set up by our country.

It's just like how if someone breaks into your house it's still illegal for you to break into theirs to get your stuff back, because you are essentially shortcutting the law. Two wrongs don't make a right, and just because someone punches you doesn't mean that it's suddenly okay for you to punch them back in the eyes of the law.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 25, 2015, 08:57:23 pm
I'm completely unsympathetic to the argument that the proper response is to contact authorities.  Calling police into a heated situation is very likely to only make things worse, and many schools are horribly incompetent or corrupt in how they handle cases of bullying.  I myself went to a school for 8 years where teachers blatantly supported bullying.  There have also been cases in my own state recently where teachers stood by and watched passively watched vicious fights until they ended with serious injury, because the teachers were too afraid of getting in trouble for laying hands on a student to stop it.  The assumption that there is reliably sane recourse to higher authority in these situations is incredibly naive.

Could the interloper have handled it better?  Probably.  But that doesn't mean what he did was wrong, and certainly not more wrong than the other two students involved.  If he deserved anything, it's coaching on what he could have done better.  Not punishment for good intentions.  That shit is precisely what breeds the society we live in where everyone believes no good deed goes unpunished, and very few are willing to try.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 25, 2015, 09:05:20 pm
Quote from: i2amroy on September 25, 2015, 08:26:57 pm
It's like, if someone shoots a gun at you, your first response shouldn't be to open fire with your own gun aiming to kill, because at that point you are essentially acting as a vigilante and taking the law into your own hands.
I'm not even going to dignify "aiming to kill" at this point, everyone should know better
P.s. if you're armed and someone is shooting you you cannot outrun bullet and law courts cannot bring you back to life. Law exists to protect people and self defence laws exist to make it fair so that innocent people are actually able to protect themselves, otherwise you end up with the bollocks where if you fight back you are prosecuted for defending yourself. This sentiment is exactly that if you defend yourself suddenly you are a dangerous vigilante taking the law into your own hands when all you're doing is protecting yourself like anyone with half a brain would do. When you're in danger you don't get the luxury of thinking about your killer's safety.

Quote from: i2amroy on September 25, 2015, 08:26:57 pm
Instead your job should be to get out of there while only doing what is necessary to defend yourself, then contacting the actual law force, who is trained to carry out the law, and let them deal with it following the proper rules set up by our country.
The amount of times police have ever saved me, any of my family, any of my friends or any of my property from damage of theft can be counted with zero fingers; very useful in interrupting large fights and investigating crime after the fact, but cannot exactly be everywhere at once. You are always where you are, unless you are metaphorically out of it under the influence.

Quote from: i2amroy on September 25, 2015, 08:26:57 pm
It's just like how if someone breaks into your house it's still illegal for you to break into theirs to get your stuff back, because you are essentially shortcutting the law.
No, it's like how if someone breaks into your house it's legal for you to defend yourself - by breaking into their house you're just doing the same crime. Don't be so dishonest as to try and pair the two. You are trying to say that something like me defending myself from my attacker is the equivalent of me stalking my attacker and days later breaking his legs with a club.

Quote from: i2amroy on September 25, 2015, 08:26:57 pm
Two wrongs don't make a right, and just because someone punches you doesn't mean that it's suddenly okay for you to punch them back in the eyes of the law.
Sit there and take your beating!

Oh wait, no that's a terrible idea. No thanks, you see protecting yourself as wrong when it is right. There is no argument.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on September 25, 2015, 09:08:06 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on September 25, 2015, 08:57:23 pm
Agreed on this. Seen teachers just watch a fight until more teachers stroll up.
But that punishment seems to be coming from police, not the school(which is required to report incidents), so it going viral could have been what fucked 3rd party guy over.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on September 25, 2015, 09:20:35 pm
Quote from: i2amroy on September 25, 2015, 08:26:57 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on September 25, 2015, 04:02:55 pm
Remember kids, if you're bullied the response is not to defend yourself, because that is bad. Just be snarky and sarcastic, that probably won't work but at least you'll learn how to be a flop faster
Quote from: Robot Parade Leader on September 25, 2015, 05:22:40 pm
Don't defend yourself; sit there and take it. Don't defend anyone else. Watch as the world goes to hell. Complain.
The idea here isn't "don't defend yourself", it's "don't attack back, and do only the things necessary to defend yourself (including getting the hell out of there if possible)". Once you're out of there, then you can contact the authorities who are responsible for dealing with aggressors (be they school authorities or the police), and they can take the person in for appropriate punishment. It's like, if someone shoots a gun at you, your first response shouldn't be to open fire with your own gun aiming to kill, because at that point you are essentially acting as a vigilante and taking the law into your own hands. Instead your job should be to get out of there while only doing what is necessary to defend yourself, then contacting the actual law force, who is trained to carry out the law, and let them deal with it following the proper rules set up by our country.



Bwhahahaha. Someone needs to get shot at more. If someone feels like shooting at me, I'll happily shoot back, as the basic right of self defense demands. If you want to act the part of a sheep and wait for a sheep dog that'll come after you're bleeding out, feel free. I, however, am a man.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on September 25, 2015, 09:26:11 pm
I think you guys are missing the important point of my statement.
Quote from: i2amroy on September 25, 2015, 08:26:57 pm
The idea here isn't "don't defend yourself", it's "don't attack back, and do only the things necessary to defend yourself (including getting the hell out of there if possible)".
I'm not saying that you should just sit there and get beat up. I'm saying that you should only be aggressive as an absolute last resort, because in the vast majority of cases there are much better options (such as running away, or fighting defensively), that accomplish the exact same outcome without putting the other person in a hospital.

The crime that the "helper" or "defender" is committing isn't the one of defending themselves or someone else. It's the crime of defending themselves in a way that is more violent (more "wrong") than was necessary. There's a reason why the burden of proof in justifiable homicide is placed solely on the defendant, it's their job to prove that what they did was the minimum necessary to stop it. Even in states with Stand-your-ground laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law) (which is not all of them, I might add), you are only allowed to match force for force, and even then it generally includes a line somewhat like this:
Quote
[t]he individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent" the imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault of himself or another individual.
The key here is "is necessary". If you have the option of a less violent way of defending yourself, then the more violent one is no longer "necessary", it's you choosing to be more violent than you have to.

Quote from: Loud Whispers on September 25, 2015, 09:05:20 pm
Quote from: i2amroy on September 25, 2015, 08:26:57 pm
Two wrongs don't make a right, and just because someone punches you doesn't mean that it's suddenly okay for you to punch them back in the eyes of the law.
Sit there and take your beating!

Oh wait, no that's a terrible idea. No thanks, you see protecting yourself as wrong when it is right. There is no argument.
I have the option of running away. I have the option of retreating defensively. I have the option of pushing someone with the intent to disable rather than harm and then running away. Every single one of these options allows me to stop being beaten up, and does not involve significantly harming the aggressor. I'd really like to know what justification you have under which doing more harm than less is somehow "necessary".

Again I will reiterate, I am not saying that you should not defend yourself, I am saying that you should only defend yourself in ways that are "necessary" (as is stated in law books everywhere).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on September 25, 2015, 09:44:42 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on September 25, 2015, 09:20:35 pm
I, however, am a man.
Every time I see someone say something like this, it just reminds me of the few/several hundred people killed each year in the US in blue on blue incidents. Lot of them due to that whole, "Yeah, I'm a man, let's shoot that home invader, whoops, I just killed my kid." thing. Bloody wonderful, it is. Never good for the afternoon's mood :-\
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on September 26, 2015, 12:51:34 am
Quote from: Frumple on September 25, 2015, 09:44:42 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on September 25, 2015, 09:20:35 pm
I, however, am a man.
Every time I see someone say something like this, it just reminds me of the few/several hundred people killed each year in the US in blue on blue incidents. Lot of them due to that whole, "Yeah, I'm a man, let's shoot that home invader, whoops, I just killed my kid." thing. Bloody wonderful, it is. Never good for the afternoon's mood :-\
People can and do get thrown in jail for decades for that shit. One of the cardinal rules of gun safety is "Know your target and what's behind it".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Tiruin on September 26, 2015, 01:29:14 am
Quote from: Morrigi on September 26, 2015, 12:51:34 am
Quote from: Frumple on September 25, 2015, 09:44:42 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on September 25, 2015, 09:20:35 pm
I, however, am a man.
Every time I see someone say something like this, it just reminds me of the few/several hundred people killed each year in the US in blue on blue incidents. Lot of them due to that whole, "Yeah, I'm a man, let's shoot that home invader, whoops, I just killed my kid." thing. Bloody wonderful, it is. Never good for the afternoon's mood :-\
People can and do get thrown in jail for decades for that shit. One of the cardinal rules of gun safety is "Know your target and what's behind it".
Which is the obvious reason behind 'why self-defense isn't a legal reason to shoot someone shooting at you'.

Reminds me of a tale told to me about how a taxi driver got stabbed in the neck by someone (I think that was near our Capital), that someone then ran off. The driver lived as it was non-lethal, and ran over the guy. When taken into court, his explanation was 'self defense' [From a layman's perspective, it makes sense because the driver had nothing to do with the guy].

The court didn't find that valid at all.
Very summarized story because this was years back.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on September 26, 2015, 03:46:29 am
Exactly. Self-defense only qualifies as a means to stop the threat. If the assailant has stopped being a threat by being incapacitated, fleeing, dropping his weapon and surrendering, etc. then you can no longer use lethal force, and you will be charged with a crime for continuing to do so.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 26, 2015, 04:05:55 am
Quote from: i2amroy on September 25, 2015, 09:26:11 pm
I'm not saying that you should just sit there and get beat up. I'm saying that you should only be aggressive as an absolute last resort, because in the vast majority of cases there are much better options (such as running away, or fighting defensively), that accomplish the exact same outcome without putting the other person in a hospital.
What in the bloody hell is fighting defensively, you can't defend yourself without hurting your attacker unless you're sufficiently scary or you're Jackie Chan in a ladder factory
If you were either one of the two, no one would be picking a fight with you, and most people are not the two
Quote
It's like, if someone shoots a gun at you, your first response shouldn't be to open fire with your own gun aiming to kill
Waiting for you to be incapable before defending yourself sounds like telling people to sit there and get beat up
Quote
Two wrongs don't make a right, and just because someone punches you doesn't mean that it's suddenly okay for you to punch them back in the eyes of the law.
This is the same thing ;D
Quote from: i2amroy on September 25, 2015, 09:26:11 pm
The crime that the "helper" or "defender" is committing isn't the one of defending themselves or someone else. It's the crime of defending themselves in a way that is more violent (more "wrong") than was necessary. There's a reason why the burden of proof in justifiable homicide is placed solely on the defendant, it's their job to prove that what they did was the minimum necessary to stop it.
The word I'm looking for to describe what you said is either misguided or malicious; you're trying to get rid of the presumption of innocence, it is in the prosecution's case to prove that the defendant killed whoever and that they killed whoever in unjustifiable circumstances. The burden of proof is not solely placed on the defendant, it is not placed on the defendant at all.
You want to fuck up innocent people as much as possible lol?
Quote from: i2amroy on September 25, 2015, 09:26:11 pm
Even in states with Stand-your-ground laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law) (which is not all of them, I might add), you are only allowed to match force for force, and even then it generally includes a line somewhat like this:
Quote
[t]he individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent" the imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault of himself or another individual.
The key here is "is necessary". If you have the option of a less violent way of defending yourself, then the more violent one is no longer "necessary", it's you choosing to be more violent than you have to.
Key word here is necessary, if you have the necessary means, then you are justified
Quote from: i2amroy on September 25, 2015, 09:26:11 pm
I have the option of running away.
You've never been attacked by someone faster than you, or bicycle mounted gang
Quote from: i2amroy on September 25, 2015, 09:26:11 pm
I have the option of retreating defensively.
What the hell are you even talking about
Quote from: i2amroy on September 25, 2015, 09:26:11 pm
I have the option of pushing someone with the intent to disable rather than harm and then running away.
Do you want to die or something hahahahaha
Quote from: i2amroy on September 25, 2015, 09:26:11 pm
Every single one of these options allows me to stop being beaten up
Every single one of these options will end with you being beaten up
Quote from: i2amroy on September 25, 2015, 09:26:11 pm
and does not involve significantly harming the aggressor. I'd really like to know what justification you have under which doing more harm than less is somehow "necessary".
Protection of innocents duh, I have no idea what you're talking about as if this is some vidya gaem where you can delete 5 health off your enemy with a special pokymon attack and they'll be incapacitated, but you will never know - all you can know is fight or flight until you are safe, and that's only when your attacker is incapable of hurting you.
When you attack someone else unjustifiably you've broken a basic civil duty to your fellow man that really puts you in the moral lowgrounds
Quote from: i2amroy on September 25, 2015, 09:26:11 pm
Again I will reiterate, I am not saying that you should not defend yourself, I am saying that you should only defend yourself in ways that are "necessary" (as is stated in law books everywhere).
I.e., do not defend yourself
As is not stated in law books everywhere
The "necessary" refers to the necessary use of force at all, not the scale of force involved m8
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Dutchling on September 26, 2015, 04:28:34 am
Gotta say I kinda agree with LW here. Putting yourself in danger to help your attacker out doesn't seem like a mentally sound thing to do.

Quote from: i2amroy on September 25, 2015, 09:26:11 pm
There's a reason why the burden of proof in justifiable homicide is placed solely on the defendant, it's their job to prove that what they did was the minimum necessary to stop it. Even in states with Stand-your-ground laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law) (which is not all of them, I might add), you are only allowed to match force for force, and even then it generally includes a line somewhat like this:
Quote
[t]he individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent" the imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault of himself or another individual.
The key here is "is necessary". If you have the option of a less violent way of defending yourself, then the more violent one is no longer "necessary", it's you choosing to be more violent than you have to.

Interesting to see American laws on self defense being harsher than Dutch ones.
Quote
No offense is exceeding the limits of necessary defense, if it was the immediate result of a strong emotion caused by the assault.
Although I guess you could argue it kinda means the same thing?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on September 26, 2015, 05:12:51 am
Wasn't that the wording someone used to try and justify killing a transwoman he'd slept with as being legal? Can't remember how it turned out but I seriously doubt it stood.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on September 26, 2015, 05:17:29 am
Quote from: Graknorke on September 26, 2015, 05:12:51 am
Wasn't that the wording someone used to try and justify killing a transwoman he'd slept with as being legal? Can't remember how it turned out but I seriously doubt it stood.
Probably because it says
Quote
if it was the immediate result of a strong emotion caused by the assault.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on September 26, 2015, 05:37:46 am
From https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920

(b)Sexual Assault.—Any person subject to this chapter who—
(D) inducing a belief by any artifice, pretense, or concealment that the person is another person;
is guilty of sexual assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

You could probably spin it as sexual assault if you were good at that kind of thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on September 26, 2015, 05:59:41 am
Quote from: Dutchling on September 26, 2015, 04:28:34 am
Gotta say I kinda agree with LW here. Putting yourself in danger to help your attacker out doesn't seem like a mentally sound thing to do.

Quote from: i2amroy on September 25, 2015, 09:26:11 pm
There's a reason why the burden of proof in justifiable homicide is placed solely on the defendant, it's their job to prove that what they did was the minimum necessary to stop it. Even in states with Stand-your-ground laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law) (which is not all of them, I might add), you are only allowed to match force for force, and even then it generally includes a line somewhat like this:
Quote
[t]he individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent" the imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault of himself or another individual.
The key here is "is necessary". If you have the option of a less violent way of defending yourself, then the more violent one is no longer "necessary", it's you choosing to be more violent than you have to.
Interesting to see American laws on self defense being harsher than Dutch ones.
They aren't, he's full of it. It is perfectly legal in most states to use lethal force if you reasonably believe that you or a third party are in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm. If someone breaks into your home, for example, it is almost always legal to shoot them if they do not immediately surrender or flee, regardless of what weapon they do or do not have. If someone is beating a third party on the ground with a baseball bat, it is also generally legal to shoot the assaulter to save the victim from further injury or death, provided that you have a good line of fire.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on September 26, 2015, 09:38:20 pm
Yeah, I've been asked by two people to comment on this stuff. Please no. Just. Please don't.

Criminal law is immensely complex, varies from state to state, not to mention country to country, and is just highly dependent upon a lot of things. Generally, try to avoid saying anything like "it's cool to do X because of Y," when X is hurt or kill somebody and Y is some justification. I explained this once and it was literally over 40K characters and only for one type of self defense in one state. Trust me, it's a pain and the only honest answer is that it's really complex.

Ideally, people wouldn't be jerks to one another either way and we could all just "get along," but yeah.... Sadly that doesn't always happen. I will say generally try not to hit anybody, blind or otherwise. It's just messy, and don't.

_______________________________________________________________________________

http://news.yahoo.com/short-list-replace-house-speaker-john-boehner-223025561.html#

I can't believe I'm actually saying something nice about John Boehner, but he kind of doesn't seem to have deserved the crap he got. I have a long history of not liking this guy's policy(ies), because they've been kind of nuts in my opinion. That said, it looks like the right wing has been seriously influenced if not effectively taken over by extremists, who really can't get much done on their ideas. This happened before with the whole "tea party" movement's "never compromise" thing. It failed then and it'll fail again, because ignoring the other side and practical realities is a surefire way to lose no matter what you're doing in what arena.

As much as I did not like Mr Boehner's work, he's been pressured to resign by people who could conceivably be much worse than anything he ever dreamed of. There's been an unfortunate trend in America over the past 10 or 15 years of increased complaining with no practical solutions. That is demanding results without any practical plan and screaming louder when those demanded results don't poof into being. There's been a lot of that on the far right with yet another government shutdown threat, essentially holding the whole damn country hostage over one or two political motives. Again, failed once, will fail again. Their supporters love the impression that something is being done though (it isn't).

It's more screaming with terrible consequences for everyone and that's why I don't talk about politics (cough cough, subject change).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on September 27, 2015, 07:35:20 am
Quote from: Loud Whispers on September 26, 2015, 04:05:55 am
Quote from: i2amroy on September 25, 2015, 09:26:11 pm
I'm not saying that you should just sit there and get beat up. I'm saying that you should only be aggressive as an absolute last resort, because in the vast majority of cases there are much better options (such as running away, or fighting defensively), that accomplish the exact same outcome without putting the other person in a hospital.
What in the bloody hell is fighting defensively, you can't defend yourself without hurting your attacker unless you're sufficiently scary or you're Jackie Chan in a ladder factory
Uhm… You ever actually learned anything about self-defense or are you just applying common sense here?
Because the first thing anyone ever told me was the following:
1. Run away
2. If that isn't viable, comply
3. Only if compliance is worse than the consequences of getting violent, you do engage in violence. You don't fight someone who's mugging you because your life is worth more than both your dignity and your possessions. If you think otherwise, that's your personal business.

Quote
The word I'm looking for to describe what you said is either misguided or malicious; you're trying to get rid of the presumption of innocence, it is in the prosecution's case to prove that the defendant killed whoever and that they killed whoever in unjustifiable circumstances. The burden of proof is not solely placed on the defendant, it is not placed on the defendant at all.
You want to fuck up innocent people as much as possible lol?
Uhm, nope. This goes so far that, when you're seen on a surveillance camera, walking towards someone you later harm in "self-defense", it will be used against you, because you were provoking a fight, thus rendering everything you did afterwards not self-defense at all.

Quote
You've never been attacked by someone faster than you, or bicycle mounted gang
Here's an article (and a site) you (and others) should read: What If Monkeys in the Martial Arts (http://nononsenseselfdefense.com/WIMS.htm)
Recap: Making up hypothetical scenarios is a stupid and dishonest thing to do, because you can justify almost anything when you make up just enough hypothetical scenarios. Concrete scenarios are what's important and in the situation discussed unnecessary violence was used.
As far as I can tell this site is really good and it makes it abundantly clear that violence is complex. Whipping out platitudes about standing up for yourself or others doesn't do it justice, just like assuming that a counterattack will always lead to less chance of serious injury for the victim, which is just plain ridiculous.

I do agree with SalmonGod that a course would be better than punishment, but that still doesn't make the violence used better.

Quote
I.e., do not defend yourself
As is not stated in law books everywhere
The "necessary" refers to the necessary use of force at all, not the scale of force involved m8
And you are just plain wrong about that. The law very often very definitely is about the level of violence involved, where using more violence than necessary has landed people in prison.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on September 27, 2015, 12:31:28 pm
Quote from: Antsan on September 27, 2015, 07:35:20 am
Quote
You've never been attacked by someone faster than you, or bicycle mounted gang
Here's an article (and a site) you (and others) should read: What If Monkeys in the Martial Arts (http://nononsenseselfdefense.com/WIMS.htm)
Recap: Making up hypothetical scenarios is a stupid and dishonest thing to do, because you can justify almost anything when you make up just enough hypothetical scenarios. Concrete scenarios are what's important and in the situation discussed unnecessary violence was used.
As far as I can tell this site is really good and it makes it abundantly clear that violence is complex. Whipping out platitudes about standing up for yourself or others doesn't do it justice, just like assuming that a counterattack will always lead to less chance of serious injury for the victim, which is just plain ridiculous.

I do agree with SalmonGod that a course would be better than punishment, but that still doesn't make the violence used better.

Are you really going to claim with a straight face that "the guy attacking you is faster than you" is a farfetched scenario that only exists in the minds of the misguided and the dishonest?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on September 27, 2015, 02:12:05 pm
No, but I am claiming that applying something like this in the situation presented is dishonest. It wasn't even about running away in this case, it was about exercising some restraint. Physically hurting the attacker was, in this case, not necessary and whether he was faster or not didn't even play any kind of role in the scenario given.

But if the attacker is faster than you, I question (out of personal experience) whether trying to defend yourself with violent action is even an option. My experience is that it is not.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on October 09, 2015, 07:13:32 pm
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/urban-outfitters-asking-employees-free-150613044.html

Intolerably wrong and against any sort of fairness. Boycott Urban Outfitters. Let's see if we can't get that stock price to drop.  (http://finance.yahoo.com/q;_ylt=A0LEV1dgVhhWb64AO_NXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzaGtrNTIzBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDVklQNjEzXzEEc2VjA3Nj?s=URBN) $31.22. It is an enormous company with plenty of money to hire people but why do that when you can bully your labor force?

Who are we kidding, this isn't "voluntary," because you can bet they're keeping track of who shows up and who doesn't, because they are expressly asking for "sign ups." More to the point they expressly say,

"How: Sign up using this link and we will be in touch with more details. Please do not show up without signing up." That translates into "your name had better be on this list and don't even think of using, 'I showed up but didn't sign up,' as an excuse." Work for free or your fired, slaves!

:( But hey, the unemployment rate is 5 or 6 percent and that's not a lie perfectly true, do not look behind the curtain.

$60 pair of jeans.... Boycott. Boycott. Boycott.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on October 09, 2015, 07:20:20 pm
Wow that's nasty.  Coerce employees to work more during the worst time of the year retail-wise, rather than hire seasonal employees.  Temporary jobs like that are a valuable learning experience for young adults, too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 09, 2015, 07:30:14 pm
That's primarily an issue with the nature of salaried positions being easy for employers to abuse.  The good news is this is being tackled on a federal level pretty soon.  I heard from HR a couple weeks ago that they're soon raising required pay rates for salaried workers by a considerable amount, and possibly tightening up criteria also.  Of course, I'm sure there will be two sides to the legislation...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on October 10, 2015, 05:11:31 am
What's really sad is that measure, like all measures that benefit anyone who is an actual human being instead of a corporation, is being fought tooth and nail.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/politics/john-kasich-get-over-it-social-security/index.html

Holy Hell, speaking of which.... We're cutting your social security and "Get over it." But, we need more corporate tax breaks, of course and how couldn't you support that.
"He asked audience members to raise their hands if they were far from receiving Social Security, asked them if they knew yet what their initial benefit would be and then asked them if they would be bothered if it were a little lower for the good of the country.

One person said it would be a problem.

"Well, you'd get over it, and you're going to have to get over it," Kasich joked. "

 ??? :o

Once again, the average person is getting totally screwed, but more corporate welfare.... If we don't pander to the companies offshoring our jobs and lowering the quality of the ones we have here, then all hell will break loose, but those benefits you worked for all our lives are going to be cut and screw you too. Really? And my favorite part "for the good of the country?" Wow. it's patriotic for actual people to do with less, but corporations of course get more and drop dead if you disagree? Screwing you over is going to be policy and yes "young people" it's a slow boiling of you:

He initially said young people would see "a lot" lower benefit, before correcting himself to say perhaps not "a lot," but some amount.

Yup... Screwing you is the GOP policy, unless you not only are a company but have INC after your name and are large and buying lobbyists and legislatures. Nice....

"You're on Medicare and you want me to ignore the fact that it's going broke, you're not going to like me," he told the audience, adding later, "I'd rather have people be in a position where they're aggravated with me so I can accomplish something, than have them love me and accomplish nothing, OK. I'm not there to run a popularity contest.""

Amazing. He flat out doesn't give a shit what you think about him robbing you of what you paid for and what was deducted from your paycheck your whole damn life. Politicians and corrupt businesses robbed us of our retirement system's solvency and we're screwed, and it's awesome that we're gonna get screwed and vote for him BECAUSE of it. Yes, Mr Kasich you actually are running a popularity contest, because that is what an election is. An election is a popularity contest and you're pretty much telling the electorate to go screw itself as, of all things, a selling point for why they should vote for you. Nobody wants to ignore the fact that entitlement programs we paid for all our lives are going broke, we want a solution to keep them from going broke, not an execution of them.

Death by a thousand cuts is still death (of the programs we paid for).

And note how he doesn't give a shit what you think and essentially says you're taking a massive pay cut and doesn't care what you think of him but I wonder what he says to his corporate taskmasters? Somehow I think he panders to them a bit more, which is to say "at all."

We're being sold out.

This guy is that completely out of touch Bill Lumberg boss who doesn't give the slightest of shits that he's cutting your pay and you are the problem and simply need to "get over" it....

??? People want to elect that, and call Bernie Sanders insane for saying the opposite even though he's the only chance you have at not being screwed?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/08/why-there-nothing-outrageous-about-urban-outfitters-request-for-free-work/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fnational+%28Internal+-+US+Latest+-+Text%29

And of course here's Fox News saying it's wonderful to work for your corporate taskmasters, slave, and contradicting everything we all know is true about coercion and forced labor (you'll be fired if you don't and we know it, they even say "part of the job"). They're just moving towards partial and if they can get away with it later, total slave labor (internships *cough*).

Not surprised. There is everything wrong with this. They can totally afford to pay people, jesus, at least minimum wage for this and there are a ton of people looking for jobs. Boycott.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on October 11, 2015, 08:50:49 pm
I don't buy anything from them, anyway. Hope other people quit buying from them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on October 12, 2015, 08:02:08 am
I wonder. Has anyone ever made any calculations on what the effect would be on (lack of) rainfall, if all cars in California switched from using petrol / diesel / electricity to using hydrogen combustion engines (which have water vapour as exhaust product)?

SAVE CALIFORNIAN CROPS! SHUT DOWN TEXAS OIL!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on October 12, 2015, 08:48:32 am
California used about 14 billions gallons of gasoline (http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/market_share/index.html) in 2014. That's 1.7*10^17 J. According to wikipedia, you'd need about 1.2 millions tons of hydrogen to get that energy, which would give nine time that weight of water, or 10.8 millions tons.

California get an average of 470 mm of rainfall per year. Its surface area in about 420,000 km², or 4,2*10^11 m². One mm of rainfall over 1 square meter is 1 liter (Metric system FTW!), so we get about 2^14 liters, or 200 billions tons. So the extra water from all those cars would represent an extra 0.005%.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on October 12, 2015, 10:17:25 am
And that's assuming it all stayed in cali, as opposed to flapping off over the ocean or hitching a ride on air currents off to some other state. Much of it would probably bugger off to somewhere else before it came back down, so realistically it would probably be even less than that in terms of benefit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on October 12, 2015, 10:41:54 am
Quote from: martinuzz on October 12, 2015, 08:02:08 am
I wonder. Has anyone ever made any calculations on what the effect would be on (lack of) rainfall, if all cars in California switched from using petrol / diesel / electricity to using hydrogen combustion engines (which have water vapour as exhaust product)?

SAVE CALIFORNIAN CROPS! SHUT DOWN TEXAS OIL!
Internal combustion engines produce water as an exhaust product, too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on October 12, 2015, 11:33:59 am
Actually, if my math is correct, you'd release more water from the 14 billions liters of gasoline (which contain 6 millions tons of hydrogen) than from pure hydrogen. It does seem a bit weird though, maybe someone should run through my numbers again.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on October 12, 2015, 11:35:56 am
And by converting flammable O2 into CO2, you're decreasing the risk of wildfires!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 12, 2015, 11:48:59 am
Quote from: Rolan7 on October 12, 2015, 11:35:56 am
And by converting flammable O2 into CO2, you're decreasing the risk of wildfires!

We could literally cut down on the chances of forest fires by burning down forests.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on October 12, 2015, 11:54:49 am
Quote from: MonkeyHead on October 12, 2015, 11:48:59 am
Quote from: Rolan7 on October 12, 2015, 11:35:56 am
And by converting flammable O2 into CO2, you're decreasing the risk of wildfires!

We could literally cut down on the chances of forest fires by burning down forests.
That'd still leave a lot of room for wildfires, though. Better to chop down every last plant in cali and pave it over with concrete. Mind you, that'd probably lead to melting concrete in places, but slowly boiling infrastructure is the price you pay to ensure no more fires.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on October 12, 2015, 11:55:30 am
Ironically, new trees will thrive in the CO2 rich air and ashy soil.
Though I don't know if it's actually ironic since many species of trees have evolved to regrow after fires.
The soil might be kinda ironic?  Depending on how many animals died.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on October 12, 2015, 12:55:35 pm
Can we please not talk about deliberately burning down my state? ._.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Descan on October 12, 2015, 01:54:59 pm
Eh, you have a spare, Sirus.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on October 12, 2015, 02:32:51 pm
Quote from: Sirus on October 12, 2015, 12:55:35 pm
Can we please not talk about deliberately burning down my state? ._.

But... but.. !!SCIENCE!! demands it!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on October 14, 2015, 04:33:57 am
Only you can stop forest fires. Burn your local forest today!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Calidovi on October 17, 2015, 09:05:11 am
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on October 14, 2015, 04:33:57 am
Only you can stop forest fires. Burn your local forest today!

Can't wait until someone makes the "Burn12" squad where all we do is run around with small buckets of highly insulated magma and throw it on trees while yelling "save the forest" and yelling at big business.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on October 17, 2015, 05:30:20 pm
Quote from: Rolan7 on October 12, 2015, 11:55:30 am
Though I don't know if it's actually ironic since many species of trees have evolved to regrow after fires.
Indeed. In fact many of the redwood forests you find in northern California actually require fires to grow, without their heat and ground clearing their pinecones will never open and new trees won't ever grow.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on October 17, 2015, 05:31:49 pm
Like the Giant Redwood.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on November 06, 2015, 09:00:56 am
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-banks-highway-bill_563bc8a6e4b0307f2cacae55?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Why does the federal government not at least own a small, or any chunk at all, of these banks?

We keep giving them billions of dollars and keep getting screwed. TARP was a massive crazy thing. And now, we find yet more proof that these guys are actually the leeches. [sigh].
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: sluissa on November 06, 2015, 09:11:39 am
^

Representative: Because something something... private enterprise.... something something.... capitalism! *Falls asleep again.*
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on November 06, 2015, 09:20:46 am
What? TARP worked pretty well (unlike the European bail-out), with the Fed even making some money overall IIRC.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on November 09, 2015, 05:33:31 pm
Oddly I've heard different about TARP. Either way, even if it worked out, you or I would never ever get that kinda break in financing if it all went belly up.

And speaking of which: This http://www.computerworld.com/article/3002681/it-outsourcing/fury-and-fear-in-ohio-as-it-jobs-go-to-india.html

That's just amazing really. The idea that you're just so completely replaceable, but don't job hop.... The company demands your loyalty, until they don't. Then meh and whatever happens to you happens, but don't talk about it either. And we're actually importing foreign workers to replace you, because of course.... Those programs are supposed to be only if they can't find anyone, but instead it's just more outsourcing, except flying them in to replace you. Also, you'll be training your replacement.... :(
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on November 09, 2015, 05:47:26 pm
Look at Ohio, making breakthroughs in modern business technology. They managed to find a way to keep jobs here in America, while still giving them away to underpaid foreign nationals.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on December 05, 2015, 03:20:21 pm
Big decision Thursday towards gender equality in the armed forces!  This article's focusing on the future possibility of drafting women, which...  Not sure why that's a separate discussion, but one step at a time I guess.
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_29204821/combat-women-raises-draft-question

I'm really happy about this, I think it's a meaningful step toward treating people as peers.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on December 05, 2015, 03:44:47 pm
Quote from: Rolan7 on December 05, 2015, 03:20:21 pm
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_29204821/combat-women-raises-draft-question
I find it funny that Obama thinks it is unfortunate that a female draft was already being litigated for.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on December 05, 2015, 07:12:57 pm
Quote from: ArKFallen on December 05, 2015, 03:44:47 pm
Quote from: Rolan7 on December 05, 2015, 03:20:21 pm
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_29204821/combat-women-raises-draft-question
I find it funny that Obama thinks it is unfortunate that a female draft was already being litigated for.
obama didn't say that, though
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on December 05, 2015, 08:50:49 pm
Quote from: Bauglir on December 05, 2015, 07:12:57 pm
obama didn't say that, though
Ah yes. It would seem that it was Defense Secretary Ashton Carter.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on December 05, 2015, 11:54:27 pm
The reason why drafting is a separate discussion is because it's a responsibility rather than a right.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on December 06, 2015, 12:35:27 am
One would think that true equality would entail equal responsibilities as well as equal rights...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on December 06, 2015, 02:20:44 am
i dunno, jury duty's apparently a right

the draft seems pretty similar in principle
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on December 06, 2015, 02:25:46 am
Quote from: Bauglir on December 06, 2015, 02:20:44 am
i dunno, jury duty's apparently a right

I think it's more like jury duty is the obvious consequence of having a jury of peers for trial be a right.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on December 06, 2015, 02:33:29 am
Quote from: Bauglir on December 06, 2015, 02:20:44 am
i dunno, jury duty's apparently a right

the draft seems pretty similar in principle
Are women excluded from jury duty for some reason?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on December 06, 2015, 02:35:16 am
right, shit

opinion retracted, strauder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauder_v._West_Virginia) takes precedence

EDIT: no, women aren't excluded from jury duty, but black folks once were
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on December 06, 2015, 02:43:57 am
Quote from: Ispil on December 06, 2015, 02:34:39 am
Eh, draft's been dead for a while now anyway.

Note that I had to register for the draft. I'm not even a goddamn citizen.
The whole point of Selective Service is that it's basically a pre-draft. If the United States were to get into a conflict and not have enough volunteer soldiers for the job, the draft might come back and those registered for Selective Service (aka every single male within a certain age range) are the first in line to get "volunteered".

Thing is, women were never required to register for Selective Service and I'm not even sure if they could register. That might have made sense when women were forbidden from combat duty, but the times are a-changing and we either need to get rid of Selective Service (on the grounds that we have an additional source of combat troops now) or require women to register as well.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on December 06, 2015, 02:48:37 am
It just seems obvious that if we establish that women can serve in the military, which they kinda have been, there's no good reason to exclude them from the draft. 

Particularly if we use draftees for non-combat roles like I hear other countries do...

Reading up on this, it does seem like women are basically unable to join the marine infantry because of the exceptionally high physical requirements.  But I wouldn't be able to either, by a long shot.  My understanding is I could probably pass air force or army basic training (probably), based on the way the draft worked in Vietnam and some of my family members who did pass.  And I've met several women fitter than I am.  Even if a median woman can't hack it, a significant proportion should be able to...  I'm not even sure I'm fitter than the median woman.

Anyway...  Why *would* women be exempt from a future draft?  It needs a reason, the default should be equal status.

Quote from: Ispil on December 06, 2015, 02:37:37 am
I always found it funny that they trust a noncitizen with a gun and the training to know how to use it, but not the right to judge morally the crimes of their peers. Though they still summon non-citizens, which is always fun to get.
Wait, noncitizens can serve in the military?  Wtf...
If we're doing that, it really ought to grant citizenship, Roman-style!  Not really joking.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on December 06, 2015, 03:01:24 am
The only argument I can conceive against it is that if women were conscripted too things like the War of the Triple Alliance, or WW2 for some participants, would end in an empty country instead of a greatly struggling one with a weird gender ratio. Those are extreme examples, and ideally that wouldn't even be a possibility, but regardless of how much water it hilds I'm sure it's crossed the mind of at least one person in charge.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on December 06, 2015, 04:22:04 am
Selective service is one of those things that exists purely on the basis of government inertia. Gotta spend /more than) your tax dollars on something, after all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on December 06, 2015, 04:34:34 am
No, I can see the hypothetical benefits outweighing the costs even today.

Of course, by that I mean I can see the possibility but don't actually know whether or not they do. But not knowing whether or not they do doesn't mean I have any reason to argue against it or for it. Really, I can't even be neutral, I'm just incapable of taking a stance at all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on December 06, 2015, 11:43:58 am
Sure, if WWII broke out again, and we weren't willing to start the draftee lists again from scratch, it'd be great. But the odds of WWIII happening in such a way that America needs a 100 division Army seems pretty low to me. Cost vs chance x consequence.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Phmcw on December 06, 2015, 02:00:35 pm
An easy and clever way to tackle the issue is let the physical standard for both genders be the same. You'll end up with a few % of actually reliable women fighters while keeping enough to do the labour at home without being sexist.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on December 06, 2015, 02:08:38 pm
Yeah that seems like the natural position to me.
I've seen some sorta interesting arguments against having 100% equal requirements...  Mainly around the design of the BDUs (too big, apparently?) and the center of mass of the packs (apparently too far back).

But some people are arguing that women shouldn't have to be able to carry male soldiers (200+ pounds) because female soldiers are lighter, and I don't agree with that.  Even if the units are segregated by gender, that introduces problems.  And there are plenty of women who *can* carry men around...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on December 06, 2015, 02:34:09 pm
Equal requirements for advancement don't necessarily mean that identical equipment is going to be issued. There are obvious reasons to ensure your soldiers are equally well-equipped, which means having equipment reasonably well-suited to them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 06, 2015, 02:38:26 pm
Quote from: Rolan7 on December 06, 2015, 02:48:37 am
Anyway...  Why *would* women be exempt from a future draft?  It needs a reason, the default should be equal status.
Replacement of people, it's not enough to win you must also have a future, otherwise you just end up like the victorious states in Europe that even in victory were losers
I dunno it's a bit like questioning why doctors are exempt from the draft, you only instigate a draft in total war and in total war you mobilize your resources smart or you solve your overpopulation issue like Russia when everyone eats more bullets than cabbage
Not really sure why the USA has a draft to be honest, no country could touch the North American continent

Quote from: Rolan7 on December 06, 2015, 02:48:37 am
Wait, noncitizens can serve in the military?  Wtf...
If we're doing that, it really ought to grant citizenship, Roman-style!  Not really joking.
French Foreign Legion very famously gives citizenship for service, Gurkhas a decade ago got citizenship rights I'd say it's a very successful model
America freedom legion soon

Quote from: Phmcw on December 06, 2015, 02:00:35 pm
An easy and clever way to tackle the issue is let the physical standard for both genders be the same. You'll end up with a few % of actually reliable women fighters while keeping enough to do the labour at home without being sexist.
Well if we're talking standard military during peacetime (well, "peacetime") then this should be the standard and you only ever lower the standard when you need to, you want to have as high standards to begin with that's why it's standards.

Quote from: Rolan7 on December 06, 2015, 02:08:38 pm
But some people are arguing that women shouldn't have to be able to carry male soldiers (200+ pounds) because female soldiers are lighter, and I don't agree with that.
Doesn't matter if you disagree, because more muscle = more strength, lowered standards speak for themselves
Equal standards is cool beans, I don't like people dying for no reason, I like people dying because someone else wanted to be signal even less lol

At any rate I wouldn't support lowered standards or just equal high standards either, though the latter is much preferable outside of the most desperate situations such as when the Gauls were overrun by fucking Romans or the Israelis got dicked by all their very angry neighbours. Nah see, way I see it, if you can't enlist because you fail to meet the physical standards, what if you've got some skills to offset that? Nothing wrong about a 40 year old Leo joining the army I don't see why a younger woman with similar skillsets and more testosterone than an Olympics tennis player wouldn't do as well either
Prolly biggest niche here is that of technical roles; got an engineering degree, are a doc or chaplain? Can't do pull ups? Get on board anyways
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on December 06, 2015, 03:14:16 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on December 06, 2015, 02:38:26 pm
Quote from: Rolan7 on December 06, 2015, 02:48:37 am
Anyway...  Why *would* women be exempt from a future draft?  It needs a reason, the default should be equal status.
Replacement of people, it's not enough to win you must also have a future, otherwise you just end up like the victorious states in Europe that even in victory were losers
I dunno it's a bit like questioning why doctors are exempt from the draft, you only instigate a draft in total war and in total war you mobilize your resources smart or you solve your overpopulation issue like Russia when everyone eats more bullets than cabbage
Not really sure why the USA has a draft to be honest, no country could touch the North American continent
I don't really follow that argument, unless polygamy is involved.  Yeah theoretically a war could kill off half the men without impacting the population growth rate, but the remaining men would have to have 2 wives each.

Selective service doesn't necessarily have to be for war, though.  The Israelis use it for prison guards and military police...  I thought I heard some countries use it to recruit aid workers too, but IDK.

Aside, I found a neat quote from the 1981 Supreme Court decision on this issue!
Quote
The existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress' decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them.
Now that women aren't excluded from combat, that decision would need to be revisited...  If there's still an argument for exempting women.

Quote from: Loud Whispers on December 06, 2015, 02:38:26 pm
Quote from: Rolan7 on December 06, 2015, 02:48:37 am
Wait, noncitizens can serve in the military?  Wtf...
If we're doing that, it really ought to grant citizenship, Roman-style!  Not really joking.
French Foreign Legion very famously gives citizenship for service, Gurkhas a decade ago got citizenship rights I'd say it's a very successful model
America freedom legion soon
You know, I actually mistook "noncitizen" as "illegal alien"?  Which is pretty bigoted I think, my bad.
Though not completely off...  Obama did try to allow illegal aliens into the military back in May.  Which I totally support as long as it quickly results in citizenship.  I have no problem with illegal aliens, just the fact that they're illegal... Military service seems like a great justification for granting citizenship (and pardon).

Of course the GOP shot it down hard :-\

Quote from: Loud Whispers on December 06, 2015, 02:38:26 pm
Quote from: Rolan7 on December 06, 2015, 02:08:38 pm
But some people are arguing that women shouldn't have to be able to carry male soldiers (200+ pounds) because female soldiers are lighter, and I don't agree with that.
Doesn't matter if you disagree, because more muscle = more strength, lowered standards speak for themselves
Equal standards is cool beans, I don't like people dying for no reason, I like people dying because someone else wanted to be signal even less lol

At any rate I wouldn't support lowered standards or just equal high standards either, though the latter is much preferable outside of the most desperate situations such as when the Gauls were overrun by fucking Romans or the Israelis got dicked by all their very angry neighbours. Nah see, way I see it, if you can't enlist because you fail to meet the physical standards, what if you've got some skills to offset that? Nothing wrong about a 40 year old Leo joining the army I don't see why a younger woman with similar skillsets and more testosterone than an Olympics tennis player wouldn't do as well either
Prolly biggest niche here is that of technical roles; got an engineering degree, are a doc or chaplain? Can't do pull ups? Get on board anyways
My position, and I could certainly be wrong, is that the standards aren't that terribly high to begin with.  I've had family get through who were...  Not that fit.
Of course they expect more from people in certain roles.  In some (many?) cases the standards may be so high that no women qualify.  That's fine with me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on December 06, 2015, 03:20:47 pm
Not actually illegal, rol. Honestly kinda' important to remember that, considering it's the reason undocumented immigrants don't have a guarantee to a trial or due process or whathaveyou. If what they were doing was actually criminal, the situation would be considerably more hilarious.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on December 06, 2015, 03:27:56 pm
That's a bit like using "shooting a gun isn't illegal!" as a defense at your murder trial though. No, being here while not being a citizen isn't illegal, but the things that make the distinction between undocumented immigrants and tourists are. Things like sneaking past customs and dodging taxes are not looked kindly upon.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on December 06, 2015, 03:49:21 pm
Very many don't dodge taxes, for what it's worth. Undocumented immigrants still pay sales taxes and a great many of them pay income taxes as well (they just don't get any refunds while doing so :V), and so on, and so forth. They're a pretty substantial net tax gain, from what I recall.

Customs is a different thing, but last I checked most of the penalties there, especially for the stuff the folks in question tend to bring in, are pretty minor. Also I'm pretty sure roughly 99% of the people complaining about illegal immigrants give precisely zero shits about custom dodging. Barring how to get away with it themselves, anyway.

Plus there's a pretty sizable chunk of undocumented immigrants that basically were tourists, or folks with an expired visa or so on. It's not all custom dodging and whatnot.

Either way, it's relatively irrelevant. The people in question generally aren't charged with crimes at all, so far as I'm aware -- they're specifically kept as far away from th'actual criminal justice system as possible. Gods forbid they actually get due legal attention, heh. Can't even be arsed to get the resources together to process folks, nevermind scrounging together the legal fees involved with something like that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on December 06, 2015, 04:02:34 pm
Well yeah, because it's a far easier and more expedient solution to just send them back to wherever they came from than stuff our already overcrowded justice system full of people who aren't even permanent residents. From what I understand, it's quite a difficult journey to make and a lot of them don't try a second time unless they get put back in Mexico. Someone deported to South America or across the ocean has probably lost their opportunity.

And the point isn't that the stuff they've brought in wouldn't pass customs, it's the fact that they've circumvented customs and immigration, and the other border controls, entirely. Or overstayed their original welcome. What they may or may not have had on them is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on December 06, 2015, 04:38:56 pm
*waggles hand* The border violation, maybe. I do actually hear that one, at least in regards to the southern border. I'd just never actually heard anyone comment on the customs avoidance aspect of it before, heh, and I get to hear entirely too much kvetching about undocumented immigrants (though generally coached in significantly more racist terminology, ha.).

... plus, let's be honest, unless the dialogue is significantly different up north, no one seems to actually give a shit about our substantial undocumented non-latino population. Lapsed visas and overstayed tourist trips seem to matter a lot less for them, for some odd reason.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on December 06, 2015, 04:51:37 pm
It's not significantly different up here in the north, just more muted. But unlike most people, I'm concerned with the principle of the thing (flaunting American law in order to exploit its prosperity) as opposed to some strange idea of racial purity or watering down our culture. We've exported our culture well enough that immigrants from a lot of places come pre-integrated, and the US has historically been pretty good at bringing new stuff into our common tradition. You need not look any further than the now-ubiquitous Mexican restaurants if you need proof of that.

I do think it should be easier to get citizenship, but I don't think we're morally obligated to accept as many yokels as are willing to sneak in as some people seem to. We have too many unskilled workers as it is.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on December 06, 2015, 05:16:11 pm
Quote from: Frumple on December 06, 2015, 04:38:56 pm
... plus, let's be honest, unless the dialogue is significantly different up north, no one seems to actually give a shit about our substantial undocumented non-latino population. Lapsed visas and overstayed tourist trips seem to matter a lot less for them, for some odd reason.
Probably is racism for the individuals but on the government end those people (lapsed/overstayed) have already shown to have money and are hopefully spending what they earned elsewhere here. It is also more expensive to get rid of them unless they are Canadian.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 06, 2015, 05:39:30 pm
Quote from: Rolan7 on December 06, 2015, 03:14:16 pm
I don't really follow that argument, unless polygamy is involved.  Yeah theoretically a war could kill off half the men without impacting the population growth rate, but the remaining men would have to have 2 wives each.
If you think sex doesn't happen outside of marriage you're adorably naive and I hope you are never spoilt by this cheeki breeki Roman world
Women outnumber men = sexy time for few men many time
Post WWI Europe was a degenerate debauchery with population booms galore for sexy time to commence as women vastly outnumbered men
Post WWII Europe was a degenerate debauchery with population booms galore for sexy time to commence as women vastly outnumbered men
Presumably post-WWIII will be a degenerate debauchery but with no population booms as the fallout will sterilize everyone
Quote from: Rolan7 on December 06, 2015, 03:14:16 pm
Selective service doesn't necessarily have to be for war, though.  The Israelis use it for prison guards and military police...  I thought I heard some countries use it to recruit aid workers too, but IDK.
Neat
Just do national service then
Quote from: Rolan7 on December 06, 2015, 03:14:16 pm
You know, I actually mistook "noncitizen" as "illegal alien"?  Which is pretty bigoted I think, my bad.
Though not completely off...  Obama did try to allow illegal aliens into the military back in May.  Which I totally support as long as it quickly results in citizenship.  I have no problem with illegal aliens, just the fact that they're illegal... Military service seems like a great justification for granting citizenship (and pardon).
Yeah allowing illegal immigrants into your army, what could go wrong
Quote from: Rolan7 on December 06, 2015, 03:14:16 pm
Of course the GOP shot it down hard :-\
Neat
Quote from: Rolan7 on December 06, 2015, 03:14:16 pm
My position, and I could certainly be wrong, is that the standards aren't that terribly high to begin with.  I've had family get through who were...  Not that fit.
Females standards are half (http://www.navy-prt.com/femalestandard/17-19.html) men's standards (http://www.navy-prt.com/malestandard/17-19.html) and the failure standard much lower (you'd have to do 95% worse than a male already at half the standard of the male standard)
Though you're right the standards only really cover someone being in regular shape unless you're trying to get into some elite finagling
Quote from: Rolan7 on December 06, 2015, 03:14:16 pm
Of course they expect more from people in certain roles.  In some (many?) cases the standards may be so high that no women qualify.  That's fine with me.
I don't really care as long as no one is being sent to do things they're not capable of doing
I mean the USA is the country that has seriously let people become firefighters despite failing the physical tests because they are women, so that when murricans get killed you can have the consolation of being the current year and crispy lol
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on December 07, 2015, 06:54:24 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/teen-who-worked-in-corner-shop-for-10-weeks-to-170210642.html (http://news.yahoo.com/teen-who-worked-in-corner-shop-for-10-weeks-to-170210642.html)

and boycott....

Too many people working for nothing. Sick of it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 07, 2015, 07:07:23 pm
Quote
A fundraising website has since been set up for the 15-year-old.
There's a red flag
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on December 07, 2015, 08:23:37 pm
Could we keep this (https://pando.com/2015/02/04/the-geometry-of-censorship-and-satire/) around the next time somebody says "it's not censorship cuz it aint the gubmint" please?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on December 08, 2015, 07:37:27 am
Yeah, private organizations can control speech within their property with much fewer restrictions (on their limiting)  than can any sort of government.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on December 08, 2015, 07:41:19 am
Quote from: Ispil on December 07, 2015, 06:58:24 pm
That's illegal. I mean, legitimately illegal, as of recently. Internships that are equal to the performance of the work done on the job are required by law to be paid internships. You work, you get paid.

Indeed. And law is getting more demanding in this regard. However big business has been promoting this practice for years. And yeah, it's goddamn shameful. Modern-day slavery.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on December 08, 2015, 05:36:10 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on December 07, 2015, 08:23:37 pm
Could we keep this (https://pando.com/2015/02/04/the-geometry-of-censorship-and-satire/) around the next time somebody says "it's not censorship cuz it aint the gubmint" please?
Wait, what? Does this Ames guy think that censorship in Putinist Russia is exclusively of the centralized, "vertical" type, as that Dorenko guy puts it? Is Ames saying that he never encountered any peer pressure or thought-policing when he was living and writing in Putinland? Really? Which putinbot-free computer network has he been using for the last fifteen years? The ARPANET? And all Western censorship is supposed to be "horizontal," peer-to-peer, grass-roots activism carried out in a decentralized manner by freelance moralists? HAHAHA, yeah, no gods no masters in post-liberal post-postmodern capitalist internetopia, m8.

If you think about it for longer than five seconds, this whole distinction between vertical and horizontal censorship starts to look like a bloody stupid false dichotomy: Are these things really complementary? Is it possible to imagine a world with only one of them, or both, or neither? What kind of society would have absolutely no rules of public discourse, no peer pressure, no self-righteous moralists, no self-censorship? An absolute madhouse, in the worst 17th-century sense of the word. What the article calls "horizontal censorship" is definitely not a new phenomenon, but as old as humanity itself, and it has nothing specifically to do with the internet and social media---although these have made it much more visible in our daily lives, that's for sure.

And what about a society without any kind of centralized, top-down censorship? You may think that you're living in such a society, but how the fuck do you know? Slapping mosaic on the naughty bits is trivial non-censorship because you know exactly what you're not supposed to see, but real censorship is most successful when you don't know it's there. And how do you know whether or not the individual moralists are being led from above, and whether they are even real people? (Astroturfing and Putin's robotic troll armies are poignant examples here.) From this point of view, it seems oddly naive to assume, as Ames does, that our society has been completely decentralized and flattened out, but occasionally everyone just decides to hop on the outrage bandwagon and start limiting each others' freedom of speech for fun. Here's a particularly un-self-aware paragraph:

Quote
Fact is, Swift today would be hounded off Twitter for "promoting child cannibalism as a solution to Irish poverty"; demagogic satire-shamers would trash Swift for "punching down, not up"—because as every social media Stalinist will tell you, "satire should punch up, not down." And it's all effected without the crude, violent methods used by the Kremlin censors—we do it to ourselves, thanks to our decentralized new utopia.

Who's "we" in this instance? Are you sure none of your Facebook friends are from the Kremlin, or the NSA, or the marketing department of a multinational corporation? And who told you to criticize internet outrage-mongering by writing an outrage-mongering article on the internet? Did you just come up with the idea all by yourself, because it seemed the most reasonable thing to do? Oh, and do you know who gets the ad revenues from that site you're writing on? If everything is so decentralized, shouldn't the money be flowing straight into your own pocket?

Just asking questions. :V
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 08, 2015, 06:18:47 pm
In Germany, what he calls 'horizontal censorship' is known as 'die Schere im Kopf' - the scissors inside one's head. It's often applied to self-censorship meant to pre-empt actual censorship, too.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 08, 2015, 11:56:19 pm
Possibly unrelated, but I feel like encouraging women to become police officers would solve a lot of issues. Police brutality would likely become less common if majority of police force were women, since they don't have testosterone PUMPING LIKE THE BURNING FUEL OF HEPHAESTUS THROUGH MY VEINS AAHAHAHA THE POWER IS MINE ONCE MORE, and cuz' they don't exactly need massive amounts of brute force to subdue criminals, vast majority of the time. That's why you a. have a partner, b. have a gun, c. have physicals/training, and d. SO MUCH OF IT IS PAPERWORKfrom what I understand.

Just saying. Play to people's strengths, if you can.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on December 09, 2015, 12:20:40 am
I'm all for more women in the police forces, but the problem isn't that it's just men. It's the culture inside the police forces that is contributing to the issue.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: sluissa on December 09, 2015, 05:36:20 am
Quote from: Rolepgeek on December 08, 2015, 11:56:19 pm
Possibly unrelated, but I feel like encouraging women to become police officers would solve a lot of issues. Police brutality would likely become less common if majority of police force were women, since they don't have testosterone PUMPING LIKE THE BURNING FUEL OF HEPHAESTUS THROUGH MY VEINS AAHAHAHA THE POWER IS MINE ONCE MORE, and cuz' they don't exactly need massive amounts of brute force to subdue criminals, vast majority of the time. That's why you a. have a partner, b. have a gun, c. have physicals/training, and d. SO MUCH OF IT IS PAPERWORKfrom what I understand.

Just saying. Play to people's strengths, if you can.

Have a look at the stuff that came out about the people (including women) working in the Iraqi military prisons/camps and their treatment of POWs. Or accounts of women civilian prison guards. Abuse of power isnt a gender issue. It applies to everyone.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wobbly on December 09, 2015, 11:54:10 am
Yeah I don't know which strange world you live in where only men abuse power. Think about any female managers you've had to work for, you get a bad one they're just as horrible, just as aggressive. Honestly I suspect a cop's more likely to shoot someone out of panic, poor training, stress or poor culture/attitudes then testosterone. Both genders are just as vulnerable to these things.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on December 09, 2015, 02:39:35 pm
American police are indeed fucking terrified of the general populace, compared to a lot of other places I've been. What's up with that?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on December 09, 2015, 02:45:40 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on December 09, 2015, 02:39:35 pm
American police are indeed fucking terrified of the general populace, compared to a lot of other places I've been. What's up with that?

Because they're widely and increasingly reviled as a class of people for things that they themselves likely don't even do, and the general populace is unpredictable at the best of times. We also have lots of guns. They also spend most of their time interacting with the worst in society, and it colors their perspective of the whole. It's not surprising in the least that some of them feel like they have targets on their backs.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on December 09, 2015, 04:44:28 pm
Yeah, I'd need to dig up the data, but US policemen are much more likely to kill AND get killed than in other countries.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: JoshuaFH on December 09, 2015, 04:56:37 pm
And it sure doesn't help that us 'Muricans have a nationwide obsession with guns, notoriety, and entitlement, while also having near-zero sense of social responsibility. And it certainly doesn't help that our prison system is set up to harshly punish, and not to prevent or curb criminal behavior, so an incredible culture of disrespect towards enforcement has grown over the course of decades now.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on December 09, 2015, 05:17:49 pm
Quote from: JoshuaFH on December 09, 2015, 04:56:37 pm
while also having near-zero sense of social responsibility
we have a great sense of social responsibility

by which i mean, society is responsible for all of our problems

edit: probably because we keep doing things like letting the women vote, in case it wasn't clear that this post is entirely sarcastic outside of this clause
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TempAcc on December 09, 2015, 05:48:05 pm
Quote from: Baffler on December 09, 2015, 02:45:40 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on December 09, 2015, 02:39:35 pm
American police are indeed fucking terrified of the general populace, compared to a lot of other places I've been. What's up with that?

Because they're widely and increasingly reviled as a class of people for things that they themselves likely don't even do, and the general populace is unpredictable at the best of times. We also have lots of guns. They also spend most of their time interacting with the worst in society, and it colors their perspective of the whole. It's not surprising in the least that some of them feel like they have targets on their backs.

Its like this in most big nations with a diverse, melting pot society, altough there does seem to be something specially awful in regards to society's relationship with cops in amurica. Its still quite sad and hilarious how many young people forget that cops are just guys with a dangerous job that often makes them a target, and that they have families to take care of, as well. Hell, I've seen kids who have never had actual contact with any policeman and go on making tumblr posts about hating cops. Hating cops in some parts of the US has basically become the new hip and cool thing to do.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bohandas on December 09, 2015, 05:57:24 pm
Quote from: Willfor on December 09, 2015, 12:20:40 am
I'm all for more women in the police forces, but the problem isn't that it's just men. It's the culture inside the police forces that is contributing to the issue.

Yes, and it's not even that it's a culture of violence or racism. The real issue is something called the "Blue Wall", where police officers will not ignore crimes committed by other officers but also cover for them if they get called out on it.

The most effective solution to whis whole issue would be some kind of measure designed to create an environment of discord and backstabbing and stamp out runaway esprit de corps in our nation's police departments.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 09, 2015, 09:22:09 pm
You do realize that National Socialist or Soviet style denunciation programs are not too efficient, right?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on December 09, 2015, 09:25:51 pm
Either way the system sucks. I think that more independent prosecutors and internal affairs as well as continually improving information (that is released to the general public. Not improving information that totally shows he was rushing for the cop before they shot him. Take their word for it, plz) would hopefully improve things 
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 09, 2015, 09:39:08 pm
A big thing that would help is disestablishing preference for cop-sourced information in court. A cop's eyewitness testimony is automatically preferences over that of others and is often treated as "equivalent to a recording". A massive number of prosecutions succeed based off of the cop being able to claim whatever they want and make the person they're accusing out to be a conniving liar if they tell a different story. They'd be a lot less rowdy in the field if they knew the law looked upon their testimony the same as everyone else's.

For example, this is how the stop and frisk program functioned. Carry around a dime bag, see someone you want to fuck over, drop it next to them and then run them in for having marijuana. Tell the court your version and bam, easy conviction. I remember an explanation by a retired judge that being clumsy with bags of weed must be the most common side effect of walking while black.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on December 09, 2015, 10:17:33 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 09, 2015, 09:39:08 pm
A big thing that would help is disestablishing preference for cop-sourced information in court. A cop's eyewitness testimony is automatically preferences over that of others
As I understand it that is because cops are supposed to be trained to spot things in a less fucked manner than your average Joe.
Quote
and is often treated as "equivalent to a recording"
This is fucked though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 09, 2015, 10:19:33 pm
Maybe step zero should be to train your cops better, then. Maybe you should do an officer exchange program with a couple European countries.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 09, 2015, 10:25:26 pm
Police academies are pretty fucked up, but the way they teach cops is just them adapting to the environment they exist in. It's not the actual source of the problem. Even I, with my fuck the pigs attitude, will freely admit that there are good-natured cops out there, plenty of them. The thing is though, the way the system functions preferences immoral cops to moral ones, and overrides what good they might actually do or try to do.

Besides, the way Europe's political climate is going they'll probably take lessons from American cops, not the other way around.

And it's been tried. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbM9uCxEJDM)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on December 10, 2015, 04:26:03 am
I dunno, well, separate internal affairs would probably be a good start. The stories you hear of those truly terrible PD all lack separate internal affairs department. I must say that the kind of autonomy that US PD enjoy never cease to amaze me (and I'm from Belgum, where our approach to government is "break it into pieces until it stop working"). Internal affairs should be a state-level thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Grim Portent on December 10, 2015, 05:35:13 am
Quote from: Sheb on December 10, 2015, 04:26:03 am
Internal affairs should be a state-level thing.

I'd probably have it be a federal thing myself. Making sure the police are ethical and following proper procedures is the sort of thing that should transcend state boundaries if you ask me (though I'm not a huge fan of the state system as is.)

Then again I'd probably have the police be federal level as well, law enforcement has never struck me as something that should be too heavily devolved.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on December 10, 2015, 07:27:06 am
Quote from: Sheb on December 10, 2015, 04:26:03 am
I dunno, well, separate internal affairs would probably be a good start. The stories you hear of those truly terrible PD all lack separate internal affairs department. I must say that the kind of autonomy that US PD enjoy never cease to amaze me (and I'm from Belgum, where our approach to government is "break it into pieces until it stop working"). Internal affairs should be a state-level thing.

Y'know, one would think that America could do that too, what with the political ideals in separation of powers and things.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on December 11, 2015, 06:18:10 am
Quote from: TempAcc on December 09, 2015, 05:48:05 pm
Quote from: Baffler on December 09, 2015, 02:45:40 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on December 09, 2015, 02:39:35 pm
American police are indeed fucking terrified of the general populace, compared to a lot of other places I've been. What's up with that?

Because they're widely and increasingly reviled as a class of people for things that they themselves likely don't even do, and the general populace is unpredictable at the best of times. We also have lots of guns. They also spend most of their time interacting with the worst in society, and it colors their perspective of the whole. It's not surprising in the least that some of them feel like they have targets on their backs.

Its like this in most big nations with a diverse, melting pot society, altough there does seem to be something specially awful in regards to society's relationship with cops in amurica. Its still quite sad and hilarious how many young people forget that cops are just guys with a dangerous job that often makes them a target, and that they have families to take care of, as well. Hell, I've seen kids who have never had actual contact with any policeman and go on making tumblr posts about hating cops. Hating cops in some parts of the US has basically become the new hip and cool thing to do.
Not really?

First of all, cops aren't actually in that much danger in the US as a whole.  Looking at the actual statistics there are an average of less than 3 cop deaths per year per state (https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2014).  Furthermore, less than half of these are violent deaths.  No law enforcement agency currently is responsible for tracking police killings, but wikipedia gives a low ball estimate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States).  Assuming that the highest year is complete accurate for all of them (as a very very vague way to estimate for the aforementioned low-balled-ness), the US police force kills 625 people per year.  Most estimates I've heard are a little under twice that, but anyway let's be generous since no one really knows.  That means that the average US citizen is over 1000% times more likely to be killed by a police officer than to kill a police officer.

Now, its entirely possible that that just means that the police are simply good at fighting in our gun-and-criminal infested old west of a nation.  None of those statistics imply any kind of fault either way, so maybe those were all justified killings in combat.  It seems highly unlikely, considering that deaths prior to the 9/11 police militarization craze are about the same as they were post 9/11.  But you know, benefit of the doubt.  This is all rendered highly moot by the fact that there have been several high profile cases over the previous few years that have revealed that A US juries and the legal system as a whole will basically never charge cops with on-duty murder and B the police force as a whole goes utterly fucking nuts when any member is under criticism in a way that no other profession including the fucking army does.  The most hilarious recent example of this is the police PR statement low-key implying that officers would shoot up a theater playing Hateful Eight because Tarantino showed up at an anti-police protest.  Furthermore, there have been some revelations, most notably in at least one Jon Oliver segment I don't care to dig up, that policemen have "confiscated" millions of dollars of assets from varying US citizens who have not been charged with crimes, mostly due to very liberal anti-drug legislation.  So regardless of the actual facts (which STILL contradict your and many other people's narrative about the police) its not surprise that people don't trust them.

This brings me to the my second point.  The current anti-police sentiment is a new-ish trend but its coming off of the tail end of an anti-police sentiment generated from the war on drugs.  Before that it was the civil rights movement, prohibition and probably a bunch of other things I don't remember.  Throughout US history its always been something.  People in the US have been hating cops before cops in the modern sense even existed, usually with at least some modicum of justification, to say nothing of the fact that early US law enforcement could be fucking brutal (which can mean very different things at different points in history).

All of this is not even touching the race issues that are endemic to the US as a whole that the police department basically inherited from some nastiness more-or-less originating with the failure of Reconstruction.  Which is complicated but very real don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 11, 2015, 09:41:33 pm
Additional possible confounders:

Police officers who get shot will almost certainly receive medical attention very swiftly; this is less true of individuals shot by police officers, for various (mostly obvious) reasons.
Police officers often wear protective equipment where they are likely to be shot at; the average individual being shot likely does not.
Police officers usually take precautions so that they are the ones shooting, not the ones being shot at, as far as I know.
They're probably taught to shoot to kill. Multiple rounds, center of mass, pretty good likelihood of killing you.

More productively:

I'm fairly sure it's a systemic problem, in the way cops are taught and the stuff they have to handle, but I'm not sure how to make sure this gets fixed. Blue Wall of course, doesn't help, but really, neither does massively dropping recruitment rates. When your people have to work doubleshifts in what are perceived as dangerous neighborhoods...it's not an excuse, but it's an explanation. People who dislike the current state of the police force ought to try and get good people to work in it. People who won't reinforce the current system.

Really, I think, the problem is, that cops are people too. And people fuck up. And while the army drills discipline into you and is mostly separate in it's activities from the civilian population, more authority and more power, without having responsibility and caution (against overuse, rather than vice versa) forced down your throat leads to trouble. And since they're people, they want to protect their friends, through thick and thin. And that creates this atmosphere of the police department being unaccountable for it's failings, despite being just as prone to them as any other industry.

At least it hasn't become privatized yet.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2015, 01:23:15 am
I do love how twisted it is that whenever things get so bad that they call out the national guard to keep order, often because the police intentionally escalated the situation, it tends to get a lot better since the national guard has something resembling actual discipline and a sense of duty.

It's a rough day when I can honestly say that I'd rather have the military doing the police's jobs.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: sluissa on December 12, 2015, 08:22:18 am
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2015, 01:23:15 am
I do love how twisted it is that whenever things get so bad that they call out the national guard to keep order, often because the police intentionally escalated the situation, it tends to get a lot better since the national guard has something resembling actual discipline and a sense of duty.

It's a rough day when I can honestly say that I'd rather have the military doing the police's jobs.

The military aren't trained to treat civilians as the enemy. At least not civilians in their own country. I've seen the national guard vs the police during emergencies a number of times. The guard are a mix of relaxed and bored. Police are constantly on alert. Even for things as simple as directing traffic at an intersection during a power outage. Which... as far as police duties go, is pretty inoffensive even to the most anti-police person, and probably unlikely to draw violence toward them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bohandas on December 13, 2015, 05:10:02 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on December 09, 2015, 09:22:09 pm
You do realize that National Socialist or Soviet style denunciation programs are not too efficient, right?

I'm not talking about asking them to inform on their friends. I'm talking about finding some way to make them see their co-workers as enemies.

EDIT:
Also, you left "McCarthyist" out of that list.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 13, 2015, 05:25:34 pm
Quote from: Bohandas on December 13, 2015, 05:10:02 pm
I'm not talking about asking them to inform on their friends. I'm talking about finding some way to make them see their co-workers as enemies.
That... was pretty much the intention of those programs: Creating an atmosphere of mistrust, where everyone is a possible snitch - and where the only way out is snitching yourself.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on December 13, 2015, 05:48:34 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on December 13, 2015, 05:25:34 pm
Quote from: Bohandas on December 13, 2015, 05:10:02 pm
I'm not talking about asking them to inform on their friends. I'm talking about finding some way to make them see their co-workers as enemies.
That... was pretty much the intention of those programs: Creating an atmosphere of mistrust, where everyone is a possible snitch - and where the only way out is snitching yourself.
Intense societal propaganda is better and more profitable.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on December 13, 2015, 06:08:36 pm
Quote from: Bohandas on December 13, 2015, 05:10:02 pm
I'm not talking about asking them to inform on their friends. I'm talking about finding some way to make them see their co-workers as enemies.
so you're talking about making sure nobody can like their coworkers?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 13, 2015, 09:05:55 pm
I feel like it's far better to just have them hold their friends accountable.

Don't set up a system that encourages secrecy and hiding. Set up a system that encourages being open. If the cop admits 'yeah, I fucked up', he doesn't get as harsh of a penalty, especially if he comes out about it right away. If it continues happening, yeah, the penalties get harsher; people who are gonna abuse their power can't be allowed to keep it.

But still. Open atmosphere, not snitching one.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on December 14, 2015, 05:16:44 am
Police cameras reduce a lot of malpractice, so further roll out of these should help things.

Another thing that could be done is bonus pay linked to a lack of public complaints that need to be dealt with. Processing complaints and compensation is a huge cost for the city, so it makes sense to link police bonuses to a clean record. The cops who end up killing someone often have a bad record of complaints but the rest of the station covers up for them. If it's costing every cop in the precinct actual money, then they'd be much more inclined to reprimand or kick out the guys who fuck up the most. Some sort of internal will and motivation to clean up the act is required, and linking bonus pay to the correct stimulus can help achieve this.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on December 14, 2015, 12:07:40 pm
Cameras also reduce the number of problems that officers report with the people they're handling, so it's a win-win.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 14, 2015, 05:53:43 pm
They also make for whacky liveleak videos to shitpost about
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 14, 2015, 06:25:44 pm
Sometimes I almost regret that WorldStar didn't overtake Liveleak.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on December 18, 2015, 04:01:46 pm
God bless the Ivy Leagues.

   http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/12/16/placements-race-discussions-released/?utm_source=thecrimson&utm_medium=web_primary&utm_campaign=recommend_sidebar   (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/12/16/placements-race-discussions-released/?utm_source=thecrimson&utm_medium=web_primary&utm_campaign=recommend_sidebar)

(http://thumbnails.thecrimson.com.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/2015/12/16/150206_1311683.png.800x517_q95_crop-smart_upscale.png)

Lord knows they're not blessed overmuch with their own common sense these days.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on December 18, 2015, 04:07:10 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on December 18, 2015, 04:01:46 pm
God bless the Ivy Leagues.

   http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/12/16/placements-race-discussions-released/?utm_source=thecrimson&utm_medium=web_primary&utm_campaign=recommend_sidebar   (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/12/16/placements-race-discussions-released/?utm_source=thecrimson&utm_medium=web_primary&utm_campaign=recommend_sidebar)

Lord knows they're not blessed overmuch with their own common sense these days.
Nice, though all I can think when I read the source article is "Wow that dining room looks a lot nicer than the one at my college." :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on December 18, 2015, 04:20:53 pm
I'm more than a little worried that I'm going to encounter a college activist when I'm a student, then I'll start acting like Sgt Strife again and tear into them. Worried and looking forward to a little, I suppose
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 18, 2015, 04:42:36 pm
If there's any example of the vocal minority, it's college activists painting the picture of what college students are like. It's certainly not impossible, but I haven't encountered a lot of it. I'm even friends with a decent number of people who are essentially SJW-lites, and while they don't make for great dissent they're certainly not as...rabid, as some of the activists you'll see on the news.

I don't suppose you own one of those kill hats drill instructors wear?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on December 18, 2015, 04:53:45 pm
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, once again we see the affluenza guy.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/affluenza-teen-head-start-avoiding-authorities/story?id=35822035
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/warrant-issued-arrest-affluenza-teen-ethan-couch-article-1.2467358
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/15/affluenza-teen-serving-probation-for-killing-4-people-in-crash-sought-for.html

Well, for those who don't remember, this spoiled rotten brat in Texas got shitfaced drunk/high and mowed down four people in a heck of an underage drunk driving pedestrian killing spree carried out in a very nice pickup truck. It was nice, until the guy wrecked it into those soon to be four dead people and other wounded ones.

The prosecutor's office moved for 20 years on account of the dead bodies you see. From there he actually said he was given so many privileges that he couldn't tell right from wrong (spoiled rotten). He ended up without a day in jail and settling civil lawsuits against him  and 10 years probation/house arrest. Wait, wait, house arrest, in a mansion.... That's right, all he had to do was stay put in a 4000+ square foot luxury home and he couldn't manage that. He also is shown on tape seemingly playing beer pong..... He hasn't paid his PO a visit in a while and may have fled ....

Am I missing something here or is even Fox News on this little jerk's case? Of course they're playing the "those damn kids" card, but we all know why "affluenza" is a problem and it's not youth.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on December 18, 2015, 05:04:08 pm
Heh, I was half-way to posting that m'self. Latest I've been hearing is the guy's being speculated to have fled the country. Fucked up all around, it is.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bohandas on December 18, 2015, 05:06:14 pm
Quote from: Truean on December 18, 2015, 04:53:45 pm
[REDACTED]

Isn't being unable to tell right from wrong the definition of being criminally insane? The problem isn't that he got off without any jail time with that excuse, it's that he wasn't committed to the looney bin either.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 18, 2015, 05:10:33 pm
I think I'll start exclusively referring to him as a "thug" from now on. Two can play the perception manipulation game.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 18, 2015, 06:15:58 pm
Quote from: Bohandas on December 18, 2015, 05:06:14 pm

Please don't quote Truean.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Blaze on December 18, 2015, 10:16:19 pm
Not sure if it's "progressive" or not, but apparently the senators tacked CISA onto the Omnibus bill (Which I hear is the government budget bill which is 100% guaranteed to pass no matter what), and was just signed by Obama into law.

How did I hear about this? Reddit is starting to explode over it; even spilling into the game-specific subreddits.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: redwallzyl on December 18, 2015, 10:42:11 pm
seriously why does this tack things people wont pass onto laws thing exist? its like the opposite of a democratic process.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on December 18, 2015, 11:20:28 pm
Well, to be fair it's negotiation.  "We feel this bill is a bad one, but we'll let you pass it in exchange for doing this unrelated stuff we thing is good."

Or "This bill doesn't benefit us enough, give us unrelated concessions" to be cynical.  It isn't (completely) about profit, it's mostly about getting re-elected.  Profit helps with that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on December 19, 2015, 04:14:59 am
Quote from: penguinofhonor on December 18, 2015, 06:15:58 pm
Quote from: Bohandas on December 18, 2015, 05:06:14 pm

Please don't quote Truean.

Thank you.

But no Bohandas that's not the heart of the problem. The real issue is he got extra special soft treatment expressly because he's super rich and couldn't even manage to come through on that (just stay in your nice house and don't screw up). There are truly insane people out there who don't get NGRI (Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity) and they really truly deserve that defense, because they're trying to eat soup with an envelope and need real help. This affluenza guy didn't deserve an insanity plea, especially solely and entirely on the grounds he is super rich. If you or I or nearly anybody else did what this brat did we'd totally be in for an extended jail stay.

And the worst part is the big picture. This is yet another thing people will remember when they say "the insanity plea is bullshit." No, it really isn't, just because this case didn't deserve the benefit of one. For every one standout case like this, there are at least 20 legit ones being screwed out of the benefit of a real mental health defense and actually needed treatment (lots of homeless people have untreated mental health issues). Either way, this rich kid is going to come out of this better than anyone else (openly because he's rich) and those poor actually crazy people will get screwed, again.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Amperzand on December 19, 2015, 04:32:05 am
Well this looks like a thing I want to be involved in.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on December 19, 2015, 10:17:40 am
... well, if you're intent on going through that much effort, what are your complaints about it?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on December 19, 2015, 10:34:06 am
I don't know what CISA is and thus it is awful. Boooo!

(Can anybody please explain what CISA is?)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: redwallzyl on December 19, 2015, 11:06:21 am
Quote from: Antsan on December 19, 2015, 10:34:06 am
I don't know what CISA is and thus it is awful. Boooo!

(Can anybody please explain what CISA is?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersecurity_Information_Sharing_Act
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on December 19, 2015, 03:19:20 pm
Quote from: Antsan on December 19, 2015, 10:34:06 am

In graphical form:
(http://teecraze.com/wp-content/uploads/watchingyou1.jpg)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on December 19, 2015, 03:21:47 pm
Well no. That comparison betrays a horrible ignorance of Orwell's writings.

As a meme it may be correct however - I don't know enough about CISA to comment on that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on December 19, 2015, 03:29:18 pm
Dude,  1984 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four). Against social injustice, totalitarianism.... Thought crime, omnipresent government surveillance and  Big Brother. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_%28Nineteen_Eighty-Four%29) I love Orwell. Animal Farm, et al.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on December 19, 2015, 03:37:55 pm
Technically it's only a bill enabling increased government surveillance.  But social injustice, totalitarianism, and the (increased) persecution of thought crime might inevitably increase under such surveillance.

Though it can be argued that a measure of surveillance is necessary for a safe society.  The government certainly has a lot of data it *could* pursue as "thought crime", but does not.

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
We should keep this in mind, but also not misremember it.  People often quote it without the "essential" and "little temporary" qualifiers.  It's obvious to all but the most anarchic that *some* surveillance and restriction is required for a safe and just society.

That's all theoretical though, I haven't looked into the bill much.  I honestly believe it probably goes way too far, as these bills tend to do.  We should just keep in mind that it's a question of degree, not absolutes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on December 19, 2015, 04:29:47 pm
Government also has a fair amount of data it could pursue as thought crime, and does, though, as we've seen from persistent accounts of harassment and infiltration and whatnot of various activist (and in more recent years, religious as well) groups. It's fair to be leery about giving them more official powers to, well, do just that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bohandas on December 19, 2015, 04:38:13 pm
Quote from: redwallzyl on December 18, 2015, 10:42:11 pm
seriously why does this tack things people wont pass onto laws thing exist? its like the opposite of a democratic process.

Equal parts rampant corruption and the difficulty of creating a hard and fast legal definition of what is and isn't related enough to the main thrust of a bill to be considered a valid part of it that is both sensible and simple enough that it doesn't tie up everything forever.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Amperzand on December 19, 2015, 09:39:50 pm
With an extra helping of rampant corruption. :V
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on December 20, 2015, 01:48:40 am
It was going to happen eventually.  They've been trying to pass this bill under a different acronym every goddamn year for over a decade, with the support of damn near every powerful government and corporate organization.  It's impressive that we held it off for as long as we did.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 23, 2015, 02:13:02 pm
Just keep swimming
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: sprinkled chariot on December 23, 2015, 04:15:11 pm
Would not the ,, internet is free, we are not watching you, we are 300 % liberal, keep posting more stuff and move along, citizen " attitude be more effecient for getting people to be not so careful with their information, so it is not so problematic to obtain.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on December 23, 2015, 07:34:06 pm
If the intent was getting that information sure, but in general internet surveillance is to try and prevent people from sharing those things at all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 23, 2015, 07:45:25 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on December 23, 2015, 07:34:06 pm
If the intent was getting that information sure, but in general internet surveillance is to try and prevent people from sharing those things at all.
Not necessarily, sometimes its purpose is even worse and is designed to have people sharing as much as possible in order to track them and profile them as best as possible
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 23, 2015, 08:15:20 pm
I don't know if I would necessarily say that is worse.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 23, 2015, 08:32:29 pm
Quote from: Rolepgeek on December 23, 2015, 08:15:20 pm
I don't know if I would necessarily say that is worse.
Oh god you're right, everything is horrible
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 23, 2015, 10:29:36 pm
I just mean in the sense of the one trying to prevent coordination, and the other just trying to take advantage of it. Listening in on the enemy's communications is rarely as effective a tactic for sowing disorder as cutting them off.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bohandas on December 23, 2015, 10:33:28 pm
Anyone know who in congress is most responsible for attaching it? I need to know If I need to abstain from voting for any of the democrats next election)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 23, 2015, 10:51:31 pm
Typically, assaulting a member of the government for having different views than you carries rather...stiff penalties.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on December 23, 2015, 11:18:15 pm
Quote from: Rolepgeek on December 23, 2015, 10:51:31 pm
Typically, assaulting a member of the government for having different views than you carries rather...stiff penalties.
not as stiff as they'll be walking afterward, let me tell ya
no, NSA, i have no intention of assaulting a congressperson, i just saw the need to make a joke
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on December 24, 2015, 06:35:10 am
So is it fair to say that voting in a Tory majority is in fact a Bad Idea™? (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/you-may-soon-need-a-licence-to-take-photos-of-that-classic-designer-chair-you-bought/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 24, 2015, 11:27:23 am
Quote from: Graknorke on December 24, 2015, 06:35:10 am
So is it fair to say that voting in a Tory majority is in fact a Bad Idea™? (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/you-may-soon-need-a-licence-to-take-photos-of-that-classic-designer-chair-you-bought/)
The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 was not enacted by the Tory majority, elected in 2015. Looking into this it was created by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but that's just the group name, more specifically under the subsection minsitered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe who previously worked for Tescos, the second largest retailer in the world and based in England. Before that she worked in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. So she has a superb grasp of groceries and reading through her parliamentary speeches in the House of Lord she's had an interest in copyright law for some time, (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldhansrd/ldallfiles/peers/lord_hansard_7024_os.html) in addition to her usual stuff about cutting unnecessary regulation, improving the UK's broadband and giving grants to small businesses.
Reading through her speech on copyright and parody I found this:
Quote
Furthermore, has any analysis of the impact of the exceptions on the UK’s competitive advantage been carried out, in particular on whether it will encourage content companies to contract in other jurisdictions? Rather than encouraging innovation, these provisions could encourage challenge and breach of licensing terms. Will investors now turn away from the UK and invest in content made in other jurisdictions where they can freely negotiate contracts?
In the light of all the above, can my noble friend say whether any new economic impact assessments have been conducted or are contemplated? The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, noting that the instruments are to be reviewed by the Intellectual Property Office no later than April 2019, said:
“We would urge the Government to monitor the impact of the changes from the point of implementation, and in particular to respond effectively if it becomes clear that any negative potential is being realised”.
Which sounds pretty commercialist to me, that notion of people necessitating the best contracts to best exploit their creative works versus giving content creators the most creative freedom at the cost of companies not being able to exclusively exploit creative works for 100 years+. This is probably also a result of companies switching from manufacturing functional and cheap products to functional and stylish products where people are paying for the image, not the product
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Image very related, with vast amounts of money by virtue of marketing and the digital era generating value out of whole cloth. So if arstechnica are right, the reason why I reckon the licensing applies to things like furniture you wouldn't expect to need licensing to take photos of and why it sounds like Neville-Rolfe is out of touch with the digital era, it is not because she is - she after all sat over Tesco's diversification into the digital era. It's because by design it's meant to protect the new corporate strategy, of wealth through innovative design as a priority over bulk movement of products (again, see Tescos, where they went from Walmart strategies to branch out into Waitrose-esque ranges from value to finest brands. Boing boing has this to say:
Quote
The intended target of the law is commercial photographers, whom the UK government has no sympathy for ("The Government considers that photographers and image libraries already bear costs for time and administration when assessing whether they need to obtain clearance when photographing").
Another group likely to be hit by this major copyright extension—publishers of books with pictures of design objects—is also being told to like it or lump it. The Digital Reader spoke with Natalie Kontarsky, associate director for legal and business affairs at the well-known art publisher Thames & Hudson, and she did not mix messages. "The government has actually said ‘you are collateral damage’ in a very sanguine, offhand way. The dark end of the spectrum would be to take books out of circulation and have to pulp. Obviously no one wants to look at that."
Unfortunately, the alternative isn't much better. "Licensing images retrospectively is likely to be a very expensive prospect—in terms of actual licence fees to rightsholders, working out who actually owns the rights and the cost of getting picture researchers involved and people like me on the legal side," Kontarsky told the Reader.
http://boingboing.net/2015/12/12/britons-will-need-copyright-li.html
They also note that while it will probably not be enforced on the average Breton, a sword of damocles need only hit a few people and hang over the heads of many to be effective. That's worse case scenario, which sounds preposterous but a system open to abuse is a system where abuse is possible.
I am greatly concerned by the whole book pulping thing.

Interestingly, searching through her parliamentary speeches (very brief computer searches, it is Christmas Eve after all) I cannot find mentions of copyright in her contributions in regards to the Enterprise bill, which are all on business related subjects as far as I can see and not intellectual propriety rights. There is however a small debate in regards to the Copyright Hub:
Quote
Lord Clement-Jones (LD): My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Of course, most of that has been in kind from the catapult. The Minister is well known for her enthusiasm for the Copyright Hub but when is she going to turn that into real hard financial support? This could be a fantastic resource of huge benefit to our creative industries. It is a licensing infrastructure that could be international. Would it not be extraordinary if Singapore, the US and Australia gave more support than the UK Government?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My Lords, as we have said from day one, the Copyright Hub needs to stand on its own feet in the longer term. It is linked to the wonderful creative industries worth £77 billion. However, we want the Copyright Hub to succeed, as the noble Lord knows, and that is why we recently agreed to provide an extra £100,000 to cover the core costs for the next four months. We are also financing an independent assessment to examine options for the long-term sustainability of the hub and its development.

Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab): My Lords, does the Minister recognise that copyright is a form of monopoly and that, while it is desirable that innovation should be recognised and rewarded, it should always be the object of policy to keep the period of monopoly as short as is reasonably possible so that new ideas can circulate freely and rapidly? Does she also recognise that in the digital era such monopolies are increasingly impossible to enforce?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My Lords, the regime that we have introduced for copyright reflects a far-sighted report by Mr Hargreaves, many of whose provisions we have implemented. He was very aware of the balance between creators, rights holders and the consumer. The Copyright Hub is great, because it removes one of the excuses for piracy by making it easy and relatively cheap for potential users to seek and obtain permission to use works that are subject to copyright.
The Copyright Hub launched in 2013 and is a web portal dedicated to showing who owns rights to what (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/10/copyright-hub-pilot) in order to easily allow people to track down and credit people for their intellectual property.
Also bless Lord Howarth of Newport for basically hitting our concerns hammer and nail.

After Christmas I think I'll do some more searching into this, and read the fuckhug bill to check if the regulation really does what people fear it does
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on January 03, 2016, 07:39:47 am
Please don't quote:

http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-dismisses-concept-religious-neutrality-speech-202953789.html

Wow. Quick quote coming from Scalia last month, "In December he came under fire for comments he made during an affirmative action case, questioning whether some black students would benefit from going to a "slower-track school" instead of Texas' flagship campus in Austin." And, now, this....

There's a lot wrong with this & other comments, namely the absence of reasoning or fact. Basically, Scalia isn't a priest and needs to stop being pushy. He won't, but still. He's making more incorrect remarks about religion and invoking God and stuff. The US isn't special here, every country in history did that. Religion can be misused. Everyone has invoked god(s), like Greeks (Zeus Ares), Romans (Jupiter, Mars), Crusades, holy wars, religious military orders, Aztec religious practices, Cortes's Conquistadors, etc. Our enemies did it too: Britain was religious during the American Revolution, Axis Italy during WWII, ISIS claims religious holy status (they're horrid murdering terrorists).

The enemy also prays and hopes God ignores the prayers of his opponents. The idea that invoking or honoring God makes you correct is wrong, because that can be abused, and just saying "God" doesn't make that person God or correct. Pay attention to why they say it. The founders knew this and there is a reason for separation of church and state....

Meanwhile the whole thing just upsets me, or did, and I can no longer muster the energy to care. The fact is Scalia is in power and whoever is president next term is going to replace 1, or 2 justices on the court. I am terrified at who Donald Trump would appoint. It's become a politically riddled ideological crapshoot that doesn't care about actual people, unless those "people" are corporations and / or large corporate like organizations.... It's pretty clear the average individual American is losing out, unless they completely buy in to some group or other.

I am only attracted to men; religion just spent years & billions of dollars trying to make it illegal and unconstitutional for me to marry one and finally lost. So, no, I don't want them given special status.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 03, 2016, 08:44:46 am
So he thinks that the victories the USA has had is because they love god? Including the independence war? The one that was against another country that believes in the exact same god and has it part of the running of the country?
lol k then
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on January 03, 2016, 09:11:24 am
Please no quoting especially since 90%+ of what I say is satire and sarcasm:

 Trump Scalia 2016!  (http://www.cracked.com/blog/trump-2000-vs-trump-2016-side-by-side-comparison/)

Fuck it; why not?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on January 03, 2016, 09:12:26 am
I don't see anything wrong with a president specifically mentioning any god he feels like in a speech, but the idea that religious can have a public bias over non-religious seems patently ridiculous to me
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on January 03, 2016, 09:15:30 am
Dude, Strife, ditto. Anybody can mention any God all they want. I just wish they wouldn't think they were God (always right) because they mentioned him.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on January 03, 2016, 10:47:46 am
We got a new archbisshop in the Netherlands. In a speech a while ago he called homosexuality "something that's not natural".
Our standup comedian Herman Finkers, who did the new year's eve conference this year, had a nice reply to that.
He said
"I hear our new archbisshop regards homosexuality as something that's not natural. Which would put it in the same category as walking on water, and rising from the dead. I am happy to hear that the catholic church finally sees homosexuality as a Miracle"
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 03, 2016, 01:08:23 pm
The reason for separation of church and state was that the United States of America has in its unique position in the world been able to and needed to distance itself from the religious leaders of the world, historically the Anglican Church and the Papacy, hence why it was so significant that the first Catholic President did not kiss the Pope's hand but rather shook it as a head of state and not a Catholic. Doesn't stop the USA using the Papacy and Anglican Church however, so you have those most amusing situations where both Anglican and Catholic heads are modernist liberals who lend their voices not towards strengthening their respective branches of Christianity but instead strengthening progressivism, with the most amusing ones being where the Church of England for example is led by liberal rationalists with bishops holding disestablishmentarian agendas of themselves and their peers. Or the Catholic Church which whilst working with the right-wing Americans during the cold war declared communists an enemy of the faith, whilst today on immigration, climate change and capitalism the Papacy's views are in line with progressivism, only differing on abortion where the Pope's neutral.
On the topic of prayer to God and enemies praying to God, unless you subscribe to the very Roman belief that you have a divine patron capable of helping you out, most do not pray to God to receive gifts, but to humble themselves. Of the three Abrahamic religions the Muslims bow to the ground in prayer and Islam itself means submission to God, the Christians teach that pride goes before destruction and attributes any personal success to God's achievement and Jewish prayer is an act of self-judgement. These are all acts to humble yourself and reduce your individual importance, your arrogance and to improve yourself to honour God. In Mahayana Buddhism pride is one of the five poisons which is the root of all suffering. In Hinduism self-respect is desirable, but excessive self-respect undesirable and an obstacle to peace and happiness.
I find it as a matter of intrigue why all these faiths seek to humble their followers and why modernist sects abandon this humility. Had a chat with my Muslim m8s a while back and they brought this up in regards to America about how America puts Caesar before God whilst Islam puts God before Caesar, which also means that people should not obey their leaders and should obey God. It's a wonderful check on state power, where if the globalists try to push too hard and fuck over the faithful too much too quickly, they have no obligation to obey Caesar when they follow God. Just look at countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Iran, Poland, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and so on where religious groups or even state-driven responses have arisen in reaction to globalists trying to impose foreign regimes and values on them. For them, it is not a fight to make turning against God (literal sin e.t.c.) illegal, but a fight against those who would make it legal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Reelya on January 03, 2016, 02:00:53 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on January 03, 2016, 08:44:46 am
So he thinks that the victories the USA has had is because they love god? Including the independence war? The one that was against another country that believes in the exact same god and has it part of the running of the country?
lol k then

God really loves the Vietnamese, it seems.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on January 03, 2016, 03:24:06 pm
Well, if you place Vietnam as a segment of the Cold War, the USA certainly won that one and was certainly the more religious party.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 03, 2016, 03:56:35 pm
>imblyin
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sirus on January 04, 2016, 02:49:52 am
Crossposting for reasons:
Quote from: Sirus on January 04, 2016, 02:42:16 am
Armed civilians take over a federal building in Oregon. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-protest/)

Oh boy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Amperzand on January 04, 2016, 03:50:11 am
In fairness, I never did look at nature preserves that way. I can't say I agree, or even think they're particularly sane, but hey.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 04, 2016, 04:21:39 am
Quote from: Amperzand on January 04, 2016, 03:50:11 am
In fairness, I never did look at nature preserves that way. I can't say I agree, or even think they're particularly sane, but hey.

What do you mean? As a way to preserves Redneckitus insanitus?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Amperzand on January 04, 2016, 04:44:01 am
As in some way harming the local rednecks. They're clearly just insane, but hey.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 04, 2016, 01:04:13 pm
Is that Cliven Bundy who ran the big armed gangs to scare off government officials? As bad as it is, I kind of hope he starts something violent with consequences so that he gets arrested proper.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on January 04, 2016, 01:17:53 pm
No need for violence, he's already threatened it (and it's no idle threat, obviously).  He's going away for a long time, unless he commits suicide by cop.  If it was just him, I'd say good riddance, but he's got all those followers duped into thinking this is an actual plan.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 04, 2016, 02:53:26 pm
Inb5 Putin must protect Mormon speaking Russians
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on January 04, 2016, 06:50:44 pm
https://hbr.org/2016/01/diversity-policies-dont-help-women-or-minorities-and-they-make-white-men-feel-threatened

Utterly shocking.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 04, 2016, 07:21:26 pm
We are all blown away by this shocking revelation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on January 05, 2016, 01:04:19 pm
http://abcnews.go.com/Weird/wireStory/firm-pay-making-workers-clock-bathroom-36094735

Jesus, I mean really? Frankly it's about time someone stopped a business from doing some of the many illegal things they do. Next, I'd like to see a few moron managers get sewed for telling people they can't talk about their wages together (collective bargaining conference), except the NLRB has no damn teeth to really bite into these jerks. (Basically, your manager/company is breaking the law when he tells you you can't discuss wages with other employees, but a.) good luck paying for suing him, and b.) even when/if you win, it's a slap on the wrist comparatively).

Either way it's nice to see the little guy win once in a freaking while.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on January 05, 2016, 04:01:48 pm
I can see measuring how much people are at the bathroom to catch those who are abusing it (I've met a few of those 15+ minute "bathroom break" people before), but not paying them for bathroom breaks is just absurd. It's definitely a nice thing to see the little people winning. :)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 05, 2016, 09:42:16 pm
It's also dumb, dumb shit done by middle managers and hereditary executives who have no idea how to make money anyway. Scientific Management (which is a misnomer if I've ever heard one) has been demonstrably shown to lower productivity. Indeed, a large portion of the assholes of the world aren't even taking the real seductive path of greed, they really are just assholes who enjoy their power trip more than the money. They might associate it with the money, but that's not what's really going on.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 05, 2016, 09:58:26 pm
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 05, 2016, 09:42:16 pm
Indeed, a large portion of the assholes of the world aren't even taking the real seductive path of greed, they really are just assholes who enjoy their power trip more than the money. They might associate it with the money, but that's not what's really going on.

This is all upper management I've ever experienced.  Actively doing everything they can to de-motivate and sour their employees.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Blaze on January 06, 2016, 07:51:38 pm
Politics are spilling into my game-specific subreddits again. Halp.

Apparently there was some kind of mass sexual assault incident where 1,000 men assaulted random women during the New Years celebration in Cologne; most of the perpetrators were described as "North African and Arab in appearance".

And media is attempting to cover it up, along with every popular news sub on reddit or something.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 06, 2016, 07:58:18 pm
Heard about that, heh. What you're hearing, if that's the summation, is roughly 90+% complete bullshit. What happened was a smaller group (forget details there, but iirc the likely numbers are less than a couple dozen at the high end) was using the larger party as more or less a smoke screen. More or less the same sort of thing you see when your average rapes and whatnot occur during frat parties or some shit.

1k is the number of total partiers -- the actual perpetrators were considerably smaller in number. Conflation of the two has been occurring due to idiots who lack the reading comprehension of a two year old.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 06, 2016, 07:58:34 pm
That is distinctly not how it happened. There were a thousand people out on the streets some of whom were aforementioned sexually assaulting north africans.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 07, 2016, 12:41:15 am
What cover up? I've seen a bunch of articles, and my public radio had a short segment on it just 20 minutes ago.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on January 07, 2016, 06:33:44 am
Quote from: Blaze on January 06, 2016, 07:51:38 pm
And media is attempting to cover it up, along with every popular news sub on reddit or something.
lol wut, m8? Take a look at r/europe (https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/) – there's nothing there that isn't about the CRAZY DRUNK RADICAL ISLAMIST RAPE PARTY WITH KÖLSCH AND PORK SCHNITZEL.

Once again, internet wingnuts are crying CENSER SHIP where none exists.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 07, 2016, 06:37:20 am
Showcasing why my county is disfunctional, our right-wing secretary of state for migration announced he wanted all immigrants to get classes on respecting women (never mind that we don't even know if the Cologne Gropers were immigrants yet...).

Of course, he quietly forgot that this is a function of the Communities, not the federal government. So nothing will get done...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Blaze on January 07, 2016, 09:15:20 am
Quote
By the way, in response to Frumple's earlier comment that the number of 1000 referred to the revelers in the area in total, and the number of attackers was likely a couple of dozen at most.
Found an eyewitness account, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9TOdMzOH1U

They were apparently so many perpetrators that the police didn't have enough transports to get them to prison. Then they ran out of space in prison and all the nearby prisons and had to let some walk free.

That's some seriously scary stuff.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on January 07, 2016, 10:29:15 am
Over a battalion worth of North African men popped up to commit sexual assaults? Sounds a helluva like manufactured thing to me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 07, 2016, 11:10:24 am
It's already the kind of thing that's been happening to women in immigrant heavy areas. This is just the first time it happens to westerners in any kind of substantial amounts, so it's the first time society cares.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on January 07, 2016, 11:54:04 am
Quote from: SirQuiamus on January 07, 2016, 06:33:44 am
CRAZY DRUNK RADICAL ISLAMIST RAPE PARTY WITH KÖLSCH AND PORK SCHNITZEL.

Quote from: SirQuiamus on January 07, 2016, 06:33:44 am
ISLAMIST

Quote from: SirQuiamus on January 07, 2016, 06:33:44 am
PORK SCHNITZEL.

something doesn't seem right here
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antioch on January 07, 2016, 12:01:54 pm
Quote from: Covenant on January 07, 2016, 09:59:17 am
Quote from: Blaze on January 07, 2016, 09:15:20 am
Quote
By the way, in response to Frumple's earlier comment that the number of 1000 referred to the revelers in the area in total, and the number of attackers was likely a couple of dozen at most.
Found an eyewitness account, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9TOdMzOH1U

They were apparently so many perpetrators that the police didn't have enough transports to get them to prison. Then they ran out of space in prison and all the nearby prisons and had to let some walk free.

That's some seriously scary stuff.

Yeah, I feel quite sorry for the police in all of this. They're getting a lot of flak, and this is completely outside the realm of what they've had to deal with before. As the bloke in the video quotes the police as saying, it was a 'Civil-war-like situation'. How are the police supposed to deal with that? But they'll have to learn and adapt quickly, I suppose.


People also seem to forget that the police is severly overworked and understaffed even on a REGULAR New Year's Eve.


Also why does public response seem to be virtually dominated by people who are either apologetic or people who go "boo all Moslims/refugee's bad"

Why can't people just only hate the people who did this and want them punished and thrown out of the country without punishing people who did nothing wrong?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on January 07, 2016, 01:24:26 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 07, 2016, 12:41:15 am
What cover up? I've seen a bunch of articles, and my public radio had a short segment on it just 20 minutes ago.
http://tribune.com.pk/story/1022911/german-broadcaster-sorry-for-slow-reporting-on-mob-assaults/

The rest of the German media has not apologized.

Quote from: Antioch on January 07, 2016, 12:01:54 pm
Quote from: Covenant on January 07, 2016, 09:59:17 am
Quote from: Blaze on January 07, 2016, 09:15:20 am
Quote
By the way, in response to Frumple's earlier comment that the number of 1000 referred to the revelers in the area in total, and the number of attackers was likely a couple of dozen at most.
Found an eyewitness account, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9TOdMzOH1U

They were apparently so many perpetrators that the police didn't have enough transports to get them to prison. Then they ran out of space in prison and all the nearby prisons and had to let some walk free.

That's some seriously scary stuff.

Yeah, I feel quite sorry for the police in all of this. They're getting a lot of flak, and this is completely outside the realm of what they've had to deal with before. As the bloke in the video quotes the police as saying, it was a 'Civil-war-like situation'. How are the police supposed to deal with that? But they'll have to learn and adapt quickly, I suppose.


People also seem to forget that the police is severly overworked and understaffed even on a REGULAR New Year's Eve.


Also why does public response seem to be virtually dominated by people who are either apologetic or people who go "boo all Moslims/refugee's bad"

Why can't people just only hate the people who did this and want them punished and thrown out of the country without punishing people who did nothing wrong?
The people who did this come from a culture in which their crimes are socially acceptable.

Quote from: Blaze on January 06, 2016, 07:51:38 pm
Politics are spilling into my game-specific subreddits again. Halp.

Apparently there was some kind of mass sexual assault incident where 1,000 men assaulted random women during the New Years celebration in Cologne; most of the perpetrators were described as "North African and Arab in appearance".

And media is attempting to cover it up, along with every popular news sub on reddit or something.
Yeah, /r/KotakuInAction has become more of a general media watchdog these days. Moderators of /r/news and /r/worldnews did also delete the initial news reports repeatedly, because reasons.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 07, 2016, 03:33:46 pm
Quote from: scriver on January 07, 2016, 11:10:24 am
It's already the kind of thing that's been happening to women in immigrant heavy areas. This is just the first time it happens to westerners in any kind of substantial amounts, so it's the first time society cares.
No, first time it all happened in one day in one place, lest we forget the UK or Sweden
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 07, 2016, 05:43:51 pm
Rape gangs really aren't fun.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on January 07, 2016, 06:28:56 pm
They're not. However, they are an acceptable practice in the places these people came from.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 07, 2016, 06:30:09 pm
Quote from: Morrigi on January 07, 2016, 06:28:56 pm
They're not. However, they are an acceptable practice in the places these people came from.
#its2016
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 07, 2016, 06:34:50 pm
Quote from: Morrigi on January 07, 2016, 06:28:56 pm
They're not. However, they are an acceptable practice in the places these people came from.
Y'know, I'd like a source for that. AFAIK most of the refugees in Germany do not in fact come from India.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: inteuniso on January 07, 2016, 06:35:49 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 07, 2016, 06:30:09 pm
Quote from: Morrigi on January 07, 2016, 06:28:56 pm
They're not. However, they are an acceptable practice in the places these people came from.
#its2016
#WasteOurTime

Seriously though, it's unacceptable anywhere. It doesn't matter where you are, ganging up with the pals and going out for a tiddlywink o' the ole ultraviolence doesn't actually advance humanity. If you want to be of homosex with your friends, go work a field. Nurture some plants. Husband animals. Contribute to the ecosystem you're part of sapiently.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 07, 2016, 06:39:00 pm
Quote from: Morrigi on January 07, 2016, 06:28:56 pm
They're not. However, they are an acceptable practice in the places these people came from.
Assuming it's an acceptable practice there, it's still terrible. Anybody with respect for somebody else would see the morality for that. So they shouldn't be doing it where they're from - even less so should they be doing it in a country where almost every single person thinks of them as the foul beasts that they are.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on January 07, 2016, 07:58:44 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on January 07, 2016, 06:39:00 pm
Quote from: Morrigi on January 07, 2016, 06:28:56 pm
They're not. However, they are an acceptable practice in the places these people came from.
Assuming it's an acceptable practice there, it's still terrible. Anybody with respect for somebody else would see the morality for that. So they shouldn't be doing it where they're from - even less so should they be doing it in a country where almost every single person thinks of them as the foul beasts that they are.
Of course. The point is that not all cultures are equal, and it's folly to treat them as such.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 07, 2016, 08:10:20 pm
Oy, Morrigi:

Quote from: Helgoland on January 07, 2016, 06:34:50 pm
Quote from: Morrigi on January 07, 2016, 06:28:56 pm
They're not. However, they are an acceptable practice in the places these people came from.
Y'know, I'd like a source for that. AFAIK most of the refugees in Germany do not in fact come from India.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on January 07, 2016, 08:15:23 pm
Quote from: Covenant on January 07, 2016, 07:06:42 pm
Unsurprisingly (given the attacks they're facing) an internal police report has been leaked discussing the events at Cologne and the police response.  Spiegel has an article on it here (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cologne-attacks-on-new-years-produced-chaos-say-police-a-1070894.html) but there are better ones elsewhere - mostly in German, though.

Also many sources are now reporting that two young girls from Weil am Rhein, ages 14 and 15 (I've seen the older girl's age also being reported as 16 in certain sources) were raped multiple times by a group of Syrian refugees on New Year's Eve. 4 suspects are apparently on remand.
According to our Dutch newspapers, one of the perpetrators apparently was a 14 year old Syrian refugee from the Netherlands. He travelled to Germany to celebrate New Year with 3 other Syrians.
Those celebrations inculded the gang rape of two very minor girls, age 14 and 15, at the appartment of a 21 year old Syrian who had already gotten his asylum status granted in Germany, and who shared his appartment with his 15 year old brother, who is still in the procedure of applying for asylum. A fourth person was also arrested in the case, a 14 year old Syrian from Switzerland. It is not yet known what the relation between those boys/men is, whether they are all related, or just acquainted.

I'm sure the 3 minors will just get a reprimand, and no consequence for their asylum status. Our Child Protection Laws will make sure of that. The 21 year old guy will probably be airdropped back over Syria after spending a few years in a German prison with a 'pedofile' tattoo on his forehead though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on January 07, 2016, 08:24:51 pm
According to anonoymous sources from within the police force, most of the perpetrators were Syrian refugees, and their main goal was to 'have sexual fun'

http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article150735341/Die-meisten-waren-frisch-eingereiste-Asylbewerber.html (http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article150735341/Die-meisten-waren-frisch-eingereiste-Asylbewerber.html)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 07, 2016, 08:30:16 pm
...Geez.

Well, PTW.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on January 07, 2016, 08:47:59 pm
The interior minister of the state this happened in has gone full retard.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It seems that posting on /pol/ is literally as bad as raping a woman.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 07, 2016, 09:24:03 pm
Oy, Morrigi:
Quote from: Helgoland on January 07, 2016, 08:10:20 pm
Oy, Morrigi:

Quote from: Helgoland on January 07, 2016, 06:34:50 pm
Quote from: Morrigi on January 07, 2016, 06:28:56 pm
They're not. However, they are an acceptable practice in the places these people came from.
Y'know, I'd like a source for that. AFAIK most of the refugees in Germany do not in fact come from India.
If you don't have a source, I'll just go ahead and call you out as a racist of the worse kind.


Quote from: Covenant on January 07, 2016, 08:19:11 pm
I'm confused by this. Are you saying that the only place where rape culture (*real* rape culture, that is, not 'Make sure to get three signatures on consent form 922b and perform a blood-alcohol test before intercourse' rape culture) exists is in India? I must be misunderstanding you in some way here, could you clear it up?
The India bit was just me poking fun at the string of gang rapes that have been occuring in India recently-ish.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 07, 2016, 10:17:25 pm
We have earned our end
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 07, 2016, 10:45:19 pm
Beyond attempting to generalize to several different cultural groups based on the words of a few teenagers, call me just a wee titch doubtful that was particularly imported. It's a sentiment that's just kinda' common to conservative/tribal thought processes in general. I've heard basically the same damn thing (that it's less of a bad thing when <outgroup X> gets raped, beaten, etc.) out of the mouths of racists (regarding blacks) and religious bigots (regarding non-christians) in the US, and the sentiment was more or less common within living memory, for all that it's thankfully dying off to a fair degree. It doesn't take importing to see that kind of shit. It grows at home all its lonesome.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Amperzand on January 07, 2016, 10:50:34 pm
In a nutshell, it's a symptom of being an extremist conservative/tribal dickwad, not of being a person of [insert culture], though [insert culture] does have those tendencies.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on January 07, 2016, 11:02:19 pm
So I wondered about this. What happens when the war is over? Do the Syrians and "Syrians" go back to "Syria?"

Quote from: Frumple on January 07, 2016, 10:45:19 pm
Beyond attempting to generalize to several different cultural groups based on the words of a few teenagers, call me just a wee titch doubtful that was particularly imported. It's a sentiment that's just kinda' common to conservative/tribal thought processes in general. I've heard basically the same damn thing (that it's less of a bad thing when <outgroup X> gets raped, beaten, etc.) out of the mouths of racists (regarding blacks) and religious bigots (regarding non-christians) in the US, and the sentiment was more or less common within living memory, for all that it's thankfully dying off to a fair degree. It doesn't take importing to see that kind of shit. It grows at home all its lonesome.

That sounds an awful lot like minimizing the situation. It might be true on some level, (though it sounds a whole lot like fuck-the-other-guys wankery too) but there's no doubt that we're seeing an imported product in Europe. You can write it off as edgelord teenager bullshit if you want, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist either.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TheDarkStar on January 07, 2016, 11:10:21 pm
Quote from: Baffler on January 07, 2016, 11:02:19 pm
So I wondered about this. What happens when the war is over? Do the Syrians and "Syrians" go back to "Syria?"

I suspect that token Syrians will be sent back/volunteer to go back while Europe gains a much larger Syrian minority group.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 07, 2016, 11:17:07 pm
Obviously islamic nations have far worse institutional issues when it comes to all that, but that's primarily because they actually read their holy book.

But then, actually quoting from the bible to support that is edgy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 07, 2016, 11:26:05 pm
It's what happens when people take faith to its logical conclusion, especially abrahamic religions. Muslims believe in their holy book. Christians and Jews obviously don't, else they'd be killing everyone who doesn't follow their religion (http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/13.htm); it is the infallible word of God, and that is a pretty direct request.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on January 07, 2016, 11:30:16 pm
You mean the thousands of religious leaders who regularly condemn all of it? Are those the religious leaders you're talking about? The ones who are already doing it? The ones you seem not to believe exist? The ones who exist, and are real, and are condemning these actions? And who continue to do so despite the widespread belief that they are not? Those religious leaders?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 07, 2016, 11:32:40 pm
Quote from: Putnam on January 07, 2016, 11:17:07 pm
Obviously islamic nations have far worse institutional issues when it comes to all that, but that's primarily because they actually read their holy book.
Uh, no, it's primarily because the areas are by and large either unstable shitholes or just recently starting to claw their way out of such, mixed with tribal traditions that are also pretty shit. There's a religious aspect to some of the gender shit, but not when it comes to sexual assault and whatnot. Islam's texts take a pretty damn dim view towards rapists and sexual perfidy in general. Consequences tend to involve execution for the perpetrator or stuff that's pretty capable of killing regardless. Lotta' the shit we've been seeing in recent times counter to that is basically fairly forthright heresy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on January 07, 2016, 11:40:12 pm
Quote from: Frumple on January 07, 2016, 11:32:40 pm
Quote from: Putnam on January 07, 2016, 11:17:07 pm
Obviously islamic nations have far worse institutional issues when it comes to all that, but that's primarily because they actually read their holy book.
Uh, no, it's primarily because the areas are by and large either unstable shitholes or just recently starting to claw their way out of such, mixed with tribal traditions that are also pretty shit. There's a religious aspect to some of the gender shit, but not when it comes to sexual assault and whatnot. Islam's texts take a pretty damn dim view towards rapists and sexual perfidy in general. Consequences tend to involve execution for the perpetrator or stuff that's pretty capable of killing regardless. Lotta' the shit we've been seeing in recent times counter to that is basically fairly forthright heresy.
The fact remains that in practice, most of those rules only apply to Muslims wearing hijabs. They use Islam to justify their acts.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on January 07, 2016, 11:59:24 pm
So, while we're on the subject of women's rights, how about we actually start defending them in our countries?

I've been particularly feminist in the past week, and am very interested in hearing the stories about how we, in the western world, have stood up for our women compared to these people who are obviously from a very barbaric region of the world. This is especially important in the coming months as the war against women's rights in America is picking up fast, so please, enlightened people, tell me how you've been highlighting the plights.

Morrigi, how have you helped the feminist cause recently? I haven't seen too many links from you about it recently, but surely as someone frequenting the feminist bastion that is /r/KotakuInAction, you will be a paragon of the fight for women's inclusion in gaming.

I, personally, have managed to block a ton of attack videos by skull-wielding men on Youtube recently. That's a personal victory for me right there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 08, 2016, 12:17:30 am
oh my god i'm stupid

i read a bit, went "ew politics" then immediately realized "WHY AM I POSTING IN THIS THREAD"

god, now i'm disappointed in myself for only thinking that when reading the above post and not the ones before, i probably should've bailed out right when I saw kotakuinaction mentioned
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 08, 2016, 12:34:27 am
see that's what i mean, all i've done is insult religion in the last page and you immediately assume i'm some sort of dirty ess jay dubya for complaining about politics

when i mentioned KiA, I meant that anyone who would bring up an association with KiA is also gonna cause problems due to political stuff and i should've recognized that as a warning sign, but didn't until I saw the most obvious strawman known to man
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on January 08, 2016, 12:37:55 am
Quote from: Willfor on January 07, 2016, 11:59:24 pm
So, while we're on the subject of women's rights, how about we actually start defending them in our countries?

I've been particularly feminist in the past week, and am very interested in hearing the stories about how we, in the western world, have stood up for our women compared to these people who are obviously from a very barbaric region of the world. This is especially important in the coming months as the war against women's rights in America is picking up fast, so please, enlightened people, tell me how you've been highlighting the plights.

Morrigi, how have you helped the feminist cause recently? I haven't seen too many links from you about it recently, but surely as someone frequenting the feminist bastion that is /r/KotakuInAction, you will be a paragon of the fight for women's inclusion in gaming.

I, personally, have managed to block a ton of attack videos by skull-wielding men on Youtube recently. That's a personal victory for me right there.

I can't tell if this is bait, or just regular bitterness. I'm kinda surprised gamergate is still a thing though. Reading through that subreddit is going to be fun.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 08, 2016, 12:39:37 am
oh, KiA's hard to describe. They... legitimately think they're in a war with SJWs, I think? I saw mention of "winning" last I saw it. There was also some stuff recently where they complained TumblrInAction was too SJW. That... may say something.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on January 08, 2016, 12:43:27 am
Quote from: Baffler on January 08, 2016, 12:37:55 am
I can't tell if this is bait, or just regular bitterness. I'm kinda surprised gamergate is still a thing though. Reading through that subreddit is going to be fun.
It's mostly that you'll find these people crawling out of rocks to defending women's rights when and only when it's the people who they hate who are the ones even remotely accused of being the ones to blame. It's so strangely convenient.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 08, 2016, 12:44:47 am
Gamergate is completely stupid all around. It's a dichotomy between two completely unrelated things that somehow people took sides on. The single best example of how stupid politics is that I've ever seen.

I'm still not sure which side is "gamergate".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on January 08, 2016, 12:45:46 am
the side that thinks it mattered
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 08, 2016, 12:46:06 am
that didn't answer anything  :'(

I seriously stayed away as quickly as I could because I immediately saw that it was two whole groups of people talking right past each other about unrelated shit that had names associated with them, tribalism at its most stupid. I don't remember what it was about except for the "ethics in games journalism" meme.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on January 08, 2016, 12:48:25 am
It was something about a woman sleeping with a journalist to get her indie game a good review, I think. You wouldn't know that by looking at that subreddit though. I feel like I'm missing something here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 08, 2016, 12:49:53 am
Wait, I think that "the side that thinks it mattered" suggests that it's the people still railing on about it, which I think is the side whose views are mostly defined by, like, the idea that changing your behavior even in the slightest to appease anyone else for any reason is a violation of basic inviolable human rights or something along those lines (Rand?).

On the other hand, my only exposure to those people are the kind of people who will post or complain outside of their safe space1, who tend to be very weird and vocal.

1oh god now i definitely remember meeting one, they talk about that kind of thing all the time, it's hilarious how easily they get triggered when they go outside their safe spaces when they spend all their time telling people to go back to their safe spaces if they're triggered
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Cheeetar on January 08, 2016, 12:50:52 am
Quote from: Willfor on January 08, 2016, 12:43:27 am
Quote from: Baffler on January 08, 2016, 12:37:55 am
I can't tell if this is bait, or just regular bitterness. I'm kinda surprised gamergate is still a thing though. Reading through that subreddit is going to be fun.
It's mostly that you'll find these people crawling out of rocks to defending women's rights when and only when it's the people who they hate who are the ones even remotely accused of being the ones to blame. It's so strangely convenient.

It also allows them to express their Not Racist Honestly hatred of immigrants, so it's kind of a two birds with one stone thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on January 08, 2016, 12:52:42 am
Quote from: Baffler on January 08, 2016, 12:48:25 am
It was something about a woman sleeping with a journalist to get her indie game a good review, I think. You wouldn't know that by looking at that subreddit though. I feel like I'm missing something here.
Yes. That's how it started. The /entirely false/ allegation to begin with that was quickly shoved under the rug, but is still the primary image that comes to mind when the issue comes up to people who didn't follow it. The woman who continues to be harassed to this day as it happens. Strange, that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on January 08, 2016, 12:53:14 am
Quote from: Putnam on January 08, 2016, 12:46:06 am
that didn't answer anything  :'(
then you understand as well as i do

seriously, i don't really understand what the hell happened, i just know what lots of people of various positions say happened but don't understand why there was a controversy, why anybody cared, why i should care, or just generally why i shouldn't accept that the important thing is that i've found a way to feel smugly superior to both sides, however vaguely defined those happen to be

i have not had a single conversation about it that didn't feel like talking to a conspiracy theorist - the implicit assumption that i know all the facts, the belief that i must have a side and apathy is a sign of malice, the all-consuming importance placed on buzzwords, the need to bundle up the few things that seem worth caring about with a bunch of overarching ideals that don't seem relevant

i'm not trying to be helpful, i'm just joining your lament, i think

EDIT: if you look back at my post history, i'm pretty sure i had picked a tribe and joined in, but at some point i realized that nobody was talking about the stuff that seemed worth talking about and instead wanted a culture war, and fuck that noise
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Baffler on January 08, 2016, 12:57:58 am
Well that all sounds absolutely poisonous.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 08, 2016, 01:00:15 am
Politics is poison. If you're a republican, you have to support gun rights and oppose abortion, even though the two are unrelated. Similarly, if you're democrat, you have to fight global warming and GMO crops, though the latter actually helps solve the former. It's all very dumb.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: ArKFallen on January 08, 2016, 01:05:15 am
Quote from: Willfor on January 08, 2016, 12:52:42 am
Yes. That's how it started. The /entirely false/ allegation to begin with that was quickly shoved under the rug, but is still the primary image that comes to mind when the issue comes up to people who didn't follow it. The woman who continues to be harassed to this day as it happens. Strange, that.
Yeah. It's not like people telling the internet that a dev is getting dick from a journalist covering them could cause a completely different party of people concerned with the game coverage they use to choose what game to buy could get involved but still not stop the harassment of someone completely peripheral to their concerns. It's not like there was a successful in movement initiative to report fuckasses and harassers to the people hosting some of the larger forums hosting the discussion.
Hateful douchebags did things that resulted in a social movement. News at 11.

The thing about first impressions is that they aren't supposed to stay with you on further encounters. Stupidity is a human trait, ignorance an finite existential one, and finding people in a group who indulge both and have flocked together is not odd at all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on January 08, 2016, 01:10:07 am
Quote from: Putnam on January 08, 2016, 01:00:15 am
Politics is poison. If you're a republican, you have to support gun rights and oppose abortion, even though the two are unrelated. Similarly, if you're democrat, you have to fight global warming and GMO crops, though the latter actually helps solve the former. It's all very dumb.
1:07 forward is surprisingly on-topic (http://webmshare.com/play/eRzqR)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on January 08, 2016, 01:16:53 am
Quote from: Putnam on January 08, 2016, 12:44:47 am
I'm still not sure which side is "gamergate".
The side that was fond of the words "ethics in games journalism" and who started the initial accusations and harassment.  From what I can tell they failed to develop (or failed to communicate) a larger coherent platform or goal beyond that so the "movement" was largely sustained by people on twitter independently deciding for themselves what it meant.  That and the large hatedom it spawned.

The "watergate" in question was an ex of the developer of Depression Quest, a tiny indy game, accusing her sleeping with a journalist who reviewed her game.  However every single person on both sides agrees it wasn't really about that, making the name something of a misnomer...

My favorite thing about gamersgate is that even at its height only people who were actively participating in it or decrying it had any idea what it was.  Everyone agrees on what started it, no one can agree what it actually meant.  Its associations with misogyny were largely created by its hatedom and/or the actions of its individual members.  Its difficult to say if said individual members were acting according to the principles of the group because there was never any unity or leadership to begin with.  If it was about ethics in game journalism, why weren't they going after all the obvious corruption by the big players (four point scale and other silliness to keep getting review copies)?  Yet those words were the main rallying cry.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: alway on January 08, 2016, 01:22:05 am
It's all the same sorta thing that's resulted in the rise of Donald Trump: there is a growing conservative counterculture in certain places, particularly online. They've got their alternative news sources, their talking heads to proclaim the truth and enemy du jour, complete with narratives about how the barbaric outsiders are taking over and the glorious age of European world domination is coming to a grizzly end.

It's also pretty obvious where it's coming from: conservatives, by and large, have lost the previous attempts at a culture war. It's no longer popular to hate gays openly, being openly racist like the old KKK is no longer acceptable in any circles, young earth creationism is illegal to teach in the US, global warming is both real and having increasingly severe effects acknowledged globally, and so on. Guns in the US and deregulation of banks are some of the few places they actually won victories. Meanwhile, deregulation, globalization, failures of organized labor, and so on, have resulted in increasing wealth inequality pushing nearly the entire US middle class into poverty. It's no surprise that such a conservative counterculture is on the rise and this is precisely the sort of form it will be taking. So buckle up for the new culture war, cause it's here.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on January 08, 2016, 01:24:14 am
Quote from: Willfor on January 08, 2016, 12:43:27 am
Quote from: Baffler on January 08, 2016, 12:37:55 am
I can't tell if this is bait, or just regular bitterness. I'm kinda surprised gamergate is still a thing though. Reading through that subreddit is going to be fun.
It's mostly that you'll find these people crawling out of rocks to defending women's rights when and only when it's the people who they hate who are the ones even remotely accused of being the ones to blame. It's so strangely convenient.
"Even remotely accused...?"  The rapes happened.  They were done by refugees.  Are you seriously questioning that at all?

I know that your point is that the people who care about this must be racists who don't actually care about the women.  Which is, at the very best, a disgusting simplification.  Ironically stereotyping a diverse group of people (people outraged over these rapes), to dismiss them.

Of course the "See, these cultures are more overtly raping women, so our feminists should feel lucky and shut up" reactions piss me off just as much.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on January 08, 2016, 01:29:20 am
Quote from: Rolan7 on January 08, 2016, 01:24:14 am
I know that your point is that the people who care about this must be racists who don't actually care about the women.
No. I will type out my point so you will not misunderstand it at all: It is perfectly alright to care about it, but about two specific users in this conversation are people I have explicitly seen in topics exactly like this one where their only mention of women's rights comes up in the context of them being violated by Muslims. One of them is literally saying in this conversation that women's rights are at a completely acceptable standard here to boot.

I'm not even generalizing, I just need to use general language because I am not fond of getting hit with the Toad Hammer. Infer, infer, infer.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on January 08, 2016, 01:32:27 am
Quote from: Covenant on January 08, 2016, 01:31:36 am
Quote from: Willfor on January 08, 2016, 01:29:20 am
Quote from: Rolan7 on January 08, 2016, 01:24:14 am
I know that your point is that the people who care about this must be racists who don't actually care about the women.
No. I will type out my point so you will not misunderstand it at all: It is perfectly alright to care about it, but about two specific users in this conversation are people I have explicitly seen in topics exactly like this one where their only mention of women's rights comes up in the context of them being violated by Muslims. One of them is literally saying in this conversation that women's rights are at a completely acceptable standard here to boot.

I'm not even generalizing, I just need to use general language because I am not fond of getting hit with the Toad Hammer. Infer, infer, infer.

It's poor form to employ snide hints like that. If you'd like to launch an ad hominem attack on someone, either do so openly or don't do so at all.
Okay.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on January 08, 2016, 01:33:12 am
Quote from: EnigmaticHat on January 08, 2016, 01:16:53 am
Quote from: Putnam on January 08, 2016, 12:44:47 am
I'm still not sure which side is "gamergate".
The side that was fond of the words "ethics in games journalism" and who started the initial accusations and harassment.  From what I can tell they failed to develop (or failed to communicate) a larger coherent platform or goal beyond that so the "movement" was largely sustained by people on twitter independently deciding for themselves what it meant.  That and the large hatedom it spawned.
I have seen approximately zero hate on their main subreddit. Why is this, if they are actually so hateful? Also, GamerGate meetups have been subject to several bomb threats serious enough to merit police involvement and the evacuation of buildings, while its opponents have not. Furthermore, if criminal harassment was taking place on a large scale, then surely there would have been arrests and charges filed at some point, right?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on January 08, 2016, 01:49:59 am
You're right, Covenant.

I'd like to get your opinion on this worrying trend (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/05/waiting-periods-and-the-price-of-abortion/393962/).
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 08, 2016, 02:09:37 am
Quote from: Morrigi on January 08, 2016, 01:33:12 am
Quote from: EnigmaticHat on January 08, 2016, 01:16:53 am
Quote from: Putnam on January 08, 2016, 12:44:47 am
I'm still not sure which side is "gamergate".
The side that was fond of the words "ethics in games journalism" and who started the initial accusations and harassment.  From what I can tell they failed to develop (or failed to communicate) a larger coherent platform or goal beyond that so the "movement" was largely sustained by people on twitter independently deciding for themselves what it meant.  That and the large hatedom it spawned.
I have seen approximately zero hate on their main subreddit. Why is this, if they are actually so hateful? Also, GamerGate meetups have been subject to several bomb threats serious enough to merit police involvement and the evacuation of buildings, while its opponents have not. Furthermore, if criminal harassment was taking place on a large scale, then surely there would have been arrests and charges filed at some point, right?

I just browsed their top posts; I noticed nothing insane, but I also noticed a distinct lack of posts that weren't about unethical things done by ess jay dubyas. They're cherry picking the fuck out of examples specifically to deride feminism. The instant clickbait shows up specifically aimed towards them, they eat it up. (https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3zga2h/when_a_british_national_newspaper_runs_a/)

Also, this (https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3y479o/drama_someone_using_the_gg_hashtag_has_doxed_and/) was one of the top posts, so you definitely can't say the movement has nothing like that.

Looking at it at this moment, KiA seems to be in its own little world where feminism and evil done by it is all that matters. Like, holy fucking shit, women are actually being raped en masse and they're using it as an excuse to complain about feminism. That's utterly despicable. I think that's why that particular comic made me go "ew", it's because it's using the horrific pain of human beings to forward a political agenda, which makes me utterly fucking sick.

everyone agrees undertale was great though, ain't that something
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on January 08, 2016, 02:22:07 am
Quote from: Covenant on January 08, 2016, 02:05:47 am
Sorry, first one on the topic I wanted to talk about that came up. There's more (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/4/57-provisions-to-limit-abortion-added-by-states-in/?page=all). And you brought up guns, but in the Bible Belt it is actually infinitely easier to get a gun than an abortion.

The reason I bring this up is that bodily autonomy is a fundamental right to everyone, and yet this turns into a women's rights issue when it's actively being campaigned against when it comes to them.

Anyway, thanks for answering the question.

Now, as to the other thing, why would I remove it from my post? If I'm wrong, it stands as a testament to my being wrong, something that helps me going forward. I don't remove things from my posts, I move forward after having said them.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on January 08, 2016, 02:22:31 am
Quote from: Morrigi on January 08, 2016, 01:33:12 am
Quote from: EnigmaticHat on January 08, 2016, 01:16:53 am
Quote from: Putnam on January 08, 2016, 12:44:47 am
I'm still not sure which side is "gamergate".
The side that was fond of the words "ethics in games journalism" and who started the initial accusations and harassment.  From what I can tell they failed to develop (or failed to communicate) a larger coherent platform or goal beyond that so the "movement" was largely sustained by people on twitter independently deciding for themselves what it meant.  That and the large hatedom it spawned.
I have seen approximately zero hate on their main subreddit. Why is this, if they are actually so hateful? Also, GamerGate meetups have been subject to several bomb threats serious enough to merit police involvement and the evacuation of buildings, while its opponents have not. Furthermore, if criminal harassment was taking place on a large scale, then surely there would have been arrests and charges filed at some point, right?
Gamersgate is (at least, back when I was looking it up) not primarily run through reddit, it mainly rose to prominence on twitter.

...as for harassment, a group harassing people isn't really criminal since they can each only do a thing once and while it adds up to what laymen would call harassment, legally harassment requires the same person to do a thing several times.  And yes, it is well documented that they harassed at least one person.

Out of kinda/sorta acting unbiased mode, alway summarized my feelings on the matter a lot better than I ever could.  Gamersgate presents itself as a social movement but it isn't, its a backlash.  Has Depression Quest of all games EVER been big enough to justify this many people commenting on how it was marketed?  Is a woman having sex with a journalist (regardless of whether she actually did) representative of the actual problems in gaming journalism?  Of course not.  And its not about games journalism at all, the problems with gaming journalism are common knowledge and gamersgate and its followers have attempted to address exactly none of the real issues.
Spoiler: totally biased, but perfect summary of my opinion (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 08, 2016, 02:24:45 am
KiA and #gamergate are different movements, from what I can tell. For some reason, they have the same name.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on January 08, 2016, 02:36:13 am
To be honest, I am just worried I am having another MetalSlimeHunt moment, and mixing you up with someone else I have interacted with in the past. I am getting old.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 08, 2016, 02:36:54 am
You don't need to have not been doing something for there to be further excuse to do it. I'm saying that their biggest priority when it comes to these attacks appears to be making pithy comics about it.

EDIT: Oh, forgot something.

Quote from: Frumple on January 07, 2016, 11:32:40 pm
Quote from: Putnam on January 07, 2016, 11:17:07 pm
Obviously islamic nations have far worse institutional issues when it comes to all that, but that's primarily because they actually read their holy book.
Uh, no, it's primarily because the areas are by and large either unstable shitholes or just recently starting to claw their way out of such, mixed with tribal traditions that are also pretty shit. There's a religious aspect to some of the gender shit, but not when it comes to sexual assault and whatnot. Islam's texts take a pretty damn dim view towards rapists and sexual perfidy in general. Consequences tend to involve execution for the perpetrator or stuff that's pretty capable of killing regardless. Lotta' the shit we've been seeing in recent times counter to that is basically fairly forthright heresy.

The religion and interpretations of it has been by far the primary cause of cultural change in that area for the last millennium; ignoring that is not really helpful.

If your religion has to change for the time, throw it away completely, because it's obviously based on something wrong.

EDIT: that sounds like i'm complaining about islam in particular

i am not
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 08, 2016, 03:00:12 am
Quote from: Covenant on January 08, 2016, 02:31:43 am
Quote from: Putnam on January 08, 2016, 02:09:37 am
I just browsed their top posts; I noticed nothing insane, but I also noticed a distinct lack of posts that weren't about unethical things done by ess jay dubyas. They're cherry picking the fuck out of examples specifically to deride feminism. The instant clickbait shows up specifically aimed towards them, they eat it up. (https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3zga2h/when_a_british_national_newspaper_runs_a/)

Also, this (https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3y479o/drama_someone_using_the_gg_hashtag_has_doxed_and/) was one of the top posts, so you definitely can't say the movement has nothing like that.

Looking at it at this moment, KiA seems to be in its own little world where feminism and evil done by it is all that matters. Like, holy fucking shit, women are actually being raped en masse and they're using it as an excuse to complain about feminism. That's utterly despicable.

everyone agrees undertale was great though, ain't that something

They've been complaining about feminism for the past 15 months or however long it's been. It seems a bit odd to say that they're now using the Cologne attacks as an excuse. Why do they need an excuse to keep doing what they were already doing?


He's not saying "they're now using the Cologne attacks as an excuse to complain about feminism", he's saying "they're using Cologne, which has nothing to do with feminism, as just another reason to complain about feminism".
 
Quote from: Covenant on January 08, 2016, 12:15:44 am
If anything I think that recent events shine a great light on the wide divide between actual harm against women and Tumblr-tier 'the patriarchy!' nonsense. I certainly would love to see more feminists come out against this kind of violence, but I don't expect it. Too busy talking about how the latest videogame character's breasts are too big, no doubt.

I don't mean to lower the quality of debate, but this really did make me LOL.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The only funny thing about that is that it was actually feminists who insisted on not letting these events ve buried. Funny as in that comic is fucking dumb.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 08, 2016, 03:05:45 am
Quote from: scriver on January 08, 2016, 03:00:12 am
He's not saying "they're now using the Cologne attacks as an excuse to complain about feminism", he's saying "they're using Cologne, which has nothing to do with feminism, as just another reason to complain about feminism".

nooooo

i'm saying it's ridiculous that they're using cologne merely as an excuse to complain about feminism, not that it has nothing to do with it

actually, the censorship doesn't have anything to do with feminism in particular, only with the politics stuff i talked about earlier; if you're a feminist, you're a liberal and thus not allowed to complain about islam etc.

but for some reason KiA is doing some sort of weird generalization and lumping "the left" into "feminism", which is bizarre, not exactly because the left isn't feminist but because it's a really strange generalization, like saying that the anti-abortion movement is too focused on laissez-faire capitalism
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 08, 2016, 03:10:30 am
That's what I said. Granted, I also said the other thing. The "which has nothing to do with feminism" was not supposed to be a thing you said but a statement from me. I fucked up formatting there, I admit.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nunzillor on January 08, 2016, 03:15:05 am
@Putnam I'm not sure it really makes sense that a religion should be "thrown away completely" if it changes over time.  Don't all religions change over time?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 08, 2016, 03:21:05 am
It seems... against the spirit? Changing a fundamental belief about reality when it turns out to be wrong?

...I mean, that's good! That's very good. But we don't usually call that religion.

God, I shouldn't come in here when religion's the topic, it gets derailed into religion.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 08, 2016, 03:31:45 am
That's not being an ass, that's reasoned criticism.

I think in general I should avoid this place? I've pretty much shown my utter disdain for religion and politics constantly, and that's basically what this topic and the religion thread (which i've stayed the hell out of, thankfully) are about.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Nunzillor on January 08, 2016, 03:36:27 am
This thread does seem kind of scary.  People say never to discuss politics or religion in polite society.  There's both here!  And Gamergate!  Run and don't look back!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: i2amroy on January 08, 2016, 04:35:06 am
Quote from: Nunzillor on January 08, 2016, 03:36:27 am
This thread does seem kind of scary.  People say never to discuss politics or religion in polite society.  There's both here!  And Gamergate!  Run and don't look back!
Why do you think we put the words "Calm" and "Cool" in the thread title? Because we just thought it was a bit of a hot day? Madness, it's to damp down the roaring flames of our discussions!

*i2amroy shakes fist and drinks tea!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: wobbly on January 08, 2016, 05:27:43 am
Quote from: Putnam on January 08, 2016, 03:21:05 am
It seems... against the spirit? Changing a fundamental belief about reality when it turns out to be wrong?

...I mean, that's good! That's very good. But we don't usually call that religion.

God, I shouldn't come in here when religion's the topic, it gets derailed into religion.

Alternatively you just get rid of the notion that religion is some sort of absolute perfect truth handed down by God & it works just fine. No problem with a religion changing when people just drop the notion that their religion is the one perfect truth, same as with any other beliefs.

You know you seem to have posted a fair bit since you decided you weren't touching the topic ....
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 08, 2016, 05:53:18 am
Oh god I fell asleep for twelve hours and everyone started talking about gamergate. Remember, there's a reason people don't usually talk about that here.

This discussion doesn't seem too bad though, I'd just like to remind everyone to stay chill.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on January 08, 2016, 06:05:35 am
wow, discussion of #gg [verboten] without shitpocalypse and haramgeddon?

bay12 never ceases to amaze
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Amperzand on January 08, 2016, 06:13:17 am
Half the people on the forum seem to be here because it's a much chiller place than most places a citizen of the interwebs might reside.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 08, 2016, 07:00:50 am
Quote from: Amperzand on January 08, 2016, 06:13:17 am
Half the people on the forum seem to be here because it's a much chiller place than most places a citizen of the interwebs might reside.
Agreed.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 08, 2016, 09:20:13 am
I could agree with that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 08, 2016, 09:26:34 am
Only because we shitpost enough that anyone particularly volatile gets wound up to the point of either quitting or getting b&.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 08, 2016, 09:32:05 am
Is that such a bad thing?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on January 08, 2016, 09:40:51 am
Sense of superiority at this community compared to others is a longstanding Bay 12 cornerstone.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 08, 2016, 10:18:04 am
Quote from: TheBiggerFish on January 08, 2016, 09:32:05 am
Is that such a bad thing?
It's just not because of some pinnacle of reason and kindness.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 08, 2016, 10:21:35 am
I dunno. I think it's probably a bit of both. Maybe the shitposting was a filter, but it still means that the nicer people tend to be the ones left. Then there's the fact that this is linked to DF - most people who come here have at least attempted the game, most have succeeded. It takes a certain mind set to persist with DF, one that the average troll may not have.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 08, 2016, 10:52:00 am
Quote from: SirQuiamus on January 08, 2016, 06:05:35 am
#gg [verboten]
Grundgesetz is verboten? Pegida stronk, all Heil Petry - Petry Heil!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 08, 2016, 11:12:18 am
Quote from: Strife26 on January 08, 2016, 09:40:51 am
Sense of superiority at this community compared to others is a longstanding Bay 12 cornerstone.

In my experience, it is a cornerstone of any and all internet communities, other than /b/. At /b/, everyone knows it is a hive of scum and villainy, and revels in it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 08, 2016, 11:39:42 am
Well the only other forums I've actively participated in are the MSPA and Roblox ones, so out of my sample yeah Bay12 is the best by a long way. It's just not really saying much.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on January 08, 2016, 11:45:29 am
The Cologne chief of police has been suspended of his duties, because of the way he communicated the situation on New Years Eve in Cologne as 'being under control', while in reality, the police was outnumbered, and completely helpless, and because he has withheld information from / misinformed the public regarding the nationality of the perpetrators.

In other news, the Swiss artist Milo Moiré, well-known for her nude performances, travelled to Cologne for a 10 minute protest in front of the central station (don't look if nudity offends you):
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on January 08, 2016, 11:48:31 am
Quote from: Google Translate
Respect us! We are not fair game, even if we are naked
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 08, 2016, 12:03:13 pm
Is public nudity not a crime in Germany?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on January 08, 2016, 12:21:24 pm
I don't think it is, as long as it serves a societal purpose (like art, or protest). Which is likely why the police in the background do nothing. They're probably there to protect her from extremists.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 08, 2016, 02:51:47 pm
I wonder if I could convince her that there's a societal reason for her to protest in my bedroom.

Em, yea, that's me at my worst. Moving along.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 08, 2016, 03:12:58 pm
haram m8
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on January 08, 2016, 08:30:06 pm
There's reports coming in now from Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and Austria, about sexual assaults during New Year's eve.
The Helsinki police reports "having prevented a second Cologne". They claim to have had intel about mass sexual assaults being planned for New Year's Eve, and deployed reinforcements from other police districts in the country to Helsinki.
Despite their increased prescence, police recieved many complaints about sexual harrasment on a central square where about twenty thousand people had gathered to celebrate. More harrassment complaints came from the central station area, where apparently a group of 1000, mostly Iraqi refugees had gathered.

Three refugees have been arrested. The adjunct chief of police, Ilkka Koskimaki, told the French media that 'this is a completely new phenomena for Helsinki, we have never seen anything like this in previous years"

- heh, it's almost like an exact copy of what the cologne chief of police said -

One country nextdoor, In the Swedish city of Kalmar, at least 15 young women were sexually assaulted, has been announced by the Swedish police. The victims were surrounded by a large group of people on a busy square in Kalmar, and touched indecently. The police have found two suspects, both refugees, and are looking for more perpetrators.

And then there's the Swiss police, reporting that dozens of women have been robbed, and six of them also sexually harassed by "people with a dark skin".

Finally, the Austrian police reports that several women have filed similar complaints in Salzburg.

Police forces are now investigating if those mass assaults in the different cities / countries were a coordinated action.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 08, 2016, 08:31:00 pm
self-destruction is its own reward
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 08, 2016, 08:32:42 pm
If this is genuine it's got to organised on some higher level. You don't get 1000 people in one place just by them organising it on a peer to peer level with one another.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 08, 2016, 08:35:26 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on January 08, 2016, 08:32:42 pm
If this is genuine it's got to organised on some higher level. You don't get 1000 people in one place just by them organising it on a peer to peer level with one another.
it's called twitter and facebook m8 lol, go see the London riots or the Arab spring to see how you don't need shadow illuminati to get a spot of cheeki brekci ultraviolence going

Group spontaneous movement is ezmode in today's world
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 08, 2016, 08:36:27 pm
The London riots were just a prank, and I don't know shit about the Arab Spring. Thought it was referring to a longer term thing than just one event.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 08, 2016, 08:41:11 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on January 08, 2016, 08:36:27 pm
The London riots were just a prank, and I don't know shit about the Arab Spring. Thought it was referring to a longer term thing than just one event.
"just a prank"?!!!!

You having a laff m8?

Also most of the Arab spring was organized via social media, hence why some shut down the internet temporarily to stop their countries following Libya or Tunisia
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 08, 2016, 08:43:55 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 08, 2016, 08:41:11 pm
"just a prank"?!!!!

You having a laff m8?
Yes. It's just a prank bro. LOOTING SHOPS PRANKS (in the hood)(gone wrong)(gone sexual)(almost got shot?!)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on January 08, 2016, 09:52:05 pm
Quote from: martinuzz on January 08, 2016, 08:30:06 pm
The Helsinki police reports "having prevented a second Cologne".
Media is spreading Colognese Whispers across the internet...

Quote from: martinuzz on January 08, 2016, 08:30:06 pm
They claim to have had intel about mass sexual assaults being planned for New Year's Eve,
Turned out to be false intel.

Quote from: martinuzz on January 08, 2016, 08:30:06 pm
Despite their increased prescence, police recieved many complaints about sexual harrasment on a central square where about twenty thousand people had gathered to celebrate. More harrassment complaints came from the central station area...
The police received exactly three reports of sexual assault, none of which happened in the vicinity of the central station.

Quote from: martinuzz on January 08, 2016, 08:30:06 pm
...where apparently a group of 1000, mostly Iraqi refugees had gathered.
The cops pulled that number out of their arses, presumably because they were in a festive mood (happy new year 1000 AD for you too!). We do know that there was a group of [insert arbitrary large number] Iraqi(?) refugees/immigrants/islamist infiltrators at the station, but they were apparently too busy swilling beer and fighting amongst themselves to get their rape on.

Also, the aforemention "adjunct chief of police" claimed that "some of our young women may turn out to be interested and excited about the prospect of rape." I'm assuming that he died of alcohol poisoning shortly after.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 08, 2016, 10:50:20 pm
Voice of Reason and Citations, I beseech you!

Where is my peer-reviewed media outlet for confirming and/or denying any and/or all of these claims free of hype?

Alas, it is nowhere to be found.

I find myself believing SirQuiamus over martinuzz, at the moment, though.

Honestly I have to wonder if this is basically just Europe having to deal with a bit more ethnic diversity than they have in the past. They still need to get past the 'horrible ethnic tension' phase, and up to the 'ethnic tension' phase, where America's managed to get.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 09, 2016, 12:07:07 am
Eh, it's more about the way Europe copes with migrants. The Ruhr area in German took in a shitload of Polish migrants in the 19th century, but instead of adding their culture to ours we simply assimilated them...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Cheeetar on January 09, 2016, 01:14:00 am
Quote from: Covenant on January 09, 2016, 12:58:57 am
I cited sources for pretty much everything I said in my previous posts in the thread, if you'd like to check. The quote from Imam Shahid Mehdi wasn't linked to specifically, but as I provided the quote verbatim it's simple enough to google it.

Hey! What were your sources for these posts?

Spoiler: These posts (click to show/hide)

I can't see any.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Cheeetar on January 09, 2016, 01:36:19 am
So you're going from "I provide sources for pretty much everything" to "I don't need to provide sources because it's so obvious". Alright.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 09, 2016, 02:05:18 am
Quote from: Covenant on January 09, 2016, 12:58:57 am

I cited sources for pretty much everything I said in my previous posts in the thread, if you'd like to check. The quote from Imam Shahid Mehdi wasn't linked to specifically, but as I provided the quote verbatim it's simple enough to google it. I too would like to see some sources for what SirQuiamus is claiming, though.

Also, I'm sure you didn't intend if that way, but your last paragraph comes across as 'sounds like Europe making a fuss over nothing just because they have a bit more ethnic diversity'. Which is extremely dismissive of the violence suffered by the young women involved. And from the perspective of a European - I'm assuming you're American from the way you phrased that paragraph - no. It's not at all about 'ethnic diversity'. I don't give a flying fig what colour or ethnic makeup somebody is, I care about their behaviour, and, by extension, their culture (as the one is a strong influence on the other).

If a load of purple and yellow polka-dotted people came over here and started drinking tea, eating biscuits and discussing Coronation Street, they'd be welcomed with open arms. If anyone comes and starts spreading values contrary to our own - that (kafir) women are second-class citizens, that killing people over a cartoon is justifiable, or that homosexuality should be punished by death? Then it doesn't matter what ethnicity they have, a lot of people are going to be very troubled by that. And when it goes beyond just saying these things, and into the realm of atrocities such as Rotherham (where over 1400 children were sexually abused by gangs of Pakistani men (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rotherham-child-abuse-report-finds-1400-children-subjected-to-appalling-sexual-exploitation-within-9691825.html[/url), and the crimes were covered up and downplayed by the police and government for fear of being seen as racist), or the sexual assaults of Cologne and other cities we've been discussing? Of course that's going to prompt a lot of anger and calls for change.

To reduce these issues to 'having to deal with a bit more ethnic diversity' is ridiculously uninformed at best.

Oh, sorry, no, I meant it in basically the opposite way. Not 'silly Europeans' so much as 'not inoculated against drastically different cultures->smallpox/syphilis'. America's been a melting pot since it's foundation, in one way or another. When you're forced to tolerate all these different cultures until they go too far, eventually only the halfway reasonable ones remain (I'm using a very simplified denotation of 'remain' here). If that's not the case, then when something happens that pushes said cultures together, culture clash happens. Emphasis on the clash. Granted, I didn't go into very much detail, but internally, at least, I was hypothesizing about the root causes of this and why it's not happening in America (other than the whole 'YOU CAN'T MAKE US TAKE REFUGEES GAARRRR' thing). Sorry for that not being clearer (sidenote: I was using ethnic diversity as shorthand to mean cultural/ethnic/socio-economic diversty, my bad)

If I'm being honest, though, I was just trying to make a jibe about how as bad as America is, Europe has it worse at the moment, unfortunately. And how it seems like there's never really a solution to this shit.

I try not to take a side, period. Figure out what's true, figure out from that what's going on that's wrong, fix it in a way that doesn't entail a second wrong. That's difficult, sometimes, strangely enough. >.<

I will point out, Covenant, that Islamic nations and refugees fleeing Islamic nations will not necessarily hold the same values. Strawman or no, motte-and-bailey helps no one. (sidenote I wish I didn't have to make: I don't think you're doing it on purpose and I may be reading too much into things as it's late and I'm tired; people just make arguments like that without realizing it)

Speaking of consistency, what do people think of the idea of this (http://lesswrong.com/lw/18b/reason_as_memetic_immune_disorder/)? Focused less on the rationality bits and more on the bits like this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/opinion/the-madrassa-myth.html), in which many or most of the terrorists had western college degrees. If Islam and western analytical thought don't click without resulting in violence, maybe that's part of what's driving it? Of course, it might be that the would-be terrorists without college degrees simply don't have the expertise, but I think it's interesting to consider, at least. I dunno. I probably shouldn't try to explain things when I'm tired.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 09, 2016, 03:04:43 am
More to the point, that development is scary. It's actually one of those case where surveillance camera might be needed, because I'm not sure how else you could secure convictions. I doubt that a woman being harassed by a dozen guy is composed enough to be able to identify them later on.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on January 09, 2016, 06:57:58 am
Quote from: Rolepgeek on January 08, 2016, 10:50:20 pm
Voice of Reason and Citations, I beseech you!
The Voice of Reason and Citations sounds like a turpentine-drunk Alex Jones these days.

All the sources (http://yle.fi/uutiset/krpn_tutkinnanjohtaja_suomessa_ei_suunniteltu_vastaavaa_kuin_kolnissa/8576981) were in Finnish (http://www.vihrealanka.fi/uutiset-kotimaa/mit%C3%A4-asematunnelissa-todella-tapahtui-%E2%80%93-ei-ilmoituksia-ahdistelusta), so I didn't bother posting them. Google translate hates my glorious mother tongue more than "Radical Islamists" hate sobriety.

Quote from: Rolepgeek on January 08, 2016, 10:50:20 pm
Where is my peer-reviewed media outlet for confirming and/or denying any and/or all of these claims free of hype?
Nothing is reliable source – your own arse will never lie to you.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on January 09, 2016, 08:20:50 am
Quote from: Rolepgeek on January 08, 2016, 10:50:20 pm
Voice of Reason and Citations, I beseech you!

Where is my peer-reviewed media outlet for confirming and/or denying any and/or all of these claims free of hype?

Alas, it is nowhere to be found.

I find myself believing SirQuiamus over martinuzz, at the moment, though.

Honestly I have to wonder if this is basically just Europe having to deal with a bit more ethnic diversity than they have in the past. They still need to get past the 'horrible ethnic tension' phase, and up to the 'ethnic tension' phase, where America's managed to get.
Stop crying source for everything I post. If you couldn't find source for it you just suck at searching, t's mainstream news.
Stop shooting the messenger.
Only thing I do is translate articles from our mainstream (leftist, not rascist) Dutch newspaper.
Why? Because I believe in free flow of information.
Here's the article for those of you that lack the gift of browsing prowess. /rant
http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/ook-aanrandingen-in-finland-zweden-zwitserland-en-oostenrijk~a4220954/ (http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/ook-aanrandingen-in-finland-zweden-zwitserland-en-oostenrijk~a4220954/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on January 09, 2016, 08:23:14 am
Quote from: martinuzz on January 09, 2016, 08:20:50 am

Chillax, m8!
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on January 09, 2016, 08:25:07 am
Trying to but I get too much shitstorm for things I post lately and I don't take well to being called out for a liar while all I do is translate an article.

But okay I'll try to remember next time to link the articles as well, and disregard the follow up posts complaining about not being able to read Dutch :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on January 09, 2016, 08:28:55 am
No shitstorming here. Have a toke and chill, you crazy Hollander. :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on January 09, 2016, 08:53:32 am
Today, Cologne is deploying 1700 police officers, to keep Pegida/Pro Köln protestors and anti-fascist protestors from clashing.
The Pegida party and the extreme-right pro-Köln party have called upon their supporters to meet up at the central station in Cologne and march through the city.
Several left wing groups have responded by calling for a protest demonstration against the planned march.
According to press agency Reuters, already, 2000 left wing protestors have gathered at the central station to oppose the march.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/1-700-agenten-moeten-demonstraties-keulen-in-goede-banen-leiden~a4221666/ (http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/1-700-agenten-moeten-demonstraties-keulen-in-goede-banen-leiden~a4221666/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 09, 2016, 08:59:42 am
I wonder if Helgo's there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 09, 2016, 09:01:01 am
Quote from: Rolepgeek on January 08, 2016, 10:50:20 pm
Honestly I have to wonder if this is basically just Europe having to deal with a bit more ethnic diversity than they have in the past. They still need to get past the 'horrible ethnic tension' phase, and up to the 'ethnic tension' phase, where America's managed to get.

This is ridiculous. Are you trying that we should just be more tolerant of the people harassing and assaulting women and girls in the street? More tolerant of the cultures in which this is an okay thing to do (particularly if the victim does not belong to their own group)? That if we was just a little more accepting of their racism, their violence, and their hatred, there would be less problems stemming from their racism, violence, and hatred? I am going to assume you don't actually mean to imply any of those things. So what is your point, exactly?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 09, 2016, 09:06:00 am
I guess his point is that we should learn to deal with criminals without spending 90% of our time ranting about "cultures", "race" and so on. It's kinda shameful that since the attack, at least 90% of commentary has been either focused on ranting about how it's because their culture just make them into rapist (which is racist and stupid) or on how we shouldn't discuss it because it's going to fuel racism (which makes up for not being racist by being doublestupid), as opposed to discussing how to stop this from happening again/catch the perpetrator/support the victims.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 09, 2016, 09:20:37 am
Deal with the criminals how, exactly? What percentage of the culprits do you think are going to be arrested, let alone sentenced? Because there is only one way to stop this from happening again - to deal with the culture that makes the perpetrators behave this way. Because do you know how "western" culture stopped being majorily misogynist pigs for which violence against women was seen as okay? They kept talking about culture, and they dealt with that culture.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 09, 2016, 09:28:09 am
Camera? Better policing during large events? (Mostly, be ready to mass arrest people if needed). Making an exemple of gropers. Enforcement seems to be a much more efficient way to send a message than some vague ranting about "cultures". I mean, how do you intend to change the "culture" of those people?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arx on January 09, 2016, 09:31:49 am
I'm not sure, and I might be projecting here, but what I think Scriver's getting at is that in Western countries culture has become largely divorced from race, and so assuming that someone must have certain cultural values becomes racist. With the influx of immigrants, that's no longer so much the case, and the Western countries need to at least acknowledge that.

I think.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 09, 2016, 09:32:58 am
Quote from: Arx on January 09, 2016, 09:31:49 am
I'm not sure, and I might be projecting here, but what I think Scriver's getting at is that in Western countries culture has become largely divorced from race, and so assuming that someone must have certain cultural values becomes racist. With the influx of immigrants, that's no longer so much the case, and the Western countries need to at least acknowledge that.

I think.

You mean Rolepgeek?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arx on January 09, 2016, 09:44:47 am
Uh, bit of both, I guess.

Honestly, looking at Scriver and Rolepgeek's posts, I suspect they agree but don't realise it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on January 09, 2016, 09:50:57 am
The German police Union has stated that the events in Cologne could have been prevented, if there hadn't been that many agents sent out to protect the borders, because of the refugee crisis.
The Bayern ministister of internal affairs, Joachimm Hermann, says this is not true. He says the refugee crisis at the border is also important, and despite several police stations suffering from understaffing, he regards the deployment of extra forces to the borders as justifiably.

They also further clarified the suspension, which by now has become an official early retirement, of the Cologne police chief Albers.
His position became under fire because of two things he said:
1) he said that the police had things under control, while in reality they did not.
2) he stated that the sexual assaults were "merely a diversion" used by robbers, so they could rob people, while in reality, according to debriefings, "sexual amusement was the primary goal of the assailants"

In the past few days, it has become clear that Cologne has not been the only German city where incidents occured, there's reports coming in from other cities, including Hamburg. So far, 170 complaints have been filed with the police, two thirds of which include sexual violence.

So far, the police have arrested 31 suspects, amongst whom are 18 refugees. They are being accused of theft, and agression. One of the suspects is also charged with sexual verbal harrasment. No suspects have been arrested for the sexual violence charges yet.
The 31 suspects include 9 Algerians, 8 Moroccans, 5 Iranians, 4 Syrians, one Iraqi, one Serbian, one American, and two Germans.

In the posession of one of the suspects, a Arabic- German short dictionary was found with translations for "nice tits", "I want to fuck", and "I will kill you".

Police are still investigating if the assaults and robberies were a coordinated event.

An eye witness, a female refugee from Iraq, told the Guardian that "I saw how three neatly dressed man gave instructions to groups of young men, and then dispersed back into the crowd, only to repeat the procedure with more groups of young men. Sometimes they paused to take selfies". The eyewitness herself got injured when she tried to protect keep fireworks from being thrown into the buggy holding her 3 year old son. <<< my personal thought there? Heh, it's the Guardian. It probably were three German drunk guys wishing refugees happy new year and making selfies so they can show their friends they're not rascist.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/politiebond-excessen-keulen-te-wijten-aan-inzet-agenten-voor-vluchtelingencrisis~a4220827/ (http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/politiebond-excessen-keulen-te-wijten-aan-inzet-agenten-voor-vluchtelingencrisis~a4220827/)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on January 09, 2016, 09:52:46 am
While I do agree that blaming things on them dirty foreigners isn't especially helpful, discounting differing values isn't a good thing. There's, without a damn doubt, places in the world where the social norms are absolutely horrifying in their regard for women and children. It's a matter of trying to bend those social norms into something acceptable, at least in our own neighborhoods, and without betraying our own values.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 09:57:32 am
If someone moves somewhere they aught to accept the values of the place they go to and at least respect them enough not to do something contrary to them. If you don't like the values, then go somewhere else. I know I'd never live in Syria as it means my children would have to wrap up their heads. Assuming I had children. Why would a Syrian go to France if they know the values are so different?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on January 09, 2016, 10:01:00 am
Money, family, safety, shits-and-giggles.

Regardless of your opinion, Syrians are going to want to, make the attempt, and succeed (in progressively decreasing amounts) to head to France. The issue at hand, is what France is going to do about it
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 10:03:17 am
Indeed. And if they want to move to France, that's fine. Just respect the values of the place you're going to, or you obviously don't need safety/money/family enough to properly care. In which case you may go somewhere more like minded.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 09, 2016, 10:06:31 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 09, 2016, 09:28:09 am
Camera? Better policing during large events? (Mostly, be ready to mass arrest people if needed). Making an exemple of gropers. Enforcement seems to be a much more efficient way to send a message than some vague ranting about "cultures". I mean, how do you intend to change the "culture" of those people?

For starters, by putting the blame where it belongs, on the actual cause of the offense, as well as the underlying structures which support it. You fight crimes which stem from socio-economics by fighting class differences. You fight crimes which stem from cultural values by fighting the culture.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on January 09, 2016, 10:36:03 am
The Cologne police are now using a water cannon to disperse protestors from the anti-islamic Pegida party
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 09, 2016, 10:43:41 am
Scriver, could you actually define what exactly you mean by culture and how you'd fight it? I think we might actually agree and just be talking about slightly different things here.

Martinuzz, thanks for the regular update. If there is no law allowing to strip anyone convicted of such offense of their refugee status, I hope Germany get one on the book quickly.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on January 09, 2016, 11:08:36 am
Quote from: Sheb on January 09, 2016, 10:43:41 am
Scriver, could you actually define what exactly you mean by culture and how you'd fight it? I think we might actually agree and just be talking about slightly different things here.

Martinuzz, thanks for the regular update. If there is no law allowing to strip anyone convicted of such offense of their refugee status, I hope Germany get one on the book quickly.

Yesterday, Angela Merkel has said on a congress of her party CDU, that she is in favour of changing the law to make it easier to deport refugees who have comitted crimes.
As it stands now, someone has to be convicted to at least 3 years in prison before it can influence a request for asylum. Merkel said "The question is, when will someone lose it's right to stay in Germany? The question is, shouldn't it be possible to do that sooner? I must say, that as far as I am concerned, it should be sooner".

The public debate in Germany is turning more and towards "Wieso schaffen wir das?" (What do you mean, we can do it?)
The governing parties CDU and SPD are now trying to hush the anti-refugee sentiment by proposing to stop developmental aid to those countries that do not accept deported refugees back into their country (which is a real problem, because in that case, even if you want to deport them, you can't because international law forbids you to make someone state-less)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on January 09, 2016, 11:38:59 am
Quote from: martinuzz on January 09, 2016, 10:36:03 am
The Cologne police are now using a water cannon to disperse protestors from the anti-islamic Pegida party
Watching RT's video, it looks like a few asshats in the crowd started throwing fireworks at the police.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 09, 2016, 11:52:24 am
Quote from: Rolepgeek on January 08, 2016, 10:50:20 pm
Honestly I have to wonder if this is basically just Europe having to deal with a bit more ethnic diversity than they have in the past. They still need to get past the 'horrible ethnic tension' phase, and up to the 'ethnic tension' phase, where America's managed to get.
Sounds like victim blaming
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Truean on January 09, 2016, 12:06:31 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/video/same-sex-couple-turned-away-180021490.html

Well.... I suppose there's some grumbling as a response to this. The whole Kim Davis thing didn't seem to show any point or teachable moment that this kinda thing isn't ok or anything. That's just magical....

I dunno. I'm not gonna go all ranty on this. There's just no real point I suppose. Still, that's a sad thing.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on January 09, 2016, 12:17:41 pm
Meh, Supreme Court will take care of it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 12:24:21 pm
No one ever suspects the Aeropagus!

Sorry, but that's the second opportunity I've had to say that today. Couldn't resist :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on January 09, 2016, 12:40:45 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on January 09, 2016, 09:52:46 am
While I do agree that blaming things on them dirty foreigners isn't especially helpful, discounting differing values isn't a good thing. There's, without a damn doubt, places in the world where the social norms are absolutely horrifying in their regard for women and children. It's a matter of trying to bend those social norms into something acceptable, at least in our own neighborhoods, and without betraying our own values.
Yes. Americans abroad should be forced to assimilate into civilized societies that don't claim to own the bodies of their women and children. The long and brutal history of their homelives is a terrible thing, and the honor killings they've committed are unacceptable.

See what you can do when you take the worst examples of what happens in a place, and then use that to paint everyone as having those same values?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Shazbot on January 09, 2016, 12:42:25 pm
Are people seriously defending the worst mass sexual assaults since the Rape of Berlin?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 09, 2016, 12:46:13 pm
Quote from: Shazbot on January 09, 2016, 12:42:25 pm
Are people seriously defending the worst mass sexual assaults since the Rape of Berlin?

No.

Also, saying that's the worst mass sexual assault since the Rape of Berlin when there was between zero and one actual rape is... hilariously stupid.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on January 09, 2016, 12:46:49 pm
Is pointing out that the vast majority of refugees are not rapists called defending the rapes now? I have not seen a single defense of the rapes in this thread, just some calls to not be being a bunch of racist assholes in the wake of it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on January 09, 2016, 12:58:25 pm
Quote from: Morrigi on January 09, 2016, 12:17:41 pm
Meh, Supreme Court will take care of it.
It did...

What's happening is that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is telling his probate judges to ignore the supreme court ruling, and everything that we learned from Kim Davis.  He claims the judges are bound by "State Law" to disobey the US GOVERNMENT.

I don't blame the judges...  In fact many of them are issuing licenses again, after consulting with their attorneys.  Perfectly reasonable, even laudable.  The problem is this... seditionist!  He should be removed from office immediately, and this time he should be barred from holding it ever again.

This time?  Yeah, this isn't the first time he's plainly defied the government and Constitution he swore to uphold.  Ten years ago he refused to remove a monument to the 10 Commandments of Christianity.  He got ousted for that, thankfully, because it turns out that you can't just promote a theocracy without seceding first.  But he apparently was allowed to return. 

Unbelievable.  Simply unbelievable that this is actually happening.

http://news.yahoo.com/feds-alabama-judges-must-obey-us-supreme-court-163522535.html

Quote from: Shazbot on January 09, 2016, 12:42:25 pm
Are people seriously defending the worst mass sexual assaults since the Rape of Berlin?
No, but they're implying that these areas are progressive about women's rights when they aren't.  That these are a few bad apples, and that we shouldn't complain about multiculturalism. 

Of course the problem isn't multiculturalism, it's cultures which hold women as inferior and facilitate their rape and persecution.

It's not like Westerners have got gender rights right until relatively recently either.  If we got a bunch of time travelling refugees from 50's America, we'd have to watch them for rape and sexual assault too.  Because they wouldn't know it was wrong, they grew up where it was okay!

This is *important* so we can properly address the problem, through caution and education.  Instead of locking up some perpetrators and assuming it's over.

Quote from: Willfor on January 09, 2016, 12:46:49 pm
Is pointing out that the vast majority of refugees are not rapists called defending the rapes now? I have not seen a single defense of the rapes in this thread, just some calls to not be being a bunch of racist assholes in the wake of it.
You sure showed that one guy who said that all the refugees are rapists.  Good job, wrong forum though.
And apparently he blamed it on race, too?  Wow, what an asshole he must be.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Strife26 on January 09, 2016, 01:00:26 pm
Quote from: Willfor on January 09, 2016, 12:40:45 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on January 09, 2016, 09:52:46 am
While I do agree that blaming things on them dirty foreigners isn't especially helpful, discounting differing values isn't a good thing. There's, without a damn doubt, places in the world where the social norms are absolutely horrifying in their regard for women and children. It's a matter of trying to bend those social norms into something acceptable, at least in our own neighborhoods, and without betraying our own values.
Yes. Americans abroad should be forced to assimilate into civilized societies that don't claim to own the bodies of their women and children. The long and brutal history of their homelives is a terrible thing, and the honor killings they've committed are unacceptable.

See what you can do when you take the worst examples of what happens in a place, and then use that to paint everyone as having those same values?

You can make a nonsensical point of fluff? Because sufficient rhetoric let's you claim anything you want, but that doesn't mean it's a useful or remotely accurate.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on January 09, 2016, 01:03:09 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on January 09, 2016, 01:00:26 pm
Quote from: Willfor on January 09, 2016, 12:40:45 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on January 09, 2016, 09:52:46 am
While I do agree that blaming things on them dirty foreigners isn't especially helpful, discounting differing values isn't a good thing. There's, without a damn doubt, places in the world where the social norms are absolutely horrifying in their regard for women and children. It's a matter of trying to bend those social norms into something acceptable, at least in our own neighborhoods, and without betraying our own values.
Yes. Americans abroad should be forced to assimilate into civilized societies that don't claim to own the bodies of their women and children. The long and brutal history of their homelives is a terrible thing, and the honor killings they've committed are unacceptable.

See what you can do when you take the worst examples of what happens in a place, and then use that to paint everyone as having those same values?

You can make a nonsensical point of fluff? Because sufficient rhetoric let's you claim anything you want, but that doesn't mean it's a useful or remotely accurate.
Countering hyperbole with hyperbole is an acceptable rhetorical device, I feel.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 09, 2016, 01:11:27 pm
There is a distinction between "Women's right sucks in the Arab world" and "It's ok to rape and steal in Arab culture".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 09, 2016, 01:13:05 pm
Quote from: Covenant on January 09, 2016, 12:58:57 am
If a load of purple and yellow polka-dotted people came over here and started drinking tea, eating biscuits and discussing Coronation Street, they'd be welcomed with open arms. If anyone comes and starts spreading values contrary to our own - that (kafir) women are second-class citizens, that killing people over a cartoon is justifiable, or that homosexuality should be punished by death? Then it doesn't matter what ethnicity they have, a lot of people are going to be very troubled by that. And when it goes beyond just saying these things, and into the realm of atrocities such as Rotherham (where over 1400 children were sexually abused by gangs of Pakistani men (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rotherham-child-abuse-report-finds-1400-children-subjected-to-appalling-sexual-exploitation-within-9691825.html[/url), and the crimes were covered up and downplayed by the police and government for fear of being seen as racist), or the sexual assaults of Cologne and other cities we've been discussing? Of course that's going to prompt a lot of anger and calls for change.

To reduce these issues to 'having to deal with a bit more ethnic diversity' is ridiculously uninformed at best.
Actually you're wrong m8 on Rotherham, you forgot the Pakistani (and one Somalian, Afghan and one Syrian) rape gangs in Aylsebury1 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-33662503), Oxford2 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-31643791), Bristol3 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-30248828), Telford4 (http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/crime/2013/05/10/horror-of-telford-girls-sex-abuse-ordeal/), Birmingham5 (http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/grooming-gang-drugged-raped-15-year-old-9096568), Wycombe6 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-22626994), Rochdale 7 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17989463), Burton8 (http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/total-23-years-jail-gang-targeted-young-girl/story-22793732-detail/story.html), Chesham9 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vulnerable-schoolgirl-raped-least-60-5717785), Blackpool10 (http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/two-jailed-for-teen-s-gang-rape-1-371018)11 (http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/community/community-news/six-people-arrested-as-part-of-investigation-into-blackpool-gang-1-7462934), Preston12 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-18618562), Brierfield13 (http://www.pendletoday.co.uk/news/crime/brierfield-gang-accused-of-raping-girl-14-at-drink-and-drugs-den-1-5515374), Nelson14 (http://www.pendletoday.co.uk/news/crime/teen-girls-in-grooming-case-abused-in-nelson-and-colne-by-sex-gang-1-4537508), West Yorkshire15 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3314260/White-schoolgirl-sexually-exploited-gang-14-Asian-men-virgin-time-raped-age-13.html), Barking16 (http://www.brentwoodgazette.co.uk/Teenager-raped-alleged-child-sex-gang-members/story-19327895-detail/story.html), Derby17 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-11799797), Keighley18 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/14-year-old-schoolgirl-repeatedly-raped-by-12-men-over-13-month-period-in-keighley-trial-hears-a6729801.html), Peterborough19 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/14-year-old-schoolgirl-repeatedly-raped-by-12-men-over-13-month-period-in-keighley-trial-hears-a6729801.html), Bradford20 (http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/12972668.15_charged_in_connection_with_alleged_rape_and_sexual_abuse_of_girl_after_police_investigation/), Bristol21 (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/27/guilty-prostitution-bristol-rape-girls-sex-abuse-somali), Coventry22 (http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/ten-charged-coventry-sex-gang-5429952), Bolton23 (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/three-men-jailed-for-appalling-gang-881924), Middlesbrough24 (http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11009663.Three_Middlesbrough_men_jailed_for_grooming_underage_girls_for_sex/) and there are more yet to be discovered, more yet to have their identities disclosed by the police or picked up by the news and of those, picked up by me.

I haven't even the heart to shitpost about this. From 2000-2010 "there was a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity"", (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html) a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" just to have the funniest round of political dickwaving. Hahaha. "Ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote". As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants." And we now see that without any selective process, we lost money on immigration due to them paying less in taxes. More immigrants means more labour voters, since most immigrants outside of the Commonwealth tend to vote Labour.
I mean they destroyed so much evidence and even arrested fathers for trying to rescue their own daughters. I don't know who's worse, the rape gangs or the authorities who supported them. Jack Straw's the most notable, for being both a minister responsible for mass immigration policies and for being one of the first MPs to cause absolute uproar by suggesting there were Pakistani gangs who saw English girls as meat.
Quote from: Loud Whispers on November 29, 2015, 06:07:10 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
It's soul crushing how many tens of thousands of English girls were abused and their rapists protected because labour wanted to look good and multicultimeluver. 12 year old girls raped by 60 men, schools having girls doped and abducted, girls passed around and sold for £600 nope, fuck that shit you weren't tolerant enough, you need more immigration to make this go away.
Anyways that's just the 4UK, I haven't even started on Sweden or Germany
But alas, I go now to bants with some m8s off in Jewish bit of London, been a while since I bantered there
Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 05, 2016, 09:25:24 pm
I mean, Fuhrer Merkel is caught up in the outrage if it is just outrage.
I don't know, this sort of shit happening continuously in Europe is making me wonder if this isn't a politically-induced blind spot. I'll be joining LW at his EDL meetings in no time.
QFT, funniest bit is I'm not even English, I just have an aversion to letting my house burn down with the people I love still in it

As for Cologne I'll get to that tomorrow. First impression is loads of Germans got raped by legit Syrians and the police were mocked by both sides for ineptitude. I don't trust hearsay though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on January 09, 2016, 01:13:11 pm
Why does it feel like that's what several people are saying though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on January 09, 2016, 05:08:07 pm
The number of complaints filed with the Cologne police about new year's eve has now risen to 379, of which 40%  are women reporting being sexually assaulted.
According to the police "the majority of all perpetrators are refugees and illegal immigrants"

The German police has added more people to the taskforce investigating the reports. There's now over 100 officers on the case.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on January 09, 2016, 05:32:29 pm
Lol, police use water cannons and so on against the people protesting the sexual assaults, but are nowhere to be found to actually protect their citizens from it in the first place.

Edit: Apparently there are also stories starting to pop up of similar assaults happening in Bielefeld.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 09, 2016, 06:03:00 pm
Quote from: Morrigi on January 09, 2016, 05:32:29 pm
Lol, police use water cannons and so on against the people protesting the sexual assaults, but are nowhere to be found to actually protect their citizens from it in the first place.
To claim that Pegida is just protesting sexual assaults is quite literally propaganda for a Nazi-like group. To claim that the police is nowhere to be found to protect the German populace is an outright lie, even when applied to New Year's in Cologne.

By the way, you still haven't given me a source for rape being socially acceptable in Syria. Obtuse allegations are more your thing, apparently. Don't worry though - most of you are like that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 09, 2016, 06:04:45 pm
I wonder, Helgo, you might know where to look for that. What's the "normal" rate of complaints for a NYE in Cologne?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 09, 2016, 06:16:14 pm
Iunno - maybe I'll look for it later. It'll be difficult though, what with this mess clogging the search engine.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 09, 2016, 06:58:57 pm
Quote from: Willfor on January 09, 2016, 12:40:45 pm
Quote from: Strife26 on January 09, 2016, 09:52:46 am
While I do agree that blaming things on them dirty foreigners isn't especially helpful, discounting differing values isn't a good thing. There's, without a damn doubt, places in the world where the social norms are absolutely horrifying in their regard for women and children. It's a matter of trying to bend those social norms into something acceptable, at least in our own neighborhoods, and without betraying our own values.
Yes. Americans abroad should be forced to assimilate into civilized societies that don't claim to own the bodies of their women and children. The long and brutal history of their homelives is a terrible thing, and the honor killings they've committed are unacceptable.

I have no idea what you're even trying to say here.

Quote from: Willfor on January 09, 2016, 01:13:11 pm
Why does it feel like that's what several people are saying though.

Probably because you have developed a reflex response to call people racist whenever you feel your ideals of multiculturalism is threatened.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on January 09, 2016, 07:09:08 pm
Quote from: scriver on January 09, 2016, 06:58:57 pm
Quote from: Willfor on January 09, 2016, 01:13:11 pm
Why does it feel like that's what several people are saying though.
Probably because you have developed a reflex response to call people racist whenever you feel your ideals of multiculturalism is threatened.
Pfffft.

Why are you posting on a forum about a game primarily designed to encourage multiculturalism? Honest question.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Putnam on January 09, 2016, 07:10:45 pm
...Wha? No, I wouldn't put that on DF's shoulders. Heck, the sheer amount of war and intolerance in the game suggests that it's pretty strictly historical about all that.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 09, 2016, 07:12:20 pm
Quote from: Willfor on January 09, 2016, 07:09:08 pm
Why are you posting on a forum about a game primarily designed to encourage multiculturalism? Honest question.
Say what now?  That doesn't make sense.
DF has nothing to do with multiculturalism or lack of.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on January 09, 2016, 07:17:53 pm
Quote from: Putnam on January 09, 2016, 07:10:45 pm
...Wha? No, I wouldn't put that on DF's shoulders. Heck, the sheer amount of war and intolerance in the game suggests that it's pretty strictly historical about all that.
War and intolerance exist, and will always exist. The goals of multiculturalism are to make the maximum number of people coexist despite conflicting agendas. In such, species coexist quite well in DF, and will continue to get even better at coexisting as reality is implemented. DF's entire purpose as a game is to slowly convert every elf hater to the multicultural agenda.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 09, 2016, 07:19:42 pm
That...
What.
Just, what.
Seriously.
That really does not make sense.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 07:21:08 pm
My fortress kills immigrants. I don't make it, they just do.

There's a looooot of racial tension in the game.

Also, what you've since said is nonsense. Maybe in a fortress under your control that works. Look at world gen for what it's like without you there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on January 09, 2016, 07:21:40 pm
Quote from: Willfor on January 09, 2016, 07:17:53 pm
DF's entire purpose as a game is to slowly convert every elf hater to the multicultural agenda.

U wut m8 u b trippin?

Quote from: martinuzz on January 08, 2016, 09:39:48 pm
Wut....
My fort's population is made up out of 81 dwarves, 27 goblins, 12 humans, and one elf.

And whaddya think?.......
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Willfor on January 09, 2016, 07:26:08 pm
I love replies like this because it means the long con is still working. Toady managed to introduce non-discriminated homosexuality into the game, and with a few exceptions everyone took it in stride. The gay agenda's already won, a harbinger for its victories in the US. Color of skin not being a problem has gone back years. Soon, the multiculturalist agenda will be fully revealed, and no one's going to say anything. No /pol/ infographics. No twitter harassment. Everyone on the forums slowly changes to the proper Elite Liberal ideal.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: inteuniso on January 09, 2016, 07:28:53 pm
Dwarf Fortress is really just a LCS propaganda instrument. GG WP archconservatives.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 09, 2016, 09:07:57 pm
It's understandable to have this talk about cultural conflict, but I also want to know what's supposed to be done about it.  It seems meant as a warning that the refugee crisis is a tidal wave of slavering barbarians who will destroy the western world.  Because there certainly hasn't been a single word said about how a cultural issue can be addressed in terms of the present situation, so the only other point that I can take from this is that refugees shouldn't be allowed.  Unless we're just flatly stating "Islamic culture is misogynist" because it feels good to say it and know that we're not like that?  I hope we're better than that.

So the ultimate question here is what do we do about it without people like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78e3c-EWpC4) ending up the primary victims?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 09, 2016, 09:32:57 pm
I'd suggest better border security, and increased ease of exportation.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 09, 2016, 10:38:37 pm
And what do you border control exactly? It's not like immigrants have to fill in a "would you sexually assault someone in public y/n?" form, or that such a form would help at all.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 10, 2016, 02:58:53 am
Your whole line of argument only hold if the only way to fight such crime was to drastically reduce the number of refugees. Also, I'm willing to bed ten euros you're not Spanish, Italian or Greek.  :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on January 10, 2016, 07:51:53 am
The German Minister of Justice, Heiko Maas, suspects the events in Cologne and other German cities were coordinated.
in his words "You cannot make me believe that the incidents in Cologne were not organized in advance"
http://vorab.bams.de/justizminister-heiko-maas-spd-geht-davon-aus-dass-die-silvester-angriffe-auf-frauen-organisiert-waren/

The Bild am Sonntag newspaper claims to have had access to confidential police information, which show that the perpetrators have called upon people to come to Cologne, using social media.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 07:54:58 am
Quote from: Covenant on January 09, 2016, 10:50:20 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on January 09, 2016, 09:07:57 pm
Because there certainly hasn't been a single word said about how a cultural issue can be addressed in terms of the present situation, so the only other point that I can take from this is that refugees shouldn't be allowed.
I'd say that's because it isn't our issue to address.
Oh, really? And here I thought you cared about the rape victims. Turns out you don't are at all, as you seem unwilling to do anything about it.
Put another way: If you care about something, it is very definitely you who should do something about it.

Quote
But I do have the right to say 'If you're going to be acting like this, then I don't want you here'. That seems quite reasonable to me.
Unfortunately you have two options here (if you insist on the whole "culture" thing not being your issue to address):
1. You get weapons and start slaughtering immigrants.
2. You accept them as they are and try to live with the ones that come in.
Saying that we are "taking them in" paints a false picture of us actively doing something to get them into our countries and while a bit of that may happen it is quite strange to assume that they'd stop coming if we just stopped doing anything. You'd need to keep them out, as in "actively".

Quote
not letting in just anyone who rocks up at the front door.
These are countries, not houses. We don't have walls nor doors. The don't need to come up and knock.

Quote
Taking in more women and children, as opposed to the nearly 80% of adult men that it's been so far.
One theory I heard in regards to that: A family is more likely to send a man before them all traveling because the man has a higher chance of actually making the journey. If he makes it, the rest can follow more easily.

Quote
A big one - taking in much, much smaller numbers. If you pick up one person and plonk them down in the middle of a larger group, they'll assimilate into the group. If you pick up a million people at once, they don't need to assimilate, and so they won't.
Not holing refugees up in their own secluded specialized living arrangements might help with that, too. Maybe even without cutting down on how many are coming in.

Quote
Actually enforcing the old rules; that refugees have to settle in the first country they come to, they can't choose to go to wherever because it has a nicer welfare system.
Which means even more problems in the countries which are already worse off, like Greece.

Quote
Not admitting anyone who has been convicted of any crime.
Think about what might be counted as crime elsewhere, how well their judicial system works and that stuff and then think about the implications on öetting people in based on that.
To me it seems like the perfect way to not take in any political refugees in anymore.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on January 10, 2016, 08:00:27 am
Quote from: Covenant on January 09, 2016, 10:50:20 pm
that refugees have to settle in the first country they come to, they can't choose to go to wherever because it has a nicer welfare system.

I assume you are very strong on the anti EU camp and hope the EU collapses as soon as possible? And I assume you are perfectly okay with sending another few dozen billions to save the Greek economy? You surely won't mind if that means our own governments will use that as an excuse for budget cuts that destroy even more of our social securities and tear down our once very good education systems even further?


Quote from: Covenant on January 09, 2016, 10:50:20 pm
Not admitting anyone who has been convicted of any crime.
Great idea, let's stop taking in gays and human rights activists, that will surely make our women safer. As a side benefit, we'll not have any North Koreans either. Fleeing the country is a crime there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 10:49:45 am
Quote from: Covenant on January 10, 2016, 10:02:08 am
Strawman argument - you are disingenuously misrepresenting what I said. The problem of mass sexual assaults in places like Cologne, etc? That's something we need to act upon, and I proposed a whole bunch of things we could do. The problem (if there is one) that many Islamic cultures have with attitudes toward women? That is for them to fix. As an alternate example - many Europeans think that America's love affair with guns is crazy. But wagging your fingers at them and saying 'You guys really should listen to us and stop it with the gun stuff' - does that work? Will they listen?

If a culture's attitudes are to change, it needs to come from within.
Oh, it's hard, that's for sure. But given that we cannot keep immigrants out without excessive and questionable means it will continue to be our problem until we do something about that culture.
Also these people are already here. It's not like they might become our problem sometime in the future, they're our problem now, with all the culture and everything else they brought with them.

Quote
What the hell are you talking about, 'slaughtering immigrants'? I think there's some middle-ground between 'Get weapons and slaughter immigrants' and 'Continue as we have, changing absolutely nothing', right? To even bring up 'slaughtering immigrants' is at best an extremely dishonest shock tactic, and a horrible thing to say.
I think the art of hyperbole is lost on you.
Immigrants are running away from really bad stuff. I don't think anything less than stuff human rights forbid us from doing would deter many of them. I think many people in our country underestimate the severity of what makes people become economic refugees.

Quote
That is the whole point of border controls. That's why we have things called passports, right? Why we can't just get on a plane and fly wherever and they say 'Hey stranger, how's it going? Come on in, no need for a name or documents'. I advocate using border controls to keep out illegal immigrants, the same way the vast majority of countries in the world do. Are you saying that's unreasonable?
First: Most illegal immigrants we have hardly come via plane, do they? As far as I got to know there's three major modes of transportation: per foot, via boat or on trains. You have a point with that last one, but they'Re mainly using that as soon as they're already inside the EU, right?

Quote
And of course we're actively doing something to get them in! We give them free housing, a weekly allowance, free medical care, paid for by taxpayers.
You assume that they wouldn't come if we didn't give that to them?
Okay, there would be less of them, for sure, but I guess taking it away would cause more problems in the long run.

Quote
Are you saying that there's no kindness and charity in that, that the immigrants are just entitled to it?
No, they're not entitled to it, but our culture depends on people having access to these things. Well, at lest the part of our culture I want to preserve. So I am in favor of giving it to them, because it is necessary (and certainly not sufficient) to do so if we ever want them to grasp what our culture is about.

Quote
I'd say the art of metaphor is lost on you, but I don't doubt that it's intentional. And we do have walls. They're called borders.
I got the metaphor. That's just it: It's a metaphor and it certainly is not "art" in this instance.
Walls offer a physical reason for nobody to pass through. Borders don't. You can even cross a border without knowing it. The same would be pretty damn unlikely with a wall.
My point is that the idea of having borders does nothing to anyone who chooses to ignore them for whatever reason. Borders don't only consist of checkpoints, you know?

Quote
I admire how you manage to make taxpayer-funded accommodations that these refugees are receiving for free (and are regulated to be clean, comfortable and secure - something that you can't say about the homes of many poorer citizens, who have to take what they can get) sound like a prison cell. It's truly impressive.
Where did I say they weren't allowed to leave these houses? Where did I make them sound like a prison cell?
What I am saying is that location matters. If you're living in a huge house that's just full of other immigrants you're much less likely to get in contact with anyone who's been living in Germany for a long time. Given with how much disdain they are often exposed to in the streets it is hardly a surprise when hey have additional incentive to stay inside. That's why I used the phrase "holing up".
Disperse them more and you get more integration. It's not really hard to understand but it's a bit more expensive in the short run. I guess that's why people are against it, not because it wouldn't work.

Quote
Or perhaps it would save some lives. Remember the famous picture of the dead child on the beach, that sparked so much attention in the summer and drew the world's attention to the refugee crisis? He and his family were coming from Turkey, trying to reach Canada (despite the fact that their asylum application had been rejected).
So, you take an example where someone wasn't deterred by the kind of policies you are proposing and try to use that to convince me these policies would help to deter people from coming and thus "save their lives"? Maybe you should try and use another one.

Quote
Now, Turkey may not be as nice a place to live as Canada, Germany, or Sweden, but it's not a war-zone.
Erdogan is obviously preparing for a ethnic purge or even already busy with it, depending on who you ask. That doesn't qualify as "safe" for me.
Also, you yourself said that the perils of the journey ahead and the fact that they hadn't even been accepted didn't deter them, yet you propose these as the solutions to the migrant crisis.

Quote
Convicted of rape, murder, assault, theft, etc?
No one ever was convicted of these things for political reasons.


In conclusion: Yes, there will be problems, there already are problems, this will not be easy and generally we'll be worse off than before.
We had it coming for a long time. We have been living above the sustainable standard for decades now and other countries had to bear the burden of that. Now we get to see a glimpse of it and act as if we could go on like before, if only we built huge walls around us. That's ridiculous – this way you'll delay the problem until it comes back even worse.
We need to take in the people who come, we need to deal with them according to our values and culture and we'll need to adapt to what we cannot deal with according to our values and culture. If we actually manage to turn back people to the places they came from we'll just manage to make the situation there worse – much worse than it is now and certainly the resulting problems will be worse in the long run than the problems we get from taking them in. And yes, these problems will just fall back on us again in a few years.
We live in a globalized world. Forget "turning people away". Their problems will reach you one way or another.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 10, 2016, 11:13:47 am
Y'know, I think to me it all boils down to the following: If Europe can only be defended by drowning people in the Mediterranean or fencing them in inside war zones, then Europe simply is no longer worth defending. That having been said, I'm confident that we can indeed find ways to defend Europe while still granting refuge to all those who need it. We need to get it into our collective head first that taking in asylum seekers is at the very heart of what we wish to defend, though.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on January 10, 2016, 11:18:11 am
Quote from: Covenant on January 10, 2016, 10:02:08 am
But if records are spotty, and we don't know what specifically someone was convicted of, only that it was two unknown crimes? I'd want my government to play it safe, and say 'Sorry, but no'. I know that self-abnegation is in vogue right now, but I won't be ashamed of prioritising my own nation over another.
That would work in a nice idealistic World Government, or United Federation of Planets, but sadly, spotty records and unknown crimes are exactly the problem.
Often, countries where refugees come from, will label the homosexuals and political dissidents as 'convicted of rape and murder', and will not share criminal records of real rapists and murderers, because, goodbye and good riddance.

Quote from: Covenant on January 10, 2016, 10:02:08 am
I think the EU, much like world-government or the United Federation of Planets or anything similar, is a very nice and idealistic idea that we are in no way ready for. We have a lot in common, but for all that we do, we also have a lot that is different. Ignoring that and trying a 'one-size-fits-all' rule from Brussels is foolish. Particularly with its mandate for 'ever-closer union'. It's in the very charter of the thing to be inexorably pushing toward an EU superstate. And yeah... one day, perhaps. But we're nowhere near ready for that yet.
Don't get me wrong, I share your view there, and am still pissed at my NO! vote about the EU constitution being sleezily circumvented by the treaty of Lisbon.
I just don't think that forcing the Mediterranean countries to keep more refugees is a viable solution.
While I am all in favour of disbanding the EU and work towards voluontuary, friendly cooperation respecting each other's democratic integrity, I cannot see how forcing the poor southern countries far beyond their humanitarian capabilities is going to help in achieving that.

IMO, more should be done to stop people from crossing the Mediterrenean in the first place.
I'd say, let the UN, or for all I care, the NATO construct large refugee bases in Turkey, or Jordan (the Jordans are way overstretched in their humanitarian capabilities already, but they have consistently been very hospitable and willing, and we *could* supply the means to support them, with combined effort.)

I mean, while our police is being spread thin in Europe now by the immigrant crisis, we still have a lot of military troops who spend most of their time doing the same excerises over and over again, and who wouldn't mind doing something useful for a change, while at the same time helping people in need, and seeing some more of the world.
We could definitly spare food and medicine for a few million people as long as the crisis doesn't last for decades. We just need the will to actually donate and distribute it. The costs involved would probably not even be too much higher than the costs of sheltering and feeding refugees here.
It'd be a much less alien environment for the refugees to be sheltered in than standing in the cold rain at the Hungarian border.

Once those are up and running, make applying for asylum only possible from these camps. Send people who cross the Mediterrenean back across the Mediterrenean, to those refugee camps, this time using decent and safe boats. I hear there's a large Russian cruiser in the area, perhaps that can be refitted into a large cruise ship for refugees.

Then, select at the gate. Be kind to people who suffered war or opression, send back economic migrants from safe countries back to where they came from, as soon as possible.

Use medical technology on applicants to determine real age (teeth don't lie), and family relation (just a quick saliva swab, no one gets hurt, relational DNA testing is cheap enough nowadays).
Better do it right away at intake, then let them wither in a refugee detention center in the Netherlands in an decade-spanning Kafkaesque asylum procedure where they'll be dental and DNA checked at some point along the process anyways. There's too many sad cases of people wasting away 10 years of their life in asylum procedure, not being allowed to work, only to be sent back to their country of origin because they lied about their age or family bonds 10 years ago.
Better pick those out right away, and spare them losing 10 years of their life for nothing.

And for all I care, apply the rule that was once regarded as being a gentleman thing to do, but for which I will probably be called a sexist now, 'women and children first'. And if there's a daddy travelling with them he can come too because it's mean to separate a kid from a parent.

But. Perhaps most importantly, instead of focussing on how to stop refugees, we should focus on how to reduce economic migrants. There's too many people coming here from countries where they did have a livelihood, be it a humble one, believing that they'll become rich here, only to find out that they're getting a life down the gutter, or the Calais woods, and that poverty exists in their Promised Land too. We can't stop those from coming without educating and properly informing them in their countries of origin.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 11:20:11 am
Also, the bit about 'those other cultures need to deal with it on their own' kinda makes me nervous. Just because someone lives in a different culture and holds different values doesn't mean they don't have value. And when people are being abused and oppressed, well...'white man's burden' is bullshit, but 'rich people's duty' is not. When you're better off, whether as a person, a country, or a company, I think it's your duty to help people who are worse off than you, when you can afford it. And there's plenty of times when it can be afforded.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 10, 2016, 11:24:06 am
Yeah, when reading your post Covenant, I cannot help but shake the feeling that you first decided you wanted to get rid of migrants, and then proceeded to find a reason to justify your opinion. Europe can deal with a bunch of lout youth. Catch them, revoke their refugees status, deport them (and keep biometric data so they don't come back under another name after "loosing" their passport).

Saying that the only way for a continent of 500m to tackle a few hundred or thousands gropers is to drastically reduce the flow of all refugees show a lack of faith in our own capacities that border on the ridiculous. Taking care of those refugees is something that will require some effort, and maybe the part about dealing with the assholes that exist in any population in various numbers is something our governments didn't spend enough time thinking about. But we're going to get there, and we'll do it. Wir schaffen es.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 10, 2016, 11:32:00 am
That you got anything like "going ful Madagascar" from his posts just bares that you aren't reading his posts but have instead predemt what his standpoint are and are arguing against your own strawman.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 10, 2016, 11:45:13 am
Gosh, a man really cannot make use of hyperbole in this thread.  :P

Well, feel free to replace it by "dramatically reducing the flow of migrants".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 10, 2016, 11:51:38 am
There's using hyperbole, and then there's engaging in hyperbole that seeks to mischaracterise the argument in a way that paints anyone who is critical of Europe's current immigration policies as super racist.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 10, 2016, 11:54:56 am
It wasn't my intention, I was just getting a bit emotional when writing that. To avoid confusion, I edited it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on January 10, 2016, 12:05:16 pm
Quote from: Covenant on January 09, 2016, 10:50:20 pm
In practical terms of improving matters, there are too many things to be done to be listed here in anything like a complete manner, and most of them are very obvious.
Obvious solutions are obvious to everyone, but not necessarily practical to anyone.

Quote from: Covenant on January 09, 2016, 10:50:20 pm
Things like prioritising certain groups (like the persecuted Yazidis, who are being pushed to extinction). Only taking refugees from the actual refugee camps in Syria and neighbouring countries, not letting in just anyone who rocks up at the front door. Taking in more women and children, as opposed to the nearly 80% of adult men that it's been so far (http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/download.php?id=168). A big one - taking in much, much smaller numbers. If you pick up one person and plonk them down in the middle of a larger group, they'll assimilate into the group. If you pick up a million people at once, they don't need to assimilate, and so they won't.
Yeah, these are bloody brilliant ideas in theory, but why aren't the EU countries implementing them right now? After all, the hyper-progressive wonderland of Canadia (http://www.politico.eu/article/europes-man-problem/) is gleefully "doin' it" without being called raycis or sexxis, so why can't we? Let's take maple leaf out of their book then, shall we?

Here's a bit from their humanitarian resettlement policy: (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/outside/index.asp)
Quote
To come to Canada as a refugee, you must be:

   - referred by the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) or another designated referral organization, or
   - be sponsored by a private sponsorship group.

You cannot apply directly for resettlement to Canada at any embassy or a visa office.

And here's an important tidbit from another page: (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/outside/gar/referred-after.asp)
Quote
No one can guarantee that you will get a visa to come to Canada.

In other words, there are practically two ways to get from the Middle East to Canada as an asylum seeker: (1) by applying directly from the refugee camps (via UNHCR or some other humanitarian organization), or (2) by swimming across the Atlantic. On our continent, however, the refugees only have to walk to the nearest EU border to claim asylum, or pay a few thousand € to some shady fucker to smuggle them to their preferred EU country like a parcel of contraband. Geographical distance just might have something to do with the fact that Canada has accepted a total of 13,735 refugees (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/welcome/index.asp) so far, whereas the EU is swamped with a "gorillion billion, most of whom aren't even Syrian."

The funny thing is that pretty much everyone (myself included) agrees that it would be reasonable to prefer women and families over unmarried men in the asylum procedure, but because of the UN Refugee Convention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees) and the principle of non-refoulement, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement) that kind of discrimination has to be carried out pre-emptively before the people have arrived at our doorstep. Canada and EU have both ratified the same treaties, but only the latter has to bear the brunt of a refugee crisis in actuality. Unless the EU decides to turn the UN treaties into toilet paper, our governments are legally obligated to process all applications regardless of the applicant's age or gender. And if all the eligible applicants showing up at our borders happen to be male... welp, geography is just unfair.

Quote from: Covenant on January 09, 2016, 10:50:20 pm
What else? Stronger border controls. Actually enforcing the old rules; that refugees have to settle in the first country they come to, they can't choose to go to wherever because it has a nicer welfare system. Being somewhat realistic about people's age, rather than taking in men clearly in their 30's and classifying them as 'unaccompanied child' simply because they've been told to say they're 14. Not admitting anyone who has been convicted of any crime. Not admitting anyone who has no paperwork whatsoever without a very good, exceptional reason as to why they have no paperwork.
These are also great ideas, but did you know that the authorities are already trying to do exactly what you propose? Enforcing Dublin III (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation) has never worked very well in practice, and my guess is that it won't work until every individual entering the EU (legally or illegally) can be kept under constant digital/biometric surveillance for the duration of their stay. Which would be never. Right now the problem is that Dublin III is often enforced selectively and/or indiscriminately, and the member countries end up playing ping-pong with the refugees just like in the good old days before Dublin regulations.

You're right about the current system being sloppy and broken all across the board, but how should we go about fixing it? Cross-examination is the only practical method available to the authorities at the moment, but it's a hugely time-consuming and ineffective way to sort out an unexpected crowd of a million paperless strangers from god knows where. With the present constraints on time and human resources, the interviewers have had serious trouble verifying even the basic facts about their interviewees, never mind doing detailed background checks on every inconspicuous bloke with a highly plausible story. Hiring more interviewers and raising the budgets of police and intelligence departments certainly wouldn't hurt, but weren't we going to do that anyway?

(Also, passports and similar documents are not reliable signs of a bona fide refugee, because such things are often: (a) forged, (b) stolen, (c) sent in the mail to prevent them from being stolen, (d) stolen from the mail, and (e) all of the above plus a few laps 'round the globe in some druglord's pocket. What's more, denying someone asylum for not having the appropriate documents sounds kinda skeevy from the perspective of non-refoulement... I don't know. :/)

What comes to "closing the borders," well, we're getting there, for what it's worth. Schengen is on its last leg, and Sweden has already introduced "carrier's responsibility" for trains and buses on the Öresund bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis#European_Union), which, incidentally, put a stop to the influx of migrants into Finland via Sweden. But now that our western border is "closed," so to speak, the asylum seekers are starting to worm their way into Finland over the eastern border, via Russia. (http://yle.fi/uutiset/asylum_seekers_in_the_north_claim_threats_and_swindles_by_smugglers/8581806) Which is hardly surprising. Because, you know, smugglers and refugees and terrist infiltrators don't particularly care whether an arbitrary state border is "open" or "closed" – they'll find a way.

EDIT:
Quote from: Antsan
Also these people are already here. It's not like they might become our problem sometime in the future, they're our problem now, with all the culture and everything else they brought with them.
Yeah. No point obsessing over imaginary borders at this point, because "the horses have bolted," as Grandpa Whispers used to say.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: scriver on January 10, 2016, 12:42:39 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 10, 2016, 11:54:56 am
It wasn't my intention, I was just getting a bit emotional when writing that. To avoid confusion, I edited it.

Goddammit Sheb. Sometimes you're just more reasonable than the internet deserves :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 12:57:31 pm
I do not know if I would consider 'liberal' and 'progressive' the same thing. Progressives are more like post-modern idealism applied legal and socially to coerce society in a specific direction, while liberalism is more modernist secular humanism about personal freedom and liberty in relation to law and the state.

imho there are more differences between progressives and liberals than progressive/liberal and conservative.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on January 10, 2016, 01:04:15 pm
Especially in Europe, where 'liberal' has a different meaning than in the US. Best example is that what the US calls 'neo-conservative', the EU calls 'neo-liberal'
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 01:08:07 pm
Quote from: martinuzz on January 10, 2016, 01:04:15 pm
Especially in Europe, where 'liberal' has a different meaning then in the US. Best example is that what the US calls 'neo-conservative', the EU calls 'neo-liberal'

And in Canada, where I hail. However - I think it is very relevant in the States as well, as several Progressive movements and organizations have developed that appear to have very little sympathy with liberalism.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 10, 2016, 01:41:49 pm
Quote from: Covenant on January 10, 2016, 12:52:04 pm

I've explained my feelings and the reasons behind them in detail, and if you have a sneaky suspicion that I might actually just be a big ol' racist then I suspect there's little I can do to change your mind on the matter one way or the other.

Also, 'Europe can deal with a bunch of lout youth'. I wonder if you'd be saying that if it were your sister, or daughter, or even yourself who was one of the women raped on NYE. If it were me or mine, I'd probably say that helping the refugees wasn't worth such a price.

As it is, what I am saying is that the current balance isn't right. And that the increased security we would get from tighter controls and reduced numbers is, to me, worth the sadness of a higher number of genuine refugees not getting the help they need.

I'm not in your head, so I of course can't judge your motives, but that was the impression you post gave me. I guess your clarification does dispel some of that, although I still thing you're a terrible person, just of the selfish rather than racist kind. :p

More to the point, Germany suffers from something like 30 rapes a day (With the errata that data on rape are notably fuzzy because of widespread underreporting). When I see a group such as Pegida that only start to give a shit the moment they can blame an Arab for it, and offer "solutions" that "regretfully" force them to close the borders to refugees and only address the small subset of sexual assault caused by refugees and other migrant, I have a really hard time believing they are sincerely interested in women's welfare.

Of course, I don't know you and I haven't talked to you before on these threads, so it's wrong of me to assume you show the same kind of hypocrisy. Let's just say that I had a rough day, I'll apologize and leave it at that.

Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 01:57:53 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 10, 2016, 01:41:49 pm
Quote from: Covenant on January 10, 2016, 12:52:04 pm

I've explained my feelings and the reasons behind them in detail, and if you have a sneaky suspicion that I might actually just be a big ol' racist then I suspect there's little I can do to change your mind on the matter one way or the other.

Also, 'Europe can deal with a bunch of lout youth'. I wonder if you'd be saying that if it were your sister, or daughter, or even yourself who was one of the women raped on NYE. If it were me or mine, I'd probably say that helping the refugees wasn't worth such a price.

As it is, what I am saying is that the current balance isn't right. And that the increased security we would get from tighter controls and reduced numbers is, to me, worth the sadness of a higher number of genuine refugees not getting the help they need.

I'm not in your head, so I of course can't judge your motives, but that was the impression you post gave me. I guess your clarification does dispel some of that, although I still thing you're a terrible person, just of the selfish rather than racist kind. :p

More to the point, Germany suffers from something like 30 rapes a day (With the errata that data on rape are notably fuzzy because of widespread underreporting). When I see a group such as Pegida that only start to give a shit the moment they can blame an Arab for it, and offer "solutions" that "regretfully" force them to close the borders to refugees and only address the small subset of sexual assault caused by refugees and other migrant, I have a really hard time believing they are sincerely interested in women's welfare.

Of course, I don't know you and I haven't talked to you before on these threads, so it's wrong of me to assume you show the same kind of hypocrisy. Let's just say that I had a rough day, I'll apologize and leave it at that.

Are you an Islamist? Because you are using Islamist theories when you treat religion as a race or an unalterable destiny.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 01:58:26 pm
duplicate
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 10, 2016, 02:09:34 pm
Sheb... did not mention religion at all in the post you quoted.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 02:21:08 pm
Quote from: Frumple on January 10, 2016, 02:09:34 pm
Sheb... did not mention religion at all in the post you quoted.

He called an anti-religious group racist because of the religion they protest against. This is in line with the progressive vs liberal thing I was getting at earlier.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 02:24:37 pm
The term "racist" may technically be about race, but it is used interchangeably with "xenophobia" now. That may not be correct, but acting as if this kind of misuse of the word was indicative of the speakers ideals is questionable at best.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 02:26:45 pm
Quote from: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 02:24:37 pm
The term "racist" may technically be about race, but it is used interchangeably with "xenophobia" now. That may not be correct, but acting as if this kind of misuse of the word was indicative of the speakers ideals is questionable at best.

Yes, and this is exactly in line with Islamist and theocratic theory, thus my question. It is brutally destructive to the left I hold dear to keep doing it so I risk being called far-right all the time by calling it as it is.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on January 10, 2016, 02:30:00 pm
Quote from: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 02:24:37 pm
The term "racist" may technically be about race, but it is used interchangeably with "xenophobia" now. That may not be correct, but acting as if this kind of misuse of the word was indicative of the speakers ideals is questionable at best.
That's terrible and should be called out...  It should be safe to call it out.
There's such a massive difference between racism and disapproving of regressive elements in a culture.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Arx on January 10, 2016, 02:34:51 pm
Wait, are you calling xenophobia 'disapproving of regressive elements in a culture'?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 02:48:42 pm
Quote from: k33n on January 10, 2016, 02:26:45 pm
Quote from: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 02:24:37 pm
The term "racist" may technically be about race, but it is used interchangeably with "xenophobia" now. That may not be correct, but acting as if this kind of misuse of the word was indicative of the speakers ideals is questionable at best.
Yes, and this is exactly in line with Islamist and theocratic theory, thus my question. It is brutally destructive to the left I hold dear to keep doing it so I risk being called far-right all the time by calling it as it is.
Uhm… What?

Your argument is basically: Sheb used the word "racist" wrong, thus what he said could be interpreted as something an Islamist could say and thus he's an Islamist?
Or what is it? Do you seriously believe that Sheb thinks religion is linked to what people wrongly call "race"? No, you don't. You're just nitpicking, and you're doing it wrong.

I don't know whether you count into this demographic, but my memory of your activity here strongly suggests so: This is exactly the kind of behavior that often is loudly complained about by people who are raving about evil SJWs and feminists who are seeking to dominate all men. Twisting around words only because they're used wrong. It's despicable behavior, no matter who does it.
If this was a simple misunderstanding due to the wrongly used language, fine, but the assumption that Sheb would be Islamist is just ridiculous.

Quote from: Rolan7 on January 10, 2016, 02:30:00 pm
Quote from: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 02:24:37 pm
The term "racist" may technically be about race, but it is used interchangeably with "xenophobia" now. That may not be correct, but acting as if this kind of misuse of the word was indicative of the speakers ideals is questionable at best.
That's terrible and should be called out...  It should be safe to call it out.
There's such a massive difference between racism and disapproving of regressive elements in a culture.
Yeah, misuse of words should be called out, that's right, but that's not what k33n did.
But there's someone else who did:
Quote from: Arx on January 10, 2016, 02:34:51 pm
Wait, are you calling xenophobia 'disapproving of regressive elements in a culture'?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 02:56:03 pm
Quote from: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 02:48:42 pm

Your argument is basically: Sheb used the word "racist" wrong, thus what he said could be interpreted as something an Islamist could say and thus he's an Islamist?
Or what is it? Do you seriously believe that Sheb thinks religion is linked to what people wrongly call "race"? No, you don't. You're just nitpicking, and you're doing it wrong.


It actually is not nitpicking when it is the heart and soul of his entire argument. Criticism of fascist ideas has become "racist". Racist is an extremely powerful word, very loaded with connotations. I did not call him an Islamist, I asked if he was one, because his language is as such that needs clarification. Because he should realize that viewing religion as a race is an extreme far-right stance and is a critical part of Islamist theory. By do so he is literally playing into the hands of theocracy.

I don't feel particularly obligated to explain this to you, as you have already - as predicted - degenerated into calling me an anti-femenist far-righter.

Have a good day.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 10, 2016, 03:02:52 pm
No, I'm a catholic atheist.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 03:03:42 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 10, 2016, 03:02:52 pm
No, I'm a catholic atheist.

Then why do you view anti-religious protests as racist?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 03:05:09 pm
Quote from: k33n on January 10, 2016, 02:56:03 pm
Quote from: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 02:48:42 pm

Your argument is basically: Sheb used the word "racist" wrong, thus what he said could be interpreted as something an Islamist could say and thus he's an Islamist?
Or what is it? Do you seriously believe that Sheb thinks religion is linked to what people wrongly call "race"? No, you don't. You're just nitpicking, and you're doing it wrong.


It actually is not nitpicking when it is the heart and soul of his entire argument. Criticism of fascist ideas has become "racist". Racist is an extremely powerful word, very loaded with connotations. I did not call him an Islamist, I asked if he was one, because his language is as such that needs clarification. Because he should realize that viewing religion as a race is an extreme far-right stance and is a critical part of Islamist theory. By do so he is literally playing into the hands of theocracy.
Where did Sheb call criticism of fascist ideas racist? What the heck?

Quote
I don't feel particularly obligated to explain this to you, as you have already - as predicted - degenerated into calling me an anti-femenist far-righter.

Have a good day.
Well, I did so because you obviously seem to have a need to argue that Sheb is somehow Islamist just because… I don't even know. Because he opposes Pegida and calls them racist when they're more accurately generally xenophobic instead? Because he assumed Covenant might belong to the same subculture because he obviously saw him using the exact same arguments as they do to justify their xenophobia?
Seriously, why do you expect anyone not to assume you're far-right?

Quote from: k33n on January 10, 2016, 03:03:42 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 10, 2016, 03:02:52 pm
No, I'm a catholic atheist.

Then why do you view anti-religious protests as racist?
Dude! The fuck? Are you trolling?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 10, 2016, 03:07:29 pm
Quote from: k33n on January 10, 2016, 03:03:42 pm
Then why do you view anti-religious protests as racist?

I don't?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 03:09:19 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 10, 2016, 01:41:49 pm
When I see a group such as Pegida that only start to give a shit the moment they can blame an Arab for it,
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TD1 on January 10, 2016, 03:11:28 pm
He didn't call anti-religious protests racist. He said Pediga only starts to care when there's an Arab behind something. Seems based more on culture/country to me.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 03:12:40 pm
I'mma ask right now that people don't use Islamist.

Adding -ist unnecessarily to things to make them into positions, particularly positions that are implied by that suffix to be evil (AND WHEN THERE'S A PERFECTLY GOOD EXISTING WORD TO USE) is not appropriate debate tactics.

I suppose I should ask this of everyone here; what would you have to see to change your mind? Everyone here, mind you. If the answer is "nothing could possibly do that" or "well I already know the facts so that question's pointless", I recommend you take a second look at your position.

Also, as far as I know, he doesn't view religion as a race, he views it as heavily correlated with race. In this case, that's very true. And thus, anti-Islam protests can easily degenerate into, turn out to be, or be intensified by anti-Middle Easterner sentiment.

Furthermore, beliefs can change, but you typically don't control what you believe. What you profess to believe, how you act, yeah, you choose all those. "Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants." Religion has to be changed, which usually takes both external and internal influence, from what (little) I know.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 03:13:28 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 on January 10, 2016, 03:11:28 pm
He didn't call anti-religious protests racist. He said Pediga only starts to care when there's an Arab behind something. Seems based more on culture/country to me.

If that isn't an accusation of racism towards those reacting against religious violence I do not know what is.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 10, 2016, 03:15:33 pm
I don't believe that Pegida is "reacting against religious violence". The NYE's Gropefest wasn't religiously motivated.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 03:18:52 pm
Quote from: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 03:12:40 pm
I'mma ask right now that people don't use Islamist.

Adding -ist unnecessarily to things to make them into positions, particularly positions that are implied by that suffix to be evil (AND WHEN THERE'S A PERFECTLY GOOD EXISTING WORD TO USE) is not appropriate debate ta...

It is actually of dire importance to distinguish between Islamists and muslims.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 10, 2016, 03:21:04 pm
... yeah, if you had paid the least bit of attention to what pediga actually does, you'd know most of their stuff isn't particularly about reacting against religious violence, though that's at times part of it/used as an excuse. They're anti-islam, not anti-religion, with a very heavy (and getting heavier as time passes) dose of racism, xenophobia, and anti-immigration sentiment. Calling them an anti-religious protest group is whitewashing the hell out of what they're about.

Don't even have to be in/near germany to pick up that much, they're pretty blatant about it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 10, 2016, 03:26:14 pm
Well, even the fact that a group is anti-one religion rather than anti-all religion doesn't make it racist/xenophobic or whatever. Take the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (http://ex-muslim.org.uk/manifesto/) as an example of a decent such organization.

Actually, I don't really get why you seems to have such trouble understanding that one can be racist and xenophobic and anti-religion at the same time. Or use one of those to camouflage the other.

Take the French National Front. Officially, they're not even anti-Muslim, just anti-Islamist. But then you have the Mayor of Béziers deciding to ban kebabs from his city center.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 03:29:46 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 10, 2016, 03:15:33 pm
I don't believe that Pegida is "reacting against religious violence". The NYE's Gropefest wasn't religiously motivated.

Do you mean the specific targeting of hundreds of non-muslim women? Also:http://www.dw.com/en/german-justice-minister-cologne-attacks-planned-in-advance/a-18969653
This is coming from Germany's own Justice Minister, if that counts as an official source.

Quote from: Frumple on January 10, 2016, 03:21:04 pm
... yeah, if you had paid the least bit of attention to what pediga actually does, you'd know most of their stuff isn't particularly about reacting against religious violence, though that's at times part of it/used as an excuse. They're anti-islam, not anti-religion, with a very heavy (and getting heavier as time passes) dose of racism, xenophobia, and anti-immigration sentiment. Calling them an anti-religious protest group is whitewashing the hell out of what they're about.

Don't even have to be in/near germany to pick up that much, they're pretty blatant about it.

There is nothing racist or illiberal in noticing that some cultures or religions are worse then others. Considering the contemporary events and world politics it is not unethical or right-wing to protest against the source of the most extreme right-wing views on earth today. Also, don't fool yourself that there are not a ton of people - centrists and liberals included - using the only outlet available to them to protest against what they see as religious violence.

Quote from: Sheb on January 10, 2016, 03:26:14 pm
Well, even the fact that a group is anti-one religion rather than anti-all religion doesn't make it racist/xenophobic or whatever. Take the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (http://ex-muslim.org.uk/manifesto/) as an example of a decent such organization.

Actually, I don't really get why you seems to have such trouble understanding that one can be racist and xenophobic and anti-religion at the same time. Or use one of those to camouflage the other.

Take the French National Front. Officially, they're not even anti-Muslim, just anti-Islamist. But then you have the Mayor of Béziers deciding to ban kebabs from his city center.

I agree.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 03:31:01 pm
duplicate
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolan7 on January 10, 2016, 03:33:29 pm
Quote from: Arx on January 10, 2016, 02:34:51 pm
Wait, are you calling xenophobia 'disapproving of regressive elements in a culture'?
Well...  It's certainly closer to that than it is to "racism".  I guess it's inaccurate though since I'm not disapproving of all foreigners, or even most, just very worried about certain ones.  A xenophobe would fear or disapprove of foreigners in general, and/or because they're foreign.  Not just certain foreigners who think women are property.

I don't think that misuse is really on the same level as playing the race card in a discussion about culture, though.  Or trying to defend said misuse.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 03:35:51 pm
Quote from: k33n on January 10, 2016, 03:18:52 pm
Quote from: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 03:12:40 pm
I'mma ask right now that people don't use Islamist.

Adding -ist unnecessarily to things to make them into positions, particularly positions that are implied by that suffix to be evil (AND WHEN THERE'S A PERFECTLY GOOD EXISTING WORD TO USE) is not appropriate debate ta...

It is actually of dire importance to distinguish between Islamists and muslims.
No. It is of dire importance to distinguish between Extremists/Radicals, Fundamentalists, and Moderates. Using Islamist in that way allows you to tar both the person you're speaking to and the religion with the label by the connection.

Also, believing some cultures or religions are better than others (the corollary to what you said, k33n) is actually a distinctly right-wing sentiment. It's not necessarily wrong.

Additionally, I have to wonder how many refugee women are being taken advantage of, and just no one cares enough to look until it happens to others. This might not be the case, but unless 'ooh we'll show those filthy French, taking in refugees, by committing crimes against our faith' is the thought process you believe is going on, rather than them just horrible people anyway and it's not some mass conspiracy...I mean, it might be. But...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Sheb on January 10, 2016, 03:42:20 pm
Quote from: k33n on January 10, 2016, 03:29:46 pm
Do you mean the specific targeting of hundreds of non-muslim women? Also:http://www.dw.com/en/german-justice-minister-cologne-attacks-planned-in-advance/a-18969653
This is coming from Germany's own Justice Minister, if that counts as an official source.

Silly me, I missed the part where they were just following a fatwa and safely escorting all women wearing the hijab.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 03:44:54 pm
Quote from: k33n on January 10, 2016, 03:09:19 pm
Quote from: Sheb on January 10, 2016, 01:41:49 pm
When I see a group such as Pegida that only start to give a shit the moment they can blame an Arab for it,
You think Pegida is an anti-religious group?
Their leading figure posed as Hitler and publicly posted racist and generally xenophobic sentiments. Everyone who takes part in that movement and thinks they aren't supporting xenophobia is seriously deluded.
They're using the same tactics as the well-known far-right fascist idiots we had in Germany since ever, those insufferable people who use the phrase "I'm not a racist, but…"

They may actually genuinely care about what happened in Cologne, but they certainly use it for their own very definitely xenophobic agenda, and that is something that very well can be criticized.

Pegida isn't anti-Islam (and certainly not anti-religious in general), it's anti-immigration.

Quote from: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 03:12:40 pm
I'mma ask right now that people don't use Islamist.

Adding -ist unnecessarily to things to make them into positions, particularly positions that are implied by that suffix to be evil (AND WHEN THERE'S A PERFECTLY GOOD EXISTING WORD TO USE) is not appropriate debate tactics.
I use the word "Islamist" to denote fundamentalist/extremist Muslims. I use "Muslim" to denote Islamic people in general. I specifically do not want to use the word "Muslim" in a context where fundamentalism/extremism is implied, because that implication isn't true for Muslims in general, which is another reason why I suspect everyone who thinks we should fight Islam as a whole of xenophobia. History shows us that Islam is not inherently more or less violent than other religions.
I thought this use of the words "Muslim" and "Islamist" was ubiquitous.

Quote
I suppose I should ask this of everyone here; what would you have to see to change your mind? Everyone here, mind you. If the answer is "nothing could possibly do that" or "well I already know the facts so that question's pointless", I recommend you take a second look at your position.
I don't really know what I'd need to experience to change my mind about this topic. I know that talking about what's in the Qur'an won't convince me that Islam is the deciding factor in the problems we have with immigrants. I also won't be convinced by pointing out that their values are different from our own – I know that already.
Probably you'd need to show me something that is ubiquitous in their culture that, in it's core, violates something I thought was a value all humans had in common.

Quote
Furthermore, beliefs can change, but you typically don't control what you believe. What you profess to believe, how you act, yeah, you choose all those. "Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants." Religion has to be changed, which usually takes both external and internal influence, from what (little) I know.
I though the general principle that is exemplified in conservation of matter/energy somehow entered the intuition of most people. But no, humans are somehow exempt from the way the interact with the universe, because Free Will or something.

Quote from: k33n on January 10, 2016, 03:29:46 pm
Quote from: Frumple on January 10, 2016, 03:21:04 pm
... yeah, if you had paid the least bit of attention to what pediga actually does, you'd know most of their stuff isn't particularly about reacting against religious violence, though that's at times part of it/used as an excuse. They're anti-islam, not anti-religion, with a very heavy (and getting heavier as time passes) dose of racism, xenophobia, and anti-immigration sentiment. Calling them an anti-religious protest group is whitewashing the hell out of what they're about.

Don't even have to be in/near germany to pick up that much, they're pretty blatant about it.

There is nothing racist or illiberal in noticing that some cultures or religions are worse thean others. Considering the contemporary events and world politics it is not unethical or right-wing to protest against the source of the most extreme right-wing views on earth today. Also, don't fool yourself that there are not a ton of people - centrists and liberals included - using the only outlet available to them to protest against what they see as religious violence.
Yes, there are some and it's quite disconcerting, because they are inadvertently supporting actual neo-nazis. Pegida's driving motivations isn't so much concern as it is hate. If they were actually concerned, they'd maybe be damn scared about the rise of racism in Germany, but they aren't. They publicly display behavior know from WWII, such as burning books.
So they attract three kinds of people:
1. Nazis
2. People who don't care about whether Nazis get more power
3. People who don't understand history or social dynamics
I want to support none of them and there is plenty to criticize about each.

Quote from: Rolan7 on January 10, 2016, 03:33:29 pm
Quote from: Arx on January 10, 2016, 02:34:51 pm
Wait, are you calling xenophobia 'disapproving of regressive elements in a culture'?
Well...  It's certainly closer to that than it is to "racism".  I guess it's inaccurate though since I'm not disapproving of all foreigners, or even most, just very worried about certain ones.  A xenophobe would fear or disapprove of foreigners in general, and/or because they're foreign.  Not just certain foreigners who think women are property.

I don't think that misuse is really on the same level as playing the race card in a discussion about culture, though.  Or trying to defend said misuse.
I'm not defending that misuse, I am attacking the notion of intentionally interpreting what someone else said based on that misuse.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 10, 2016, 03:48:09 pm
"Islamist" is a well accepted term for "Muslim who supports the full integration of Islam with social and political structures".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 03:53:42 pm
Quote from: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 03:35:51 pm
Quote from: k33n on January 10, 2016, 03:18:52 pm
Quote from: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 03:12:40 pm
I'mma ask right now that people don't use Islamist.

Adding -ist unnecessarily to things to make them into positions, particularly positions that are implied by that suffix to be evil (AND WHEN THERE'S A PERFECTLY GOOD EXISTING WORD TO USE) is not appropriate debate ta...

It is actually of dire importance to distinguish between Islamists and muslims.

No. It is of dire importance to distinguish between Extremists/Radicals, Fundamentalists, and Moderates. Using Islamist in that way allows you to tar both the person you're speaking to and the religion with the label by the connection.


Wrong. What you have written are called adjectives. How dangerous is a fundamental humanist, or a radical Jain? An Islamist is someone who want to impose Sharia law on society, whether through force or democracy. You can be the most fundamental or radical (meaning... yes surprisingly the actual definition of the word radical, like muslim LGBT groups) muslim out there and still be for the law of the land. This is a fairly surreal conversation to have, but others have have clarified this enough. It may be useful for you to know that Islamist is a term used extensively in muslim majority countries.

Quote from: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 03:35:51 pm
Also, believing some cultures or religions are better than others (the corollary to what you said, k33n) is actually a distinctly right-wing sentiment. It's not necessarily wrong.

Wrong. Despite your wishes you will not be able to force most liberals out of the definition of the word.

Quote from: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 03:35:51 pm
Additionally, I have to wonder how many refugee women are being taken advantage of, and just no one cares enough to look until it happens to others. This might not be the case, but unless 'ooh we'll show those filthy French, taking in refugees, by committing crimes against our faith' is the thought process you believe is going on, rather than them just horrible people anyway and it's not some mass conspiracy...I mean, it might be. But...

Actually I cared about the refugee women getting raped constantly in the slums that Europe is erecting and abandoning. I was called a pig-dog right winger for that also.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 03:58:07 pm
Do you really care that much about the label?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 04:00:31 pm
Quote from: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 03:58:07 pm
Do you really care that much about the label?

How can a pro-gay, pro-refugee, pro-immigration, pro-women's rights, anti-rape culture, anti-drug war, socialist, Liberal voter like myself ever be considered right wing? I comment because you guys are burning our house down and giving power to the right with your rhetoric.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 04:10:01 pm
Quote
pro-refugee, pro-immigration,
Then how can you defend Pegida? It boggles the mind.

Quote
I comment because you guys are burning our house down and giving power to the right with your rhetoric.
Oh, we are? How exactly? What part of "our rhetoric" (as if there was such a thing, I'm pretty sure almost everyone here looks with at least a light squint at my posts) is so damaging to the liberal cause?
Has anyone here denied that doing something about what happened in Cologne is necessary? No.
Did anyone say that criticizing what some refugees do is wrong? No.
What is happening here is that you take valid criticism of stuff the right-wing is doing and applying it to everything they stand for instead of the thing actually criticized. I personally think that this is more effective in "burning down the house", because this is normally what right-wing nuts try to do to delegitimize leftist arguments.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 10, 2016, 04:15:01 pm
... well, it doesn't help that you've been speaking in more-or-less support of an anti-refugee, anti-immigrant, heavily racist, bordering-extremist right-wing political group, k. If you're actually wondering about the how.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 04:20:59 pm
Quote from: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 04:10:01 pm
Quote
pro-refugee, pro-immigration,
Then how can you defend Pegida? It boggles the mind.


I don't defend Pegida, I attack those who view the people who attend their protests as automatic Nazis, instead of people who realize that the European Islamism is a big deal and have literally no other options available to them.

Quote from: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 04:10:01 pm
Quote
I comment because you guys are burning our house down and giving power to the right with your rhetoric.
Oh, we are? How exactly? What part of "our rhetoric" (as if there was such a thing, I'm pretty sure almost everyone here looks with at least a light squint at my posts) is so damaging to the liberal cause?
Has anyone here denied that doing something about what happened in Cologne is necessary? No.
Did anyone say that criticizing what some refugees do is wrong? No.
What is happening here is that you take valid criticism of stuff the right-wing is doing and applying it to everything they stand for instead of the thing actually criticized. I personally think that this is more effective in "burning down the house", because this is normally what right-wing nuts try to do to delegitimize leftist arguments.

Mostly the cultural relativism and refusal to accept the scale of global Islamism and what it means in a situation where the sources of mass migration is also home to many millions of Islamists. The religious and cultural issues have been made so highly taboo by us that the only people willing to talk about it are the fascists. That is an emergency situation for a democracy.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: SirQuiamus on January 10, 2016, 04:35:23 pm
all this semantic bickering and concern trolling is uncalm and uncool

put a lid on it
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 04:37:19 pm
Quote from: k33n on January 10, 2016, 03:53:42 pm
Quote from: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 03:35:51 pm
Quote from: k33n on January 10, 2016, 03:18:52 pm
Quote from: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 03:12:40 pm
I'mma ask right now that people don't use Islamist.

Adding -ist unnecessarily to things to make them into positions, particularly positions that are implied by that suffix to be evil (AND WHEN THERE'S A PERFECTLY GOOD EXISTING WORD TO USE) is not appropriate debate ta...

It is actually of dire importance to distinguish between Islamists and muslims.

No. It is of dire importance to distinguish between Extremists/Radicals, Fundamentalists, and Moderates. Using Islamist in that way allows you to tar both the person you're speaking to and the religion with the label by the connection.


Wrong. What you have written are called adjectives. How dangerous is a fundamental humanist, or a radical Jain? An Islamist is someone who want to impose Sharia law on society, whether through force or democracy. You can be the most fundamental or radical (meaning... yes surprisingly the actual definition of the word radical, like muslim LGBT groups) muslim out there and still be for the law of the land. This is a fairly surreal conversation to have, but others have have clarified this enough. It may be useful for you to know that Islamist is a term used extensively in muslim majority countries.

Then why not call it Shariahist? Or, you know, fundamentalist, since that's usually what we use for people who want to impose a religious code as standing law are called, regardless of means. 'Liberal', 'Muslim', and the vast majority of other descriptors are also adjectives. I'm not sure what you used to decide the 'actual' definition of radical, but everything I've ever seen, and indeed a cursory google search for the definition, is political neutral. It's related to sweeping changes that alter the very undercurrents of a society. If a nation already has Shariah law, people wanting to get rid of it would be radicals.

Fundamentalism: a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.
secondary definition does include: strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline., which may have been what you were using when you were talking about humanism. But we aren't talking about humanism. In fact, I was talking about Islam.
Whether the term is used there or not is irrelevant. We don't use Christianist. (And since most Islamic nations don't have english as a primary language, I question whether the connotations are the same there). If you want to use Islamist for that specific definition, go ahead, fine. But don't let it seep into other meanings, if you're going to do that, like asking Sheb if he's an Islamist. That's bullshit and you know it.

Quote from: k33n on January 10, 2016, 03:53:42 pm
Quote from: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 03:35:51 pm
Also, believing some cultures or religions are better than others (the corollary to what you said, k33n) is actually a distinctly right-wing sentiment. It's not necessarily wrong.

Wrong. Despite your wishes you will not be able to force most liberals out of the definition of the word.
...you have a basis for that, or are you just gonna say 'Wrong' and leave it at that? Because I can do the same thing. Unless you mean 'culture of tolerance' versus 'culture of intolerance', but that's not really the definition I got. (also as far as I'm aware, liberal is not inherently opposite to right wing, but that might be because I'm American)

Quote from: k33n on January 10, 2016, 03:53:42 pm
Actually I cared about the refugee women getting raped constantly in the slums that Europe is erecting and abandoning. I was called a pig-dog right winger for that also.
Really? I mean, I searched the thread for it, and didn't see you bring it up at all. In fact, when Sheb brought up how Pegida only appeared to get interested once Arabs could be blamed, and thus he didn't think they were actually interested in women's rights, you only responded by asking if he was an Islamist. Didn't see anything about you being called a pig-dog right winger, either. Couldn't find anything about you being specifically called a right winger at all for that matter, though plenty of stuff saying your views appear to be similar to right-wing ones. Did you mean outside of the thread?
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 04:39:11 pm
I use the term Islamist because that is what the Muslims being killed by them call them. The people who see religion as race and pretend to be progressive just *really* need to wake up. Showing them that their wording is perfect Islamist propaganda really helps.

And I was talking not about my Bay12 account.

Quote from: SirQuiamus on January 10, 2016, 04:35:23 pm
all this semantic bickering and concern trolling is uncalm and uncool

put a lid on it

It really is not semantic bickering. These are intense and loaded words in a hurricane shit-storm global discourse. It is reeeeally important to get it right if the conversation is going to go anywhere rational and constructive.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 04:52:23 pm
Quote from: k33n on January 10, 2016, 04:20:59 pm
Quote from: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 04:10:01 pm
Quote
pro-refugee, pro-immigration,
Then how can you defend Pegida? It boggles the mind.


I don't defend Pegida, I attack those who view the people who attend their protests as automatic Nazis, instead of people who realize that the European Islamism is a big deal and have literally no other options available to them.
"Literally no other options"?
This is just bullshit. It's not like we've got a fixed set of political movements were you have to choose one.
No, these people choose to support Nazis, because they are too spineless or lazy to get their own movement rolling. I know this is hard, but no excuse for supporting xenophobia.

And that is exactly why political correctness matters: To actually be able to support the correct policies, not the ones associated with certain laden words. But no, that's too hard, and being loud about your opinion matters more than actually turning your opinion into constructive action. Rather give the appearance of supporting Nazis and then getting hung up about how you don't want to do that than having to deal with criticism all on your own.

Quote
Quote from: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 04:10:01 pm
Quote
I comment because you guys are burning our house down and giving power to the right with your rhetoric.
Oh, we are? How exactly? What part of "our rhetoric" (as if there was such a thing, I'm pretty sure almost everyone here looks with at least a light squint at my posts) is so damaging to the liberal cause?
Has anyone here denied that doing something about what happened in Cologne is necessary? No.
Did anyone say that criticizing what some refugees do is wrong? No.
What is happening here is that you take valid criticism of stuff the right-wing is doing and applying it to everything they stand for instead of the thing actually criticized. I personally think that this is more effective in "burning down the house", because this is normally what right-wing nuts try to do to delegitimize leftist arguments.

Mostly the cultural relativism and refusal to accept the scale of global Islamism and what it means in a situation where the sources of mass migration is also home to many millions of Islamists. The religious and cultural issues have been made so highly taboo by us that the only people willing to talk about it are the fascists. That is an emergency situation for a democracy.
Ah, and where did you see that in this thread?
It's not true that only fascists discuss these things. It's just that every sensible public discussion on the topic is soon infiltrated by people making outrageously xenophobic claims and when then someone goes on to argue against these it's made out to be an attack on discussing problems with immigration.
Multiple people here were talking about how important it is to properly deal with immigrant crime. There was disagreement on the topic but as far as I can tell nobody made a taboo of it and certainly there was nobody claiming that there weren't criminal immigrants or that we shouldn't do anything about them.
Before you butted in and accused Sheb of being Islamist for absurd reasons the whole discussion seemed more productive and certainly less confrontational.

And as I already said: Islam itself is not the problem. Islam has had it's phases when it was just as peaceful as our western culture is today (which still is far from perfect, of course, but that's kind of irrelevant to my point, right?). The problem isn't Islam but the lack of secularism, and Islam is as compatible or incompatible with the idea as any other religion.
Yes, there are cultural issues, but as the case is with culture, it's more complex than people supporting Pegida make them out to be.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 04:57:35 pm
Quote from: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 04:52:23 pm

Not many are actually being confrontational, you know. Although you clearly see it that way.
The issue *is* religion and culture, and a specific religion and culture, and this is neither racist or right-wing to observe. That it is implied is depressing and needed comment.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on January 10, 2016, 05:07:06 pm
It is a point of fact that the only groups mounting serious protests against mass immigration in Germany are AfD and PEGIDA, both of which have been accused of Nazi sympathies. It is also unreasonable to expect average people to organize their own protests instead of joining protests that have already been planned by a group that shares some of their concerns. Also, shouting "Nazi!" instead of actually addressing and refuting their arguments with facts simply isn't constructive, and one day it will stop working. Every time you all shout "Nazi!", that day gets a little closer.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 05:17:53 pm
@k33n:
I am aware that the issue is about culture and religion certainly plays into it and today it certainly is a specific culture and a specific religion (at least as long as you avert your eyes from parts of the world like Indonesia). But that is today, due to historical reasons, not due to the religion or culture it developed out of itself.

The problem I have is that talking about the religion and culture this prominently (and it is almost anything that Pegida&co talks about) implies a mono-causality that is disgustingly wrong and, well, likely to spread ill-informed xenophobia and preclude discussion about topics where doing something productive is way more likely to yield positive results.
I already repeated over and over how I think that the idea of keeping refugees away is untenable. This has nothing to do with a taboo, this is pragmatic, from my point of view. I may be factually wrong, but that still has nothing to do with forbidding a discussion about cultural problems.

Quote from: Morrigi on January 10, 2016, 05:07:06 pm
It is a point of fact that the only groups mounting serious protests against mass immigration in Germany are AfD and PEGIDA, both of which have been accused of Nazi sympathies. It is also unreasonable to expect average people to organize their own protests instead of joining protests that have already been planned by a group that shares some of their concerns. Also, shouting "Nazi!" instead of actually addressing and refuting their arguments with facts simply isn't constructive, and one day it will stop working. Every time you all shout "Nazi!", that day gets a little closer.
Yeah, I know, people are too spineless or lazy to say what they want instead of tuning in to a chorus where they like one stanza out of three. That still doesn't make it better or acceptable and certainly doesn't absolve the movement they are a part of from it's flaws.
Pegida is promoting xenophobia. Their main topic is the "Islamization" of Europe, which is the idea that Europe will turn Muslim due to immigrants, which is such a ridiculous idea that I can only see it being used by people with a functioning brain if they want to spread xenophobic sentiments.
Since Petry took over int he AfD it is absolutely certain that they're xenophobic.

Please note that I talk about the movements here. I will try to get people who aren't xenophobic away from Pegida, but I am certainly not going to dismiss their worries right away, rather I am prone to share my worries about Pegida and the rise of xenophobia in Germany.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 10, 2016, 05:27:35 pm
Quote from: k33n on January 10, 2016, 04:57:35 pm
The issue *is* religion and culture, and a specific religion and culture, and this is neither racist or right-wing to observe.
Nah, the racist and right-wing part of it is the complete or near complete lack of differentiation between the religions and cultures involved. The groups you've been talking about would be catching a lot less flak if they were actually holding issue against a specific religion or culture. But they're not, or at least seem to be doing just about everything in their power to act like they aren't.

And morg, you'll note that most folks (all of two them, though you have to dig back a 'lil to find helg's mention of it) that have been noting pegida's nazi relations have also been noting, y'know, the other problems involved with them. Also not so sure I'd agree with you on that average person bit -- most relatively sane folks I know wouldn't saddle up to one of the KKK-lite groups just because they were demonstrating for something they're in favor of. Maybe things are less polarized when it comes to stuff of that nature in the EU, I'unno.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Graknorke on January 10, 2016, 05:39:56 pm
Since when did protesting alongside a group mean that you're supporting them? Within the context of a particular issue, anyone who agrees with you is your ally. The alternative is that no groups would form at all, because there's no way you could get enough people who agree on everything.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 05:46:39 pm
If you are marching alongside with people who are screaming paroles and waving banners in a protest that gives a certain impression. A protest is all about the impression that it makes.
You know, "support", not "endorsement".
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 06:02:25 pm
Quote from: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 05:17:53 pm
@k33n:

The issue is that no religions are the same or anywhere close to equal. Just because you have skimmed the Bible and Koran and notice that are both are documents of barbarism and hate does not mean that all the religions read this way. There is a big reason why East Eurasia has a plethora of religions living side by side for thousands of years and that West Eurasia did not (until Secularism defeated Christendom.)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on January 10, 2016, 06:08:29 pm
Quote from: Frumple on January 10, 2016, 05:27:35 pm
Quote from: k33n on January 10, 2016, 04:57:35 pm
The issue *is* religion and culture, and a specific religion and culture, and this is neither racist or right-wing to observe.
Nah, the racist and right-wing part of it is the complete or near complete lack of differentiation between the religions and cultures involved. The groups you've been talking about would be catching a lot less flak if they were actually holding issue against a specific religion or culture. But they're not, or at least seem to be doing just about everything in their power to act like they aren't.

And morg, you'll note that most folks (all of two them, though you have to dig back a 'lil to find helg's mention of it) that have been noting pegida's nazi relations have also been noting, y'know, the other problems involved with them. Also not so sure I'd agree with you on that average person bit -- most relatively sane folks I know wouldn't saddle up to one of the KKK-lite groups just because they were demonstrating for something they're in favor of. Maybe things are less polarized when it comes to stuff of that nature in the EU, I'unno.
You cannot compare Pegida, or the Dutch anti-islam/immigrant party of Geert Wilders with a KKK-lite group, even though in ideology they might be nearly the same.
KKK-lite groups are in the side margin over in the US, because of what you said, polarization.

Yesterday's polls showed that if elections were held now, Wilders party would get 41 (out of 150) seats in parliament. That would nearly make it the largest party ever in the history of our democracy, the record standing at 42 seats for one party. That's no margin. That'd be the next prime minister, and consequently chairman of the EU, if election were held now (it's the Netherlands' turn for chairman role).
It's a case of people only hearing what they want to hear and being sheep. Same for a lot of people chanting with Pegida.

Morrigi is almost right when he says that you "cannot expect average people to organize their own protests instead of joining protests that have already been planned by a group that shares some of their concerns".
I'd change it to "you cannot realistically expect" for nuance.
Ideologically, I still do expect people to organize themselves, but looking upon the sad reality of fast rising populism, I cannot realistically expect that of the poorly educated (in historical awareness and basic solidarity) masses.
Neoliberal capitalism teaching people to only live for their careers being a big part of the problem there.

"Neoliberal democracy. Instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless.
In sum, neoliberalism is the immediate and foremost enemy of genuine participatory democracy, not just in the United States but across the planet, and will be for the foreseeable future." - Noam Chomsky

"If you work 50 hours a week in a factory, you don't have time to read 10 newspapers a day and go back to declassified government archives. But such people may have far reaching insights into the way the world works" - Noam Chomsky
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 10, 2016, 06:19:47 pm
... mart, in case you haven't noticed, we've actually got a fairly substantial amount of support over here for fairly rabid racist/populist rhetoric. Probably not as organized or concentrated -- and I'd blame that, at least, on geography more than polarization -- but we definitely get a substantial amount of people in our political positions that run on more or less the same sort of platform. It's not really a side issue, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: martinuzz on January 10, 2016, 06:24:01 pm
Yeah, sadly the trend is blowing over to the US indeed. Sorry, I had temporary blocked Trump from memory for comfort reasons.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 10, 2016, 06:26:44 pm
I wish I could just block him from running for President...
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Wolfhunter107 on January 10, 2016, 06:31:12 pm
It's not just Trump. There are plenty of politicians that have expressed the same sort of sentiment, and have been doing so for quite a while now. It hasn't gotten to the same level as Europe yet, but it's definitely there.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 10, 2016, 06:33:34 pm
Quote from: k33n on January 10, 2016, 06:02:25 pm
The issue is that no religions are the same or anywhere close to equal. Just because you have skimmed the Bible and Koran and notice that are both are documents of barbarism and hate does not mean that all the religions read this way. There is a big reason why East Eurasia has a plethora of religions living side by side for thousands of years and that West Eurasia did not (until Secularism defeated Christendom.)
The struggles between Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity and Eastern Spiritualism? The most bloody civil war in all of human history was a religious insurrection in China. Eastern syncretism however is something quite unique.

Quote from: Helgoland on January 10, 2016, 11:13:47 am
Y'know, I think to me it all boils down to the following: If Europe can only be defended by drowning people in the Mediterranean or fencing them in inside war zones, then Europe simply is no longer worth defending. That having been said, I'm confident that we can indeed find ways to defend Europe while still granting refuge to all those who need it. We need to get it into our collective head first that taking in asylum seekers is at the very heart of what we wish to defend, though.
Those who first called immigrants 'refugees' have already made Europe worth its suicide; to call upon people to make the dangerous journey for benefits they can't be given for countries whose people do not want them nor will be defend from them when they are attacked. To be so two-faced as to cover the backs of murderers and rapists and no longer have that be hyperbole, to create the largest humanitarian crisis possible and rebuke all attempts at fixing it until it's too late - I will always be forever disheartened with how Germany and Sweden decried all other European nations for not accepting more immigrants, for protecting their border controls, and then flooding their countries with more immigrants than they could handle - reinstating their own border controls whilst still yet attacking others for doing the same. The refugees in actual warzones are being helped by the nations of the USA and UK, Turkey and Lebanon - all the whilst countries trying to build the united states of Europe invited people across the world to die for a dead ideal; rule by unelected bureaucrats for nations whose strength was forced diversity. The grand multicultural experiment that apparently never ends no matter how bloody it gets. Seems like walking a waking dream, albeit a demented one. I was most amused by how many immigrants arrived to Germany's Europe, after one of our own forumites was thrown aback as that many immigrants would have depopulated Syria had they been Syrian.
Sumte is the future, a fun one. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-crisis-german-village-sumte-shows-the-reality-behind-angela-merkel-s-open-door-policy-with-a6724741.html)
Quote
Sumte’s inhabitants were given little choice. The village offered empty refugee accommodation. Two years ago a debt-collecting company, which worked from a 21,000sq ft low-rise office complex on the edge of the village, went bust. The pressure on Lower Saxony’s authorities to find accommodation for a refugee influx into Germany estimated at 5,000 a day was massive. Mr Fabel says the villagers were told they had two options: “Either to say yes or yes” to the project.
A 102 Germans taking on 229 Syrians and 521 other apparent asylum seekers, apparent because they have no exit date and will likely be as impermanent as guest workers still in Germany after four generations.

People have very short memories, but these conversations repeat again and again. 2010, Merkel says Multiculturalism has utterly failed. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed) She's facing intense pressure from within her own party and from her own people to halt her social experiment. One third of Germans think Germany is overrun with foreigners, 55% believe Arabs are unpleasant people; so tolerant, very progressive. She no longer has support for mass immigration. 2013, Merkel stresses that Germany must accept more refugees whilst her parliamentary bloc moves to classify the Balkans as safe, allowing for easier rejection of asylum seekers from Serbia, Macedonia, Albania e.t.c. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-01/merkel-s-generosity-tested-by-surge-in-german-refugees). At that point Germany was taking in 200,000 refugees a year. They were warned that opening the door wider and leaving more incentives for people to make the journey to Germany would do the obvious; make more people make the journey to Germany.
By 2014:
Quote from: Loud Whispers on December 31, 1969, 07:00:01 pm
Earlier in 2014 amongst first time asylum seekers (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/9/97/First_time_asylum_applicants_in_the_EU-28_by_citizenship%2C_Q2_2014_%E2%80%93_Q2_2015.png) the proportion of Syrians was around 10-15%, not accounting for second time asylum seekers, fake Syrians (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/migrants-are-disguising-themselves-as-syrians-to-gain-entry-to-europe/2015/09/22/827c6026-5bd8-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html), those coming by sea (http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/09/economist-explains-4) nor immigrants who authorities fail to log (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24583286). Eurostat has 700,000 asylum seekers in total logged across the EU (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34131911) despite countries like Germany alone taking in 750,000 illegal immigrants yearly, set to rise to 800,000 - conservative estimates. Measuring by asylum applications only takes into account those who bother to apply for asylum and takes their word for it. The German panic over how big they fucked up is intensifying after they failed to stop the influx (it has (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11522462/Illegal-immigration-to-Germany-at-record-high-increase-of-75-per-cent-in-one-year.html) increased to record highs (http://www.dw.com/en/immigration-pushes-germanys-population-to-highest-level-since-1992/a-18736658)) of people, after they failed to shovel the immigrants they so desperately lusted for onto other EU countries because they got cold feet(...) the didactic duo are running  (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/668b4bd0-3b75-11e5-bbd1-b37bc06f590c.html#axzz3rCL6Azju)out of emergency accommodation on their own turf. (http://www.thelocal.se/20151105/sweden-urges-refugees-to-stay-in-germany)
And in response to receiving 10k immigrants in 7 days the Swedish PM is begging immigrants to stay in Germany. (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/10/swedish-migration-minister-pleads-migrants-stay-germany/)
It seems fitting to use the german word schadenfreude here, how pleasing it is to see when people get knocked off their moral high horses with a sharp kick to the bum. It is easy to see who has helped and who has miserably failed, failed their own people, failed Syrians and Iraqis, Somalis and Libyans and throw in a couple crying Germans and Swedes. It disappoints me that after Rotherham the German and Swedish police have not learned from this and also try to cover up enriching crime
That number had risen to 800,000 a year by conservative estimates, for Germany alone - excluding all other EU countries.
And unsurprisingly we are still talking about German and Swedish police covering up enriching crime, though it seems now they have shouldered all the blame leaving others just as responsible curiously clean.
By 2015 Merkel inquires whether Germany is losing that which makes Germany so strong," namely "the societal center." She is constantly asking herself, Merkel related, "if we are losing the center. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/merkel-under-fire-as-refugee-crisis-in-germany-worsens-a-1060720.html) By then the rate of immigration had its estimate increased from 800,000 to 1,500,000 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34442121), measured only by those who claimed asylum - excluding those who did not register. That number also does not include those logged as immigrants, legal or illegal. The number for Europe as a whole is set to increase to 3,000,000 in 2016 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-expecting-another-3-million-refugees-migrants-before-end-of-2016-a6722096.html), though I wonder how many times that number will be revised and how many will go to Germany. This will cost Germany by current estimates 17 billion euros. (http://www.econotimes.com/The-overall-fiscal-cost-of-asylum-immigration-to-Germany-104404) Contrast with the UK, who has much less money to spend than Germany, who at a time where they have cut social spending for their own subjects have spent nothing short of a billion sterling actually helping those fleeing war. (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-to-see-first-hand-how-uk-aid-is-helping-most-vulnerable-syrian-refugees) And that billion sterling have helped more, helped more in need - even helped those whose situations are so bad they cannot even flee war. Whilst countries like France, USA and UK kill smugglers, shut down smuggling rings in Europe, thwart terrorist smuggling actions and otherwise pay the price for Germans tearing away at national sovereignty - even fighting alongside and training Kurds and rebels to retake their lands everywhere from Nigeria to Ethiopia and Iraq, the only Germans who've done so have been volunteers, no state actors. Meanwhile after "Syrians" with fake syrian passports disappeared in Germany (http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-europe-migrants-germany-idUKKBN0U904D20151226) the Germans wasted no time in using this crisis to take control of other countries' borders by expanding Frontex's powers without the consent of the actual countries involved. So remember, having border control is racist unless you give it to the Germans.

The country most responsible for this carnality taking credit for the help given by other nations for a project it fucked up is not getting let off for its cold politik dressed up as friendly progressivism. No military action for the loudest voice, a disgraceful foreign aid budget for the loudest voice, and an uncaring disregard for the people or nations of Europe; just another excuse to create Germany's Europe. The loudest voice has nothing worth saying anymore, and Europe already burns. Refugee riots, (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33999801) Pegida Riots (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35274105), your own rape gangs (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/world/europe/coordinated-attacks-on-women-in-cologne-were-unprecedented-germany-says.html?_r=0) and of course antifa riots too (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cronulla-protests-what-is-the-antifascist-group-antifa-20151212-glm2vd.html). Germany did this for more workers. For money. Now you've got no money, no moral highground and no control. I will mourn this decay, and move on. If you believe the Poles and Austrians this was a deliberate affair by German globalists to dig up Europe's roots and create a multicultural Europe with no individual nations or identities. I think this is not the case, after all the Germans in Bavaria, the Swedes up north and so on have reinstated border controls now; if they really were concerned with globalism to such an extent they would've halted all efforts to stop this immigration. Certainly there are factions who wish to do so, just as the UK's left-wing progressive party pushed for the EU to loosen national borders the same time it wanted to "make multiculturalism." Rather I suspect this was just a simple matter of Germany wanting workers and Merkel needing a way to make this palatable for an increasingly xenophobic and small-family populace of Germans. That's why the immigrants are working-age men, why they are destined for Germany, and why when the numbers went from 200,000 a year to 1,500,000 Merkel did an about turn and panicked. You don't push political machines you can't stop, and it will be interesting to see whether those millions will use their right to bring their families to Germany for their "temporary" asylum.

All in all it will most likely continue on as normal, or what is normal nowadays. Police covering up for criminals, politicians lying as usual, the EU expanding its power whilst populists distance themselves and far right groups take flight everywhere from street to parliament, with jihadists continuing their normal course of beheading journalists and soldiers on European streets. For those countries which took control they will emerge unscathed, for those that waited until things were out of control... Well, I will repeat the sentiment echoed in this thread in favour of more immigration: It's already happened, might as well take in more. Your options are yes and yes.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 10, 2016, 06:37:28 pm
Man, I think there's a Houellebecq book that describes pretty much what you're envisioning.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Frumple on January 10, 2016, 06:38:59 pm
Quote from: martinuzz on January 10, 2016, 06:24:01 pm
Yeah, sadly the trend is blowing over to the US indeed. Sorry, I had temporary blocked Trump from memory for comfort reasons.
Eh, to be fair to trump, the sentiment was already there, it just tended to simmer mostly below the surface, working through talk radio and whatnot. Trend was here before the cross atlantic stuff started kicking up, and had already been here for quite a while. Mostly just more diffuse, and perhaps less pressure on it.

There is probably some feedback going on both ways, though.

Quote from: Wolfhunter107 on January 10, 2016, 06:31:12 pm
It hasn't gotten to the same level as Europe yet, but it's definitely there.
Probably important to note proportionality, here, ha. US may have a relatively smaller issue with that sort of thing, but "relatively smaller" also means "with a supporting population larger than several european countries" when you're talking about the US. They're just not quite as bunched up.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 07:20:30 pm
Quote from: Frumple on January 10, 2016, 06:19:47 pm
... mart, in case you haven't noticed, we've actually got a fairly substantial amount of support over here for fairly rabid racist/populist rhetoric. Probably not as organized or concentrated -- and I'd blame that, at least, on geography more than polarization -- but we definitely get a substantial amount of people in our political positions that run on more or less the same sort of platform. It's not really a side issue, unfortunately.

Not racism, actually, because the issue religion, not race.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 07:23:52 pm
Quote from: Graknorke on January 10, 2016, 05:39:56 pm
Since when did protesting alongside a group mean that you're supporting them? Within the context of a particular issue, anyone who agrees with you is your ally. The alternative is that no groups would form at all, because there's no way you could get enough people who agree on everything.
If only that were true.

I'm not trying to be snarky here. Just, honestly, that's not how it works. My ally is people who are on my side on an issue, but just because I like sci fi doesn't mean I like Orson Scott Card. The group's beliefs aren't the variables in this instance, the invidual's are. Positions on issues cluster for many reasons, but a large part of it is signalling, social interactions, tribal relations, and the subconscious part of your mind that calculates all this and adjusts the conscious mind accordingly. You want to fit in, so to enable groups to form, your mind sweeps aside some of the issues you disagree with them on. If you grow up in it, usually it shapes the way you view those issues. The conscious mind evolved to lie. To yourself so you can lie better to others, primarily (lies are more believable when the person telling them thinks they're true). It's why we like stories so much. We function off narrative. Fiction is a lie that we choose to believe for a short period of time. Willing suspension of disbelief. Groupthink is a thing. "With us or against us" is a thought process used consciously by your opponents to refer to what you do, and subconsciously by the tribe to pick who's part of it.

((sidequestion: who gives a shit whether the bloodiest war was a intrastate or interstate? why does that make any difference?))
((on similar but still unrelated topic: actually there's been a couple of studies about the way farming rice versus wheat shapes relationships; you need a village to grow rice, you need a family to grow wheat. The one is more communal and social, and the other is more analytical and individual))

Loud Whisper, if Europe really does go to shit from a few million immigrants coming in (compared to what, 500 million population Europe total?) and people being prejudiced (multiculturalism has failed because people are still intolerant after a massive influx of refugees coming from a place in turmoil? (Turmoil and stress helping cause violence and criminal behavior?)), I will acknowledge your rhetoric as being correct. My guess is more along the lines of yeah, crisis, and yeah, it sucks, but the world rarely ends. It ends forever even more rarely.

Though, if you're recommending dealing with the crisis at it's source (that is, kicking ISIS's door in with tanks and stealth bombers), I would agree whole-heartedly.

Seriously, fuck all this refugee shit, make the place into less of a hellhole so they don't need to run away. The less people in actual need, the harder it will be for people in false need to get through, because we can afford to be more rigorous. Goddamn, we spend shittons on military, use it.

And k33n, that's great to say on the surface, but until you can back it up, there's a pretty decent argument for 'it's both, actually, but one is considered more legitimate than the other'.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 10, 2016, 07:26:34 pm
Quote from: Helgoland on January 10, 2016, 06:37:28 pm
Man, I think there's a Houellebecq book that describes pretty much what you're envisioning.
I only know him as an edgy French novelist who wrote about Lovecraft after wikipediaing' him.
Quote
Literary critics have labeled Michel Houellebecq's novels "vulgar", "pamphlet literature" and "pornography"; he has been accused of obscenity, racism, misogyny and Islamophobia.
Sounds like a class act. I'm assuming you're just dismissing everything I said as obscenity, racism, misogyny and Islamophobia? So be it, if that is your rebuttal I have nothing to say to bad labels except blathering shitposts; I have long not cared for such labels. I let arguments stand on their own feet, not those of those saying them. It was quite amusing searching my old posts on when I first picked up on the crisis, you can find posts from 2013 by me where I am a good progressive in favour of multiculturalism, haha. It was before the revelation that my country's progressive parties, the ones I supported, had in turn supported some heinous things. I need not repeat myself. Reading my posts you would be surprised to find I am not anti-immigration, but no one cares for what my opinions are; there is no merit in knowing.
I do not much care for what your elites do to your country, neither of us can do anything to stop it. This is all talk and watch.

Oh and I had promised to look into this Cologne crap, I had wondered if this was the manufacturing of Stormfront or such as people in this thread raised concerns with the wording of the news articles and such, but my search was brief and Merkel's confirmed it (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35271171) and proposed tougher laws for deporting immigrants. How quickly the moral highground did fall like pillars of salt. When immigrants do rape your women, do you back down on feminism or immigration? Evidently you serve neither and let it all combust on its own.
Sweden's foreign minister has gone so far as to say: (http://www.progressivestoday.com/swedish-foreign-minister-says-refugee-crisis-could-cause-sweden-to-collapse/)
"I think most people feel that we cannot maintain a system where perhaps 190,000 people will arrive every year. In the long run, our system will collapse. And that welcome is not going to receive popular support. I have to admit that there have been moments recently of very great disappointment. I have heard statements from [EU] member states that have been completely astonishing and very discouraging."
And I must say I was more optimistic than the Swedes, I thought their replacement would not necessitate collapse. I suppose this is a time for surprises. Kind of like when that Swedish girl was raped by refugees, fled only to be raped again around the corner and court documents revealed one said rather clearly "I'm gonna fuck you little Swedish girl" (http://www.friatider.se/im-gonna-fuck-you-little-swedish-girl-sen-gick-asyls-karen-till-attack). One of them avoided deportation by claiming to be Syrian. And then "antiracist" Swedes (http://www.svt.se/nyheter/regionalt/sormland/rastistattacken-foljs-av-protestaktion) rallied to defend them. Ah. Well.
At least in Germany the sexual assaults were only in Cologne, Hamburg and Stuttgart... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35231046)
Quote
What is particularly disturbing is that the attacks appear to have been organised. Around 1,000 young men arrived in large groups, seemingly with the specific intention of carrying out attacks on women.
Germany has actually made Daily Mail headlines real. I suppose there's nothing more symbolic than a German woman being raped in front of Cologne Cathedral beneath the fireworks and overstretched police. Is this what Merkel meant when she said Germany was losing her "social centre?"
The most depressing thing is that for Bay12 I only ever use conservative estimates from left-wing progressive sources for the express reason that the estimates given by right-wing sources could never be believed. Who would've ever considered the Guardian would one day be reporting 1,500,000 a year for Germany? Oh well, it's all thoroughly depressing. I am becoming quite desensitized to the sheer scale of what has been happening from London to Frankfurt and Stockholm. I suppose that's depressing too, this has all just turned into numbers of people who do not matter because they rest too low on the progressive stack.

On a more, well not uplifting note, but certainly more neutral note - what do you (plural) lot think Germany can do in response to this? Curfews on national holidays? Hire more police somehow? What shall be done with women arming themselves? What shall be done with the armed neighbourhood watches? The rise of neo-nazi or far-right groups? The rise of conflicting Ethnic Immigrant and Islamic groups? The great ticking timebomb of police officers joining pegida?
There must be ~something~ Germany must be able to do irregardless of their immigration.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 10, 2016, 07:29:15 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 10, 2016, 07:26:34 pm
Sounds like a class act. I'm assuming you're just dismissing everything I said as obscenity, racism, misogyny and Islamophobia? So be it, if that is your rebuttal I have nothing to say to bad labels except blathering shitposts; I have long not cared for such labels.
Naah, I just wanted to make that remark. I've never read anything by the guy, but as a rule artists who people feel the need to call obscene, racist, misogynist, and Islamophobic are sufficiently good to have made some enemies. Just look at de Sade, or the guy who painted L'Origine du monde.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 07:34:02 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 10, 2016, 07:26:34 pm

This is why I believe progressiveness is no longer liberalism and liberalism is no longer progressive.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Morrigi on January 10, 2016, 07:45:38 pm
Meanwhile, the number of reported criminal complaints over the Cologne attacks has topped 500, 40% of which were sexual in nature. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35277249
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: k33n on January 10, 2016, 08:02:31 pm
Quote from: Covenant on January 10, 2016, 07:51:31 pm

Everyone is tired of it.
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 10, 2016, 08:16:43 pm
Quote from: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 07:23:52 pm
((sidequestion: who gives a shit whether the bloodiest war was a intrastate or interstate? why does that make any difference?))
Because the bloodiest interstate war killed 90 million people spread out across many countries and peoples, the bloodiest civil war killed 90 million people in one concentrated area of destruction, affecting one nation's peoples.

Quote from: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 07:23:52 pm
((on similar but still unrelated topic: actually there's been a couple of studies about the way farming rice versus wheat shapes relationships; you need a village to grow rice, you need a family to grow wheat. The one is more communal and social, and the other is more analytical and individual))
https://news.virginia.edu/content/rice-theory-explains-north-south-china-cultural-differences-study-shows
Perhaps. I'm not yet sold. Russia did not grow rice. Also South America has the people most averse to authoritarianism, yet grow the same kinda shit as North America, Tropical Africa and Indonesia. Broad agricultural generalizations aside... I suppose they may be onto something. It is interesting as well with the honour herding theory, where cultures like Arab or Texan culture are very honour concerned and will readily resort to violence to defend it. The agricultural basis is simple; when you herd animals, if someone takes your animals overnight your entire livelihood disappears and you are dead. So to avoid being taken advantage of by someone you defend yourself furiously like the honey badger at any slight to show no weakness and never be taken advantage of.

Quote from: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 07:23:52 pm
Loud Whisper, if Europe really does go to shit from a few million immigrants coming in (compared to what, 500 million population Europe total?) and people being prejudiced (multiculturalism has failed because people are still intolerant after a massive influx of refugees coming from a place in turmoil? (Turmoil and stress helping cause violence and criminal behavior?)), I will acknowledge your rhetoric as being correct.
Rolepgeek I have had you bring up these points before.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
And it's quite saddening that every single last shitpost is coming true. You must be more tolerant, you were raped because you were prejudiced and just not tolerant enough.

Quote from: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 07:23:52 pm
Though, if you're recommending dealing with the crisis at it's source (that is, kicking ISIS's door in with tanks and stealth bombers), I would agree whole-heartedly.
An insufficient response, but we are thinking alike there.

Quote from: Rolepgeek on January 10, 2016, 07:23:52 pm
Seriously, fuck all this refugee shit, make the place into less of a hellhole so they don't need to run away. The less people in actual need, the harder it will be for people in false need to get through, because we can afford to be more rigorous. Goddamn, we spend shittons on military, use it.
You are referring to the USA? The USA is not in the same boat as Europe. The USA can do anything it wants short of nuking Mecca and it really wouldn't affect Americans all that much.
Spoiler: Ninja reply to Helgoland (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Ninja reply to Covenant (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 10, 2016, 08:25:18 pm
If there was one thing that statement was not it was vague. Admittedly its intended connotation was more than a bit unclear, but I sort of figured that a guy like you would take being compared to Houellebecq as a compliment :P
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 10, 2016, 08:33:14 pm
Neither of us knew his stuff though, and perhaps I have too much learned to expect the worse
Title: Re: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
Post by: Helgoland on January 10, 2016, 08:40:38 pm
Quote from: Covenant on January 10, 2016, 08:34:03 pm
As for a replacement though, I'm afraid I don't know German politics well enough to say who would best succeed her.
Merkel, at least as far as the post of Chancellor of Germany goes.